IBJNews

Basketball tournament expansion could pay off for NCAA

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The NCAA is contemplating expanding its annual men’s basketball tournament from the current three-week, 65-team format to one featuring an added week and a whopping 96 teams.

Proponents of the plan say it will generate a bigger television rights-fee deal for the not-for-profit NCAA, which disperses 95 percent of that to member institutions.

The NCAA, based in Indianapolis, also is studying shifting some tournament games from network to cable TV, and broadcast industry experts expect the bidding war to be intense if it’s opened up.

But opponents—including some athletic directors—fear it could dilute the product and diminish the meaning of the regular-season and conference tournaments.

Thoughts of expanding the tournament are heating up as a unilateral opt-out clause for the NCAA with its current TV partner, CBS, approaches. The NCAA signed an 11-year, $6 billion deal with CBS to air the tournament in 1999. The deal runs from 2003 through 2013, but the NCAA can end it after the 2010 tournament.

Broadcast industry executives said they’ve already been contacted by NCAA officials to gauge their interest in bidding for an expanded tournament. The format change could be made as soon as 2011.

NCAA Senior Vice President Greg Shaheen is leading the study of NCAA basketball tourney.

“We’re entering a window where it makes sense to evaluate all of our assets, all of our events,” said Greg Shaheen, NCAA senior vice president of basketball and business strategies. “This is a significant due diligence exercise.”

Shaheen is heading up the group studying the potential expansion. He is being assisted by a pair of well-known media consultants, former CBS and Turner executive Kevin O’Malley and Chuck Gerber, former ESPN executive vice president for collegiate sports programming.

“My job is to facilitate the discussion,” Shaheen said. “I don’t have a position at this time.”

The expansion being contemplated is characterized by some in college basketball circles as folding the 32-team National Invitation Tournament into the 65-team NCAA. The NCAA bought the rights to the NIT Tournament in August 2005.

Shaheen acknowledged the NIT could be part of the ongoing analysis.

While Shaheen said there’s no deadline to change the tournament’s format or even complete this study on tournament expansion and the NCAA’s TV deal options, this much is clear: The men’s basketball tournament is by far the biggest moneymaker for the NCAA and its members.

The men’s tournament—called March Madness—accounts for more than 90 percent of the NCAA’s revenue and is responsible for funding many other NCAA sports tournaments, events and initiatives.

Shaheen said that, while NCAA officials haven’t decided yet which way they should go with the men’s basketball property, expanding the tournament has some undeniable advantages.

“Many of the advocates talk about how the membership has grown significantly over the years and how an expansion could accommodate more schools,” Shaheen said.

He noted that there were 280 Division I NCAA schools in 1985, when the tournament expanded from 53 teams to 64. Now, there are 343 member schools.

“To an extent, it’s a matter of supply and demand,” Shaheen said.

Not everyone is pro expansion.

Purdue University Athletic Director Morgan Burke said he’s just learning about the idea of tournament expansion and doesn’t like it.

“If you expand to 96 teams, why not 128?” Burke said. “Why not let everybody in? The idea is to play your way in, to qualify for this tournament. That’s a big part of what makes it special.”

Burke added that extending the three-week tournament to four weeks would produce scheduling headaches for colleges and their student-athletes.

“If you push the tournament back one week, that affects the conference tournaments, and if you push the Final Four deeper into April, I don’t think that’s good for the student players,” Burke said. “I’ll be open-minded to proposed changes, but I simply don’t think the model we have now is broken.”

Broadcast business experts said while the model may not be broken, it’s time the NCAA find a way to get more production from its cash cow.

“This deal was made at a time when an 11-year, $6 billion deal was huge,” said Matt Morchower, founder of Varsity Sports, a New York-based production company and broadcast consultancy. “Compared to more recently negotiated rights-fee deals, it’s not so grand anymore.”

When the NCAA’s deal with CBS was signed a decade ago, the average annual value of the deal—$545 million—was surpassed only by the NFL’s annual rights-fee deal of $2.2 billion and the NBA’s $650 million.

The NFL is now making $3.7 billion annually, the NBA is netting $930 million, and NASCAR is hauling in $560 million.

“The financial upside is one element we’re considering,” Shaheen said. “We simply want to assess ourselves and our marketplace to make an informed decision for ourselves and our membership.”

Broadcast business experts said behind-the-scenes discussions between the NCAA and prospective broadcasters have already begun. Shaheen remained tight-lipped about those discussions, emphasizing that the NCAA has a current contract with CBS and the NCAA’s focus is on that relationship right now.

ESPN officials recently told IBJ they’d be interested in bidding on tournament games. Disney, which owns ABC and ESPN, could make a play to run the tournament on a combination of network and cable.

ESPN has already shown it will aggressively bid for college athletic events, recently agreeing to pay $125 million a year for five BCS college football bowl games, a 50-percent premium over what Fox is paying through 2010.

“Signing a deal with a broadcast partner that can bring this weeks-long event to high-quality cable and broadcast distribution channels is the way I think the NCAA will go,” said Robert Unmacht, principal of IN3 Partners Inc., a Nashville, Tenn.-based media and investment banking consultancy. “The ABC-ESPN duo makes the most sense, but there are several other powerful players aligning to take a shot at this.”

Comcast’s recent acquisition of NBC means that network will likely make a push for the NCAA men’s hoops tournament.

“Comcast now owns NBC, NBC Universal Sports and Versus, which they are intent on making the next ESPN,” Unmacht said. “My understanding is, if the NCAA opens up bidding on this, they are immensely interested.”

Fox, with its national broadcast affiliates, as well as Fox Sports Network and FX cable channels, would also be a likely bidder for the tournament, Unmacht said. CBS, which has aired the tournament since 1982, isn’t likely to give it up easily.

The NCAA tournament has enjoyed sustained strong ratings, reaching 150 million U.S. households last year, according to New York-based Nielsen Media Research, and that should make bidding for the tournament “a real dog fight,” Unmacht said.

“There’s still an immense appetite for sports programming in this country, and the NCAA basketball tournament, with its amateur status and Cinderella stories, is a special property,” Unmacht said. “There’s no reason to think they couldn’t enjoy the same kind of percentage increases other major sports properties have, especially if they expand the event without diluting their brand.”

Since the NCAA signed its deal with CBS in 1999, the NBA has increased its TV rights-fee deal 43 percent and the NFL 61 percent. A 50-percent increase for the NCAA means it could command $817 million annually for its men’s basketball tournament.

A tournament expansion—which would mean more games and more TV programming—would likely boost the rights fee even higher, sports business experts said.

“If expanding the tournament by one week will bring them $800 [million] or $900 million a year,” Unmacht said, “I’m not sure how they could do otherwise.”•

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. liek the rest of America

  2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

  3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

  4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

  5. whoa!

ADVERTISEMENT