With expansion likely, will Power Four's leverage play help or harm March Madness?

The question hovering over March Madness is whether the days of the NCAA tournament as we know it are numbered, and that concern extends beyond the high likelihood of expansion in the next couple of years.

Amid the overt power conference push to expand the tournament, industry leaders are mindful of this scenario: If power conferences are unsatisfied with potential modest expansion, they could take their basketball, break away from the NCAA and stage their own lucrative postseason championship tournament.

“They are going to do that when the money dictates they do it,” ESPN analyst Jay Bilas told On3. “It’s never been easier to contemplate than it is now. They are going to go their own way when the money dictates they go their own way.

“And ultimately it will.”

Interviews in recent weeks with nearly 10 leading stakeholders – including those with knowledge of ongoing high-level discussions surrounding potential tournament expansion – paint a picture of a beloved American event poised to undergo change.

Could mid-majors be boxed out?

Whether those changes are akin to a mere nip and tuck (adding anywhere from two to 10 teams) or a head-to-toe makeover (shutting the tournament door on many mid-majors) could hinge on just how much power conferences want to throw their weight around. The power leagues possess enormous leverage and are willing to use it – something not lost on the minds of members of the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Committee.

The recent power play by power leagues – especially the SEC and Big Ten super conferences – is being felt in various sectors of the college sports ecosystem, from pushback on the NCAA’s Project Division I reform proposal to leveraging additional access in the expanded College Football Playoff. No surprise they are also pushing for potential changes to the 68-team NCAA tournament, which has not undergone a dramatic alteration since expanding to 64 in 1985.

The NCAA relies on the men’s basketball tournament for the overwhelming majority of its more than $1 billion in annual revenue. In a world of larger mega-conferences, power leagues are not-so-subtly advocating for more access to the tournament, with some suggesting it may be time to shut the door on access for some mid-major schools from one-bid conferences.

“It is a very real thing,” one prominent source said.

Expanding NCAA tournament beyond 80 unlikely

The Men’s and Women’s Basketball Committees have been engaged in earnest discussion regarding expansion since the NCAA’s Division I Transformation Committee’s recommendation in January 2023 that sports with a high number of programs increase the number of teams in their championships to 25%. For men’s and women’s basketball, that equates to 90 teams in each tournament, a dramatic increase from the current 68.

Here’s the reality: At this time, there is little to no appetite among involved stakeholders to expand to more than 90. Even 80 or more teams are unlikely unless the National Invitation Tournament is folded into it. Several sources said the prospect of more modest expansion – a tournament field of fewer than 80 teams – should be characterized as between highly likely to a virtual certainty.

Discussions have focused largely on potential implementation in 2026 because deadlines for 2025 implementation are fast approaching.

But the overarching issue doesn’t revolve around homing in on a magic number. To put a finer point on it: What will placate industry leaders from power conferences? A deepening concern exists at the mid-major level that the big boys will eventually look to reduce – or eliminate – the number of automatic qualifying berths for one-bid college basketball conferences.

Will modest expansion placate Power Four?

In the short term – with the short term being the operative words – stakeholders express cautious optimism that they can thread a needle with an evolved structure that entails modest expansion to appease power leagues while also maintaining tournament access for conference tournament champions from one-bid leagues.

The long-term realistic expectation?

No one interviewed for this story could project that with any confidence. Just think: A year ago, did you have on your bingo card that the 108-year-old Pac-12 Conference as we know it would be extinct by summer 2024? Good luck projecting the state of play five years from now.

The thinking: Try to placate all parties in the short term because trying to plan for the long term is futile given the extent of industry disruption and the accelerating pace of change. For those charged with evolving the tournament, consider that approach as their version of “Survive and Advance.”

Stakeholders are very much mindful that power leagues hold the trump card – they could ultimately split from the NCAA and stage their own championship tournament. Two sources viewed suggestions by power leagues – whether tacit or overt – that AQs for one-bid leagues need to be re-examined as a “threat.”

Will NCAA tournament ever be same?

Industry leaders also know the enormous value the power leagues bring to March Madness. Especially in the tournament’s later rounds. Fans want to watch big brands.

However, several sources expressed almost exasperation that some power league stakeholders, in their quest to evolve the NCAA tournament for their self-interests, may not be also considering what’s in the best interest of the coveted property. They say they need a word of caution: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

Almost anyone who has ever filled out a tournament bracket knows that double-digit seed upsets fuel storylines and much of the interest – among everyone from grandmas to 10-year-old kids – in the event’s first four days. The popular so-called Cinderella teams often hail from one-bid leagues.

So how do you mollify the heavyweight leagues in expansion discussions while also trying to ensure you don’t lose the essence of the NCAA tournament’s secret sauce?

“It’s a balancing act,” one source said. “There’s a tipping point here, where those conferences and schools could really have backlash. It’s unnecessary because there’s a way to achieve some balance here. Modest expansion that keeps the magic of this event whole while still providing more access, more opportunity.”

NCAA tournament must remain ‘contemporary’

Power conference leaders say more tournament access for their leagues is warranted. After all, triggered by the Pac-12’s demise, the two biggest money-making leagues – the SEC and Big Ten – will have a combined 34 teams later this year. 

The basketball committees spent most of their time discussing tournament expansion at their summer and fall meetings. They have had fewer opportunities since the basketball season started. But it’s actively being worked on.

Among developments not to be dismissed was FOX Sports‘ early-fall trial balloon story in The Messenger, which reported that the network is interested in creating an additional postseason tournament with power conference teams left out of the NCAA tournament. It was a shot across the bow, marking an existential threat to the NIT.

As a result, the NCAA moved swiftly to adjust the structure of the NIT. The NCAA made access more friendly to six power conference teams by giving them 12 automatic berths. Leaders at non-power conferences were furious. Gloria Nevarez, commissioner of the Mountain West Conference, told On3 that the move to prioritize brands from major leagues was “unconscionable.”

The eventual fate of the 32-team NIT is an open question, as is whether NCAA tournament expansion will hasten the demise of the NIT, which has lost the luster it long ago possessed.

The FOX Sports leak was also an ominous sign – or at least a wake-up call – for the future of the NCAA tournament as we know it. It hammered home the need to evolve the lucrative property. 

To that point, Dan Gavitt, the NCAA’s senior vice president of basketball, said in the fall that the NCAA tournament needed to remain “contemporary.” Respect the history and past but keep it modern and relevant amid a flurry of industry changes, including realignment. 

Revenue hurdles dwarf operational hurdles

Increasingly in recent months, the Power Four, and specifically the two super conferences, have made no secret in exerting their leverage, both with College Football Playoff structure decisions that could further expand that field to 14, and also with the NCAA tournament expansion push.

NCAA President Charlie Baker’s interest in the evolution of the NCAA tournament has also been heightened, sources said. That’s reflected in his conversations with commissioners on broad reform issues, during which tournament expansion has also been broached.

Some stakeholders involved in NCAA tournament expansion discussions have waded into the weeds enough to try to sort through operational logistics, such as how to stage an additional First Four-type event at another location. As it stands now, there are four additional games played on Tuesday and Wednesday in the First Four in Dayton, a city that embraces the official start of the men’s tournament.

Nonetheless, operational hurdles pale in comparison with questions surrounding several revenue factors.

Any basketball committee recommendation would likely next go to the Division I Board and also the Finance Committee. Adjustments must be made to budgets and potentially to the distribution model around financial units. Last year, a single men’s basketball unit was worth some $2.04 million over the six-year period in which it will be paid out. 

Also important: Changes to the men’s tournament will need to align with changes to the women’s tournament. The events will need to drive more revenue because expenses will increase a fair amount. 
Separate from expansion, discussions are ongoing on introducing financial units on the women’s side.  

Additional revenue could be marginal

While views vary, revenue from the additional inventory could be marginal, especially around ticket sales. Stakeholders need to formally gauge the interest level from TV partners, namely CBS and Turner Sports – now owned by Warner Bros. Discovery – also also from ESPN, which locked down an eight-year extension for the rights to the women’s tournament.

CBS and Turner paid the NCAA some $900 million last year to broadcast the tournament. If the field were to be expanded significantly, it is not at all certain the NCAA would garner substantially more in rights revenue to offset the costs of staging more games. One veteran TV source who has been involved in several marquee rights deals told On3 last year that adding a significant amount of inventory would amount to only “marginal” additional value for the property.

“A terrible idea,” said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity because of sensitive industry relationships. “If you think regular-season men’s basketball has limited media value now, expanding the tournament might just wipe it out completely. Why bother to watch the regular season if everyone is going to make the tournament? Why not make the entire season one giant triple-elimination tournament? Once a school is eliminated, it can drop down to the triple-elimination NIT tournament. Once eliminated from that, it can drop down to some other tournament.”

Enough spots for ‘people to earn it’

Opinions toward expansion are tinged with passion and vary greatly.

Mike Tranghese, the former Big East commissioner, told On3 last year that he is “appalled” by expansion talk. “I come from a different time where you have to earn it. There are enough spots for people to earn it,” he said.

But consider the vantage point of Tom McMillen, the CEO of LEAD1 Association. In 1974, McMillen and his Maryland teammates lost an epic 103-100 overtime ACC tournament championship to a David Thompson-led North Carolina State team.

NC State went on to win the national championship. Maryland finished No. 4 in the final Associated Press poll. But because conferences then only sent one team to the NCAA tournament, the Terrapins were excluded. They are considered the best team never to play in the NCAA tournament. The circumstances prompted the NCAA in 1975 to expand the field from 25 to 32 teams. A half-century later, scars remain.

“I’m very biased on that because I think we would have won,” McMillen told On3. “Could have won a national title. I think creating more opportunities makes sense for these kids.”

Then-West Virginia Coach Bob Huggins three years ago pushed for Power Five leagues to stage their own postseason tournament and exclude everyone else. Baylor’s Scott Drew has advocated doubling the number to 128 for a symmetrical bracket. Florida State’s Leonard Hamilton told me years ago that every Division I team – yes, all 350-plus squads – should be included in the tournament.

Is NCAA’s platinum property tarnished?

Rewind the clock to 2010, when significant tournament expansion was also considered. At the 2010 Final Four, then-NCAA tournament czar Greg Shaheen advocated for a 96-team field during a news conference. It was an idea that was almost universally panned. What was notable then was that the NCAA was in the midst of negotiating a new rights deal with CBS and with a new partner in Turner.

“We were talking about 96 teams,” David Levy, the former Turner president, told On3 last year. “That deal never really came to fruition because, at the end, the board didn’t want to go to 96. But they were willing to expand to 68. That was the essence of the First Four. What I loved about it and what we discussed – I didn’t want the word ‘play-in’ because that would not sell. What we had to design, obviously with the NCAA, was that there were going to be 11 and 12 seeds in it as well. We wanted to make this not just a play-in game. We really wanted it to be special. And special in Dayton.”

When changes are made to an event many fans view as near-perfect – something American Athletic Conference Commissioner Mike Aresco calls a “platinum property” – there figures to be angst, at least initially. 

In January 1984, when the NCAA voted to expand the tournament to 64 starting the following March, Dave Gavitt, then-chair of the Basketball Tournament Committee, said he hoped 64 would be the final expansion. At that point, there were 275 Division I programs, meaning 64 teams represented some 23%. He told the New York Times: “25% or so is not an overreach.”

‘People would scream about it’ before embracing it

Bilas has long said the NCAA tournament was “idiot-proof.” Despite all the NCAA’s foibles and missteps, they hadn’t managed to screw up March Madness – yet.

He opposes expansion. He also doesn’t think 68 teams are ideal. The field was symmetrical at 64. He said this isn’t the Indiana high school state basketball tournament – you can’t just let everyone in.

But it is not only about finding a magic number.

As potential NCAA tournament changes hover over this year’s March Madness, growing intrigue surrounds how much power conferences will exert their leverage amid the lingering prospect of a breakaway. And would they use that leverage to shut the door on mid-majors from one-bid leagues, a scenario that would fundamentally change the essence of one of America’s most treasured sporting events?

“People would scream about it at first,” Bilas said. “And they’d embrace it right after that.”