Universities with large athletic department budgets are going to be struggling with reduced revenues. Donations and game ticket revenues will be reduced due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Curious whether it’s worth the effort for major universities, that invest significantly in their basketball programs, to seek changes in the structure of the NCAA tournament. Specifically, how much incremental revenue can major universities potentially extract from a restructuring of the tournament?

A back-of-the-envelope review I found from news articles:

Annual revenues from the Tournament include media rights and gate receipts. CBS extended the media rights for 8 years and $8.8B through 2032...for arguments sake, media rights are currently worth $1B per year. Gate receipts add another $150M per year.

Annual Tournament distributions to the 15 ACC schools was about $25M in 2017. This is about $2M per school per year. For arguments sake, these distributions could be worth $3M per school today.

If the Power 6 (ACC, BE, BIG, B12, PAC & SEC) created their own-sponsored year-end tournament. The 76 universities could control a potential $1.15B revenue stream. High-end incremental P6 revenue is $12M annually per team (($1.15b / 76) - $3). If the break-away P6 needs to continue to cover the NCAA administrative costs...then $150M per year needs to be returned. If they need to maintain some goodwill with other D1/D2/D3 programs, they can fund $100M per year via the NCAA. If they want entice a few key successful teams for their post season tournament, they can set aside a $50M annually. Low-end incremental P6 revenue would be $8M annually.

P6 programs may be desperate enough to go after $8-$12M per year. The basketball-first universities (UK, KU, UNC, DU, Nova, IU, UCLA, etc) will feel the pressure first. Unwinding from the current Byzantine NCAA distribution scheme will also cost the P6 schools $2m per year for a few years.

Even in this pandemic, I struggle to see any significant format changes to the NCAA Tournament until the current deal runs close to expiration (2032). On another thread, I could see a scenario where not just the P6 (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, PAC and SEC) in college basketball, but also (upon their invitation/inclusion) the AAC, MWC, A10, WCC and, possibly, the MVC, "break away" to create a new format/tournament structure. At the end of the day, and I believe those within the power conferences realize this, there still needs to be enough "mid-major"-like programs included to satisfy the March Madness ideals and viewership interest. Any breakaway would not just be to account for purely more money per se, but also to lock-up more of the bids that are ultimately taken bu single-bid low-major conferences.

Long-term, there definitely is more money to be taken from the higher basketball programs in D1 to keep for themselves. When you add-up the America East, Atlantic Sun, Big Sky, Big South, Colonial, Horizon, MAAC, NEC, Patriot, Southern, Southland, Summit, Sun Belt and WAC, all are guaranteed to take one spot annually; the power conferences would love to have an additional 14 slots, or so, in a 64/68-field tournament, especially one where they could, conceivably, consolidate the revenues and tournament structure into a more exclusive format. But I don't think that happens this decade; 2030s, perhaps.

(05-23-2020 10:20 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Universities with large athletic department budgets are going to be struggling with reduced revenues. Donations and game ticket revenues will be reduced due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Curious whether it’s worth the effort for major universities, that invest significantly in their basketball programs, to seek changes in the structure of the NCAA tournament. Specifically, how much incremental revenue can major universities potentially extract from a restructuring of the tournament?

A back-of-the-envelope review I found from news articles:

Annual revenues from the Tournament include media rights and gate receipts. CBS extended the media rights for 8 years and $8.8B through 2032...for arguments sake, media rights are currently worth $1B per year. Gate receipts add another $150M per year.

Annual Tournament distributions to the 15 ACC schools was about $25M in 2017. This is about $2M per school per year. For arguments sake, these distributions could be worth $3M per school today.

If the Power 6 (ACC, BE, BIG, B12, PAC & SEC) created their own-sponsored year-end tournament. The 76 universities could control a potential $1.15B revenue stream. High-end incremental P6 revenue is $12M annually per team (($1.15b / 76) - $3). If the break-away P6 needs to continue to cover the NCAA administrative costs...then $150M per year needs to be returned. If they need to maintain some goodwill with other D1/D2/D3 programs, they can fund $100M per year via the NCAA. If they want entice a few key successful teams for their post season tournament, they can set aside a $50M annually. Low-end incremental P6 revenue would be $8M annually.

P6 programs may be desperate enough to go after $8-$12M per year. The basketball-first universities (UK, KU, UNC, DU, Nova, IU, UCLA, etc) will feel the pressure first. Unwinding from the current Byzantine NCAA distribution scheme will also cost the P6 schools $2m per year for a few years.

You are on the right track but need to rethink it all. If there is a breakaway there is no obligation to buy off anyone. There is no NCAA to salve. There are no DII and DIII programs to support, and more importantly there are no credits paid out over 6 years in arrears.

So take that 1.125 billion subtract overhead and divide the proceeds per year per school participating. Let's say for the sake of argument that the overhead for the event is shared with the purchasing network and that your portion of the proceeds is going to be 750 million. Set the tournament field at 64 schools and pay each school an equal share per game that's 32 plus 16 plus 8 plus 4 plus 2 plus 1 or 63 games. That's 5.95 million per game per participant. And that money is paid out at the end of the fiscal year for the new organization and paid in total each year. If a program makes it to the elite 8 that's 4 x 5.95 million or 23.8 million for those schools. Make the finals and it's another 11.9 million on top of that.

What that does is provide incentive for everyone to step up their hoops and it makes basketball first schools much more lucrative for the overall sports market and for balance within conferences. If the conferences take a full cut it only reduces that total by roughly 1/number of conference members. So it's still terrifically lucrative.

We don't need an endowment funding the organization that is based on tournament money which is why basketball doesn't pay what it should now. Now that's napkin math and the particulars will vary, but not by that much.

Remember that 1 billion is what the NCAA cleared the networks take has already been accounted for.

Would these conferences still be apart of D1 in all sports? I think that the NCAA wouldn't be to happy with the new tournament in general as I think they earn the bulk of their money from the NCAA tournament. I think that while they may not be able to make the schools leave or stop the idea but the NCAA would maybe make things hard for the P6 schools. Maybe make a new classification for them and bar them from playing other D1 schools. (Basically carry over the 4 game non D1 schools)

I don't see the NCAA sitting back and do nothing. Would the P6 be able to survive by themselves without the lower conferences to beat up on in non conference? Would schools lose money without the non conference home games. While it's true that a Big East team might draw better then let's say a Cal Baptist or Hartford team.

I would think that the best thing for the P6 to do is create a P6 tournament based around teams who didn't make the NCAA and the NIT. Maybe the conferences agree to show the games on the conference networks. Maybe give the conferences 6 autobids out of 16 bids. Each year 4 of the 6 conferences act as host for the tournament. The remaining bids are for regional at large teams. If Washington hosts they might look at Seattle and Eastern Washington. 2 P6 teams are required to travel to 1 of the regions thus 2 regions should or could get a "Marquee" matchup in the second game or final. Maybe the final 4 could be held at 1 of the 2 conferences not picked to host the regions. Each region is s guaranteed to have 2 games per team. A semifinal and either a final (to move to the final 4) or a third place game. You could do the same for the final four.

(05-23-2020 11:17 AM)46566 Wrote:  Would these conferences still be apart of D1 in all sports? I think that the NCAA wouldn't be to happy with the new tournament in general as I think they earn the bulk of their money from the NCAA tournament. I think that while they may not be able to make the schools leave or stop the idea but the NCAA would maybe make things hard for the P6 schools. Maybe make a new classification for them and bar them from playing other D1 schools. (Basically carry over the 4 game non D1 schools)

I don't see the NCAA sitting back and do nothing. Would the P6 be able to survive by themselves without the lower conferences to beat up on in non conference? Would schools lose money without the non conference home games. While it's true that a Big East team might draw better then let's say a Cal Baptist or Hartford team.

I would think that the best thing for the P6 to do is create a P6 tournament based around teams who didn't make the NCAA and the NIT. Maybe the conferences agree to show the games on the conference networks. Maybe give the conferences 6 autobids out of 16 bids. Each year 4 of the 6 conferences act as host for the tournament. The remaining bids are for regional at large teams. If Washington hosts they might look at Seattle and Eastern Washington. 2 P6 teams are required to travel to 1 of the regions thus 2 regions should or could get a "Marquee" matchup in the second game or final. Maybe the final 4 could be held at 1 of the 2 conferences not picked to host the regions. Each region is s guaranteed to have 2 games per team. A semifinal and either a final (to move to the final 4) or a third place game. You could do the same for the final four.

You miss the point. The teams departing would no longer be a part of the NCAA and wouldn't care what the NCAA or any of its remaining members thought.

I'm of the opinion that if the P6 do leave to form their own basketball tournament, the value of the NCAA's contract would instantly drop 90%. I would not be surprised if CBS and Turner invoke a clause to cancel the contract if it ever came to that.

(05-23-2020 10:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 10:20 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Universities with large athletic department budgets are going to be struggling with reduced revenues. Donations and game ticket revenues will be reduced due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Curious whether it’s worth the effort for major universities, that invest significantly in their basketball programs, to seek changes in the structure of the NCAA tournament. Specifically, how much incremental revenue can major universities potentially extract from a restructuring of the tournament?

A back-of-the-envelope review I found from news articles:

Annual revenues from the Tournament include media rights and gate receipts. CBS extended the media rights for 8 years and $8.8B through 2032...for arguments sake, media rights are currently worth $1B per year. Gate receipts add another $150M per year.

Annual Tournament distributions to the 15 ACC schools was about $25M in 2017. This is about $2M per school per year. For arguments sake, these distributions could be worth $3M per school today.

If the Power 6 (ACC, BE, BIG, B12, PAC & SEC) created their own-sponsored year-end tournament. The 76 universities could control a potential $1.15B revenue stream. High-end incremental P6 revenue is $12M annually per team (($1.15b / 76) - $3). If the break-away P6 needs to continue to cover the NCAA administrative costs...then $150M per year needs to be returned. If they need to maintain some goodwill with other D1/D2/D3 programs, they can fund $100M per year via the NCAA. If they want entice a few key successful teams for their post season tournament, they can set aside a $50M annually. Low-end incremental P6 revenue would be $8M annually.

P6 programs may be desperate enough to go after $8-$12M per year. The basketball-first universities (UK, KU, UNC, DU, Nova, IU, UCLA, etc) will feel the pressure first. Unwinding from the current Byzantine NCAA distribution scheme will also cost the P6 schools $2m per year for a few years.

You are on the right track but need to rethink it all. If there is a breakaway there is no obligation to buy off anyone. There is no NCAA to salve. There are no DII and DIII programs to support, and more importantly there are no credits paid out over 6 years in arrears.

So take that 1.125 billion subtract overhead and divide the proceeds per year per school participating. Let's say for the sake of argument that the overhead for the event is shared with the purchasing network and that your portion of the proceeds is going to be 750 million. Set the tournament field at 64 schools and pay each school an equal share per game that's 32 plus 16 plus 8 plus 4 plus 2 plus 1 or 63 games. That's 5.95 million per game per participant. And that money is paid out at the end of the fiscal year for the new organization and paid in total each year. If a program makes it to the elite 8 that's 4 x 5.95 million or 23.8 million for those schools. Make the finals and it's another 11.9 million on top of that.

What that does is provide incentive for everyone to step up their hoops and it makes basketball first schools much more lucrative for the overall sports market and for balance within conferences. If the conferences take a full cut it only reduces that total by roughly 1/number of conference members. So it's still terrifically lucrative.

We don't need an endowment funding the organization that is based on tournament money which is why basketball doesn't pay what it should now. Now that's napkin math and the particulars will vary, but not by that much.

Remember that 1 billion is what the NCAA cleared the networks take has already been accounted for.

Lol...you’re a revolutionary capitalist at heart. You’re mimicking the SEC/BIG led CFP model in your design for increased basketball revenue.

I modeled a quasi social-good compromise that enabled the NCAA to continue to be the arbiter of competitive college athletics.

It is impressive how the NCAA disburses revenue in a paternalistic, Santa Claus, manner.

(05-23-2020 11:46 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 10:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 10:20 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Universities with large athletic department budgets are going to be struggling with reduced revenues. Donations and game ticket revenues will be reduced due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Curious whether it’s worth the effort for major universities, that invest significantly in their basketball programs, to seek changes in the structure of the NCAA tournament. Specifically, how much incremental revenue can major universities potentially extract from a restructuring of the tournament?

A back-of-the-envelope review I found from news articles:

Annual revenues from the Tournament include media rights and gate receipts. CBS extended the media rights for 8 years and $8.8B through 2032...for arguments sake, media rights are currently worth $1B per year. Gate receipts add another $150M per year.

Annual Tournament distributions to the 15 ACC schools was about $25M in 2017. This is about $2M per school per year. For arguments sake, these distributions could be worth $3M per school today.

If the Power 6 (ACC, BE, BIG, B12, PAC & SEC) created their own-sponsored year-end tournament. The 76 universities could control a potential $1.15B revenue stream. High-end incremental P6 revenue is $12M annually per team (($1.15b / 76) - $3). If the break-away P6 needs to continue to cover the NCAA administrative costs...then $150M per year needs to be returned. If they need to maintain some goodwill with other D1/D2/D3 programs, they can fund $100M per year via the NCAA. If they want entice a few key successful teams for their post season tournament, they can set aside a $50M annually. Low-end incremental P6 revenue would be $8M annually.

P6 programs may be desperate enough to go after $8-$12M per year. The basketball-first universities (UK, KU, UNC, DU, Nova, IU, UCLA, etc) will feel the pressure first. Unwinding from the current Byzantine NCAA distribution scheme will also cost the P6 schools $2m per year for a few years.

You are on the right track but need to rethink it all. If there is a breakaway there is no obligation to buy off anyone. There is no NCAA to salve. There are no DII and DIII programs to support, and more importantly there are no credits paid out over 6 years in arrears.

So take that 1.125 billion subtract overhead and divide the proceeds per year per school participating. Let's say for the sake of argument that the overhead for the event is shared with the purchasing network and that your portion of the proceeds is going to be 750 million. Set the tournament field at 64 schools and pay each school an equal share per game that's 32 plus 16 plus 8 plus 4 plus 2 plus 1 or 63 games. That's 5.95 million per game per participant. And that money is paid out at the end of the fiscal year for the new organization and paid in total each year. If a program makes it to the elite 8 that's 4 x 5.95 million or 23.8 million for those schools. Make the finals and it's another 11.9 million on top of that.

What that does is provide incentive for everyone to step up their hoops and it makes basketball first schools much more lucrative for the overall sports market and for balance within conferences. If the conferences take a full cut it only reduces that total by roughly 1/number of conference members. So it's still terrifically lucrative.

We don't need an endowment funding the organization that is based on tournament money which is why basketball doesn't pay what it should now. Now that's napkin math and the particulars will vary, but not by that much.

Remember that 1 billion is what the NCAA cleared the networks take has already been accounted for.

Lol...you’re a revolutionary capitalist at heart. You’re mimicking the SEC/BIG led CFP model in your design for increased basketball revenue.

I modeled a quasi social-good compromise that enabled the NCAA to continue to be the arbiter of competitive college athletics.

It is impressive how the NCAA disburses revenue in a paternalistic, Santa Claus, manner.

Well, which names draw the ratings? Should the spoils go to the victors? What is impressive to me about the NCAA is how those sleazy money filching bureaucrats have gotten away with it for so long! They have endowed in 2 accounts well over 1 billion and all of it off the back of the tournament and the interest they generate by withholding disbursements piecemeal for 6 years.

The question is why do basketball first schools tolerate it? The only term I can come up with is the one P.T. Barnum said was born every minute....Sucker!

(05-23-2020 11:17 AM)46566 Wrote:  Would these conferences still be apart of D1 in all sports? I think that the NCAA wouldn't be to happy with the new tournament in general as I think they earn the bulk of their money from the NCAA tournament. I think that while they may not be able to make the schools leave or stop the idea but the NCAA would maybe make things hard for the P6 schools. Maybe make a new classification for them and bar them from playing other D1 schools. (Basically carry over the 4 game non D1 schools)

I don't see the NCAA sitting back and do nothing. Would the P6 be able to survive by themselves without the lower conferences to beat up on in non conference? Would schools lose money without the non conference home games. While it's true that a Big East team might draw better then let's say a Cal Baptist or Hartford team.

I would think that the best thing for the P6 to do is create a P6 tournament based around teams who didn't make the NCAA and the NIT. Maybe the conferences agree to show the games on the conference networks. Maybe give the conferences 6 autobids out of 16 bids. Each year 4 of the 6 conferences act as host for the tournament. The remaining bids are for regional at large teams. If Washington hosts they might look at Seattle and Eastern Washington. 2 P6 teams are required to travel to 1 of the regions thus 2 regions should or could get a "Marquee" matchup in the second game or final. Maybe the final 4 could be held at 1 of the 2 conferences not picked to host the regions. Each region is s guaranteed to have 2 games per team. A semifinal and either a final (to move to the final 4) or a third place game. You could do the same for the final four.

The NCAA and the rest of Div. I has no power in this relationship. In addition, there are illegal boycott issues against the P5, not that the P5 would care much.

The constant expansion of Div. I and spreading of basketball money has been a constant thorn in the side of the P5. But I don't know what the NCAA could do politically to make them happy. If they culled 100 schools out of Division I that would probably be good, but that's not politically possible, both from the standpoint of pushing schools down and Div II already being "full." I'm guessing when we get on the other side of the virus, the Div. I membership standards will go up, so it will cost more to stay in Div. I. The P5 are already well above the minimums so it won't impact them.

Maybe a Division "0" gets created. 150-200 schools. Division I standards get relaxed to 10 or 12 sports instead of 14, so 100 or so Division II schools move up to replace the 150-200 in Division "0."

(05-23-2020 11:29 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  I'm of the opinion that if the P6 do leave to form their own basketball tournament, the value of the NCAA's contract would instantly drop 90%. I would not be surprised if CBS and Turner invoke a clause to cancel the contract if it ever came to that.

I don't think it would drop 90%, but I do think it would drop significantly, likely far enough that the per-school payout to the P6 would maybe even be less than it currently is.

P6 fans underestimate how much the casual viewer - meaning the viewer who makes it a national event and not just a sporting even - cares about the "little guys" participating in the tournament. IMO, they care a lot.

Hoops isn't like football. In football, the short seasons mean by the end of the year, we are starving to have the "big boys" play each other. We want to see LSU play Clemson, Alabama play Ohio State, Penn State play Oklahoma, because these guys have been dominating in their corners of the country but haven't played. Hoops is different - everyone plays everyone all year. Tune in on any Saturday and there is some event where Duke is playing Kentucky, Michigan State is playing Kansas, UCLA is playing Villanova. You can see games like that in freaking November! And then the big boys in the same conference play each other twice, maybe even 3 times, before the NCAA tourney even starts. We get those "big boy" matchups, even across conferences, in spades. So in the national tournament, at least in the early rounds, we want to see David vs Goliath.

The whole point about big tent NCAA D1 athletics is it saturates a collective alumni base of 360 schools.

Less people would care if it was only a P5 division. Everyone else would have DII level facilities and interest would be nil. The way NCAA D1 conferences have acted over the years as a promotion and regulation tool is important.

A lot of the ACC programs wouldn't be here today if the B1G, SEC, PAC, Big Eight had always been in a super division of their own. Florida State, Virginia Tech, Louisville all needed decades to develop and used D1 basketball conferences to do it.

Endorsements are going to work as a form of legalized cheating. A long history of cheating with AAC and Big East programs to get to where they are today. But now you'll have MAC programs that can use midweek FB exposure to sign players. TV exposure is more important that TV conference dollars.

With the sport networks in control of the conferences its too late for the P5 to say who is in or who is out because they no longer make that decision. They should have done it in the early 1980's.

(05-23-2020 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 11:29 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  I'm of the opinion that if the P6 do leave to form their own basketball tournament, the value of the NCAA's contract would instantly drop 90%. I would not be surprised if CBS and Turner invoke a clause to cancel the contract if it ever came to that.

I don't think it would drop 90%, but I do think it would drop significantly, likely far enough that the per-school payout to the P6 would maybe even be less than it currently is.

P6 fans underestimate how much the casual viewer - meaning the viewer who makes it a national event and not just a sporting even - cares about the "little guys" participating in the tournament. IMO, they care a lot.

Hoops isn't like football. In football, the short seasons mean by the end of the year, we are starving to have the "big boys" play each other. We want to see LSU play Clemson, Alabama play Ohio State, Penn State play Oklahoma, because these guys have been dominating in their corners of the country but haven't played. Hoops is different - everyone plays everyone all year. Tune in on any Saturday and there is some event where Duke is playing Kentucky, Michigan State is playing Kansas, UCLA is playing Villanova. You can see games like that in freaking November! And then the big boys in the same conference play each other twice, maybe even 3 times, before the NCAA tourney even starts. We get those "big boy" matchups, even across conferences, in spades. So in the national tournament, at least in the early rounds, we want to see David vs Goliath.

We've heard that hogwash forever, but the truth is the closer you get to the final 4 the better the viewing. Gambling and office pools made the first round relevant, not the schools in the bracket. And none of that will change except fewer blowouts in those rounds and probably more upsets. I think that drives the ratings well enough.

(05-23-2020 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 11:29 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  I'm of the opinion that if the P6 do leave to form their own basketball tournament, the value of the NCAA's contract would instantly drop 90%. I would not be surprised if CBS and Turner invoke a clause to cancel the contract if it ever came to that.

I don't think it would drop 90%, but I do think it would drop significantly, likely far enough that the per-school payout to the P6 would maybe even be less than it currently is.

P6 fans underestimate how much the casual viewer - meaning the viewer who makes it a national event and not just a sporting even - cares about the "little guys" participating in the tournament. IMO, they care a lot.

Hoops isn't like football. In football, the short seasons mean by the end of the year, we are starving to have the "big boys" play each other. We want to see LSU play Clemson, Alabama play Ohio State, Penn State play Oklahoma, because these guys have been dominating in their corners of the country but haven't played. Hoops is different - everyone plays everyone all year. Tune in on any Saturday and there is some event where Duke is playing Kentucky, Michigan State is playing Kansas, UCLA is playing Villanova. You can see games like that in freaking November! And then the big boys in the same conference play each other twice, maybe even 3 times, before the NCAA tourney even starts. We get those "big boy" matchups, even across conferences, in spades. So in the national tournament, at least in the early rounds, we want to see David vs Goliath.

100% the truth. Every year when March Madness rolls around, CBS plays commercials of...Sister Jean, Bryce Drew’s shot, etc. If that wasn’t what drew ratings, CBS wouldn’t stuff it in their ads every year. They’re the ones with the data.

Very likely the break away group could also negotiate a much larger contract. So the take for the schools will be even greater, definitely double what it is now, maybe triple.

I don't think the P5 (and also the Big East if coming too) would really want to do away with the credit system per se. A big part of being in the conference is distribution sharing. They don't want to go to a Texas and the little-8 setup. Maybe some more incentive for the individual schools, but the baseline take will raise for everyone in the tournament or not.

As for the March Madness ideal, well, it will simply change to the "best of the best." In a typical year the Major 6 (P5 + BE = M6) account for 31 or 32 of the 36 at-large. You could go one of two ways with this. You could shrink down to 32 teams or even 36 to keep a "first four" format, and a 16 team "NIT" replacement, which would field roughly the same number of teams both tournaments as now. (The M6 average about 51 schools in a Tournament. The "NIT" is a small field at 16, that you could put that in Disney's Orlando facility.

It all comes down to format. At 32 or 36 it's just a two week Tournament plus the Championship. It's more compressed. If the money is better you can do that. You could of take every "NIT" M6 team and make it a Tournament of 52, which would look the same as the current tournament, except the top 16 seeds get a bye on the first round, and you only have 8, likely all competitive, first round games.

Choices are quite wide open.

The TV contract goes down significantly if the P6 breaks away. Even accepting that "no one" cares about the little guys being in the tournament, the first round - which is about one-third of the TV windows - averages around 10M viewers per window in primetime and a touch less for the afternoon. Those are incredibly valuable and lost completely in a new format.

(05-23-2020 01:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 11:29 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  I'm of the opinion that if the P6 do leave to form their own basketball tournament, the value of the NCAA's contract would instantly drop 90%. I would not be surprised if CBS and Turner invoke a clause to cancel the contract if it ever came to that.

I don't think it would drop 90%, but I do think it would drop significantly, likely far enough that the per-school payout to the P6 would maybe even be less than it currently is.

P6 fans underestimate how much the casual viewer - meaning the viewer who makes it a national event and not just a sporting even - cares about the "little guys" participating in the tournament. IMO, they care a lot.

Hoops isn't like football. In football, the short seasons mean by the end of the year, we are starving to have the "big boys" play each other. We want to see LSU play Clemson, Alabama play Ohio State, Penn State play Oklahoma, because these guys have been dominating in their corners of the country but haven't played. Hoops is different - everyone plays everyone all year. Tune in on any Saturday and there is some event where Duke is playing Kentucky, Michigan State is playing Kansas, UCLA is playing Villanova. You can see games like that in freaking November! And then the big boys in the same conference play each other twice, maybe even 3 times, before the NCAA tourney even starts. We get those "big boy" matchups, even across conferences, in spades. So in the national tournament, at least in the early rounds, we want to see David vs Goliath.

We've heard that hogwash forever, but the truth is the closer you get to the final 4 the better the viewing. Gambling and office pools made the first round relevant, not the schools in the bracket. And none of that will change except fewer blowouts in those rounds and probably more upsets. I think that drives the ratings well enough.

The ratings are better in the Final 4 because the stakes are higher, as is the case for the playoffs of every league.

Quo is right — his assertion is backed up by data. Final 4 ratings increased by a staggering 17%/26% with Loyola than the previous time the Final 4 was on the same channel/timeslot.

2016 Final Four (TBS, 6:09pm)
Oklahoma vs Villanova 6.1, 10.5M

2018 Final Four (TBS, 6:09pm)
Loyola vs Michigan 7.2, 13.2M

(05-23-2020 11:59 AM)JRsec
[/quote' Wrote:  Well, which names draw the ratings? Should the spoils go to the victors? What is impressive to me about the NCAA is how those sleazy money filching bureaucrats have gotten away with it for so long! They have endowed in 2 accounts well over 1 billion and all of it off the back of the tournament and the interest they generate by withholding disbursements piecemeal for 6 years.

The question is why do basketball first schools tolerate it? The only term I can come up with is the one P.T. Barnum said was born every minute....Sucker!

Revenues may become a huge issue for the ACC blue-blood schools. FSU had a nice run under Jimbo, and Clemson is at historic greatness under Dabo...the other conference schools are toeing the line on the importance of football. ESPN is now on the hook for a network. Yet there is growing revenue disparity between the ACC and the P2.

UNC, Duke, Syracuse, Louisville and UVA would get significant financial benefit (or better contribute to conference dispersed revenue).

(05-23-2020 01:57 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Revenues may become a huge issue for the ACC blue-blood schools. FSU had a nice run under Jimbo, and Clemson is at historic greatness under Dabo...the other conference schools are toeing the line on the importance of football. ESPN is now on the hook for a network. Yet there is growing revenue disparity between the ACC and the P2.

UNC, Duke, Syracuse, Louisville and UVA would get significant financial benefit (or better contribute to conference dispersed revenue).

Bingo! Simply breaking away from the NCAA would transport the ACC from a distant 4th in revenue to likely a much closer third because you have 5 solid hoops programs that would benefit as opposed to just one in the Big 12.

And any breakaway would have to include the Big East and perhaps a more Western hoops only conference as well, probably established solely for that purpose.

Part of the reason the ACC and Big East fans are wanting more revenue per school is because of the sky high cost of college coaches.

Now with a multiyear pandemic and coaching salaries cut left and right with the highest earners like coach K retiring out the concern over needing revenue to compete could abate.

The model of high coaching salaries, high seat licence requirements and massive conference TV deals looks like its out the door.

Expanded post season tournaments with more access will catch the attention of the networks. Go to 72 with the tournament and 8 with the CFP.

If you have an all-in 64 team P5 tournament what does that do to the regular season value or conference tournaments? Most of the conference TV deal value is tied to select big conference games and conference tournament play. What about the preseason tournament do they disappear too with the mid majors gone?

(05-23-2020 01:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 11:29 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  I'm of the opinion that if the P6 do leave to form their own basketball tournament, the value of the NCAA's contract would instantly drop 90%. I would not be surprised if CBS and Turner invoke a clause to cancel the contract if it ever came to that.

I don't think it would drop 90%, but I do think it would drop significantly, likely far enough that the per-school payout to the P6 would maybe even be less than it currently is.

P6 fans underestimate how much the casual viewer - meaning the viewer who makes it a national event and not just a sporting even - cares about the "little guys" participating in the tournament. IMO, they care a lot.

Hoops isn't like football. In football, the short seasons mean by the end of the year, we are starving to have the "big boys" play each other. We want to see LSU play Clemson, Alabama play Ohio State, Penn State play Oklahoma, because these guys have been dominating in their corners of the country but haven't played. Hoops is different - everyone plays everyone all year. Tune in on any Saturday and there is some event where Duke is playing Kentucky, Michigan State is playing Kansas, UCLA is playing Villanova. You can see games like that in freaking November! And then the big boys in the same conference play each other twice, maybe even 3 times, before the NCAA tourney even starts. We get those "big boy" matchups, even across conferences, in spades. So in the national tournament, at least in the early rounds, we want to see David vs Goliath.

We've heard that hogwash forever, but the truth is the closer you get to the final 4 the better the viewing. Gambling and office pools made the first round relevant, not the schools in the bracket. And none of that will change except fewer blowouts in those rounds and probably more upsets. I think that drives the ratings well enough.

Yeah, its hogwash. The P5 cover nearly the entire country. The tourney was huge with 250 schools. You could drop the bottom 100 schools and the change in viewership would be positive. You wouldn't have drastic mismatches in the first round. Even fans aren't particularly interested in Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, UNC, etc. beating a school seeded #16 that nobody has ever heard of by 20, 30, 40 or 50 points.

NCSU was a huge underdog that generated a lot of interest in '83. Underdogs are relative. Dropping the bottom 250 schools would have a negligible impact.