Discussions of expanding sports playoffs or tournaments often point to television as a driving factor. But that doesn’t seem to be the case around the recently-intensifying talk of expanding the NCAA Tournament.
There, the top executives at TNT Sports and CBS Sports (the men’s basketball tournament’s current broadcasting partners through 2032) emphasized on a conference call with media Tuesday that they’re not the ones pushing for tournament expansion.
This came around a number of recent comments on expansion. NCAA president Charlie Baker said in November “I think that there’s a real opportunity to do something modest” and “We’re working with our media partners on it.” But NCAA senior VP (basketball) Dan Gavitt told CBS’ Matt Norlander last month “This is definitely not a fait accompli.”
However, there are absolutely people lobbying for a bigger tournament. That list includes Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark, who said Tuesday he favors an expansion to 76 teams (one of two non-status quo options under consideration, with the other being an expansion to 72 teams). And when Ralph Russo of The Athletic asked CBS Sports president and CEO David Berson and TNT Sports chairman and CEO Luis Silberwasser about this on that call Tuesday, Berson said the media companies have had conversations with the NCAA figures on this front.
“Charlie and Dan have said publicly that they’re exploring it and that we’ve had productive conversations with them with the topic. Like with all of our partners, we’re constantly in communication on all these kinds of things at any one times. This is certainly among them.”
But Berson went on from there to say that these conversations are being conducted slowly and deliberately, with a focus on maintaining what makes this tournament stand out.
“This is an event that captivates the country for three weeks every year. There’s nothing, nothing like March Madness. So as they’re looking to see if there are tweaks to be made, I think everyone’s just being really diligent and smart and careful. Because while we might want to enhance it given the change in the college landscape that can justify expanding by a few teams, no one wants to do anything that’s going to take away from how special this tournament is. And I think that’s really where the focus is.”
Berson also emphasized that any decision about the NCAA Tournament will likely come from the NCAA side.
“It’s more in their lap than ours, but as a partner, we work with them to see how we can best maximize it,” he said. “But no one wants to do anything that’s going to negatively impact this tournament, and that’s where the focus is: it’s so great, how can we continue to enhance it?”
Silberwasser struck a similar note, saying TNT Sports only supports expansion of the NCAA Tournament if they’re convinced it would be embraced by fans.
“I think we always look at this. And this has been a tenet of the way that we approach a tournament, which is we always do it in the best interest of the fans. Whether the programming decisions or the scheduling decisions or the content decisions, talent decisions, it’s always in the best interest of the fans. That’s our approach also with regards to expansion.”
Silberwasser said they’ve engaged with these conversations, and they’re not against the idea, but he thinks expansion may not be imminent.
“We’re supportive, we’re talking and having conversations with the NCAA. And if it’s something that makes sense for the tournament and the fans and for us, I will be supportive. But I think there’s still a ways to go.”
There is, of course, some context to this. A big part of that is around the money. TNT Sports and CBS Sports have NCAA Tournament rights through 2032, and their contracts don’t come with an escalator clause. Thus, they’re not required to pay a particular extra amount if the tournament does expand.
But the broadcasters might have to throw in some extra money to get expansion approved. Gavitt told Norlander a key issue here is the financial costs of adding teams: beyond the costs with extra games and venues, that also means more revenue units to distribute, and one conference commissioner told Norlander “Reducing the values of a unit is a nonnegotiable.” And, for the media companies, any extra money here would be for a product of an uncertain value; the main potential comparison is the 2011 expansion from 65 (one play-in) to 68 teams with the “First Four,” but it’s far from clear how much networks would benefit from adding two (with an expansion to 72) or four (with an expansion to 76) more early games.
There are thus logical reasons for the network executives to downplay their interest in expansion from a negotiating standpoint. And there’s also the PR element; while many conference figures (especially those from the Power 4, who would likely be the biggest beneficiary of an expansion due to getting more teams into the tournament) have publicly spoken about how much they want expansion, the idea has taken a lot of criticism from fans. And in an era where TV networks are taking a lot of heat (some of it justified, some less so) for changes in college sports, it’s understandable to see Silberwasser and Berson emphasize publicly that they’re not the ones pushing for this move.
But beyond the negotiation and PR reasons for these kinds of stances, the executives also have further points here on the importance of keeping the NCAA Tournament as something that resonates with fans. March Madness does largely stand out to many casual fans in particular because of the storytelling and narratives around it, especially around Cinderella runs and upsets.
On that front, Berson said in his opening statement on this call that “Stars come and go with this tournament, that’s part of the beauty of it, but the star of the tournament year in and year out is truly the tournament.” That could potentially be altered with a format change, and in a way perhaps more significant than in other sports. So there are reasons for caution around any expansion, and it’s interesting to hear those articulated by these key executives.
