The morning news reports that there is interest in holding major basketball tournaments other than the NCAA-managed “March Madness.”
The impetus comes from the fact that there are many big-conference teams (think teams in the Big 12, Big East) that do not receive invitations to the NCAA tournament. The teams that win conferences get invited (there are 32 automatic entries), but most of the other conference teams are left out. There is only so much room left for some really good teams that aren’t conference winners.
There is talk of holding other tournaments that would draw on all this talent. That makes sense if you’re thinking of good competition, and opportunities for young people to get together and meet each other and see new sights and learn about other cultures and people. Fun games, and a lot of fun for people watching.
This isn’t what is motivating the effort, of course. It’s money. There are reports that the NCAAA has undervalued the future broadcast rights for both men’s and women’s basketball tournaments, leaving a lot of money on the table.
A little history: my close friend (let’s just call her Chatty) tells me:
The term "March Madness" was first used in the context of basketball to describe the excitement and frenzy surrounding the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. It was coined by Henry V. Porter, an Illinois high school official, in 1939. However, the term gained widespread popularity in the 1980s, particularly after its use in conjunction with CBS's coverage of the tournament. Since then, "March Madness" has become synonymous with the NCAA basketball tournament, encompassing both the men's and women's tournaments.
There is plenty of money involved. Chatty tells me the NCAA reports tournament revenue of over $1 billion a year. Much of this money is redistributed to schools, so there are a lot of interested parties.
Times change. College athletes can now earn real money for selling their name, image, and likeness (NIL). The National Labor Relations Board (and the U.S. Supreme Court) view college sports as a profit-making enterprise, and players are entitled to the legal protection of our nation’s labor laws. I recall hearing that the University of Michigan was selling jerseys with Chris Weber’s name on them, and pocketing the profits, long after he had graduated. They didn’t share with Chris, by the way. That never seemed fair.
The colleges have a greed model in pro sports. The resistance to locating professional sports teams in the nation’s gambling mecca—Las Vegas—was breached in 1993 when the Las Vegas Thunder, a minor league ice hockey team played, but they closed up shop in 1999. The subsequent arrival of NHL's Vegas Golden Knights, the WNBA's Las Vegas Aces, and the NFL's Las Vegas Raiders have squelched any lingering doubts about the pro’s relationship to gambling. The Oakland A’s are, as we speak, desperately trying to get in on the money grab.
If college sports are, indeed, a profit-making enterprise, then there are all sorts of possibilities.
First up: why should the NCAA get to run the tournaments? There have been many complaints about the NCAA and its heavy-handed ways over the years, and we can expect to see these come to fruition soon.
Pro sports again provide a model: many thought the money offered by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (Fund) would be off-limits given the nefarious activities of the Saudi government. Some resisted, but some took the money. In Newcastle (Premier League) there were demonstrations against the Fund’s purchase of the club in 2021, but the deal brought new money, and at least some success. Fans have grumbled about principle but continue to support the team at St. James’ Park.
Second: why should colleges continue to operate under a façade of amateurism anyway? The Olympics gave up that ghost in 1986. NIL is a reality. The NLRB seems ready to support unionization of college teams. We’re all professionals now.
Third: If you are concerned about losing March Madness, don’t be. There will be plenty of alternatives offered, and tradition will not be an obstacle.
Tradition? I know I’ll sound like an old fogey, but I grew up with my mom waking at 4:30 a.m. on New Year’s Day and intensely watching the Rose Bowl parade. The parade was followed by a football game between the conference champions of the Big Ten and the champions of the Pacific Eight.
Did the Rose Bowl mean something? The answer is yes. It was a rivalry. It was the biggest and best, because of tradition. Sure, the Cotton Bowl and Orange Bowl and the Sugar Bowl were played, but they paled by comparison.
All of this “bowl infrastructure” was eroded as bowl games proliferated and was completely disbanded when the playoff system for Number One was initiated in 2014. In 2015, by the way, Ohio State beat Oregon—a game that, in my humble opinion—should have been played at the Rose Bowl, and without all the background noise of 39 other bowls.
We might ask why all of this happened in college football. I think the answer is a combination of two things.
The first, and foremost, is money. As demonstrated by the behavior of college conferences over the years, schools look for the best money deal, even if they must (see, e.g., USC, UCLA), take actions that ignore “tradition.” The second is the desire of some substantial set of fans for more games, more coverage, more trophies. This second component supports schools in their actions, no matter how selfish. If there is a subset of fans out there who value tradition over money, they have long since been swamped by the stampede to profit.
All things are possible once you lose your innocence. If professional golfers, benefiting from the legacy of Arnold Palmer, can overcome the gag reflex and accept money from the same people that murdered Jamal Khashoggi, then why not college athletes? Don’t be surprised in a couple of years if you’re watching the finals of a college basketball tournament, from Las Vegas of course, broadcast on a streaming channel that costs $30 a month, cheering for your favorite team as they hoist the Khashoggi Trophy.
How ironic, you say, since the tournament is funded by the Saudis. But even they can compromise their principles if there is enough money involved.
Irony, if serious enough, can fade into cynicism. But as I have often said: “l’m not being cynical if I’m right.”
Please leave your innocence at the door…
GREED,GREED,GREED, ALWAYS WINS OUT!!!!!
Marie