Here in Music City, prominent administrators from the largest college conferences are strumming a low-key tune when asked about their latest power play.
“Some of it is overblown,” cautions one administrator from a Power 4 conference.
“The issue is how we’re going to govern,” says one of the involved decision-makers, playing the “this is not what it’s been billed to be” refrain.
Yes, but: There is a new proposal to the evolving governance of college sports, and it involves potentially wresting away control of the NCAA’s postseason championships, including men’s and women’s March Madness. A working document circulated by the SEC prior to the ongoing NCAA Convention in Nashville would grant the autonomous four conferences—the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten and SEC—rights to, among other things, manage the postseason tournaments. Along with that could come changes to tournament formats, revenue distribution and the makeup of selection committees.
In other words: 28 smaller, weaker, poorer Division I conferences are well within their rights to be nervous and suspicious right now. They’ve been pushed around plenty, and this sets up as another offer they can’t refuse—even if we’re not there yet.
Nobody has been dumb enough to say that new oversight of the NCAA basketball tournaments would exclude the small conferences from the Big Dance. Nobody says there would be a reduction in automatic bids for all 32 conference champions. That’s political suicide, and it should be noted that even within the Power 4 leadership there are deep divides over wresting away control of championships from the NCAA, and particularly altering the makeup of the Big Dance.
“We can’t kill the golden goose, the national treasure,” says one involved administrator. “Do. Not. Mess. With. The. Tournament.”
But there still are ways for the power leagues—led by the SEC in this instance—to get more of what they want. And they always want more. They already have an ever-increasing amount of sway and cash, but never underestimate the appetite of the greedy.
After listening to one prominently involved administrator explain some of his thinking, here are some of the things the other 28 leagues should be on the lookout for:
- A push to expand the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments past the current 68, to 72 or 76 (for starters). That’s not breaking news; discussions have been ongoing with the NCAA’s broadcast partners about how to expand in a profitable manner. At this point, it seems close to inevitable. And guess who the power leagues would expect to see inhaling those extra bids? Themselves, of course.
- Once expansion is at hand, the next goal could be redistributing who plays in the games outside the main bracket of 64, so to speak. In the current “First Four” kickoff to March Madness, four teams from the Nos. 10 to 11 seed range are pitted against each other and four from the No. 16 seed nether reaches play for the chance to take on a No. 1 seed. Some power-conference advocates would like to see the so-called “play-in” games involve more teams seeded in the Nos. 14 to 16 range instead of bubble teams—most of whom usually are from power conferences.
- How the teams are selected and seeded—and by whom—could also be up for review. The administrator I spoke to favors leaning more on metrics, putting all the Top 50 teams in the NCAA NET ratings in the field. Using the NET ratings for this season as of Wednesday, this would be the breakdown by conference for the men’s tournament: 14 from the SEC, 11 from the Big Ten, nine from the Big 12, six from the ACC, three from the Big East, three from the Mountain West, two from the WCC, one from the American and one from the Big West. That’s nine leagues.
To make that math work and still include the champions of every conference, the bracket would have to expand to at least 76. There would be 23 more automatic bids to factor in, which puts the roll call at 73, not including potential upsets in conference tourneys where someone outside the Top 50 steals a bid.
So, clearly, an expanded tournament that admitted all of the NET Top 50 would be increasingly advantageous to the power leagues. They would get more bids and shorter paths to advance, if the lowest seeds are pushed outside the main bracket.
The argument from the power conferences for such an arrangement goes like this: Bubble teams can be Final Four contenders. They point to men’s teams seeded 11th (the North Carolina State Wolfpack in 2024, Loyola Ramblers in ’18) and 10th (Syracuse Orange in ’15) that have sailed into the Final Four in the last decade. By their argument, those teams shouldn’t be eliminating each other in play-in games; they should be in the main bracket.
But in counter to that, it should be pointed out that the giant-slaying No. 16 seed UMBC Retrievers in 2018 and Fairleigh Dickinson Knights in ’23 deserved their shot at a No. 1 seed (sorry to the Virginia Cavaliers and Purdue Boilermakers). The 15th-seeded Saint Peter’s Peacocks, who advanced to the Elite Eight in ’22, deserved their shot at a No. 2 seed (sorry, Kentucky Wildcats). The No. 14 seed Oakland Golden Grizzlies deserved their shot at a No. 3 (sorry again, Kentucky). They deserve to be in the main bracket, too, not pushed into a play-in round that eliminates their peers while making more room for teams that finish in the bottom half of a power conference.
There are many justifications that can be offered for desecrating the best thing in college sports, but none of them are good.
Justification: The NCAA champion participation percentage in college basketball is only 18.7%, lower than in most other sports. Not really. All 364 Division I teams have a chance to make the tournament by winning their conference tourney; that’s when March Madness actually begins.
Justification: People only like the underdogs and upsets for a round or two. Then they want to see the brand names. Yes, the public certainly hated seeing Loyola, Wichita State, Butler, VCU and Georgia Mason in the men’s Final Four. In a fair tournament format, everyone gets the same opportunity—not one that is tricked up to further favor the programs that already have every advantage.
Justification: Amid all the other seismic changes in college sports, shouldn’t the basketball tournaments evolve and grow, too? No. Most of those changes have been court-ordered responses to illegal business practices by the NCAA and its members. Find me anyone who thinks the Big Dance is broken and needs to be fixed.
One important voice at the NCAA Convention sounded like he has no interest in being the public meat shield for significant changes to March Madness. There are so many other pressing issues that this seems like an odd time to try to further usurp power from the NCAA, which has historically done a great job running its tournaments—particularly in basketball.
“I don’t think there’s a large appetite, certainly right now, to do any meaningful change to the basketball tournament,” said Illinois athletic director Josh Whitman, who is the chair of the Division I Council. “I think we all understand what a national treasure the NCAA tournament has become, and almost a holiday. Any changes to the tournaments would be a down-the-road issue.”
How far down the road? We’ll see. This much is certain: If the power conferences can take more, they will. Even if they risk ruining a great thing. Eventually, there would be a reckoning at hand if they mess up March Madness.
“If you keep putting your hand in the cookie jar,” said one athletic director from outside the Power 4, “it’s eventually going to get smacked.”
This article was originally published on www.si.com as How Far Will Power 4 Conferences Push for Control That Threatens Ruining March Madness?.
