In response to Greg Sankey’s “hey, I’m just asking” take on March Madness expansion, Seth Emerson writes a piece ($$) in which he argues that what’s good for the college football playoff goose isn’t good for the college basketball tournament gander.
… Expansion in basketball seeks to solve a nonexistent problem.
Football playoff expansion was a visionary move by Sankey, whose conference was dominating the current system, but he realized it was for the greater good of the sport. And everyone’s pocketbooks, of course. But it legitimately is good for the future of the sport.
Basketball tournament expansion would be the opposite. Maybe it would get a few more dollars in the television contract, but in the long run, it would threaten to dilute interest in a marquee event.
I’m not going to waste time disputing his opinion regarding CFP expansion, because that horse is already outside the barn, but I can’t help wondering why so many people insist that this round of expansion will be it for college football, given that the same people pushing to expand March Madness — remember, they’ve already tried to do that once, only to be rebuffed by the networks, which weren’t willing to pay for it — are also in charge of the CFP’s future. And those folks care about one thing, and one thing only.
… The NCAA men’s basketball (and increasingly women’s basketball) Tournament is a cash cow because it transcends normal sports interests. The average American, not just the average sports fan, fills out a bracket and follows along.
Why wouldn’t Sankey and his ilk feel the same way about where to direct the CFP down the road? And why should any of us believe otherwise?
Get The Picture 