clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Assigned Reading: Weighing benefits from bigger NCAA Tournament

INDIANAPOLIS - APRIL 02:  A general view of the logo at center court of Lucas Oil Stadium prior to the 2010 Final Four of the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament on April 2, 2010 in Indianapolis, Indiana.  (Photo by Andy Lyons/Getty Images)
INDIANAPOLIS - APRIL 02: A general view of the logo at center court of Lucas Oil Stadium prior to the 2010 Final Four of the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament on April 2, 2010 in Indianapolis, Indiana. (Photo by Andy Lyons/Getty Images)
Getty Images

We all know that money is the motive behind expanding the greatest tournament in sports to 96-teams. This idea of more money though is more about making the NCAA and its largets conferences richer, ostensibly doing little to fill the pockets of the little guy.

The New York Times' Ken Belson outlines how money would be distributed among college basketball's 31 conferences and sheds some light on what's sure to become an epic bidding war between CBS and the Worldwide Leader. In short, the Big Six (also known as the BCS conferences) plus the Atlantic 10 and Conference USA, would receive upwards of 71 percent of the money pie. This money is based on a conference's participants and wins per tournament.

Yes, a 96-team tournament would mean a tad more money for small conferences, with the "one-bid league" likely becoming extinct. But it also means that middling Providence, Seton Hall, Miami, Penn State, etc., etc. would also be dancing. To use a cliche... the rich just keep getting richer. And John Feinstein becomes more and more infuriated.