The Voice of People Who Aren't Thinking

With the bubble being undeniably weak, and with teams failing to do the obvious thing to differentiate themselves from the rest of the weak bubble (i.e., win), you're likely to hear a myriad of reasons why Team A is better than Team B.  Naturally, some arguments are better than others.  For instance, the committee will likely sympathize with teams that were without a key player for a portion of the season (Arizona comes to mind).  They'll also take note of the fact that a team only lost to elite competition (it's what Davidson is currently banking on).  Teams that are grasping at straws will like to point out that, whereas team A got to beef up their resumé on mid-major conference fodder, they had to go through the rigors of a major conference.  There's something to it, but I'm not sure how much the Selection Committee cares.

One argument is more ignorant and less relevant than all the others.  "When it comes down to it, this is a business.  The NCAA would much rather have a team like Kentucky (or Florida, Maryland, Syracuse, et al) than Virginia Commonwealth because they know they'll sell tickets and people will watch on TV."

Asinine.

I'm not naïve.  In fact, I'm pretty damned cynical.  Above all, though, I'm a realist. Money does make the world go round, and there's not a doubt in my mind that the NCAA wants to make as much money as possible.  The problem is, there's just no benefit to including a team in the tournament because of the name on the front of the jersey.

Understand that, as is the case with most teams on the bubble, they're not going to get a very good seed.  A team seeded in the 9-16 range is not expected to last too terribly long in the NCAA Tournament, meaning that for all intents and purposes, they're being selected to play in one game.  Would the Selection Committee really care so much about revenue that they'd select a team on marketability for one game out of a 63 game tournament?  Common sense says, "no."  Not surprisingly, fans say, "yes."

So, let's assume that the NCAA does indeed care about the extra profits it can make from one solitary first round game in a massive, three-week tournament.  Logically, a team like Kentucky really would bring a lot of fans to a first-round game.  The problem is, tickets for the entire first weekend are usually sold out by the time the brackets are announced - either by fans of highly-seeded teams anticipating their team's first round location or (more often) by scalpers and third-party ticket websites looking to exploit teams in Kentucky's position.  As far as the NCAA is concerned, their tickets are sold, and they can wash their hands of the issue.  Undoubtedly, the scalpers and third-party websites would much rather see a team like Kentucky in the field, but they don't have a voice on the Selection Committee.  In the case of ticket sales, it is of no great benefit for the NCAA to choose Kentucky or any other name-brand school over a capable mid-major.

But what about TV?  Surely, the NCAA would want to include teams that will appeal to the broadest possible fanbase, wouldn't they? First of all, I'm not entirely sure that a team like a low-seeded Kentucky would appeal to more fans than Virginia Commonwealth or South Alabama.  Kentucky appeals greatly to Kentucky fans, but it could be argued that the rest of the country either doesn't care about them or actively dislikes them.  When mid-major teams take on highly-seeded major opponents, the entire country tends to rally around them in a Horatio Algar love-fest.

For the sake of argument, though, we'll say that Kentucky would bring in a better TV audience.  It still doesn't matter.  For one, whenever Kentucky plays in the first round, they're going to be up against three other games.  This means that if Kentucky was to be replaced by a less glamorous team, there is a good chance that another game that is airing simultaneously will be airing a more competitive or more glamorous game.  Secondly, the NCAA is in the middle of an 11 year deal with CBS that they signed in 2003, meaning that between 2003 and 2014, 693 NCAA Tournament games will have aired.  Kentucky's solitary 2008 NCAA Tournament game would account for at best 1/693 or 0.14% of the revenue of the NCAA's television contract, assuming that the team that would be selected in Kentucky's stead would attract 0 viewers.

Would CBS prefer to have  team like Kentucky?  Possibly, though the increase in their profits would be between marginal and negligible.  But again, they have no voice on the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee.

All this aside, Kentucky will probably make the NCAA Tournament.  I can assure you that it will be on merit alone.  You can crack a smug smile when someone suggests otherwise.