Why college basketball season, NCAA tournament should start later | Mailbag

The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com and include “mailbag” in the subject line.

Do you think they would ever move the NCAA tournament back to May and just start college basketball around Christmas? — @Andybryant316

They won’t, but they should.

Actually, let me clarify: May is too late for the tournament, for reasons we’ll explain below, but the sport absolutely should shift the start of the regular season back by several weeks.

The current competition calendar features far too much overlap with football, thereby marginalizing the bulk of the basketball regular season. That problem will only get worse with the (inevitable) expansion of the College Football Playoff (to 16 or 24 teams) and the expansion of the NFL season (to 18 games), which would push the Super Bowl to a permanent spot on the Sunday of Presidents Day weekend.

The window for mainstream sports fans to focus on the college basketball season is small and about to get smaller.

Shifting the calendar back will partly alleviate the problem.

As we see it, there are two options:

• Competition could begin either Thanksgiving weekend or the first weekend in December, which might become a glorious opportunity if the CFP expands to 24 teams. At that size, the conference championship games currently played in early December would be eliminated. The first Saturday in December would be a blank slate for basketball aside, perhaps, from Army-Navy.
• The season could begin in the middle of December, after fall semester exams, to make college basketball a true one-semester sport.

The only way to start the season three to six weeks later and maintain the current timing for March Madness is to reduce the number of regular-season games. That’s a nonstarter because any decrease in game inventory would result in a loss of revenue from media partners. And the schools cannot afford to take a penny less.

So a later start to the season would require a later finish — and moving the opening tip of the NCAA tournament into late March or early April.

If Selection Sunday gets moved to the final weekend of the month, the tournament could still be called March Madness. Nothing would change. (The two weeks of conference tournaments, which would move to the middle of the month, are an extension of the NCAAs.)

For those wondering about playing the first weekend of the tournament on the same weekend that CBS airs the Masters, our response is the following: The CBS coverage spans five hours Saturday afternoon and five hours Sunday afternoon. That’s not much. There would be plenty of time for basketball and, obviously, the TBS/TNT/trueTV windows would be unaffected.

But there is a finish line for the NCAAs under our plan: The tournament would have to conclude before the NBA playoffs, which typically get rolling in the middle of April, and certainly before the NFL draft.

Essentially, our idea is to move the regular season back three weeks and start the NCAAs two weeks later. The lost week would require only a slight consolidation of nonconference schedules. The rhythm of league play would remain the same, except it would begin in mid-January and therefore face considerably less direct competition from the CFP and NFL.

We don’t expect a shred of movement on this matter during the NCAA tournament’s current contract cycle with CBS and Warner Bros. Discovery, which expires in the spring of 2032.

By then, the tournament could have 96 teams, the NFL regular season could have 18 games, and the CFP could feature 24 teams.

The landscape is sure to change three times over. But of this, we are convinced: More football in December and January is bad for college basketball.

Last week, you mentioned the Pac-12 name resonates with fans and sponsors across college sports. Would the Pac-10 name be a better brand? It represents a winning era. The Pac-12 brand is Larry Scott and falling behind. — @sfw4422

It’s an interesting concept, for sure. And yes, the Pac-10 name carries a certain mystique untarnished by the embarrassing scandals, epic mismanagement and ultimate collapse of the Pac-12.

But changing the name to a number that doesn’t reflect the actual membership — there will be nine schools starting July 1 — seems odd. Either use an accurate representation or keep the Pac-12.

In our view, keeping “Pac-12” is the right move despite the Larry Scott era and subsequent collapse.

And don’t forget, additional expansion is a distinct possibility. It could be a 12-school conference in the next few years.

Might we see a rush of college football players transferring out the traditional way after spring practice so they can go elsewhere? — MrEd315

There is deep concern among administrators that players simply ignore the transfer portal this spring, and understandably so: It’s not a legally binding process.

Just as regular students can withdraw from one school and enroll at another, so, too, can college athletes.

As a result, we could see a wave of player movement after spring practice even though the portal closed in January.

Sponsored

In response, college football executives are crafting a penalty structure to dissuade schools from accepting transfers from outside the portal process. Last week, the Football Oversight Committee recommended the following:

• Head coaches would be prohibited from all football (recruiting and on-field coaching) and administrative duties for six games.
• Schools would be fined 20% of their football budgets.
• Schools would be required to reduce the number of roster spots by five for the next season.

The sanctions must be approved by the Division I cabinet, which seems probable. And they must withstand the inevitable legal challenges, which seems far less likely.

Even though the players themselves are not subject to penalties, a structure that restricts trade could be deemed harmful to their careers.