The end of Madness?

The Final Four of the men’s NCAA basketball tournament is set. All four of the top seeded teams — Duke, Auburn, Florida, and Houston — made it.

This is only the second time that has happened. The other was 2008.

But if one looks at this year’s Elite Eight, it becomes clear that this year was more “chalky” — more in accordance with form — than 2008. This year, three of the four teams that lost in the Round of Eight were seeded second. The other was seeded third. All eight teams in the quarterfinals were in the top nine of ratings guru KenPom.

In 2008, by contrast, only one of the Elite Eight was seeded second. And Davidson, a ten-seed, made it that far (thanks to Steph Curry).

We shouldn’t make too much of what happens in one tournament. I doubt that Cinderella stories like Davidson’s are obsolete. Just a few years ago, two Cinderella teams made the Final Four — San Diego State and (especially) Florida Atlantic.

But two major changes in the college basketball landscape mean that this year’s tournament is likely to be more typical of future ones than was the 2023 version.

The first is that college basketball players are being paid — a lot. For decades, some players were paid under-the-table. And the payments were usually from supporters of big programs or programs determined to become big.

But now, compensating players through NIL (Name Image and Likeness) enables college athletes to make previously unheard of sums over-the-table. Some players reportedly are making well over $1 million.

In some cases, college players receive more by staying in college than they would as professionals. That’s because the traditional big, plodding center is almost obsolete in the NBA, which now favors a new breed of centers who make three-pointers and defend the pick-and-roll effectively. But they remain valuable at the college level.

And the payments are likely to increase. Starting this year, as part of a lawsuit settlement, athletic departments will share revenue with their varsity athletes. Under the proposed revenue sharing model, NCAA Division I schools will be allowed directly to make payments to their athletes up to a total of $20.5 million per school.

Naturally, schools from “power conferences”— the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, and ACC —are positioned to offer players more money and more monetary opportunities than mid-major schools are. (The Big East presents an interesting case. Schools like Villanova, Marquette, Georgetown, and Xavier aren’t likely to have as much revenue for athletes as their counterparts at big state schools. On the other hand, at Big East schools, basketball is king, whereas football reigns at most big state schools. Thus, it’s possible that, under the new revenue sharing regime, Big East basketball programs, not having to share the pie with big-time football programs, will remain competitive at the highest level. In this regard, it’s worth noting that the University of Maryland’s basketball coach, Kevin Willard, has just resigned to take the same job at Villanova where he believes his chances of winning big are greater.)

The other big development — one that goes hand-in-hand with the money — is the ability of players to transfer from one school to another without being penalized. Not long ago, a player who transferred had to sit out a season. If he transferred to a school in the same athletic conference, he had to sit out two. This system sharply limited the number of transfers, as it was designed to do.

Now players can transfer freely, and they are doing so en masse. This year, more than 1,600 players have entered the transfer portal in little more than a week. Many more are expected to follow.

The effect of this change is that big basketball powers can use smaller ones as a farm system, in effect. They can shed their recruiting “mistakes” — players who didn’t live up to expectations and want to move on for more playing time — and replace them with proven stars from mid-majors.

The prestige of playing for major powers, and the money these powers are able to pay, will induce the transfers. And the transfers will increase the powers’ dominance.

I’m glad that players now have freedom of movement. The new transfer system enables these athletes to maximize their limited time as college players by transferring to programs that best fit their talent level.

I also think it’s only fair that athletes who bring money to their schools and enjoyment to their fans should be compensated. Some of the amounts paid may seem too high, but that’s for the market to decide.

But the inevitable effect of the two changes is to boost teams from power conferences at the expense of mid-major and low-major programs. That means fewer Cinderella stories.

Will this make for less March Madness? I think so. Cinderella stories are a significant part of the Madness.

Will it mean the end of the Madness? I think not. The Madness also consists of buzzer beaters, late rallies, and people being obsessed with their brackets. These phenomena will persist. (Because the tournament will be easier to predict, brackets will be easier to fill-out correctly. But that won’t diminish interest in participating.)

From my perspective, the tournament is actually better when highly-seeded teams populate the late rounds. A clash of two #1 seeds in the final four excites me more pre-game than a contest between a #1 and, say, a #6. And at the margin, it will probably be a closer game.

But whether we like it or not, the college basketball landscape has been radically transformed. As a result, March Madness is becoming less mad.