NCAA proposes additional funds for men's basketball teams

Published in Sports and Competition on Wednesday, August 6th 2025 at 11:53 GMT by Sports Illustrated
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

College basketball teams that advance to the championship round of the NCAA Tournament could start to receive additional funds for their postseason success as e

A Rising Tide: NCAA Proposes Significant Funding Boost for Men's Basketball Teams Through Tournament Revenue

The landscape of college basketball is poised for a potentially significant shift as the NCAA proposes a substantial increase in funding allocated to men’s basketball teams, directly tied to their performance in the annual March Madness tournament. This proposal, currently under consideration by the NCAA Board of Directors and expected to be finalized soon, represents a departure from traditional revenue distribution models and reflects growing pressure to address athlete compensation concerns while navigating evolving legal challenges surrounding name, image, and likeness (NIL).

The core of the proposed change revolves around a tiered system that rewards teams based on their tournament advancement. Currently, all 357 Division I men’s basketball programs receive roughly equal shares from the NCAA Tournament revenue pool – approximately $214,000 per school annually. This flat distribution model has long been criticized as inequitable, failing to adequately recognize the significant investment and risk undertaken by teams that consistently reach the later rounds of the tournament.

Under the new proposal, a portion of the annual tournament revenue—estimated to be around $350 million over six years—will be redistributed through a tiered system. The top 68 teams participating in the NCAA Tournament would receive significantly larger payouts than they do now. The specific allocation within these tiers remains subject to finalization, but the general structure is designed to heavily favor programs that advance beyond the first round and into the Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, Final Four, and ultimately, the National Championship game.

The rationale behind this shift is multifaceted. Primarily, it aims to address concerns about fairness and recognize the disproportionate contribution of certain programs to the tournament’s overall success and revenue generation. Teams that consistently draw large television audiences, generate significant merchandise sales, and contribute to compelling narratives throughout the tournament are arguably providing a greater return on investment for the NCAA than those who struggle to even make it into the field.

Beyond fairness, the proposal is also strategically designed as a potential buffer against ongoing legal challenges related to athlete compensation. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in *NCAA v. Alston* fundamentally altered the landscape of college athletics by allowing student-athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness. While NIL deals themselves are not directly addressed by this funding proposal, the increased revenue available to teams could indirectly alleviate pressure on individual athletes seeking compensation through NIL opportunities. By providing a larger pool of resources for institutions to allocate towards athlete support – scholarships, training facilities, coaching staff, and potentially even enhanced benefits packages – the NCAA hopes to demonstrate its commitment to supporting student-athletes without directly violating existing regulations regarding pay-for-play.

The proposal also acknowledges the growing power and influence of conferences. A key element involves distributing a portion of these additional funds through conference channels, allowing individual conferences to determine how best to allocate them amongst their member institutions. This decentralized approach recognizes that different conferences have varying needs and priorities, and allows for greater flexibility in addressing those specific concerns. For example, a smaller conference with several programs struggling financially might choose to distribute the extra funding more evenly among its members, while a larger, wealthier conference might focus on supporting elite programs or investing in infrastructure improvements.

However, the proposal isn't without potential drawbacks and criticisms. One significant concern revolves around the potential for exacerbating existing inequalities within college basketball. Critics argue that concentrating resources on already successful programs could further widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots," creating a system where smaller schools with limited budgets are increasingly marginalized. The fear is that these institutions will struggle to compete, both academically and athletically, against programs flush with additional funding.

Furthermore, some observers question whether this tiered distribution model truly addresses the underlying issues of athlete compensation. While it may provide institutions with more resources to support athletes, it doesn't fundamentally alter the power dynamic between universities and players. The proposal could be viewed as a reactive measure – an attempt to mitigate legal challenges rather than a proactive effort to create a genuinely equitable system for student-athletes.

Another potential challenge lies in the logistical complexities of implementing and managing this new distribution model. Determining the precise criteria for tier placement, ensuring transparency in revenue allocation, and preventing unintended consequences will require careful planning and ongoing monitoring. The NCAA will need to establish clear guidelines and accountability measures to ensure that the system operates fairly and effectively.

The proposal also raises questions about the future of college basketball’s overall financial structure. As tournament revenues continue to grow, pressure for even more significant redistribution models is likely to intensify. The current proposal could be seen as a stepping stone towards a more radical restructuring of the NCAA's revenue distribution system in the years to come. The possibility of moving toward a model that directly shares revenue with athletes themselves – a concept previously considered unthinkable – may become increasingly viable as legal challenges and athlete activism continue to reshape the landscape of college athletics.

Ultimately, the success of this proposal will depend on its ability to achieve several key objectives: fairly reward tournament performance, provide institutions with greater flexibility in supporting student-athletes, mitigate legal risks associated with NIL regulations, and avoid exacerbating existing inequalities within college basketball. The NCAA Board of Directors’ upcoming decision will mark a pivotal moment for the sport, potentially shaping its financial future and influencing the ongoing debate about athlete compensation and the evolving role of the NCAA itself. The ramifications extend beyond just the bottom line; they touch upon the very core values and principles that underpin collegiate athletics.

Read the Full Sports Illustrated Article at:
[ https://www.si.com/college/gonzaga/basketball/ncaa-proposes-additional-funds-for-mens-basketball-teams-through-tournament-success ]

N※N

NCAA proposes additional funds for men's basketball teams

A Rising Tide: NCAA Proposes Significant Funding Boost for Men's Basketball Teams Through Tournament Revenue