Let me throw some numbers at you: 68 (teams), 14 (years), 10.8 (billion dollars).

The NCAA announced today that the 2011 Men’s basketball tournament will expand not to 96 teams, not to 80 teams, but to 68 teams, an increase of just three over the 2010 tournament. Last Friday, during our live chat here on this site, we had an in-depth discussion about what expansion might mean to March Madness. At the time, it seemed like 96 was going to be the magic number. There was a consensus that expansion on that large a scale was a huge mistake for the NCAA.

There were many issues with that kind of expansion: watering down of the competition, the perception that the NCAA was only concerned about money, and the increase in missed class time for the student athletes were the three major ones.

By only adding three additional bids, the NCAA seems to have found a win-win situation. They sign CBS and Turner Broadcasting to a new 14-year, $10.8 billion deal, appease a couple mid-major leagues who feel they deserve multiple bids, and keep their reputation as the guardians of student-athletes. Well-played by the team in Indianapolis, and I don’t mean Butler.

Think of it this way: the NCAA increased the field by less than 5%, but their TV deal went from being worth $545.45 million per year to $771.43 million. An increase of over 41%.

For many basketball fans, the best news out of all this is the fact that every single tournament game will be show live. Through a combination of channels – CBS, TBS, TNT and truTV – everyone will get to see the games they want to see. While March Madness On Demand served me well this year, I am already excited about being able to watch my alma mater next year in HD.

All-in-all, it seems that the NCAA avoided a public relations nightmare – did anyone read the transcript of John Feinstein’s back-and-forth with the NCAAs senior VP Greg Shaheen about missed class time for the student athletes? That is just a taste of what the NCAA would have had to fight if they had expanded to 96.

But in the end, it seems that 68 is the new magic number. Who do you think will be the first 17-seed ever?

An interesting article from flipcollective.com by Paul Shirley (former NBA player) that I read earlier this week got me thinking about the differences between men’s and women’s basketball. Paul focused on the differences in athleticism and how enjoyable the games are, but I’ve been thinking more about the cold hard cash.

The men’s championship game drew 71,298 fans in an NFL stadium, while the women’s game (UConn over Stanford) drew ‘just’ 22,936 in the Alamodome. Beyond that, over 48 million people saw at least some part of Duke squeaking by Butler for their fourth national championship. According to an analysis of the 2008-09 championships, men’s basketball netted the NCAA $32 million, while the women’s championship cost over $7.5 million.

Geno Auriemma (UConn’s coach) hasn’t gotten a call from a men’s program about an open head coaching position in four years. He’s obviously coaching at a very high level: his team hasn’t lost in two years, and they are just 10 wins away from tying the hallowed wins record in all of college basketball – UCLA’s 88 in a row, yet for some reason, ADs aren’t looking at him as a candidate for their men’s teams.

So what does this mean from a business standpoint? There are obviously more fans for the men’s product then there are for the women’s, but are they all equally as invested? My gut tells me women’s fans have a stronger connection to their team… maybe not just the name on the front of the jerseys, but to the players wearing them.

This gives teams and their sponsors a unique opportunity to connect with fans. A sincere, distinctive ‘voice’ in social media goes a long way towards building a rapport with fans. Passionate fans are happy to provide feedback and ideas to those brands that ask. I wasn’t able to find an obvious Twitter account for either of the Stanford or UConn women’s basketball teams, so I’d suggest to them to capitalize on their recent success and get that started. Use players to guest tweet, guest blog, tape short videos, thank fans, and maybe show some behind the scenes footage of their trip to the Final Four.

Don’t get me wrong, the men’s teams can do these kinds of things too, but a lot of men’s Division I teams are doing just fine without those initiatives. Does anyone really think Duke’s team lost $2 million last year? Social media is an avenue where sponsors can utilize the popularity AND gender of the team they sponsor to make a better connection with fans. Better than that 3′ x 8′ banner hanging in the concourse, and better than the flyer they hand fans as they are walking out the door.

The Phoenix Mercury drew a lot of attention when they signed LifeLock as their front-of-jersey sponsor. They are the first major professional league to monetize that ad space, not counting soccer, where the practice is standard. The men’s leagues aren’t quite ready to go there… yet.

So, what do you think is the biggest opportunity out there for women’s sports? Am I wrong? Do men and women have the same opportunities here? Do their fans react to the same messages?

There’s one March Madness juggernaut that no one has been talking about on sports talk radio. It’s not Kansas, or Syracuse, or even Duke… it’s Nike. The Nike basketball Twitter account announced just hours after the selection show that 49 of the 65 tournament teams would be wearing the swoosh, with three more sporting the Jordan brand. That means more than 75% of the teams are under the Nike umbrella.

Even more striking is the fact that every single team in the West Region is a Nike team, which assures the swoosh of at least one Final Four team. Here’s the breakdown by region (courtesy of @nikebasketball):  Midwest – 10 Nike, 1 Brand Jordan; West: 16 Nike; East: 12 Nike, 1 Brand Jordan; South: 11 Nike, 1 Brand Jordan.

Nike’s contract with each university varies widely. With the millions of dollars in payments, equipment and apparel that they are paying to these schools, the national TV exposure that they’ll garner this weekend is their payback. On Thursday and Friday, Nike teams will participate in over 48 hours of basketball. Every time there is a close-up of a player diving on the floor after a loose-ball or lingers on a player getting ready to shoot a foul-shot, Nike executives will be cheering. The prolonged exposure is why those deals are signed in the first place. This weekend, Nike and Brand Jordan will reap the rewards of those strategic contracts.

Tournament Expansion
This morning I listened to a prominent NCAA basketball coach talking about the prospect of the tournament expanding to 96 teams. He was very frank in his opinion (keeping the tournament at it’s current 65 teams), but was also honest about the fact that his opinion may be tainted by the fact that every one of his teams has made the tournament. If he missed a couple in a row, his vote might change.

I feel strongly that the tournament should NOT expand to 96 teams. How many of us out there can name 31 teams that didn’t make the tournament this year? Ok, several of us could do that, but now let’s think about 31 teams that we would want to see playing this weekend… that’s not quite as easy. Also, doesn’t it take a little bit of the cache away from making the tournament and devalue the regular season if all those the number of teams expands by almost 50%?

Brackets
Now, gambling on the NCAA tournament is illegal. Luckily, just filling out a bracket is not. Most likely I will fill out two brackets. One with my heart (with Syracuse winning), and one with my head (Kansas). Thursday and Friday are those two infamous days of the year where employers lose billions of dollars on lost productivity. While it’s not technically part of my job, I’ll be keeping an eye on the games and social media simultaneously, to see what teams and brands are activating using those platforms. So, who do you have winning your bracket?

In the midst of my usual sports business ramblings on Twitter last week, I wrote the following message:

“Come on @ispsportnetwork and @learfield. Two of the biggest college sports marketing brands – you guys can do so much more on Twitter!”

I didn’t think much of this at the time. I sent it because I noticed that these two corporate Twitter accounts had a very low number of followers, didn’t tweet much and offered little in terms of actual content. I was pleasantly surprised when a few days later, I got the following reply from@Learfield:

Learfield: @rscibetti Guilty as charged. Been working on the Grown-Ups for 3 years. How about a blog post: “10 Reasons Learfield Sports Should Tweet”

So, at the prompting of the @Learfield Twitter account, here are ten reasons why Learfield Sports should tweet (in no particular order):

1. Raise awareness for your properties – At a most basic level, Twitter gives you a popular communication channel to promote all the great things that your college teams are doing, both on and off the field.
2. Create an engagement opportunity to connect with fans and customers across your properties – Beyond promoting the schools and teams, Twitter will let you interact with the fans in those locations, building a deeper connection to the property and also providing you valuable feedback.
3. Help test and execute social media campaigns that you can share as best practices with your properties – What better way to assist your properties than by learning about Twitter yourselves, finding out what can be most effective, and then spreading best practices across your different locations.
4. Engage in conversation with other sports media and sponsorship professionals – Twitter is an incredible educational platform that gives you an easy way to learn from other industry leaders and apply those ideas to your company.
5. Leverage your network of properties to create high-value social media promotions that generate direct value for top-level sponsors – It’s one thing for a corporate partner to run a Twitter contest with one location…you can harness the power of Twitter across multiple locations to really generate a powerful campaign for a sponsor.
6. Get direct feedback about current marketing promotions that your properties are running – People on Twitter are honest and direct, which will help you learn what is and is not working.
7. Connect with future Learfield employees – There are a lot of talented individuals on Twitter that have unique skill sets that could benefit both Learfield and your properties.
8. Create more value that can help retain customers – If you are at risk of losing certain partners, perhaps developing integrated, cross-property social media campaigns as an addition to their current elements can provide more value and help retain your customers.
9. Build a stronger relationship with your properties – Some schools are running great social media campaigns, while others are well-behind the curve. If you can leverage your own Twitter presence is a way that educates and assist these schools, you provide more value and make your relationship indispensable.
10. It’s fun – I wanted this to be last, but there’s importance to it. There is a uniquely fun element to engaging with others through Twitter, and I believe that whoever at Learfield shares this responsibility will get more satisfaction out of their job, which will in turn make them a better employee.

So that is my list of 10 reasons why Learfield Sports should tweet. I hope I’ve made a strong case for it, and if anyone at Learfield would like to talk more about this, they can reach me right here!

Last spring, I wrote about an interesting promotion that Coke Zero was running in conjunction with NCAA Basketball called “Taste the Madness.” The idea was simple – fans were encouraged to submit their craziest fan videos supporting their school, and the best video would become part of a Coke Zero advertisement before the championship game.

This year, instead of another “video” contest, they are tapping into fan creativity in a different way. Every viewer has their own ideas on how they can improve their fan experience, but outside of their own circle of friends, they don’t have a large platform to share their ideas. Coke Zero is using this concept to create a “Department of Fannovation” campaign where people can share their ideas on a large scale through the website http://www.cokezero.com/ncaa (you can also click here to watch a video on how the contest works).

The top 64 ideas will get entered into a “Brain Bracket” just like the traditional NCAA basketball bracket. Fan votes will determine the winner in each match-up until one idea is the crowned champion and receives the top prize of $10,000 and a trip to the 2011 NCAA Final Four. There will also be prizes for making the bracket itself and advancing to the Sweet Sixteen and Final Four levels.

For Coca-Cola, the goal is to connect the idea of innovation back to the Coke Zero brand and the way they “innovated” a new diet beverage that still mirrors the traditional Coke flavor. Doing this through a platform like the NCAA tournament, which has a very passionate and interactive fan base, has the potential to make a deeper brand impact among this particular consumer audience (and we know that sports fans are more likely to be brand-loyal consumers).

Marquette University has taken a very creative approach to selling their season ticket and mini-plans that goes beyond a straight sales pitch. They worked with Row27 Studios to creating a new website that combines team-generated and user-generated content with both a contest and ticket sales information to create an interactive fan experience.  You can visit the site at www.marquetteminiplans.com.

The website displays a 3D rotation of different videos, including game actions clips, interviews with the team (some of which are VERY funny), and placeholders for user-generated videos. Some of the videos are grayed out and will be activated over time, giving fans reason to keep visiting the site. Everything is tied together through a contest, which you can learn about through the links at the bottom of the site. There are prizes based on accumulating points, and you can gain points by creating an account, uploading videos, finding a hidden video, sharing with friends via email or social networking (Twitter and Facebook), and purchasing a ticket package.

I’m not a Marquette fan (I’m actually an alumnus of a rival Big East school), but I’ve already visited the site multiple times to see the different types of videos that they’ve created. I’m sure that the school’s fans will really respond to this promotion. I love the interactive elements and how they encourage and reward the site visitors to share the link with others. This is a great alternative to a typical online ticket sales or marketing campaign.

Today’s post is courtesy of guest blogger Rob Campbell, Analyst for IEG Research Services. This article was first published on IEG’s Sponsorship Blog at Sponsorship.com.

Social Media and Sponsorship Join Forces for Marquette Basketball

This past week, Marquette University started posting from a Pepsi-sponsored Twitter account focusing on the home opener for its men’s basketball team. This development is unique in that very few (successful) forays have been made into the world of sponsored social media.

So far, the only evidence of Pepsi involvement is a Pepsi logo and the text “Pepsi Season Opener” on the Twitter page. There have been no tweets or links posted regarding Pepsi or the sponsorship and the posts have largely focused on information aimed at building excitement around opening night. If the user’s window is not maximized, the Pepsi logo and blurb receives little visibility, as it is mostly shrouded by text display.

The account has amassed just over 100 followers at the time of this post, but its posts are retweeted through the Marquette Athletics account.

I think this minimalistic approach of the lowest possible integration (no influence on tweets) is a great start. By keeping the sponsorship transparent and the content sterile, the account does not have a detrimental effort on the actual sponsorship of the athletic department and if anything, only adds to it.

If Pepsi ever does make it into the subject matter of tweets, it should not be in the form of just marketing messages. Instead, the best way to integrate the overarching Season Opener sponsorship into this sponsored Twitter page is to provide actual useful content or promotions. For example, if Pepsi were to give away tickets or create a highlight video, that would be relevant content to relay to the account’s followers. However, simply stating there is a sale on Pepsi at the local grocer would not be relevant.

Essentially, this Twitter account is just an activation extension of Pepsi’s sponsorship of Marquette Athletics and is not the sole focus of the sponsorship. I think placing the Twitter account in the supporting role of the much larger sponsorship makes the sponsored page feel much more organic than if the sponsored Twitter account were the primary focus.

It would be interesting to know if Pepsi requested the Twitter tie-in or whether Marquette’s athletic department took the initiative in its creation.

(Editor’s Note: I love to see experimentation like this in the social media space. I believe the first sports-related Twitter sponsor to get involved was Tissot on Danica Patrick’s page. Social media allows for a wide array of value-added activation, which is so important now as companies look to gain more value from their sponsorships without increasing their spend.)

In honor of NCAA President and former Indiana University President Myles Brand, who passed away on Wednesday at the age of 67, I’d like to share links and quotes from five articles related to Mr. Brand’s accomplishments and hard work throughout his distinguished career.

1.  Brand timeline: Key career, life moments – IndyStar.com, 9/16/09

2.  A Man of Action and Integrity: IU President Emeritus Myles Brand – Speech from IU President Michael A. McRobbie, 3/29/09 – “During his tenure at IU, Myles’ strong leadership also extended to intercollegiate athletics, and that has continued in his role as president of the NCAA. As in all other areas, Myles’ actions in relation to athletics have been driven by his integrity and his dedication to the best values at the heart of American higher education.”

3.  Brand brought just the right touch – Pat Forde, ESPN.com, 4/2/09 – “The sources I spoke with described Brand’s biggest initiatives as championing the student-athlete and reaching out more to the schools — their presidents, athletic directors, coaches and athletes.”

4.  Brand focused on classroom, basketball during his tenure atop NCAA – Mike DeCourcy, Sporting News, 9/16/2009 – “He might have been the most visionary executive ever to head the NCAA. College athletics lost a great friend with Brand’s passing because he was willing to examine and champion concepts designed to improve the athletes’ opportunities and experience.”

5.  NCAA’s Brand was the strongest figure in college sports – Christine Brennan, USA Today, 9/16/09 – “This soft-spoken, cerebral man became the toughest guy in college sports. He fired Bob Knight. He stood up to President George W. Bush when his administration tried to weaken Title IX. He told schools to stop using Native American nicknames that were considered offensive. He looked men’s college coaches around the country in the eye and told them they had to do a better job of graduating their student-athletes, or else.”

In the past few days, I’ve seen a couple of great promotions from schools in the Pac-10 that I’d like to share:

Arizona State – You Are ASU: The Sun Devils created a couple of life-sized ASU trading card cutouts that can be found in prime locations around the Tempe area.  They’re encouraging fans to get their picture taken in the card cutout and send a Twitpic to their official Twitter account (@SparkyArizonaSt), and the picture that shows “the most Sun Devil Pride” will win free lower level tickets.  Great way to combine offline and online marketing.

Cal – SFGate.com Takeover: If you visited the San Francisco Chronicle website (sfgate.com/sports) in the past couple of days, you would have seen the entire site done up with full Cal spirit, from background imagery to advertisements and content. Since this is one of the most popular sites for sports content in the Bay Area, this is a great tactic to make a strong, concentrated impact.  Here’s a picture of what the site looked like during the takeover (thanks to @CalAthletics sending this along).

Arizona – Free Wildcats Ringtone: This offer is prominently displayed on the Arizona Wildcats athletics home page, encouraging fans to show their school spirit and download the official Wildcats ringtone. While getting the ringtone distributed among the school’s fans is great, the more valuable part of this promotion is the data collection opportunity that it provides.

Washington – Go Purple. Be Gold: The Huskies website starts you off with a nice new video, produced by row27 Studios. Last year wasn’t a great season for Washington, so the video appropriately focuses on hard work, practice and improvement, and ends with a call-to-action promoting their new 4-game plan.

New Tier B-Line: Multiple Pac-10 schools, including Stanford and Washington State, are offering a desktop product from New Tier Communications called the “B-Line.” It’s a new version of their desktop communicator that lets the schools push content out directly to the users’ computers, such as news alerts, video and special ticket offers.

Today’s post is courtesy of guest blogger Amanda M. Miller, a current Sports Business/Marketing MBA student at Arizona State and summer intern for Navigate Marketing.

In the last three months, the NCAA has come under attack on multiple fronts. First, lawsuits were filed (separately) by former Rutgers football player Ryan Hart and former Arizona State quarterback Sam Keller against Electronic Arts (aka EA Sports) and the NCAA for essentially using the likeness of collegiate athletes without compensating them. Then, former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon filed a lawsuit against the NCAA for the use of former players’ likenesses without compensation.

The NCAA is a multi-million dollar business. Revenues in 2008 were over $660 million (see the NCAA 2008-09 budget) and a negative resolution to these lawsuits would seriously jeopardize the largest chunk of that income. When you consider that 89% of last year’s revenue came from “Television and Marketing Rights Fees,” it becomes obvious that this is going to be a contentious fight.

EA Sports and the NCAA will throw everything but the kitchen sink into this lawsuit to protect their interests. I think what it comes down to is the question of whether major college sports (basketball and football mainly, baseball to a certain extent) have lost their amateurism.

The NCAA has always stood behind the ‘contract’ all collegiate players sign that allows the NCAA the use of their name and likeness. O’Bannon is contending that that very contract is only in effect while the player is competing for an NCAA institution. Once the player leaves college, they regain the rights to their image. Classic games are often re-run and there is a solid argument that the players in those games should get royalties each time it is re-aired. Championship DVDs and replica jerseys with former players’ names on them are sold on a daily basis, with the revenue going straight to the NCAA.

With respect to the EA Sports case, NCAA bylaws prohibit the use of the names and likenesses of athletes for commercial purposes. Does the fact that the University of Florida is quarterbacked by a 6′ 3″ left-handed player wearing the number 15 in EA’s NCAA Football 2009 mean they are ‘using’ the likeness of Tim Tebow? Keller contends that in the 2005 edition, Arizona State’s quarterback showed an unmistakable resemblance to him: same jersey number, same height and weight, hair color and home state. It’s this uncanny similarity that prompted him to file the lawsuit.

Now, I feel slightly differently when it comes to paying collegiate athletes outright for competing. Many of them get scholarships and, if you look at it like the summer internship that I’m participating in, for a reduced (or no) salary, the player (intern) gets the opportunity to learn on the fly, impress possible future employers (NBA or Navigate Marketing as the case may be) and network with those in their chosen career field. So I could argue pretty heavily that the NCAA players do get ‘paid’ just not with a paycheck every two weeks.

These lawsuits are a different story though. In one case, the NCAA is profiting from the very athletes that they are no longer paying. A simple solution to the O’Bannon lawsuit would be to give former players a royalty for each game re-aired, DVD or jersey sold, but only after that player is no longer actively competing in NCAA competition. Once the player cashes one of those royalty checks, any remaining eligibility they have would be erased.

The EA Sports lawsuit is a more slippery slope. How close of a resemblance does a CGI figure have to have to a living person before it’s considered his/her ‘likeness’? Many in the college ranks, and even those in the professional realm, should pay attention to these cases. Their resolutions will have reverberations in marketing deals for years to come.