NCAA Basketball: Enhanced scheduling flexibility is more fitting

NCAA basketball will prove better served if the governing body’s board of directors approves proposed scheduling changes next week.

In a move that hopefully will improve NCAA basketball, rather than backfire, the Division I Council has voted in favor of proposed new scheduling options that will provide teams with greater flexibility.

According to an article by NCAA Associate Director of Communications Greg Johnson, the new legislation now is subject to review by the NCAA’s board of directors “and isn’t considered final until the conclusion of that board’s meeting on Wednesday, April 29.”

The often-criticized NCAA, which is currently examining a range of issues including one-time exceptions for all student-athletes to transfer with immediate eligibility, as well as name, image and likeness possibilities, should do itself a favor and pass this proposal regarding new scheduling alternatives.

Per Johnson, if the NCAA board gives a green light to the measure, Division I men’s basketball programs could do one of three things as it pertains to their schedules:
•Schedule up to 28 regular-season games and compete in one multiple-team event that includes up to three contests.
•Schedule 29 regular-season encounters and a multiple-team event that includes up to two affairs.
•Schedule 29 regular-season meetings when the team does not participate in a multiple-team event.

These multiple-team events are generally considered the frequently held pre-season tournaments that squads participate in during their non-conference slates.

How these proposed changes will ultimately affect scheduling by high-majors and mid-majors during the out-of-conference calendar isn’t clear at this juncture, however, providing teams with more flexibility is a good idea for collegiate hoops.

That’s particularly apparent since multiple high-major leagues have moved to a 20-clash conference calendar, thereby reducing the amount of non-conference opportunities by two duels.

At present, units can go one of two ways with their schedules. They can play a schedule of 27 regular-season games, plus up to four battles in a multiple-team event. Or for crews that don’t suit up in these pre-season tourneys, they can have a schedule of up to 29 games.

Other criteria under the proposed changes include that squads can’t participate in the same multiple-team event more than once in any four-year period; a three-contest event must conclude within 10 days, and it’s within five days for a two-game tourney; all schools must play the same number of bouts in the event; and non-Division I programs can only compete if they serve as the tourney’s host.

Johnson wrote in his piece that the “legislation is intended to improve the multiple-team event environment and eliminate tack-on games that are not considered to be a legitimate part of an event.”

This is important and makes sense. For example, sometimes a high-major might compete in a pre-season tournament where it plays two contests in, say, New York City. But then that program might also have two home games, perhaps against mid-majors, that serve as the on-campus portion of the event. That always seemed odd.

Now, in all fairness, if these pre-season tournaments can’t contain more than three affairs, that in turn could eliminate opportunities for mid-majors to go on the road and play versus high-majors in the campus games of these events. It’s a valid concern that some mid-majors may appropriately have.

What the ripple effect then becomes will prove interesting to watch. If it results in fewer chances for mid-majors to schedule tough foes in the non-conference, that’s a shame. If it leads high-majors to suit up against more Power 5 competition, or even versus additional mid-majors outside of these pre-season tourneys, that’s potentially a plus.

We can all likely agree that scheduling is not a perfect science. Some will benefit more than others. But, ultimately, what does seem logical is that three scheduling options are preferred over two choices.