March Madness Is Still Great—But the Format Is Showing Cracks

The NCAA March Madness tournament is the most entertaining event in American sports. That’s my view—but even if you disagree, it’s hard to deny its place as the bridge from winter into spring. March Madness delivers unmatched excitement, but beneath the buzzer beaters and Cinderella runs, the structure of college sports is increasingly shaped by television revenue—not competition.

The pageantry, heroics, and Cinderella runs create lasting stories. The emotion—raw, immediate, and often unfiltered—cements the tournament in American lore. One play, one shot, one steal can turn a teenager into a national figure overnight. As an example, in Storrs, Mullins will be remembered forever, while the name Laettner is still spoken of like a villain from a different era.

But the format, like the College Football Playoff, shows cracks. Play-in games—especially for 11 seeds—highlight a system driven less by competition and more by television inventory. More games mean more revenue. That’s the reality.

The losing team in an 11-seed play-in goes home without ever reaching the true field. Why not seed them properly as 12s? Because few would watch expanded games at the lowest seeds. And realistically, are there 68 teams capable of winning a national title?

College football faces the same question. Are there truly 12 to 16 national title contenders? No. The regular season still matters—or should. Instead, power conferences continue to consolidate programs, concentrating talent and influence. Again, television drives the structure.

March Madness remains exceptional. But selection and structure still favor large conferences—the ones that deliver ratings. Visibility, not balance, shapes the field. Sports create shared moments and common ground in ways almost nothing else can. But when revenue becomes the primary driver, the game doesn’t just change—it quietly stops being fair.

Smell the Grass — Finding Common Ground Again

Common Ground — Essays on shared experiences that bring people together.

Modern life often feels defined by disagreement. Every issue becomes a debate, every moment another argument, every headline a new dividing line. Yet most people spend far more of their lives sharing ordinary experiences than fighting over differences.

This series explores those shared moments.

Sports fields, small-town stadiums, neighborhood parks, and community traditions have long created spaces where people gather simply to be present together. In those places, political labels fade, strangers become neighbors, and the common rhythms of life take center stage.

Disagreement will always exist, and that is healthy. But constant, imposed division is something different. The purpose of this series is to rediscover the quieter experiences that remind us how much we still share.

Sometimes common ground is found in big moments — a championship game, a comeback season, a dramatic final play.

More often it is found in smaller ones: the smell of freshly cut grass, the sound of a crowd settling in, a rookie making their first catch under the evening sun.

These essays are about slowing down long enough to notice those moments — and remembering that life, while often described as short, is also the longest thing any of us will ever do.

Long enough to appreciate the game.

Modern media runs on debate. Every event must produce a take, every moment a controversy, every broadcast another argument.

Disagreement itself is not the problem.

Constant division is.

There was a time when sports reminded us of something simpler — that people who disagree about many things can still sit side by side and enjoy the same moment.

The real power of sports has never lived in debate shows.

It lives in the field, the crowd, and the shared experience.

A warm evening at the ballpark.
The smell of freshly cut grass drifting through the air.
Chalk lines along the baselines.
A rookie in right field squinting into the sun waiting for the next fly ball.

Nothing dramatic is happening.

Yet something meaningful is.

For decades sports created a rhythm in everyday life. A long baseball season unfolding slowly through summer nights. Friday night football bringing a town together. Families listening on the porch or gathering around a television simply to watch the game.

These experiences were never about urgency.

They were about presence.

We often hear that life is short. That phrase pushes us to hurry, to chase the next thing.

But there is another way to look at it.

Life is also the longest thing any of us will ever do.

Which means the small moments matter.

Anyone who has played the game knows the feeling. Standing in the grass with dirt on your hands. Teammates laughing between innings. The sun beginning to set beyond the outfield fence.

And suddenly the score doesn’t matter.

The inning doesn’t matter.

All you want is for that moment to last a little longer — the grass under your cleats, the dirt on your hands, the voices of teammates and fans blending together in the background.

You are simply there.

Sports have always created spaces where division fades. In the stands no one asks who you voted for. Strangers high-five after a big play. Neighbors sit together simply enjoying the same evening.

For a few hours, everyone shares the same moment.

Today those moments often get buried beneath debate about draft picks, trades, or controversies. The games themselves — and the quiet community around them — receive less attention than the arguments.

That is unfortunate, because sports may still be one of the last places where people naturally gather around something positive.

The comeback player.
The rookie’s first big play.
The veteran chasing one last season.

These stories do not need debate panels to give them meaning. They unfold naturally on the field.

And when people watch them together, something else happens as well: we remember that we share far more than we often admit.

This essay begins a series about rediscovering that common ground.

Disagreement is part of life. It always will be.

But constant, imposed division is not.

Sometimes the best way to reconnect is simply to sit in the stands, feel the dirt between your fingers, watch the sun dip behind the stadium lights, and realize that for a few hours everyone is just enjoying the same game.

Life is short.

Life is also long.

Long enough to slow down, notice the moment, and appreciate the people around us.

Sometimes the best thing we can do is slow down.

Smell the grass.

And remember what brings us together.

Chris McCarty writes about leadership, culture, and the role of sport in community life. His essays explore how shared experiences—particularly sports—can bring people together in a divided media environment.

We Don’t Cover Sports Anymore. We Monetize Them.

Sports media used to center on competition.

Now it centers on monetization.

The shift is structural, not accidental.

A single dominant league drives massive broadcast contracts. Networks invest billions. Coverage naturally bends toward that investment — year-round, in season or not.

Meanwhile, gambling partnerships are embedded into the broadcast infrastructure. Odds scroll across screens. Studio segments are sponsored by sportsbooks. Analysts reference spreads as casually as statistics.

The game is still played.

But it is no longer the primary product.

The Single-League Echo Chamber

When one league becomes the economic engine of a network, it becomes the editorial engine too.

Its offseason dominates headlines.
Its draft speculation fills weeks of programming.
Its trade rumors eclipse actual games being played in other leagues.

Baseball pennant races.
Hockey playoffs.
International competition.

All compete for oxygen against speculative discussion about a league that may not even be in season.

That is not purely organic demand. It is reinforced importance. And over time, it narrows the national sports conversation.

Other major leagues are treated as secondary properties instead of primary competitions.

Gambling as Default Engagement

Sports betting is no longer adjacent to sports media. It is integrated into it.

Viewers are encouraged to have “action” on every game, every quarter, every possession.

The language has changed:

Not “How does this team adjust?”
But “Will this hit the over?”

This reframes why people watch.

Worse, it normalizes financial risk as entertainment. For many viewers — particularly younger ones — gambling is presented as frictionless participation.

But debt incurred on a mobile app during halftime is still debt.

When promotion is constant and disclaimers are minimal, the ethical tension is obvious.

Entertainment becomes a delivery system for financial exposure.

Speculation Over Substance

Mock drafts months in advance.
Trade rumors built on anonymous sourcing.
Daily debate about hypothetical roster moves.

Speculation now receives more sustained attention than actual competition.

A Tuesday rumor can eclipse a Saturday performance.

Traditional sports journalism once emphasized:

  • Tactical breakdowns
  • Player development
  • Investigative accountability
  • Film study

Now much of the airtime is filled with prediction, reaction, and manufactured urgency.

Speculation is cheaper to produce than analysis. It fills programming blocks. It drives engagement metrics.

But it trains fans to care more about transaction theater than execution.

What We’re Losing

When coverage prioritizes:

  • League dominance
  • Gambling integration
  • Narrative speculation

The craft of sport fades into the background.

Fans become consumers of content rather than students of the game.

And loyalty built on appreciation of skill, preparation, and competition is replaced by short-term engagement.

Sports at their best are strategic, merit-driven, and communal. They do not require constant drama or wagering prompts to be compelling.

But when monetization becomes the primary lens, the competition becomes secondary.

And when competition becomes secondary long enough, we stop loving the game.

We simply consume it.

Football Went Streaming—and Fans Are Paying the Price

Before we go any further, a quick clarification:

This is about football.

Not medicine.
Not emergency services.
Not the distribution of clean drinking water.

No one’s life is on the line if Thursday Night Football buffers. (Tempers, maybe. Friendships, occasionally. Lives? No.)

Which makes it all the more impressive how complicated watching a football game has become.

There was a time when watching football required a television, a chair, and a strong opinion about officiating. Today, it requires an internet connection, a budget spreadsheet, multiple subscriptions, and the quiet acceptance that you are paying for the same thing several times.

The New Math of Watching One Game

To watch a single Thursday night NFL game, many fans now need:

  • High-speed internet (mandatory)
  • Amazon Prime (exclusive access)
  • Cable or a live-TV streaming service (because the rest of the league still lives there)

This is not a bundle.
It’s a subscription relay race.

Nothing replaced anything else. Cable didn’t get cheaper. Streaming didn’t simplify the experience. Another bill just quietly appeared and hoped no one would notice.

Paying More, Still Watching Commercials

After paying for internet and Prime, fans are rewarded with commercials.

Full commercial breaks. Sponsored segments. On-screen graphics politely reminding you that a corporation exists and would like your attention during third-and-long.

Traditionally, there was a tradeoff:

  • Free TV had ads
  • Paid services reduced them

Now the model is:

  • Paid services have ads
  • More paid services have… the same ads

At some point, “premium” stops meaning anything.

Streaming Doesn’t Actually Expand Access

The phrase “streaming expands access” sounds convincing until it meets reality.

Millions of Americans:

  • Lack reliable broadband
  • Live in rural areas with unstable connections
  • Are older and don’t want to troubleshoot apps for kickoff
  • Are military families relying on broadcast feeds
  • Are priced out entirely

Broadcast television solved this problem decades ago. It was free, reliable, and worked during bad weather—sometimes especially during bad weather.

Exclusive streaming narrows access. It just does so with better user interface design.

Baseball’s Local Model: Better Intent, Same Friction

Baseball offers a useful comparison.

For years, Major League Baseball leaned on Regional Sports Networks to preserve a local feel. Local announcers. Local narratives. Teams that felt tied to their cities (or in my case, all of New England) rather than national content schedules.

That part worked.

The flaws came later: expensive cable bundles, blackout rules, and fragmented subscriptions. Fans often needed multiple services just to follow one team. The access problem didn’t disappear—it evolved.

So no, baseball’s model isn’t perfect.

But the intent mattered. The goal was to keep the sport rooted locally. The NFL’s streaming exclusivity moves in the opposite direction—away from locality and toward centralized, subscription-first access.

Baseball struggled to modernize without losing its identity. Football risks skipping that struggle and losing the identity outright.

Streaming Isn’t the Villain. Exclusivity Is.

Streaming is fine. Helpful, even. Although most of the time I can’t find a single piece of engaging, original content across the myriad services, over-heating my credit card. But it offers:

  • Better production tools
  • Alternative broadcasts
  • Mobile access
  • Innovation

The problem isn’t streaming—it’s replacement.

Streaming should supplement broadcast access, not eliminate it. This isn’t a radical idea. It’s how the league operated successfully for decades.

A reasonable compromise still exists:

  • Let streaming platforms innovate and produce
  • Keep free over-the-air broadcasts in local markets
  • Preserve national simulcasts for major games

Everyone wins. Fans included.

Perspective Matters

Again, this is football.

Nobody’s life depends on watching a Thursday night game. But culture depends on shared experiences, and football remains one of the few left that still runs on a common clock.

Families watch together. Bars fill up. Towns pause. Military bases gather. That communal rhythm weakens when access turns into a subscription obstacle course.

When following your team starts to feel like managing a phone plan, something has gone wrong.

The Bottom Line

Fans should not have to:

  • Pay for internet
  • Pay for multiple subscriptions
  • And still sit through the same commercials

…to watch a sport that built its popularity on accessibility.

Modernize the delivery. Innovate the experience. Absolutely.

Just don’t confuse stacking paywalls with progress.

It’s football.
Not a space launch.
It doesn’t need to be this complicated.

At this rate, the next evolution of football will just be a free trial.

Chris