What some fans often forget is that sports are, above all, businesses. In the professional ranks, owners look at their teams as assets, while at the collegiate level, universities and the NCAA as a whole aim to use athletics to generate profit.

But when does business get in the way of the games themselves and of the fans’ experiences?

Recently, it seems that the answer to that question is “too often.”

Should a Major League Baseball team’s owner who receives revenue sharing money from other teams be required to use that money to improve his team?

For me, the answer is yes. Too often, owners have been able to use revenue sharing dollars to increase profits without attempting to put the best team out on the diamond. It has happened in Kansas City, Pittsburgh and almost any other city with perennially bad teams. This past offseason, the Florida Marlins were even warned by Major League Baseball for not spending enough of the money they received from revenue sharing.

It’s like the government making sure food stamps are actually used on food — it’s common sense.

Like it or not, as a sports fan, you would rather be a fan of teams like the Yankees and the Red Sox, who make it abundantly clear that their priority is to win games, not to pinch every penny. Maybe the owners that skimp off the top might actually do better if they invested more in their teams.

Obviously, the Yankees and the Red Sox are at inherent advantages because of the size of their markets, but that does not stop their primary interest from being winning, which isn’t always the case elsewhere.

Which raises the question, is it bad for their respective sports for the Yankees or the Lakers to be the best teams in their leagues year in and year out? Not for the MLB or NBA, it isn’t. When the large market teams are doing well, they make money. It’s not bad for the fans either. Both teams, like the Patriots in football or the Red Wings in hockey, are completely invested in winning at all costs, meaning the backlash against the large markets, to me, is unfounded.

Would the MLB, the fans or anyone besides opponents be happy if George Steinbrenner, John Henry or Jerry Buss simply profited more at the expense of their team’s success? I doubt it.

While MLB owners can be bad, the NCAA may be the worst.

Currently, the NCAA is exploring the idea of expanding the NCAA Basketball Tournament from 65 teams to 96 teams, which would be, in essence, messing up the best thing the NCAA does: March Madness.

No matter how the NCAA frames it, the idea is to make more money. More games equals pricier TV deals, more tickets and concessions sold, and thus, higher profits. It doesn’t take a Stanford student to figure that out.

March Madness is quite possibly the best sporting event there is each year. Thousands of Americans become temporary basketball fans every March because of it. Now the NCAA wants to make the 9-16 seeds play an extra “play-in” game to get in the tournament. Who really wants to watch the Northeast Conference runner-up play the third place team from the Ohio Valley Conference for the right to be pummeled by Kansas or Duke in the first round? Quinnipiac versus Eastern Illinois. Sounds thrilling.

Seriously though, I wouldn’t watch it, and neither would you. Hardly anyone watches the play-in game that currently exists. And the excuse that bubble teams won’t have gripes about not getting in anymore if the tournament has 96 is ludicrous. Now the 97th and 98th teams will be the ones crying. Where will it end?

But hey, it’s all about the money.

Which is why the NCAA won’t fix its real problem: the Bowl Championship Series in football. I’ve written about the stupidity of the BCS before, so I won’t bore you with it, but I will say that it exists solely because it makes the NCAA a lot of money.

It doesn’t take an expert to see that the NCAA’s eyes are looking the wrong way. Even tennis star Andy Roddick tweeted two weeks ago, “less talk about expanding NCAA bball field and more talk about a football playoff . . . “

Thanks Andy, but the BCS likely is here to stay, and March Madness will probably be turned into the profit-driven circus it is headed for.
Are you a fan that would be more than happy to see the Yankees, Red Sox or Lakers lose some success in exchange for a little more profit? If so, let Dan Bohm know you exist at [email protected].