Sports media excels in creating straw man arguments, and we’ve certainly witnessed an abundance of that following the first weekend of the NCAA Tournament. After four days of competition, the Sweet 16 is set, yet one notable absence this year is Cinderella.
No seed higher than 10 has reached the round of 16, much to the disappointment of pundits eager to declare March Madness’s downfall due to a lack of upset surprises. ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith, chief among these critics, declared on Monday’s First Take that this absence of upsets signifies the “death” of March Madness.
“If this continues, it will be the death of college basketball.” 😯@stephenasmith weighs in on college basketball not having Cinderella teams pic.twitter.com/Km2HlCCjRv
— First Take (@FirstTake) March 24, 2025
I’m here to assure you, Stephen A., that March Madness will thrive without Cinderella—and might even improve as a result. It’s fairly straightforward to argue from a basketball perspective; after all, high-quality matchups among the best teams should lead to more entertaining games. Furthermore, the dynamics of NIL and the transfer portal have distributed talent more evenly across teams, resulting in increased competition.
However, even without such conjecture, Smith’s argument can be easily debunked through data. Viewership increases significantly when top teams compete in the NCAA Tournament (e.g., one-, two-, and three-seeds), while games with Cinderella teams often attract fewer viewers. An uneven matchup between a powerhouse and a lesser-known team usually yields a less engaging game, leading audiences to switch off earlier. Additionally, Cinderella teams often lack the historical appeal and recognition of traditional blue blood programs.
To illustrate, consider the college football landscape: would viewers be more inclined to watch a playoff game between Alabama and Michigan or one featuring Ohio State and North Texas? The obvious choice is the former. Looking at data from Sports Media Watch, last year’s Final Four included an 11-seed (NC State), which drew 2.67 million fewer viewers than the matchup between UConn and Alabama. Similarly, two years ago, the Final Four featuring San Diego State and Florida Atlantic attracted about one million fewer viewers than UConn and Miami.
The extreme Cinderella narrative of 2022, where Saint Peter’s reached the Elite Eight only to lose by 20 points to UNC, resulted in the least-watched late Sunday Elite Eight game since 2016. In contrast, matchups involving blue bloods generate significant ratings. For instance, the 2022 Final Four—including Duke, UNC, Kansas, and Villanova—saw both the Duke-UNC semifinal and the Kansas-UNC championship game average over 17 million viewers, a mark not surpassed since.
Moreover, in the years since 2012 when three out of four teams in the Final Four were one-seeds (2012, 2015, and 2018), the average audience for those tournaments was 17.75 million viewers. In comparison, years with two or fewer one-seeds averaged only 15.45 million viewers. This clearly indicates that fans prefer to see top teams face off against each other.
https://embeds.beehiiv.com/a79076af-c414-47ef-96e6-0322628bcaaf" data-test-id="beehiiv-embed" width="480" height="320" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="border-radius: 4px; border: 2px solid #e5e7eb; margin: 0; background-color: transparent;
Ultimately, viewers want to witness the best teams compete—this is why college football analysts endlessly debate whether the best or most deserving teams deserve playoff spots. The thrill of top competitors facing off far outweighs that of simply featuring the most deserving teams.
While it may be disappointing for those who wish to celebrate Cinderella stories in March, the reality is that if television executives had their choice, they would opt for one-seeds and traditional rivalries instead of an MEAC Tournament champion. And analytics show that fans are voting with their remotes accordingly.
