This week marks the start of March Madness, long awaited by college basketball fans, but also the week that Viacom chairman Summer Redstone and the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, Myles Brand, have been waiting for since last April. Redstone has secured all NCAA men’s basketball tournament-related content for his various broadcast platforms, including CBS and CSTV, March Madness on Demand, Westwood One radio, and other properties such as iTunes and DirecTV. In exchange, Brand’s NCAA will collect about $503 million.

It’s a straightforward business transaction: CBS gets the NCAA men’s tournament, including the Final Four and the Championship Game and the big audience that comes with those games (although the audience will not come near the numbers posted by television’s “American Idol,” the Super Bowl, or Major League Baseball’s World Series). Brand will dole out Redstone’s money to various NCAA member colleges for whatever purposes those schools deem fit; generally the funds will go to support campus sports programs. But the money may not be enough for many programs since a number of big-time college and university athletic programs claim they are losing propositions.

The Redstone-Brand deal highlights another notable component: The NCAA continues to enjoy tax-exempt status. Last fall, Bill Thomas, a former House representative and a chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, called into question whether the NCAA deserved the tax exemption. After Democrats seized control of the House in November, Rep. Charles Rangel, a Democrat of Harlem, became chairman of the powerful committee, and maintained that he might review the exemption as well.

During his tenure, Thomas became concerned that college sports, with their skyrocketing coaches’ salaries, the continued need for new and renovated stadiums and arenas, and enhanced revenue streams from club seats and luxury boxes and ballooning television contracts was becoming too much like professional sports. In a letter to Brand, Thomas asked, “Why should the federal government subsidize the athletic activities of educational institutions when that subsidy is used to help pay for escalating coaches’ salaries, costly chartered travel, and state of the art facilities?”

On January 7 on ABC’s “This Week” program, Rangel told host George Stephanopoulos, “I will be taking a look at all tax exemptions.” He added, “I certainly join with Bill Thomas on that, in taking a hard look at that as well as many, many other tax-[exempt] organizations.”

So far the Harlem Democrat has not addressed the NCAA’s tax exemption. And according to Rangel’s press secretary, Emile Milne, the congressman isn’t going to get around to those hearings anytime soon.

Milne said last Friday that Rangel is not focusing solely on the NCAA situation and that the NCAA issue would be reviewed by members of the Ways and Means Committee, along with that of other groups.

In November, Brand sent Thomas a 25-page letter making the case to the retiring congressman that the NCAA was dedicated first and foremost to educating its athletes. Brand cited recent academic reforms that strengthened eligibility standards and studies that showed the average SAT scores of athletes to be higher than those of the general student population to underscore his point.

Brand, a former president of Indiana University, also defended the high salaries awarded to basketball and football coaches, writing, “If the educational purpose of college basketball could be preserved only by denying the right to telecast the events — students, university faculty and staff, alumni, the institutions of higher education themselves, and even the American taxpayer would ultimately lose. The scale of popularity and the media attention given to football and men’s basketball do not forfeit for those two sports the educational purpose for which they exist.”

The NCAA president suggested to Thomas that successful football and basketball teams attract nonstudent athletes to their facilities. Thomas seemed unimpressed. “Federal taxpayers have no interest in increasing applicant pools at one school opposed to another,” he said. He also questioned why men’s college basketball coaches on average earn about four to five times the salary that women’s team coaches make. “What additional educational benefit do men’s basketball coaches provide beyond that which is provided by women’s basketball coaches?” he asked.

It would be rather refreshing if Rangel did in fact hold hearings on the matter. Should a panel be convened, it should also address some issues that are in need of clarification, beginning with Title IX and rumors that many schools are cutting various men’s programs to comply with Title IX rules. In fact, many schools appear to be dropping certain men’s sports programs because of the rising cost of insurance — not Title IX.

Whether student activity fees should be going to the building or renovation of sports facilities at both big and small college programs, and whether non-athletes can use the athletic facilities that they pay for with student activity fees, ought also to be examined.

And there are additional questions, such as why college programs seem to have a bottomless need for additional income? Shouldn’t universities and colleges with big programs be able to support themselves financially? And should student fees go toward supporting money-losing programs?

While Congress is determining whether schools with major basketball programs are more concerned with education or marketing opportunities, they should haul NBA commissioner David Stern before a committee and ask him why an 18-year-old who is not pursuing a college education should be barred from joining his industry’s workforce. Stern doesn’t want recent high school graduates in his league and wants NBA scouts kept out of high school gyms despite U.S. military recruits being allowed in high schools across the country.

There are numerous issues to keep Congress busy, including whether college athletes should be compensated for their efforts, the issue of voluntary practices, insurance, pressure from press and broadcast outlets, the presence of advertisers and boosters on university and college campuses. Ultimately, Congress should consider whether athletes are really getting an education or just being pushed through the system, taking bogus classes that raise grade point averages, so that people like Brand can boast what a good job the NCAA is doing on education.

All of these questions can fit neatly into a hearing centered on the tax exemption issue. Congress has brought the NCAA before various committees in the past, but has done little to change the pro sports mentality of big-time college sports programs. Don’t expect that to change anytime in the future.

evanjweiner@yahoo.com