As the greatest four days in sports approaches (what used to be known as the first and second round of the NCAA college basketball tournament), college basketball fans will have to get used to a slightly larger warm up act on Tuesday and Wednesday as the field is now officially expanded from 65 to 68.
I was never a fan of expanding past 64, but one extra game to see who could lose to the top ranked team in the country seemed harmless enough. But now one has to wonder if the floodgates are being opened a little too wide. Expanding to 68 retains a bit of harmlessness. But there are some serious issues in my mind.
Firstly, the expansion is not helpful to small, non-power programs. It is only helpful to power-conference teams who underachieved, but now have a chance for redemption.
The extra at-large bids are not going to be given to teams like Belmont in the Atlantic Sun Conference. Belmont is currently 20-4, 12-1 in the conference. Hot on their trail is East Tennessee State, who is 15-8, 10-2 in the conference. Let's say Belmont ends the regular season 26-5, but doesn't win their conference tournament. Do you think they're going to get an invitation over say Penn St. who may finish their regular season 18-11 or 17-12? I doubt it.
This expansion extends the bubble lower and includes teams that ought not to be included. Now I'm not saying that Belmont could undoubtedly beat Penn St. if they were to play, but those invited to the tournament need to do something during the regular season to earn their invitation. Teams in less powerful conferences who only lose a handful of games have done their job. Teams in more powerful conferences that have lost twelve or more games haven't done their job.
Secondly, this expansion makes it even more difficult for small programs to pull off upsets.
As you undoubtedly know, a 16 seed has never beaten a No. 1 seed. However, 2 seeds have fallen to 15 seeds. Even last year, a No. 2, Villanova, had to scrape to fight off a No. 15, Robert Morris (only to lose to a No. 10, St. Mary's, two days later).
If the 68 team field had existed last year, would Robert Morris even have had the chance to play Villanova? Or would have they been demoted to a No. 16 playing a No. 17 for a chance to face a slightly better opponent?
I don't think anybody can honestly say that they would rather see Penn State the 14 seed upset Missouri the 3 seed than Belmont the 14 seed upset Missouri the 3 seed, even if it destroys your bracket.
People love upsets, near upsets, buzzer-beaters, etc. It is what makes the tournament great. Those moments are more enjoyable in my opinion when they come from a school that seldom gets to the tournament, but is looking to make the most of their opportunity in the short time they have. We love to see Goliath fall down. We love to see Cinderella come to life. Why would we want more Goliaths who are nothing but pretenders?
Beyond that, the first round games are being played on Tuesday and Wednesday, March 15-16 in Dayton, Ohio. The four winners of those games will then have to travel to places like Tampa, Tucson, Denver, and Tulsa. Perhaps they may stay in the state and head up to Cleveland, but adding an extra game two days before facing a No. 1 seed is bad enough even if you played in the same arena. Now they're going to have to travel on their one day of rest.
Why are we stacking the deck further against the 16 seeds? I honestly thought that at some point in my lifetime, I would see a 16 knock off a one. If the current system stays, I don't think that will ever happen.
Thirdly, this expansion may pave the way for further expansion.
The reason expansion of the tournament may continue is pretty simple, money. More games, more television, more advertising, more money. The danger is that through expansion, fans like myself, who consider the NCAA tournament to be the greatest sports event of the year, will lose interest, and perhaps not have any interest at all in the opening round. I don't know about you, but I don't want to see Cinderella beat up Cinderella.
This year we have 68. Why not add another four and bump it up to 72, making potential 15s and 16s play an extra game? Why stop there? Why not continually add four more until you reach 96, giving anybody with a one through eight seed a first round bye. Hell, why even stop there? Why not just double the field and have one seeds play 32 seeds. Doesn't 128 teams in the field sound great?
How long must this go on before we just turn the entire college basketball season into one giant tournament?
Finally, this expansion makes the season less meaningful.
As I mentioned before, teams with 12 losses that make the tournament make me shake my head. How many losses are we going to see this year's bubble teams have, 14 or 15? I hope not, but any further expansion will showcase those numbers rather quickly. Teams that manage to stay above .500 don't simply deserve an invitation. A team's performance in the regular season needs to retain some semblance of meaning.
If further expansion does occur, I think certain steps need to be taken to ensure big name conferences don't suck up every single at-large bid. Unfortunately, putting a cap on how many teams from each conference can get into the tournament will be rather difficult considering the Big East has 16 teams while the Great West has seven teams.
If the tournament were to spread to 96 teams, a two team minimum per conference might be in order. I think every conference regular season champion and conference tournament champion would need an invitation. If the same team managed both feats, perhaps that could open an at-large bid slot, but not necessarily.
The lack of consistency in the system drives me crazy. Why can't the maximum or minimum number in a conference be a little closer together than seven and 16? I'm not saying we need to add another team to the Ivy League or anything, but can't we agree on between eight and 12? Perhaps one must get in, two must not get in for each?
If expansion continues, those inconsistencies will need to be addressed so that the dream of Cinderella can stay alive.
Leave a Comment