Expand the NCAA Tournament now
It's time to expand the NCAA's.
Expand the NCAA Tournament now
Rich Hofmann, Daily News Sports Columnist
The NCAA Tournament is at a crossroads, if anybody wants to be honest about it. This isn't all about Virginia Commonwealth or Butler or the most wide-open Final Four we have ever seen. This is a trend now, and it needs to be recognized and acknowledged in the only way that makes intellectual sense.
They need to expand the tournament, to 96 teams at the least. And they need to do it now.
I know we all grew up with something smaller, and we all came to love the 64-team format. There was a symmetry to the bracket that seemed to comfortable. But the truth is that the tournament expanded not in search of symmetry, but in search of money -- and, more importantly, because there were more qualified teams than ever as more and more schools poured more and more money into the sport.
Well, it is time again.
Ninety-six. At least.
We all heard for weeks leading up to Selection Sunday how bad the bubble teams were in a 68-team tournament, and how it was hard to find deserving teams to fill the final spots on the bracket. But now that one of the recipients of those final invitations -- VCU -- has Shaka'd the world, this really needs to be recognized and acted upon.
The current system fails too many schools from too many conferences outside of the big six (ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10 and Big East). The current system, in fact, perpetuates the dominance of those big six. So much is based upon strength of schedule, and those schools only reluctantly play outisde the family, and the result is that you get this ESPN-fueled inbreeding of the bracket every year. It takes a mighty strong committee to withstand the on-air onslaught in favor of the big schools and the big conferences, and most are not that strong. Most are afraid to say out loud what everybody knows, and what this tournament again has demonstrated: that there are more teams capable of winning two or three or four games in this thing than there have ever been.
More teams need to be given that chance.
Again, this is not a 1-year thing. Let's look at a rolling 5-year analysis of the total number of teams outside of the BCS conferences who made it to the Sweet 16. Each season, then, is the total of the previous five years of those outsiders making it through to the second weekend.
2001...15
2002...14
2003...12
2004...12
2005...12
2006...14
2007...16
2008...19
2009...18
2010...21
2011...21
The pattern is pretty clear. More of these middling schools from the big conferences are losing to more of these schools from the outsider conferences. This is the crossroads, then. Is the NCAA going to acknowledge this and expand the field, or is it going to continue to cater to the BCS leagues (perhaps out of a fear that they'll all just pull out and have their own tournament).
The NCAA could widen the representation in two ways. One would be to limit the number of bids per conference (and don't tell me it's unAmerican; they used to limit it to one team per conference, back in the day). The other would be to expand the field. Ninety-six is not a terrible number.
They could expand on the "First Four" concept they began this year. It would go like this: everybody gets seeded into four regions, each with 24 teams. In the first round, the top four teams in each region would receive a bye, as would the bottom four teams (all automatic qualifiers). Everybody in between would play a first-round game. The top teams would get the warmup cupcake that they earned, the cupcakes would get their day in the sun, and everybody else would slug it out in smaller arenas like the Palestra. The tournament would take the same amount of time that this year's took.
Don't like 96? How about 80 teams with a limit of eight per conference? Or 76 with a limit of seven per conference? There are ways to do this if there is the desire. Given the realities, it is time.
The last word goes to Fran Dunphy. The Temple coach offered this valedictory after his team's double-overtime loss to San Diego State in the second round of the tournament. After three of his players had left the podium, he talked about the experience:
I think it's a tremendous extravaganza, in all honesty. You are so thrilled to be a part of it. Then when you can win and then you have a chance to move on, it's a thrilling experience.
I will say this to you. If somebody asked me, I would expand the field in a heartbeat because these kids, they're never going to get this experience again. Hopefully our guys will get it if we can get back to -- get back to the tournament next year. But once they leave this college experience, it's a phenomenal thing. So I really wish there were more teams that had the opportunity. Because in all honesty, what are we in this for? We're in it for the experience each and every one of these kids can get.
So when you fly out here and you get a special treatment by everybody that you deal with, it's a tremendous opportunity. So I would like to expand it to as many kids as possible. I know people say water it down. Well, it's gone from 16 to 32 to 64 to 65 to 68, I haven't seen any watered down yet. So if somebody would ask me, I'd like to bump it out again because of the experience. And that's what we do.
Those three guys that just sat up here, that's what you do. Without them, I'm pretty much insignificant. So I'd rather be significant and I'd like to deal with these guys as much as possible.
It's a thrilling opportunity and I'm so glad that our kids had a chance to do it. I just wish it was open to more people.
Rich, not completely following your need to do a five-year analysis for the purpose of listing how many non-BCS school made it to each year's Sweet Sixteen, Had you instead just listed how many made it each year, your argument would be just as compelling without causing the reader to suspect you were trying to exaggerate the impact. The impact is strong enough - 3, 4, 5, even 6 small conference teams in a given year crashing the Sweet Sixteen - to warrant your expansion cause.
For me, I've always been of the mind that 64 (68, now) is enough but until the powers that be institute additional guidelines such as some of those you listed (e.g. no more than 7 or 8 teams per conference), thereby allowing more representation from smaller conferences even within the 68-team construct, I would have to agree with you and Fran Dunphy on widening the experience for as many kids as possible to enjoy.— advantasux- The question is would Fran sing a different tune if he coached at Kansas?— CrashTestCorzine
- I think you have the number one team in the field if you go sixty-four deep. March madness does't need fixing, football bowl games need fixing.— Joe at the shore
- I am a big fan of the Colonial Athletic Association (CAA) since I am an alumnus of UNC-Wilmington. We have had a really good basketball conference for more than a decade with some impressive wins in the tournament on the CAA's resume (2 Final Fours in the last 6 years with only 4 at large selctions in that time period). With that said, I disagree about the expansion of the tourney. The rule that needs to change is the 1 year rule. This rule needs to be like baseball's rule and be 3 years. The NBA DL is good enough to stick the guys who want to skip college altogether. The NBA is currently watered down with "potential" on the bench. Chances are, the power conferences would have more time to play together and be able to knock out the senior dominated lineups of the VCU's and Butler's of the college basketball.— Clt Philly Fan
- Rich, they already expanded the field, twice. With your logic, they might as well let everybody in and start the tournament in January. It would be better to eliminate some of the big-conference schools that don't finish in the top 25%, say, of their respective conference.
Also, without doing a real statistical analysis, I'm not sure that your figures indicate a real trend. It might or it might not. What if the number dropped to 16 the next two years?— nellar - Yup, Joe, before messing with b-ball, let's get a real tournament for the biggies in college football...— M60tanker
- Rich, you're insane. What you fail to mention is that the NCAA basketball tournament is the only sports playoff that LOSES fan interest as it continues. Think about it. The only people who care about the final four or the championship game are the fans of the schools involved and the people who are still alive in their brackets. And there aren't many of either of those. The casual fan has already checked out. And now you propose expanding the field? To what end? To lengthen a tournament that loses fans with every game it plays? That's madness.
— TexColorado - until a 16 seed upsets a 1 seed there is no reason to expand the tournament— mdelrossi1
- Rich, Expanding the tournament would allow the people in the selection committee the opportunity to name 14 Big East Schools, 10 ACC, 10 SEC, 9 Big 12, 9 Big Ten and 8 Pac Ten. That is 60 spots being burned up by the large conferences and still the same amout of opportunity for the mid majors who may be able to get a handful more in the tourney.— rvb2321
- why don't we just get rid of the regular season and start the tourney in december...
- Another thing, with every additional team that's accepted into the tournament, you further water down the accomplishment. What makes playing in this tournament so exciting is the fact that you have you really earn your way in. The more teams they accept the less that accomplishment means. However, they should include more mid majors, and they can accomplish that by doing what has already been mentioned. Capping the the number of teams from each conference. If you can't finish in the top portion of your conference than you've shown you don't deserve another shot. The mid major teams haven't been given that shot in the regular season and more teams should be given the opportunity.— birdsfaninnc
- VCU and Butler don't belong in the Final Four, which should be reserved for only schools like Kansas, Connecticut, Duke, and North Carolina, for example. The tournament should become like the bowl system, have teams like VCU and Butler play each other, while reserving the big game for real teams, not jokers who got lucky.— eldiablodelsol2009
- Ridiculous arguement. Teams have a chance to "win and move on", their Conference Tournanment. Win it, and in most cases, your in the NCAA. The answer is not to expand everything. bigger does not mean better. That holds true for the MLB playoffs, the NFL regular season, College Football Bowl games. Enough! you play the regular season for a reason. at the beginning of that season, everyone has a chance. If you don't make it, too bad. yes it is a reality that one of the teams that didn't make the playoffs could have hit form and made a run. The answer is to make that run earlier in the year, not expand the tournament.— gee1971
- Agree with someone up above. Until a 16 seed beats a 1 seed, then expanding is not necessary. Also, I understand that the bubble and non-major teams have increasingly made it further into the tournament, but it becomes muddled in the 90s when making the tournament becomes less prestigious. And let's face it.. part of the fun about the tourney stems from the selectivity of it. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the number of bowl games in CFB is routinely mocked. (Nevermind that CFB could use a facelift itself.)— trungy
- If VCU should win the NCAAs, would that mean they were the best team in the country? Or the one that got lucky on a three-week run? How many games would VCU win, head to head, with Duke, Kansas, N. Carolina, etc. on a regular basis? If VCU and Butler played each other for the title, what would that prove. Congratulations to both, but let's not kid ourselves that they are elite teams. Expanding the tournament would be just as bad as the football bowl situation, where any tem with a just-above .500 record can qualify for a bowl, no matter how contrived. Over half of all the Div I teams played in a bowl last year. Why should teams be rewarded for 8-5 seasons? March Madness is great as it is. Sure, coaches would love to give their kids post-season experience, but putting team in just for the sake of putting teams in is no great experience. It would make the regular season and conference tournies meaningless.— mike l
