While Boston University basketball fans lament Wednesday night’s season-ending loss to Virginia Commonwealth University in the College Basketball Invitational (CBI) semifinals, the debate in most college basketball circles centers on a proposition to expand the NCAA’s traditional field of 64 (65, if you count the play-in game) to 96 .
After all, more teams means more madness, right?
Not necessarily. College basketball is, arguably, one of the only major college sports with a proper post-season system. (See the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), which rewards mediocrity by extending bowl invitations to universities with up to six regular season losses). The NCAA has achieved and maintained such a favorable balance in it’s basketball tourney by offering spots only to some of the nation’s highest performing programs (some of whom happen to be conference tournament champions).
“I think it makes it a really special tournament when only 64 get in,” Washington State coach Ken Bone told the Associated Press in February. “I really like it the way it is now.”
And, as a fan of college basketball, it’s hard to shake the feeling that a 32-team expansion would somehow “cheapen” the tournament (for fans, players and coaches). Would the Big Dance really be as special with a field of 96? Sorry, I don’t think so. And, although it may seem simple to point out that a 64-team bracket invariably excludes several high-caliber (possibly tourney-worthy) teams, it’s markedly more difficult to argue that 32 such teams exist. Say what you’d like, but sports are all about exclusion.
Didn’t punch your ticket to the Dance this year? Think you’re worthy? Prove it next year (sports fanatics LOVE the drama).
Some proponents also argue that a larger tournament field means more Cinderella stories, more upsets and (possibly) more excitement. But, could a 96-team field actually hurt more than it helps? Michael McCarthy of USA Today seems to think so:
“A 96-team field could water down college basketball’s signature event,” McCarthy said. “It could decrease interest and audiences for regular season games and conference tournaments. It could eliminate the suspense of Selection Sunday and bubble-watching in general.”
Not to mention, an expansion would probably destroy the National Invitational Tournament (NIT). I know, I know — so what?!?! But, there’s a reason that there are NITs, CBIs and CITs: some teams (like BU this season) don’t deserve a spot in the Big Dance; but, they have, at the very least, earned themselves a shot at some sort of post-season championship — that’s where the NIT, CBI and CIT come in. Why punish those teams by getting rid of such tournaments? (As ESPN senior writer Gene Wojciechowski points out, “the NIT is for teams that belong in the Little Dance, not the Big Dance. Increasing the field to 96 teams would create a shotgun wedding between NIT-quality teams and NCAA tournament-quality programs.”)
With that said, let’s get real, people — the driving force behind the NCAA’s expansion talk is money. (I know, crazy and unexpected, right?)
According to SI.com, the NCAA can opt out of the final three years of its 11-year, $6 billion contract with CBS. So, if the NCAA does decide to expand its staple Spring tourney, it will (in all likelihood) bolt and see how much it could get on the open market (it could, most likely, get tons of cash).
So, NCAA expansionists, which is it? Is your opinion driven by fairness, or is it, as many “experts” seem to believe, driven almost entirely by the almighty dollar? Call me a cynic, but I think it’s more of the latter.
The NCAA tournament (as is) isn’t broken (it’s not perfect, but it’s not broken), so, why, might I ask, would you try to “fix” it?
