NCAA Madness: Don’t Change the Tourny or We’ll Be on You Like Goverment on a Dollar Bill

Thought I had posted this before, but even if I did, it’s worthy of a double-post. Here some of the reasons why the NCAA should NOT change the field to 84 or 96 or any huge random number.

1. The current setup is widely considered the best post season in all of sports. Forking with it runs the risk of screwing that up.
2. Any decision where $$$ is the primary motive should be beyond suspect.
3. Adding more teams now, takes us further down the path of adding more teams later, which taken to its inevitable conclusion will kill the whole thing. NCAA is to common sense, what Bud Light is to real beer.
4. While adding more games may be fun for (some) fans, it increases the likelihood that the best team(s) in the country will have one bad game and we’ll end up with the winner being the best team of March, rather than the best team of the year.
5. Adding more less qualified teams makes it more like the NBA, which, for people who’ve been following the NBA for years believe it’s become worse, not better.
6. While I agree that people shouldn’t do things solely for tradition, maintaining a strong tradition does have some value. Kentucky fans know the value of a strong tradition.
7. No matter what the number of at-large participants, there will always be some that feel slighted. Any argument that tries to say there will be less of those is incorrect, unless of course, all the teams are entered which, in all seriousness, is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
8. The post season is a reward to teams that have superior regular seasons. Adding more teams to the tourney makes the regular season less important. The farther you go, the less important it becomes (see NBA).

Updated 3/8 for @greggdoyelcbs
Per Greg’s article (nothing draws page views like controversy!), here’s his primary reasons FOR expanding the field, with my comments beneath.

Greg: But it’ll water down the regular season and conference tournaments!
Most every agrees that this is truth. You found a single example, George Mason, that supports this view but if it were worthwhile, wouldn’t we have like a dozen? A gross? A buh-zillion?!?

Greg: But what about the student-athletes? Think of the extra time they’ll miss from school!
Not a big point for either side of the issues, most assuredly not the NCAA as they push for morerevenuemorerevenuemorerevenue.

Greg: The tournament is three weeks as it is. Last thing I want is for it to grow to four weeks.
Who says this? I haven’t read a single article using this point. Talk about your straw man. It’s not that growing something that people like even larger is automatically a bad idea but keep in mind that the newly added games won’t be ones anyone will car about. Murray State vs. Louisiana Tech?!? *yawn* And I’m a huge college basketball fan.

Greg: But the No. 1 seeds will get a first-round bye. That’s not fair.
Right, so why expand it? More byes=bad, plus who doesn’t love symmetry? I say we go back to 64. Moving to 65 was a mistake.

Greg: But 96 teams? I don’t want to see those crappy teams in the tournament!
Out of the new additions to the tourney, a few will win a game (maybe two) but most will be less memorable than a recent Steve Martin movie. Why add the also rans? They had their chance to solidify their tourney position down the final 2-3 weeks of the season (yeah, the season that had meaning) so if they didn’t get done then, why subsidize them like a new Obama dis-incentive plan.

Greg: But I’m against expanding the tournament to 96 teams. I just am.
If this is their primary reason, it says more about the person and their lack of communication skills than it does the merits of keeping the best post season in all of sports as the King of the Hill.