It is possible to have too much of a good thing.
College basketball coaches recently suggested expanding the field for the NCAA Tournament to a 128 teams, citing the growth of parity in the game.
From this view, the idea is insane.
As it stands, 65 teams get picked for the spectacle each year, and while many good teams are left out, it’s working. For three weekends each spring, millions follow the action. And the only thing more fun than trying to fill out a bracket sheet with any sort of accuracy is debating which teams should have gotten into the tournament but did not.
Coaches say that the growth of the Division I ranks makes expansion necessary, but in reality, such a notion is merely a way to cover their own hides. For most programs, success is defined by qualifying for the tournament. If a coach can't get the job done in a four-year stretch, his job likely will be in jeopardy.
With 128 teams in the field, more coaches could reap the benefits of post-season play through exposure, bonuses, and recruiting tools. But where is the reward? The incentive to win a regular-season conference championship has all but disappeared with the emergence of conference tournaments. If the field were to expand again, teams wouldn't even have to bother showing up, provided they finished above .500 in league play.
Supporters cite the example of college football, which invites nearly half of its teams to the post-season buffet of bowl games. When something like the NCAA Tournament -- arguably the most successful and entertaining post-season in all of sports -- compares itself to something as flawed and problematic as college football’s shambles of a championship, that should be a red flag.
When you cut through all the options, one fact remains clear; there are simply too many teams playing Division I basketball. Many schools -- like Morris Brown a few years back, for example -- see the top-level game as a way to pump money into the university coffers.
Players and coaches, meanwhile, are thrust into the limelight and are unprepared for the competitive nature of the Division I game on the court, and in the checkbook.
George Mason, which advanced to the championship game this season, is offered up as another example for expansion. One of the last teams put into the field of 65; GMU shocked many by advancing to the Final Four. Slammed by pundits on CBS and hailed by basketball fans tired of the annual Duke Invitational-type championships, George Mason’s success was an illustration of the balance starting to emerge in the game.
High-profile underclassmen are coming to the big schools for a year or two at the most before moving on to the National Basketball Association. So-called mid-major schools reap the benefits, as they can keep their players around for four years. Senior leadership wins games, and can go a long way towards winning a championship.
The NCAA has been non-committal on the plan, saying that the current situation is fine. Rest assured, if it senses to make a bigger buck off of its biggest moneymaker, it will jump at the chance.
Expanding the field would be a great way for coaches to keep jobs, and the NCAA to make money, but it would do little for advancing the tournament.
As it stands now, 65 isn't the greatest number, but its working. Conceivably, every team in the land has a chance of making that field; it’s called the conference tournament.
Win it, and you're in.
College basketball coaches recently suggested expanding the field for the NCAA Tournament to a 128 teams, citing the growth of parity in the game.
From this view, the idea is insane.
As it stands, 65 teams get picked for the spectacle each year, and while many good teams are left out, it’s working. For three weekends each spring, millions follow the action. And the only thing more fun than trying to fill out a bracket sheet with any sort of accuracy is debating which teams should have gotten into the tournament but did not.
Coaches say that the growth of the Division I ranks makes expansion necessary, but in reality, such a notion is merely a way to cover their own hides. For most programs, success is defined by qualifying for the tournament. If a coach can't get the job done in a four-year stretch, his job likely will be in jeopardy.
With 128 teams in the field, more coaches could reap the benefits of post-season play through exposure, bonuses, and recruiting tools. But where is the reward? The incentive to win a regular-season conference championship has all but disappeared with the emergence of conference tournaments. If the field were to expand again, teams wouldn't even have to bother showing up, provided they finished above .500 in league play.
Supporters cite the example of college football, which invites nearly half of its teams to the post-season buffet of bowl games. When something like the NCAA Tournament -- arguably the most successful and entertaining post-season in all of sports -- compares itself to something as flawed and problematic as college football’s shambles of a championship, that should be a red flag.
When you cut through all the options, one fact remains clear; there are simply too many teams playing Division I basketball. Many schools -- like Morris Brown a few years back, for example -- see the top-level game as a way to pump money into the university coffers.
Players and coaches, meanwhile, are thrust into the limelight and are unprepared for the competitive nature of the Division I game on the court, and in the checkbook.
George Mason, which advanced to the championship game this season, is offered up as another example for expansion. One of the last teams put into the field of 65; GMU shocked many by advancing to the Final Four. Slammed by pundits on CBS and hailed by basketball fans tired of the annual Duke Invitational-type championships, George Mason’s success was an illustration of the balance starting to emerge in the game.
High-profile underclassmen are coming to the big schools for a year or two at the most before moving on to the National Basketball Association. So-called mid-major schools reap the benefits, as they can keep their players around for four years. Senior leadership wins games, and can go a long way towards winning a championship.
The NCAA has been non-committal on the plan, saying that the current situation is fine. Rest assured, if it senses to make a bigger buck off of its biggest moneymaker, it will jump at the chance.
Expanding the field would be a great way for coaches to keep jobs, and the NCAA to make money, but it would do little for advancing the tournament.
As it stands now, 65 isn't the greatest number, but its working. Conceivably, every team in the land has a chance of making that field; it’s called the conference tournament.
Win it, and you're in.
