Jay Bilas has long said the NCAA tournament is idiot-proof.<\/p>\n
Despite all the dysfunction within and hypocrisy espoused by the NCAA over the years, the one thing that always remained intact was the annual magic of the NCAA tournament. With its broad-reaching allure, the vernacular\u00a0of March \u2013 12 seeds ousting five seeds, \u201csurvive and advance\u201d being uttered countless times and bracketology thriving as a cottage industry \u2013 needs no explanation.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is perfect as it is,\u201d Mike Aresco, the AAC commissioner, told\u00a0On3. \u201cEverybody loves it the way it is.\u201d<\/p>\n
But now change \u2013 potentially wholesale changes \u2013 may be on the horizon. The NCAA\u2019s Division I Transformation Committee\u2019s report in January recommended that sports with a high number of programs increase the number of teams in their championships to 25 percent. For men\u2019s and women\u2019s basketball, that equates to 90 teams in each tournament, a dramatic increase from the current 68.<\/p>\n
The Division I Men\u2019s and Women\u2019s Basketball committees will assess the recommendation over the course of this year. On the men\u2019s side, in addition to potential additional rights-revenue considerations, which On3 detailed Wednesday<\/a>, a fundamental question exists: Would significant\u00a0expansion diminish the quality and appeal of an event that many believe needs no alterations?<\/p>\n Through interviews with nearly a dozen industry leaders, there is no guarantee that the tournament will grow at all. Sources said the initial question the basketball committees need to define is this: What would potential expansion\u00a0seek to accomplish? Is the goal to drive more revenue, increase opportunities for student-athletes, bolster job security for coaches, further enhance the already vast appeal of the event \u2013 or a combination of factors?<\/p>\n Dan Gavitt, the NCAA\u2019s vice president for basketball, told On3 that both 12-person committees include a broad, diverse collection of veteran college sports leaders, adding that, \u201cI am confident and appreciative that that will be a group that gives consideration to the Transformation Committee\u2019s recommendation because they are the most intimately aware of the success of the basketball championships and what drives our success.\u201d<\/p>\n This much is certain: Opinions vary and sentiments are strong.<\/p>\n \u201cI am appalled by it all,\u201d former Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese told On3 of potential expansion. \u201cThe model we have now is just fantastic. But we live in a time where it\u2019s inclusion, inclusion, inclusion (strictly referencing this recommendation). I come from a different time where you have to earn it. There are enough spots for people to earn it.\u201d<\/p>\n But consider the vantage point of Tom McMillen, the CEO of LEAD1 Association, which advocates policy issues for FBS athletic directors. In 1974, McMillen and his Maryland teammates lost an epic 103-100 overtime ACC tournament championship to a David Thompson-led North Carolina State team.<\/p>\n NC State went on to win the national championship. Maryland finished No. 4 in the final Associated Press poll. But because conferences then only sent one team to the NCAA tournament, the Terrapins were excluded. They are considered the best team never to play in the NCAA tournament. The circumstances prompted the NCAA in 1975 to expand the field from 25 to 32 teams. Nearly a half-century later, scars remain.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m very biased on that because I think we would have won, could have won a national title,\u201d McMillen told On3. \u201cI think creating more opportunities makes sense for these kids. How you quantify that remains to be seen. One of the things the Transformation Committee did say is that the NIT might be part of that; it\u2019s gone from 16 to 32. So right now, they\u2019re at almost 25 percent if they add the NIT to it. The real core issue is do you want to expand?\u201d<\/p>\n In January 1984, when the NCAA voted to expand the tournament to 64 starting the following March, Dave Gavitt, then-chair of the Basketball Tournament Committee, said he hoped 64 would be the final expansion. At that point, there were 275 Division I programs, meaning 64 teams represented some 23 percent. He told the New York Times: \u201cTwenty-five percent or so is not an overreach.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Several prominent coaches have endorsed bringing the current number closer to 25 percent. The thinking is that by\u00a0qualifying for the tournament it would enhance job security either for them or their coaching colleagues. West Virginia\u2019s Bob Huggins two years ago pushed for the so-called Power 5 leagues to stage their own postseason tournament<\/a> and exclude everyone else. Had he gotten his wish this season, it would have meant that half of the Sweet 16 \u2013 Houston, Xavier, Gonzaga, UConn, FAU, Princeton, Creighton and San Diego State \u2013 wouldn\u2019t have been allowed to participate in the tournament.<\/p>\n Baylor\u2019s Scott Drew has advocated doubling the number to 128 for a symmetrical bracket. Florida State\u2019s Leonard Hamilton told me years ago that every<\/em> Division I team should be included in the tournament. But just because some coaches believe inclusion in a substantially expanded field would afford coaches job security doesn\u2019t mean that some still wouldn\u2019t be fired after going one-and-done in what may be perceived as a bloated field.<\/p>\n The most prominent and powerful person to endorse expansion is SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, co-chair of the Transformation Committee. Sankey told The Athletic, \u201cThe 10-minute read and immediate rejection of bracket expansion speaks to the lack of interest<\/a> people have in actually considering what might be needed, what might be appropriate.\u201d<\/p>\n There\u2019s also a financial component. And that certainly may be part of Sankey\u2019s reasoning for expansion. The more teams a conference sends to the NCAA men\u2019s tournament, the more dollars it gets to disperse among its members. The NCAA will award more than $170 million this year for teams\u2019 success in the men\u2019s tournament. And this year, a single basketball unit will be worth some $2.04 million over the six-year period in which it will be paid out.\u00a0<\/p>\n Back to Sankey and a financial component: The SEC sent eight teams to the tournament this year; the league almost certainly would\u2019ve had 10 in a 90-team field.<\/p>\n While each has yet to get firm feedback from their membership, three conference commissioners \u2013 Aresco, the Big West\u2019s Dan Butterly and the Horizon League\u2019s Julie Roe Lach \u2013 personally oppose significant expansion, if not expansion altogether. Roe Lach said she\u2019s open to exploring some level of expansion but cautions for a \u201cwalk-before-you-run\u201d approach.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s certainly something special about the current structure and state of March Madness,\u201d she told\u00a0On3. \u201cWhy do we need to explode to 90? We could dilute this magic. How do we take that magic we were able to build into the \u2018First Four\u2019 to a larger bracket? I think we could do it. It is going to be a question of how many because you want teams that are worthy. What\u2019s the tipping point to be worthy?\u201d<\/p>\n Not only has the gap between most marquee programs and some mid-major leagues narrowed, but the depth of many mid-major leagues has also strengthened. Consider Roe Lach\u2019s\u00a0Horizon League: No. 16 seed Northern Kentucky remained competitive with No. 1 seed Houston in the first round even though Northern Kentucky was the fourth seed in the Horizon tournament. Princeton is alive in the Sweet 16 despite being the No. 2 seed \u2013 behind Yale \u2013 in the Ivy tournament. And No. 16 seed Fairleigh Dickinson, which toppled No. 1 seed Purdue, finished runner-up in the Northeast Conference tournament but earned the automatic invite because champion Merrimack was ineligible as it transitions to Division I.<\/p>\n Several industry leaders believe that an expanded field would only pave the way for more middling major programs to play in the tournament rather than provide more access points for formidable mid-majors. Yes, the College of Charleston would have earned an at-large berth in a 90-team field had it lost its league tournament, but coach Pat Kelsey\u2019s team wasn\u2019t even a slam dunk at-large invitation this season despite winning 30-plus games. In a 90-team field, teams like\u00a0Seton Hall, Villanova and Virginia Tech \u2013 none was relevant throughout the season \u2013 would have been vying for one of the final at-large berths. As longtime college basketball writer David Jones aptly stated, \u201cIt will inevitably admit a fat slab of mediocrity<\/a> from the major conferences. It will have<\/em> to.\u201d<\/p>\n To that point, power conference teams would have little incentive to schedule strong mid-majors in non-conference play if they view an at-large berth as an inevitability. That leads to a discussion about what effect a 90-team field would have on the sport\u2019s regular season, which has diminished in relevance already as the NFL encroaches further into February with the Super Bowl. While TV ratings for regular-season college basketball were encouraging this season \u2013 CBS averaged\u00a01.32 million viewers, its best since 2018-19<\/a>, according to Sports Business Journal \u2013 the concern is that an expanded field would further water down basketball before March.<\/p>\n On that note, Aresco referenced December 15, 2012. Butler edged Indiana in basketball in overtime in a thrilling game on CBS. Meantime, Arizona edged Nevada in the New Mexico Bowl on ESPN. Aresco noted that the football game attracted more viewers, and not by a small margin. \u201cThat kind of told me all I needed to know,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cRegular-season college basketball already struggles for attention,\u201d Tranghese said. With a 90-team field, \u201cwhy even watch a regular-season game? What\u2019s the point of it all \u2013 I\u2019m going to watch a game to see if my team gets seeded higher than your team?\u201d<\/p>\n Butterly, the Big West commissioner and a member of the Division I Men\u2019s Basketball Oversight Committee, said he personally opposes any expansion to the bracket in part because \u201cyou\u2019re not missing much\u201d by currently excluding the first four at-large teams left out of the field, and others with even more mediocre r\u00e9sum\u00e9s.<\/p>\n \u201cAs a society, we\u2019ve gone so far to reward mediocrity,\u201d Butterly told On3. \u201cRight now, the NCAA tournament is special because you have to be a champion in your own conference to get an opportunity, or you have to be one of the best teams in the country to be able to participate. To bring on additional teams that may not have had that championship-caliber season, or just to reward additional teams that were potentially under .500 in their own conference, I\u2019m not one that likes to reward mediocrity.\u201d<\/p>\n Even if a rule is imposed prohibiting teams with losing records from earning at-large invites, nine of the 10 Big 12 teams would have earned berths this season in what was clearly the nation\u2019s strongest league. Rather than having top players beat up on one another all season for the sake of NCAA seeding, Tranghese said it would introduce a problem that the NBA has yet to solve: load management, resting players periodically throughout the regular season.<\/p>\n Then comes the challenge of actually staging the extra games for a 90-team event, which presents a host of hurdles. The First Four currently offers two games on Tuesday night and Wednesday night in Dayton, Ohio, before the tournament begins in earnest Thursday at noon ET. With 90 teams, that Tuesday and Wednesday likely would be laden with games night and day, much like the preceding Championship Week. Buckle up for six<\/em> consecutive days of wall-to-wall games just to whittle the field to 16.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is overkill,\u201d Aresco said. \u201cI think it can cause fatigue. I\u2019m wary of change that significant. When you take a tournament so successful, what if people do have fatigue with piling on all these games? And if you water down a product, is it going to be viewed the same way?\u201d<\/p>\n An incremental expansion, much like when the tourney expanded from 65 to 68 teams in 2011, is on the table. What about another First Four added, perhaps in Las Vegas, which has become the center of the college hoops universe in early March? But Butterly, whose Big West tournament is held in the Vegas suburbs, threw cold water on that concept, saying Vegas would struggle to attract fans a mere week after hosting five conference tournaments. Roe Lach told On3 that Indianapolis would be perfect for a second First Four \u2013 at least next season, which culminates with the men\u2019s Final Four there \u2013 because of the easy promo \u201cThe Road Begins and Ends Here.\u201d<\/p>\n Also not to be dismissed, several sources said, is how a more condensed tournament schedule would impact the age-old tradition of everyone from grandmas to school children filling out brackets between Selection Sunday and the start of the event. ESPN\u2019s Tournament Challenge had some 20 million entries alone this year.\u00a0<\/p>\n A source familiar with the Men\u2019s Basketball Committee\u2019s thinking said the committee will give \u201cmeasured consideration\u201d to all short- and long-term ramifications because this decision has a significant value proposition that goes well beyond March.\u00a0Much discussion is ahead.\u00a0A key question is what number of participants maximizes the overall quality of the product. Many feel the sport already has found that sweet spot: 68.<\/p>\n Jerome Williams, a former Georgetown player in the mid-1990s, recalls the NCAA tournament as captivating long before and long after his Hoyas were a prime attraction in the event with Allen Iverson. Adding more teams, he said, risks screwing up what has been the secret sauce.<\/p>\n \u201cKeep it the way it is,\u201d Williams said. \u201cThe system is not broken. You\u2019re good.\u201d<\/p>\n The post With NCAA tournament expansion possible, can you have too much of a good thing?<\/a> appeared first on On3<\/a>.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Jay Bilas has long said the NCAA tournament is idiot-proof. Despite all the dysfunction within…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-923","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/demo.wztzfm.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/923","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/demo.wztzfm.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/demo.wztzfm.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/demo.wztzfm.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=923"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/demo.wztzfm.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/923\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/demo.wztzfm.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=923"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/demo.wztzfm.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=923"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/demo.wztzfm.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=923"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Opinions vary and sentiments are strong<\/h2>\n
Of course there\u2019s a financial component to expansion<\/h2>\n
\u2018Something special about the current structure\u2019<\/h2>\n
\u2018I\u2019m not one that likes to reward mediocrity\u2019<\/h2>\n
Another First Four a possibility<\/h2>\n