W. Ross Clites
Your City Sports-Cleveland
Kent, OHIO--There are 65 teams that make it to the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament every March, not 64. As much as everyone (except the competitors involved) would like to see it go away, the play-in game exists. That darn 65th team makes it a mess.
In the past, depending on the website you print from, the overall (1) seed has an interesting opponent. Some brackets leave it blank, some write "Play-in Winner", others write "TBD" or even the names of both schools. By virtue of running many office pools in my day, I have seen and heard it all. People have asked me for the nickname of "TBD." In a different year, I received the bracket of a person that assumed the (16) seed was an all-star combination of the two schools listed. That is about the only way to make that First Round matchup fair.
The issue is back on the table. The Tournament Committee is once again talking about expanding the field. Whispers coming out of the meetings have been 68 and even the absurd 96.
There is no denying that mid-majors are showing their worth. Better non-conference scheduling and a deeper crop of talent in small schools have led to unexpected leagues having more than one genuine contender. The Missouri Valley Conference is a fine example, sending four teams with staying power to the 2006 tournament. The rewarding of MVC teams ultimately hurt the big conferences. Those who accumulate 10 wins in the gauntlet that is the Big East schedule can find themselves NIT bound these days. Such was the case in 2007 with the Syracuse Orange; Coach Jim Boeheim became a vocal and adamant proponent of expansion that season.
Angering the giants is a quick way to have the NCAA executives calling for change. After all, those teams and conferences are their highest revenue generators; they need to be in the tournament. That tumultuous 2007 Selection Show is when I began a proposal for expansion of my own.
Everyone currently debating the issue says that 96 teams in the field waters down the First Round and unnecessarily drags the tournament on for an additional weekend. Simply put, I completely agree.
The contemporary view that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is only applicable if the tournament is faultless to begin with. However, the tournament exists with 65 teams and thus is a broken system. Either you contract back to the 64, eliminating an at-large team, or you make the play-in system better. Staying put is no longer an option.
The "Island of Misfit Toys" that is the play-in game gives one team the joy of an NCAA tournament victory that should not even count. Case and point: the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference has six official tournament victories. Yet, teams from the MEAC have won an NCAA First Round game on just two occasions. The other four wins came at the expense of the 65th ranked team in the field. As for the loser of the play-in game, congratulations on a good season but you are the ONLY team to be eliminated before the "Dance" even starts. I am sure they really feel included.
I would not be opposed to the idea of 68 teams, for it is conceptually the same, but my 2007 proposal incorporates 72.
This format brings back symmetry and adds a full draw to opening play-in games, as to make competitors feel more associated with the tournament. A field of 68 adds just three more play-in games and provides only partial symmetry. From an aesthetic perspective, a prime number of teams in each region is plain wrong. A 72 team bracket gives balance in all dimensions.
My format also increases the number of at-large bids to 41, up from 34. This takes 7 bubble teams off the snubbed list every season. True, it does add 7 more who feel wronged by the system, but that is the case with any tournament in any sport. Even a 96 team field leaves that 97th team furious. At least these new snubs would have less credentials than the bubble teams of the past.
The addition of at-large teams helps small-market and perennial powers alike. It potentially gives the upper echelon mid-majors two representatives. For example, the Mid-American Conference has only once received an at-large bid (1999). For a league with a rich tournament pedigree, this is a shame.
The proposal also covers the power conference team, squarely on the bubble, that is hurt when a nationally ranked mid-major powerhouse
(bound for the tournament regardless of a conference championship) is upset in their postseason tournament. This annual occurrence gives
those small conferences two representatives when it would ordinarily send only one; robbing a Big East, Big Ten, etc. bubble team. Is it fair to have a 10-loss Missouri Valley conference team in the draw simply because they got hot late in the season, strung together four victories, and snatched an automatic bid? The emphatic answer is yes. It is the beauty of the conference tournament automatic bid system. But it is unfair for this MVC team’s inclusion to come at the cost of a far superior 10-loss Big East team, with a near impossible task of winning its conference tournament. My resolution is that both belong.
Your City Sports-Cleveland
Kent, OHIO--There are 65 teams that make it to the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament every March, not 64. As much as everyone (except the competitors involved) would like to see it go away, the play-in game exists. That darn 65th team makes it a mess.
In the past, depending on the website you print from, the overall (1) seed has an interesting opponent. Some brackets leave it blank, some write "Play-in Winner", others write "TBD" or even the names of both schools. By virtue of running many office pools in my day, I have seen and heard it all. People have asked me for the nickname of "TBD." In a different year, I received the bracket of a person that assumed the (16) seed was an all-star combination of the two schools listed. That is about the only way to make that First Round matchup fair.
The issue is back on the table. The Tournament Committee is once again talking about expanding the field. Whispers coming out of the meetings have been 68 and even the absurd 96.
There is no denying that mid-majors are showing their worth. Better non-conference scheduling and a deeper crop of talent in small schools have led to unexpected leagues having more than one genuine contender. The Missouri Valley Conference is a fine example, sending four teams with staying power to the 2006 tournament. The rewarding of MVC teams ultimately hurt the big conferences. Those who accumulate 10 wins in the gauntlet that is the Big East schedule can find themselves NIT bound these days. Such was the case in 2007 with the Syracuse Orange; Coach Jim Boeheim became a vocal and adamant proponent of expansion that season.
Angering the giants is a quick way to have the NCAA executives calling for change. After all, those teams and conferences are their highest revenue generators; they need to be in the tournament. That tumultuous 2007 Selection Show is when I began a proposal for expansion of my own.
Everyone currently debating the issue says that 96 teams in the field waters down the First Round and unnecessarily drags the tournament on for an additional weekend. Simply put, I completely agree.
The contemporary view that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is only applicable if the tournament is faultless to begin with. However, the tournament exists with 65 teams and thus is a broken system. Either you contract back to the 64, eliminating an at-large team, or you make the play-in system better. Staying put is no longer an option.
The "Island of Misfit Toys" that is the play-in game gives one team the joy of an NCAA tournament victory that should not even count. Case and point: the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference has six official tournament victories. Yet, teams from the MEAC have won an NCAA First Round game on just two occasions. The other four wins came at the expense of the 65th ranked team in the field. As for the loser of the play-in game, congratulations on a good season but you are the ONLY team to be eliminated before the "Dance" even starts. I am sure they really feel included.
I would not be opposed to the idea of 68 teams, for it is conceptually the same, but my 2007 proposal incorporates 72.
This format brings back symmetry and adds a full draw to opening play-in games, as to make competitors feel more associated with the tournament. A field of 68 adds just three more play-in games and provides only partial symmetry. From an aesthetic perspective, a prime number of teams in each region is plain wrong. A 72 team bracket gives balance in all dimensions.
My format also increases the number of at-large bids to 41, up from 34. This takes 7 bubble teams off the snubbed list every season. True, it does add 7 more who feel wronged by the system, but that is the case with any tournament in any sport. Even a 96 team field leaves that 97th team furious. At least these new snubs would have less credentials than the bubble teams of the past.
The addition of at-large teams helps small-market and perennial powers alike. It potentially gives the upper echelon mid-majors two representatives. For example, the Mid-American Conference has only once received an at-large bid (1999). For a league with a rich tournament pedigree, this is a shame.
The proposal also covers the power conference team, squarely on the bubble, that is hurt when a nationally ranked mid-major powerhouse
(bound for the tournament regardless of a conference championship) is upset in their postseason tournament. This annual occurrence gives
those small conferences two representatives when it would ordinarily send only one; robbing a Big East, Big Ten, etc. bubble team. Is it fair to have a 10-loss Missouri Valley conference team in the draw simply because they got hot late in the season, strung together four victories, and snatched an automatic bid? The emphatic answer is yes. It is the beauty of the conference tournament automatic bid system. But it is unfair for this MVC team’s inclusion to come at the cost of a far superior 10-loss Big East team, with a near impossible task of winning its conference tournament. My resolution is that both belong.