A Little Q and A about the NCAA Field Expansion

For the first time in 25 years, the NCAA Tournament Committee has decided to expand its field. While discussions had originally been to expand the tournament to 96 teams, they voted unanimously to expand the 2011 field from 65 to 68 teams, employing three extra "opening-round games" for the right to get eviscerated on national TV by the likes of Kentucky or Kansas. It's a curious move, seemingly minor compared to what had been discussed, and it raises a lot of questions. That's what I'm here for.

Q: So I'm sure that the benefit for them is money, but how could this benefit me, the fan?

A: Well, it depends on your view. In my eyes, it doesn't really benefit the fans, but I can certainly find the silver lining. For one, three more games means three more names to pick in your NCAA pool. More opportunities to gamble means good times for everybody. If you're a fan of a team that is habitually on the bubble, this raises your chance to get into the tourney as well, though I'm not sure you deserve it (more on this in a minute).

Q: So this helps bubble teams and not the little guys?

A: Yeah, for the time being. Further expansion to 96 teams is still under discussion, which would open the door for more of the mid-majors to get in. In theory, the three extra teams would come from the "last four out" pool and by being bigger programs from better conferences, they would push most of the mid-majors down into worse seeds and the new play-in games, meaning if you root for a team like Jackson State or Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, this stinks for you. Of course, if you're rooting for those teams, you're probably just psyched to see them playing in the tournament at all.

Q: What is the argument for expanding the tournament to 96 teams?

A: Well, ultimately it's about dollars, and they would be making a lot more of them off of television revenue, a road that has already been paved by the brand new 14-year, $10.8 billion contract that was just signed with CBS and Turner Broadcasting. The reason that they give us, however, is with the recent expansion of Division I teams, there are more teams competing for the same numbers of spots, so it only makes sense to expand the field proportionally.

Q: That seems to make sense, so why are you against it, Alex? Do you hate America?

A: No! I love America; we've got the best barbecue sauce on earth. And that logic doesn't make sense. Here's why: below is a list of some of the teams that have gained partial to full Division I status in the past few years.

Florida Gulf Coast

South Carolina-Upstate

Presbyterian

Seattle

Savannah State

Winston-Salem State

Longwood

North Carolina Central

Cal State-Bakersfield

Cal State-Cabo San Lucas

Southern Illinois-Edwardsville

South Dakota

Gorvidal State

Houston Baptist

Utah Valley

North Dakota

Mass Bay Community College

New Jersey Institute of Technology

Chicago State

Texas-Pan American

Bryant

Blaine-The Beauty Career School

Four of those I made up, but I bet it took you a moment to think about which ones they were, and that's troubling. There hasn't been a dramatic spike in the universal talent of high school basketball players in recent years, so these teams are basically giving opportunities for guys who would've previously only been Division II caliber players to play DI ball. That's nice and all, but it means by expanding the tournament teams without an increase in talent, you're just watering everything down. Here's a thought experiment: let's say there are 250 high school teams competing for the Massachusetts State Championship every year, and the best 32 teams qualify for the state tournament. I suddenly allow every JV team from these high schools to compete as well, raising the number to 500 teams, and then expand the tournament to 64 teams. Will some of the best JV teams be able to beat the worst varsity teams? Probably. Did teams 33-64 suddenly become better at basketball and more deserving of a post-season bid? No. To put it simply, if I have half a jug of beer and fill it the rest of the way with grape juice, I still only have a half jug of beer that now tastes gross.

Q: I'm beginning to see the light, but I won't believe you until I see it. Can you convince me further?

A: I'd love to. For argument's sake, let's expand this past season's tournament from 65 to 96 teams by simply adding the 32 teams that made the NIT, also known as JV States. The final four from that tournament were Dayton, Ole Miss, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, so these are the best teams supposedly that did not make the NCAA tourney. Resume Time!

Dayton

25-12 (8-8 in the Atlantic 10)

Nice Wins: Georgia Tech, Xavier

Bad Losses: Saint Louis twice, Duquesne, St. Joseph's

Ole Miss

24-11 (9-7 in the SEC)

Nice Wins: at Kansas State, UTEP

Bad Losses: Mississippi State twice, Arkansas

UNC

16-16 entering the NIT! (5-11 in the ACC!)

Nice Wins: Ohio State, Michigan State, at Wake Forest

Bad Losses: College of Charleston, Virginia, the rest of the ACC

Rhode Island

26-10 (9-7 in the Atlantic 10)

Nice Wins: Oklahoma State is the best one

Bad Losses: UMass, Saint Louis, St. Bonaventure

Now, a few weeks ago, I may have made an argument that these and other bubble teams DESERVED to make the NCAA tournament, but that was compared to some not so great teams that did make the tourney ahead of them, like Florida. At no point did I argue the tournament should be expanded to suit them. Do any of the above resumes really overwhelm you? UNC has the best wins of the group, BUT THEY WERE 5-11 IN CONFERENCE. No team that goes 5-11 in any conference should be in the NCAA Tournament. And the NIT field only goes down after this group.

So if you want to argue with me that it's good for gambling purposes or you happen to go to Dayton and want a guaranteed tourney spot, I suppose I can't go against you there. I'm just not buying the reasons we're being given by the powers that be. If expanding to 68 teams means that we won't be expanding to 96 teams any time soon, then I'm all for it.