Expanding the NCAA Tournament to 96 teams is not a bad idea.
This is not a very popular opinion. The tournament, as it is, is an institution, as American as fast food, Chevrolet and Vegas. Millions of people, from the west coast to the east, fill out their brackets every March, while billions of dollars are lost from the economy due to the subsequent decrease in worker productivity.
To suggest that the NCAA Tournament needs to be changed is to commit sports fan heresy. But, that’s exactly what Mike Krzyzewski did a few months ago. At the time, I found his argument at best inane and at worst dangerous to the future of the tournament. Now, I’m beginning to see the upsides of what he said.
To backtrack, it might be wise to show what Krzyzewski told reporters after the Gardner-Webb game December 15:
“What I propose, is that you combine the [NCAA Tournament and the NIT] and come up with a field of 96. You would have 64 teams play. 32 teams get byes, and then it would be the same tournament, but with 96 teams.”
So, under Krzyzewski’s plan, only one more game would be played. The bottom 64 teams would have to play, while each region’s top eight seeds would get a day off. It would essentially be the same tournament, only with one more day of basketball.
Here’s what the typical detractor says:
“If we expand it, you get rid of the end-of-season tournaments, and I’d rather have the end-of-season tournaments. It’s a celebration of each conference…. To keep expanding it would dilute what we already have, and what we have is a great product right now.”
That was Coach K back in October. Obviously, he’s had a bit of a change of heart. But for good reason.
For one thing, I feel Krzyzewski came to the conclusion that his worries about end-of-season tournaments becoming irrelevant were really already true.
Events like the ACC championship, while fun and a great excuse for a four-day holiday in many parts of North Carolina, are ultimately pointless now. There once was a day where they made sense, but now the possibility of a team, which wouldn’t have an at-large bid otherwise, winning, is so low as to make the tournament not worth playing.
Duke won the ACC championship this year. Its only reward is a tired team going into the NCAA Tournament. Conference tournaments exist only to enlarge conferences’ coffers.
The arguments that the purity of the tournament is being spoiled, and that expansion dilutes the tournament in any way, are also unfounded.
If the tournament were truly pure, then it would only have eight teams, its format back in 1939. It would also not have any at-large bids—until 1975, only one team from each conference could go to the Big Dance. Do the people who argue that expansion would dilute the “greatness” of the tournament want to go back to this way of organizing?
This is a fact: the NCAA Tournament has expanded 10 times since its conception. Each and every time, it has only gotten better.
Yes, change to 96 teams may seem frightening. But it’s a winning scenario for all involved. It means more money to smaller schools that need it, by getting rid of the unprofitable NIT and by signing what would inevitably be a record-breaking TV contract.
And, more importantly, it means more enjoyable basketball for the fans. Bubble teams like Davidson last year have the chance to make long runs, and mid-majors like Cornell this year could get deserved at-large bids, allowing them to prove their worth against the big boys.
Think about this, as well. According to an article done in the Wall Street Journal, college basketball lets in a smaller percentage of its teams into the postseason than any other major sport. College football lets in more than half of its teams, as do the NBA and NHL. The NFL and MLB permit 37.5% and 26.7% respectively. College basketball? 19.5%. Expansion would put that number at 28.7%.
Coach K’s change of heart was for good reason. Expansion makes sense.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.