NCAA Tournament Expansion

Argument For

Over the past few years, there have been serious talks about expanding the Division 1 NCAA Tournament from 65 teams to 96 teams. The argument is that with the increase in parity among teams, it is getting more and more difficult in deciding which at-large teams are worthy of playing in the prestigious postseason. Every year it seems like the NCAA committee makes at least one mistake in selecting a team that doesn’t deserve to get into the tourney along with neglecting one team that did deserve it, and that’s where the argument of expansion stems. But I am here to argue the other side of this debate.

The Cinderellas

March Madness is arguably one of the greatest sporting events in the world. There are few other events that may be able to top it. What makes March so mad is the single elimination system. This gives underdogs a much greater chance to do well in the tournament than any other type of playoff format because they don’t have to be the best team in the country, 
just the best team in the stadium for that 1 game. Obviously expanding the field wouldn’t change the format of the tourney, but it would make it harder for these underdogs to succeed, as they would have to play an additional game against a team that is probably better than them. Could you imagine if in 2006 George Mason University had to play an extra game before making their Cinderella run to the FInal Four? Of course the argument could be made for any team that that extra game makes winning it all more difficult, but an additional game for the University of Florida, the eventual champions in 2006, is a whole lot easier than an additional game for George Mason. The constant upsets are what keep this tournament alive, allowing the opportunity for anything to happen. An extra game just makes it more difficult for the underdog (a.k.a. the mid-majors) to succeed, which eventually leads to the tournament being less popular because how many people want to see the 2 best teams play each other every year? Nobody, that’s why we root for the underdog.

Power Conference Bias

Not only would an extra game put a damper on the “anything can happen” possibility, it would also make the tournament more boring because pretty much the same teams will be playing in it every year. Let’s face it, that seems to be the bottom line as to why expansion is being talked about, so that the usual powerhouse teams that may be having an off year can still be televised and help everyone make more money. If the tournament was to be expanded, it would only help the major conference teams because those are the teams usually on the bubble. Most of the mid-major conferences would still only have one bid, their tournament winner, invited to the tournament. The NCAA tournament is a privilege, your team has to earn it. Having many double digit loss teams making it to the tournament isn't earning it, it’s just getting in on reputation.

Bubble Teams

Finally, in response to the argument that expansion will be better because nobody deserving of an at-large will be left out, here is something to think about: Unless every D-1 team plays in the NCAA tournament, SOMEONE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE LEFT OUT! This argument makes no sense because there will always be bubble teams who are teetering on the line of NCAA and NIT tournament. It has to be cut off somewhere. It seems like the NCAA and CBS are getting a little too selfish in their quest for more money. Sure, an extra game on the schedule may seem like it would bring in more money, but the tournament is a prefect length as is. Eventually, adding an extra game per team, which equals a few more days overall, will cause people to lose interest. In this case, more is definitely not better. I leave you with this thought. If you were to open an esteemed bar or club, would you let anyone into it who walked up to the door, or would you only let the best of the best, the most deserving people in?