Expanding the Dance: Point/Counterpoint
Written by Peter Hart and Ben Pogany
Point: 96 Teams? The More, The Merrier!
By Peter Hart
So the NCAA is considering expanding The Tournament to 96 teams, as everyone has surely heard. My first thought: crazy. My second thought: awesome. My thoughts now: crazy awesome.
First, let's get the obvious out of the way. This is a ploy for more money. CBS and the N
In 1985, as we all know, the tournament expanded from 32 teams to 64. There was an initial outcry, but people quickly realized that having 32 first-round games in 2 days (and 48 in 4 days) was the most exciting thing they'd ever seen. That's what this change means--an extra round of 32 games in 2 days. This--not the finals--is unequivocally the most exciting and entertaining part of the tournament. For a few glorious days a year, we are blessed with unending, nonstop basketball, underachieving mid-major squads fighting for their lives, with their seasons--and our brackets--on the line. No one expects these teams to go all the way, but they don't have to; for the little guys, legends are made in these first few days. No one can remember the Final Four from 1998, but everyone can remember Valparaiso that year, buzzer-beating its way into the Sweet 16.
So let's analyze a 96-team system and why it would make this perfect tourney even more perfect. First of all, 96 teams, when you're dealing with well over 300 D-1 schools, is still approximately the same percentage of playoff teams as the MLB, and much lower than the NFL. In the new first round, the top 32 teams sit with a bye, while the other 64 play it out. You know the play-in game between the bottom two squads they do now? That's the idea, but tourney-wide. The 32 bye teams is appropriate anyway; the ranked teams (top 25) plus 7 more conference winners (probably from mid-majors) get byes. It makes perfect sense. So the 64 at-large teams duke it out in a wild, exciting classic first round full of unknown teams, underdogs, and upsets. Then, ANOTHER ROUND OF 64-TEAM MAYHEM. What could be better? Then the tournament progresses as usual, but maybe with a few even more unheard-of teams showing people up. It will make getting to the Sweet 16 something to really brag about too; either you have to win 3 games, or be a top team and win 2. Bottom line: we're taking the 48 games in 4 days and changing it to 80 games in 6 days. Not
just expanding the best event in sports, but expanding the best part of the best event in sports.
So what's standing in the way? Purists. People who say the sport is cheapened, the tournament is cheapened, the regular season is cheapened. That teams that don't "deserve it" will get in. First of all, the regular season isn't cheapened, it's really strengthened; the teams that are really the best teams get a bye. Second, we've only determined who "deserves it" based on the equally arbitrary 64 team system. Who says that 64 teams deserve it? The tournament used to be 32 teams. Before that, 16. Before that, 8. And each time they expanded, the same group of people complained that it would cheapen college basketball, that teams that didn't "deserve it" would get in. And each time, the tournament became more exciting, more watched, more anticipated, and people quickly got used to the new number of "deserving" teams. Which really reveals a different concern: people are used to this format. They don't want the tournament to change because they have come to know it and love it. They can't imagine something so perfect could be improved. For many, it's too much to handle. They can't imagine a bracket with 50% more teams to keep track of. Well 25 years ago we all got used to a bracket with 100% more teams and look how much better it is. The argument that 64 just fits on a piece of paper nicely is not enough to outweigh the potential for the overwhelming excitement that 96 promises.
What are we waiting for? The sooner, the better. The more, the merrier.
Counterpoint: Just Say No!
By Ben Pogany
I am not a sports purist. I support limited instant-replay in baseball, an overhaul of NFL overtime rules, and the annihilation of the BCS. I am generally open to any idea that will make my sports better. That said, I hate hate hate the idea of expanding the dance to 96 teams. March Madness is one of the few perfect things in sports. Now I know that that’s what they said when the field was 16 teams, and again when it was 32 teams, but I wasn’t around for that and am telling you now that 64 teams is the perfect number. Half the teams get in by winning their conferences
, the other half have to prove to the selection committee that they are worthy of an at-large bid. We are left with the perfect mix of big-time schools and mid-majors. No one can say that any team doesn’t deserve to be there.
Of course, we all agree that it doesn’t get any better than those first four days of, well, madness, when teams are playing round the clock. Cinderellas taking on giants…upsets abounding…Greg Gumble. Of course, the logical thought would be if 4 days of constant basketball is great, how could 6 days with 32 more teams not be better. Mid-majors don’t enter the tournament expecting to reach the final four. They know that just being there is a tremendous honor and opportunity in itself. For many of these smaller schools, it might be the first time they've ever sent a representative to the Dance. Of course they want to win, but just to be there is an experience to be cherished forever. Add 32 mediocre teams and see what kind of honor it becomes. These mid-majors still won’t have a shot at winning, but n
ow the magnitude of having reached the Big Dance has diminished to the point that we can barely even call it an worthwhile accomplishment. March Madness is great because a select few mid-major schools have a shot to play with the big boys. Give too many teams a shot and you will kill the magic.
Secondly, expansion will kill any semblance of meaning in the regular season. While this probably means nothing to 95% of casual fans who only tune into the sport when it’s time to fill out their office bracket, for those that have been paying attention all season expanding the dance will be catastrophic. Yes, college hoops admits a far lower percentage of its teams to the postseason than most professional sports, but this is only when you take into account the entirety of the 31 conferences. To be blunt, there are 6 conferences that matter, and by matter, I mean draw substantial interest from viewers across the country. As it is, over half of these teams waltz into the tournament. If the dance were to be expanded to 96, and the additional 32 teams were at-large bids, that percentage would skyrocket to 80 or 90%. Moreover, some of the best basketball of the year is played during the conference tournaments, when bubble teams are fighting for their lives to seize one of the few remaining at-large bids. With the relaxed qualifications that a 96-team field would entail, these conference tournaments would be exercises in futility. Any big-6 team that is making their conference tournament will already be all but guaranteed a spot in the Big Dance, thereby robbing these conference tournaments of any true significance, and with it, marketable appeal.
With all this being said, I am not naïve. Expansion will make more money, and sadly, that is often the sole criterion in such decisions. I only hope the people in charge ultimately put the good of the game over the good of their bank accounts.
