We have all heard the saying
"less is more" at some point in our lives. when you have too much of a good thing, it's not necessarily a great thing. For example
McDonalds has the
McRib and
Shamrock Shakes only available at certain times during the year. Studies have shown that certain products when sold only at a certain time of the year actually sell better than if it were available all the time.
The food sports fans all like to feast on this time of the year is
"March Madness" and it always seems like we cannot get enough. In fact the
NCAA is considering expanding our taste for college basketball in March from
65 teams to 96 teams giving us
16 more games to feast on whether at work or home.
Instead of thinking of
expansion, should not the tournament committee consider
contraction first?
In
America we love the underdog role. Even in the richest country in the world, we still love rooting for the little guy. The Miracle On Ice, The Cubs, The 2009 New York Jets....we love rooting for the team that has the most
outside chance of winning.
March Madness has brought us buzzer beaters, high drama, and teams which we do not watch on a consistent basis whom we find a niche for and cheer on. In the end however, it's always the better teams that always find a way to the
Final Four and go on to college basketball greatness.
So why even have the
"underdogs" if they cannot contend with the big boys of the sport?
The current way the
NCAA tournament is set up is 34
"at-large" (invitation only) berths and 31
automatic berths where 30 conference champions and the
Ivy League regular-season champion make the tourney. The field is so crowded with teams from conferences that simply
have no shot at winning the
NCAA title, so I say contract the tournament to
32 teams.
Why include more teams than are actually needed. If it's so special to participate in the tournament itself, do we really need another team from the
America East Conference or the
Big Sky Conference?
Here's how I would choose my
32 teams for the contracted tournament. Take your top 25 teams in the
AP Poll (currently representing ten conferences) and they are
automatically in. The remaining
seven teams you choose based on their
overall record,
major out of conference wins, and
RPI. This way you will still have the better teams in the better conferences play and you will still have the controversial
"snubs" of the tourney. This way you can schedule games that do not overlap each other the first weekend and
every team who participates gets the national audience and attention they want.
Also by lowering the number of teams you increase the level of play by preventing extreme blowouts in mismatches and you have the great match ups right off the bat with the top teams in the tournament. In fact in 1975 when they expanded the tournament from
16 teams to
32, the reasoning behind it was getting more than one great team from a conference. By allowing the
AP top 25 in automatically you meet that standard of getting the better teams in first.
You can still have the conference tournaments in which each team is involved, but just
take away the automatic bids to the big dance. It's still a honor to be the
Great West Conference champion, but
South Dakota doesn't belong with
Duke or
Butler in the Big Dance. I understand also that the conference tournament winners from smaller conferences also use their trips to the tourney as a
recruiting tool and a way to
make money for their school.
Smaller schools like
Stephen F. Austin and
Wofford have used the tournament for those same reasons. However who's going to go to
Stephen F. Austin University just because they got
blown out by
Kansas in the first round of the tournament. That is why I think these reasons to keep the smaller schools in the mix are just
not valid. Kids more often go to
Wofford because
they can afford to, not because they want to be groomed to be the next
Michael Jordan. Kids go to
Syracuse,
Kentucky,
Duke,
North Carolina, and
Texas because they want to be the next
Michael Jordan.
By limiting the number of teams in the tournament itself, you will have more schools
saving money which in turn will help more kids that attend the university. Rather than sinking thousands of dollars into a basketball/football/baseball program, colleges could
spend more (and in turn save students money) on educational purposes. Isn't that what the root of going to college is all about....
getting an education?
I am sure kids do not go to
Samford to play for a national title, but they do go for their fine journalism program.
Rather than expand a tournament to include more teams and thereby rendering the regular season as totally irrelevant, make
"March Madness" truly a special event. I think, it's always good to watch the
best of the best rather than watch teams which
have no shot at all. By using the
"less is more" philosophy you will in turn make smaller schools will save money, and the overall product of the game itself will be intensified as the best recruits will team up on the major programs.
Less is more works much better than opening the tournament to everyone.
-RoCk
Rock Mamola is the Associate Producer of The Mully And Hanley Morning Show and co-host of The Joe O And Rock Show on WSCR 670AM The Score.
You can follow The Mully And Hanley Morning Show at twitter.com/mullyhanley
You can follow The Joe O And Rock Show at twitter.com/joeoandrockshow
3 Comments
Awesome Barb said:
This is definitely an interesting take and I whole-heartedly agree that the last thing we need is an expanded field. Although I personally enjoy the extended fanfare of the polar opposite match ups, not because of the blow out potential, but because THAT moment is what the underdog has looked forward to all year. Okay, that and the fact that I'm a college hoops fanatic and I'm glued to the TV during tournament play.
I think the goal for many of the smaller schools is to simply make the tournament. Sure, their first round is inevitably a battle of David and Goliath, but that's the beauty of the sport (and the beauty of the inevitable upset, and we've seen plenty of 15/2 match ups that have ended in the unpredicted way).
Back in 2007, I went to the opening round of play here in Chicago mostly to see my Jayhawks. At the end of the game, I wasn't taking photos of the Kansas players celebrating. My pictures were of the Niagara team elated for being there. They were jumping on the media table, leading their fans with a school cheer. For them, just making it to the tournament made them heroes. They didn't care that they lost by 40 points, and it was evident that their fans didn't either.
Then you've got teams like last year's NDSU who had been recruiting and red-shirting players for 4 years to strategically poise themselves for their first-ever conference tournament win and first tournament appearance in over a decade. Again, to them it wasn't to go out and win...it was to go out, have fun, and play a big name school that they normally wouldn't have the opportunity to play, and getting their name on the radar once more in the process.
So I, for one, love the spirited human interest story that these teams bring to the table. You want to love them. You want them to do well. You want them to get noticed and receive the recognition they deserve.
If we must do any condensing...let's do away with the silly little play-in game that brings the field down from 65 to 64. That to me is the most frustrating component...it's like saying, "here, we're going to give you a shot, but first you have to beat this other team." That's just silly.
Then with a limited field, you've got the issue of those teams who are the first ones cut are then pushed to the NIT, thus forcing a domino effect, pushing the bubble NIT teams out of the picture. Perhaps if we limit the NCAA tourney, perhaps an expansion in the NIT should be examined, so then at least you have the same number of teams involved in post-season play? A set up of that nature would indeed give the big dance more of a top caliber appeal.
Anyways, I've rambled long enough. I'm all for keeping the conference champs in the mix. Sure, they may not pull an upset during tournament play; but sometimes their real upset is simply taking the slot of a bubble team. Makes for a fun selection Sunday. Just my two cents. :)
mingfrommongo said:
Let every D1 school in the tourney. Have a blind draw and keep the early games on a regional basis. This is the way it was with the Indiana High School basketball tournament which was extremely successful. Schools and fans will measure the team's success by how far they might progress in the tourney.
Dmband said:
WHY in the world are people even bringing this up. Both stances make no sense to me for the simple reason that, IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX IT. The tournament is HUGELY entertaining, and by all measures, very successful. The first weekend of the tourney is by far the most entertaining...and the fact that you have non stop action for 4 days straight is what makes the tournament so much fun.
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: