It ain't broke...

There is a movement afoot to increase the number of teams that qualify for the NCAA's championship basketball tournament, known as March Madness who haven't spent the past thirty years living in a cave. I am not sure where the idea started, but I have heard a number of highly respected members of the US college basketball community making the pitch for a tournament featuring as many upwards of 90 teams. Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim (who I love) told Dan Patrick in an interview last week that:

It would actually strengthen the Tournament if you went to 96 teams. Because as we know now there are some teams that get into the Tournament by winning a conference tournament who's record is 12 and 12 or whatever. They're not one of the better teams. So if they did expand where you had a first round where say 32 teams get by and the next 64 played you would end up with 64 of the best teams.

Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski echoed Boeheim's sentiment and advocated the combination of the NCAA and NIT tournaments into an single event with between 72 and 96 teams. He told Patrick that:

If there was expansion, I would take the two properties that the NCAA owns -- the NCAA tournament and the NIT -- and I'd try to combine them in some fashion. Now if that meant 96 teams or 72 or whatever it would mean, I would combine the two properties so this would be the only tournament.

I know these are some of the most respected men in college basketball, but are they out of their minds?

Why is it that when a professional sports organization (don't kid yourself into thinking that the NCAA is any different than the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL) has a good thing they have to get greedy and ruin it? The only real motivation behind increasing the number of teams in March Madness is to make more money for the NCAA and its member universities. More teams and more games means more money. The problem is that it waters down the quality of the product.

If the issue is making sure that qualified teams are not left at home while lesser calibre schools make it by earning automatic bids, as Boeheim and Krzyzewski suggest, then eliminate all or some of the automatic bids. This was the argument made by ESPN Radio host Eric Kuselias on Saturdauy morning. You have to increase the number of teams to make sure that the best teams make it to the tournament.

Bullshit! First, if you are worried about a Lipscombe qualifying over Louisville or Wake Forest, then take away the Atlantic Sun's automatic bid. Limit the automatic bids to the top 10, 15 or 20 conferences. But that's not the answer either. One of the greatest things about March Madness is watching those teams you never heard of play on the first Thursday afternoon. Everyone loves to watch and see if the Rutgers, Riders and Radfords can pull of the upset of the century against the Ketuckys, Kansases and Californias. I know I do...

If the NCAA decides to increase the number of teams at its basketball tournament, it might have the desired effect of increasing revenues in the short term, but it might backfire by ruining the product on the court. Not only will the level of competition at the tournament itself be watered down, the regular season will become little more than a series of exhibition games. Why would the top schools bother making much of an effort between November and February when they are virtually guaranteed to be playing in March? With a 96-team field, you are likely to see the eighth and even ninth placed teams from some conferences earn bids. So, you're only the eighth best in your own league but you deserve a shot at the national championship?

March Madness is one of the most entertaining sporting events of the year. The NCAA basketball tournament ain't broke. Hopefully the NCAA will be smart enough not to fix it.