By David Thompson
We are currently in the middle of the three best weeks in all of college basketball. Over the past weekend, a total of 48 games in four days is heaven for anyone who loves college basketball. Amidst all of the late game dramatics and unbelievable upsets, there was talk of expanding the current 65 team format to a tournament that would include 96 teams.
The expanded tournament would feature the same four region set-up that is currently used, but instead of 16 teams per region, there would be 24 teams per region. The top eight seeds in each region would receive a first round bye. This would mean that teams seeded ninth through 24th would face off in round one.
On the surface this seems like a great idea. A 96 team tournament would feature 15 more games. The money made from an extra day or two of first round games would be huge. But while expanding the tournament might look all positive at first glance, there are a few things that are worrisome about expanding the tournament.
The main reason for expanding the tournament seems to be money. In an interview with the New York Times, Greg Shaheen, the senior vice president for basketball and business strategies with the NCAA said, "The opportunity to decide what's going to happen with our revenue is a big deal," said Shaheen. "(Money from the tournament) is what a lot of institutions rely on for their athletic programs. That's a centerpiece to why all this happens. It's easy to say you don't want change. But simply put, it's what's appropriate to operate in our best interest."
The current TV contract with CBS is worth over $6 billion dollars and the NCAA can opt out of the deal by August if they want. Expanding the tournament would lead to the NCAA opting out and re-negotiating a deal with CBS, ESPN, Turner or a combination of networks in order for more tournament games to be shown.
Despite the financial sense of expanding the tournament, changing the tournament needs to be based on more than just what will bring in the biggest dollar.
Look at the college football system that is currently in place. Football is a very different sport but the Bowl Championship Series is based on financial grounds. There has been a push over the past few years for a playoff system in college football and one of biggest reasons against changing is financial. Whether or not a playoff system would work in college football, the point is that money should not be the deciding factor in a NCAA postseason.
The biggest reason I am against the expansion of the tournament is the integrity of the tournament. It is as close to a perfect postseason system as any, and adding 31 extra teams to the system could jeopardize its balance.
Giving a bye to the top 32 teams in the tournament may limit the chances for all of the Cornell's and Saint Mary's of the world.
There are many differing opinions on the issue. Many coaches, including Syracuse coach Jim Calhoun, believe that the tournament should be expanded.
Others, like George Mason head coach Jim Larranaga, caution against expanding the tournament. Larranaga, who led the Patriots to their improbably final four run in 2006, worries that the 31 extra tournament slots will go to BCS conferences and the Mid-Majors will be on the outside looking in.
Others still, such as Portland's own coach Eric Reveno, believe otherwise. Reveno wrote on his Twitter Wednesday morning, "I think I'm against the 96 team tourney (not that it matters, TV will decide)."
Reveno's comment will ultimately hold true. If the NCAA sees an opportunity to make money, they will jump on the opportunity.
So just get ready for when the final four, elite eight and sweet sixteen get joined by the tremendous thirty-two and the super sixty-four.
