NCAA Tournament Expansion: Time to Expand the Field to 80 or 96
There are some coaches around the nation pushing for further NCAA tournament expansion. An 80 or 96 team field is probably the next logical step as parity has become more noticeable across the NCAA basketball landscape. 31 automatic bids are dished out every year leaving only 34 at-large spots available in the bracket. Each year there is controversy over the last few teams who get in and the last few teams who get left out. With the automatic bid system allowing small conference teams into the tournament, we have a situation where the tourney field is not necessarily comprised of the best 65 teams in the nation. In fact it is a given that the NCAA tournament field does not contain the top 65 teams in the nation. When will NCAA tournament expansion occur? Nobody can say for sure but I'm guessing talk of expanding the field will increase year after year as mid-majors continue to close the gap on the 6 major conferences.
I know what a lot of people are going to say. They'll claim that the teams who didn't get invited to the NCAA tourney should have won more games or played a tougher schedule. That's easier said than done when we're not the ones lacing up the sneakers or pulling all nighters watching game film to prepare for the next opponent. The point is that getting a chance to experience the NCAA tournament and March Madness first hand is largely why kids play college hoops and why coaches aspire to land a Division 1 job. Making it to the NCAA tourney is huge for the player, the coaches, the team, the families involved, the fans, and the school and surrounding community. The goal and dream for every team is to have their name called on Selection Sunday and to play in the NCAA tournament.
There are 341 Divison 1 college basketball schools. That means with a 65-team field, less than 20% of Division 1 teams get invited to the Big Dance. An even lesser percentage of the best teams get invited due to automatic qualifiers. Look at college football. More than half of the D-1A football teams get to go to a bowl game. And yet college basketball leaders remain stringent on keeping the NCAA tounament to the best 10% of the teams in the nation plus another 30 teams based solely on automatic qualification and a subjective discussion amongst members of the tournament selection committee. The bottom line is that it doesn't make sense to hold a 65-team team tournament without 30 teams who are as good as or better than another 30 that did make the tournament. Think I'm crazy for thinking there are that many deserving teams out there? Let's use this year as an example. Here are 10 non-tournament teams who I believe are better than at least 14 other teams who did make the tournament:
Arizona State - Beat Stanford, Xavier, USC, Oregon, and Arizona(twice).
VCU - Losing by 2 in the Colonial tourney negates a 15-3 regular season CAA record? Not in my book.
Virginia Tech - Fourth place in the ACC deserves an invite to the NCAA tournament. 5th place Miami Fla got in.
Syracuse - Beat Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova, and St. Joseph's. 9-9 in the toughest conference.
Ohio State - Beat Purdue and Michigan State to finish the Big Ten regular season. 10-8 in the Big Ten.
Akron - Ten losses on the year but six of those were by 6 points or less. 23-10 overall record. 11-5 in the MAC.
Massachusetts - 3rd place in the A10 plus road victories at Syracuse and at Boston College. 21-10 overall.
Charlotte - Beat Clemson, Davidson, Southern Illinois, Wake Forest, Temple, St. Joseph's, and UMass. 20-13 overall.
Illinois State - MVC down a bit but 13-5 in the league is still solid. Beat Creighton and Southern Illinois twice each.
New Mexico - Overall record is 24-8. 3rd place in the MWC at 11-5. Won 8 of last 10 where they lost by 1 and by 2.
This shows there were indeed high quality teams left out of the tournament this year. On paper the 10 teams above are better than the following 14 teams who got in just by winning their conference tournament: UMBC, Belmont, Portland State, Winthrop, CS Fullerton, Cornell, Siena, Coppin State, Mount St. Mary's, Austin Peay, American, Texas-Arlington, Mississippi Valley State, and Oral Roberts. Nothing against these teams. Giving all Division 1 conferences and teams an opportunity is part of what helps fuel March Madness and makes the NCAA tournament so special. But check out the schedules and results of those 14 automatic qualifiers. You'll find they don't even come close to what the 10 teams I listed above were up against.
The 10 teams listed above are also as good as at least another 15 who either won their conference tourney to get in or were at-large selections. I had a longer list and had to pare deserving teams to get it down to 10. Given the parity of today's college basketball landscape, there is no fair way to differentiate between the last fifteen that get in and the last fifteen that don't. Many people point to the RPI ratings which the media and some online analysts overhype. The RPI is a basic calculation that gives the selection committee a starting point when developing a list of teams to consider for at-large bids. The RPI does not take the place of subjectively analyzing the schedule and victories that each team had throughout the season, especially over the last 10-12 games.
Going to a 96-team tournament is probably too large of a step to take at this time. But I do believe 80 teams makes sense and is not only very workable, but it will provide more upset potential in the early rounds and a higher possibility that a cinderella team can make it deep into the tournament. Here's why: The 13 thru 16 seeds are usually comprised of the smallest conference automatic qualifiers(check out the teams I mentioned above). Those teams really don't stand a chance against top 25 caliber competition. History proves it. 13 thru 16 seeds have lost 331 of 368 first round games versus the 1 thru 4 seeds since 1985. A 16 seed has never beaten a 1 seed. A 15 seed has beaten a 2 seed just four times. Now what if we took the 13 thru 16 seeds and made them 17 thru 20 seeds filling in the gap with my list of 10 deserving teams above plus 5 more?
What would happen is that the NCAA tournament could actually kick off in a big way on Wednesday night instead of Thursday afternoon. Wednesday would feature 13 versus 20, 14 versus 19, 15 versus 18, and 16 versus 17 seeds. Sixteen total games, four in each region. The net result is that 1 thru 4 seeds would face stronger competition in the traditional first round held on Thursday and Friday. Can you imagine UCLA versus Syracuse in the first round instead of UCLA versus Mississippi Valley State? Or Ohio State versus North Carolina instead of Mount St. Mary's versus North Carolina? Could very easily happen with an 80-team NCAA tournament field. The strength of the 15 additional at-large teams would have a ripple effect on the rest of the bracket. The tournament becomes stronger with better competition in the early rounds.
It's time for NCAA tournament expansion. 80 is a solid number. 20 teams per region. 1 thru 12 seeds get an opening round bye while the 13 thru 20 seeds duke it out to see who really belongs in the remaining 64-team bracket. No more controversy. The tournament stretches out far enough that teams can no longer complain if they don't make it. With the current 65-team setup plenty of non-tournament teams have a legitimate beef to pick. Going to 80, and perhaps eventually to 96 teams, eliminates over-analysis of teams and coaches and players, reduces pressure on the tournament selection committee, includes all deserving teams(both automatic qualifiers and worthy at-large bids), and ultimately makes for a stronger tournament from start to finish.
Back to NCAA Men's Basketball Tourney Picks and Articles
Back to College Basketball Rankings home page
There are 341 Divison 1 college basketball schools. That means with a 65-team field, less than 20% of Division 1 teams get invited to the Big Dance. An even lesser percentage of the best teams get invited due to automatic qualifiers. Look at college football. More than half of the D-1A football teams get to go to a bowl game. And yet college basketball leaders remain stringent on keeping the NCAA tounament to the best 10% of the teams in the nation plus another 30 teams based solely on automatic qualification and a subjective discussion amongst members of the tournament selection committee. The bottom line is that it doesn't make sense to hold a 65-team team tournament without 30 teams who are as good as or better than another 30 that did make the tournament. Think I'm crazy for thinking there are that many deserving teams out there? Let's use this year as an example. Here are 10 non-tournament teams who I believe are better than at least 14 other teams who did make the tournament:
Arizona State - Beat Stanford, Xavier, USC, Oregon, and Arizona(twice).
VCU - Losing by 2 in the Colonial tourney negates a 15-3 regular season CAA record? Not in my book.
Virginia Tech - Fourth place in the ACC deserves an invite to the NCAA tournament. 5th place Miami Fla got in.
Syracuse - Beat Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova, and St. Joseph's. 9-9 in the toughest conference.
Ohio State - Beat Purdue and Michigan State to finish the Big Ten regular season. 10-8 in the Big Ten.
Akron - Ten losses on the year but six of those were by 6 points or less. 23-10 overall record. 11-5 in the MAC.
Massachusetts - 3rd place in the A10 plus road victories at Syracuse and at Boston College. 21-10 overall.
Charlotte - Beat Clemson, Davidson, Southern Illinois, Wake Forest, Temple, St. Joseph's, and UMass. 20-13 overall.
Illinois State - MVC down a bit but 13-5 in the league is still solid. Beat Creighton and Southern Illinois twice each.
New Mexico - Overall record is 24-8. 3rd place in the MWC at 11-5. Won 8 of last 10 where they lost by 1 and by 2.
This shows there were indeed high quality teams left out of the tournament this year. On paper the 10 teams above are better than the following 14 teams who got in just by winning their conference tournament: UMBC, Belmont, Portland State, Winthrop, CS Fullerton, Cornell, Siena, Coppin State, Mount St. Mary's, Austin Peay, American, Texas-Arlington, Mississippi Valley State, and Oral Roberts. Nothing against these teams. Giving all Division 1 conferences and teams an opportunity is part of what helps fuel March Madness and makes the NCAA tournament so special. But check out the schedules and results of those 14 automatic qualifiers. You'll find they don't even come close to what the 10 teams I listed above were up against.
The 10 teams listed above are also as good as at least another 15 who either won their conference tourney to get in or were at-large selections. I had a longer list and had to pare deserving teams to get it down to 10. Given the parity of today's college basketball landscape, there is no fair way to differentiate between the last fifteen that get in and the last fifteen that don't. Many people point to the RPI ratings which the media and some online analysts overhype. The RPI is a basic calculation that gives the selection committee a starting point when developing a list of teams to consider for at-large bids. The RPI does not take the place of subjectively analyzing the schedule and victories that each team had throughout the season, especially over the last 10-12 games.
Going to a 96-team tournament is probably too large of a step to take at this time. But I do believe 80 teams makes sense and is not only very workable, but it will provide more upset potential in the early rounds and a higher possibility that a cinderella team can make it deep into the tournament. Here's why: The 13 thru 16 seeds are usually comprised of the smallest conference automatic qualifiers(check out the teams I mentioned above). Those teams really don't stand a chance against top 25 caliber competition. History proves it. 13 thru 16 seeds have lost 331 of 368 first round games versus the 1 thru 4 seeds since 1985. A 16 seed has never beaten a 1 seed. A 15 seed has beaten a 2 seed just four times. Now what if we took the 13 thru 16 seeds and made them 17 thru 20 seeds filling in the gap with my list of 10 deserving teams above plus 5 more?
What would happen is that the NCAA tournament could actually kick off in a big way on Wednesday night instead of Thursday afternoon. Wednesday would feature 13 versus 20, 14 versus 19, 15 versus 18, and 16 versus 17 seeds. Sixteen total games, four in each region. The net result is that 1 thru 4 seeds would face stronger competition in the traditional first round held on Thursday and Friday. Can you imagine UCLA versus Syracuse in the first round instead of UCLA versus Mississippi Valley State? Or Ohio State versus North Carolina instead of Mount St. Mary's versus North Carolina? Could very easily happen with an 80-team NCAA tournament field. The strength of the 15 additional at-large teams would have a ripple effect on the rest of the bracket. The tournament becomes stronger with better competition in the early rounds.
It's time for NCAA tournament expansion. 80 is a solid number. 20 teams per region. 1 thru 12 seeds get an opening round bye while the 13 thru 20 seeds duke it out to see who really belongs in the remaining 64-team bracket. No more controversy. The tournament stretches out far enough that teams can no longer complain if they don't make it. With the current 65-team setup plenty of non-tournament teams have a legitimate beef to pick. Going to 80, and perhaps eventually to 96 teams, eliminates over-analysis of teams and coaches and players, reduces pressure on the tournament selection committee, includes all deserving teams(both automatic qualifiers and worthy at-large bids), and ultimately makes for a stronger tournament from start to finish.
Back to NCAA Men's Basketball Tourney Picks and Articles
Back to College Basketball Rankings home page
CBR Blog - Visit Now
AnyGivenFan Network Search
Subscribe to the CBR RSS feed:
More feed reader options:
Bookmark or share this page:
