In just a few days, we'll be entering a brave new decade. Over the next 10 years, advancements in technology and science will probably blow us all out of the water. Sports has the capability of doing the same thing.
Will the NFL or NBA ultimately expand overseas?
How shiny and sparkly will the newer stadiums become?
Will leagues like the MLS, AFL (now turning into AF1), and WNBA finally catch on to a sustainable audience?
And what new league will pop up to become the next would-be challenger?
While some of these inquiries are have been discussed since back in the late-'90s, one idea has barely moved a muscle for the last 25 years. The NCAA men's basketball tournament jumped from 53 invitations to 64 in 1985. Except for a minute addition of a 65th bid in 2001, everything's stayed pat.
Now comes word that talks are ramping up to expand the tournament again. It's inevitable, really. Benchmarks for number of teams worthy to battle for the championship have risen since 1951, when the tourney doubled from eight to 16 squads. Now, after a quarter-century with the same basic structure, it may be time to give more teams the opportunity to realize their "one shining moment."
As with most sports issues, there are embracers of (like the Wall Street Journal's Darren Everson) and opponents to (like Rock Hill (SC) Herald's Gary McCann) this possibility. And while the presence of more early-round games is enticing, I'm one of those people on the skeptical side of the fence when it comes to expanding the tournament.
I'm not going to sit here and say that these brackets are the perfect structure and situation to decide a national champion year in and year out. But, to me, the way that qualifying is set up for the tourney currently makes this extremely productive. The drama and tension of the first two days of the event usually match any moment throughout the sporting year. Will that be taken away by adding another night or week of tournament play? Maybe not. However, there could be some other problems that might creep up during the process.
The main issue, in my mind, is with how these bids will be distributed. Over the last few years (keep in mind, I've only been following this thing since 1990), it seems the NCAA's selection committee has been more receptive toward rewarding programs outside the nation's six Super Conferences. From George Mason to Wichita State, Butler to Gonzaga, the tournament is recognizing pumped up schedules, big-time victories, and tougher league competition.
All that said, if the tournament did expand, would they favor giving those spots to the mids and littles (i.e. Illinois State, Saint Mary's, Niagara)* of the sport, or would the lesser powers (i.e. Notre Dame, Virginia Tech, Nebraska)* continue to pump the profiles of the big boys? It'd be nice to see teams from conferences like the Metro Atlantic, Horizon, and Big Sky get the chance to prove that multiple teams can be tournament-ready. But if you don't bring name recognition and potential fan base into consideration, you've lost a gasket. I definitely believe that the higher-ups in Indianapolis would prefer South Carolina to South Alabama, Penn State to Portland State, and Boston College to College of Charleston.
Another point that irks me a bit is how some people in the know are looking at this. An article from the Salisbury (NC) Post stated the N.C. State head coach Sidney Lowe talked about how football teams can qualify for bowl games by being .500. The problem with that argument ... who's interested in all of these lesser bowl games? I think I caught more of Duke's pasting of Gonzaga last weekend than I did last night's Music City Bowl.
Unless you have a rooting interest (be it team or monetarily related), are you honestly going to pay attention to all of the 30-some-odd games being played through next Friday? My guess would be no. And that's what might happen with some of those matchups if the tournament would expand. If you've regularly read my scattered thoughts, then you know my opinions of the CBI and CIT tournaments. Although it wouldn't be probable, might an at-large spot or two go to below .500 teams with 8-8 conference records?
Could this whole idea work? According to Duke's head coach Mike Krzyzewski, of course, but there need to be some tweaks. (Wait a second ... I'm agreeing with a Dukie?! My head must be screwed on wrong today.)
Regular Season Qualifying
One of the reasons I enjoy the structure of the Postseason NIT is that they automatically invite any regular season conference champion that doesn't make it into the NCAAs. If the tournament is going to expand, it must include every conference champion. This would assure that your body of work would mean something throughout the campaign.
End of Season Qualifying
So what happens to the conference tournaments? Don't worry, they'll stick around, too. Each top seed (who by this time has automatically gained entrance to the Big Dance) will get an automatic berth into the final. The rest of the conference foes must play out a tournament to see who gets a shot at number one.
This can work on several levels. For the smaller conferences, it's an opportunity to get a second bid. For the mid and power leagues, it's a proving ground to gain more quality victories and enhance your profile. For the conference champs, it's a way to prove or raise your seed in the tournament.
At-Large Qualifying
After the conference tournaments (the Ivy League can still go by regular season champ only), the minimum number of at-large spots available to a 96-team field would equal 29. As it stands right now, there are 31 maximum at-large entries for the 2010 edition of March Madness. So even at its minimum, this alternative would offer plenty of slots to fill heading into the postseason.
Now, you figure that this expansion would pretty much eliminate the Postseason NIT, which won't be that big of a problem since the NCAA now runs the tourney. But could they really leave the tradition of balling on the world's most famous basketball stage in late March? And if not, would any championship really be contested between a fourth-place MAC team and an eighth-place Pac-10 squad?
There's no easy answer to all of these questions. That's probably why the tournament exists. Just like the (humph-humph) BCS, it'll always keep you guessing.
*All participants took part in the 2009 Postseason NIT.
December 29, 2009
Brian:
MLS already has a sustainable audience. I have no idea why that isn’t apparent. They are expanding and have pretty consistent attendances in most markets.
But I guess it’s easier to make a throw-away comment than do the research.
December 29, 2009
Tim:
Here’s some research for you.
Same-franchise attendance was down 9 percent in 2009 and its biggest markets — NYC, LA, Boston, DC and Chicago — all tanked, down from 14 percent to 22 percent. Plus, there’s potential for a players strike looming.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/soccer/10/28/mls.attendances/index.html
January 4, 2010
Brian:
Child, please. Cherry picking a few numbers does not make research. I didn’t say they were not suffering from the same issues that all leagues were during the economy. I said they had a sustainable audience.
Look at the year-by-year league-wide numbers for more than one year. Look at the stabilization of the median attendance (thereby showing that there are fewer fluctuations in the numbers).
And the players strike possibility, or ownership lockout, has nothing to do with a sustainable audience. When you want to discuss the situation honestly, try again. Until then, actually educate yourself before you try and denigrate another league in a throw-away comment just to make your little NCAA hoops analysis a little more “edgy.”