A Bigger Table: Expanding the NCAA Tournament

By: Billy Buckles

It's March 12, 2013 outside Conseco Fieldhouse and 150,000 gold, black, crimson, and cream fans are willing to do anything short of selling their house to get a ticket into the arena. Matt Painter and Tom Crean are leading their teams off their respective buses. Billy Packer is slouched courtside thumbing through media guides in hopes of once again inundating viewers with a deluge of historical notes during the telecast of what is surely the most anticipated sporting event ever staged in the Crossroads of America. What’s the occasion? Two top-five teams, the fiercest of rivals, are about to tip-off in the basketball capital of the world.

For decades, an antiquated tournament structure indirectly spawned largely mundane non-conference contests. For every major conference match-up, there were ten also-rans playing (and typically getting trampled by) Duke on ESPN. The recipe was simple for high-majors that wanted an invitation to the "Big Dance": load up on mid-major opponents to rack up non-conference wins, finish over .500 in conference play, and win at least one game in the conference tournament. Most of college basketball slavishly relied on that status quo ante. Fans reluctantly endured the rehearsal: an unnecessary number of tickets never served their purpose.

With prescient knowledge in mind that there would be no snubs this year, high-major coaches focused on cooking up more challenging non-conferencing dates, which made for an unprecedentedly diverting mise-en-scène. Fans with a sweet tooth for inter-major conference match-ups were wisely advised to schedule root canals ahead of time. Cynical predictions that fans wouldn't follow a season where every team was guaranteed postseason play were expunged as the NCAA reported record attendance numbers. ESPN drooled and agonized over having to descry the cream-of-the-crop from the five-star buffet of games to televise.

The result of the libertinism is encapsulated by the top-25. Two of the top-five and 11 overall have 10 or more losses.

As Purdue and IU line up for lay-ups inside, let's go back to 2008 and take a look at what suggested that allowing every team into the NCAA Tournament would be a positive change for all parties involved: the NCAA, big schools, small schools, coaches, players, networks, and the fans.

________________________________________________________________

Americans have a predilection for canting in the face of reshuffling what we know and love (think MLB interleague play); not when we can have the "good ol' days" and the "way things were." Once college basketball fans get over the initial shock at the idea of a tournament change and start asking questions, they'll come to wonder why the tournament doesn't already include everyone.

Why would the NCAA consider changing the tournament?
The NCAA states that it "shares a belief in and commitment to an inclusive culture that fosters equitable participation for student athletes." What is more inclusive than letting everyone have a shot in March? Isn't attempting to differentiate bubble teams inequitable?

In addition to the boost for philosophical ideals, college basketball would be richer than ever. The NCAA serves the interests of member institutions. High-major schools would no longer have to fastidiously find the non-conference equilibrium between manipulating RPI, determining the correct strength of schedule, and pacing towards the "20-win" mark. The resulting freedom would improve match-ups, generating higher television ratings and ticket sales.

So a reformed tournament would result in improved non-conference match-ups. Are the non-conference schedules of high-majors bad enough to warrant a change?

Even the most optimistic fans subconsciously see schedule-makers as power-wielding misanthropes. The unwritten 20-win rule leads to major conference teams hosting opponents like Bethune-Cookman (RPI of 319), Lipscomb (226), Loyola-Chicago (222), Indiana State (128), Ball State (297), Texas Southern (320), Wofford (195), Florida-International (263) (Note: This was Purdue's actual entire home non-conference schedule during the 2007-08 season in addition to exhibition games against Indianapolis and Saginaw Valley State. Purdue and Notre Dame haven't played since 1966.).

Fans are persnickety when analyzing opposition. Some have the disposable income to buy a season-ticket and eat the games against cupcakes; more think carefully before paying $300 to attend the only eight games that aren't boring bugbears. Tight games are as important as wins; unpredictability and excitement define basketball at its best. Little can rival the satiation derived from supporting your favorite team in a back-and-forth battle.

The current system prevents high-majors from portioning out enough of what fans crave. Teams are lucky to schedule even two non-conference home games against major conference opposition in a non-affiliated match-up.

Would rising nepotism between major conference teams be a cryptic omen portending a larger schism between big and small schools?

That's a concern, but schedules wouldn't be as head scratching if high-majors looked out their windows for competitors. Why did Florida host Vermont (25-point win), but not Central Florida? Why would Texas play Division II Arkansas Monticello (49-11 at halftime), but not make room for Stephen F. Austin? Ditto Michigan State, who beat San Jose State by 40 points, but didn't play Western Michigan. Viable alternatives of comparable strength were present in the area; location and familiarity breed interest.

Mid-majors shouldn't be left out as attractive schedules would still have a balance of tough, big-name opponents and hungry nearby smaller schools led by players still heartbroken at being overlooked by the bigger fish coming out of high school. Series against local opponents would be easier to sell to fans, as return trips would give the die-hards (boosters) a chance to see their team on the road. Purdue athletic director Morgan Burke sees the value in playing geographical rivals. "Local teams also add the possibility of bringing extra fans to Mackey Arena," Burke wrote in a May e-mail. "If we can play an in-state opponent, that is always our preference."
High-majors wouldn't have to fret over how losing to mid-majors could damage tourney résumés. A schedule-maker I spoke with said a two-for-one series (the high major hosts the mid-major, plays on the road the next year, then hosts again) could work financially in most cases.

Dwarfing the appeal that a shot at hosting high-major neighbors would bring, the peak perk of expanding the NCAA Tournament would be that small schools would have a guaranteed tournament spot waiting every year. The relevancy of even following smaller programs is debatable at present as they, on average, earn a bid to the NCAA Tournament just over once every ten years. Survey a student at one of these schools over who his favorite team is, and chances are he'll name a major conference school (with Butler, Xavier and Gonzaga three possible exceptions). Having an automatic seat reserved in the tournament for every team would fuel continued attention by students and alums, even in down years.

Alums would notice that closely following their alma mater's team, no matter how weak, would be a more worthwhile endeavor. Recruits may not be as quick to look past the near-by mid-major school if they have the guarantee of four years of postseason basketball pending. It could level the playing field and give small school coaches more to sell to recruits.

America loves a Cinderella. There would be 250 trying on slippers every March.

How would coaches and players benefit?

Blue-chip recruits demand development, competition, and opportunity. Coaches would yield more control over the troika than ever before.

Development could be emphasized in a way not possible today. The pressure to win that exists from game one would be lessened tremendously. Freshmen teeming with potential but short on experience (Texas A&M's DeAndre Jordan in 2007-08 for example) could profit from an expedited learning curve. More minutes could be allocated to potential stars, who perhaps don't have a polished game due to lack of floor time. From the start, coaching would be undertaken with an eye on what matters, the postseason.

Competition is the whetstone of talent; top players and coaches who view the NBA as a future reality rather than a pipe dream aren't seeing their skills sharpened. In the NBA, every game is a dogfight for the players and a test for the coaches; even the worst teams win 20 games a year. Winning by 40 over a mid-major in college doesn't sharpen skills like playing other top programs would. Top programs could face-off against each other much more often, and top talents would learn to focus for a full 40 minutes every game.

For the majority of players who are true student-athletes and see college as the end of the road for their basketball career, the opportunity of playing in the postseason would be invaluable. Over five times more coaches and players would live the dream of competing in the NCAA Tournament every year.

With 340 teams playing Division I basketball, how long would the tournament last?

Figure on the tournament lasting just one week longer than present. Today, the future champion has to win five tournament games to make Championship Monday. If all 340 teams were involved, they would have to play either seven or eight games. A maximum of eight teams would play more than the six tournament games today's champion must win.

The negligible difference could be made up by removing conference tournaments. They would be obsolete. Since they're cash cows, the other option would be to remove two allowable non-conference games.

Wouldn't the tournament be impossible to schedule logistically?

It wouldn't have to be. Here's a suggestion: split teams along geographic lines into 24 regions of 12-16 teams. For example, the entire Northwest would play one another, California and Nevada would combine to form two regions, and Indiana and western Ohio would form a logical group. Regions would be awarded two, three, or four berths to the Field of 64 (with number of berths tied to group strength). Two neutral sites in each region could be selected to host the games each year.

Opponents could be randomly drawn by ping-pong balls as is done in the NBA Lottery and European Champions League. Imagine the tension as match-ups are revealed.

The potential for Duke and North Carolina to face off in the first round would not be a problem, but a cause for celebration. If they were the two best teams, they'd have to beat one another eventually if they were to prove themselves as champions. Fans of the two teams would have the lion's share of tickets and only a short drive to get to see the historic match-up. Ponder these other possible region match-ups: UCLA-USC, Purdue-Indiana, Michigan State-Michigan, Kentucky-Louisville, Georgetown-Maryland… all with the season on the line and in front of passionate fans.

300 valuable new games, some less nationally relevant, will spontaneously arise from nowhere; tickets and telecasts will surely accompany each and every one. Coverage could be regionalized. Games could be played every night the first week, allowing the networks to choose the best games to display nationally and in prime time slots.

Once the field is narrowed down to 64 teams, fans would again surround the television to see the same committee used today re-seed the teams the same way they do today and send them to a national tournament like the one currently in place. Two weeks later, the first true national champion would be crowned.

Really, everyone would benefit? Run that by me again please.

The NCAA will have made more money and encouraged competition and opportunity. Large schools will delight their fan bases with more appealing schedules and have more money to invest into athletic department interests. Small schools would be in the tournament, a dream they drool over nightly. Coaches and players will have the satisfaction of knowing they've been tested more than ever before. Networks would see higher ratings. Fans will revel on a season like none before, ask themselves what possessed them to spend $400 on a scalped ticket to go watch their team in the first round, then mail in their season ticket renewal.