NCAA tournament expansion plan needs fine tuning

By Matt Vachlon

By no means do I think the NCAA has this one right.

I hate the idea of expanding the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. I think 96 teams are way too many to invite and I’d be more in favor of eliminating the play-in game and reducing the amount of participants by one back to 64. Consider that the lowest seed (No. 16) has still yet to win a first round game.

But to continue to argue that point is futile.

First, it’s already been done, as the NCAA’s plan has already taken considerable abuse from sportswriters, pundits and fans alike. And when exactly has the NCAA ever proven it’s willing to listen to anyone? This is the same group that won’t do anything about the tragedy that is the BCS system in football; so it’s safe to predict that change in some form is on the way.

Instead, I focused my attention on creating a best-case scenario, something that could at least make the concept of a 96-team field palatable.

The idea, I must admit, stemmed from reading this article. Overall, I really don’t agree with much of Gregg Doyel’s argument supporting expansion, as he largely bases it on tradition (think of what used to be acceptable traditions in this country), but he does challenge us to think about the 96-team field at the end of the article and I took him up on that offer.

One of my biggest concerns about tournament expansion of this scale, other than the lack of quality teams, is that it’s just an excuse to invite more marginal teams from the “BCS conferences.” While the NCAA has claimed expansion would give greater access to smaller schools, that concern seems warranted when looking at this mock bracket that applies the selection committee’s criteria to a bigger pool of candidates.

If the NCAA’s intentions are to truly help the small schools, then it needs to protect itself from itself. And I came up with two tweaks that could do just that.

First off, regular season winners from each league need to be given automatic bids, while conference tournament winners continue to get them as well. This does two things: first, it eliminates some of the extra at-large spots, which clearly aren’t necessary, given the results of the mock bracket, and, it retains the validity of the regular season, especially in the “BCS conferences.”

Now I realize this isn’t a new concept as I’ve heard this idea thrown around before, but it does allow me to address a loophole that I’ve never heard anyone acknowledge before. Under this format, what would be the incentive for the regular season champion in a non-BCS conference to win the league tournament?

The answer is that you use the 32 byes in the first round that are created by a 96-team field to your advantage. You make a rule that states that any school that wins both titles in the same season automatically qualifies for a Top 32 seed. The result is that league tournaments in smaller conferences retain their competitiveness, while the BCS leagues can potentially gain additional at-large bids back from “double winners.”

My other tweak would be to finally add the much-needed rule that a team must finish .500 or better in its league to gain consideration for an at-large bid. This rewards teams like Wichita State of the Missouri Valley and Old Dominion and George Mason of the Colonial for having solid seasons in underrated leagues, while effectively eliminating teams like Connecticut that hang around due to playing a tough schedule, but ultimately losing those tough games. In essence you have to put up or shut up.

Thus, I draw my line in the sand.

I offer a system that rewards champions and winning teams while still offering “Cinderella” access to the Big Dance through winning its conference tournament. Under these conditions a 96-team field becomes workable.

I think I’m being reasonable, so I ask the NCAA: Will you return the favor?