Look for NCAA to add a cherry to its expansion sundae

By Matt Vachlon

...And then, like a bad dream, it was all over.

At least, that’s how I felt upon hearing the news Thursday that the NCAA was only expanding to a 68-team tournament. After watching the quality of some of the games from this year’s NIT, it truly was unsettling to realize that all those teams could’ve been in the NCAA’s 96-team expansion model.

However, after returning to my senses, I realized that the NCAA’s new plan still had one glaring omission, which leads to one major question.

How will new teams be added into the bracket?

It’s a pretty safe bet that since the NCAA already had one play-in game with 65 teams, that it will simply add three more play-in games so that each region will now have a play-in game. Who will be playing in those games is a different story.

A common assumption is that the play-in games will continue to be for the right to be a 16-seed. I don’t deny that sounds like something the NCAA would do. After all, you can’t humiliate the big schools by making them play an extra game.

Or can you?

You can if the NCAA goes for the money grab. Seriously, I hope the NCAA goes all fifth-grade bully in a school cafeteria on this plan and tries to shake out every bit of loose change available before its implementation.

Now, before I go any further, I know what you’re thinking.

You’re saying to yourself, “How can you utter those words, Matt, especially after writing this a mere two months ago? And even more than that, why are you now backing the same selfish interests that you directly criticized the NCAA of when you wrote about expansion?”

In short: because it’s a win-win for everybody.

Let’s acknowledge for a second that the play-in game was going nowhere. Even though no one even remotely cared about Winthrop vs. Arkansas Pine-Bluff (except those associated with the schools) this past year, you never heard any rumor that the NCAA would go back to a 64-team field. That’s because you’d have to give up an at-large bid to do that since both were recipients of automatic births and likely cost yourself the presence of a big-name school.

I understand that logic, even if I disagree with it. But now, you’re going to tell me that one of the attractions of signing this TV deal for CBS/Turner was to have four of these games?

Nope, the draw is that you match up the bubble teams.

This accomplishes two things. First, it turns that Tuesday night of play-in games into a must-see event. Using teams suggested by ESPN’s Dana O'Neil, a quadruple header featuring Florida-Virginia Tech, UTEP-Illinois, Minnesota-Utah State and Mississippi State-Georgia Tech becomes instantly more palatable than the aforementioned match-up. I know that despite my protests against a larger field, I wouldn’t be against an extra day of meaningful basketball.

Second, from the NCAA’s side of things it gets us used to an extra round of games. According to CBS’s Gary Parrish, the NCAA hasn’t promised it won’t revisit expanding to 96 in teams in the future and I don’t doubt that. The jump to adding an extra round isn’t as great when you’re already used to an extra day.

I realize that my plan pushes us closer to the evil that is a 96-team field. But the reality is that if the NCAA wants it, it will come, no matter what we think. In the meantime, I just want 68 teams to be a great as it can possibly be.

“Scarlet fever" may come back to haunt Big Ten

By Matt Vachlon

The symptoms were already there: great academics, the "Birthplace of Intercollegiate Football" and a close proximity to New York City for a league looking to expand the presence of its cable network. All we were waiting for was a diagnosis.

Fast forward to Monday when Big Ten expansion took another step toward becoming a reality as Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune reported that Rutgers was the early favorite in the much anticipated Big Ten expansion plans. The Scarlet Knights' potential to be a home run acquisition was cited as the primary cause.

But that potential is exactly why I have Rutgers at the bottom of my list of candidates. When you’re the Big Ten, why expand based on potential?

You're the most profitable conference in collegiate athletics; you don't NEED to be blinded by dollar signs. Instead, you should be picky.

And that's the main problem with Rutgers. There's a lot to pick apart.

For starters, they bring nothing to the table athletically. Even in the most positive light, the athletic history of the school leaves something to be desired. In football, the Scarlet Knights didn’t appear in their first bowl game until 1978 and it didn’t appear in its next one again until 2005. Although Rutgers has now appeared in five consecutive bowl games and finished 2006 ranked 12th in the country, this sudden upswing under one head coach is not enough to overlook its previous century of futility. The same goes for basketball, in which Rutgers did advance to the NCAA Final Four in 1976, but has, overall, made a grand total of only six NCAA Tournament appearances.

Then there's the issue of New York's perception as a pro sports town first and likely a Big East basketball town second. I don't buy Greenstein's argument about New York's support of the 2006 football team because anyone can support a winner. In 2005, the Illinois basketball team captured Chicago's hearts during its run to the NCAA Tournament championship game, but hasn't since. Thus, the question remains, does New York care enough about Rutgers for the Big Ten to get the leverage necessary with the cable companies to insure their network's inclusion on their packages? Even if they succeed, can it be guaranteed that viewers will watch year round? Advertisers will want to know this and with Rutgers history of toiling at the bottom of the Big East, it's doubtful the school can draw interest away from Big East basketball during the winter.

Finally, there is the issue of the Big Ten footprint. Is it really worth only establishing a token presence in the Northeast when you could strengthen your Midwest presence instead? Schools like Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas have all been mentioned as candidates at one time or another, but the addition of one (or even all three?) could significantly weaken the league's closest geographic rival, the Big XII. The populations of each of those states are limited, but surely with a higher proportion of viewers watching in those states, as well as no major competition, would offset the small fraction of viewers that might watch in New York and New Jersey.

Look, I think Rutgers is a great school and it certainly brings a lot to the table. But I just don't see what seperates it so definitively from all the other candidates that would make taking a risk on them worthwhile.

Hopefully this fever, like all the others, will pass.

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?