Since its inception in 1939, the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament has been getting bigger ... and bigger ... and bigger. It's eight times as large as when it first began.
It started with eight teams, expanded to 16 after a decade, then existed for 20 years with just 24 or 25 teams.
Then, deciding that more than just conference champions should be eligible, the NCAA went crazy, expanding to 32 in 1975, to 40 in 1979, 48 a year later and finally to 64 in 1985.
The only tweak since then was the foolish idea in 2001 to add one more team for a 65-team tournament.
So logically, the NCAA Tournament is overdue to be expanded, right?
That's what some folks believe.
replica hublot watches A report from the Sports Business Journal says the NCAA is considering expanding the tournament and that several networks are poised to bid for the rights to the tournament. The expansion could happen as early as next year.
Which would be ridiculous with a capital R.
Even though the number of NCAA Division I teams keeps climbing -- it's up to 347 after sitting closer to 300 a decade ago -- there's no need to expand the tournament. The NCAA basketball tournament may just be the best sporting event in the world. As Goldilocks would say, it's just right.
Just think if the tournament were expanded to 96 teams.
This year, there are several storied programs that are unlikely to make the NCAA Tournament without some inspired runs through their conference tournaments.
Defending national champion North Carolina is 14-11. Eleven-time champion UCLA is 11-12. Connecticut is 14-11. None are NCAA-worthy this year. However, in a 96-team tournament, all would likely be included.
Expansion to 96 would make the regular season totally meaningless, except for seedings. Teams could cruise through the regular season and act like NFL teams at the end of the regular season, not worrying about winning games, but saving up for the playoffs.
In a 96-team tourney, you could arguably see all 12 ACC teams make Thomas sabo charms it. ... This year 11 have winning records, and a 12th, Boston College, is 12-12. You could also get 13 of the 16 teams from the Big East with winning records into the (Real) Big Dance.
It would ruin postseason conference tournaments, which may not be a bad idea. However, more money would go to the NCAA to dole out to the bigger conferences, while the smaller leagues would get the shaft, much like football.
An expanded tournament might help a team like Utah State, when it wins the regular-season championship but gets left out if it fails to win the conference tournament. But for the most part, smaller leagues wouldn't benefit by an expanded tournament.
From what I can tell, there isn't a lot of widespread support for a 96-team event except from perhaps the NCAA, which would make more money; the networks involved; and college coaches, who might get more job security, by adding an NCAA appearance to their resume, even if they were a 22nd seed.
If a change has to be made, I'd go back to the 64-team tournament and eliminate the silly play-in game, the Tuesday before the tournament, something I've advocated for years. It's demeaning to the two teams designated as the worst teams in the tournament and especially the one that loses.
If you do
Other articles:
http://www.qh0977.com/Blog/View/?264
http://www.dzblog.net/mywatches/26242/We+will+catch+child+sex+perver.html
http://www.engage-online.org/-arrested-in-liquor-store-rob.html
http://www.backpackblogs.com/entry.php?w=mywatches&e_id=28347
http://www.sousk.com/blog/blog.asp?Uid=mywatches&id=446
...