Advertisement
Advertisement
Indianapolis He is not calling for a revolution or even suggesting major surgery. He is not asking for an all-comers free skate or even proposing a major increase in the number of participants. But Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim does want the NCAA Tournament field expanded.
"This year, more than ever, has proven that there are teams that might not get in, or might just barely get in, that can win games," he said Thursday. "In the past, years ago, I think there were always teams who wanted to get in, but you really knew they couldn't win any games if they did.
"But in college basketball today, the quality of teams has increased so much, if it wasn't a logistical problem, I think we would have expanded the tournament a long time ago. We have to get by that somehow ... (and) as long as we've waited and as many quality teams that there are, we really should be thinking eight or 10 more teams."
Now there can be arguments over those or any other numbers, yet there is no disputing the soundness of Boeheim's suggestion. It is logical, and it is overdue, and it finally may get some serious consideration thanks to George Mason, the gate crasher at this weekend's Final Four.
The Patriots now are society's darlings, the poor urchins who somehow got invited to the ball and then dazzled all with their ability to dance. But remember Selection Sunday? That afternoon their invitation was roundly scorned and their qualifications were questioned, demeaned and denigrated.
"George Mason could easily have been left out," Clemson coach Oliver Purnell said, and he was right. "In that league (the Colonial Athletic Assn.) alone, where you have Hofstra, they beat George Mason twice in 10 days. If you expanded, they're in. Old Dominion (which lost to Michigan in an NIT semifinal), the same way. It's obvious you have more teams that can make a run in this tournament, so why wouldn't you expand?"
It certainly would make it more up-to-date, which is a style that often eludes the NCAA. The NCAA is a slow-moving behemoth rife with politics, pretense and special interests, yet here it should move on Boeheim's suggestion.
It managed that once, history shows, beginning back in the mid-'70s. That's when the tourney field grew from 25 (1974) to 32 (1975). Then in 1979 the number was bumped to 40, and to 48 in 1980. It stayed there until it went to 52 in 1983, to 53 in 1984 and to 64 in 1985.
That was six changes in just 11 years. Since then there has been only the one change that expanded the field to its current 65. But between 1985 and the present, the number of teams playing Division I basketball grew by 44, and nine more currently are in transition, moving up from a lower division.
This means a lower percentage of teams is making the field, and that only is part of the argument. As this spring showed, as the coaches all say, there also are more capable teams out there, anonymous teams talented enough to topple the Big Ten tournament champ (Northwestern State over Iowa), the Big East tournament champ (Texas A&M over Syracuse) and the Big 12 tournament champ (Bradley over Kansas).
More like this
- Big 12 coaches support expansion 4 comments / March 13, 2007
- Coaches seeking expansion 22 comments / June 26, 2006
- NCAA Tournament won't expand June 30, 2006
- Mid-majors hope for breakthrough March 12, 2006
- Commentary: NCAA should halt coaching changes March 27, 2007
Comments
gojhawx (anonymous) says...
What a knucklehead! 64 and a half teams aren't enough? Don't mess with the greatest one and done tournament ever.
April 1, 2006 at 8:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bear2read (anonymous) says...
My suggestion would be to eliminate the conference post-season tournaments to add in the extra 2 rounds and expand to 80 teams with another double bracket; the other change I would recommend is that after each of the two rounds, teams would be re-paired once again based upon their overall seed, thus ensuring the higher seeded teams if they advance through the first two rounds, would be paired against the lowest seeded team to advance through the opening two games as well. It would ensure perhaps more lower seeds would continue to have a tougher time -- say a George Mason would not have matched up against Wichita State but would have played the highest seed in that bracket in game 3.
April 1, 2006 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mikezybko (anonymous) says...
All they need to round out the field is three more play-in games, allowing three more at-large bids to be available. Take the 3 other 16 seeds and pit them against the 3 worst 15 seeds for 2 play-in games on Monday, and 2 on Tuesday. Every #1 seed would play a play-in winner and the rest of the seeds would be bumped to a worse seed.
April 1, 2006 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
loudog (anonymous) says...
Instead of increasing the field, they need to put a cap on the number of teams that can get in from the major conferences. Because, let's face it, the number 5, 6, 7, or 8 place team from a big conference is usually the one that shouldn't be there and probably isn't as good as the second best team in a mid-major. If the NCAA put a cap on major conference participants, that would allow more mid-majors to get in without expanding the tournament so that it gets out of control.
April 2, 2006 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )