Advertisement

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Big 12 coaches support expansion

By Associated Press

Advertisement

Kansas City, Mo. — Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim has plenty of support from Big 12 coaches for expanding the NCAA Tournament.

Boeheim, a longtime proponent of including more teams in the field, was flabbergasted Sunday when the Orange were snubbed by the selection committee. That brought another round of calls from coaches on Monday to expand the tournament to at least 68 teams, if not more.

"If the field is designed to get the best 64 teams in - if that was the design - then from that standpoint you'd think it needs to be modified," said Kansas University coach Bill Self, figuring a handful of automatic bids go each year to teams that otherwise would not make the cut.

Expanding the tournament has become a hot-button conversation piece that regularly bridges the gap between selection Sunday and the start of the NCAA Tournament Thursday. It's the rallying cry of every fan whose team was passed over and every coach whose job security is measured by postseason appearances.

The last major tournament expansion came in 1985, which increased the field from 53 to 64 teams. The NCAA added a play-in game in 2001, when the number of automatic bids increased from 30 to 31.

Meanwhile, the posts on the dance floor have become harder to earn.

Since 1985, the number of Division I programs has ballooned from 282 to 336. The swell has been most pronounced since 1993, when a reduction in the number of scholarships a program can award from 15 to 13 spread talent among more teams and created more parity than ever.

Self said the number of mid-majors that reached the NCAA Tournament last season demonstrated how level the playing field has become.

Those berths came at the expense of conferences such as the ACC and Big 12, which had the same number of participants as the Missouri Valley.

"There's just so many good teams these days, and so many good players," said Texas A&M coach Billy Gillispie. "I don't know the perfect number, but I definitely think we should expand."

More like this

Comments

JayhawkPhil (anonymous) says...

There are several alternatives to the way the tournament is run today and each has it's own problems. The first step in overhalling the current tournament is to admit right up front that it's real current purpose is not to include the best 64 teams. It is to ensure that every rinky dink conference has a representative and to give everyone, through league tournaments, one last chance to qualify no matter how lousy their season has been up to that time. Having established that, there are only two ways you can improve the tournament, both of which would be resisted.
1. Add one more round to the tournament-- This would increase the number of teams to 128. There would still be bitching about the 128th spot but those teams would have a lot less credibility than those currently arguing over the 65th spot. The downside would be that the tournament doesn't need to be any longer and it would diminish the prestige of qualifying each year. Giving all teams one more game however would lead to less arguement than increasing the total of teams to somewhere between 65 and 128 because then you would have to decide who had to play the extra game.
2. Eliminate automatic qualification for league tournament winners. The real purpose of the tournaments is to make money and raise hoopla anyway. The downside would be that everybody wants a 2nd chance.
I wouldn't like it, but I could live with either of these alternatives. Obviously the ideal way to change the tournament is to simply pick the best 64 teams but the process for evaluating those teams is to open to corruption and just plain stupidity.

March 13, 2007 at 12:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RL (anonymous) says...

Self made a good comment about teams getting snubbed. There will always be teams like this whether they expand the field to 84, 104, 124. If it ain't broke don't fix it!!

March 13, 2007 at 5:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

robneyer (anonymous) says...

I think something often is forgotten in this discussion, which is that the whole point of the tournament -- aside from making big piles of cash, of course -- is to determine a national champion. Does anybody think that K-State or Syracuse or Air Force really was a legitimate contender? Yes, all those teams would have a better shot than, say, Niagara or Albany. But those conference tournaments are good for the game, because they create excitement and interest.

Frankly, as much as I respect Bill Self and many of his colleagues, I really wouldn't give a dull nickel for their opinion about the tournament. It's not for them; it's for us. And this us doesn't think we need more teams that have virtually no chance of reaching the Final Four.

March 14, 2007 at 12:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

BABBOY (anonymous) says...

I think it should be expanded. Teams as a whole are better than they were 20 years ago. Take this year, there was some insane number of teams with 20 wins. It could be easily done. Have "plan ins" to determine who the top eight seeds play. This would be eight games played the Tuesday before the tournament. It would allow another 16 teams a shot at it with no interference in the time line of the tournament.

Also, I think a team should lose their automatic bid if they do not have 20 wins (like needing six wins to go to a bowl game) and they must have a winning record in conference.

But, without a doubt, this system is better then the BCS football system.

March 14, 2007 at 6:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )