VCU will fuel more talk of tourney expansion; it's still a bad idea
Despite VCU's run, there are not 96 teams that belong in NCAA tournament
Will Jim Calhoun hang 'em up if UConn wins two more games in Houston?
Tennessee and Georgia Tech made good hires in Martin and Gregory, respectively
Let's nip this in the bud, shall we?
While most of America is still aglow from a scintillating weekend of college hoops, and as we gear up for the Final Four, a distant chorus is clearing its collective throat as it prepares to drop a piece of profanity on the season's culminating weekend. I'm talking about the E word.
I know what you're thinking: We settled this debate last year, didn't we? Well, get ready to have it again. VCU's mad dash from the First Four to the Final Four plays right into the hands of those people -- mostly coaches -- who still want the field to go to 96 teams instead of 68. The argument, which will be posed most prominently by Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim, will go something like this:
If the tournament didn't expand to 68, VCU wouldn't have been in it. And even with the field at 68, a lot of people think they shouldn't have gotten in. That proves that there are a lot of really good teams out there who deserve to be in the tournament. Going to 96 is the only way to make sure all those teams get a chance to do what VCU has done.
At first glance, it's a powerful argument. Upon closer inspection, the idea of a 96-team tournament is as bad now as it was a year ago. Let us revisit all the reasons why:
It would dilute the tournament. It was hard enough to get people to care about the First Four doubleheaders that were played on a Tuesday and Wednesday night. Imagine if there were 16 games each of those days, followed by 48 more from Thursday to Sunday. Most people who aren't college basketball coaches or nerdy sportswriters have real jobs. If we had that many games on four consecutive weekdays, it would be impossible to get folks to pay close attention. The whole thing will become a blur, and most of the games would be forgettable. The current setup is a classic case of less being more.
It would destroy the regular season. This is already a monumental challenge for college hoops (and it'd get even steeper if the NFL ever decided to expand to an 18-game regular season, pushing the Super Bowl back into mid-February). Without the annual will-they-or-won't-they bubble talk down the stretch, casual fans will have even less reason to pay attention to what happens in every other month but March.
It would diminish the accomplishment of making the tournament. The fact that good teams get left out of the NCAA tournament every year is what makes it so special. What's the big deal in making the field if every remotely mediocre team is invited? And make no mistake, that's exactly what would happen. A lot of mediocre teams, and plenty of bad ones, would get in. That doesn't help anyone except the men who coach them, and I'm not convinced it would help those coaches all that much.
Everyone does have the same chance VCU does. We don't need to take the NCAA tournament to 96 teams because it already includes 345. The NCAA extends automatic bids to all 31 conferences in Division I. Each conference gets to decide whether to award its bid to the regular season champion or the tournament champ. All but the Ivy League give it to the tournament champions, which means even if you bumble through the entire regular season you are still eligible to play your way into the NCAA tournament. You can't get more inclusive than that.
The public doesn't want it. The NCAA took a long, hard look at going to 96 last year in concert with the television networks who were bidding for the tournament. They floated the trial balloon and it got shot down -- emphatically. Aside from a bunch of coaches and a small handful of commentators, the response from fans and media was overwhelmingly negative. When the NCAA announced it was expanding the tournament to 68 instead of 96, the sigh of relief was palpable.
Here is where Boeheim and other 96ers riposte with a falsehood -- namely, that there was also a great deal of public resistance when the NCAA tournament was expanded in the past, yet after it happened people were happy. I happen to have a unique perspective on this because I wrote a book about the 1979 championship game between Magic and Bird and how it spurred the growth of the tournament. Between 1978 and '85, the tournament expanded numerous times, starting at 32 teams and ending up at 64. As I researched that period in depth, I did not come across a single article or quote that criticized those changes. Quite the contrary. In my book I quoted a 1983 New York Times article that referred to the tournament as "perhaps the fastest-growing sports event in the country." The prevailing reaction was excitement, not despair. So if Boeheim or anyone else tries to use this line of reasoning, I would challenge them to produce the evidence that expansion was resisted in the past.
The fact is, there was only one good reason to potentially expand the NCAA tournament to 96 teams: money. If the TV networks were going to pony up that much more dough to produce that many more games, it would have been worth it. Yet, the NCAA managed to get a 61 percent rights increase in a horrible economic environment without having to dilute the tournament, diminish the regular season and piss off the public. So let's hope this 96-seat train gets scuttled before it leaves the station. That will allow those of us who cherish this tournament the way it is to savor what is shaping up to be a truly memorable Final Four.
Uh ... (cough) ... yes I am. Here goes nothing.
Look, I'm absolutely thrilled that VCU is in the Final Four -- thrilled for the team, their fans and this sport that I love. My only point is this: Whatever opinion you had two-and-a-half weeks ago about the Selection Committee's decisions should not be altered by what has happened in the tournament. The committee's mission is not to project what teams will do after Selection Sunday. Its job is to assess teams based on how they performed during the season.
If you believed, as I did, that VCU should not have been given an at-large bid based on the fact that they lost seven games in their conference, had three losses to teams ranked outside the top 100 of the RPI and dropped four of their last five regular season games (including the finale at home to James Madison), then you have to stick by that argument. None of those facts have changed because the Rams won five more games. To argue otherwise now is to take the easy way out.
Yes, the committee has every right to feel good about its decision to include VCU, but that is a dangerous game to play. VCU's wins do not validate its bid any more than Louisville's loss to Morehead State in the second round invalidates its bid. The same goes for the tired conference overrated/underrated arguments. Just because the Big East flopped the first weekend doesn't mean the league did not deserve 11 teams (especially considering the 11th team, Marquette, made mincemeat of Xavier in the second round and reached the Sweet 16). By the same token, I disagreed with the current committee chair, Gene Smith, when he recently told me that he felt good when all four No. 1 seeds made the Final Four in 2008. The tournament is a wild, exciting, unpredictable crap shoot. That's what makes it so great. Once the first games tip off, it's a whole new season.
I recognize this is a tough argument to make in light of what VCU has done, so let me close with an important concession. Those of us who make our living by criticizing what the committee does each year should take a long time to digest the huge piece of humble pie that Shaka Smart and his guys have served up. In the days leading up to Selection Sunday, I issued several calls for civility, pleading with colleagues and fans to disagree with the committee without being disagreeable. Too many people did not heed that call. Hopefully next year we can all find a way to voice our opinions without being condescending as we breathlessly fulminate in our certitude. It's not easy to admit, but just because we media types feel strongly about something doesn't mean we're right.
I'm still not sure people have fully locked in to what an incredible story Kentucky senior center Josh Harrellson has become. The 6-foot-10 senior center played a grand total of 88 minutes last season, and he scored a total of 28 points. Back in his sophomore season, then-coach Billy Gillispie became so enraged at Harrellson during a game at Vanderbilt that he made Harrellson listen to the coach's halftime locker room talk from a bathroom stall. (Apologized for that yet, Billy Clyde?) Harrellson had some good moments during this season -- most notably his 23-point, 14-rebound effort in a win at Louisville on Dec. 31 -- but he looked like a nondescript role player for most of the season.
In the tournament, however, Harrellson has been Kentucky's most valuable player. Not its most talented, but its most valuable. He has averaged 15 points and nine rebounds per game while evenly battling the likes of Jared Sullinger and Tyler Zeller. Harrellson's dramatic improvement would not have occurred if he didn't have a coach who pushed him and believed in him, but it is mostly a tribute to his pride and work ethic. It also reminds me of the giant steps that Brian Zoubek took at Duke last season, as well as the progress Ryan Hollins made while spurring UCLA to the Final Four in 2006. All three cases involve a senior center who was thought to be a stiff and a bust, yet all of them found a way to lead their teams to success in March.
Avalanche hold off Blackhawks' charge for 3-2 win
Burrows' first two of the season helps Canucks top Jets in SO