By Paul Gotham
To expand, or not to expand: that is the question.
For the NCAA, the question also becomes one of risk and reward.
As the NCAA basketball season kicks into gear, so too, have discussions about the men’s basketball post-season tournament. Is 65 teams enough? Should the tournament field increase? If so, how many teams should compete for a spot in the Final Four? Part of these conversations includes an evaluation of the television broadcast of March Madness.
While its contract with CBS nears an end, the NCAA is assessing the alternatives.
Initial discussions have focused on the field. Coaches have proposed increasing the number of teams invited to the NCAA tournament by four to six – thus increasing the number of play-in games. These conversations have extended to the proposition of the field increasing to 80 or 96 teams.
Now the NCAA is considering a switch to cable television. On the surface, this seems like a win-win situation for basketball fans.
Would fans get anything they do not already have.
Such a change is attractive, but it would come at an expense.
Moving to cable would improve overall viewing of the tournament particularly in the first three rounds. The tournament expanded from 48 teams to 64 in 1985. The NCAA added a 65th team in 2001. This expansion seems to have rendered CBS helpless. Bound by the conventions of standard television, CBS struggles when faced with the prospect of broadcasting 8 to 16 games in one day.
Viewers must endure the whims of studio producers dictating which game will be watched at any given time (proponents of Dish TV enjoy a sense of satisfaction). The situation grows worse because CBS insists on a dinner break during these first two days even though games are taking place. CBS has taken steps in past years to improve on their presentation. Still the broadcast lacks.
Moving to cable television would allow expanded coverage of each game, and give viewers personal choice which game they watched and to what extent. This is a good thing.
Like anything else in life, to get something means someone must give something.
Increasing the NCAA Tournament field comes at the expense of the already established individual conference tournaments. A field of 96 diminishes the value of the automatic bid needed for many teams.
Is the NCAA willing to risk the value of the conference tournaments?
To better understand this dilemma, one needs to go no further than the Syracuse Orange.
In 2006, SU coach, Jim Boeheim, was outspoken about the need to increase the tournament field by four to six teams. Boeheim’s Orange club found themselves on the outside looking in that year.
Boeheim lobbied for minor increases.
Last year, Boeheim’s Orange earned a spot in the field of 65 with a magical run through the Big East tournament. SU fans now proudly refer to last year’s team as ‘Marathon Men.’ SU outlasted the UConn Huskies in an epic six-overtime quarter-final match.
If a an automatic bid is not as important, do the Orange and Huskies play that game the same way? Would either team sacrifice the conference tournament title for something larger? Is that a good thing?
The NCAA post-season begins with the individual conference tournaments. Fans have as much, if not more, access to these games as they would to an NCAA tournament consisting of 96 teams.
The culmination of these conference tournaments becomes the Saturday before Selection Sunday. On that day, 8-10 (depending upon the schedule) conferences play their championships. Add in semi-final games for the ACC, Big Ten, and the Big 12 and college basketball fans have a smorgasbord of action.
On that day, no studio producers dictate games for fans. No dinner breaks interrupt the viewing. Starting before noon and ending after midnight, fans can get all they want.
To expand or not to expand? Maybe, the NCAA should consider another of life’s adages: better to leave well enough alone.
I agree. No need to expand the field. I’m a ‘Cuse fan and although I get upset when they’re left out of the tournament, I can see why most times.
I do like the idea of ESPN picking up the contract. You would basically be able to then choose which game is the primary broadcast. They would use ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and possibly ABC or other affiliates.
I also HATE the dinner break. Completely unnecessary. I want to eat dinner while watching. Most of the time you’re at some type of eating establishment anyway. This is something the tournament organizers need to fix. Games should be on at all times each day.
I love those first two days and don’t need a break. Let me choose which game I don’t want to watch and when I want to eat dinner.
If some team had won the NIT and did so so convincingly that it looked as if they would have been final 4 or even elite 8 in NCAA, then I would say expand, but since that has not happened, why bother. Sure some of the automatic conference champions are worse than some of the NIT teams, but the additions would still be a #10 seed at best. That’s not worth watering down the field any more than it already is. I might allow for a play in game in each region, but that’s it (68 teams). As to cable coverage from a guy who does not get cable/ESPN; I would surely miss the tourney most of all the things that I can’t see. The dinner break has been annoying, but I have adjusted. On the other hand, as I said, I would certainly miss the tourney, but again, I would adjust.
The tournament is already GREAT, so I recommend not changing much with the current tournament format, except maybe adding 3 more teams so there are 4 play-in games instead of just 1. But that’s it. 65 (or 68) teams is more than enough to alleviate the risk of keeping a “potential winner” out.
ESPN is wonderful with all of it’s outlets/stations, so I would welcome being able to view the game I want and flip back and forth esp in those early rounds, just like a lot of you have written. Better flexibility is almost always good.
Dan – pizza, beverages, and college hoops – doesn’t get much better.
Pete – if you need a place to watch college hoops on cable, you know the address.
Wally – You make a good point – “potential winner.” I don’t ever remember a possible final four team being left out of the tournament.
Geeez … maybe the Irish could get one of those new play in spots this year (66-68. Nah … they’ll play just poorly enough to finish #70. What was I thinking???
Anyway, I think the current tournament format pretty much guarantees that the AP Top 45 will gain a tourney berth. If your team isn’t hunting in the AP Top 45 after 29 or 30 regular season games, you have essentially ZERO chance of winning the tournament and don’t deserve a shot at the title anyway. So go have fun with the NIT. Now admittedly, a couple of highly suspect teams each year will get in by getting hot and winning their conference tournament. Such is life … to the bubble teams that get knocked off because of this, I say “Too bad … get your butt off the bubble and play better … besides … you have no chance of winning the tournament anyway!!!”
Casey —
Based on regular season performance and ultimately their seeding I guess, who was the NCAA Nat’l Champion that we would say was the biggest surprise? Was it Valvano’s NC State team? Villanova? Who was the lowest seed ever that won all the marbles??
Villanova wan an 8 seed – by the way, one of three Big East teams to reach the final four that year.
Carolina St. was a 6 seed.
Prior to that it gets tricky. In 1978 it was a 32 team tournament and they did not actually give seeds.
In 1939 – the first year of the tournament – it was an 8 team tourney.
By the 60s it was a 25 team tournament.
We would probably have to divide upsets by eras. How about UTEP’s win in ’66?
We are going to have count on the wise one. Pete! Oh Pete! Are you there?
I vote biggest surprise as Danny Manning’s KU team, seeded 6th. Villanova’s win was the most amazing given their shooting percentage in the second half, but not necessarily a big surprise. NC State was emotional because of Valvano running on the court, as will always be etched in our memories, but not necessarily a surprise. Texas Western was the first “mid-major” to win it all, made even sweeter because they beat the Baron/bigot, but not necessarily a surprise. I still vote for KU/Manning.
Okay, Pete, let’s go “back in the day” of 1966 when TEXAS WESTERN (now UTEP) and “legendary ” coach Don Haskins beat Adolph Rupp and Kentucky in the finals. How many teams were in the tournament back then. Was it still called the NIT or did they change the name yet?
What was the name of the movie they made a few years ago about this? I enjoyed it.
TW was 27-1 and ranked #3 nationally going into the tourney, so probably not too surprising they won it all. But probably a huge surprise compared to everyone’s view at the START of the season.
Based on the above, I’d have to say Villanova’s win was the biggest surprise … an 8 seed (notionally a #30 rank going in). Now “Danny & the Miracles” were the first team with more than 10 losses to win the tournament, but I don’t know what they were seeded or ranked going in. Kansas started that year with a 12-8 record, so it’s possible they were an 8th or higher seed at start of the tourney.
My point remains … if you can’t get into the tournament as a 12 seed, just shut up and quit whining … you have no shot at winning it anyway.
Oops. Sorry, Pete … I need better reading comprehension … you pointed out that Kansas was indeed a 6 seed. My bad.
Hey, look at this. Needless to say … a few surprises. (I’m not sure what made me stumble on this). This must really drive Duke fans crazy.
Rank College Wins Losses Winning percent
1 Kentucky 1988 635 .758
2 North Carolina 1984 703 .738
3 Kansas 1979 793 .713
4 Duke 1876 815 .697
5 Syracuse 1753 806 .685
6 Temple 1711 960 .641
7 St. John’s 1686 868 .660
8 UCLA 1672 726 .697
9 Pennsylvania 1657 949 .636
10 Notre Dame 1651 908 .645
11 Indiana 1641 909 .644
12 Utah 1637 858 .656
13 Illinois 1609 853 .654
14 Western Kentucky 1602 780 .673
15 Oregon State 1594 1180 .575
16 Washington 1591 1056 .603
17 Louisville 1587 831 .656
18 Texas 1586 945 .627
19 Brigham Young 1578 994 .614
20 Arizona 1568 858 .646
21 Purdue 1565 927 .628
22 Cincinnati 1553 915 .629
23 Princeton 1552 986 .612
24 West Virginia 1550 972 .615
25 Bradley 1537 1006 .604
I often forget that ND basketball has been consistently good enough to rank 10th in wins. Certainly Brey is trying to lower that ranking. Hope he soon goes the way of Unweis. W. Ky is a quietly good program. Oregon St and Utah rankings are real surprises to me. It’s been a long time, but the Bradley Braves of the MVC were once one of the dominant teams in college basketball (early to mid 50s), along with LaSalle and St. Francis of PA.
Wally, there has been an NCAA tournament since 1938 or 1939. The NIT has existed longer than that, and until the early 50s the NCAA was secondary to the NIT. By 1966, Texas Western (movie: Glory Road) was winning THE tournament, and few cared about the NIT. I think TW was in a field of 16. Back then, everybody who got in was a legitimate contender, so surprises were harder to come by. I think KU/Manning was part of a 32 team field, making their 6th seed win a bit more surprising than ‘Nova’s, but either one has to be considered a classic.
As to your final point re: tournament expansion, I think I made all the same points as you did in an earlier post on the topic, even to the extent of saying I could live with 68 teams (1 play-in per region). I am with you 100% on this one.
Pete —
Only 32 teams in the tournament back in ’88 when Kansas won??? I thought they had gone to 64 in the early ’80’s?? Casey???
I think ND’s ranking in wins stems more from playing the game for a loooong time rather than excellence. Certainly, the post Digger Era has been quite void of real contenders. They were VERY GOOD for about 30 years and at times great under Phelps from early 70’s until Digger “retired”. Hard to believe yet again that they can’t get the coaching thing right for soooooo long … an even longer drought than the football program. I’m sure we’ll be looking back in early March at this dreadful home loss to Loyola Marymount and wondering why we’re in the NIT again … and saying “If we had only beaten that crappy LMU team ….”
64 teams in ’88: https://www.databasesports.com/ncaab/tourney.htm?yr=1988
22 teams in ’66: https://www.databasesports.com/ncaab/tourney.htm?yr=1966
Digger helped for sure, but ND’s win total was built by guys like John Jordan, Moose Krause, and even one Jess Harper (who coached Rockne in football). There’s another guy in there – early 30s maybe, but his name escapes me. I thought 64 teams was a product of the 90s. My how time flies! Thanks Casey. I apparently need a fact-checker!
I also thought the “play-in” was a new concept, but in 1984 the field was 52 teams with 4 play-in games. Wow! I guess nothing is really “new” anymore!
Pete —
That last name you might be thinking about … is it Ray Meyer … the ND player who became the legendary Hall of Fame coach for DePaul for 40+ years? He’s one of Chicago’s all-time favorite and beloved sports figures.
No. Good thought, but not Meyer. He played at ND, but i don’t recall that he coached there. In fact, I remeber some controversy when he was NOT hired, but I can’t remember what year that was. I am going to look it up now.
George Keogan, 327 wins – second most in school history behind only Jordan.
Sorry, second to Digger. Jordan is third. And Bertram Maris was a big contributor in the VERY early years, going 33-7 in 1908-09 for his best of 5 seasons. Walter Halas, George’s brother, also coached at ND for 2 or 3 seasons. Keogan never had a losing season in 20 yrs but was overshadowed by ND football and some coach named Rockne. Digger had 2 losing seasons. I almost forgot Johnny Dee, Digger’s predecessor and the coach when I arrived on campus. He had several 20 win seasons. Back then we still had pep rallies in the old field house. It was easy to see why ND was virtually unbeatable on its home court, though by that time we had moved games to the JACC.