Ninety-six teams is far too many

Can anyone explain the spirit of 96ers?

A movement is afoot (and some say it's a done deal) to expand the NCAA basketball tournament by almost 50 percent. Since I haven't yet caught up with the apparent concern that the symmetrical 64-team bracket was one too small before 2001, clearly this latest proposal is beyond my limited comprehension.

But some -- especially coaches -- believe that the parity that exists in men's college basketball screams for swelling the bubble to bring in another 31 teams. Clearly we all can agree that Morehead State (No. 31 of the top RPI teams not invited this year) deserved its 40 minutes on the NCAA stage and eight teams isn't enough from the Big East.

Here's what Georgia Tech coach Paul Hewitt (whose Yellow Jackets did get in) had to say about tournament expansion a few weeks ago.

"I am for expansion of the tournament," Hewitt said. "I am not sure what the number should be, but I just think it makes sense because in 1985 you had 285 teams and there were 64 teams in the tournament. Now we have 340 and more parity then ever. It is definitely a reward to the student-athletes."

Hmm. I thought it was about trying to determine a legitimate national champion.

I guess it's about time that our no-keeping-score, everybody-gets-to-play mentality of the playground has caught up to the revenue of collegiate sports.

After another scintillating first round this week, the fuzzy math supporting massive expansion simply doesn't add up. Since the tournament first went to 64 teams in 1985, the 16th (or 17th) seeds are now 0 for 104 against the No. 1 seeds. So how would this translate into a No. 24 seed doing better?

Only four times has a No. 15 seed beaten a No. 2. Only twice has a 14 seed reached the Sweet 16. Just two 11 seeds have reached the Final Four. The lowest seed to ever win a national title was No. 8 Villanova in 1985.

The rarity of these achievements creates value -- and proves that the NCAA Tournament is already about as big as it needs to be.

Quite frankly, I thought the NCAA Tournament was pretty close to perfect at 64. It allowed no byes and the bracket fit beautifully on an 8x11 sheet of paper for the office pool.

Why they had to add No. 65 and create a play-in game for only one region seemed superfluous. Especially since they chose to force small conference champions who earned their place in the field to prove themselves one more time.

If any expansion is necessary, they should make play-in games exclusively for the at-large bubble teams, making four wannabe tournament clubs play each other in each region for the rights to meet in the middle-class 8 vs. 9 game. That would yield a 72-team field that could accommodate the few extra programs with faint hopes of having any extended success (i.e. the Virginia Techs and Rhode Islands) a shot against peers (the Floridas and Notre Dames) in a mini bubble tournament.

I'm not saying that the tournament can't be improved with just a little more tweaking. But 96 seems considerably too far.

For years, the expansion made sense. They went from eight to 16 teams in 1951, fluctuated between 22 and 25 conference champions only from 1953-74 and grew to 32 teams in 1975 to accommodate worthy at-large teams. The growth became a near constant over the next decade, swelling to 40 in 1979, 48 by 1980, 52 in '83, 53 in '84 and the mother lode 64 in 1985.

At the current size, about 19 percent of Division I men's teams make the NCAA Tournament while another nine percent get invited to the NIT -- sort of the Shreveport of postseason basketball.

Isn't that close to enough?

Not for some. Basketball coaches see the bloated football bowl system and for some reason get envious that so many certifiably average teams get rewarded with a bowl trip.

"I look at football, and I see 50 percent of those teams going to bowl games," Hewitt said. "The argument is made that those are minor bowls. But when I see those kids win those bowl games I see a lot of emotion and joy. I think the opportunity to play in the NCAA Tournament is a big deal to these kids."

Of course it's a big deal, but the reason why is because they earned it. If you start handing out invitations to everyone, it means less.

This logic is entirely backwards. It's football that should be looking at the basketball postseason as the model. Whatever television cash cow the colleges are searching for in this expansion consideration could be generated 10-fold by establishing a limited football playoff for Division I. Eight to 12 teams is enough, rewarding conference champions and no more than a couple of the very best at-large teams to avoid diminishing the regular season.

Of course some teams will get left out. That's inevitable in any field that doesn't take everyone.

And that's the point. Being left out makes teams hungry. It fosters desire. It creates value.

That's what the NCAA basketball tournament is -- valuable. It's why the first round is such compelling theater.

The idea is to determine a champion, not give everybody a turn at bat.

Let's hope the NCAA decides not to ruin a good thing but deepening and cheapening the pool.