Well, if you’re a frequent reader of this blog, you no doubt have noticed the pot that got stirred on an earlier controversial post. As of now, the post has 31 comments. Since I don’t feel like dealing with something so deep today, I thought I would talk about another controversy on a much lighter note.
March 19 kicks of the Men’s College Basketball NCAA Tournament (the play-in game doesn’t count IMO). There will be 65 teams (okay, I’ll give the game its recognition) competing in the single elimination tournament in hopes of being crowned as the National Champion.
There are 31 automatic bids in the tournament. These come from teams that win their conference championships. The other 34 teams get at-large bids, meaning they are deemed as being one of top 34 schools left that did not win a conference tournament.
The conference tournaments give unlikely teams a chance to make the NCAA Tournament through a string of good luck and nifty wins. This was seen recently when Northern Iowa, a team unlikely to get an at-large bid, won the Missouri Valley Conference Tournament.
By allowing conference champions, the tournament brings diversity by allowing mid-major “Cinderellas” to enter the tournament. Perhaps that is why basketball fans are familiar with schools like Gonzaga, George Mason, and Valporaiso. This is why we may never forget the names Adam Morrison and Bryce Drew.
However, here is where the controversy is brewing. Jay Bilas, an ESPN analyst and Duke grad, is proposing that the NCAA Tournament get rid of the 31 automatic bids and take the top 64 (or 65) teams in America. Bilas actually argues this will help the mid-major schools and even bring in more “Cinderellas” to the tournament.
The problem is, most of the underdog teams in the tournament are teams that would not be considered in the top 64. They have no national exposure, they don’t play on ESPN, and most of America does not know they exist. By not rewarding conference champions, the little guys would be knocked off.
Instead, conferences like the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, and Big East might get every one of their teams in the tournament. Not only does that make the conference tournament worthless, it almost makes the regular season worthless as well. Instead of playing for a spot in the tournament, teams in major conferences would only be playing for a seeding.
Also, with Bilas’ idea, teams going into their conference championship with sub .500 records would have nothing to play for. Fans would have nothing to travel for either.
With the current format, teams like Georgia (17-16 record) can come from nowhere and win the SEC tournament and make the NCAA Tournament (as happened in 2008).
Prior to 1975, only 1 team per conference made the NCAA Tournament, meaning you HAD to win your conference championship. Now Bilas wants to do away with the importance of the conference champion altogether.
What’s your take on this? Should conference championships hold significance? Should we do away with conference champions altogether and take the top 64 teams? Should we go the way of some and expand the tournament to 128 teams? (Yikes!) Sound off!