At dinner this evening, my wife cooked up some Brussels sprouts. I hadn't eaten them in awhile, but I have always enjoyed them. My soon-to-be five-year-old daughter took one look at the little green spheres and refused to dignify them with another thought. We tried halfheartedly to get her interested (generally adding sugar to things works - in the case, it did not). Her intractable response reminded me of what seems to be the common view of expanding the NCAA tournament. For whatever reason, people are determined to dismiss the idea without giving it another thought.
The leader of this nay saying parade is ESPN's Doug Gottlieb. I actually think he is one of the better commentators on the Worldwide Leader and I am amazed by his ability to talk for 30 minutes or more on his podcast without ever being redundant or boring. That's a skill I definitely don't have. He also generally makes interesting points about specific teams and the schemes they run. However, when it comes to expanding the tournament to 96 games, he will go to no end to bash the idea.
For example, in the first round of the Big 10 conference, Evan Turner hit a 35-foot buzzer beater to beat Michigan. Gottlieb's first point in studio was that moments like that would become less special if the tournament was expanded. Even though the Buckeyes were a lock to make the Big Dance and Michigan needed to win their conference tournament, Gottlieb somehow equated a fantastic finish with less meaning. My take is that fantastic finishes are great no matter the event and I will remember Turner's shot for a long time (even though I will probably forget that it was against the heartless Wolverines).
Gottlieb's latest tact is to take aim at all of the coaches who have lobbied for tournament expansion. Because it will look even worse if a Tier 1 coach can't guide their team to a 96-team tournament, he reasons that coaches will be more apt to be fired if they are not included. He may be right, but I don't think that coaches are fired at this point without due cause. I think that coaches who have consistently high profile teams and are still bounced in the first round of the tournament (see Kent, Ernie) are still just as likely to get fired as they are today.
I wrote about tournament expansion two months ago and I have yet to hear a reasonable argument about why it will be the death bell of college hoops. I won't repeat my previous arguments here, but I have had little reason to change my mind. Most of the anti-expansion people are focused on the fact that the current set up is perfect and that the casual fan will lose interest. They say that rewarding 96 teams with a tournament bid will reward mediocrity and muddy the pristine tournament waters.
I can't speak for the casual fan because I am not one, but I am not sure that 64 (+1) is necessarily a magic number. Was there such an outcry in 1985 when the tournament expanded to the current setup (-1)? Not really, because there wasn't nearly the amount of interest or the amount of money involved. As I wrote before, I don't understand that sports writing community's angst at money being involved in college sports. Of course, this deal has a lot to due with money, but isn't it the American way to squeeze every penny out of every opportunity? Why is seemingly everyone so sure this is a terrible idea without giving it a chance?
All in all, I just don't get how two more days of Madness-filled basketball can be a truly terrible thing. There will be more Cinderellas, more buzzer beaters, and more upsets. For example, does East Tennessee State have a better shot of beating Kentucky or Virginia Tech (who they may have faced in the 96-team first round)? The new first round games will be competitive, exciting, and will weed out even more pretenders - be they from Tier 1 or beyond - leading to better second round games. The overall quality of the tournament will increase and teams should have no gripes about the bubble (although Bubblology and its silly cousins will not go away).
Not to diminish my point, but tournament expansion seems like fait accompli. Why not embrace it? It may be really great and provide even more enjoyment of the best sporting event on the calendar (save maybe Wrestlemania). Oh, and try your Brussels sprouts (they are particularly yummy with a touch of lemon).
If you have a reasonable argument, feel free to send me an email here. I am very interested in your thoughts.