Enough madness: Proposed expansion of the NCAA tournament is unnecessary

Whether the team of the moment is living out a Cinderella story or continuing a long history of dominance on the court, few events in collegiate athletics rival the excitement of March Madness.

For nearly three decades, 64 teams provided for vigorous competition and top talent in the tournament. This seems to be one area which is not in need of innovation.

But last year’s increase from 64 to 68 teams has opened the floodgates for discussion of a broader expansion of the tournament. Some have proposed that the total number of participating teams be increased to 128.

Among the proponents of a larger tournament field are UNC Athletic Director Bubba Cunningham and many other college coaches and administrators.

But from a fan’s perspective, this is an unnecessary change. As the saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

The NCAA does many things poorly, but this seems to be one thing it does right. It shouldn’t waste its resources trying to improve upon a system that works when so many of its other systems are broken.

A larger tournament field would make it harder for an underdog to make a run for the Final Four, and it would detract from the weight of regular-season games.

Half the fun of March Madness is watching underdogs pull off upsets. But the more games there are in a tournament, the less likely it is that a lower-seed team will be able to sustain a string of wins. The Cinderella stories fans love so much would be increasingly rare.

Without this unpredictability, an expanded post-season would be far less entertaining, and could actually be less profitable than the current system.

A larger tournament would also take away from the importance of regular-season games. One of the arguments against a playoff in college football is that every regular season game matters, since teams aren’t guaranteed an opportunity for redemption in the post-season.

Presumably, if a team shifted its focus toward the post-season, it wouldn’t take the regular season as seriously.

Increasing the number of teams in the NCAA tournament would also hinder a conference’s schedule-making, since “March” would probably have to start earlier to accommodate a larger number of tournament games.

Given the current trend toward larger conferences in collegiate athletics, a longer and bigger tournament would only compound these scheduling problems.

When Syracuse University and the University of Pittsburgh announced they would be joining the ACC, fans were outraged at the prospect of conference teams only facing off once each year.

The proposed changes to the NCAA tournament would only aggravate these frustrations, since some plans for expansion would eliminate one or two regular season games to make room for a more prolonged tournament.

It’s true that deserving teams are left out of the tournament each year, and an expansion might help prevent these “bubble” teams from being excluded.

But there aren’t 64 bubble teams, and most teams that aren’t invited have not performed well enough to be included in post-season play.

Sure, it would have been nice for UNC’s team to be asked to the big dance instead of the NIT in 2010, but we really didn’t deserve it.

Keep March Madness the same. The tournament encapsulates everything that is great about college sports, and it would be a shame to dilute its successful formula.

Instead, the NCAA should focus its attention on more pressing matters. From the tangled mess of the football Bowl Championship Series to larger questions about the commercialization of student athletes, the organization has plenty on its plate.