There's been a lot of talk about expanding the NCAA Basketball tournament from the present number of 65 teams (counting the play-in game).
My question is why? For those unfamiliar, teams are ranked from 1 seed(best)-16 seed, with four #1s, four #2s, etc... The lowest seed to win the tournament was Villanova as an 8 seed in 1985. Every once in a while a seed lower than that will win the tournament. Yes, maybe some teams more deserving were left out while others get in, as no system is perfect. However, when you get into the lower seeds, the odds are so small of running the tables anyway. Already, the lower half of the tournament has such a long shot anyway. If multiple low-ranked teams making it to the Final Four was a regular occurrence, I would think the seeding and the invitations needed quite a bit of work. But we see only see it as an irregular occurrence.
Probably the best argument in favor of expanding the field is that teams in the smaller school conferences have a smaller chance of getting in. Many times only the conference champ gets a shot. Is there any other good arguments in favor that I'm not seeing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Heck, too many teams already get into the playoffs as it is.
I'm with John. 65 is plenty.
The problem is that for every small school that got in, there would be five big schools with 17-14 (6-9 conference) records getting in as well.
It would be a sea of mediocraty.
Post a Comment