"Why weren't we included in the tournament? Why just 65 teams? We play in the Big East/ACC/Big 10/Big 12/Pac 10 -- we deserve a bid far more than those little guys!"
The lead voices this year have been Virginia Tech head coach Seth Greenberg, who notably claimed that anyone who didn't think the Hokies deserved tournament bid was "certifiably insane," and former Texas Tech coach Bob Knight, who used the bully pulpit of his new job as an ESPN analyst to propose a 128-team field with no automatic bids.
Here's a breakdown of some of the expansion scenarios that have been proposed, with the pros and cons of each:
Option One: The Revenge of the Play-In Game
In 2001, when a new automatic bid was added for the fledgling Mountain West conference, the NCAA added the "opening round" game. The two lowest-seeded teams in the tournament -- usually tournament champions from the smallest conferences -- meet in a game several days before the start of the actual tournament, with the winner advancing as a 16 seed to face the tournament's top team. In 2008 Mount St. Mary's of the Northeast Conference beat Coppin State of the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference for the right to play North Carolina in the round of 64.Play-in games were used more extensively in the past. In 1991, there were three, matching the winners of the Patriot League (Fordham) against the Northeast Conference champ (St. Francis (PA)), the MEAC (Florida A&M) against the Southland (Northeast Louisiana) and the Big South (Coastal Carolina) against the Southwestern Conference (Jackson State) for the right to advance to the field of 64.
All those conferences were subsequently given automatic bids.
Theoretically, the NCAA could add additional play-in games -- one for each region, to make it symmetrical. That would mean three new at-large bids added to the overall field, and might make the opening round game seem less like an afterthought that bears little relation to the actual tournament.
On the other hand, putting the champions of the eight weakest conferences into a play-in mini tournament would only reinforce the split between college basketball's "haves" and "have-nots."
And for what? So three lesser teams from big conferences -- the 2008 candidates would probably be Virginia Tech, Arizona State and Ohio State -- get to boast that they made the tournament?
Hardly seems worth the trouble.
Option Two: Absorbing the NIT
Villanova coach Jay Wright suggested expanding the NCAA field by 32 teams and eliminating the postseason NIT. The NIT -- or National Invitation Tournament -- was the premier postseason tournament for college basketball from the 30s through the 50s, but as the NCAA expanded and increased in popularity, the NIT faded into what it's become today -- a few extra games for March Madness' near-misses.Now, a 96-team field would be uneven, so some changes would need to be made to the current bracket structure. The most reasonable way of doing this would likely be to seed each region from 1 to 24. There would be a new first round of the tournament -- in which the top eight seeds get a bye, and the ninth seed would play the 24th, the tenth would play the 23rd, etc.
The biggest problem with this approach is logistics. Squeezing in a couple of play-in games between Selection Sunday and the opening Thursday of the Tournament is one thing. Adding an entire round -- requiring travel by at least 32 teams -- is another.
Extending the tournament by a week is out of the question. As Mike Tranghese, commissioner of the Big East pointed out, CBS owns the broadcast rights to the Tournament and is locked into broadcasting The Masters golf tournament the week after the Final Four every year. Tiger Woods trumps Roy Williams.
