By Christian Heimall, Staff Writer
This week, the NCAA Committee is discussing the possibility of expanding the NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship Tournament from 64 teams to 96 teams. No, that is not a typo. Almost 100 teams (of D-I’s 313 total) having a shot at being called the National Champion. Great honor, right? Sure, for those big name schools.
It is no secret as to why this expansion is even being discussed: money. So while a conference like the CAA may get one or two extra teams in the field of 96, this is more designed to allow schools like Connecticut and North Carolina into the mix after disappointing seasons. It is the same concept as why football teams like Boise State or TCU will never play for a national title despite having the best record in the country. Not only are they inferior in terms of talent, would they really attract more dollars than a Texas or Alabama? No.
The same goes for the men’s basketball tournament. With 96 teams in the field, who would you rather see: four CAA schools including Hofstra and Northeastern or four more ACC schools like Wake Forest and UNC? What will bring in more money: Delaware and Georgia State or UCONN and St. John’s?
I am not opposed to the idea of the tournament. Who would not love to listen to more Gus Johnson verbal explosions? Plus, for a guy whose dream is to be a sportscaster more games equals more job opportunities. But isn’t it a little ridiculous to include everyone into this elite club? College Basketball analyst Jay Bilas said something on ESPN over the weekend that made a lot of sense in the argument against expanding. “Imagine telling every university president we were expanding Magna Cum Laude to include the C students,” Bilas said. “It diminishes the accomplishments of those at the top.”
What I am vehemently opposed to is the concept of getting rid of the NIT Tournament. 96 teams in the NCAA tournament, plus the NIT and the other two tournaments (the CBI and CIT) allows over half the division-one programs a chance at the postseason which in my mind diminishes the accomplishments of other teams.
The NIT is something different. It is a shot at redemption for some teams and another proving ground for others. Look at this year’s finals. North Carolina, a team that won the 2009 National Championship but struggled throughout this season, still had a chance to take home some hardware and some history. If they won the NIT they would have been the only team ever to win the NCAA and NIT in consecutive seasons. With a field of 96 teams, the Tar Heels probably would have been bounced by Louisville in the preliminary round rather than giving their fans a reason to celebrate.
Dayton, the team that actually won the NIT, got to prove to the world they too can compete with the big boys. For the first time since 1968, the Flyers were able to take home a nice trophy saying they were the best (of the rest). Still, how often do you think they would have been able to beat a team with the history of a UNC? If the field goes to 96 and Dayton is included, West Virginia rolls over them and they become just another “sacrificial lamb” to the top-seeds.
The NIT is a place for teams to show their worth despite not having the best of regular seasons. It is an option for universities to reward their programs with some postseason play. Getting rid of it in favor of a 96 team NCAA tournament field turns a great opportunity into something less beneficial for mid-majors. Hofstra may make a NCAA tourney or two in the next five years if they expand it but how far would the Pride go? Lose in the prelims to California? Maybe get a win before being trounced by Kansas? But what if they keep the NIT and Hofstra goes to that instead? What if the Pride makes the finals of the NIT and get to play for a championship at the Garden? What would be more fun as a fan: one extra game that you get blown-out in or a real chance at a trophy for the showcase?
Junior guard Charles Jenkins is guarded by three IUPUI defenders in the Pride’s defeat in the first round of the CBI Tournament. (Sean M. Gates/ The Chronicle)
