Former UConn center Donovan Clingan made the 2024 NCAA All-Tournament Team. Photo courtesy of Forbes.
JAMIE HEALY | STAFF REPORTER | jdhealy1@butler.edu
Overtime, or “OT,” is an opinion column series where the Collegian takes national sports headlines or polarizing topics and gives them a Butler-centric angle.
On Feb. 15, CBS Sports college basketball analyst Seth Davis penned a column for Hoops HQ., outlining reasons why he believes the NCAA should expand the Division I Tournament, commonly known as March Madness.
This column set off a firestorm on X and other social media platforms, and serves in contrast to fellow CBS Sports analyst Jon Rothstein who on X posted “To Whom It May Concern, DO NOT expand the NCAA Tournament under ANY circumstances…Sincerely, America.”
The NCAA Tournament has a long history of expansion. It started with eight teams in 1939, doubled in size to 16 and 32 in 1951 and 1975, respectively, before expanding again to 64 in 1985 and adding the First Four, which made it 68 teams starting in 2011.
In Davis’ column, he lists a reason for expansion as a way to stave off the possibility of the Power Conferences — the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC — from creating their own tournament. Davis argues that if expanding by four to eight teams helps keep the NCAA Tournament the crown jewel of the sport, it is worth it.
However, there is a downside to expanding the tournament, even if it is only to 72 or 76 teams.
Weaker Bubbles
The bubble is one of the more captivating elements of the selection process and the bracketologies put out by pundits such as Joe Lunardi and Mike DeCourcy in the weeks leading up to Selection Sunday.
CBS’s Selection Show often pays close attention to who is in and who is out from the group of teams that have an argument to be in the field. Did they win enough games? What teams did they beat? Who were their losses against?
These questions flood the selection committee every year as they discuss the process of selection for that year’s tournament.
First-year finance major Finn Reilly advocates for a reform of the committee instead of expanding the tournament.
“I don’t think [68 teams] is the problem at hand. I think it’s the tournament committee that needs to do a better job of evaluating talent,” Reilly said. “I would put more emphasis on late-season play such as in the conference tournament. That would make more of a difference than expanding to let more teams in.”
At 68 teams, including 31 automatic qualifiers and 37 at-large bids, there are around eight teams between the last four in and the first four out that can truly be considered on the bubble. These teams may range in any year from a mid-major school such as Drake to power conference schools such as Minnesota.
This year, the bubble is incredibly weak. Teams such as 11-loss Georgia are considered to be squarely “on the bubble.” If the NCAA expands the tournament, both of those teams who are hovering around .500 in conference play will be safely in.
Junior sports media major Brayden Martin believes that power conference teams are given too much leeway during tournament consideration.
“We already have teams like UNC this year that are on the bubble with a single quad one win,” Martin said. “It’s not like teams aren’t given opportunities to make the tournament.”
The NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) was implemented by the NCAA in 2018 as part of the selection process. The NCAA cites the number of Quad 1 wins as important to its selection criteria.
If the NCAA chooses to expand the tournament, its own criteria will be rendered less important because of the number of teams getting in with very few quality wins.
First-year sports media major and basketball manager Aidan Brown argues that expanding the tournament will take away the privilege it is to play in March Madness.
“I think what makes March Madness so great is that you feel everyone deserves to be there,” Brown said. “So I think if you dilute that, it might make March Madness less exciting for the average college basketball fan, which is something [the NCAA] needs to consider.”
Overall
The transfer portal and money can both be cited as reasons the NCAA wants to expand the tournament, but there is no reason to, as it only will lead to a more diluted field.
Martin contends that the NCAA Tournament is in no need of expansion and is great the way it is.
“Everybody loves March Madness. You never see people really complaining about it,” Martin said. “I just don’t understand why you would want to touch something and try to affect something everyone loves. Let’s just leave it how it is.”
While the tournament has expanded in its illustrious 87-year history, the consensus is that tournament expansion now would be done merely out of increasing revenue, not because of a needed boost of quality teams making the field.
