NCAA Should Not Expand Tournament to 96 Teams

Every year, the NCAA Tournament is arguably the greatest three weeks of the year. Cinderella schools like George Mason and Davidson can finally showcase their talents in front of a national audience. Buzzer beaters and upsets happen on a consistent basis. Heck, since each of the 64 games played in the tournament is based off a single elimination basis, emotions run extremely high while heartbeats soar to an all-time level. With the current success of this format, why would the NCAA even think about expanding the tournament to 96 teams?

This new suggestion seems like one of the most ludicrous ideas ever created. Multiple problems will happen with a drastic expansion. First and most importantly, what exactly would the regular season mean? Each year, teams play approximately 33-35 regular season games to fight for a position or spot in the NCAA Tournament. Since there are only 31 at-large bids available out of 347 Division I schools, only teams with the strongest resumes can have a shot at entering the tournament without winning their conference tournament.

Expanding the tournament would therefore mean that perennial contenders Connecticut, North Carolina, Arizona, and UCLA, who all had abysmal 2010 seasons, would have had a legitimate shot at making this season's NCAA Tournament. Each of these teams had at least 15 losses, with UCLA even having a losing record. To have these teams then make it to the tournament this season due to their high reputation would have been an absolute embarrassment to college basketball.

Furthermore, if 96 out of 347 schools made the NCAA Tournament, that would account for over 27 % of college basketball. Although that would significantly help teams from mid-major conferences receive an at-large bid into the tournament, this would definitely deteriorate the quality of play in the big dance. Each year, approximately ten or so teams have a legitimate shot at winning a title. Expanding the tournament would lessen the quality of play in the earlier rounds of the tournament, something that is in the most part non-existent today. With the current format, each round of the tournament generates tremendous suspense and intrigue. Upsets would not have the same meaning if the tournament were expanded. There would be no Bucknell over Kansas or Hampton over Iowa State shockers that seriously alter the college basketball landscape.

Another reason against the expansion would be the length of the tournament. Ten days of college basketball over a three week span is the perfect amount of allotted time for the tournament. Fans definitely have maintained a sustained interest during this three week period, as college basketball often concludes its season on an extremely high note. Lengthening the tournament would definitely change that. It would become like the NHL or NBA playoffs, two extremely prolonged events that definitely cause the fans to lose interest. Ratings for these two playoffs during the past decade were at an all-time low, and this was largely due to the two-month allotted period for the playoffs. People can only watch a continuous event for a certain amount of time before they begin to lose interest.

In summary, the NCAA would definitely take a substantial hit if it were to expand the tournament to 96 teams. The NCAA is only concerned about making money, but they must realize that maintaining a large fan support should be the primary goal. The NFL and MLB have the right playoff systems, as they are always usually short and compact. Fans can maintain a high level of interest during the NFL and MLB postseasons, since these only last barely a month. The NCAA should look to the MLB and NFL instead of the NHL and NBA when determining its postseason formats. Otherwise, college basketball will definitely lose a substantial amount of interest.