130 Teams in the NCAA Tournament? What's Wrong With That?

Vito Forlenza, a sports writer for Comcast.net, wrote a column last week concerning recent proposals to expand the NCAA tournament beyond the current 65-team field ("130 Teams in the NCAA Tournament? That's Just Wrong"). The National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) and the Atlantic Coast Conference each have recently expressed support for expansion and both are prepared to increase the pressure on the tournament committee to address the issue when committee members convene for a weeklong meeting next month. The proposals range from expansion to 68 teams, to 80 teams, and to even doubling it to 130 teams! Of course, implementation of any plan would be subject to NCAA approval.

Clemson coach Oliver Purnell, who was recently named president of the NABC, favors expansion to 130 teams:

"Let's say you're at 115 teams. You're being done a favor to be let in, but it ensures that nobody deserving gets left out. What's wrong with making sure the top 100 teams in the country are rewarded with going to postseason play? One more weekend doubles the tournament. ... Man, the excitement--you wouldn't be able to measure it."

However, Forlenza argues that expansion would be an increased burden on the student-athletes:

"What you wouldn't be able to measure is the added strain it would put on the players. The current tournament already lasts three grueling weeks with most teams coming off a week of conference tournaments. All of this postseason play follows a three-and-a-half-month regular season. ... The coaches and conferences don't care. Just making the tournament takes some heat off coaches who are always under intense pressure to win--so of course they favor expansion. And just making the tournament increases revenue for most schools and conferences in so many different ways--so of course they favor expansion. ... If the NCAA allows the tournament committee to cave in to these forces and expand teams' already inflated schedules, the governing body needn't pretend its players are amateurs anymore. I don't want to hear about sluggish graduation rates. I don't want to hear about academic scandals. I don't want to hear about coaches' increasing power on college campuses. I don't want to hear about the overarching virtues of intercollegiate athletics. In fact, I don't even want to hear about players' majors, their GPAs, or how so many of them will turn professional in something other than sports. Because when these kids are playing half an NBA season, they might as well already be professionals."

After reading Forlenza's column, two thoughts came to mind. First, I agree with Purnell. Why not double it? One more weekend of basketball with an additional game for each school wouldn't be that much more physically demanding and it wouldn't affect grades or GPA. Aren't these some of the same supposed concerns asserted any time a playoff system for football is discussed? -- I just don't buy it. The student-athletes who currently get good grades and bad grades will get those same grades regardless of the length of post-season play. And is it really that much of a physical strain on players to add an extra weekend or two of post-season play?

My second thought was that antitrust is no longer a concern to the NCAA with expanding the tournament, now that it owns the rights to the NIT tournament as a result of the settlement reached last summer (which extinguished the antitrust lawsuit brought against the NCAA by the NIT tournament organizers). So it's definitely possible that we'll see some sort of expansion of the tournament, especially if it means additional revenue to schools and conferences.

Posted in: