sportsfanIQ

In light of recent talks to expand the NCAA tournament, it seems only fitting to take a stance on one side of the debate—either in favor of a potential 96-team field or against it. 

With changes in mind, and the 2010 March frenzy less than a week away, pay special attention to the insanity that a 64-team bracket induces, while at the same time remain open-minded to the idea of adding another 32.  (I understand the current format has, technically, 65 teams, but the "play-in" game might hold more irrelevancy than Mark McGwire's steroid confession.)

To evaluate both options, one must understand the history of this three-week phenomenon—and the transformative expansion it has gone through—in order to credibly offer a verdict.

In addition, it's important to consider the effect a 96-team format would have—whether it be on the students' educational inconveniences, the TV scheduling and how CBS would be impacted, or, perhaps the main driving force behind any changes, the finances.

Now, although the latter isn't this writer's expertise, we can, however, hypothesis on the tournament's structural changes and the students' educational demands. Before we do, let's dig into the history of March Madness.

In 1979 the tournament field moved to a 40-team format, up from 32 the year prior. The next year, the tourney saw its participants expand eight more, totaling 48. Finally in 1985, aside from the aforementioned irrelevantly added play-in game, the number settled at 64, and has been stagnant there ever since.  

Why the doubling of the tournament during the late '70s to mid-'80s?  

A logical explanation would be the media coverage and attention the game received. In 1979 the championship game was viewed by a record 35 million people, and over the course of the next six years (by the time the brackets finally landed at 64) averaged 30 million a year.

In fact, 16 years later, right up until the 1994 finals between Arkansas and Duke, the NCAA sustained a 30 million viewership for its final showdown.  

It wasn't until 1995 that the game began to see a precipitous decline in overall witnesses of the championship game. (Coincidentally, this is the exact time the Internet began to take off. Additionally, 1979 was the year ESPN originated. Just food for thought.)

Spanning the subsequent 15 years, from 1995 to 2009, the NCAA Championship game drew in an average of 22 million people.  

Why the tournament lost eight million viewers on its final night is beyond me. A quick suggestion would be the competition of the actual game. If this is true, wouldn't adding 32 more teams that wouldn't qualify under the current format worsen the possibility of a good final?  

Actually, it strengthens the chances of the best teams reaching the finish line. With 96, the structure would consist of adding the additional 32 teams, essentially the top 32, to a first round bye. This enables the elite to be the strongest towards the end, and the not-so-great, the ones playing an extra game along the way, to be the weakest.  

Furthermore, think about it. A 16 seed has never defeated a No. 1.  A 15 seed has only beaten a No. 2 four times. Basically, remove the poor match-ups early on, and the NCAA gets a better overall product, and we the fan get better games at the cost of an additional round.  

But withering the field down to the best isn't always the greatest formula for success. In 2008 (the only year since the field expanded to 64 that all four No. 1 seeds prevailed to the Final Four), the championship game drew in 19 million viewers.   

So at this point, from the NCAA's perspective, the thinking behind an additional 32 teams widens the fan base and attracts a larger audience. Add on more schools interested at the onset, and your chances of keeping those same fans around for the end increases.  

On the flip side, though, from the fans' point-of-view, adding an extra 32 teams compromises the integrity of the regular season, and dilutes what it means to "make it to the dance."   

Are we willing to forgo meaningful regular season games all for three weeks in March?

In contemplating all these factors, on the surface it appears as though 96 is better. But personally, explain to me how the scheduling would work. Because 16 games on Day 1 and another 16 on Day 2, both being Thursday and Friday of Week 1, works for me.  

When would that added round be? Tuesday before the start of the tournament? (Show me the ratings of the current play-in game on Tuesday night.)

No thanks!

As for the students, one more game simply means one more night of no classes in March. There are greater problems the NCAA faces from a student-athlete debate than one extra day of no classes. If you're deciding to favor expansion or not, please do not use this argument. Simply put: it holds no water.  

Finally, as noted, the finances of expansion are way too complex to analyze, and quite frankly, not worth it. The tournament is about heart, and taking home six consecutive games en route to a title. Whether a University makes money, or CBS negotiates a larger contract, is useless in my mind.

In the end, I've weighed the options many times over in my head. When it all boils down, I feel that if it ain't broke, then don't fix it. There are always going to be teams that don't make the tournament, and there is always going to be team No. 65 that feels slighted.

But where does it end?

If you add 32 more now, team 97 will be unhappy.  

Look, the tournament is perfectly structured the way it is: Thursday through Sunday for Week 1; Thursday through Sunday for Week 2; Saturday and Monday for the Final Four.

When you begin rewriting the definition of March Madness, you risk losing its identity.

And once it's gone, it'll never come back.

Prepare yourselves sports fans.  The annual sprint to the Final Four begins once again for 64 teams.  What is it, though, that makes this tournament so appealing?  Is it the constant barrage of buzzer-beating shots?  The onslaught of 32 games in its first two days, followed by 16 more in its next two?  Or the passion and determination each and every college student, both on and off the court, bring to winning the whole thing?  The answer, undoubtedly, is that the NCAA tournament, which is set to begin on Thursday at noon, is everything rolled into one.  But despite all that, its most attractive feature: the brackets.

From the moment the brackets are released on Sunday, right up until the last four teams are determined, every discussion around America focuses on one question: "Who's your Final Four?"

In order to help you with the process, I've conveniently placed in parenthesis the numbers of times each seed has made it to the Final Four since 1985 (The year the tournament expanded to 64).  So before you unveil your answer, without further ado, let's go through the seeds one by one.   

#16 (0) - Need I really mention these?  No #16 seed has every prevailed in the first round since the brackets went to 64. 

#15 (0) - These seeds haven't done much better, but at least they've pulled off 4 wins in twenty-four years.  Alright, keep an eye out for Binghamton.  They won't win, but with Duke's lackluster tournament performances as of late, no other #15 is on the radar.  

#14 (0) - How about N. Dakota State?  Getting the opportunity to take down the defending champion Kansas Jayhawks should offer some incentive.  Likely?  No.  But it's either them or Ivy League Cornell.  

#13 (0) - Oh lucky 13.  Every year some 13 sneaks up and gives a #4 a run for their money.  Some are predicting Cleveland State to knock off Wake Forest.  Personally, I like Mississippi State to ride the momentum of winning the SEC tournament.  

#12 (0) - Aside from the previous two years, a #12 has won a first round match-up in twenty out of the first twenty-two years of a 64 team format.  The obvious of this year's 4: Arizona.  Look to the South bracket, however, and you'll find a tenacious Western Kentucky bunch.  They even have a shot of moving into the Sweet Sixteen when they face the winner of Akron/Gonzaga.  

#11 (2) - This seed is another spot for first round concern.  Right now, only Temple and Virginia Commonwealth jump off the sheet.  Temple, only because the Pac-10 was weaker than usual this year, leaving UCLA as not much of a threat as they once were.  VCU, because there's always a Mid-Major who comes out of nowhere.  Think George Mason back in 2006.  Their conference, coincidently, the same as VCU - Colonial Athletic Association.  

#10 (0) - These are always the hardest to predict.  The 7/10 match-ups are so close in skill, it's almost a coin toss.  USC is actually favored against Boston College, but then again, Maryland is only a slight underdog against California.  Your guess is as good as mine.

#9 (0) - Even harder than the 7/10 match-up, the 8/9.  One standout "upset" if you will, Tennessee over OSU.  Other than that, ride Ohio State to the second round, and perhaps #9 Butler to a first round win and dare I say it - a second round upset against the almighty UNC.  Maybe not, but you gotta take chances to win the pool.

We'll skip #8 and #7 since we addressed the #10 and #9 sagas above.  But before we do, let's pay homage to 1985's #8 Villanova.  In the first year the format went to 64, Villanova barreled through #2 Memphis, #2 UNC and #1 Georgetown en route to the title.  Because of Villanova's accomplishment, every #8 thereafter must be given fair consideration.  At least they should be.  For the record, two other #8 seeds have persevered into the Final Four while no #7s have.    

#6 (3) - Now, here's where it gets interesting.  Even though only one #6 has gone on to win it all (Kansas 88), some make serious noise.  Since I already have UCLA and Arizona State possibly getting knocked off, let's keep an eye out for two Big East contenders - West Virginia and Marquette.  If Marquette can manage to squeeze thru, they'll face potential opponents in Missouri, Maryland/California, and Memphis.  Even though Memphis could have been awarded a #1 seed, some argue they played in a weak conference, and therefore they're over-rated.  Nevertheless, Marquette could face Big East foe UCONN in the Elite Eight.

#5 (4) - Remarkably, no #5 has ever won the tournament.  A possible reason: #5 seeds defeat #12 seeds only 65% of the time in the first round.  You must win 1 before you win 6.  The last #5 to pose a threat, MSU in 2005.  They won their first four games before being defeated by heavily favored UNC.  This year's MSU, FSU?  After almost pulling off a miraculous ACC tournament run, though, FSU might be out of gas.

#4 (9) - Oddly, this seed never stands out.  After reviewing the road to the Final Four, it's no wonder they rarely do.  After slipping by a capable Cinderella in #13, a #4's road eventually goes through #1.  (As we'll see below, any road through a #1 is tough.)  LSU pulled off this feat in 2006 when they muscled past #1 Duke, lassoed the #2 Longhorns of Texas before falling to #2 UCLA in the Final Four.  This season, Washington, Xavier, Wake Forest and Gonzaga round up the #4s.  I don't see any chance for them.  Do you? 

#3 (12) - If a team has been slated to be a #3, they should feel encouraged.  Since 1985, right behind four #2 seeds winning it all, three #3s have gone on to cut down the nets; two in the last six years (Michigan 89, Syracuse 03 and Florida 06).  Out of this year's hopefuls, only Villanova carries the best chance.  Although Syracuse showed everyone what they can do in the Big East tournament and the Jayhawks are defending champs, I don't see Final Four caliber in SU and only twice since 85 has a team repeated (Duke and Florida).

#2 (21) - As mentioned, four #2 seeds have won six-in-a-row when it counted; the last being UCONN in 2004.  That stat is simply staggering to me.  You would think a #2 would prevail more often, if not a #1.  Which brings us to the favorites.

#1 (42) - Out of the 24 times 64 teams have competed to be considered champions of college basketball, fourteen times a #1 has come out on top.  More shockingly, however, is that last year was only the first time all four #1s made it to the dance.  Even more shocking, since the NCAA began seeding teams in 1979, only six times has the #1 team entering the tournament been the last one standing at the end.  Beware Louisville.  

So there you have it.  Sixteen seeds from four brackets.  Each fighting for a chance to get into your Final Four.  But before you decide the fate of four schools, think long and hard about it.  Because you only get one answer to the question: "Who's your Final Four?"