From 1985-2000, the NCAA tournament consisted of 64 teams. This alignment created four regional brackets, within the larger bracket, with each regional bracket containing 16 teams. From 2001-2010, a 65th team was added to the "tournament." This move created a "play-in" game which required two teams to play each other for the right to be the 64th team in the tournament. Keep in mind, the "play-in" game is officially considered to be part of the NCAA tournament. The winner of that game was promptly handed to one of the number one seeds and dismissed from the tournament.
Prior to this season, there was speculation that the NCAA was going to double the size of the bracket and expand it to 128 teams. This never happened, at least not for the 2010-11 season, but the tournament did expand again to 68 teams. By expanding again, this creates three more "play-in" games, which have been dubbed the "First Four," which is a play on its more famous older brother, the "Final Four."
At the conclusion of each regular season, each division I conference holds a conference tournament. The winner of each conference tournament is awarded automatic entry into the NCAA tournament. All-in-all, there are 31 automatic bids handed out by the NCAA. 30 of those bids go to teams who win their conference tournament, and the other automatic bid goes to the winner of the Ivy League, who does not hold a conference tournament. The remaining field is completed with "at large" teams.
As much as I love the NCAA tournament, I still have a major beef with the NCAA over it and it is these so called "play-in" games. I cannot say it any more clearly than this, they aren't fair. In order to win the NCAA tournament, under the 64 team format, a team had to win six games. When the "play-in" game was introduced, one team was all of a sudden required to win seven games to win the NCAA championship. So why is it that 63 teams have to win six games to win a championship and one team has to win seven? Under the new format, with three "play-in" games, why is it that 60 teams have to win six games to win a championship and four teams have to win seven?
Sadly, it gets worse. As I mentioned earlier, winning your conference tournament awards you an automatic bid into the tournament field. Since the introduction of the "play-in" game, there have been several occasions when conference champions have been placed into the "play-in" game. Again, I can't say it any clearer, that isn't fair. By doing this, the NCAA is automatically downgrading the value of an automatic bid from the (insert smaller conference name here) conference. A team should not be punished for winning their conference tournament and that's what the "play-in" game is. The NCAA is now unofficially saying that the bid from the Big East (or any other large conference) is more valuable than the bid from the Big South (or any other smaller conference). I'm not saying that that logic is incorrect, but in the interest of fairness, the NCAA cannot say that.
Under the new format, lets take a look at how the "play-in" games are shaping up. In the east regional, Texas - San Antonio is playing Alabama State for a 16 seed and a date with the number one overall seeded Ohio State Buckeyes. Texas - San Antonio is the winner of the Southland Conference and Alabama State won the SWAC tournament. Also in the east regional, Alabama-Birmingham (UAB) is playing Clemson for a 12 seed and the right to play West Virginia. In the southeast regional, North Carolina - Asheville is playing Arkansas - Little Rock for the 16 seed and a game with number one Pittsburgh. UNC Asheville is the winner of the Big South conference tournament and Arkansas - Little Rock won the Sun Belt tournament. The last of the "First Four" games includes teams in the southwest regional. Southern California is playing Virginia Commonwealth (VCU) for a 14 seed and a date with the Georgetown Hoyas.
So for this season, there are four teams that won their conference tournaments (and the automatic bids that go with winning those tournaments) that now have to again play their way into the tournament itself. How is that fair to thos teams and conferences? It isn't. Not to mention, where is the consistency in this whole thing? Two "play-in" winners get to play number one seeds, while one gets to play a three seed and the last one gets to play a five seed. How does that make sense? If you are going to have four "play-in" games, why not have each of the winners play a number one seed? That system wouldn't be fair either, because four teams would still be forced to play an extra game, but it would at least be even all of the way around. Also, if it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY (
If the NCAA wants to add teams to the tournament the only fair way to do it would be to go to the 128 team format, which would be adding an entire round for each team. Under that system, every team would again have to win the same amount of games to win a championship.
With that said, that system isn't good either. By putting 128 teams into the tournament, that would diminish the value of the regular season entirely. A winning regular season record under this system would almost guarantee you a spot in the tournament. I really do expect the NCAA to go to this format some time in the near future. A larger tournament means more money for the NCAA and that is what the whole thing boils down to. It doesn't matter or not if it's fair as long as the NCAA and its sponsors are churning a larger profit.
To make a long story short, I'm calling for the NCAA to stop the madness and eliminate uneven brackets which force teams to play more games than others. I also want to see the NCAA stop putting automatic qualifiers into the "play-in" games. It's not fair to those conferences. The NCAA needs to return to the 64 team format and leave it that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment