[NU Sports] NCAA Poised to Expand to Field of 96; NIT Slated for Extinction

[cherron604 at aol.com]

There can be a compelling argument made for including all Division 1 teams in the tournament.  John Wooden has made this argument consistently:

http://blog.taragana.com/sports/2009/12/10/ncaa-in-very-early-stages-of-talks-to-expand-ncaa-tournament-field-move-games-to-cable-55032/

Increasing the field from 64 to 256 would only add 1 weekend/2 games, and the NCAA could probably increase the money they made based on that added weekend of programming.

The cries of purists always are amusing this time of year - the field size has vaied wildly over the years (besides, doesn't a purist have to be idealistic about something inherently pure - and when was the last time that major college basketball was pure ??)

1939-50 - 8 teams
1951-52 - 16 teams
1953-74 - varied between 22 and 25
1975-78 - 32
1979      - 40
1980-82 - 48
1983      - 52 (48 plus 4 play-ins)
1984      - 53 (48 plus 5 play-ins)
1985-00 - 64
2001-      65  (64 plus 1 play-in)

So what is essentially 'pure' about 65 ?  Prior to 1975, only one team per conference was invited.  This is another reason why 'Bowl droughts' and 'NCAA droughts' are silly stats, quoted by media types in search of an easy story.  In this case, for 36 of the 70 years that the tournament has been contested, only one Big Ten team could go.  Meaning that half of the years that NU could have tried for the tournament, the tournament was limited to the conference champion.

The first tournament I really remember was the 79 tournament.  I lived near Chicago, and DePaul made the final 4.  Also Penn, Michigan St, and Indiana St (Magic vs. Bird).  Though 48 teams was always the field size I 'remembered' (that came along in 1980), the 79 tournament had 40 teams.  So to me, at least, cries of 'Purity - 65 teams !' ring hollow.

One can make the argument that the conference tournaments comprise 'virtually' the first 2 rounds of an Indiana-style (all schools) tournament.  A question I would have would be 'what would happen to the conference tournaments under an enlarged NCAA field ?'  They make money, I can't imagine them going away.  Would they still draw big crowds?

Chuck Herron   Tech '85






-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Miller <artmiller_news at yahoo.com>
To: nwu-sports at romaine.tssi.com; Tom Maycock <tkmaycock at yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 3, 2010 5:42 pm
Subject: Re: [NU Sports] NCAA Poised to Expand to Field of 96; NIT Slated for Extinction


Tom is right; this is a DUMB IDEA.  Are they going to allow the 10th or 11th 
est ACC team with a 12-17 record in the expanded tournament, or will .500 
ecome some kind of hallowed marker like in football?
Anyway, why stop with 96?  If more is always better, let's allow in a few top 
eams from Division II or III.  Or make it a double-elimination tournament!
I would say this tendency to increase the size of tournaments is the main reason 
 am opposed to a football playoff.  I can (barely) accept the logic of a 
our-team post-bowl playoff, but today's news tells only proves that it's just a 
atter of time before the system would expand.


     
_______________________________________________
wu-sports site list
wu-sports at tssi.com
ttp://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports