Well-Intentioned, but Not Realistic

It didn't take long for the NCAA to shoot down Mike Krzysewski's idea of an all-inclusive NCAA Tournament.  Less than a day in fact.  They gave Coach K the respect that he deserves and listened to his idea, as far-fetched as it might have been, but had no plans of actually implementing it.  Because, no matter how well-intentioned it was, the plan was illogical and, frankly, kinda stupid.

Krzyzewski came up with his plan on the premise that most, if not all, college basketball teams won't be playing non-conference games this season.  The start date is also up in the air, but many schools won't begin until January either way.  It's going to be a unique season.  Krzyzewski called it an "irregular season" and said that it'll require "something different."  And, in his eyes, there's "no better way" to celebrate college basketball than "involving every team in the most prestigious basketball tournament on the planet."

Evidently, support among ACC coaches was so strong that it was officially the conference that put the proposal forward.  But, of course coaches are going to be in favor of an expanded NCAA Tournament!  Especially in a conference like the ACC, many of them have performance-based bonuses.  One of those is usually an NCAA Tournament appearance.  Likewise, job security is often tied to whether or not they make the Tournament.  So you're not going to find a coach in America who's opposed to a guaranteed NCAA Tournament bid (which may trigger a bonus, save a job, or both).

Sorry, but this isn't "everybody gets a trophy."  And it shouldn't be.  The NCAA Tournament is meant to be exclusive.  It's only for the 68 best teams.  Expanding the field to include all 357 teams would take that away.  Reaching the tournament wouldn't mean what it's supposed to.  This isn't how Army, Citadel, St. Francis Brooklyn and William & Mary envision getting there for the first time.

And, let's be honest here.  There are plenty of bad college basketball teams out there.  Some of these teams aren't even good enough to qualify for their conference tournaments, so why should they be invited to the national tournament?  That turns it into BCS football with its unwieldy number of bowl games, resulting in too many unworthy teams playing in bowls.  

Even in a 68-team tournament, you know a vast majority of them have absolutely no realistic chance of winning the championship.  You know how many fewer championship contenders we're talking about if we increase the field to 357?  To add, what, three or four additional bubble teams who might have a chance of winning a game or two?

None of that even takes into account the sheer logistical nightmare of accommodating 289 additional tournament teams!  I'll start with the most obvious logistical issue: 357 is not evenly divisible by anything, let alone two!  The closest they can get is 256, which would be eight rounds.  That leaves 101 extra teams.  I tried several different permutations, and there's no way to get from that to a nice, (somewhat) tidy 256-team bracket without multiple rounds of byes!

That problem could probably be addressed by playing the early rounds on a regional basis, but even then, you'd have competitive issues.  (Some regions would have more smaller-conference teams than others, and some regions would have more teams, thus requiring more games.)  While some people might consider that a good thing, and it would certainly be beneficial from a travel perspective, it wouldn't lead to a balanced bracket!  And you know there would be some major conference teams crying "foul" because their regional road is more difficult than some of their conference rivals.

This would also completely devalue the conference tournaments.  Outside of the 10 conferences that get multiple bids, most schools know their only chance of getting into the Big Dance is winning their conference tournament.  It's part of what makes Championship Week so awesome!  All of that would be gone if the conference tournaments are rendered essentially meaningless.

Then there's the issue of all those extra games and where they would be played.  The NCAA is committed to holding a men's basketball tournament in 2021 at all costs, even if that means isolating the teams in a bubble.  The bubble concept has been so successful in the NBA, and the NCAA seems willing to utilize its own bubbles for its championship events, including basketball, once they resume. 

A lot can change between now and March (just look at how quickly everything fell apart this year), but a bubble does seem doable in theory.  The NCAA Tournament consists of 67 games played at 14 different sites.  However, they could conceivably cut that to four regional sites, which would each have their own 17-team bubble, then a separate bubble for the Final Four.

If everybody was included, the number of games would increase to 356!  I'm not even gonna begin to guess how many sites that would require, but you'd have to think they'd have to create some sort of "bubble" environment at each.  Simply put, both of those numbers are unmanageable, especially when you consider half of the teams would be eliminated after just 40 minutes!

Lastly, how would they handle testing?  Every campus and every state is doing something different, and each conference has its own different protocols, too.  And who pays for the testing?  As we know, the pandemic has hurt everyone financially, but the impact has been worse for some than for others.  Some schools can afford it, while others can't.  And what happens if someone tests positive?  Would the game be cancelled or postponed?  Would they be required to play with who's available?  Or be required to forfeit?

While it's a noble idea, Mike Krzyzewski had to know an all-inclusive NCAA Tournament was never going to fly.  It sounds great in theory, but it's not realistic.  Instead, we'll have to be content with the 68-team field that we're accustomed to.  And, after the tournament's abrupt cancellation in 2020, those 68 berths will be even more precious in 2021.