Don't Expand to 96

During the Final Four, Miami coach Jim Larranaga suggested that he'd be in favor of expanding the NCAA Tournament beyond 68 teams.  He based his argument around the number of upsets this year, which proves how much parity there is in college basketball.  Larranaga seems to be in favor of the 96-team field that was being floated around before they settled on a modest increase from 65 to 68 teams in 2011.  It was a bad idea then, and it's an even worse idea now.

Part of Larranaga's argument also seemed to revolve around the percentage of Division I teams that actually get into the tournament.  There were 353 teams that played Division I men's basketball this season.  Only 68 of them make the tournament.  That's less than 20 percent.  Which makes it exclusive.  It's for the best of the best.

Going to 96 teams would greatly diminish the value of an at-large bid.  There are only 36 of them!  Adding 28 teams to the tournament would suddenly mean there are 54 at-large bids available.  Sure, no "good" teams that were on the bubble would be left out.  But it would also reward way too many average teams in Power 5 (+ Big East) conferences that had mediocre regular seasons and really don't deserve to be in the field.  Because, let's be real here.  That's who'd be getting those additional bids.  Not mid-majors who are probably better.

It also wouldn't increase the potential for upsets, which are what make the NCAA Tournament so unique and so great.  In fact, I think the potential for upsets would actually decrease!  Think about it.  Most (if not all) of the mid-major teams would end up being seeded 9-24, which would mean they have to play an extra game while the top 32 seeds get byes.  Would there still be some upsets in the first round?  Sure.  But how many 20-seeds are beating 5-seeds?

Now, Larranaga is a high-major coach, so that's likely exactly what he wants.  The high-major teams hate seeing good mid-majors in the Tournament.  Because they know there's a chance that they'll lose.  If it was up to them, the NCAA Tournament would consist only of teams from the Power 5 conferences and Big East, as well as Gonzaga and maybe a few others.  There'd be no Florida Atlantic or George Mason or Loyola Chicago Final Four runs.

I've even seen it suggested that they just make the NCAA Tournament one giant 300-something team event where everybody gets in.  You finished 4-24 in the MEAC?  You're in!  You went 7-23 in America East?  You're in too!

That had to have been a joke, right?  I forget who it was who first suggested it (I think it was Mike Krzyzewski, but I'm not sure), but he didn't seriously think that was a good idea, did he?  Talk about completely devaluing the regular season!  (And, not to mention, why would anyone think that last-place teams in low-major leagues deserve a chance to play for the National Championship?  How is that good TV?)

What it seems Larranaga wants is, essentially, to turn college basketball into college football.  There are 130 teams that play top-level college football and more than 40 bowl games.  That means 80 of 130 teams get to play in bowls.  Or, I should say only 50 teams that don't get to play in bowls.  As long as you finish .500, you're bowl eligible (and you don't even need to be .500 if they don't have enough teams to fill all the slots).  Need further proof there are too many bowls?  They had to cancel one this season because there weren't enough bowl-eligible teams!

Is it an apples-to-apples comparison?  Of course not!  But I think it does get the point across.  And expanding the NCAA Tournament to 96 teams would still only be about 30 percent of all college basketball teams getting in.  But it's about quality, not quantity.  Which is why 96 isn't the way to go.  It would be expanding for the sake of expanding.  It wouldn't improve the quality, which I think we can all agree is pretty good.

The upsets are part of what make the NCAA Tournament what it is.  People love the upsets.  They love seeing FDU beat Purdue and Princeton beat Arizona.  And Florida Atlantic making the Final Four.  Things that, while they could still happen if the field were expanded to 96, likely wouldn't.  So, expansion to 96 teams wouldn't add anything (other than an extra round and 28 more) teams.  But it would definitely take something away.

Hopefully this is much ado about nothing.  Larranaga was obviously sharing his own personal feelings, and I don't know how much it's been discussed, at all, among the decision-makers at the NCAA.  But now that it's out there, you know others are thinking about it, too.  So, if the topic hasn't been brought up yet, it soon will be.

When they first discussed expanding the field to 96 and settled on 68 in 2011, it coincided with the start of the NCAA's new TV contract with CBS and Turner that saw every NCAA Tournament game aired nationally in its entirety for the first time.  That was initially a 12-year deal, but was renewed in 2018 and now extends through 2032.  So, there won't be a new TV contract to dictate any decisions about possible expansion for the next decade.  That doesn't mean they won't expand between now and then.  It just means there wouldn't be a secondary reason to do it.

Of course, there's also the revenue potential of going from 67 tournament games to 95.  It would be more money for the NCAA and more money for the schools.  Probably a lot more money.  Which is why the topic, should it come up, won't be ignored.

Expansion of the NCAA Tournament beyond the current 68 teams is inevitable.  I think we all realize that.  But there's no immediate need to go all the way to 96.  Should it get to that point, hopefully cooler heads will prevail and they'll once again do a modest expansion.  Because there's a difference between adding a few bubble teams and opening it up to everybody.  The former, as we've seen, doesn't have much of an impact on the quality.  The latter, I fear, very much would.