March Madness is here! Fill out your bracket, research college basketball programs you have no idea where they're from! Non-basketball fans head for the hills! I don't get too excited about it because I am not big on basketball, but I do fill out a bracket every year. Just because it's fun to do. I've done it a few times for money, won once and lost another time. Nothing major, I think I won thirty or forty dollars in the pool. I watched close to no basketball this year, so it was fun to go just by the numbers. I picked Kansas over Michigan State to win the tournament. I usually do not do well in picking, but like I said, I do it for fun.
It seems like each year when the bracket is announced, there's grumblings and rumblings about teams that didn't get in or teams that aren't seeded where they think they should be. The teams that complain about not making it aren't even going to win a game in the tournament, so I have never really understood the anger. I mean, the teams that don't make it would have a better shot in the NIT as opposed to the national tournament. It's the whole big fish in a small pond or a small fish in a big lake argument. Which do you want to be? And it's always teams that would be ranked 15 or 16 and wouldn't win a game anyway. Would you rather win a game or two in a lower tournament or get blown out by one of the top teams in the country? On national television. It'd be an embarrassment. In fact, the lowest seed to ever win the whole tournament was Villanova in 1985. They were an eight seed. Now, I know we all love it when a Cinderella team wins a game or two. If anything, the team probably broke your bracket so you're hoping that they continue to win so it does the same to others. And while it's awesome to see thirteen and twelve seed teams win, it's not good for the tournament. The tournament needs to move from 64 teams down to 32. And it would flourish.
Think about the first round games each year. You have blow out games. The 1/16, the 2/15, and traditionally, the 3/14 games aren't even watchable because the lower seed teams are just lucky to be there. More often than not, the game is over by half time. I mean, who in their right minds think that Austin Peay has a shot against Kansas? Or what are the chances that Holy Cross doesn't lose by fifteen points or more against Oregon? The 7/10 and 8/9 games are always fun and great to watch because the teams are so evenly matched. The games, as a whole, do not start to get good until the second round, and that's if the majority of the higher seeds move on to the next round. If you shrank the tournament from 64 to 32, you would have more competitive games from start to finish. The lowest seeded teams would be an eight seed.
Look at the four eight seeds in the tournament this year: Colorado, Saint Joe's, USC, and Texas Tech. While they are not traditional basketball powerhouses, they are (Saint Joe's notwithstanding) big name schools. And with big name schools comes larger viewing audiences. And with larger viewing audiences comes more revenue. So you have big name schools near the top of the tournament seeding, but outside of their fan base, who is going to watch a game that is over by halftime? There are 32 college conferences and each team that wins their conference tournament, gets in to the national tournament. If the idea was to have the top 32 teams in the country in the national tournament, you would have to do away with these automatic bids. The runner up of the ACC or Big East tournament is more often than not better than, say, winner of the Patriot League. If you went just with the automatic bids making it into the tournament, you still aren't making it more watchable. You could have a team with a losing regular season record go on a hot streak and win a conference tournament and get in, but a team that lost eight games all season and lost a quarter final game would be out? No, that wouldn't work.
What they would have to do in order to make a 32 team national tournament work is to get rid of automatic conference tournament winning bids and go with overall record. Just take the top 32 teams in the country based on record. Regular season record. You would have the best of the country playing. The low seeded teams would have a legit shot at winning games and making deep runs into the tournament. I think that the one major thing that the NCAA would have to take into consideration is scheduling. Especially the non-conference scheduling. Just like with college football, basketball teams schedule some easy games at the beginning of the season, it's almost like preseason for professional sports. You know, if you have a Big 12 school schedule a few Pac 12 or Big East teams in the early part of the season, there's nothing wrong with that. Those conferences are on the same level. However, if they start scheduling the bottom feeders of the MEAC conference, then you have to take a look and put a stop to it. I don't argue against big schools scheduling one or two games against in state smaller schools. It helps out the smaller schools because of the money that is involved, just like in football. But you can't pad your record, that's just not cool.
Will this ever happen? Hell no. Why not? Because, despite the fact that half of the first weekend games are nearly unwatchable, they're still on television. They are still people taking time off of work (seriously) to try and watch as much as possible. So why mess with a good thing? My argument is that it really isn't a good thing, because most games aren't interesting. You may see that a really low seed has a shot near the end of a game and you might turn the channel to watch it, but you haven't been watching the whole game. Because who thinks a fourteen seed is going to beat a three seed? Delusional fans, that's who.