The NCAA Tournament and the BCS could not be any more different than each other. “The Big Dance” is just that, BIG. Sixty-five teams have a chance at the end of the year to play it out on the court for the championship. Unfortunately the BCS doesn’t allow the same kind of fairness, or entertainment, in determining their champion.
However, neither system is without flaws.This season was a clear sign that a playoff is needed in college football. The top seven or so teams could make an argument of why they should have been in the title game. On the other hand, the regular season was one of the best we’ve ever seen, and partly because of the hated BCS. Teams that were considered out of it one week, were right back in the next. LSU lost their last regular season game in a thriller to Arkansas, before rebounding against the Vols to get to the title game where they blew out Ohio State.
On the other hand, West Virginia was upset by Pitt in the last game of the season and it cost them their chance at the title. These kind of scenarios are strictly unique to College Football because every game matters so much. However, the NCAA tournament doesn’t allow this sort of late season games to matter. With a playoff like we currently have in basketball, the only thing LSU and West Virginia would have been playing for at that point in the season would have been seeding. The only games that really matter at the end of the regular season are the bubble games, which allows teams with 10 losses to prove their worthy of a chance to play with the best teams. Not exactly fair, in my opinion.
Therefore, the question for the NCAA now becomes how can they make college football fair for the teams without diminishing the oh-so-exciting regular season, and how can they make College Basketball’s regular season relevant again? College football needs a playoff, but they cannot put too much emphasis on the playoff or they might end up like college basketball, and become all about the “big dance” instead of the road to get there.
College Basketball’s current system allows sixty-five teams to have a shot at winning the national title in the tournament. Thirty-four at large bids, and thirty-one conference champions with all but one of those determined by conference tournaments. In my opinion, thirty-four at large bids is just way too many. With a smaller field the benefit of performing well during the regular season would be much higher, especially considering some conferences get in six or seven teams.
Obviously the “why fix what is not broken?” argument is bound to come up, and to some extent I agree, the NCAA Tournament is great. However, the regular season is not so great these days. Just look at last weekend’s game between Memphis and Tennessee. That game had a lot of hype, but really the only thing on the line was bragging rights, and a chance to call yourself number one, whatever that’s worth. Outside of a couple big games, the national spotlight is not even on College Basketball until March. The spectacle that is “the big dance” has taken over the game almost completely.
The NCAA needs to slim down the field, and in my opinion, the best way to do that would be to cut out the conference tournament champion’s bid. Why after sixteen SEC conference games can we not decide a champion? Why can’t the SEC, and other conferences, have a conference championship game instead? Sure that would take away the money the SEC tournament brings in, but it is much more practical and would be a good way to slim down the field for the NCAA tournament by not allowing a hot tournament team to sneak into the big dance. Likewise, the regular season games would bring in substantially more money because they would mean so much more. Win-Win.
There are also many other ways to cut teams out, like cutting out the smaller conferences that don’t have a chance to win a title anyway.
Obviously, both systems are flawed, and it doesn’t seem to be getting much better. In College Basketball most coaches are pushing for even more teams to be added to the field, even a 128 team tournament has been supported by some coaches. In football, the Big Ten doesn’t seem to be budging much either because of their precious Rose Bowl.
Unfortunately, its all about the benjamins for the NCAA, and not about the student athletes getting a fair deal. Both College Football and Basketball calculate that their current systems of determining a champion bring in the most money possible, and unless a more profitable opportunity presents itself, nothing’s going to change.
I completely agree that the NCAA tournament needs to be shrank to fewer teams.
You cannot make it fair to everyone unless you open it up to everyone, in which case you don’t have a regular season, you only have a pre-season. Someone will always be left out in favor of someone else with the same or maybe even a worse record. Just a few years ago, Alabama became one of the few 20 win teams to ever be left out of the 64 team tournament and if I’m not mistaken, the Georgia team that got in instead had a 16-16 record. The argument which the committee couldn’t verbally state was that out of conference strength of schedule mattered more than wins and losses. That makes sense to a point, but even evaluating strength of schedule is subjective. Two years ago, losing to North Carolina would actually help you more than beating George Mason. GMU was a Final Four team. UNC was not. In fact, GMU put UNC out in the second round.
You guys are freakin retarded. The NCAA tourney is the best thing in sports. Thats the first time I have EVER heard anyone say it should not be as big. Why don’t we just develop a BCS for basketball? Maybe then you’ll be happy.
Mike, we have a BCS for basketball…it’s called the Selection Committee. Same difference. Wait until we get a little closer to tournament time. The idea of shrinking the field isn’t new.
Most people do love the tourney, Mike, but most of it has to do with being able to fill out an office bracket, not about the play.