2010 March Madness: Why the Field Should Not Be Expanded To 96
One year ago this April, the team in the picture won a national championship.
One year later, they're absent from the tournament.
Usual tournament perennials such as Arizona, UCLA, Illinois, North Carolina, and UConn are all absent from the 2010 tournament.
And people want to expand the already very big tournament to 96. Please save your breath. Here's why I'm against expansion.
The quality of games would fall greatly. Already the first seed against the 16-seed is a joke. Why make it a bigger joke?
Also, teams who don't deserve to be in the tournament would make it. Why have a struggling North Carolina team who can not even beat College of Charleston, Virginia, Virginia Tech, or Boston College in the field of 65? They would not even compete against Murray State.
The tournament is long enough. People's interests are held just long enough as is for the two week tournament.
Expanding the field to 96 would mean making the tournament twice as long. Make the tournament longer makes this sporting event run into baseball season, NBA, and NHL playoffs.
There is no need for the length of this already long tournament to be longer.
Making the field 96 would take away from the irony factor that makes this tournament great in the first place. Instead of seeing Purdue go up against Siena, we may see Virginia Tech be put in Siena's place. Virginia Tech could possibly beat Purdue even on a good Purdue day. Siena, more than likely not.
Making the field 96 gets rid of the very thing that makes this an awesome tournament. It cuts into the upset factor. We don't want that now, right?
The field is already big enough. It is filled with teams who deserve, at least in the committee's eyes, to be in the tournament. For the most part, I agree. Why fix something that isn't broken?
Dear NCAA Tournament Committee:
DO NOT EXPAND! The NCAA isn't broken and there is no need for fixing. People love this tournament how it is and their is no reason for change.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?