Big Ten Commish Calls NCAA Tournament Expansion 'Likely,' But at What Cost?

The sporting event that ESPN's Pat Forde once called "athletic art, as close to perfect as any sporting competition can get" appears to be on the brink of an expansion.

In today's edition of USA Today, Big Ten conference commissioner Jim Delany said that an expansion of the 65-team NCAA tournament is "probable" for 2011.

Delany isn't involved with the current NCAA tournament selection committee, but as a former chairman of the committee, it's safe to say he's got a better gauge on these things than the common man.

This inevitably raises the question, why fix something that isn't broken?

If you listen to the Division I basketball coaches' logic behind expansion, you'd hear buzzwords like "giving students more opportunities." (See: Billy Donovan's plea for expansion on Sports Illustrated's website last month.)

Yes, it'd be great to give every college basketball player a chance to play in the NCAA tournament. It'd also be great to give every college student a 4.0 GPA, and while we're at it, a Nobel Peace Prize.

Don't feed me that "opportunity" crap, Billy. 

If you'd cut through all of the B.S., you'd hear one word: money.

The NCAA is in the midst of re-evaluating its current television contract, as they can opt out of the final three years of the 11-year, $6 billion deal they've got with CBS if they do so by the summer.

Expanding the field by 31 teams would almost inevitably draw more money to the NCAA during March Madness.  

Cha-ching! There's your real reasoning behind the move.

But back to the coaches for a minute. When the idea of expansion was introduced back in 2006, the National Association of Basketball Coaches broached the issue first, with the logic that more coaches would retain their jobs with some form of postseason success.

“They’d love to see the tournament double to 128,” said Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches in 2006. “It’s based on several things. First, there are a lot of good teams worthy of making the NCAA field, and second, the size of 64 or 65 has been in place for a number of years.”

Well, he's right about one thing. The current size has been in place for a number of years. The tournament was expanded to 64 teams following the 1984 championship, and the 65th was added in 2001 when the number of automatic qualifiers went from 30 to 31.

Here's what he's not right about: the number of "good teams worthy of making the NCAA field."

Forde had his B.S. radar on full blast back in '06 when he heard those comments and painted the following picture about the type of teams that would make the tournament with an expansion: 

If you want to know how galvanizing the 128-team tournament might have been, scan the final pre-tournament RPI from the 2005-06 season. When you reach triple digits, cue the CBS tournament theme music in your head and feel your pulse pound as you envision the Drexel Dragons taking the floor in the first round.

That's 15-16 Drexel, the No. 128 team in America.

Oh yeah, that doesn't sound like first-round fodder or anything.

In fact, Forde went so far as to call Drexel's coach, Bruiser Flint, to see whether the team's own coach thought they deserved to participate in the NCAAs that year.

"No, no," Flint said, after he managed to stop laughing. "We definitely weren't good enough to be in the NCAA Tournament. I'm not fooling myself."

When your own coach doesn't think you deserve to play in the NCAAs...why should anyone else's?

Answer: to save jobs.

Donovan so much as admitted it in his SI piece: "It also should expand because everyone is being evaluated on what happens in March. Coaches are judged on whether their team makes the tournament and what their team does in the tournament, even though tournament performance can sometimes be misleading."

The NCAA's about to murder its crown jewel based on the wishes of coaches afraid of losing their jobs?

Remember, NFL coaches were the only large group vocalizing displeasure with amending the overtime rules in the playoffs; the owners passed the amendments 28-4, essentially giving a giant middle finger to their coaches in the process.

Go Google "NCAA tournament expansion" right now. See what you come up with. Good luck finding an article from a writer in support of the expansion.

On the other hand—my first page of Google searching drew up anti-expansion columns from John Feinstein of The Washington Post, Dave George of The Palm Beach Post, and even the aforementioned 2006 column from Forde.

Sports Illustrated's Frank Deford believes expanding March Madness would lead to "March Monotony." SI's George Dohrmann says expansion would "douse college basketball's postseason with a shower of meaninglessness" similar to college football's BCS system, which includes 68 of the 119 Division I Football Bowl Subdivision teams in its postseason.

Now, D-I basketball coaches like Jay Wright use the BCS to argue that the NCAA tournament should be expanded—after all, 68 of 119 is a much larger percentage than the 65 of 344 D-1 basketball teams that make it to the NCAAs.

But will more teams make the tournament better?

No.

Definitively not.

If you're looking for an example of why the NCAA tournament is perfect as is...where have you been the past two weeks?

There have been head-scratching upsets—here's looking at you, Georgetown, Villanova, and Kansas—and shining moments for mid-majors. Ivy Leaguers went up against one of college basketball's all-time greatest programs in the Sweet 16. 

Hell, a mid-major team even made the Final Four this year!

But does that make the case for more expansion? Absolutely not.

Right now, March Madness is the perfect blend of David and Goliath. 

Sadly, that's all about to be sacrificed for money.

Since I'm getting resigned to the fact that we'll all be watching 31 more bottom-feeding teams in our NCAA tournament next year, I would like to make one request for the NCAA committee.

At least admit this move is about money, and solely about money.

Just because I occasionally enjoy downing a few beers and reminding Luke Harangody that he looks like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man doesn't mean I'm an idiot.

You're not advocating this on behalf of the student-athletes. The coaches like this plan because they think it'll save more of their jobs. The NCAA likes this plan because it'll make them more money.

That's the bottom line.

Now, college basketball fans have no choice but to wait and writhe until April 29, when USA Today reports that the NCAA board will meet in Indianapolis to discuss the expansion further.

When speaking with USA Today about the likely tournament expansion, Oregon State president Edward Ray, who's the chairman of the NCAA Executive Committee, said: "Conventional wisdom must be that it's not impossible. Otherwise, I don't know why we'd have it scheduled for discussion. But I have absolutely no sense (of) whether it's probable or not."

No, Mr. Ray. Conventional wisdom would say that you don't eff with something if it's routinely being called "the best sporting event in America."

But with those dollar signs in your eyes, how can I really be surprised?

At the very least, you and the rest of the NCAA board should admit that your greed is about to dilute an otherwise near-perfect work of art.