The End of Butler's Ball May Be the End of Cinderellas Forever

If Gordon Hayward's half-court heave would have fallen last night, Butler's improbable gauntlet run to history would have been raised to college basketball's Valhalla to sit and be worshipped with the rest of the mythical stories of past tournaments: the 1983 "Cardiac Pack," Villanova over Georgetown, UCLA's 10 of 12 run, and Christian Laettner's turnaround.

But it didn't.

Instead of a historic victory, the tournament has once again claimed the body of another valiant warrior trying to slay the six-game dragon. With this fairy tale coming to an end, it seems that the author of so many great stories might have retired his pen as well.

As predicted by the Big Ten commissioner, it seems that on April 29, the NCAA basketball tournament will be expanded to 96 teams. However, if this happens, Cinderella nation can kiss goodbye to possible chances of Butler-esque runs.

The proposed tournament layout would give the top eight seeds in each region a one-game bye allowing the No. 9 through 24 seeds to play it out in the first weekend. The nearly impossible six-game journey would become one more game harder to achieve.

Although this year's Butler team would have escaped the extra game, the Murray State Racers that fought so valiantly against them might not have made it to the next round in order to face Vanderbilt. Butler would have probably faced a more difficult opponent than Murray State, possibly leading to the demise of the Bulldogs.

The 96-team tournament would essentially become like a gladiator arena, allowing the smaller and weaker teams to fight it out in the initial rounds, while the powerhouses judge over them, deciding their fate. Imagine if Northern Iowa had an extra game before playing Kansas; would they have the energy to knock off the favorite to win the championship? 

If the tournament expands, it will no longer mean anything to make the tournament. Yes, the six or eight teams that deserve to be in the tournament will be included, but 24 other teams that shouldn't be will have to be included as well.

A perfect example is the University of North Carolina—a great program, arguably the best in basketball history, that fell on hard times. The Tar Heels were barely at the .500 mark at the end of the regular season. However, their play in the Not Important Tournament showed they were probably one of the best 96 teams in the nation.

UNC did not in any way display that they were tournament material; however they would make it in the new system, as would many other subpar teams.

The 2010 NCAA basketball tournament is the perfect example of why no expansion is needed. Although I've only been alive for almost 19 years, this is the best tournament I have ever seen (and that's almost all of them).

There were more upsets than ever before, as close as I've ever seen to a lock for the Final Four doesn't reach the Sweet 16, and a Cinderella picked to lose in the first round by half of America is one shot away from the best story in history.

Although people's brackets may say differently, the tournament was perfect. Plain and simple.

That begs the question: Why would you change something that is perfect?