Because it’s wrong for the media, fans and the Internet to partake in an echo chamber about how much it would suck for the NCAA to expand March Madness to 96 teams, someone needs to step up to the plate and argue FOR expanding the tournament.
Two Arguments In Favor Of The 96-Team NCAA Tournament: One Good, One Not So Good
↵Two people did that today. One was CBS Sportsline’s Gregg Doyel. His point? We hate change.
↵
↵You don’t want the NCAA tournament to expand because you’re used to it the way it is. [...]↵Expansion won’t hurt the tradition of the NCAA tournament -- expansion is the tradition of the NCAA tournament. So if tradition is your biggest concern here, I’m sorry, but you just lost.
↵↵Doyel also references the 2006 George Mason team as an example to disprove the argument that a 96-team tournament waters down the regular season, saying the Patriots didn’t even win their conference or their conference tournament. This is commonly known as the “cite one example even though there are endless others that disprove my point” tactic of column-writing.
↵The other argument for NCAA expansion? It comes from SB Nation’s Missouri blog Rock M Nation:
↵↵The other big argument against expansion is that it dilutes the quality of the field by injecting 32 undeserving teams into the event. And while I agree that the additional teams would be undeserving, I think the idea would actually strengthen the field, and could make the least compelling matchups on Thursday and Friday (1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15) far more dangerous for the top seeds.
↵↵Basically, expansion actually gives the little guy a better shot, because their first game would be against a 9, 10 or 11 seed rather than one of the four best teams in the nation. And if they win, they get a 6, 7 or 8 seed rather than said NCAA superpower. Hmm, that’s actually a compelling argument.
↵Judge for yourself, of course, but I prefer the argument that uses logic rather than noise.
See More:
