Tough to get charge out of tourney games if venue isn't neutral

As I tear into the NCAA tournament in a few seconds, keep something in mind: The earth wasn't always round. Not according to prevailing wisdom. Until Columbus sailed west and hit North America -- and not the edge of the universe -- most Europeans assumed the world was flat. Don't they feel stupid now?

Hey, don't laugh at Europe. Right now, you're Europe. You, but not me. Me, I'm Columbus. There's a whole new world for the NCAA tournament, and I'll show you.

Why practice? Jeff Jones' American Eagles don't stand much chance in Villanova's hometown. (AP)

Open your mind. Or not. Either way, I'll share research that proves -- doesn't suggest, but proves -- I'm right. When it's over, when you're finished with this story, you'll agree that the NCAA tournament needs to rethink a basic bracketing principle.

Disagree, and you're a candidate for the Flat Earth Society.

Here it comes:

The NCAA tournament should stop awarding de facto "home" games to the best teams. Or to any teams.

Look at the numbers. No team can play an NCAA tournament game in its home gym, but top seeds are funneled to sites within an easy drive from their campus and fans. And in the past decade, teams playing in those de facto home games are 71-8.

Seventy-one wins.

Eight losses.

March Madness? Nah. March Obviousness.

As it is, home teams rule in college basketball. Everyone knows that. Home teams are so dominant that the NCAA tournament selection committee considers one fact above all others: How did each at-large candidate do in games away from home?

As far as the selection committee is concerned, games at home are too easy. And yet the committee gives out home games as a reward for a good season.

Which is funny, because the best teams are given high seeds for the same reason.

• Which teams are playing at 'home?' Check the bracket

Giving the best teams a high seed -- which ensures the easiest opposition -- and a home game doesn't do much to promote the myth of March Madness. It promotes the status quo. And that's not why we tune into our favorite network, CBS. We don't turn on the television and say to our buddies, "Let's watch some status quo!"

The numbers don't lie. Teams playing in a home environment are 71-8 over the past decade. That's an .899 winning percentage. That's not madness. That's an extra point.

In the first two rounds, "home" teams are 60-6 (.909). That number is skewed by the number of high seeds who get those "home" games -- but then again, it's all related. A No. 16 seed has never beaten a No. 1 because the top seed is good ... and because the hill is simply too hard to climb. Beating a No. 1 is tough. Beating a No. 1 on the road? Impossible.

In the next two rounds, the region semifinals and finals, "home" teams are 11-2 (.846).

That's horrible. But it's great news for Villanova, which plays its first two games of the 2009 tournament in its home city of Philadelphia. And it's great for Duke and North Carolina, who begin their tournaments within an hour of home in Greensboro. Ohio State will play the first two rounds in Dayton, about an hour from Columbus. Washington will play in another state, but let's not get carried away. Portland is less than three hours by car. As far as the NCAA tournament goes, that's a home game.

And home games matter. Here is some more research, and it's chilling. In the 10 years since 1999, the eventual national champion has used "home" tournament games to slingshot to the title six times. Expand that criteria to include teams that reached the NCAA title game, and nine of the past 10 finals have included a team that played part of that year's NCAA tournament at home. Last year, three of the four Final Four teams -- North Carolina in Raleigh, UCLA in Anaheim and Memphis in Little Rock -- basically started the tournament at home. And North Carolina stayed at home for the next two games as well, winning its regional semifinal and final in Charlotte.

Home cooking never tasted so nasty.

The past few years have given us some of the maddest madness yet -- 11th-seeded George Mason barely made it into the 2006 tournament but reached the Final Four, and No. 10 Davidson nearly got there in 2008 -- but there has been a ridiculous amount of chalk, too. Last year four No. 1 seeds reached the Final Four (again, after three of them played some, if not all, of the tournament close to home). In 2007 the Final Four had two No. 1 seeds and two No. 2s. In other words, at the highest level, the tournament is getting more sane. Why? Because the best teams are allowed to play as close to home as possible.

It's not just the best teams. Any team playing close to home is dangerous. The rise of Gonzaga began in 1999 when the 10th-seeded Zags won two games in Seattle on their way to the Elite Eight. In 2002, Southern Illinois was an 11th seed that reached the Sweet 16 after beating No. 6 Texas Tech and No. 3 Georgia in Chicago. That 2002 tournament was an absolute home-cooked joke, with five different "home" teams going 10-0 in the opening rounds, including Southern Illinois and sixth-seeded Texas in Dallas.

In recent years the selection committee has stopped giving underdogs home games, sending only top seeds to nearby locations. That's nice -- too nice. Getting the high seed is reward enough. Villanova, No. 3 in the East, will play outclassed American in the first round and certifiably beatable UCLA or VCU in the second. That's fair. Villanova earned the No. 3 seed, and the lower opposition that comes with it, with its great season.

But must Villanova's road to the Sweet 16 be so close to home? Must it be Easy Street?

Solution? Make all the games truly neutral. It's as simple as that. Nobody plays within driving range of its campus. That would hurt fans willing to drive a few hours to a game, and that would be a shame.

But I'm not worried about that. Sorry, but this isn't about you. It's about the NCAA tournament, where the home team is kicking 89.9 percent of its extra points. That's not madness.

That's boring.