Think NCAA tourney expansion is bad idea? Think again, please

Hate Mail: Grumpy, sleepy ... but not bashful

Never in my 20 years as a sports writer have I seen an idea so repulsive that it unified the masses in opposition. Doesn't matter who you are -- conservative or liberal, Duck or Beaver, Tim Tebow or Nittany Lion -- you hate the idea that the NCAA is considering expanding the 65-team men's basketball tournament to 96 teams.

The media hates it as well. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution called it "lunacy." The Washington Post said it's "the worst idea in the history of sports ideas."

It's unanimous.

The final destination features four on the floor, but what's wrong with way more than 64 when the journey begins? (US Presswire)

Except for me.

I don't love the idea, no. Don't get me wrong. I haven't been crying myself to sleep, lo these many years, because the NCAA tournament was so damn depressing at a meager 65 teams. I haven't pined for expansion. I haven't thought about it at all, one way or the other, until last week -- when the NCAA let it leak that it was considering making the move to 96 teams. And then I thought about it.

Which makes me the only one.

Because none of you are thinking about it. You can't be. The hatred for this idea is almost universal, yet there appears to be no concrete reason for that hatred, unless you consider tradition a concrete concept. Which I do not. There have been other reasons given for the opposition to 96 teams, and I'll get to them in a minute, but because those reasons are bogus and cannot be taken seriously, it all comes back to the same thing:

You don't want the NCAA tournament to expand because you're used to it the way it is.

Never mind that the NCAA tournament has been at 65 teams only since 2001. And that before that, it was at 64 teams for 16 years. Before that? It was 53 teams for one year. After being 52 teams for one year. And 48 teams for three years. And 40 teams for one year. And that takes us back to just 1979.

The NCAA tournament started with eight teams in 1939, but grew to 16 in 1951, then to 22, and to 25 and to 32 in 1975. Then came 1979, and those 40 teams.

You follow? 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.

There's not a single valid argument against the NCAA tournament growing to 96 teams.

But it'll water down the regular season and conference tournaments!

You mean more than those things already are watered down? George Mason beat nobody of national stature during the 2005-06 regular season, then lost in the semifinal of the unsung Colonial Athletic Association tournament, and just barely made it into the 2006 NCAA tournament, probably as the last at-large team into the field. George Mason went to the Final Four, thereby demonstrating the impotence of the regular season and the conference tournament. And so what? You still watch college basketball in January and February because you love the sport. And you'll continue to do so if the NCAA tournament grows to 96 teams. And you know it.

But what about the student-athletes? Think of the extra time they'll miss from school!

First of all, you don't care about that. If you did, you'd be picketing your local Division I basketball team right now, demanding to know why Texas, just to name a school, leaves on Tuesday to play a game at Missouri on Wednesday night, and then returns early Thursday morning -- basically screwing up three-fifths of the school week. And that happens everywhere, all season long. Academics and college basketball are a bad mix. For all but the highest achievers, it's impossible to be a highly performing student and athlete. It's a choice, and you know which choice almost every school in the country makes. If you really care about academics, root for Davidson.

The tournament is three weeks as it is. Last thing I want is for it to grow to four weeks.

And why is that? If you love March Madness at three weeks -- and you do -- what's wrong with four? I'm not supporting a move to 44 weeks, but four? Come on. You can deal with four. I bet you even like it.

But the No. 1 seeds will get a first-round bye. That's not fair.

Don't tell anyone, but the top seeds have had byes before. You know how UCLA won 10 NCAA titles in 12 years from 1964-75? The Bruins received a first-round bye for each of the first nine championship runs.

But 96 teams? I don't want to see those crappy teams in the tournament!

You won't for long. The crappiest teams will be gone after one game, two tops. But those games will have that same do-or-die feel that defines March Madness and makes us watch. George Mason, Davidson, Valparaiso, Kent State, UW-Milwaukee, Bucknell, Vermont are just some of the "crappy" teams -- those are your words, not mine -- that turned out to be not so crappy in recent years. Crappy teams are what make the NCAA tournament memorable. The more crappy teams, the better.

But I'm against expanding the tournament to 96 teams. I just am.

I know you are. My initial reaction was the same as yours: The NCAA tournament wants to go to 96 teams? That's ridiculous.

But then I thought about it. Actually, really thought about it.

So here I am, asking you to do the same thing.