I generally agree, but the issue began when they added the "65th" team (in 2001 tourney) after the Mountain West Conference was added in 1999. It made for a strange setup. The First Four made it worse. Now the bracket is unbalanced the way it is currently sequenced (two regions have 16 seed play ins, while other two regions have the "last 4" in game). I personally think play-in games with the 16 seed are stupid. The "last 4 in" games have generally been very good, and quite a few of these teams have made extended runs in the tournament.
For what it is worth, I wish that the tourney stayed with 64 teams, but that is a thing of the past. I think the NCAA can rearrange the way they work the First 4 without an expansion, but I doubt that will be the case given the smoke (and if four teams are ultimately added, it would not be the end of the world--at least it would balance out the brackets). I would actually propose keeping 68 teams and outright eliminating the 16 seed play in games and have the First 4 be games with the last 8 "at large" teams. It would balance out the brackets and avoid the 16 seed games that have no real allure to the general audience. With tv deals, etc., it will be impossible to go back to 64 teams.
We seem to broadly agree here and you obviously understand the background and mechanics of it all. But here's the difference.
Your logic:
1. The suits are making noise about expanding the tournament to get more TV money, THEREFORE
2. Change is necessary
3. The question is the most prudent way to implement the short-term money grab
My logic:
1. The NCAA tournament is a valuable TV property because it has gigantic viewership and is one of very few mainstream mass audience sporting events
2. The tournament's breakthrough mass appeal is based on the unique charm and chaos of the bracket pool, the overlapping games of the first weekend, and the Cinderella upsets my small schools no one has heard of.
3. Any alteration of that dynamic is a NEGATIVE to the financial and commercial potential of the competition REGARDLESS of what it means for the next round of TV contracts.
You're asking which hedge fund is the right one to sell the local newspaper to. It doesn't matter, it's all the same death. You're talking about bathwater as the baby slips through the drain.
And that's the reason for my initial comment. The savvy internet commenter tone is to treat whatever the moneyed power brokers want as inevitable and do discourse around the "smartest" way to implement it. But in this case taking that position is totally missing the point, and it's particularly frustrating because everyone always prefaces it with "I don't want tournament expansion, but".
No one wanting it IS the story here. THAT'S the savvy thing to know. The power brokers are wrong, and the whole industry is going to lose their shirts over it.
