NCAA Basketball: Should there be more teams in the NCAA Tournament?

The NCAA basketball tournament, called March Madness, now has 68 teams. Eight of these teams meet in a ‘play-in’ round, which reduces the field to 64 teams. Is 68 the right number of teams to be included, or do we need more or fewer teams?

Currently, the champions of all leagues are automatically included in the tournament and in almost all cases, these are the winners of the conference tournaments.  This accounts for 32 of the 68 bids awarded by the selection committee of the tournament.   There certainly is a case for the regular season champions getting the automatic bid, but for now the conference tournament winner gets in.   In almost all major conferences, the regular season champ receives a bid to the tournament, but the same does not always hold true for the non-major conferences.

The NCAA uses a selection committee to determine which non-automatic qualifying teams will get bids and be included in the tournament.  How does the committee decide on the teams?  The committee uses a tool called NET (NCAA Evaluation Tool) to help in their selection process.  NET replaced a tool called RPI (Ratings Percentage Index), which had been used for several years.  The NET has two main pieces, with one piece rewarding teams for wins over quality opponents and the other piece examining a team’s strength of schedule.  Although NET is not the only criteria used by the selection committee, it certainly plays a large part in determining the fate of a team being included in March Madness.

After the 32 automatic bids and some bids for regular season champs of major conferences, there are around 25-30 available bids.  Most of these bids will go to major conference teams, with the other few spread over the non-major conferences.

Now, teams can overcome early season losses with quality wins as the season progresses.  If a team fails to get these quality wins then I don’t think they belong in the tournament.  Also, if they lose to lower teams late in the year, I believe it’s another nail in their coffin.  They have not shown the ability to be a champion.  Most teams play enough quality games to be able to show the committee they belong in the tournament.  There is some concern that non-major teams are limited in their strength of schedule as major conference teams don’t want to play these quality non-major teams.  The major conference teams feel they play enough quality opponents in their own leagues.

Are those 25-30 bids enough to give everyone a chance to be included in March Madness?  I think so and even believe that the number should be reduced.  If a team wants to be included, then it needs to WIN.  Quality performance on a night-in-night-out basis is needed for a team to show its worth.  They can’t take a night off, especially against teams they should beat.  Performing well throughout the year should be a requirement for a team to get a bid.  Yes, every team will have a bad night, but it should not show up several times during the year.

As a supporter of a team that always seems to be ‘on the bubble,’ I believe this team has had ample opportunities to prove itself.  March Madness should be a reward for hard work and consistent play and not be guaranteed for any team.  Don’t worry about the NET ranking, just go out and perform and get quality wins.   If a team does that, everything else will be fine, and they will find themselves in March Madness.