It may come as a shock that I am not writing about the NBA this week. Instead, I will be writing about the NCAA basketball tournament, otherwise known as March Madness, which is now in full swing. Without taking anything away from the excitement of the 64-team tournament, I wonder if this tournament is really worth all the hype and money put down on it?
Think about it for a second. People are putting hundreds and even thousands of dollars on schools that they have not only never even watched, but have often never even heard of. Take for instance the University of Texas-El Paso, Manhattan or Murray State. Although these underdogs either won or had a close first round game against a higher seeded opponent, it seems inconceivable how so many people could put down serious cash on their chances. I'm not trying to defend gambling, but doesn't it make more sense to bet serious cash on a Jets-Dolphins game in week seven, where one is familiar with both teams than betting the mortgage on a small school in suburban Ohio?
Gambling aside, I feel there is a little too much hype for some of these early round games. Don't get me wrong, I enthusiastically watch as many as these games as I have time for. But when I think about it, it seems a little foolish. Not only am I usually familiar with just a handful of players combined from the two teams, but it seems the lower seeded teams do not really have a prayer against the big boys. I know it is possible for a top team to have a scare in the first round. Maybe they're only up by five at halftime, but that lead usually increases to 10, 15 and even more by the end of the game.
There are upsets in the first round, but a 16th seed has never defeated a one. Not to mention there were hardly any upsets in the first round this year. Although it is one game as opposed to a series, and anything can happen, it is still 40 minutes of basketball, and the superior team almost always wins.
It seems to me that these teams on the bubble who make the tournament as very low seeds are just content to say they made it, even though they know in their hearts they don't really have much of a chance. I know that TV ratings are very high for the early rounds, which is probably the main reason that there are 64 teams. It just seems that it would mean a lot more to a school if they made a tournament of only 32 teams, and I also believe there would be a lot fewer lopsided scores.
By no means am I saying that March Madness should be completely altered or abolished. However, there could be adjustments made to make it better. I have not even mentioned how a team such as Utah State, with only three regular season losses, was excluded from the tournament. or how Maryland, a team that before the Atlantic Coast Conference Tournament was on the bubble for even making the tournament, received a bid. After winning the ACC Tournament, they jumped into a coveted number four seed. Shouldn't there be a middle ground? Although this post season system is much more efficient than that of college football, I still believe there could be improvements made to it.
One last thing I want to point out about March Madness is that there is a play-in game where the winner has the privilege of being destroyed by the number one seed two days later.
This year's game took place between Lehigh University and Florida A&M last Tuesday night. Florida A&M won, and two days later they went on to lose by a rather large margin to Kentucky in the first round. I understand that it makes sense to have this game from a seeding standpoint, but is this game really necessary?
Anyway, maybe there will be some incredible upsets, but as for now, why not shrink down the pool of teams from 64 to 32 or even less?