Atlantic 10 commissioner, many coaches embrace NCAA Tournament expansion

It’s almost time for March Madness. So get your field-of-96 bracket ready to go!

OK. Maybe not this year.

But start warming up to the idea of an expanded NCAA Tournament field for the men and the women. Because it certainly feels like momentum is building within NCAA basketball circles toward that eventuality.

On Jan. 3 of this year, the NCAA’s Division I Transformation Committee issued a 39-page report. The goal of that report was to advance “opportunities to modernize college sports.”

Perhaps the most significant recommendation was the proposed expansion of postseason tournaments to “accommodate access for 25% of active Division I members in good standing in team sports sponsored by more than 200 schools.”

Based on schools moving up and down divisions year to year, we’re looking at about 355-365 men’s programs and 350-355 women’s programs per season. Including 25% of those institutions would mean roughly 90 invitations for each tournament.

I don’t know what your first thought was when you read that, but mine was, “Can all those teams really fit on my bracket sheet?”

That’s because for 99.99% of the country, most of us consume March Madness through watching the games on television and taking part in office pools. To us, the thought of expansion to a clunky number such as 90 may seem unwieldy and overcomplicate the beautiful simplicity of the tournament that fans view through the lens of their brackets.

Conversely, for the 00.01% of the country that may actually be involved in the sport of NCAA D-I college basketball, most seem to love the idea.

Why wouldn’t they? More bids to the tournament mean more opportunities for players on the sport’s biggest stage. It means more revenue from more tournament games on television. It means more chances for coaches, athletic directors and conference commissioners to get their teams into the “Big Dance.”

By extension, that could mean more job security, alumni support and money through bonuses for them and for their institutions.

“The association can afford to carry a larger bracket. And I’m all for more opportunities for more teams,” Atlantic 10 commissioner Bernadette McGlade told me during a recent ESPN+ broadcast. “They are lifetime opportunities. I always think that March Madness will be an iconic event, regardless of what the size is. We went from 48 to 64 to 68. And it’s still phenomenal.”

As various A-10 teams have come through Pittsburgh to play Duquesne, I’ve gathered opinions of the coaches throughout the league. After all, in theory, the A-10 should be the kind of conference that would benefit from such an expansion. In the latest ESPN.com Bracketology, the conference is projected as just a one-bid league — for only its automatic qualifying conference tournament champion. That hasn’t happened since 2005. In 2014, six A-10 schools qualified. Every season since, the conference has been a two-bid or three-bid league.

“I don’t see why not,” Loyola Chicago’s Drew Valentine said of tournament expansion. “It’s really hard for Atlantic 10 schools to get the nonconference (regular-season games) needed to be a four-or-five bid league. … Either expand the tournament or give us more opportunities to play some more nonleague games against ‘Power Five or Six’ competition. Because at this moment, you can get games against Mountain West and WCC teams. But if we’re just beating up on each other, then that just swallows each other up.”

There is a school of thought, though, that if the tournament does expand, most of the extra spots are just going to be soaked up by even more big conference teams anyway.

La Salle’s Fran Dunphy doesn’t see it that way. In May, months before the NCAA committee’s recommendation, he proposed a 96-team bracket idea at A-10 league meetings. It’s one that many A-10 coaches referenced and applauded.

“A lot of people will say, if you expand the field then you’ve got to elongate the tournament. In my mind, you don’t. You could have 64 teams at the beginning of the week play to get it to 32. And then you have 32 teams with a bye,” Dunphy explained. “You get 96 teams in there — if that were the case — the Atlantic 10 would have had five or six teams last year because we got four teams into the NIT tournament.”

That model feels like it could work. However, it’d be a quandary for team travel, network television logistics and arena availability. And it essentially wouldn’t solidify the 64-team bracket until the Wednesday after conference championships end.

Details aside, Fordham’s Keith Urgo endorsed the big picture thinking of Dunphy’s idea.

“I know some others think it would water (the tournament) down, but I disagree,” Urgo said. “It’s just another great weekend. What’s the best time of the year? There’s very few people in any sport at any level that won’t say March Madness is the most exciting, most fun time in sports. So why would an extra weekend hurt anything or anyone?”

George Mason coach Kim English echoed that sentiment. He played in the NCAA Tournaments four times as a student-athlete at Missouri.

“It’s the best sporting event in the world. More teams. More excitement. More opportunity for the student-athletes,” English said. “I was fine with the field at 64. It was an amazing tournament. I was fine with it at 68. Whatever they do to the NCAA Tournament, I think it’s still going to be the best sporting event in the world.”

Maybe, but more isn’t always a good thing. We are going in that direction way too often in sports these days. The NCAA Tournament is one of the few examples where the porridge is just right.

Starting with the conference tournaments, I gorge on college basketball for four weeks. Personally, one more round (or weekend) of games and 22-28 more teams feels like it will dilute the interest and accomplishment.

Duquesne’s Keith Dambrot was pretty much the only coach I interviewed that had some resistance towards the notion of NCAA Tournament expansion.

“I’m a little bit torn on if it cheapens the tournament. Getting in the tournament is hard as hell,” Dambrot said. “So when you get to the tournament, it is an unbelievable accomplishment. So at 90, is it still an unbelievable accomplishment? Should you really celebrate a tournament when you are 8-10 in the league?”

Dambrot’s suggestion was to expand the 32-team NIT and leave the NCAA alone.

“There are a lot of teams in our league that the NIT would be an unbelievable tournament for. So maybe add a few teams to the NCAA tournament but for sure add to the NIT,” Dambrot said.

By “a few,” the idea of four more bids to get to 72 has been floated in the media. That would essentially create a “second Dayton.” In other words, a second venue of “First Four” games to create a “First Eight.” Play the Dayton games on the Tuesday after the conference tournaments. Play the Dayton 2.0 games in a different city the next day.

I say leave everything alone. The money it generates should be enough. If more revenue is needed, figure out a way to do it through the current field of 68. No more than 72. Trying to create more cash — and more job security — through more teams isn’t the answer.

On Wall Street, “greed is good.”

On “The Road to the Final Four,” great should be good enough. And the NCAA Tournament is already great.

On Thursday’s “Breakfast With Benz Podcast,” Tim Benz interviews Big Ten/Sporting News college basketball analyst Mike DeCourcy about the idea of NCAA Tournament expansion and bounceback years for Pitt and Duquense.