I don’t think it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison at all. I guess it’s a POV issue. My POV is that the goal of the tournament is to get the best teams in and determine a champion, with as little side nonsense as possible. No team seeded lower than 8 has EVER won the tournament. The additional representation is pointless to me, if it only serves to add in games that are ultimately meaningless. I listened just yesterday to the guys here on the Sports Animal talking about how there are some teams that got absolutely nothing out of their first- and second-round games other than a W in each one. I also heard them agree that having difficult games or cupcake games in the first two rounds don’t really matter, as champions have come with regularity from both roads. So why the heck do we have so many? Again, this is my POV.

Obviously, your POV is “the more basketball we get, the better.” More games theoretically gives a greater chance of quality games (“exciting, close games”). I can understand that but I can’t agree with it. By that logic, we should all be salivating over the NIT games, too. In fact, there’s a good chance the NIT has had more quality games this year than the big tournament. And how much coverage is that tournament getting, exactly?

I’d still vote for shrinking the main tournament so that the serious contenders can do their thing. I think such a scenario gives a great chance for quality games because then the good teams play each other earlier, rather than wasting time with (for example) 1-vs-16 or 2-vs-15 which occasionally provides an upset but usually just ends in blowout by #1 or #2. Then let everyone else go play in the NIT, and teams that really aren’t worthy of either just go home. Besides, if the seeding committee is doing so well, and we’re going to keep getting the 1-4 seeds in the Sweet 16…remind me what we’re doing here again?