(Thumbnail image: NCAA)
The NCAA men’s basketball tournament kicks off this week. March Madness is never short on controversy and this year is no exception. Talk has turned to expanding the number of teams in the tournament. The other controversy? Putting Duke as a number one seed -- the number three overall.
We’re looking at perspectives from ESPN, SI.com, Jacksonville.com and the Kansas City Star.
On SportsCenter one analyst disagrees with the NCAA’s idea to expand the tournament from 65 teams to 96.
“Think about this, this is one of the weakest at-large groups that we’ve ever seen assembled. Can you imagine if we ever went to 96? I mean, are you kidding me? You talk about watering down a product. You talk about mediocrity.”
Many coaches are in favor of the idea. New Mexico coach, Steve Alford, says more teams equal more opportunities for players.
“I just think there are a lot of student athletes right now who are earning it but they're not getting the chance to play in the NCAA tournament. And I don't know if that's right.”
A columnist for Jacksonville.com thinks the coach’s enthusiasm is just a self-preservation ploy.
“Of course, the bench suits are going to tell you more is better. As in, a better chance for them to avoid being fired for not being invited enough to the Big Dance.”
Others say more teams mean more TV coverage and money for the NCAA. And that leads us to the controversy surrounding No. 1 seed Duke. Kansas City Star writer Jason Whitlock says its top seed could be motivated by TV ratings.
“Duke is television ratings gold…a squeaky-clean fantasy that sports fans love and love to hate….On a more serious note, Duke (and North Carolina to a lesser degree) score higher on the old 'eyeball' test. Fewer tattoos and more white guys.”
Duke has won 11 of its last 12 games, but ESPN analyst Jay Bilas explains a few reasons why Duke is a questionable No. 1 seed.
“West Virginia has won more games against the top competition than has Duke, and they had a better road record than Duke. That doesn’t mean they should’ve knocked Duke out of there but at worst they should have been the top No. 2 seed. And I think one of the things, part of that might have more to do with bracketing procedures than anything else.”
Many sports analysts think Duke received the easiest bracket and path to the Final Four. A writer for ESPNU says this is no way to treat the truly qualified teams, even if Duke does rake in the money.
"No. 1 overall seed Kansas was stuck in a brutal landmine of tourney-proven coaches and elite guard talent...Really? You want to make marginal No. 1 Duke's road that easy? Seeding the bracket is tough, but come on."
So, what do you think? Should the NCAA expand the tournament? And should Duke have been seeded No. 1?
Writer: Amanda Heisey
 |  |  |  |
