Why The NCAA Tournament is Too Big…Seriously.

I’ve discovered something interesting about German television. Most of it is in German.

Given that my entire German vocabulary consists of good day, thank you, you’re welcome and “do you speak English,” that leaves me with three choices; CNN, Disney Channel in German, or blogging. And one can only handle so much CNN. Life without television, go figure.

So without further adieu; random thoughts from across the pond…in English of course.


I am probably the only person on earth who thinks the NCAA tournament field is too big.

I’m not talking about the obnoxious decision to bloat the field beyond 64 teams. I actually think it was too big at 64.

Look I get that there is a spectacular symmetry to the sixteen team brackets; a symmetry by the way that the NCAA happily destroyed for more TV money. I get that the tournament is possibly the most exciting event in U.S. sports. And I’m fully aware that the chances of the NCAA reducing the tournament field are comparable to Disque winning a Nobel Prize.

That does not change my opinion that the tournament is bloated. I complain all the time about college football’s ridiculously exclusive system for determining its de facto national champion. Well college basketball goes to the opposite extreme.

Consider the 16 team monstrosity that is the Big East. All the teams played 30+ regular season games, plus the meaningless conference tournament. And then the NCAA was cordial enough to invite 11 of those 16 to its championship field of 68. That's an awful lot of basketball to eliminate 30% of the conference from the big dance. And people say the NHL’s regular season is meaningless?

In the end, 9 of those 11 teams, including the Mighty Pitt Panther, failed to reach the round of 16. The two that did, each beat another Big East team in the second round. That to me is a staggering indictment of the conference and a case study in how ridiculous the college basketball season has become.

If the NCAA tournament was reduced back to 48 teams and the automatic bids were retained for conference champions; that would force a lot of the fluff teams out and actually make the regular season meaningful. As much as I bash the conference tournaments, they would actually matter if the conference was likely to only get 3 or 4 bids. And that’s how it should be. It completely devalues the regular season when that the 5th best team in a conference gets to play for the NCAA championship, let alone the 11th best.

Even worse, after all those teams get in we still have to listen to the talking heads at TMZSPN moan and complain about the poor 12 loss teams that got excluded.

Fear not however, this will NEVER happen. The NCAA tournament is one of the most lucrative events in sport and the NCAA would never scale back its cash cow. I know the tournament is fantastic. Just understand that everything that happens before that is essentially an exhibition season for college basketball junkies.


Jamie Dixon has built a tremendous program at Pitt but his failures in the tournament can no longer be ignored. Especially given my entire rant above about the regular season being meaningless.

It’s easy to forget that before Dixon and Ben Howland arrived, Pitt had fallen off the Big East map. Under Dixon, the Panthers regularly compete for Big East Championships and get high seeds in March. Pitt basketball has become nationally relevant, which is far more than we can say for their football program.

Unfortunately with each passing year it’s looking more and more like Dixon is a coach who can’t win when it truly matters.

The reality of college sports is that the players turn over every four years (or less); the coaches remain the constant. The results at Pitt have been pretty constant under Dixon; strong regular seasons, high tournament seeds, and early round flameouts. In any given year you might blame the players. Over eight years, you have to look at the coach.

One of two things is happening at Pitt. Either Dixon is not a good enough coach in big games or he recruits players who can not raise their game to championship level. I believe its both. And even if you somehow blame it solely on the talent, keep in mind that Dixon is the person doing the recruiting

Most of us could accept Pitt’s loss to Butler this weekend as a fluke if it were a one time occurrence. Unfortunately, this has become the norm over the past decade plus. Sad as it is, I expected it, (which somehow did not stop me from ruining my brackets). You can not argue that Butler has more talent than Pitt. Nor can you argue that they were more talented than the teams they played on their miracle run to the NCAA championship game last year. That tells me they are extremely well coached and that coaching made the difference on Saturday.

The question is can Dixon do better and/or can Pitt do better?

To the latter, I say no. Pitt is not Duke or North Carolina. It is still a second tier destination in college basketball. Pitt compares perfectly to Syracuse. Jim Boeheim became a coaching legend by consistently producing strong regular season teams. And in Boeheim’s case, final four lightening struck three times in 30+ years. That success, including one national championship makes most people forget the litany or early round failures there. The same thing could easily happen for Dixon at Pitt.

To the former I’m not sure. I am truly skeptical that Dixon is capable of improving as a big game coach after eight years. As for recruiting, it’s absolutely possible that Dixon gets the best talent he can to come to Pitt. I wonder however if he is so set getting players to fit his system that he ignores potentially better offensive players who might be difference makers come tournament time?

I do not believe Pitt has peeked under Dixon or that he should be fired. That means the adjustments need to come from within. The status quo is no longer acceptable in Oakland; improvements need to be made, even if that means Dixon stepping out of his comfort zone.


I blistered the National Hockey League a few weeks back for their impotent handling of the travesty on Long Island. Sadly nothing has changed.

The league continues to hand out embarrassingly light penalties for severe incidents with obvious and predictable results. How many players have to be seriously injured by cheap shots to the head before the NHL hands out a single meaningful punishment?

There is no way to sugar coat this; Colin Campbell and the NHL brass have handled this issue with complete incompetence. The players keep driving elbows in to each other’s brains because they know there are no serious repercussions. And it’s not always the goons and thugs that are doing the dirty work. Now it’s the PAVEL Kubinas and Dany Heatleys of the world as well.

I seriously wonder if Colin Campbell failed third grade. Because that’s usually the point where people figure out there is a correlation between incorrect actions and punishment. It’s why we have prison cells for criminals in this country, to dissuade crime. If Colin Campbell was a judge in the criminal justice system, manslaughter would probably carry a four game suspension. Sadly I fear it may come to that in the NHL.

The league had a perfect opportunity to address the issue at the general manager’s meeting and again failed miserably. More tough talk and impotent action. The NHL continues to tacitly endorse and enable this activity which endangers its players and cheapens its product.

Unfortunately for Penguin fans, Matt Cooke is a big part of the NHL's problem. I previously accepted Cooke as physical player and an instigator who played on the edge and for the most part I respected his overall game. Alas, pretty much since the time Cooke clobbered Marc Savard last year he’s gone over the edge.

I’ve previously resisted the urge to label Cooke a dirty player but I can no longer defend him. At the very least, he’s reckless beyond an acceptable level. Trust me he’s not the only offender in the NHL but we can no longer ignore Cooke’s acts; not when Penguin fans are still boiling about Trevor Gillies. Even worse, those acts are now costing the Penguins points in the standings.

The NHL should come down on Cooke as a repeat offender; no less than ten games for his latest cheap shot. And honestly, Matt Cooke’s day in Pittsburgh should be numbered. I would rather use his cap hit to keep Talbot and Kennedy. I hate that its come to that but Cooke has left us no choice.