Tim Benz: A little tweak to make the NCAA Tournament’s First Four better | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World Sports

Tim Benz: A little tweak to make the NCAA Tournament’s First Four better

Tim Benz
907250_web1_907250-574a819786814a92be7611c6a98783e2
AP
Prairie View A&M’s Dennis Jones (11) shoots against Fairleigh Dickinson’s Mike Holloway Jr., center, and Kaleb Bishop (12) during the second half of a First Four game Tuesday, March 19, 2019, in Dayton, Ohio.

You may not have even submitted your bracket yet, and the 2019 NCAA Tournament is one night old.

One potential 16th-seeded Cinderella — Prairie View A&M — is already going home. Another — either North Carolina Central or North Dakota State — will get eliminated Wednesday night.

All that before the real start of March Madness begins on Thursday.

That’s because the silly First Four games have started in Dayton.

Nothing against the great city of Dayton, Ohio. I’m glad it gets this traditional bump. And any elimination college basketball game in March is a good thing.

But all the First Four is designed to do is sneak a few extra large-conference teams into the tournament that otherwise should’ve been left out.

That’s why the field expanded from 64 to 68. The small conferences always were going to get their automatic bids. That move was made to save a few major conference head coaching jobs per year among bubble teams.

It also potentially helps television ratings and gets a few more big schools with large fan bases to regional venues on the first weekend.

To all of those points, then, why not make the First Four games exclusively for the large-conference bubble teams?

In other words, allow all four No. 16 seeds to be automatically slotted to play the top-seeded behemoths. Then make all four games on Tuesday and Wednesday of Week 1 for the big-conference at-large schools.

Leave all 11 or 12 lines open for those who advance.

I’d rather see the small-conference schools go right into the field of 64 and make mediocre representatives from mega-powers earn their right to get into the big dance and keep their seasons going.

Usually, I don’t cry a river for the smaller schools. I don’t stay up at night on behalf of a snubbed team or two from the OVC or the MAAC or the Horizon. That’s especially true when those bids benefit a few extra squads in the top handful of power conferences. In most seasons, the seventh- or eighth-place school from the ACC or the Big Ten is going to be more deserving and more talented than the second- or third-place school from the Mountain West or the Mid-American.

So I usually don’t get caught in the caterwauling about favoritism toward the larger institutions. The big, bad conferences are bigger and badder for a reason.

This First Four argument is different, though. It’s not about who gets in. That’s already been determined, for better or worse. This is about best staging the field of 68.

And I think that’s best done by making the last few at-large qualifiers sing for their supper in Ohio.

From a practical point of view, it’d be good for attendance in Dayton. First of all, think of how much better the atmosphere would be if universities such as Ohio State, Iowa and Minnesota were there (along with St. John’s and Arizona State) instead of the four obscure No. 16 seeds.

From a viewership point of view, I’m far more inclined to watch any combination of those four teams play each other than I am two matchups of 16 seeds. Usually, those showdowns have 10 players on the floor that most of the country can’t recognize.

I watch the 15th- and 16th-seeded teams to see if they can shock the huge favorites, not to see them play each other.

That’s the beauty of the tournament’s first weekend. I think every small-conference school should get that chance instead of finding out you are in the bracket, only to lose in anonymity to another club of your ilk on a Tuesday night.

In other words, Prairie View A&M earned the right to put a first-half scare into Duke, just as much as it earned the right to get pounded by 30. Somehow, that seems more glamorous to me than blowing a second-half lead to Fairleigh Dickinson.

Look at North Carolina Central. The Eagles have been relegated to playing through Dayton three straight years. They lost to UC Davis in 2017 and Texas Southern in 2018.

Some of the small-conference schools like it this way. For instance, Fairleigh Dickinson now can boast about posting its first tournament victory. Those who care about every minute of the tournament saw the university win in prime time. Furthermore, coaches get handsome bonuses for NCAA Tournament victories.

Plus, some believe those two additional automatic bids would encourage the small schools to continue creating — or sustaining — more small conferences just to maintain or expand the number of automatic bids.

Yeah. Maybe. But that incentive exists already.

It’s a little thing. And I’m not one who likes tinkering with the tournament until we don’t recognize it anymore.

The First Four was one of those tweaks in the first place. And I think this minor adjustment would be a major step to make it better.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.