We have all heard about it but, like unicorns, Bigfoot or a flattering photo from a low angle, it does not exist and never has: the level playing field. In college basketball, we talk a lot about competitive balance and how "unfair" it all can be. We love the occasional upset in the NCAA tournament but, given the disparity in money and talent throughout Division I, we lament how the "little guy" has little chance to win against the big shots. And many seem to think that it is unfair for the little guy without resources to have to compete against the big guy with seemingly unlimited resources.
We hear it all the time. The big guys won't play the little guys on the road. The blue bloods won't play anything but home games and neutral-court games. But the little guy understands the market and now demands an unreasonable amount of "guarantee" games. The little guy cannot get on TV or get media exposure. But nobody watches such games when they are on TV, and so few little guys have capitalized on NCAA tournament success to be nationally relevant that it is a nonstarter. The NCAA tournament has become the Holy Grail of college basketball, and the regular season has become irrelevant and almost meaningless.
All the while, NCAA administrators talk in highbrow terms about reform and a return to the values of higher education. They talk about "getting back" to what college sports are supposed to be about. We talk about students who just happen to be athletes.
It is time to seriously consider making Division I smaller, streamlined and therefore more competitive and meaningful.
No reasonable person I know in college sports has differed with me when I suggest that Division I basketball should mirror college football in the number of teams. With more than 350 teams and rising, Division I basketball is simply too big, and it is not conducive to better competition or a better product. Whether it is the current Football Bowl Subdivision number of 120 teams or more toward 150 teams, we need to shrink Division I to a reasonable size.
The first reaction to this proposal is "it will ruin the NCAA tournament" and "eliminate any chance of a Norfolk State or Lehigh" and "we wouldn't have George Mason or VCU." Of course, the first concern expressed is for the NCAA tournament and assumes, incorrectly I believe, that the occasional Cinderella upset is driving the bus.
If Division I shrinks to a reasonable size, somewhere between 100 and 150 teams, the level of competition will improve. With a smaller field, the quality of matchups during the regular season will improve because teams will not have such a wide range of cupcakes to schedule. Is there really any compelling reason for Kentucky to play Marist, Radford, Portland, and Chattanooga at Rupp? Does anyone outside of Lexington care to see those matchups? Does it make any more sense than playing Transylvania or Morehouse, the Cats' exhibition games?
Does it move anyone to see North Carolina play Elon, Nicholls, Mississippi Valley State, Monmouth or Tennessee State at home?
In 2012, the Kentucky Wildcats, North Carolina Tar Heels, Michigan State Spartans, Syracuse Orange, Kansas Jayhawks and Washington Huskies (the teams that finished first in BCS leagues) played 37 nonconference games against teams rated below 120 in the Basketball Power Index. Here's the breakdown:
First-place teams in BCS conferences
The breakdown of BCS conference champions and how they fared against non-BCS teams outside of the BPI top 120 and against BCS nonconference opponents.
Conference
Team (non-con games)
vs. non-BCS, BPI-120+
W%
vs. BCS non-con.
W%
ACC
North Carolina (15)
7
1.000
5
.800
Big East
Syracuse (13)
7
1.000
4
1.000
Big Ten
Michigan State (13)
8
1.000
3
.333
Big 12
Kansas (13)
4
1.000
7
.714
Pac-12
Washington (12)
5
1.000
2
.000
SEC
Kentucky (15)
6
1.000
6
.833
The in-betweens (non-BCS teams in BPI top 120): UNC (LBSU, UNLV); Michigan State (Lehigh, Gonzaga, Evansville); Syracuse (Marshall, Bucknell); Kansas (LBSU, Davidson); Washington (Georgia St., Saint Louis, Nevada, UCSB, South Dakota St.); Kentucky (Lamar, Old Dominion, Loyola (MD)
Those six power conference teams, one of which did not even make the NCAA tournament, were a combined 37-0. North Carolina's average margin of victory in those games was 30.7 points. Such games are not competitive. No player is pining to play in such games, and there is no broad appeal to fans. Those games are glorified exhibitions and not in the best interests of the game.
The bottom half of Division I is simply not competitive enough on a consistent basis to justify the bloated size of Division I. If Division I is reduced to a more reasonable size, there would be better games, a better distribution of talent across a smaller pool, and a better and more marketable product.
If Division I shrinks to 120 or 150 teams, the cry that Butler and VCU would be left out is the first one hears. Slow down. Look at the 120 FBS teams on the football side, and then look at the top 150 in the BPI. Teams like Butler (which just bolted the Horizon League for the Atlantic 10) and VCU would be among the 120 to 150 teams that are qualified and committed to a better Division I. It would include plenty of committed and competitive teams, and nobody would miss the early-season games against sacrificial lambs.
But, some would say, what about the teams that would be left out? Where do they go? They go into a new and better Division II and play against each other and those currently in Division II that wish to play "like teams" in a more competitive environment. Division II gives scholarships and competes just as hard and cares just as much as Division I. But, generally, the teams are not as powerful.
Finally, we could easily accommodate the best teams in Division II with invitations to the NCAA tournament. Then, even though Cinderella is not driving the popularity of the NCAA tournament, she could still make an appearance at the ball, and the best interests of the game would be better served.
