Big dance is big enough

Seemingly every March, some talk arises about the possibility of expanding the NCAA basketball tournament to include more teams.

And, it seems like every year, I write a column or a blog entry about how big of a mistake that would be.
Well, consider this my 2010 version.

The perfect number of teams for this tournament is 64 teams. Even adding the play-in game (in which two team's no one can identify play for the right to be a No. 16 seed and get smacked by Kansas in the first round) was a silly idea. But that doesn't bother me much, because it still boils down to a 64-team tournament.

But this talk of expanding to 96 or 128 teams is absurd. The ultimate purpose of the tournament is to determine the national champion. Yes, for many teams, just making the tournament is the benchmark for a successful season. But those teams aren't going to be there at the end. Rhode Island, for example, is squarely on the bubble at present. But if the Rams get in, even the most hardcore URI fan can't expect them to be one of the FInal Four in Indianapolis come April.

The lower seeds do provide some entertainment, though. The first two rounds offer myriad upset opportunities, and we almost always see a couple of high-profile teams sent home by the likes of George Mason or Davidson. And once in a great while, i.e. George Mason in 2006, a Cinderella can get to the Final Four.

But no No. 16 has ever beat a No. 1 in the first round. What chance would a No. 32 seed have of advancing?

Sure, some teams whine and cry every year about being left out. But the fact is, if they'd won another game or two or made it a little further in their conference tournament, they'd be in.

Expansion just waters down the tournament and makes an NCAA berth a little less special. Leave it alone.