- Joined
- Oct 22, 2013
- Messages
- 783
- Reaction Score
- 1,509
Agree with many of your points.. Additionally.. When the Tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985..Making winning the Trophy much more difficult.. The argument about UConn's legacy/status since that point in time really breaks down quickly when compared to the "blue bloods" over that same period of time.Even though we had to wait a few years for our first championship trophy.
Yes. And there’s 2 ways of looking at that. Sure, it takes more wins to get to the top in an expanded tournament, but it’s easier to make the tournament to begin with. You can’t win the tournament if you don’t get into it, so in that sense the pre-expansion tournament was harder to win.
Let’s face it, the modern expanded tournament was not created to provide a better test of who is the true champion. It’s a money grab. More teams = more games = more interest = more viewers = more money.
The expanded tournament is the result of the resentment by schools from power conferences toward lower tier conferences gaining access to the tournament with inferior teams. The NCAA tournament was originally created to be a tournament of (conference) champions. Then they allowed independent teams to get in via at-large bids because they realized that sometimes the best team in the country was an independent. Then they allowed limited expansion because sometimes the best team in the country was eliminated in a conference tournament. That was all in the interests of getting a “true” champion at the end of the process. By that time the tournament had become so popular that it was really lucrative. And then expansion was all about the money.

