West Virginia coach Bob Huggins recently proposed splitting NCAA Division I basketball schools into I and I-A, much the way it's done in football.
He contends that not all programs make the same financial commitment to the sport, and that only those willing to be "big time" should be in the big tournament.
Presumably the NCAA could come up with suitably ridiculous names for the two groupings - the wish-we-had-bowls-for-basketball championship subdivision, for example - so that we wouldn't be befuddled by confusing names like I and I-A. The 110 schools Huggins estimated as big time would be happy. They would all get in the tournament. A lot of the other 237 probably would be, too, because most of them aren't getting in now, and this would give them a shot at something they could win.
This idea is appealing on some levels and not so appealing on others, but Huggins' idea isn't under consideration by the NCAA. However, expanding the current 65-team tournament to 96 teams is.
Why there is so much discussion about changing such a popular tournament would be confusing if we didn't know what drives all such discussions: money. The NCAA is considering expansion because it has a chance to opt out of its contract with CBS after this year, which means it can shop an expanded tournament (more games equals more money) to both CBS and other potential partners, including ESPN. Huggins thinks if the big-time 110 were to have their own tournament, the big boys could collect a larger cut of the money pie.
Not to worry, though. If greed could have ruined this event, it would already have done it. The NCAA Tournament continues to be as good as it gets in sports. Some claim that 65 teams is the perfect size for the tournament, apparently not realizing that the field has been expanded eight times - from eight to 16, to 25, to 32, to 40, to 48, to 52, to 64, to 65.
A 96-team tournament would be a little unwieldy; it would mean the top 32 teams getting a first-round bye and the end of those scintillating No.1 vs. No.16 seed matchups that have yet to produce an upset. To keep the tournament on a three-week schedule, it would probably also mean having 16 first-round games on Tuesday and 16 more on Wednesday, likely at the eight sites already chosen to host games. The winners would then play the top 32 teams that received byes on Thursday and Friday.
Both proposals interest me in part because of what they might or might not mean to the Mid-American Conference.
MAC teams are part of the 120 football bowl subdivision teams, so presumably they might be part of the 110 or so Huggins described as "big time." If they were, the MAC's problem of getting more than one of its teams into the big dance would be solved; they would all be in. And if the NCAA expands the field to 96, the MAC would at least have a chance of getting its regular season champ in the field if it were upset in the conference tournament.
The MAC hasn't had a second team in the field since 1999, including 2007 when a 26-win Akron team didn't even get an NIT bid. That would seem to argue against the logic of having a conference tournament; if the league's best team is upset and a lesser team goes to the NCAA and loses in the first round, it adds to the evidence that the MAC doesn't deserve a second bid.
The NCAA might be about to resolve that problem with a 96-team field. If 31 teams are added and the MAC still doesn't get a second bid, it probably would accelerate the conference's recent downward basketball spiral and cut its prestige even further.
Then the MAC's only solution might be to join ranks with Huggins and start ripping on the little guys, even if that seems a lot like looking in the mirror.
Bob Hunter is a sports columnist for The Dispatch.
bhunter@dispatch.com