Revamp tournaments

Bobby Knight should know what he’s talking about. As one of four men to win three or more titles at the Big Dance, he recently said the tournament has become too big for its britches.

Knight suggests having a smaller field, and I’d go a step further. With a smaller NCAA field that Knight and others would like, the NIT could be more than just a tournament for castoffs from the Big Dance, but instead used as a quality second-tier tournament. Then the two tournaments each with 50 schools could be run concurrently, the NCAA’s with the elite top 50 and the NIT with the 51 through 100 mostly smaller ones.

Under this plan, it’s more inclusive and more competitive. Consider how bad it’s been before. Only three teams of a No. 9 seed or higher (11 the highest) have reached the Final Four and none higher than an No. 8 has made it to a final game (UCLA in 1980 and champion Villanova in 1985).

And no seed of 12 or higher has beaten a No. 1 seed and the 12-pluses have but four wins against No. 2 seeds.

Would the Zags and Cougs do any better under this system? Perhaps not, but assuming they have good teams, each is assured of a place in a quality postseason tournament under national exposure. Gonzaga and WSU each have a coach capable of putting together a winning team that can beat most anybody, even in the postseason.

Simon Roloff

Spokane