There's been a lot of talk, and it appears to be serious, about expanding the NCAA Men's Basketball National Championship Tournament from a field of 64 teams to 96. This is stupid, but its also a product of a society that increasingly places a value on "everybody's the same and good!" over "some people are better at things than others, and we should not pretend that isn't the case."
Expanding the tournament is a bad idea on its own. Some coaches are trying to sell the whole "there are more good teams than spots in the tournament" idea, but I'm not buying it. Already, the college basketball regular season means very little. All you have to do is have a pretty good
and you're rewarded with a shot at the National Championship (20 wins and you're in the tournament). Even if you don't have the best year (let's say you're sitting on 17 or 18 wins), you still have a shot at making the NCAA tournament if you win your conference championship tournament. Therefore, what's most important is what you do at the very end and after the regular season.
Allowing 96 teams into the Big Dance means that now just having a decent year gets you a shot at the Title. 15 wins and you're in. If that's the case, why even have a regular season? There'd be very little point to it. We might as well do something retarded like use a computer formula or vote on who we want to see play for the championship! (take THAT, you BCS lovers) Why dilute your product like that? I'll tell you why:
"Because everybody deserves a shot! Everybody's good! We don't want to exclude anybody! Everybody should feel like a winner!"
(That, and the NCAA can then milk CBS into giving them some more money for another weekend of "Championship Basketball")
You keep hearing whiny, self-serving coaches like Villanova's Jay Wright say things like: " I don't think there's anything in college basketball that's more important than expanding that field."
"I don't give a shit what you say! Of COURSE Montclair State should make the Tournament!"
Why? So coaches can hang onto their jobs of coaching mediocre basketball by saying, "Hey, we keep making the tournament!" But if everyone makes the tournament, what does that mean? (For the record, I think Jay Wright is a good coach, and I like that Villanova team. He happens to be the most recent coach to talk about this, but there have been many others.)
Don't we want "making the tournament" to mean something? That phrase will become the new "we've made a bowl appearance!" (Yeah, in the eharmony.com bowl, between the 4th place big 12 team and the 5th place PAC-10 team.) Who cares?
The NCAA should want to avoid statements like that. They should want us to care. A lot.
But this idea goes deeper than just the NCAA Tournament:
Youth leagues where they don't keep score are spreading like wildfire. This is ridiculous in so many ways. When you try to explain this to some half-wit yuppie parent who supports this, you get these ignorant, mood-stabilizer-fueled responses:
"The most important thing is that everybody has fun!"
Incorrect. The most important thing is that your child learns the sport you've signed him up to play. Then fun.
"Well, if somebody wins that means somebody else lost. We don't want anybody to feel bad by losing. We want everyone to be equal!"
"You know you totally suck, right?"
"Well, we just don't want kids to feel bad because they might not be as good as other kids."
How is a kid supposed to know if he's actually good or not if either: a) nobody keeps track of wins or stats to show his/her performance or b) nobody evaluates him/her honestly? There's a huge difference between being legitimately good at something and thinking you're good at something, and it is extremely important to know this. Also, kids need to know that someone else may be better than them, for previously stated motivation, and to know who's going to take their girlfriend when they get a little older. I mean...somebody has to suck. Its also important for a kid to know what he/she is bad at. This way he/she can either improve it, or choose to focus on other strengths (assuming they have them). If a kid sucks at baseball...unless they really love it, maybe they shouldn't play baseball. Maybe you should just let he/she sit on their computer if they'd like and write code, and later turn into a successful software programmer or some other nerd-like career (I don't know what the shit they do).
All I'm saying is, kids should start learning their strengths and weaknesses, and if their stregnths don't include sports, so be it. Don't devalue the sport by watering it down so everybody can play. Let it mean something to be able to play. Let it be something you have to earn. Like the NCAA Tournament. That's fun.
Don't we want "making the tournament" to mean something? That phrase will become the new "we've made a bowl appearance!" (Yeah, in the eharmony.com bowl, between the 4th place big 12 team and the 5th place PAC-10 team.) Who cares?
The NCAA should want to avoid statements like that. They should want us to care. A lot.
But this idea goes deeper than just the NCAA Tournament:
Youth leagues where they don't keep score are spreading like wildfire. This is ridiculous in so many ways. When you try to explain this to some half-wit yuppie parent who supports this, you get these ignorant, mood-stabilizer-fueled responses:
"The most important thing is that everybody has fun!"
Incorrect. The most important thing is that your child learns the sport you've signed him up to play. Then fun.
Is this what we want?
"There's no reason to keep track of points scored or stats. It doesn't matter who wins!"
Incorrect. It most definitely does matter who wins. Winning comes with a feeling of accomplishment and triumph, something kids today are being robbed of because of the hippie-dippy mentality that has found its way into youth sports. There are few better feelings than knowing you've earned victory on the field (or court, or rink, or pool, etc.), that your hard work and energy has paid off and you've accomplished your goal of winning. Why would you not want your kid to feel like he/she earned something? Plus, learning how to win isn't limited to sports; you can also apply that to the rest of your life. Kids need to learn how to win if they want to become winners.
"I'ma stomp yo' ass, son"
"I'ma stomp yo' ass, son""Well, if somebody wins that means somebody else lost. We don't want anybody to feel bad by losing. We want everyone to be equal!"
You know what else kids need to learn? HOW TO LOSE! Do you want to know why there are a million whiny little brats who've become whiny little teenagers who feel an unearned sense of entitlement who've become whiny twenty-something adults who feel like this world owes them something, even though they haven't worked for anything yet? Because these dicksauces were never taught about winning and losing! They don't know how to earn anything because they've never had to; they've been handed unmarked trophies for showing up and told they've done a great job because nobody kept score and noticed they actually struck out three times. They expect to win by just showing up. These are the same people who, once the smallest thing goes wrong, have no idea how to handle it and can't understand why they didn't get hired because all they've been hearing they're whole life is how great they are. They never put any work into making themselves better. And why? Because nobody let them lose. With the exception of those rare, uber-athletes who have a burning desire from within to improve, people are generally motivated by not wanting to lose. Remember: Losing is For Losers, and nobody wants to be a loser. Once that's taken out of the equation, nobody has to get better, because they'll never lose. Congradulations, everybody's equal, because everybody kinda blows.
"You know you totally suck, right?""Well, we just don't want kids to feel bad because they might not be as good as other kids."
How is a kid supposed to know if he's actually good or not if either: a) nobody keeps track of wins or stats to show his/her performance or b) nobody evaluates him/her honestly? There's a huge difference between being legitimately good at something and thinking you're good at something, and it is extremely important to know this. Also, kids need to know that someone else may be better than them, for previously stated motivation, and to know who's going to take their girlfriend when they get a little older. I mean...somebody has to suck. Its also important for a kid to know what he/she is bad at. This way he/she can either improve it, or choose to focus on other strengths (assuming they have them). If a kid sucks at baseball...unless they really love it, maybe they shouldn't play baseball. Maybe you should just let he/she sit on their computer if they'd like and write code, and later turn into a successful software programmer or some other nerd-like career (I don't know what the shit they do).
All I'm saying is, kids should start learning their strengths and weaknesses, and if their stregnths don't include sports, so be it. Don't devalue the sport by watering it down so everybody can play. Let it mean something to be able to play. Let it be something you have to earn. Like the NCAA Tournament. That's fun.
Fun!
