I get confused about the outrage surrounding the possibility of the NCAA tournament expanding the field. My reaction is pretty much the same as the one I have when I hear of a new bowl game pairing 6-6 teams in mid-December: Crusty, old reporters and stupid college football writers for CNNSI.com and ESPN.com will whine and complain but I'm ambivalent unless there's a chance Michigan will be playing in it. If the host community and the fans of both teams want it, what do I care? If I don't like the matchup, I won't watch. I'd have no problem whatsoever if there were bowl games for every team in the country regardless of record. Just more games I won't watch, but I wouldn't seek to deprive someone else of the entertainment value they get from those games. So when it comes to the tournament, if I really don't like any of the 16 new first-round games, I just won't watch them. Chances are I'll like plenty of them, though, and March will be all the better.
Anyway, honest question: Whether it's crappy bowl games or an expanded hoops field, why do you care? Eye-rolling and good-natured jokes about the qualifications of some of the teams that find their way into the postseason, that makes sense. But the rage seems out of place to me. Why is a bigger postseason a problem when you can ignore the new games and just start watching when the round of 64 begins?
EDIT: I don't mean to suggest anyone is wrong, by the way. I just feel like I'm probably missing something because the only time I ever see it addressed here or any other forum it's to complain about it. Maybe there's a serious problem with it that I haven't considered.