Final Four stirs debate on reseeding

Don’t mind Kansas or Villanova if the winner starts cutting down nets Saturday night.

In the most lopsided Final Four bracket since the tournament was expanded in 1985, these two No. 1 seeds square off in what might as well be called the “Big Boy Semifinal.” Barring an injury or something else totally unexpected, the winner will be favored to take the championship two nights later against either third-seeded Michigan or the Sister Jean-inspired 11th-seeded Loyola-Chicago Ramblers.

Monday night’s game is, naturally, not a topic anybody playing or coaching is very interested in discussing at this point — everyone is well-versed in taking it one game at a time.

But it brings up the on-again, offagain discussion of whether the sacred NCAA bracket should be reseeded at some point to ensure the matchup between No. 1s is more likely to take place at the end of the tournament instead of in a semifinal.

“My concern is that the very thing that makes the tournament so popular would be diminished in some way,” said Dan Gavitt, the NCAA senior vice president of basketball. “You’d set up barriers as you advance in the tournament that make it harder for the lower seeded teams. Loyola is a great example of, hey, they had one region to play in, there were upsets in that region, and they took advantage of that opportunity.”

Some of the greatest moments in the Final Four have come thanks to underdogs such as Loyola. Two of the poster children for that sort of upset: Kansas and Villanova. all