NCAA vs. War: Mutually Exclusive?
By Tamara Zakim
Sports Editor

On any given day in the past three weeks, we've been bound to see one of two things when we turn on the television: updates on the war with Iraq or the latest March Madness results. With the flip of a switch, we move from the animated commentary of broadcasters like Jay Bilas, Greg Gumbel and Clark Kellogg, to the stoicism of newscasters Dan Rather and Peter Jennings. The contrast between footage of young soldiers rolling through the Iraqi desert on tanks and footage of young basketball players sprinting up and down the court is striking and possibly even absurd. To suggest canceling the NCAA tournament in deference to the American war effort, however, is no less absurd.

Let's face it. March Madness is one of the most popular and entertaining developments in contemporary athletics. After all, what could be better than non-stop Division I college basketball action? The brackets, the rankings, the showmanship, the camaraderie, the upsets and the last minute game-winning shots make March Madness pure heaven to any true basketball fan. With men's and women's games occurring almost every day of the week in nearly every time zone and news clips running 24/7 on sports channels like ESPN and Fox Sports Net, fans are guaranteed unlimited access to the finest level of basketball competition in the United States. As 64 participating teams are quickly pared down to the Sweet Sixteen, the Elite Eight and the Final Four, madness combines with obsession, addiction and worship. We throw up our arms on three point shots; we groan with missed opportunities; we "ooh" and "aah" at dunks and blocks; we protest bad calls and we get chills when teams pull out wins in the final seconds of regulation or overtime. March Madness is a verified emotional state.

Though few people really believed he would do it, Myles Brand, president of the NCAA, briefly considered the possibility of canceling the tournament. He justified maintaining the original play-off schedule however, in the name of preserving normalcy. "We're not going to let a tyrant determine how we're going to lead our lives." In fact, the NCAA tournament, which began in 1939, has never been canceled. The idea that playing games is a way to boost morale was popularized in the 1940s by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Politicians encouraged the resumption of games after the Sept. 11 attacks to show the world that we would not be deterred. Similarly, Brand argues in favor of tournament play as a demonstration of American strength. We play because we can.

But what about the war? College basketball players and their college-aged fans have never experienced a risky and prolonged American war. While we celebrate the victory of underdogs like Marquette and Syracuse and wonder whether UConn can go all the way on the shoulders of Dana Taurasi, soldiers as young as 18 are risking their lives in the battles at Umm Qasr and Najaf. Whether or not we agree with the decision by American leadership to forge ahead in battle against Saddam Hussein, the reality of war is upon us. By engaging in the trivialities of the tournament, some argue that we are perpetuating attitudes of ignorance by giving basketball priority over the more pressing issues currently at stake in the Middle East.

Initially, March Madness coverage was moved from network station CBS to cable station ESPN in order to provide full-scale CBS News reporting on the outbreak of war. However, in a weekend when fighting intensified and American soldiers were taken prisoner, CBS Sports decided against moving the men's basketball tournament games to ESPN or another alternate network. Instead, CBS opted to provide occasional updates and reports during halftimes and commercial breaks.

Dan Rather, anchor of CBS Evening News, declined to criticize the decisions that gave him less air time than sports announcers Verne Lundquist or Jim Nantz. "Given the contractual realities, an extraordinary effort was made to give us time in the basketball tournament to give the people the most important developments in the war in a clear and concise manner," Mr. Rather said. "I won't kid you, though. War is war. Would it have been in the national interest to postpone the tournament? That's the bigger question."

If we are convinced, as New York Times columnist William Rhoden is, that "in war, the NCAA should stop the show," where do we decide to draw the line? On what grounds, for example, would we scratch March Madness while continuing to air reality shows? Do mediocre sitcoms take precedence over live athletic competition? If March Madness is deemed inappropriate during wartime, it may seem equally logical for network stations to pull the plug on all non-news related materials. And spectator-interests aside, is it fair to rob the players themselves of unsurpassed NCAA playoff thrills? On one hand, we can argue that basketball is expendable in wartime. On the other hand, does its triviality make us less entitled to it? Basketball is undoubtedly a luxury; but in times of war, we need such amenities. NCAA competition may in fact be more necessary in trying times than in times of peace because it provides fans and players alike with a source of escape. In the face of oft-upsetting news updates, March Madness keeps our spirits alive. At best, canceling the tournament would be a political statement that generates more objection than praise. After all, it's naïve to expect that basketball fans would seek refuge in extended news reports as a result of tournament cancellation. March Madness is the best three weeks of sports - in war or peace. To deprive basketball crazies of their tournament play would only make this time of war more insufferable.