watcha think? i dont consider adding a few "play-in" games expanding the tournament...as it stands, 64 teams make the actual field(spare me the play-in losers being in there talk)...now if it were truly the best 64 teams in there i think you have a hard time making the expansion argument....but we know thats not how it works....the automatic qualifiers from the small conferences end up knocking out teams that are in the top 64 in the ncaa...for example, we were seeded #43 overall and had to 'play-in' to make it so that some directional schools with weird mascots could get in...now, i say you either have to do away with the automatic qualifiers(i think most would be against that) or expand the field...the easiest thing to do would be to go to 128 teams...that simply adds one more game to the tourney...now if you want to argue that 128 teams is too many and that it "waters down the tournament" i have to disagree...take football for example...there are now 39 bowl games(seriously) that allow 78 of the 128 FBS teams to participate in the postseason...thats 61% of the teams...in basketball, there are 351 D1 teams participating...as it now stands with 64, that is 18% of the teams...by expanding to 128 teams, you are still only at 36% of the teams participating in the postseason...so if that is "watering down the tournament" we need to go back to about 12 bowl games in football...plus expanding give more opportunities to bet and skip work...so its a win-win...you could also do a 96 team expansion where the top 32 get a bye the first week...once the decision is made to expand i dont really think the logistics of making it happen would be that difficult...
