I'd make one change. I'd add a play-in game for each bracket. Adding three teams would expand the field from 65 to 68. The 68 seed would play the 60
seed. 67 woud play 62, etc. After the 4 game, one day play-in, the lowest remaining seed plays the overall number one seed, the next lowest the overall number
2 seed etc. This would accomplish two objectives:
1. It would open the Tournament to 3 more deserving at large teams;
2. It would make the "field of 64" games more comptetitive. What was a 16 seed talent- wise would then likely be a
15 seed, with the impact trickling down throughout the brackets.
Obviously, this isn't a panacea to all the teams that feel slighted on selection Sunday. There would be teams that would feel wronged if the tournament expanded to 72 or 128. But after watching the the SMC/WSU game and the first round of the NCAA's, I've concluded that the expanding the number of at large teams from 34 to 37 would not dilute the talent pool at all. By expanding the play-in, the smaller conference still get their shot, and the non BCS schools have at least a slightly better chance of making the Dance.
1. It would open the Tournament to 3 more deserving at large teams;
2. It would make the "field of 64" games more comptetitive. What was a 16 seed talent- wise would then likely be a
15 seed, with the impact trickling down throughout the brackets.
Obviously, this isn't a panacea to all the teams that feel slighted on selection Sunday. There would be teams that would feel wronged if the tournament expanded to 72 or 128. But after watching the the SMC/WSU game and the first round of the NCAA's, I've concluded that the expanding the number of at large teams from 34 to 37 would not dilute the talent pool at all. By expanding the play-in, the smaller conference still get their shot, and the non BCS schools have at least a slightly better chance of making the Dance.
