sounds like it's probable NCAA will expand the field. Question is to how many:

currently at 68, I don't think going to 90 or 96 would be good as it would devalue the regular season, but with 352 Division 1 teams (and growing) I think adding more teams makes sense.

My preference is to increase the "First Four" to "First Eight" games. That adds 4 teams from 68 to 72 and make the brackets symmetrical. Today 2 of regions have an 11/11 match and other 2 regions have a 16/16 match, so being symetrical would mean all regions would have both a 11/11 match and 16/16 match (which are typically filled with mid-major teams from smaller conferences)

From ESPN:
On Saturday, new NCAA president Charlie Baker told reporters at the Final Four that a recommendation of possible expansion from the NCAA committee studying the issue could come as early as this summer.

On ESPN Radio's "Keyshawn, JWill & Max" on Friday, Michigan State coach Tom Izzo said that "he wouldn't go to 90 [teams]" but he is in favor of more teams earning bids.

They will probably do something like you suggest, i.e., expand the field by 4 to 8 teams.

I wouldn't have any problem if they expanded all the way to 96 teams. The tournament is entertaining because it's one-and-done, win-or-go-home. More of that is fine with me. I don't buy the "traditionalist" argument about making the regular season more meaningful. As far as entertainment value goes, the regular season pales in comparison to the tournament. Just give us more tournament.

BearSD said:

---

They will probably do something like you suggest, i.e., expand the field by 4 to 8 teams.

I wouldn't have any problem if they expanded all the way to 96 teams. The tournament is entertaining because it's one-and-done, win-or-go-home. More of that is fine with me. I don't buy the "traditionalist" argument about making the regular season more meaningful. As far as entertainment value goes, the regular season pales in comparison to the tournament. Just give us more tournament.

---

Agreed. The regular season is for: 1) making the tournament and 2) seeding.

No thanks on 24 teams per region, way too many. When something is this good, you don't f** it up with expansion or needless changes. If any teams are added, it should only be for play-in spots… and they definitely should not add more 16/16 games, expansion slots should only be for the top bubble teams (what are now the No.1 seeds in the NIT). If we're being honest they should probably cut some conference champion automatic bids and convert them to at-large but seems unlikely to happen.

256. UC Berkeley Bears are knocking on the door.

When they expanded the tournament to 64 teams, it really ended all legitimate arguments that any deserving teams were left out.

We can argue about who should get the last spot or two, but none of the last four in really deserve to be playing for the national championship. At best, they can be spoilers or make a surprising deep run (or sometimes a not surprising run because they took time to gel or had key players injured for a chunk of the season), but teams among the last four in are never cutting down the nets at the Final Four.

As the number of auto bids crept up, it seemed okay to expand to 68. It would probably be okay to expand to 72. One thing I like about expanding to 68 (and possibly again to 72) is that it increases the odds of a 16 over 1 upset. Although FDU was truly ranked among the worst four in the tourney this year, with 2 play-in games for 16 seeds, 2 of the 16 seeds are now teams that would have been 15 seeds with only 64. If they go to 72, with 4 play-ins for 16 seeds and 4 for the 8 worst at larges, it will mean that four of the eight 16 seeds would have been 15 seeds, easier to beat a 1 seed (it will also mean all of the 15 seeds would have been 14 seeds with 64, easier to beat a 2 seed). And since, at 72, none of the 8 worst at larges deserve to be in the tourney anyway, it is fine to make them all have a play-in game.

I don't really want to see 96, but I'm okay with 72.

Cal8285 said:

---

When they expanded the tournament to 64 teams, it really ended all legitimate arguments that any deserving teams were left out.

---

To quote that line from the movie "Unforgiven": Deserve's got nothin' to do with it.

The NCAA tournament is entertainment. If they truly wanted to include only "deserving" teams, and ensure that the title was won by one of the *most* deserving teams, the tournament would include only about 32 teams, and they would be the best 32, without including an "autobid" team from any random group of colleges that joined Division I.

Arguably, to make the winner truly deserving, a single-elimination tournament wouldn't be satisfactory either; a team should be able to beat another team more than once to eliminate fluke outcomes.

But... fluke outcomes and weird results, i.e., "undeserving" teams beating "deserving" teams, is the #1 reason that March Madness is so entertaining. I see no problem with giving us fans more of that entertainment.

Cal8285 said:

---

When they expanded the tournament to 64 teams, it really ended all legitimate arguments that any deserving teams were left out.

---

Disagree for a few reasons:

1. Factors such as transfer portal resulting in more mid-major teams are making a deep run in the NCAA. This year, FAU made the Final Four. A couple years ago, UCLA as a play-in team made the Final Four and lost in OT with a Zags buzzer beater. They could have potentially won the NC.

2. One thing I like about the NCAA tournament, unlike almost any other sport in college or pros, is that more than the National Champion can 'win'. Yes, perhaps UNC, Duke, Kansas have a disappointing season if they don't win a NC, but just about everyone else considers making the Final Four as a major accomplishment and a successful season. For others, making the Sweet Sixteen is a major accomplishment, and for others, making the tournament and winning the first round game is a big deal.

3. Going from current 68 to 74 makes each region symmetrical. Right now it's odd that some regions have a 16 seed play in and others have a 11 seed play in.

4. The number of D1 teams have expanded and so adding 4 more teams is only keeping up with that expansion. The NCAA Committee on expansion recommended that all NCAA D1 sports should consider up to 25% of the teams reach post season. Basketball is below that (unless you consider NIT)

5. More slots for mid-majors and smaller conferences and a couple P6 teams keeps those fan bases engaged longer, and 4 more play in games are good for business

Super Conferences gotta eat.