A news item getting a lot of attention lately- with the NIT wrapping up and the NCAA Final Four this weekend- is the likelihood of expanding the NCAA Tournament.

Indeed, it is now being called 'likely' that as soon as next year the NCAA Tournament field- which (minus the minor addition of the play-in game in 2000) hasn't really changed since it expanded to 64 teams in 1985.

You've heard all the reasons why some people agree and disagree with this move, but let's talk about some of the implications- for college basketball as a sport, but also for college athletics as a whole.

The Best Change I'd Make To the NCAA Tournament Is...

Re-seeding / re-bracketing the teams after each subregional, then after each regional.  Of course, this would screw up the way that everyone- even Ty Hildenbrandt's grandma- fills out a bracket each March.  So I don't think it's likely, just that it's the most fair to the higher-seeded teams.  As of now, if there's a 7-10 upset (fairly likely), the 2 seed gets what's considered an easier game in the second round than the 1 seed (an 8 or a 9).  This problem couldn't be corrected round-by-round (travel nightmares), but it could be corrected after each weekend.  If George Mason and Wichita State (a 7 and an 11) make the Sweet Sixteen, don't let them draw each other, while 1 seed Duke draws 4 seed LSU.  That's not a system that rewards a 1 seed as much as it could.

What Happens to the Regular Season?

Many college basketball supporters have come out against the expansion for the way it minimizes the regular season.  Here's some news for them: the regular season already doesn't matter much.  I like the 96-team format for the way it rewards the top 32 teams with first-round byes, and forces the bubble teams to overcome longer odds to make a run.  In fact, if you include my re-seeding idea after the first 32 games (call them play-ins), you could really make sure that we have a more-entertaining slate of 64 games that the current (immensely popular) format.  This brings me to my next point, which is another way to make sure the regular season retains some relevance, and helps the tournament expansion to be inclusive of the little guys.

Will All of These Bids Just Go To Average Teams in Big Conferences?

While there is no assurance this won't happen, my hope is that an expanded tournament would adopt the NIT's policy of giving auto-bids to regular season conference champions.  What's the harm of throwing some of these guys into what are essentially the 32 play-in games?  It's another way of making the regular season have some meaning, and to make sure that the Big East, ACC, etc. don't just send 10-12 teams every year.

What Happens to Basketball Program's Expectations?

While many have made points about job security for coaches by the argument 'we made the tournament'... I think it could actually hold some coaches to higher standards.  The elite programs would not count tournament appearances, but first-round byes.  Sure, the good coaches and players could be barely included and then make some noise by playing great basketball- but what's wrong with that? 

A great program (UNC, etc.) being relegated to the riff-raff of the first weekend would be a kick to their collective crotch, but also an opportunity for the top players and coaches to show just how elite they really are.  Would you be more impressed by Billy D hanging his hat on getting his over-achieving team to conclude this past year's season by taking Jimmer and BYU to double-OT, or by seeing him win a game in that opening weekend?  I think if we are included in a 96-team this season, we win our opening round game, and thus are more justified in our inclusion- whereas this season the perception by some is that we are the team the committee just got wrong.  In contrast, how many times have coaches and teams' March records benefitted by getting a free 1 or 2 wins just by being a 1 or 2 seed?

I think that, over time, you could learn more about teams and coaches by (1) whether they get that first round bye and (2) by their record in the tournament with the proposed 96-team format.

Are You Paying Attention, College Football Playoff Advocates?

Common college football playoff scenarios are very small compared to this proposed 96-team monstrosity. I know that there is a difference between a 120-team FBS and a 300+ team Division I. But the important implication of expansion is not that anyone's arguing teams #66-96 deserve to play for a championship, just that they deserve a chance to be included in this event. Indeed, that's the main point of Florida Gators Head Coach Billy Donovan's column on why the tournament should be expanded. I also realize that there are more D-I teams now than there were in 1985, so that by not-expanding we are actually restricting access to the Madness.

College football now has a playoff- a 2-team playoff (a BCS championship game). So you could say that these playoff scenarios are expansion talk for a different sport. Why are we arguing to expand college football's playoff system? For more teams to have a 'shot at the championship'. That's fine. But where do you draw the line? 4 teams? 8 teams? 16 teams? I really doubt the conferences (and Notre Dame) would agree to a 4-team playoff, because there is no way to guarantee a spot for all the conference champs. I don't think the 8-team scenario works for a similar reason, because in most years you'd have the 6 AQ-conference champions, 1 non-AQ, and Notre Dame if they have any sort of pulse (I'm assuming they'd get a BCS-ish sweetheart deal where they automatically qualify by being ranked high enough). And make no mistake, auto-bids are going to be a part of the playoff scenario.

But what then for a 16-team playoff? The Wetzel plan seems ok... but remember that this thing is going to get out of control, like the basketball version. You'll have arguments like 'how could Oklahoma State be left out in favor of Virginia Tech?' and someone will say 'Houston really got hosed, look at their quality OOC wins'. The argument becomes less about which teams should be included as they have a real shot at winning... and more about which teams should get a 'reward for their season'.

I haven't even gotten into the possibilities of Butler or Michigan State taking home the crown.  I don't want a college football season like 2010- one where we really did get to appreciate Alabama, Texas, and Florida- marred by some lower seed getting hot and claiming to be 'the best team of 2010'.  What would we have thought if Oklahoma State closed out their season with a win over the Sooners, squeaked into the bracket, and took home the championship?  Would they really be 'deserving' of being called a 'great team' for eternity?  I want to appreciate greatness- and greatness is striving for an undefeated season, which is the best way of making sure you get a shot.