Should the NCAA expand the hoops tournament?

This question is being pondered, but it does bear a bit of fruit...both positive and negative.

The current structure has 65 teams. A play-in game is played to determine the "last" team to make the 64 team draw. One way to expand is to have a play-in game for each of the four regions. That would increase the total number of teams to 68.

Another reworking has the tourney expanding to 96 teams. That would also add another week of games if this expansion is approved.

First off, I have no problem with the tournament's current configuration. I actually think it's the best way to determine a basketball champ. I do like the idea of expanding the bracket, but only to 68 teams. When the idea of the "play-in" game was first introduced, I thought that's the way it should have been structured. A "play-in" game for each region was fair. You're only adding three more teams.

Plus, if this scenario were to be approved, you have three options available of how many venues would host those games. Economic impact, even though it would be short lived, is better than no impact at all.

Option 1: The current "play-in" game is held at the University of  Dayton Arena. You could hold all four games there. If you go that route, it's similar to how a typical day at a tournament site happens.That would familiarize players to the happenings. Two issues could be the length of the day and travel arrangements for winning teams. As far as the time issue, the team that wins the first game would be in the closest regional site, and so on until the winner of the last game goes to the West Regional. That would elimiate the travel issue as well. You could be taking care of two issues at once.

Option 2: You could have the four games played at two different locations. Each venue hosts two games on the same evening. Start them at 5:00 PM. You would cut down on the transportation and time issues with option, too.

Option 3: You also have the possibility of having the games played at four different locations. Each site would be close to the location of the next round for that regional. That way, the winner would have even less travel.

In any one of these situations with expanding to 68 teams, more money doesn't necessarily create more problems. All it does is gives cities that may not normally get an NCAA tourney game every year in their backyard a chance to host at least one game every year.

That also holds true if the bracket goes to 96 teams. Right?

Wrong. And here's why.

We'll see the same setup we have now for the first two rounds. College locations generally host these rounds. But the extra rounds would go to bigger locations just like how the regional semis and finals are currently hosted. The two extra rounds mean that the bigger venues will swallow the extra week of games. Your normal first and second round locations won't definitively have a shot at hosting the third and fourth round games. Those would almost assuredly go to bigger locales. That's a virtual guarantee. More seats, more bucks.

If you're a member of the NCAA committee that selects these sites, wouldn't you rather have the games hosted at Conseco Fieldhoue in Indianapolis than on the campus of Indiana University? That's what I'm talking about. It's a no-brainer to the money machine. Get Conseco as the host. Luxury suites? Got 'em.

While you might easily argue that this is good for a greater number of economic areas. I agree, but there are also "smaller" locations that need that influx of cash, too. Small college towns need money just as much as large non-college towns. In some cases, even more.

That's only one problem I have in expanding to 96 teams. I have another.

Another is the numbers of borderline teams that would possibly receive invites. By increasing the number of teams to 96, will that mean the MAC will get 4 teams every year or will the SEC end up with almost all of their teams getting invites? Would a 18-14 Kent State team that finished fourth in the MAC be more likely to receive a bid over a 16-18 Georgia team that finished ninth in the SEC?

If the so-called mid-major conferences would receive the majority of these extra invites, then it's a good thing. I say that because a team that generally finishes around fourth in a smaller conference is almost always at least a .500 squad. But we cannot be certain from year to year if that would actually happen. Remember, the selection committee takes far more than just a team's record into consideration when selecting the teams.

I guess what I'm really saying is either leave it alone, or, if you really want to expand, go to 68 teams for now. If that proves successful, then do a study of going to 96 teams in the future. Too much, toon soon would provide disastrous results.

I fully admit there are flaws here, but I think I'm on to something.