http://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/illinois-state-coach-d... /

I like the way he made it sound like a Craigslist ad. Clever.
(he has a point about SOS and teams avoiding him)

But is it time to expand the field yet again? The number of d-1 teams is now a (some might say) bloated 350+ so maybe 64 (68) is now not sufficient? The number of bowl games for football has grown and grown.

30 years ago if somebody had told me David Lipscomb would be playing NCAA d-1 basketball, I would have asked what they were smoking (and did they have any extra). But the more things change, the more they DON'T stay the same. Is it time to add some more play-in games? I vote yes.

Unfortunately, the argument people now make is the conference tournaments for mid-majors are essentially play-in games.

Those extra games don't have to be just for mids.

How about Syracuse vs. Georgia or Ole Miss or Alabama? A good tv game.

Belmont vs Akron would be an intriguing match of contrasting styles of mids.

However, a team like Clemson which was 6-12 in their league (no matter how good the league is) would still not be it with the new expanded format.

The absolute only way I'd support expansion of the field as a fan would be if they added a provision where the regular season AND the conference tourney champs both get auto bids. Otherwise, it's just a play to get more P5 type teams in.

Not a bad idea.

UPDATE: Ole Miss AD accepts Dan Muller's invitation on twitter.
The only way they would meet in the current NIT would be the title game.

As much as I'd love for more mid-majors to get into the field:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And it ain't broke.

As it stands now, it's celebration enough just to make the tournament. Sure, we can hope for the magic of a 2010 or 2012, but just getting in is a wonderful achievement worth savoring. And diluting the field would make it less meaningful.

Why not expand the field to 72 teams?

Maybe we could get a few more Mid's in the field, right?

Perhaps only 20+ win teams and/or teams with winning conference ( or at least .500) records should be allowed to get an at large bid to the NCAA Tournament?

As we all know it is all about $$$.

The thing was when they expanded to 68 they said it would be more mid-majors getting in when in reality more Power 5 teams are getting in. It's getting to the point where expansion would only get the Illinois and Syracuse's of the world in when they have no business being in the tournament instead of Illinois State.

Illinois State was 1-5 in games vs the top 100. If they are really good, they will make it to NYC in the NIT and prove everybody on the Illinois State bandwagon right. If they lost before NYC, it won't be a good endorsement for them. They will have to beat some good teams like UCF and Utah to get there.

NCAA basketball is big money, especially around March Madness time. In theory, the more one spends, the more potential investment there is down the road. I think the initial appeal of the tournament is when the little guy, the "Cinderella," punches the big guy in the nose. However, it is those top teams that really begin to pull together as a unit and play top-notch basketball that makes this tournament so special, and not one-hit wonders who pull an upset, yet don't have much left afterwards to make a run. There are always exceptions such as Ohio's recent run deep into the tournament, but, ultimately, the best teams tend to rise above the rest. It seems like there is just a handful of teams at the end of the year that evoke controversy when it comes to either being snubbed or let in. I am not sure that expanding the tournament anymore would increase the appeal of what is being sold. Besides, what is life without a little bit of controversy?

As far as television coverage goes, one can watch just about any league tournament with the right cable/satellite package, and some of those tournaments rival the "Big Dance" in terms of excitement and unexpected surprises. I think that one has to be careful about over saturating a good thing. What is really being missed out as it stands now? I think that the tournament probably goes on a week longer than it should now. The worst case scenario would be making the tournament so big that you become like Major League Baseball, which has far too many insignificant games on its schedule to begin with and seems to now go year around.