Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

My big objection to that would be that it would deprive two pretty good major conference teams of a spot because they compromised and made it the last four at-large and the last four auto-bids.  It should have been the last four auto-bids.  The last four auto-bids are horrible, the last for at-large are mediocre. 

I would love that, but as a practical matter it would never happen.  What makes the tournament so exciting is the one-and-done nature of it.  Kansas appears to be the best team in the country this year but if they have an off night next weekend they'll miss the S16.  That is exciting.  

What makes it exciting is primarily that it's one of those sporting events [like the Super Bowl] that people who would normally never pay attention do so, and the reason they do so is the bracket.

That's why I say drop it to 64, or if it has to be 68, make ALL of the play-in games for the 16 seeds. That way it's the weakest teams that have to justify themselves, not the teams [like you say] such as Purdue and Minnesota that are FAR better than any 13-16 seed, fighting for their spot.

But I'd rather get rid of it entirely. Because the first four end up not "factoring" into the bracket because most brackets aren't due until games start on Thursday morning and basically you are forced to pick "whichever team wins the Tues/Wed games". I just don't like the feel of it.

The other bit of it if you expand to 80, you are basically giving up on the cinderellas. It's FUN when a 14 beats a 3. But what if that 14 is, for example. 16-16 Purdue? So they play some terrible 19-seed auto-bid. Is anyone going to be excited about a 19 beating a 14? No. Is anyone going to be excited about a high-major team like Purdue beating a 3 as a 14? No. For the life of me I'll never forget that UMBC beat Virginia as a 16 over a 1 [and I've forgotten what UMBC even stands for], but I'm not sure I'd feel the same if it's a beleaguered P5 in the 16 seed who manages to knock off a 1. That's just a garden variety upset, not a historic loss. And I don't think a 19 who beats a 14, probably playing the best game of their season against the best competition they've faced, has much of a chance of pulling it off twice in a row to beat a 3. 

So yeah, we don't need 80 teams. 

Couldn’t one argue that instead of going to 80 and making some grand play in, we just tweak our perspective.

How about this, Medina, just treat it as a 38 team tournament or whatever. The top four or so seeds get byes that are “crappy” teams. And if your crappy bye rises up and knocks you out, that’s on you. 

We have byes that fill TV time and a tighter top group of teams. Sounds AOK to me. 

I like the autobids, but can see why they would aggravate Medina's statistical brain.

What is the objective of a tournament in your opinion?  (Make money is obviously a major one.)

I usually start with defining the objective.

Yes, the motivation is making more money.  The current system adds excitement for less heralded conferences and their playoffs.