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

I've seen a few articles, you probably have too.  

The big question that I have is will the worst teams play in these added play-in games or will it be the worst at-large teams or some combination of the two?  

As it is presently set up (not that anyone doesn't know but just to set the existing baseline):

• 31 auto-bids
• 37 at-large bids
• 68 total slots
• the four weakest at-large play each other in Dayton for the last two at-large spots
• the four weakest auto-bids play each other in Dayton for the last two auto-bid spots

The eight additional teams will all be at-large unless a new conference forms.  The increase will require 12 rather than just 4 play-in games.  I don't *THINK* they can cram 12 games into Dayton but they also probably don't want the 12 play-in games at first/second round sites so I would assume that they'll have three play-in sites each hosting four play-in games as follows:
Tuesday:

• 2 games at each play-in site
• 6 games total to get down to 70 from 76 teams.  

Wednesday:

• 2 games at each play-in site
• 6 games total to get down to 64 from 70 teams.  

My guess is that they'll keep the Dayton site, add a site somewhere in the Southeast, and add another site somewhere out west.  

This just leaves the above-referenced question of whether the additional play-in games will be between the worst teams or the worst at-large teams or some combination.  Has anyone seen anything indicating what the plan is?  

If I had to guess, I'd guess that they'll continue the established pattern of splitting it in half so the last 12 auto-bids will play each other for the last two #15 seeds and all four #16 seeds while meanwhile the last 12 at-large teams will play each other for what would probably end up being roughly the last two #11 seeds and all four #12 seeds.  

It doesn't seem like this will make much money since nearly nobody watches the mid-week play-in games anyway so it seems the primary benefactors will be the coaches of power-conference bubble teams because now eight more of them will get in.  

Per CBS:
The eight teams that would have been added in 2026 (the first four are known since the committee lists the first four out, the other four are speculative but probably correct):

• Oklahoma 19-15/7-11 SEC
• Auburn 17-16/7-11 SEC
• SDSU 22-11/14-6 MWC
• Indiana 18-14/9-11 B1G
• New Mexico 23-10/13-7 MWC
• Seton Hall 21-12/10-10 BigE
• VaTech 19-13/9-10 ACC
• Stanford 20-12/9-9 ACC

The primary benefit, as I see it, is that this would improve the quality of the #11-#15 seeds because those four extra #15/16 seeds means that everybody from the last three #11 seeds down all slides down a line.  The data provides a strong case for this because after peaking in 2021-2024 the performance of the #13-16 seeds has utterly collapsed to the point that it has now been two years since ANY #13+ won a game.  There was only one #12 seed winner in 2026 but *maybe* High Point would have been good enough to take out a #4 as well?  In this new format they'd have been relegated to a #13 seed. 

It’s a shame because the conference realignment had really shifted to make the set of “snubbed” teams just poor enough there was basically no need to expand. 

Oh well. 

When something isn't broken it's very important to try and fix it

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

It usually is but in this case I'm not sure that even explains it:I got that from NBC, their article on the expansion stated:
"The expansion isn't expected to generate a lot more income because it will only add games early in the first week. The current TV deal runs through 2032 and could be tweaked slightly."

I don't see how eight extra mid-week play-in games will generate an appreciable amount of cash. 

Seems like a negligible cash thing. 

One reporter had a source say it’s mostly about getting more power conference bids, which seems a sort of silly goal, but suppose it’s their thing to run. 

What would really improve the quality of competition in the 64 team "real" tournament would be to have the 12 play-in games involve the 24 worst teams in the tournament instead of the 12 worst and then 12 other teams.  In that case the #11-#15 seeds would be notably better teams. 

That's probably the best thing for all involved. While it pushes the low majors to the fringes, it also gives them a chance to "win an NCAA tournament game."