What Would 96 Look Like?

Remember three years ago when they were talking about expanding the Tournament to 96 teams?  Well, everyone thought that was a terrible idea, so they settled for going to 68.  Part of the problem with 96 is that there aren't enough good teams that get left out of the Tournament to justify that many teams.  Sure, there are some quality teams that end up in the NIT (Seton Hall, Washington, Drexel to name just a few), but putting them all in the NCAA Tournament would create some really crappy matchups.  (Not to mention the fact that the best teams would have to face much tougher opponents than the conference champions that currently get 15- and 16-seeds).  How crappy would those matchups be?  Well, let's see... 

This mock 96-team field was devised using the 68 teams that actually made the Tournament and 28 of the 32 NIT teams.  There were 11 regular season conference champions that got automatic bids to the NIT.  I put them in the field, along with 17 NIT at-large teams.  Fortunately, the NIT seeded everybody, so it was easy to figure out who they ranked as the bottom at-large teams.  As for the mock bracket, I stayed as true to the actual bracket as possible at the top and bottom while throwing those extra at-large teams somewhere in the middle (I don't think anyone would disagree that Seton Hall would deserve a higher seed than Norfolk State).  As you can see, a lot of these matchups suck:

SOUTH
(1) Kentucky vs. (16) Belmont/(17) Dayton
(8) Iowa State vs. (9) Connecticut/(24) Western Kentucky
(4) Indiana vs. (13) New Mexico State/(20) Marshall
(5) Wichita State vs. (12) VCU/(21) Akron
(3) Baylor vs. (14) Seton Hall/(19) Central Florida
(6) UNLV vs. (11) Colorado/(22) Lehigh
(7) Notre Dame vs. (10) Xavier/(23) Long Island
(2) Duke vs. (15) Tennessee/(18) Oral Roberts

WEST
(1) Michigan State vs. (16) Miami/(17) Mississippi
(8) Memphis vs. (9) Saint Louis/(24) Lamar
(4) Louisville vs. (13) BYU/(20) Northwestern
(5) New Mexico vs. (12) California/(21) Bucknell
(3) Marquette vs. (14) Davidson/(19) Massachusetts
(6) Murray State vs. (11) Colorado State/(22) Norfolk State
(7) Florida vs. (10) Virginia/(23) Stony Brook
(2) Missouri vs. (15) Arizona/(18) Middle Tennessee

EAST
(1) Syracuse vs. (16) Mississippi State/(17) Nevada
(8) Kansas State vs. (9) Southern Miss/(24) Mississippi Valley State
(4) Wisconsin vs. (13) Iona/(20) Minnesota
(5) Vanderbilt vs. (12) Harvard/(21) Detroit
(3) Florida State vs. (14) Montana/(19) La Salle
(6) Cincinnati vs. (11) Texas/(22) Texas-Arlington
(7) Gonzaga vs. (10) West Virginia/(23) UNC Asheville
(2) Ohio State vs. (15) St. Bonaventure/(18) Oregon

MIDWEST
(1) North Carolina vs. (16) South Dakota State/(17) Drexel
(8) Creighton vs. (9) Alabama/(24)Vermont
(4) Michigan vs. (13) South Florida/(20) Stanford
(5) Temple vs. (12) Long Beach State/(21) Loyola
(3) Georgetown vs. (14) Ohio/(19) LSU
(6) San Diego State vs. (11) NC State/(22) Valparaiso
(7) Saint Mary's vs. (10) Purdue/(23) Savannah State
(2) Kansas vs. (15) Washington/(18) Saint Joseph's

I think we can all agree that a lot of those first round matchups are unappealing.  And that some of the second round matchups, as good as they'd be, could lead to some really good teams getting knocked out much earlier than they should.  Bottom line, I think this helps prove that 96 isn't a good idea.  I've found a way to make my peace with 68.  Let's hope it stays there.