Or we let the 8 small conferences each have a representative in the play-in games. The 4 winners get one extra share for their conferences. That's $1.5 million. Arkansas-Pine Bluff earned the SWAC an extra $1.5 million by beating Winthrop this year.
I'd rather see the money for playing a 2nd game go to the little guys than the big guys. Putting the last at-large teams in the play-in games actually feeds the power confereces who get those bids an extra $6 million.
The extra play-in games could be a very well disguised cash grab by the big boys
That's a good point TAS. I like the idea of the final 8 at-large teams playing in these play-in games, but your idea would work well too. The teams that win these games amongst the small conferences would provide slightly better competition for the #1 seeds. Then the 13 seeds would be where the final at-large bids would end up, thereby making more 13/4 and 12/5 type upsets possible. 68 teams would make the tournament more competitive (despite being very competitive this year) without watering down the tournament overall.
I say forget 96 teams, even if many would still be strong. Too many teams is not a good thing!
