NCAA’s 68-Team Plans Explained, But No Answers Imminent

It would seem easier to just take these teams and throw them on one seed line. (For example, say all the play-in winners are No. 11 seeds.) I’m not sure what’s gained by complicating it across four seed lines. The upshot to this scenario is that we’d have games that are more attractive on TV, although I think that interest in Tuesday night games between middle-of-the-pack high-majors might be slightly overstated by some.
Katz also details a third, hair-brained idea that is evidently being tossed around that is a combination of the previous two options. One where two play-in games would feature 16/17s and two others would feature the Nos. 10-13 seeds from a region. This would easily be the worst of the three options, if only for its cowardice and lack of conviction. Either commit to screwing the little guy or commit to trying to create a compelling product for the Tuesday before the full start of the tournament. This third option is fence-riding at its worst.

SportingNews.com
6/29/10