(07-15-2020 11:00 PM)jdgaucho Wrote: Only if each conference gets at least two bids. Otherwise, no thanks.
Financially, the only way a big expansion works is if the preliminary round units are not as big as the "main tournament" units.
So if, for simplicity, they are 1/2 of a main tournament unit, then guaranteeing each conference two bids guarantees the lower tier conference the equivalent of 1 unit: tournament winner and regular season champion or runner-up.
Guaranteeing each conference two bids points to a 96 school Tournament, with the top 8 in each region having a bye in the first round. Obviously this kills off the NIT, so this would have to be timed to the end of an NIT contract cycle.
Now, if instead of a locked bracket you have the bottom 64 in four regional play-in pools, 9v24, 10v23, 11v22, 12v21, 13v20, 14v19, 15v18, 16v17, and the main tournament bracket is filled out based on the ranking 9-16 of the winning teams, the bracket fillers have to pay attention to results to know who slots in where in the bracket, and "need to know" turns for some percentage into "need to watch" and so the preliminary tier is roped in as a lesser contract in the media package.
For the six high major conferences, the tweener, and the three high mid-major conferences, they each also get two autobids, removing nine to ten high ranking schools the at-large bid pool, so while not a
pro forma expansion of at-larges, it has a similar effect.
Now, to be clear, the market value of these 32 preliminary round games
will not be equal to 50% of the average value of a main tournament game, so 1/2 unit for a preliminary round game is "overpaying", which will be reflected in
each unit being watered down to some extent.
Rather, it gives more tournament slots to high majors, and probably on average to the tweener and high mid major conferences, and gives the mid-major conferences normally one and often two higher seeded teams in their first (preliminary) tournament round game.