The only post you ever need to read about tournament expansion

Yesterday, the NCAA Tournament expanded to 68 teams, not the 96 team format we all expected and predicted. As you might imagine, there was quite a bit of shock regarding the decision.

We read way too much about college basketball, and just about everyone in the business had something to say regarding the expansion. Here is a semi-comprehensive list of all you need to read about the new 68 team tournament.

Dana O'Neil, ESPN.com: But 'for now' is better than 'for never' and 68 is a whole lot better than 96. So while the NCAA is riding the good-decision train, might we pose that the people in Indianapolis pay the goodwill forward even further by making the bubble teams play the real bubble games? Shaheen said that who plays in the additional games and how those teams will be selected won't be determined until the NCAA goes through the rest of its procedural channels. A likely announcement won't be made until this summer. Here's a solution: Let the last eight in play the first four games.

Rush the Court: While everybody is familiar with CBS’s work on the NCAA Tournament since they have broadcast every NCAA championship game since 1982, which involved a freshman named Michael Jordan hitting the game-winning shot, Turner’s association with college basketball is a little less well-known. When I say “less well-known” I mean that I am unaware of any prior association between Turner and college basketball.

Jeff Goodman, FOXSports: There were questions asked to the networks and NCAA about how the revenue is split. No one cares. The bottom line here is that the integrity of the NCAA tournament hasn't been compromised, fans will get an opportunity to see all the games and the regular season will still have some meaning. The new format hasn't been determined but will be discussed at a couple of future meetings and decided sometime this summer. There could be four play-in games instead of just one. Maybe it would be eight bubble teams battling it out for a shot at a 12-seed. Whatever they opt to implement, it can't be any worse than having to see a No. 24 seed in the Big Dance.

Luke Winn, SI.com: No matter how glorious this past NCAA tournament was -- the thrilling opening day, Butler's inspiring run to a hometown Final Four, and a title game that was good to the last shot -- it was difficult to leave Indianapolis without the feeling that something horrible was on the horizon. (By that, I don't mean back-to-back titles for Duke.) Gordon Hayward's missed half-courter was going to mark the end of the era of the 64/65-team tournament, as it gave way to a bloated bracket of 96. It was depressing to think that the most perfect postseason format in all of sports would be ruined for the sake of TV money, as the NCAA was opting out of its 11-year, $6 billion deal with CBS, in hopes of a bigger deal with a CBS/Turner conglomerate or ESPN -- and only a 96-team format would lure in the cash needed to support the NCAA's other 87 championships.

Gary Parrish, CBSSports: It was clear at the NCAA's Final Four press conference that the preferred expansion number was 96, if possible. And though it might've been impossible to implement in time for next season in terms of getting arenas or domes lined up, nobody's going to convince me that the overwhelming sentiment against a 96-team field didn't play a role in the decision to only move to 68. And that's not a shot at the NCAA. That's a compliment, because too often in sports people don't listen. We want our World Series games to start earlier so kids can actually watch them, and we want our college football champion to be decided with a playoff so every school has a shot, even if it's a long shot, at eternal greatness. But baseball doesn't care what we want because it can make more money doing it the way it does it, and the BCS doesn't care what we want because the people who run the BCS are short-sighted idiots. But the NCAA? The NCAA got this right.

Mike DeCourcy, The Sporting News: The news conference that felt like it should have been conducted in 3-minute rounds had been over a while, and NCAA vice president Greg Shaheen was on his way out of Lucas Oil Stadium. As he walked through the wide hallway toward the elevator, he came upon a group of journalists working hard to avoid sitting down to write. Though he'd just been through the verbal equivalent of a Manny Pacquiao TKO, as media covering the Final Four had pounded him over proposed NCAA Tournament expansion, Shaheen somehow was able to retain the wry sense of humor he'd carried into the afternoon. He called himself "the most hated man in college sports" with some sense of irony—and though everybody in the group chuckled, nobody corrected him. Now, he is college basketball's hero. It might have been Duke's Kyle Singler on April 5, but the rest of the offseason will belong to Shaheen, interim NCAA president Jim Isch and the other staff members who secured a $10.8 billion broadcast contract with CBS and Turner Sports for the NCAA Tournament without perverting the nature of the event.

John Gasaway, Basketball Prospectus: But the larger problem with yelling Greed! and Stupidity! at the NCAA was that it was entirely beside the point. The tournament could have been expanded by wholly selfless and highly intelligent people–and it still would have been a terrible and needless mistake. Not because we know for a fact that a 96-team field really would be such an unwatchable mess but because there is no earthly reason to jeopardize what an amazing number of people already agree is a nearly perfect thing. In their haste to hit the trusty and well-worn ”LOL NCAA” button, many writers lost sight of this story’s central truth. The tournament is the thing. BONUS fodder for conspiracy theorists! But wait! Does having 68 teams in 2011 really mean the tournament is safe? After all, the NCAA noted today that it can revisit the issue of expansion anytime they wish, and there’s already speculation that “they’ll jam [96 teams] down our throats eventually.” Of course if they do the irony will be just too delicious. The TV deal has been signed and the dollars are locked in for 14 years. Expanding now to 96 teams won’t change those dollars, meaning the NCAA would be acting to placate coaches, give more teams a shot, whatever. If they do so I will of course be enraged and you’ll find me back in my tree outside NCAA headquarters with my trusty bullhorn. Just don’t call it “a greed grab,” please.

Jeff Eisenberg, The Dagger: Instead of creating three more play-in games to decide which four No. 16 seeds get ritually sacrificed to the four the No. 1s, what if the NCAA uses the impending expansion to 68 teams as an excuse to get creative with the tournament's structure? What if the four play-in games each became matchups between bubble teams to decide the final four at-large bids in the field?

Pat Forde, ESPN.com: It's always perilous to predict what the mysterious NCAA hierarchy is thinking, but let's live dangerously for a minute. The leadership has done one of two things: 1. It purposefully overplayed the likelihood of a 96-team NCAA tournament field to make the expansion to 68 teams seem wonderfully palatable in comparison. 2. It actually listened to the severe and sincere backlash to the idea of a 96-team field and opted for safer ground. Whatever the case, I'll give the NCAA credit. It either was more savvy or more receptive than I had given the institution credit for previously. Either the NCAA played us perfectly to get what it wanted all along, or it retained an open mind and listened when every non-coach with a voice screamed in reaction to the specter of 96 teams, "Don't do it!"

Matt Norlander, The Dagger: It sort of felt like that moment when you cringe, cover year eyes and brace for the worse. And then nothing happens. You slowly loosen your muscles, peek between your fingers, and that doomed circumstance that seemed to be barreling upon you simply ceased to be. That's what happened when the news broke late this morning about our 2011 (and beyond?) 68-team field. Few could believe it, and after the realization seeped into our brains, many rejoiced.

Eamonn Brennan, ESPN.com: Today brought some fantastic news: Contrary to popular belief, the NCAA tournament isn't expanding to 96 teams. I know, right? Deep breaths. Sigh of relief. All that and more. Considering the widespread consensus that the NCAA's decision to opt out of its current contract with CBS and pursue a richer deal was pursuant on its new network having more NCAA tournament games to show, this news wasn't just pleasant. It was also surprising. In this case, who doesn't love a good surprise?

Matt Norlander, College Hoops Journal (must read): Now, we don’t know if it will be 68 teams for one year or 100. I think it’s safe to say we’ll have this model for at least a half-decade, though. Why? Because CBS and Turner (specifically, TBS) will flip-flop years for broadcast rights beginning in 2015. We may see a change to 96 come then. But let’s deal with that down the road. Many were all too certain that 96 teams were coming. In fact, the only writer who was consistently against that notion was Mike DeCourcy. So I applaud him for standing strong and proving to be right … at least for now.

Matt Norlander, The Dagger: We've had a joyous day, now let us return to cynicism. There's no telling how long we'll have a 68-team tournament, after all. The press release only states that the 2011 NCAA tournament will abide by the new rules. Come 2012, we could see the field in the form we fear the most: 96 teams. What are the chances of this? Can we deduce how the NCAA and its Board of Directors will act? No, but for those who may worry this slightly inflated field may not last long — or could be a stop-gap — I think there is a good chance we see the tournament stay as is for at least a half-decade.