Clearly, the NCAA likes what I have to say.

Back around March Madness, talk of expanding the men’s basketball tournament picked up, just as it has in recent years. The tournament brings in so much money, NCAA execs astutely realized, why not play more games and make even more?

While tournament expansion is not exactly a new idea — the field was expanded to 65 in 2001 and the 64-team format was adopted in 1985 — this year the talk ballooned with the suggestion of an 80- or 96-team tournament.

Around that time (“Expanding March Madness is insanity,” Feb. 19), I offered my grand solution to the expansion puzzle — leave it the way it is.

Clearly heeding my advice, the NCAA steered the tournament away from large-scale expansion. However, the Board of Directors approved an expansion to 68 teams Thursday, which may or may not prove to be the stepping stone for future tournament growth.

The move to 68 teams come on the heels of a new 14-year, $10.8 billion television package that the NCAA recently inked with CBS and Turner Broadcasting, allowing every game to be televised nationally. For the first time ever, fans will be able to choose which games they want to watch.

Don’t care to see Kentucky stomp out East Tennessee State by 29 in the first round? Rather watch any of the four eight-nine games? Then the 68-team NCAA tournament is for you.

So it’s all good; the NCAA brings in more revenue, TV companies bring in more revenue, Division I schools get a better shot at making the Big Dance, players are happy, everyone’s happy.

Just one minor detail: how exactly does this work?

While the 68-team expansion is set in stone, the format is anything but. The Board of Directors has endorsed the idea of adding three more opening-round games to complement the current play-in game that is already played. In the eyes of the NCAA bigwigs, putting at-large teams in the opening games would remove that nasty stigma surrounding the current play-in game.

Additionally, there could be a restructuring of the four regional brackets, as with 17 teams in each, the current format would not work. Some might advocate for that, perhaps with a split down the middle of the 68 with 34 in each bracket, but that seems a little farfetched. Plus I can’t really see the bracketologists liking the sight of that many teams in one bracket.

So it seems as though the NCAA has figured out the best possible way to do this. For all of the knocks against college sports’ governing body — and you know how many there are — adding three opening-round games seems to be the most feasible solution.

In a sense, the move to 68 teams is probably the most logical method of expansion. After all, Selection Sunday always seems to leave out one, two or three seemingly tournament-worthy teams. Handing out three more invitations to the dance appeases some of the teams previously left on the bubble, and also alleviates some of the pressure on the bracket makers.

Of course, teams left out of the tournament will always have their complaints and gripes. Yet, if expansion is indeed where the NCAA wants to go, three more schools seems to be the fairest number.

So that’s where college basketball now stands. Three more teams, three more opening-round games. But who else plays in those games? Right now it’s #64 against #65 in the largely ignored play-in game. Playing three more games obviously calls for three more opponents, but who?

The radical in me feels like suggesting a total shakeup of the normal pecking order and having the three lowest No. 1 seeds (Nos. 2, 3 and 4 overall) square off against No. 66, 67 and 68. Doing so appeals to the glass slipper, Cinderella story vision of March Madness that so many fans hold dear. After all, with the astounding number of upsets in the 2010 tournament, parity may be becoming more than just a buzzword. If, in fact, teams are reaching more of an even playing ground, No. 2 versus No. 66, No. 3 against No. 67 and No. 4 matched up with No. 68 may have serious upset potential.

Yet, I’m still inclined to once again side with the direction the NCAA seems to be moving in. Don’t kill me. This year’s tournament, with the Butlers, the Murray States and the Saint Marys, showed the appeal of the small school, mid-major squads — for both basketball fans and television. In fact, with Butler head coach Brad Stevens parlaying Butler’s near miss in the national title game into a 12-year extension, the Bulldogs may be setting the template for smaller schools and lower seeds to follow.

While not every program can be as fortunate as Butler to find college basketball’s next coaching prodigy, the Bulldogs laid the foundation for the last three teams in the tournament. Sure, Butler still began the tournament as a very respectable five seed, and many saw the Indianapolis, Ind. school as a popular sleeper pick.

However, by almost winning the whole tournament, Butler showed that not only does the three-team expansion have the potential to work out, but that the four-team bracket to open the tournament does make sense.

So there you have it; the NCAA may very well be on its way to finally making sense. Hey, they even unveiled their new BCS formula for DI football. Will the 68-team expansion finally earn the NCAA some praise? Tune in next March to find out.

Mike is a sophomore planning on majoring in journalism. What do you think of the 68-team expansion? How should the last three teams fit into the tournament? Let him know at [email protected]