Hot Corner: The Nifty Ninety-Six?

Selection Sunday is over, schools have finished either celebrating invites or coping with dreaded NIT bids and the much-beloved annual Madness is set to begin.

Be it for the love of the game or for the love of gambling on the game, it's hard to deny the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament is without fail one of the country's premier and most anticipated athletic events.

Apparently it's not good enough, though.

For whatever reason, talk of expansion - or at least the hyping up of it - seems to be bubbling this season and supporters are slowly rallying the troops.

Typically this kind of discussion is relegated mostly to head coaches of outside-looking-in programs whining to CBS and ESPN analysts about why their 17-12 record and shoddy RPI is getting the shaft.

Maybe it's just the ever-increasing quantity of media outlets and blogs creating a false sense of urgency, but it has appeared that the 96-team option is picking up supporters like never before.

It's not that I am completely anti-expansion, either. Even though there has been no prototype bracket widely unveiled to the masses, 31 more teams probably wouldn't drag out the tourney by more than a couple days, if any. According to a CBSSports.com report posted on March 11, a possible scenario would have 32 teams in the top half of a bracket and 64 in the bottom half. The top half - better teams - would have to win six games to raise the trophy. The bottom half would have to win seven. It currently takes six wins. This report, which outlines what NCAA officials presented to Big 12 administrators, also claims missed class time would be negligible and there would still be the Sweet 16 after one week of games.

That all sounds fine and dandy; a bunch of other teams getting to call themselves contenders even though they've been wannabes all season. What's the real point, though?

The obvious answer is money. More games mean more television revenue and yadda, yadda, yadda.

Money and those who control it is hard to argue with at times. If the equations and economic logarithms pop out rose-scented numbers, it's a done deal. But would that switch actually make the event, or even college basketball as a whole, better?

Let's put it this way: Say some burst-bubble "snubs" like Mississippi State, Virginia Tech, Illinois, Rhode Island or UAB were added to this year's field. Does that change your Final Four and championship selections at all?

I'll answer for you. No it doesn't. No one - no one - would have these extra teams making extremely deep runs. Well, at least other than friends, family, fans and those who pick based on mascot and color. UAB has a dragon.

So, as we get back on track here, what is the point of expansion? Sending a few teams to the Big Dance instead of the NIT bracket so they feel good about themselves for a couple days before getting bounced?

Beyond that thought, what would become of some conference tournaments - especially the majors? With a 96-team field and the projections of this year's bubble teams before Sunday, the entire ACC would most likely be invited. Great basketball conference? Yes. That Great? Not quite.

Of course schools would still be driven to win conference titles and earn higher seeds come March, but there could be a possible decrease in intensity across the board with more teams knowing their tickets are already punched.

Not only might teams get apathetic in certain scenarios, the same thing may go for fans, too. Who's to say 96 teams wouldn't produce a watered-down product?

We'll never truly know unless the tourney is altered, but sometimes if it ain't broke...