With the ongoing speculation of the NCAA Tournament expanding to 96 teams, the criticism of it is clearly legit, as it would lower the quality of basketball, along with eliminating any element of suspense going into Selection Sunday. There would be no "Bracketology", or no "bubble teams".
From a financial perspective, adding more games is great idea. It's simple logic: more games = more $$$.
But I believe there are better ways to increase the number of games without reducing the quality of basketball - adding a loser's bracket. Not only are you adding more games, but the quality of basketball is better than simply including teams ranked 66-96. Also, while this is certainly debatable, the "one-and-done" concept of the NCAA Tournament is cruel in nature. Why not give teams a 2nd chance? These are kids after all, so I believe they should be allowed to have a bad game in the tournament, especially considering the pros get multiple chances in the playoffs (each series can go up to 7 games).
The problem with this is there would be too many games to be played. A 96-team single-elimination tournament would have 95 games (N-1, where N = # of teams). A double-elimination tournament for a 64 teams would be (2N-1) 127 games!
So this is where my idea comes into focus. Start the 64-team tournament as usual. The first 2 rounds will be single-elimination like normal. Start the loser's bracket at the Sweet 16. So basically, you're awarded an extra life by winning your first two games. Round 1 is 32 games, Round 2 is 16 games, and the loser's bracket for 16 teams would be (2*16 - 1) 31 games. So if my math is right, this solution would have 79 games total.
What are your thoughts?