much more than background noise now with or without VT. Nobody(or very few) will be paying any attention to Joe Lunardi when he is projecting 256 vs. 257. 256 was just my choice because (1) I do not care for byes, (2) that number provides a clean break for adding one additional week for the tournament and fairly easy solutions to address that impact on the regular season and conference tourneys and (3) likely less difficult resolution of other travel and logistical issues. Also, I believe the seed is the reward/recognition for regular season results that maintains competitive equality within the tourney. 256 is in reality no better than 64 which is not necessarily any better than 32 it just shifts the debate. The larger field does shift the debate more to seedings and regions, a debate that exists now as well but, the tool impact is reduced even more at 256 vs 257 than in a smaller field. Just as important there is a greater likelihood that tool inequities are addressed on the court as opposed to inside a computer or by committee preference. The tournament was watered down going from 32 to 48 and by the subsequent further expansions. If you look at Final Fours and actual champions there are a relatively small number of instances going deeper than the Top 32. I understand why it happened as Maryland was likely the 2nd best team in the country the year NCSU sent them home in the ACC tourney. However, I think the reality is that the NCAA tourney expansion since the expansion to 32, and like the current CFP expansion is about TV and money and, that being the case, I see no reason that going to 256 really waters anything down that much and you have an even further extended Cinderella storyline. You're entitled to your opinion and to disagree. Just my opinion and an explanation of my rationale.