D1Baseball sometimes makes me think the subscription is well earned. They have a new column discussing adding eight teams to the NCAA tournament and moving to 32 host sites. I had never heard that expansion might be a possibility, but the columnist made some interesting points. I had to re-read parts of the proposal to understand it and, while I generally like the basic concept, there are many possible tweaks that might make it better. To me, the most obvious tweak- consistent with the columnist's best arguments- is to include more than 72 teams. In the new structure, the CWS and Super regionals would be unchanged, but instead of four-team regionals, a week would be added to create 32 best-of-three series, hosted by what now are #1 and #2 seeds. Teams would advance to another best-of-three series, the to the supers. The proposal's additional 8 teams would participate in play-in games with the winners facing 8 of the 32 hosting teams. The 8 new teams would be selected in the same manner as the other at-large teams currently are selected. For example, rather than this years Gainesville Regional of #1 Florida, #2 Connecticut, #3 Texas Teach, #4 FAMU, CT would have hosted TT. FAMU would have faced one of the new teams on Thursday in Gainesville, the winner playing a weekend series against UF. The proposal was weak in explaining why there would be only 8 of the 32 sites that had play-in games and why overall seeds 1-4 and 13-16 would host those play-ins. Someone else who has read the column may be able to translate it better than I. The columnist suggested pros and cons that did make sense. Cons were that the current system is booming and the extra week would have extended the 2023 CWS to July 3. There was a longer- and to me- more convincing list of pros. My favorite is that most of the new teams would be programs that are not among the current "haves." The 2023 teams that would have been added were from a variety of big and small conferences. The current system generates sellout attendence for games that include the host teams, but games between two out-of-town teams have low attendance. All of the proposal's weekend games would include the host, meaning high attendance games. The 8 play-in games would have lower attendance, but they still would generate interest from fans anxious to see the host's opponent. Having twice as many first round hosts would mean twice as many college programs and towns would have the opportunity to host and enjoy host attendance revenue. Also, a good portion of the hosts would be programs that seldom host. There were 8 SEC hosts for regionals this year and there would have been 10- add Tn and TAMU- if this proposed structure had been in effect, but most of the other additional hosts- Maryland, Boston College, West Virginia, Southern Miss, Connecticut, Campbell, Duke, East Carolina, DBU, and Iowa- would not be the same old power programs. That's one of my favorite benefits. I'm spoiled by the frequency or regionals in Gvl, I love them and I usually am among the sparse crowds for Ggmes like UConn-FAMU. I'm happy to share that enjoyment with fans who seldom or never have had their teams host. Actually, it means the Gators will host even more often than they do already. The impact on pitching would be positive. Current regionals often require teams- such as the 2023 Gators- to play five games in four days. The play-in teams would face the risk of playing four games in four days, but for the rest, it would be one more weekend series. The writer's answer to his own con of fear of change was, "you're either green and growing or ripe and rotting." I left out a lot of substance of the proposal, but my summary seems adequate. I doubt it ever will be adopted as written, but it means I would get to see more Gator baseball and that is a noble goal.