We unveil our first NCAA Tournament projections now that nearly every team is approaching the midpoint of conference play. We’ve got a big enough sample of games to evaluate teams across conferences in an attempt to find the 68 teams that are most deserving of a bid to the Big Dance.

As usual, it’s not easy to parse the minute differences in many cases. The selection committee faces a tough task every season. Although they’ll never make everyone happy, the committee always delivers a final product that produces thrills and drama for nearly a month in late March and early April. Team A might feel shafted, but Team B might turn into VCU and write a Cinderella story for the ages.

So let’s get right to the brackets. As always, please share your thoughts.

On Monday UConn defeated Butler 53-41.

Possessions: 57 each

Offensive Efficiency: UCONN 93, Butler 72

A defensive battle for certain but the most telling statistic putting this one in the category of ugly was the inability of the teams to make shots. While Butler struggled to epic proportions, UConn was better but did not exactly burn the nets with their field goal percentage. Butler’s eFG percentage was an astoundingly low 26 percent. The Bulldogs did hit four treys, which give you a little extra credit in factoring the percentage, but took 33 tries in the process. UConn, as noted, was not much better at 37 percent.

The women’s final won by Texas A & M over Notre Dame was a contrast. The Aggies won their first national championship in women’s basketball with a thrilling 76-70 decision. The pace and efficiency:

Possessions:  Texas A & M 73, Notre Dame 71

Offensive Efficiency: Texas A & M 104, Notre Dame 99

The pace was decidedly quicker than the men’s and not simply because the women’s shot clock is five seconds less than their male counterparts. The game had a brisk tempo and players made shots.

Texas A & M checked in with a 57 percent eFG mark while the Irish were a bit below at 48 percent, still significantly better than what we saw on Monday.

For another contrast, we look at turnover rates. Both teams were above average (better than 20 percent) on Monday, with Butler’s TO rate, an outstanding 10 percent, while UConn a very respectful 19 percent. Tuesday saw both women’s teams over the 20 percent threshold. Notre Dame was at 23 percent while Texas A & M saw one quarter, 25 percent, of their possessions down the drain to miscues. In defense of the women, the turnovers were not due to sloppy basketball. For the most part they were generated by good defense as both teams, even in half court sets, exerted better than average pressure. Texas A & M had 18 turnovers while Notre Dame had 10 steals. On the other side, the Irish had 16 turonovers with A & M recording 8 steals of their own.

A final note: Granted we accept Tuesday night’s game the better of the two. Fine, but that does not mean Butler-UConn did not give us intensity and drama. Not every contest will be an artistic gem. Maybe it is the officiating on my perspective. Having officiated some “classics”, like an 11-6 high school girls game this past January, I have seen and been on the floor for some ugly games. UConn and Butler did not by any imagination give us a game especially pleasing to the “basketball eye”. That’s fine. Both teams competed and got after it from tip to buzzer. That in itself is fine. And all you can ask for.

No hands? No one saw this coming?

It’s not that surprising, really. And it fits the way this season has gone and how many saw the season as it evolved, which is something college basketball fans should be happy about. That is especially true for those who are simply fans of the game.

There have been a lot of years where analysts all over say that the NCAA Tournament should be wide open. We’ve said that picking a Final Four would be difficult, and that’s certainly true before we know the NCAA Tournament field because no one knows what the matchups will be. Even when the field is announced, many of us have said it’s hard to predict the Final Four.

But even in many of these seasons, there are often just a handful of teams that many feel can win a national championship. Stories are written talking about teams that can win it all, and some mention a number in passing – “there are eight teams that could win it all” and similar quotes can be found often enough. And in the end, amidst all the talk of the gap closing between mid-majors and BCS conference schools and all the parity, invariably we would have familiar faces in the Final Four just about every year. Since 1985, at least one of Duke, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina or UCLA has been in the Final Four.

This season, we heard a lot of the same talk. We heard about parity often, as usual, although a better word is “evenness” since there’s not a whole lot of difference. More so than any season I can remember, the seedings in the NCAA Tournament don’t mean a whole lot this year. There wasn’t a dominant team in college basketball, just a lot of good and some very good teams, along with a large number of mediocre teams. Florida State, No. 10 seed, knocked off Notre Dame, a No. 2 seed, in the second round. Frankly, there wasn’t a big difference between the two teams. It’s not as if it was a matchup of an NBA team against a top-tier college team. So none of the results thus far should shock anyone.

For once, this season the race for the national championship appeared wide open. Defending champion Duke entered the season as perhaps a prohibitive favorite to win in some eyes, but the Blue Devils were vulnerable often and went out in the regional semifinals. If there was a team that looked like the favorite coming into the NCAA Tournament, it was Ohio State – but the Buckeyes were far from heavy or even prohibitive favorites. And maybe Butler’s run to the national championship game last season had something to do with it, but this time around there wasn’t a lot of talk about how only a handful of teams could win it all.

For once, this season the feeling that there wasn’t much difference between a lot of teams is proving to be true. We’ve seen it in all of the results, from upsets based on seeding to close games. We’ve seen it in teams that have advanced far. We’ve seen the city of Richmond, hardly a basketball hotbed, have two teams reach the Sweet 16.

Now on Monday night, we have a matchup of Butler and Connecticut. The Bulldogs were in this game last year, but weren’t expected to duplicate this. It was thought to be a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, in part because of the loss of Gordon Hayward to the NBA. And at one point, the Bulldogs looked like they might not be an NCAA Tournament team at all. The Huskies, meanwhile, were picked 10^th in the Big East preseason poll and finished ninth in the regular season. While Connecticut is a national power and has won two national championships, this didn’t shape up to be one of their best teams.

But this season has been one where the action has followed the talk. Two mid-major schools reached the Final Four, and one is in the title game. The two high-major schools who made it weren’t supposed to be here; both were thought to be at least a year away from having a team that could make such a run. But they won their way to Houston.

For once, college basketball truly has been wide open. Anyone could win it all this season. The national championship will be won by an unexpected team, a team no one would have picked to be in this game in October or on January 1, and one that few might have picked on March 14. For that, we can and should all be happy.

VCU had more than its fair share of adversity, some of which wasn’t expected. This is a team picked third in the Colonial Athletic Association before the season, with some picking them second. The non-conference slate went reasonably well, but had some missed opportunities. It included blowing a lead at UAB right before Christmas, then a couple of wins right before CAA play that left head coach Shaka Smart concerned about leadership – not exactly what one would expect of a senior-laden team. Joey Rodriguez remembered going home after the UAB game, namely that it felt like an even longer drive (he drove from Birmingham to his home in Florida) because it was a missed opportunity.

Then there was the month of February, which has been well-documented. The Rams had a fine month of January and led the CAA when it was over, including a big win at arch-rival and preseason favorite Old Dominion. But after February, this was a team that appeared to need to win the CAA Tournament if they were to reach the NCAA Tournament.

The rest, as they say, is history. But the Rams didn’t get here unscathed.

“We went through some adversity this year as most teams did,” said Smart. “We weren’t 35-2 coming into this game, but we’re playing our best basketball when it matters most, and that’s why I’m sitting up here right now with a net around my neck.”

The same is true of Butler. The Bulldogs also looked like a team that needed to win their conference tournament to make it to the NCAA Tournament, thanks largely to a couple of missed opportunities in non-conference play and a three-game losing streak that ended with a loss at Youngstown State and had them at 6-5 in league play. That was also the last time they lost.

The Bulldogs’ seed in the tournament doesn’t suggest they needed to win the Horizon League, but they did to make that moot. They had a better non-conference slate than VCU with a couple of good wins, but also looked quite unimpressive at times and their start in the Horizon didn’t help.

“Getting to this point isn’t easy and staying together isn’t easy when everything is going wrong,” said junior Ronald Nored. “And that was the thing that I think has gotten us to this point.”

Connecticut got off to a roaring start as Kemba Walker carried them early. But in Big East play, the Huskies came back down to earth, especially at the end of the regular season as they lost four of five. About a month earlier, they lost three of four. They finished 9-9 in Big East play, good for ninth place, which set the stage for their legendary run through the Big East Tournament.

The supporting cast for Walker at times looked to be emerging, and at other times it didn’t. But it’s definitely here now, with Jeremy Lamb growing up tremendously during the season and Shabazz Napier emerging, while Alex Oriakhi continues to improve inside. And with that and Walker on a roll that is the stuff of legends, the Huskies are in Houston.

Then there is Kentucky. The Wildcats faced adversity right away as Enes Kanter was declared ineligible by the NCAA. Kanter was widely believed to be a possible difference-maker for this team, and without him they looked a little less formidable. But they never had him, so it’s not as if they had to adjust to life without Kanter.

That wasn’t all. Once SEC play got going, the Wildcats had a hard time winning away from Rupp Arena. Their only road wins came at struggling South Carolina and at Tennessee, the latter on the last day of the regular season as the feast-or-famine Volunteers were limping into the conference tournament. Since then, the young Wildcats have grown up, winning seven more in a row away from home.

Even in some of the games each team won, there was some adversity. The phrase that a season is a marathon and not a sprint may be a cliché, but it is true. The teams that play through it the best are often the ones left standing.

None of the four teams playing in Houston made it here unscathed. As is often the case, sports has imitated life when it comes to the 2011 Final Four.

Kentucky 76, North Carolina 69

Possessions:

Kentucky 69

North Carolina 71

Offensive efficiency:

Kentucky 110

North Carolina 97

The Kentucky defense was a big story here. The Wildcats held North Carolina, as noted above, to an average defensive showing in the efficiency department. The tempo was more in line to the Tar Heels’ liking. Part of the reason was due to Kentucky getting out and running their own fast break to establish an early lead. John Calipari’s club did a great job limiting the Tar Heel finishes on the break, as Carolina scored only 12 points on fast break opportunities.

DeAndre Liggins drew a starting assignment for the Wildcats. The senior guard’s main task was containing UNC lead guard Kendall Marshall, especially in not allowing him to ignite the Tar Heel transition. Liggins did the job and on his own behalf hit a huge three that increased UK’s lead to four with just under a minute remaining. The Kentucky defense was also reflected in their holding the opposition to a 46 percent eFG percentage.

John Henson of North Carolina was limited to a 4-point, 9-rebound performance before fouling out. Henson played only 23 minutes. Coach Roy Williams missed Henson’s presence to grab offensive boards and block shots. A further point can be made that Henson’s absence allowed Kentucky to pay a little more attention to Tyler Zeller, who did lead UNC with 21 points, down low.

The semifinals:

North Carolina 81, Marquette 63

Possessions:

Marquette 73

North Carolina 69

Offensive efficiency:

Marquette 86

North Carolina 117

The first half was a “Murphy’s law” twenty minutes for Buzz Williams & Co. Marquette had an efficiency of .44. Worse, they had twice as many turnovers (12) as field goals (6) and no assists. The TO rate was an astounding 35 percent. A 19-0 Tar Heel run during the opening twenty minutes was instrumental in building a 40-15 lead at the break.

The second half saw the Big east representatives settle down. Their offense improved (52% ercent shooting) as did a defense that limited the Tar Heels to a 38 percent field goal percentage after intermission.

Tyler Zeller (27 points) and John Henson (14 points) did the damage inside for Carolina. Harrison Barnes with 20 was effective inside and out. Defensively, Dexter Strickland frustrated Marquette’s Darius Odom-Johnson 97 points) into a tough 2-of-9 shooting night.

Kentucky 62, Ohio State 60

Possessions:

Kentucky 59

Offensive efficiency:

Kentucky 105

Ohio State 100

The pace was right in line for both clubs. Kentucky was hurt on the boards as the Buckeyes had a 39-26 percent advantage in offensive rebounding percentage. That was offset by a defense that limited Ohio State to a 38 percent eFG mark. Known for forcing turnovers on defense, Ohio State could only disrupt the Wildcats into a 19 percent TO rate. That figure is better than the 20 percent cutoff and showed UK’s ability to care for the ball. Jared Sullinger led Ohio State with 21 points 16 rebounds 98 offensive). The freshman phenom was forced to work for everything by Josh Harrellson, a 17-point, 10-rebound performer in his own behalf.

It all came down once again to Brandon Knight. The UK freshman struggled (nine points on 3-of-10 shooting) but came up big late as he did in round one against Princeton. Knight hit a crucial three-pointer late in the game and nailed the eventual game-deciding shot with nine seconds to play.

1.

(4) Kentucky 71 (5) West Virginia 63
In a rematch of last season’s regional final between the Wildcats and Mountaineers, can Kentucky get revenge by suffocating West Virginia’s inconsistent offense with a defense that allows teams to shoot only 42.0 percent from inside the arc?

ANSWER: Yes, the Wildcats got their revenge by stepping up the defensive intensity in the second half. Kentucky held the Mountaineers to 22 second-half points and 41.5 percent shooting for the game. Brandon Knight bounced back from a poor shooting game against Princeton to break through for 30 points on 9-of-20 shooting.

2.

(2) Florida 73 (7) UCLA 65
Can the Bruins’ interior defense, anchored by the massive Joshua Smith, keep Florida out of the post? The Gators are No. 8 in the country in offensive rebound percentage and shoot 51.4 percent inside the arc.

ANSWER: Sorta. The Bruins did a good job against Vernon Macklin and Alex Tyus, holding the Gators’ bigs to a combined 18 points. However, mighty mouse point guard Erving Walker shredded the Bruins’ defense, especially late in the game, and finished with 21 points and got to the free throw line 10 times. Florida collected seven offensive rebounds, so the Bruins can’t be too upset about that effort.

3.

(12) Richmond 65 (13) Morehead State 48
Richmond is a bad rebounding team. Morehead State is bad at defending the long ball. Which team will impose its game on the other?

ANSWER: Neither team established itself in its typical way, but Richmond controlled the game. Most importantly, the Spiders allowed Morehead State to out-rebound them by only two, 32-30. Richmond made only four three-pointers in the game. However, the threat of the long ball stretched Morehead State’s defense, and the Spiders shot 56.4 percent from inside the arc.

4.

(2) San Diego State 71 (7) Temple 64 2OT
These teams are nearly mirror images of each other, but the Aztecs are a better version with more talent. Can Temple find a boost on offense from someone to overcome San Diego State’s advantages in talent, size and experience?

ANSWER: No, and especially not in overtime. Both teams played ugly down the stretch, and the Owls got 57 of their 64 points from only four players. In both overtimes, the Owls played passive on offense, and no one seemed to want to attack the basket or take a clutch shot. As a result, San Diego State slipped by in a game that the Aztecs could have easily lost.

5.

(8) Butler 71 (1) Pittsburgh 70
Can Butler’s excellent post players, Matt Howard and Andrew Smith, stay out of foul trouble and play effectively against Gary McGhee and Pittsburgh’s prolific rebounders, who are No. 2 in the nation in offensive rebounding percentage?

ANSWER: Yes, the two combined for only four fouls and limited the Panthers to six offensive rebounds. But forget about that.

This game had one of the most memorable endings in a long time. Andrew Smith hit a would-be game winner with 2.4 seconds to go, giving Butler a 69-68 lead. Pitt fired an inbounds pass along the sideline, which Gilbert Brown let bounce once before picking it up to fire a prayer. But Shelvin Mack fouled him.

Brown proceeded to drain the first free throw to tie the game at 70. On the second shot, he just missed and the ball spun out to the left. Matt Howard collected the rebound with Nasir Robinson hanging on his arm — foul. At the other end with 0.8 seconds remaining, Howard made the first to seal the 71-70 win. He missed the second, and time expired.

6.

(3) BYU 89 (11) Gonzaga 67
Besides Jimmer Fredette, who else will step up for BYU to produce points against Gonzaga, which is vulnerable against shooters because the Zags allow opponents to shoot 36.4 percent from three-point range?

ANSWER: Jackson Emery and Noah Hartsock. Jimmer Fredette’s running mates poured six three-pointers, in addition to Jimmer’s seven from long range. In sum, BYU scored 42 of its 89 points from behind the arc as the Cougars torched that suspect Gonzaga perimeter defense.

7.

(4) Wisconsin 70 (5) Kansas State 65
Will Wisconsin’s massive free throw advantage — 82.3 percent at the line compared to Kansas State’s 65.9 percent — provide the difference in a tight match up of No. 4 and 5 seeds?

ANSWER: Absolutely. Jacob Pullen was magnificent for Kansas State, with 38 points. But when fouled on a three-pointer with Kansas State trailing by three in the final minute, Pullen made only two of the attempts, which sealed the Wildcats’ fate. As a a team, Kansas State made 15-of-22 free throw attempts, or 68.2 percent, compared to Wisconsin’s 19-of-23, or 82.6 percent.

8.

(3) Connecticut 69 (6) Cincinnati 58
Can Connecticut complete a two-game season sweep against the Bearcats by locking down Cincinnati’s Yancy Gates, Rashad Bishop and Ibrahima Thomas in the post?

ANSWER: The Huskies advanced, but they barely slowed down Cincinnati’s big men. Those three combined to shoot 15-of-28 and had 39 points. But Connecticut held the rest of the Bearcats to 25.9 percent shooting, and Kemba Walker battled through physical play that left him with a sore wrist and hip to finish with 33 points.

9.

(2) North Carolina 86 (7) Washington 83
Will Washington’s quick guards, especially Isaiah Thomas and Venoy Overton, force Kendall Marshall to make mistakes and disrupt an occasionally spotty Tar Heel offense?

ANSWER: Not often enough. Marshall had four of North Carolina’s nine turnovers, but he also had 14 assists, a Tar Heel record in an NCAA Tournament game. With North Carolina’s big men, especially Tyler Zeller, sprinting down the court in transition, Marshall delivered several long passes on the money for easy baskets. North Carolina’s offense had its way with Washington en route to an 86-83 win.

10.

(1) Duke 73 (8) Michigan 71
Can Michigan build on a terrific performance against Tennessee by stopping Duke’s three-point shooters and keeping Nolan Smith and Kyrie Irving from repeatedly driving through the lane for buckets?

ANSWER: Yes to the first part, no to the second. Duke took advantage of its size and quickness advantage by shooting 20-of-29 from inside the arc and getting to the line 25 times, covering up a weak 5-of-20 shooting performance from three-point range. Smith led the way with 24 points. But he missed the second of two free throws in the closing seconds, which gave Michigan an opportunity to tie the game. But Darius Morris’ running jumper in the lane with two seconds to go clanked off the back of the rim to preserve Duke’s win.

11.

(1) Ohio State 98 (8) George Mason 66
Will George Mason’s March magic come up empty against a team that can light up the scoreboard in many different ways?

ANSWER: The Colonials’ great season ended at the hands of the team with the highest ceiling of any in the NCAA Tournament. Ohio State blitzed George Mason 98-66 with 61 percent shooting from the field, including 16-of-26 from three-point range. David Lighty was phenomenal as the Buckeyes’ senior leader, delivering a nearly perfect game with 9-of-10 shooting and 25 points.

12.

(5) Arizona 70 (4) Texas 69
Texas’ size and defensive prowess could frustrate the Wildcats’ Derrick Williams. If he struggles, who else for Arizona will step up to score for the Wildcats against one of the best defenses in the country?

ANSWER: Solomon Hill. The Longhorns did stymie Williams for much of the game, and he finished shooting 4-of-15 from the field — an off day for one of the best players in the country. Hill delivered with 16 points on 7-of-12 shooting and helped keep the team in it until Williams got into the flow in the second half. Down the stretch, Williams took over by attacking the rim and boards, and he made the game-winning play on a driving layup and three-point play at the free throw line.

13.

(11) VCU 94 (3) Purdue 76
As one of the best teams in the country at protecting the ball, can Purdue continue to execute on offense against the Rams’ pressure defense, which forces turnovers on 22.8 percent of opponents’ possessions?

ANSWER: Yes, but the Boilermakers’ defense was so bad, a solid offensive performance went for naught. Purdue committed only seven turnovers and grabbed 12 offensive rebounds. With a solid shooting day, Purdue averaged about 1.12 points per possession. However, VCU torched Purdue’s usually stout defense with 57.8 percent shooting, including 67.4 percent inside the arc. VCU put up and Ohio State-esque 1.40 points per possession.

14.

(11) Marquette 66 (3) Syracuse 62
Can Marquette replicate a home win in January against the Orange, when the Golden Eagles attacked Syracuse’s zone and got to the line 33 times, providing he difference in a tight battle?

ANSWER: Yes, and the Golden Eagles used nearly an identical formula. Marquette attacked Syracuse’s zone and got to the line 23 times, where the Golden Eagles made 19 attempts. When they weren’t getting to the line, they were collecting 36.7 percent of their missed shots, led by Jimmy Butler’s four offensive rebounds. Butler was one of three Golden Eagles to reach double figures in scoring, and Darius Johnson-Odom led the way with 17 points, including a tie-breaking three-pointer in the final 30 seconds.

15.

(1) Kansas 73 (9) Illinois 59
If Kansas starts sluggish again against Illinois, can the Illini build and hold onto a lead with their excellent shooting?

ANSWER: That didn’t happen, and it wasn’t a concern for the Jayhawks. Illinois hung around until midway through the second half, when the Morris twins buried the Illini for good. Marcus and Markieff combined to score 41 points and grabbed 25 rebounds, just five fewer than Illinois collected as a team.

16.

(10) Florida State 71 (2) Notre Dame 57
Will Notre Dame’s great offense, ranked No. 3 in points per possession, be able to score enough to get past Florida State’s great defense, ranked No. 1 in points per possession?

ANSWER: Not even close. Florida State’s superior size and aggressive defense frustrated the Fighting Irish, who shot only 30.6 percent from the field and made only 7-of-30 three-point attempts. Meanwhile, the Seminoles took advantage of Notre Dame’s questionable defense by shooting 47.4 percent from three-point range, led Michael Snaer’s three three-pointers.

After weeks of speculation, which bordered on becoming an assumption, that the NCAA would expand the NCAA Tournament to 96 teams, the Division I Men’s Basketball Committee decided to recommend moving to only 68 teams.

The committee’s proposal goes to the NCAA Board of Directors, which will review it April 29. Considering that the expansion accompanies a new 14-year, $10.8 billion broadcasting deal with CBS and Turner Broadcasting, the board almost certainly will pass the recommendation.

And then tournament purists can breathe a collective sigh of relief — for now.

The broadcasting format appears fairly set, with CBS and Turner Broadcasting splitting the tournament so that every game is available on one of four channels: CBS, TNT, TBS or truTV. However, the number of teams in the tournament could change. The NCAA is proposing the 68-team field for next season and could consider more expansion again next year.

So we might go through more expansion anxiety. But let’s not cross that bridge when we get there.

For next year, we know the field will essentially add three play-in games. We just don’t know which seeds will be up for grabs in those play-in games. There are two likely scenarios.

1. The eight weakest automatic qualifiers will decide the four No. 16 seeds.

2. The eight weakest at-large candidates will decide four No. 12 or 13 seeds.

Each scenario has its advantages and disadvantages.

In Scenario No. 1, the committee won’t have to worry as often about overloading segments of the brackets with teams from one conference. Plus this expansion would feel somewhat natural because we already has a play-in game in which the two weakest automatic qualifiers duel for the last No. 16 seed on the Tuesday before the first round.

However, Scenario No. 1 has some potentially unforeseen drawbacks. First, it punishes some non-power-conference champions that would have earned No. 15 seeds by dropping them into the play-in field. Second, it shifts other automatic qualifiers down the seeding chart. And that could hurt those teams’ chances of pulling off a first-round upset.

For example, Ohio found a way to win the Mid-American Conference championship as a No.-9 seed. The streaking Bobcats received a No. 14 seed in the NCAA Tournament and pulled off one of the biggest shocks of the tournament when they beat No. 3-seed Georgetown. With expansion, Ohio would have been a No. 15 seed.  Match ups will remain important, but it’s likely that teams that are just good enough to beat a No. 3 seed won’t be good enough to beat a No. 2 seed.

In Scenario No. 2, the bottom of the seeding chart remains unchanged. Automatic qualifiers receive their No. 15 or 16 bids as usual. Instead, the last four at-large teams must prove their worth by beating the teams that, in the past, would be the last four out. This scenario seems perfect from a competitive standpoint.

However, the logistics of making this scenario work could be tricky. Depending on which seeds the top non-power-conference champions earn, you could have a mixture of No. 12 and 13 seeds up for grabs in the play-in games. That shouldn’t matter, but it’s not as clean as saying that four play-in games lead to four No. 16 seeds.

In addition, committee members could have a harder time balancing the brackets. In this past tournament, the Big East sent eight teams to the field. If the conference sends two more through expansion, it would have 10 teams, which would make seeding them more challenging.

For as long as the tournament remains 68 teams, Scenario No. 2 is preferable. It would likely pit more nationally recognized, major-conference teams in the play-in games, which would be good for TV ratings. And that scenario wouldn’t punish automatic qualifiers from non-power conferences. Rather than add three more at-large bids, we should guarantee that all automatic qualifiers get to play in the field of 64 and force the weakest bubble teams to prove their merit.

And of course, as soon as the NCAA perfects the 68-team tournament, we’ll probably have to find a way to make 72, 80 or 96 teams work.

It’s not a good vs. evil story. It’s merely the Final Four, and its two No. 5 seeds (injury-riddled Michigan State and Butler) battling each other for one spot in the championship game while the ACC’s and No. 1 seed Duke combats the Big East’s and No. 2 West Virginia for the other. Two feel-good stories vs. two bracket-saving, household names.

It should be fun. Let’s take a look at those Final Four-ers.

Even though it’s a second consecutive Final Four trip for the Spartans (28-8), the state of Michigan should still be pleasantly shocked to find them there. Michigan State has walked on the borderline of survival in every round to reach these instances, having won its four games by an average of 3.25 points. Clutchness and healthy doses of guards Korie Lucious and Durrell Summers have done the trick. They have the Spartans feeling they can go from 2009 runner-ups to 2010 champions despite their major underdog status.

However, when it comes to underdogs, no team barks louder than the Bulldogs of Butler (32-4). Fans are growing either hopeful or tired of hearing about how this team’s run is not unlike that of the Hickory team from the “Hoosiers” movie, the story of a small-town Indiana high school squad that wins the state championship — my apologies if I ruined the movie for anyone.

The similarities are there. Butler is also from Indiana and plays in the mid-major Horizon League. Adding to that, the Bulldogs have pulled their set of upsets to get to the Final Four. They beat their region’s No. 1 and No. 2 seeds — Syracuse and Kansas State, respectively — to get a shot at the title while playing in their home state.

As it’s been the case all tournament long, swingman Gordon Hayward will be key for Butler, not just because of his team-leading scoring but because of his rebounding. The sophomore will need to set a tone on the glass and hope his teammates follow. Michigan State is one of the best rebounding teams in the country, and extra possessions could be the difference. The Spartans, for their part, must take Butler’s playing-at-home spirit out right off the bat. And they shouldn’t rely on their crunch-time skills. Butler, which comes into the game having won 24 consecutive games, has been just as good in those instances this tournament.

Whichever squad remains alive after the underdog-off will have to face a powerhouse in the championship game. Duke (33-5), thought by many to be the most vulnerable No. 1 Tournament seed, is the only No. 1 seed to make it to the Final Four. The “Big Three,” guards Jon Scheyer and Nolan Smith and forward Kyle Singler, combine for about 70 percent of the Blue Devils’ total scoring and has carried Duke past every team it was supposed to beat. Now, however, Duke, a team that relies heavily on three-point shooting, will face its biggest offensive test against a lengthy West Virginia (31-6) squad that forced another No. 1 seed, Kentucky, into misfiring on 28-of-32 three-point attempts in their Elite Eight match.

The Mountaineers not only are long and effective zone defenders but also feature one of the most exciting players in the field: forward Da’Sean Butler. Butler hasn’t needed to hit any big shots this post-season as West Virginia hasn’t had any major scares during its run, but Butler is one bad dude when called upon, as proven by his two game-winners in the Big East Tournament. He and forward Devin Ebanks are the Mountaineers’ main offensive weapons.

Smith is the guy for Duke. His ability to break down defenses and create, along with his reliable jump shot, could have West Virginia scrambling out of their zone defense rather early. The Blue Devils are an outstanding shooting team, and the Mountaineers might not have a choice but to play them man-to-man. How West Virginia adjusts to Duke’s shooting ability will be the deciding factor. And it would also help the Mountaineers if they could make a couple of shots. Defense is what’s gotten them this far, but they’re the worst shooting team remaining. West Virginia has shot less than 42 percent in all of their tournament wins.

Because of its underdog of underdogs’ status, Butler is the team that seemingly everyone wants to win it all, especially because the Bulldogs are playing in front of their home crowd. Michigan State will be a tough rival, but these teams are evenly-matched. Meanwhile, on the other side, Duke will need a good shooting day to get past the Mountaineers, who will pray for an average shooting day to help them get back to the championship game for the first time since 1959. It should be fun.

Predictions that will probably be completely wrong: Butler and Duke advance. And Duke wins it all.

Yeah, I said it. And yes, I recognize my bias as a college basketball writer and unapologetic fan.

But really, how can you argue about the thrills of a single-elimination tournament in which 65 out of 347 teams — 18.7 percent — qualify for the field? Within three weeks and a day after Selection Sunday, a new champion cuts down the nets after winning six consecutive games. To accomplish that feat, the eventual champion must beat a collection of teams that have proven to be among the best throughout the entire season.

But alas, there’s money involved — lots of it. The NCAA is nearly three-quarters through an 11-year, $6 billion contract with CBS. The value of that contract is staggering but justified. NCAA officials suspect that they could net an even bigger contract by adding more teams to the tournament, thus adding another round.

When the NHL lost an entire season to a prolonged strike in 2004, ESPN filled its suddenly open midweek prime time schedule with more college basketball games. Guess what? Fans watched. Now we have Big Monday, Super Tuesday and ACC Wednesday. It’s like a list of bar specials.

However, the only post-season action ESPN gets is the play-in game and NIT. Do you think Disney executives would like a shot at bidding on the rights to televise an extra round of the NCAA Tournament? They might even make a play for all rounds before the Sweet 16, if not the whole kit and kaboodle. Regardless of what offer ESPN execs might be cooking up, the sheer economics of open markets dictates that the NCAA would get an even bigger contract from CBS or Disney if the association opts out of its CBS contract by this summer.

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany recently said he thinks the NCAA Tournament will probably expand by next season. Delany is one of the power brokers in Division I college basketball, though he does not sit on any committees that will decide the fate of the NCAA Tournament. And let’s hope that somehow, despite the potential windfall, he’s wrong.

Take a look at how the NCAA Tournament compares to other major sports’ post-seasons.

• MLB: Eight teams out of 30 (26.7 percent) participate in a tournament that lasts four to five weeks.
• NBA: 16 teams out of 30 (53.3 percent) participate in a tournament that lasts eight to nine weeks.
• NCAA Division I football: 68 teams out of 119 (57.1 percent) participate in bowl games. However, there’s no tournament, and computerized calculations determine the national championship game match up.
• NHL: 16 teams out of 30 (53.3 percent) participate in a tournament that lasts eight to nine weeks.
• NFL: 12 teams out of 32 (37.5 percent) participate in a tournament that lasts four weekends in five weeks.

Not surprisingly, the NBA and NHL post-season gauntlet is utterly exhausting — for players and fans. It’s not a good thing if teams limit key players’ minutes throughout the regular season to keep them fresh for the post-season. Likewise, fans struggle to maintain energized through a two month-long playoff run. The NHL and NBA both hovered around 10 million viewers for most of their championship series games. That’s a third less than the numbers the NCAA Tournament and BCS championship tallied. The World Series Game 6 clincher for the Yankees drew 22 million fans — mostly because it’s the Yankees. And of course, the juggernaut that is the Super Bowl set a record this year with 106 million viewers.

The NCAA Tournament championship games regularly draws 17 million to 23 million viewers, making it one of the three most popular championships among major U.S. sports. Would adding another round and stretching it out to four weeks diminish interest? That could easily happen if the effect of expansion is sloppy games played by mediocre teams.

If the NCAA expands the tournament to 96 teams, it almost certainly would need to fold the NIT, which would be stuck with the third- or fourth-best teams from mid-major and minor conferences or cellar dwellers from power conferences. In recent years, the NCAA purchased the NIT to dodge an antitrust lawsuit and has reinvigorated the secondary post-season tournament. But despite the improvements to the NIT, anyone watching this year’s NIT would be hard pressed to argue that those teams belong in the NCAA Tournament. The quality of play is not on the same level as NCAA Tournament games.

In the consumer marketplace, corporations that openly slash quality in favor of a quick profit tend to face an immediate backlash. In the NCAA’s case, the public outcry would be loud and vitriolic. But the NCAA has a monopoly on the post-season. And even if we shout about unworthy teams reaching the supposedly most exclusive post-season tournament, we’ll still watch. And the NCAA executives know that.

Ironically, the only way to show the NCAA executives that expansion is a terrible idea would be to stop watching the regular season and early rounds of the NCAA Tournament if they do opt for 96 teams. If the NCAA feels like it can cash in on the rich value of its product, a collective disinterest in the regular season would tarnish that value. But that would mean we all lose.

Expansion is understandable, especially when the NCAA has an opportunity to unearth a pot of gold in the middle of a recession. And inviting more teams to the Big Dance sounds fair. But it’s a short-sighted strategy with potentially serious ramifications that would undermine the value of the product that NCAA executives are so proud of in the first place.

The NCAA Tournament isn’t broken. Stop trying to fix it.

Racers’ fans went into a frenzy. Many people who had never even heard of the school before celebrated the feel-good upset just because of its own strange nature. Even more people, however, kicked at the ground and muttered curse words because the unexpected result shook up their brackets.

That was just the beginning. Perhaps inspired by the Racers’ Day 1 shocker, a No. 12 seed, Cornell, decided it would ride hot-shooting all the way into the Sweet 16, a similar case to that of No. 10 St. Mary’s, which unleashed its beast of a center, 6-11 Omar Samhan, in the South Region and knocked out second-seeded Villanova to also join the field of 16.

And after No. 9 Northern Iowa’s Ali Farokhmanesh made the most cold-blooded crunch-time 3-pointer in recent tournament memory to cement his team’s Sweet 16 ticket while taking down overall-top-seeded Kansas on Saturday, it was official that at least 90 percent of the country’s brackets had gone more busted than a piñata on Cinco de Mayo.

Putting aside the almighty custom of wagering on tournament predictions, however, March Madness has been splendid so far. Down-to-the-wire games have been numerous, as have been upsets. High seeds Kansas, Villanova, Georgetown, Vanderbilt, Wisconsin and Temple all got axed, but their executioners gave the competition parity and diversity. Entering the Sweet 16, 11 conferences will be represented.

Out of all surprise teams, Cornell has been the most pleasant one. The Big Red’s wins made it the first Ivy League team to make it this far in more than 30 years, and it did so with authority. Cornell smacked around No. 5 Temple in the first round and then did the same to No. 4 Wisconsin in the second while shooting a combined 58.6 percent in the games.

Even better than that, though, has been the performance of St. Mary’s Samhan, who has totaled 61 points through two games while making 24 of 32 field goal attempts. His supremacy has been the reason the Gaels are enjoying the best season in their history while Villanova is already home, lamenting its collapse.

Speaking of failure, that’s been the theme of the postseason for Nova’s conference. The Big East, widely regarded as the best league in college basketball, had a tournament-best eight entrants, but half were done by the end of the first round, and two more followed soon after in the second. Only No. 1-seed Syracuse in the West Region and No. 2-seed West Virginia in the East remain.

First-round meat: No. 6 Marquette, which blew a 15-point lead in the second half and lost to an out-to-prove-the-Pac-10-is-not-that-weak No. 11-seed Washington; No. 3-seed Georgetown, which was blasted by Ohio, a team that had a losing record in the MAC and got into the Dance only after winning its conference’s tournament; Notre Dame, which was zoned out of the tournament by No. 11-seed Old Dominion; and No. 9-seed Louisville, which also got embarrassed by the Pac-10, by Cal.

No. 3-seed Pittsburgh made the second round, but the Panthers couldn’t hang with No. 6-seed Xavier on Sunday and were ousted.

With so many high seeds gone so early, thanks in big part to the Big East, it’d clearly be silly to count any team out. In the East, No. 1-seed Kentucky will have the challenge to cool down the Big Red’s red-hot shooting, and West Virginia will have to remain impressive to get past an also-remarkable Washington. In the South, No. 1-seed Duke, which has made quick work of its rivals so far, will face a Purdue team missing Robbie Hummel, and No. 3-seed Baylor will deal with Samhan, St. Mary’s scary big man.

In the Midwest, Cinderella Northern Iowa will face No. 5-seed Michigan State, ecstatic after its buzzer-beating win over Maryland Sunday, and No. 2-seed Ohio State, the favorite to win the section now that Kansas is gone, will take on No. 6-seed Tennessee. In the West, No. 5-seed Butler, which got a scare from Murray State before advancing via a 54-52 win Saturday, will meet with Syracuse. The winner will play the winner of the Kansas State-Xavier game.

Predictions? We’re not too big on them these days, but the solid candidates to advance are Kentucky, Syracuse, Duke, West Virginia and Ohio State. These teams have been imposing through their first two games. They’re as dependable picks as Kansas was before Saturday.