One of the hottest topics in the college basketball sphere this offseason has been the approval of expanding the men’s and women’s NCAA tournament fields from 68 teams to 76.

While this has understandably frustrated many college basketball fans, I believe that looking at tournament expansion through a more optimistic lens can provide a more fair glimpse into why this decision was made. After all, CBS Sports’ Matt Norlander reported that the decision to expand the tournament was a unanimous one by the men’s and women’s tournament committees—and that can’t be for no reason.

So, here's my take on why I think NCAA tournament expansion will be a good thing—take it or leave it.

More opportunities

The most obvious advantage of expanding the NCAA tournament is the opportunity it presents for more teams to make the tournament. Some will point towards this being a bad thing, with middling high-major teams sneaking into the field while mid-majors continue to struggle to build at-large cases.

This may very well be the case, but expanding the field to 76 teams certainly isn’t going to make it more difficult for mid-major teams to earn an at-large bid. I think it only serves to increase the margin of error for these schools, though it still remains rather thin when compared to the likes of their high-major counterparts, especially when they cannot regularly compete against tournament caliber competition. Expanding the tournament will make it easier in high-major conferences to compete against tournament-level competition as the amount of bids increase.

I’d also argue this makes the regular season that much more important for the mid-majors, giving them more breathing room with those extra at-large slots. While it may be wishful thinking, maybe expansion will also incentivize high-majors to schedule more mid-majors as well.

All around, I think tournament expansion will lead to expanded opportunities for everyone.

More anticipation

Another common argument I’ve seen is that expanding the tournament will diminish the regular season. Again, I fail to really see how that idea holds any weight. It’s not like there’s an absurd amount of at-large bids being added to the pool, and every conference tournament champion will still hold a spot in the tournament. That’s not going away anytime soon.

In fact, I’d argue that expanding the tournament makes the regular season that much more meaningful for so many teams. Even those teams who narrowly avoid Dayton and the original First Four games will still be sweating to reach the field of 76, I imagine.

Again, the margin of error is being increased all around, which some will always say is a bad thing. And sure, it’s easier to make the tournament, but now eyes will fall onto what teams will avoid the added play-in games. After all, it never really feels like you truly made the tournament unless you work your way into the narrowed field of 64.

Expanding the tournament just makes Selection Sunday that much more intriguing for many fanbases.

More games

Who’s to say more basketball in March is a bad thing?

Sure, the pristine form of a freshly seeded bracket of 68 teams will be no more—but all that means is there’s more games to be played and exciting moments to be had. Additionally, many of these play-in games between at-large teams feel like they’ll serve as a proper proving ground for the bubble, just one that so happens to lead to the main bracket.

The opportunity for lower-seeded teams to compete in these play-in games shouldn’t be understated either. Not only does it allow low-majors to earn a tournament win, but it should serve as a good way for these teams to warm into the tournament, instead of having to immediately face a one or two seed in their first game.

I personally find nothing wrong with either of those things.