My first gut reaction was "no no no" I hated the 32 team bracket, it's evil and pointless. None of those lower 16 ever made it to a final (not sure if that's true, it's my gut) I also thought this whole notion of a 3 team co-champ is too far-fetched to really consider, let alone having a 2 team co champ in one district and a 4 team in another in the same year...but it is possible. 3 pretty good teams all beat up on the 3 doormats and then take turns beating each other - voila you have a 3 team tie.
SO
I agree, if you're going to have a system that is so narrow and allows for co-champs regardless of quality, then you probably need to accommodate more teams in the playoffs.
So, in order to have a wide enough field to bring in those quality teams who get pushed out because co-champs are taking their spots (i.e. they would have qualified on RPI had it not been for co-champs) what a compromise, one that allows the teams who are probably have a legit shot at the dome, to not risk injury. Instead of a full 32 team bracket, how about a 24? Where the 9-12 seeds on each half of the bracket play in against the 5-8 seeds, while the 1-4 get a bye. Yes, the road to the dome is harder for the bottom of the bracket, but it is anyway, they get pared against the top seeds. Giving them a play-in option means they get an opportunity to advance and the fans get a quality game that seems worth having added to the schedule. (e.g. a 5 seed vs 10).
Not sure if we can start the season earlier due to start of school year rules and the whole state fair argument.
We could extend later, the weather on the weekend that is currently the semi-final week could be dodgy for an outdoor game, but as you said, "It's football."
While I don't generally like widening the field past those who could logically compete. I more hate the thought of a quality team getting left out because of co-champs. So, I agree, a wider field if we're going to have co-champs.
