Stinks. Though I also saw Caputo mentioned it might be good by making it easier for mid-majors to get in. Assuming the power conferences don't just take all the new at-large spots 

100% not about the mids. Article I read said the Big 12 and ACC were pushing hard. The power schools want 10 bids a piece. And we can count on the Big 10 and SEC bitching if they have to play in the opening round.

The best most true miss (ie not schools like Dayton and VCU) can do is win their conference

AT Hiker wrote:

I will bet mid majors including the A-10 will get more bids than now with a 76 team NCAA tourney.

They will not

Back in my freshman college days, when I said I was from Gary, Indiana, people would break into a very truncated version of the song of the same name from The Music Man. The proposed tourney change might make 76 Trombones the song retort of choice.

I think this change effectively kills off The Crown.

NIT becomes the mid/low major postseason tournament.

Of course, what the NCAA should do is massage the rule that they've already done away with in the NIT, the one that invites each regular season conference winner who fails to automatically qualify to the Dance.  I say massage because I don't believe this rule ought to apply across the board.  If 31-5 High Point didn't win its conference tournament, I don't see treating them the same as say 20-11 Portland State does not win theirs, even though both finished in first place in their respective conferences.

What I believe will end up happening is that the NCAA will do the bare minimum to be perceived as being fair to midmajors, even though they will be far from this in reality..  In other words, it won't be like zero extra midmajors will get in but it will also never be that more deserving midmajors get in over undeserving P5.  schools.  Each year will be different but rest assured that this will not be a move to better placate midmajors as much as it is to ensure that if the Big 10 and SEC can send 12 teams, there's no reason why the ACC and Big 12 can't send at least 10.

Had the field been 76 this year Lunardi projected the follow teams in

Lunardi (men's): Oklahoma, Auburn, San Diego State, New Mexico, Indiana, Stanford, Cincinnati, Seton Hall

He added:

the bubble has consisted primarily of mediocre power-conference members along with high-end contenders from mid-major leagues such as the Atlantic 10, Mountain West, American and West Coast Conference. We can also expect the reemerging Pac-12 to be part of the new at-large mix.

For better or worse, the days of Belmont or Middle Tennessee or Old Dominion earning at-large bids are likely gone

Over/Under on the number out of 8 new (last) teams making the field coming from the P4 + Big East (I'll exclude the new Pac 12):  5 1/2.

Lunardi's example from last season would have gone over (6).

My guess is that it goes Under in Year 1 (make it look like the NCAA really cares about midmajors) and then this will annually go Over thereafter.