You are usually pretty reasonable, so I am surprised at this. The “winner” from the three top conferences is completely irrelevant as the tournament winner wasn’t the best or highest seeded team from any of those conferences. I also don’t understand why you think removing autobids from small conferences would hurt the Big East (the Big East is a power conference, doesn’t need its autobid, and almost certainly would’ve been better off this year if there were no autobids). Finally, I don’t understand how this would supposedly help the Big Ten win a championship because any of the bottom teams of the top 64 would have virtually no chance of winning the championship.
I don’t like Izzo’s idea but literally none of the reasoning above makes sense to me.
I have no idea what the arguments were based on, but it’s probably fair to say that in any given bracket, the arrangement would on average probably benefit the 4-10 seeds and make things more difficult for for seeds 1-3. Whichever conferences historically have more teams in the 1-3 range would probably be disadvantaged and vice versa (no idea the actual breakdown).
The 7/10 and 8/9 games wouldn’t change. The 4/13 and 5/12 games wouldn’t be all that different either because you’d be replacing the very best mid-major teams with Next Four Out type bubblers. Similar first round match ups. The biggest difference would be in the 1/16 and 2/15 lines where the 15s and 16s typically don’t have a pulse now and instead you’d end up with much better quality teams than Grambling and Wagner who on a given day could pull off the upset more often than it currently happens.