Charlotte, North Carolina –

Expansion talks are heating up around March Madness.

In July, the NCAA’s Division I Basketball committee considered extending the tournament to 72 or even 76 teams. However, they wrapped up discussions without any formal decisions. The NCAA’s senior vice president indicated that 2026 could be a feasible year for expansion. Still, the debate continues about how this would affect college athletics, particularly amid ongoing discussions.

As college football’s preseason media frenzy continues, March Madness remains a key talking point. On Tuesday, ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips raised multiple questions during a conference at Hilton Charlotte Uptown.

“Basketball is crucial to our championships,” Phillips remarked. “We have to safeguard it. Right now, it’s doing well at 68 teams… It has to be logistically sensible. I think it’s hard to push for expansion this year. Who knows?”

A few weeks ago, the ACC discussed the opinions of men’s and women’s basketball coaches regarding tournament expansion. Phillips noted, “Our male coaches support expansion, while female coaches are against it. It’s almost like there are separate factions on this issue.”

Jackie Carson, the senior associate commissioner for women’s basketball at the ACC, expressed a clear preference against expansion. “I don’t want it,” she stated, reflecting a shared sentiment among many ACC women coaches.

She highlighted some critical differences in how the two tournaments operate, which could explain the divide among coaches. For instance, while the Men’s First Four games take place at a single, neutral location in Dayton, Ohio, the women’s tournament typically features its early games on campus sites. The potential expansion to over 72 teams could mean more of these opening rounds, complicating logistics for women’s teams that have earned the chance to host their games.

This past season, four ACC teams—North Carolina, Duke, NC State, and Notre Dame—secured spots among the top 16 seeds and enjoyed home games in March Madness. Both the Tar Heels and the Fighting Irish hosted early rounds.

Carson expressed concerns about the logistics, saying, “If we expand, how will that impact our home games? The first four games are played on campus and they aren’t well attended. It’s not the same as going to Dayton for men’s matches,” she said. “Right now, it’s a nightmare trying to manage travel for those early games.”

Wes Moore, the head coach at NC State, has also raised questions regarding the proposed expansion. With 27 years as a Division I head coach under his belt, Moore has taken teams to March Madness numerous times. He said, “We discussed the idea of moving to 72 teams while I was there. I’m open to any decision they make. What I’m really curious about is the structure of the bracket. What does it add? How will four additional teams fit in?”

Carson also pointed out that expanding the tournament could complicate revenue sharing, especially for women’s March Madness, which only recently began to receive financial support comparable to men’s basketball. Established in 2025, the women’s tournament’s revenue distribution was based on television contracts linked to performance. Last season, a single unit of women’s basketball was valued at around $113,000.

The ACC shares revenue from this unit among its members. However, as per Carson, increasing the number of participating teams means splitting the available funds further. Additionally, reports indicate that expanding the women’s tournament may not yield increased media rights revenue from ESPN.

“We just started getting a share. Are we going to dilute it more? Is it still the same pot of money?” Carson asked. “Honestly, I believe our ACC women’s teams already have solid tournament experiences, so I question the need for additional teams.”

She further noted, “March Madness and the Olympics are the pinnacle of sports. If it’s not broken, why fix it?”

Another aspect some are considering modifying is the format of regional rounds in the women’s tournament. As has been the case over the past three seasons, four regional quadrants lead to the Sweet 16 and Elite Eight, with upcoming games scheduled for Fort Worth, Texas, and Sacramento, California, in 2026.

Despite concerns voiced by seasoned coaches like Kim Mulkey from LSU and Vic Schaefer from Texas, NCAA President Charlie Baker dismissed the idea of returning to traditional local sites for the Final Four, citing complications with logistics. He mentioned the increased attendance at the current dual regional model as a success.

Within the ACC, there seems to be no clear consensus on this issue among coaches.

“Personally, I prefer the dual-region model. It allows fans to see a variety of playing styles,” Carson commented. “As a former coach, I understand that some will complain if things don’t suit them. For instance, if one of the regions is near Storrs, I’m sure Geno has a different perspective on women’s basketball in Connecticut.”

Carson shared she hasn’t received much feedback from other coaches regarding the dual-region format.

Moore has taken his teams on long journeys in recent seasons, traveling to Portland, Oregon, in 2024, and then to the Final Four, followed by Spokane, Washington, in 2025.

“I understand their points,” Moore said, referring to the complaints from Mulkey, Schaefer, and Aurienma. “Traveling across the country can be demanding, especially with tight turnarounds.”

Yet Moore recalled how things turned out during the last year of the traditional four regional sites. In the 2022 Women’s Tournament, North Carolina, as the top seed, faced UConn in their home territory and lost in a double overtime match during the Elite Eight.

“It wasn’t their home court, but we were acutely aware of our surroundings,” Moore reflected. “I think having four local sites would be better… But, honestly, if a local team earns a spot, they should play close to their own campus.”