Upcoming Changes in NCAA Basketball Tournaments

A change seems set to occur in 2027, and honestly, not many people are excited about it.

As reported by ESPN’s Pete Thamel, the NCAA is nearing the final stages of expanding both the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments to 76 teams. This new format is expected to be officially announced soon, with the revised tournament kickstarting next year.

Predictably, this news has sparked a wave of near-universal disapproval. Whenever the notion of expanding the tournament is mentioned, the reaction is remarkably consistent: most are against it.

Though not surprising, the idea of altering what many consider the least flawed postseason in American sports is baffling and, well, quite frankly unjustifiable.

Outside of a few head coaches, athletic directors, and media executives who stand to gain from this change—albeit minimally—most people in college basketball are opposed to it.

Fans of the game are particularly unhappy about this development. And, interestingly, many journalists covering the sport share the same sentiment. The NCAA Tournament already stands as the most popular postseason in U.S. sports, and there’s no compelling competitive reason for this alteration. In times when financial motivations drive significant changes, the economic benefits of such an expansion seem quite limited, especially given the widespread pushback from March Madness enthusiasts.

When you tamper with something that nearly everyone agrees should remain untouched, it becomes hard to justify that decision logically.

A bit of irony here: if you were to ask college basketball fans how to improve the NCAA Tournament, a popular response would likely be to revert to 64 teams, as it was from 1985 to 2001.

Despite numerous missteps over the years, the NCAA has managed to get one thing right: hosting a captivating three-week tournament each March and April that grabs the attention of the American public. This event brings in roughly $1 billion each year, constituting around 90% of the NCAA’s overall revenue.

You might think that these points alone would be sufficient to maintain the current format, yet here we are.

The driving force behind the appearance of inevitability regarding expansion seems to be greed. Starting in March 2027, fans may have to endure tournament games featuring teams from strong conferences that have losing records, playing less than inspiring basketball in front of sparse audiences.

The troubling part is that the financial incentives for expanding the tournament aren’t really as enticing as one might think.

The existing television rights agreement with CBS and TNT lasts until the 2032 tournament, and adding early-round games is not likely to impact that deal significantly.

One committee member noted, “At this stage, there’s no certainty of extra revenue.” They cited concerns about how to fund more games, travel, and other associated costs if revenue doesn’t increase. Plus, if the tournament grows larger, the value of each basketball unit could diminish. So, more teams could lead to bigger headaches without any guarantee of more funds.

Moreover, the current ratings for the four “First Four” games held in Dayton just before the main tournament aren’t all that impressive. These figures highlight how the transition from 64 to 65 teams back in 2001 seemed like a minor issue, but is now gearing up to cause considerable disruption.

March Madness fans might approach the Sunday to Wednesday of tournament week with plans to overlook the TruTV games, but with the number of teams climbing from four to twelve, those early rounds are likely to become impossible to ignore.

And those early games? They’re unlikely to be very enjoyable to watch.

It’s a tough situation to observe.

Much of the argument in favor of expanding the tournament leans on the need for greater access.

There are 365 teams in college basketball.

Every year, some notable powerhouse conference teams are left out.

Take UCLA in 2021 and VCU in 2011 as examples.

This could mean more opportunities for mid-major teams.

So, what stirs up all this frustration about the popularity of basketball?

Just to clarify, this isn’t really about access. No major American sport provides more opportunities to reach the postseason than college basketball. Why? Because of the conference tournaments.

Almost every Division I team has a shot at qualifying for their conference tournaments, which means most teams can keep playing until they lose at the end of the season.

Did you have a star player get injured early on? Win the conference tournament, and you’re in the dance. Had some issues that affected team performance? Triumph in the conference tournament, and you’re back in. If a team has played poorly for months and suddenly improves, they can still secure a spot through the conference tournament.

Some may argue that it’s purely about numbers. More teams are joining Division I, which, according to them, means some of the best power conference teams are losing out on tournament bids. And don’t forget everyone’s beloved mid-career Cinderella stories—this change could limit their opportunities too.

This viewpoint, however, seems disingenuous from both sides.

Yes, Division I basketball has added more teams over the years, but the dominance of power conference teams in securing tournament bids has only intensified during that time.

Over the past decade, there have been 362 NCAA Tournament at-large bids, with 304 of those going to power conference schools—around 83%. If a power conference program can’t make the field of 68 within a few years, it raises serious questions about their capability.

In fact, three of the first four teams eliminated in last year’s tournament were from power conferences: Indiana, Auburn, and Seton Hall. The fourth was San Diego State, which came from the Mountain West, the top non-Power 5 conference team.

To be clear, the new early-round games will feature power conference teams with records hovering around .500—teams that have demonstrated they are simply not up to par for a shot at greatness. I didn’t need to watch the Indiana-Auburn game last month; I had seen enough from both teams from November to February to know what to expect.

No one believes this change will drive college basketball fans or March Madness aficionados away entirely. However, it will undoubtedly diminish various aspects of the event. The excitement building through March may slow down a bit. Two weeks of conference tournament play might feel less thrilling. Filling out brackets could turn into a tedious chore. The newly added game itself is likely to be very forgettable. And all this is happening for no clear reason.

For years, NCAA fans have been concerned that those in charge would ultimately disrupt the one thing they’ve consistently gotten right. It seems we may be on the verge of witnessing yet another attempt to do just that.