NCAA Tournament Format Remains Unchanged

This week, Dan Gavitt, who is the senior vice president of basketball at the NCAA, confirmed that the NCAA tournaments for both men’s and women’s basketball will keep the current format of 68 teams for the upcoming season. There won’t be any expansion just yet.

That said, discussions will continue regarding the possibility of expanding to 72 or 76 teams ahead of the 2027 championship.

For now, it’s crucial for supporters of women’s college basketball to advocate for keeping the tournament at 68 teams. The current setup is functioning well and doesn’t really require any changes. There are a few reasons why maintaining this structure is sensible.

A key factor—and perhaps the most significant distinction between the men’s and women’s tournaments—is the play-in games, often referred to as “the first four.” If the tournament were to expand to 72 or 76 teams, it might lead to an increase in these first four matchups. Men’s teams have been playing in these since 2011, while women’s teams only began last year. The men’s tournament has cultivated a tradition around these initial games in Dayton, Ohio, drawing fans and kicking off the excitement of March. In contrast, the women’s tournament is still figuring out how they fit into the whole experience.

On a side note, I think it would be fitting for these first four women’s games to be held each year in Norfolk, Virginia, home of the inaugural women’s NCAA Championship back in 1982.

Currently, the first four women’s games take place at campus venues for the top 16 teams. This often leads to matchups between squads that lack any significant history, and they play in locations not close to their own campuses. For instance, just this year, Iowa faced Washington and North Carolina played Princeton—not in any familiar territory for those teams.

In fact, the first four match of the 2025 women’s tournament drew a mere 819 fans as Iowa narrowly defeated Princeton in South Bend. In stark contrast, the men’s initial match saw a turnout of 16,899 in Dayton for a game between North Carolina and San Diego State University.

There are a couple of pertinent questions here: Would it elevate the women’s basketball tournament if all first four games were played at a single neutral site? And do we really need to add these games if the current format isn’t that strong?

Jackie Carson, a senior associate commissioner for women’s basketball at the ACC, noted that there’s quite a bit of chaos stemming from the current format for the first four. She mentioned that changing it might inspire some new ideas among coaches, but, as it stands, travel logistics for the first four is a real headache.

Moreover, in the 2023 women’s tournament, only one team from Mississippi made it past the second round, while two of the first four men’s teams advanced to the following weekend. This highlights the continued disparities in competitiveness between men’s and women’s college basketball.

Criticism of decisions made by the NCAA Selection Committee, such as sending the number one seed NC State to play near UConn, has been valid. Cases have arisen like Virginia Tech and James Madison attempting to influence the field, but, in general, the choices aren’t overly controversial year after year. There are exceptions, of course, like the 2023 tournament where teams like Kansas and Oregon, which didn’t win 20 games, were left out.

Participating in the NCAA Tournament is a significant deal. Hearing your school’s name called during Selection Sunday is special. You’re one of only 68 teams still competing, and adding a few more teams just dilutes that experience.

It’s easy to see how these opinions could be contested, yet there’s a reality that stands out. There’s really no compelling reason for those involved in women’s college basketball to push for expansion right now.

More teams in the NCAA tournament aren’t likely to equate to increased revenue for the sport.

The attendance numbers for the initial play-in games tell a story. The NCAA hasn’t gained much financially from tickets for these women’s play-in games. Additional revenue primarily comes from media rights deals.

According to various sources, ESPN’s contract with the NCAA won’t change regarding rights fees if the women’s tournament expands. So, while adding more teams might sound good, it actually means less financial support for the teams participating. It’s like having a pie that’s the same size, but trying to feed more people.

Carson raised a valid point: “We just got a unit. Are we adding others to divide that pot? If it’s the same amount of money, I don’t want to spread it any thinner.” She emphasized that, for ACC women’s basketball, there’s not a pressing need to throw in additional teams.

Important questions linger. If we were to expand, would the first four games be too dispersed, and without more financial influx, what’s the upside of an expansion? The NCAA often leans toward profit-driven decisions, yet when it comes to enlarging the women’s tournament, the math just doesn’t add up.

Perhaps the only viable discussion about the women’s NCAA tournament should revolve around whether ESPN might be open to renegotiating media rights agreements. If women’s basketball could secure its own lucrative TV contract, like men’s basketball and college football have, then the conversation about increasing the number of participating teams could take on a different dynamic.

Until that happens, women’s basketball is set to retain its current format of 68 teams.

The NCAA Tournament is not broken and doesn’t need fixing.