Change that many didn’t really want seems to be upon us.
As reported by On3’s Ross Dellenger, NCAA officials are nearing an agreement to expand the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament to 76 teams starting in the 2026-27 season. This plan includes 12 opening round games at two different sites.
While this news isn’t surprising, it certainly feels uncertain and fragile.
Aside from a few head coaches and some athletic directors, most people seem to be against this move regarding college basketball.
Fans of the sport are cautious about such changes. Media personalities covering the scene seem to mirror these concerns. The NCAA Tournament already stands as the most popular postseason event in American sports. So, it raises the question, why change? In a time where financial gain seems to drive every decision, the perceived financial benefits of expanding the tournament seem notably downplayed. Most who truly care about March Madness appear skeptical.
It’s hard to justify altering something that works so well and is cherished by so many.
Interestingly, if you ask college basketball fans what they would change about the NCAA Tournament, many would likely suggest reducing the field back to 64 teams, like it was from 1985 to 2001.
Despite years of inconsistent decisions, the NCAA has consistently managed to create tournaments that captivate fans each March and April, generating roughly $1 billion a year, which accounts for about 90% of its annual revenue.
You’d think these points would be enough to stand alone, but here we are.
The main reasoning behind this expansion often points towards greed. It feels like fans will have to endure uncompetitive games featuring underperforming power conference teams with minimal attendance.
The economics around expanding the tournament seem somewhat shaky.
Current TV contracts between CBS Sports, Turner, and the NCAA are locked in through 2032. The addition of early round games likely won’t affect that deal significantly.
“Right now, there’s no assurance of increased revenue,” noted one commissioner in a conversation with CBS Sports. “A critical question is how to fund more games and travel expenses if expansion doesn’t lead to more income. Plus, expanding could dilute the value of existing basketball units.”
In essence, the ratings for the annual “first four” games in Dayton have not been impressive. With teams moving from 64 to 65, and as conference dynamics shifted, significant bids have diminished for many.
Fans of March Madness might overlook early contests in Dayton, yet it will be increasingly challenging to fill out brackets if early rounds expand from four to twelve.
The primary argument for expanding the tournament centers on access.
There are 364 teams in the sport.
Every year, some major Power Conference teams are excluded.
Look at UCLA in 2021 or VCU in 2011.
This could allow more mid-major teams into the mix.
So, why the backlash against more basketball?
Let’s be clear: this isn’t about access.
No major American sport offers better access to postseason play than college basketball. The reason? Conference tournaments.
Nearly every Division I college basketball team has a chance to qualify through conference tournaments, meaning they can keep playing until they’re out of the competition.
Had a star player hurt early in the season? Win the conference tournament and make the big dance. Struggling with team dynamics at first but later hitting your stride? Same principle applies.
Coaches from the Power Conference likely see this as a numbers game. With more teams moving to Division I, bids for high-performing conference teams dwindle. And fans of those underdog mid-major stories? They also find fewer chances to shine.
Both sides of this argument miss the mark.
Sure, the Division I landscape has grown to include more teams over the years (expected to reach 364 by 2025-26), but the competition for tournament bids from power conferences has only intensified.
In the last decade, 362 major tournament bids were granted, with 304 of those going to Power Conference schools, which is around 83%. If a Power Conference program cannot secure a bid within 3-5 years, they might need to reevaluate their approach.
Three of the first four teams eliminated from last year’s NCAA Tournament were from Power Conferences—Indiana, West Virginia, and Ohio. The fourth team was Boise State University from the Mountain West, which is the top non-Power conference team.
Let’s be clear on this point: these new early round games have been about average, proving that they may not compete for the highest honors in the sport. There was little reason to watch Indiana vs. Cincinnati last March if both teams had already shown their mediocrity earlier in the season.
No one’s claiming this change will drive casual fans away from March Madness entirely, but it doesn’t do the event any favors. Anticipation leading up to March may feel somewhat duller, and filling out brackets might become less exciting. The new games? They risk being easily forgotten, and perhaps for good reasons.
For years, fans have been grappling with what works and what doesn’t within the NCAA framework. It looks like we might be on the brink of yet another shift in that dynamic.
