Will Expanding the NCAA Tournament Help or Hurt?
Following the signing of an executive order by President Donald J. Trump, the state of college basketball has never had more buzz. The NCAA men’s basketball tournament has long been celebrated for its chaos, emotion, and unforgettable underdog stories like Jalen Suggs’ Final Four buzzer-beater, UMBC upsetting Kyle Guy and Virginia, or Jack Gohlke torching the entire tournament, but March Madness could now be on the verge of transformation. With discussions heating up around expanding the tournament beyond its current 68-team format, coaches, commissioners, and administrators across college basketball are offering their thoughts, many of them divided. As the NCAA explores the possibility of growing the tournament to 72 or even 76 teams, the central question remains: Would expansion enhance the event’s magic, or compromise it?
The Case for Expansion: More Opportunity, More Fairness
Supporters of expansion argue that the current format excludes too many deserving teams, particularly from mid-major conferences. With Division I membership growing to 364 schools, some believe the tournament hasn’t kept pace. Kansas head coach Bill Self, speaking on behalf of the Big 12, has expressed support for expansion. He emphasized the number of quality programs left out each year and sees room to improve access. SEC commissioner Greg Sankey has also publicly backed the idea, highlighting the league’s ability to succeed regardless of field size and arguing that expansion reflects college basketball’s ongoing evolution. The practical benefits are also hard to ignore. In recent seasons, teams like Indiana State, UC Irvine, and Boise State, programs that posted strong resumes, were left out of the tournament. Under a 72 or 76-team model, they would likely have earned at-large bids and had the chance to compete.
The Arguments Against: Dilution, Logistics, and Revenue Concerns
On the other side of the debate are coaches and administrators who fear that expansion could hurt what makes March Madness special. Critics point to the potential dilution of quality, especially in the early rounds, where the stakes and drama are currently unmatched. Stu Jackson, commissioner of the West Coast Conference, warned that any expansion plan must avoid disproportionately benefiting power-conference bubble teams at the expense of mid-major programs. The concern is that expansion could make it easier for mediocre high-major teams to squeeze in, while still leaving top mid-majors on the outside looking in. For example, teams like Indiana State and UC Irvine were “robbed” of tournament bids due to mediocre, less deserving teams like Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina using their high-major profiles to get in. Logistics also pose a major challenge. Adding more teams means more travel, more venues, and more tightly packed schedules. Since the NCAA aims to conclude the tournament before the Masters each April, there's limited room to extend the format. Financially, the existing TV deal with CBS and Turner doesn’t guarantee extra revenue for additional games. That could lead to budget strains unless the NCAA finds new sponsors—possibly even alcohol brands, according to recent reports.
So What’s Next?
NCAA President Charlie Baker has confirmed that expansion discussions are active, with a final decision expected in the fall of 2025. However, the earliest any changes would realistically take effect is the 2026–27 season. For now, the transformation of March Madness remains a possibility, not a guarantee. The future of March Madness hangs in the balance. While some believe expansion would offer a more inclusive and modern version of the tournament, others argue it could undermine the very identity that makes the event beloved. With strong opinions on both sides and no consensus in sight, the coming months could shape one of the most significant changes in college basketball history. Whether the NCAA chooses to grow or stay put, one thing is clear: March Madness will never stop sparking debate.
