March Madness Expansion Remains a Realistic Goal

March Madness Expansion Looms: NCAA Weighs Adding Teams to Historic Tournament

INDIANAPOLIS, IN – July 10, 2025 – The hallowed halls of college basketball are buzzing with the prospect of important change. The men’s adn women’s Division I basketball committees convened this week, kicking the tires on a potential expansion of the beloved March Madness tournaments. While no definitive decisions were inked, the conversations signal a serious look at increasing the number of participating teams, with possibilities ranging from a modest bump to 72 teams to a more significant leap to 76.

This potential shift, according to NCAA Senior Vice President of Basketball Dan Gavitt, could be implemented as early as the 2026 or 2027 championships. The current 68-team format,including the “First Four” play-in games,has been the bedrock of march Madness for years,but evolving dynamics and the desire to capture greater value are driving the expansion discussions.

The momentum for this change has been building. NCAA President Charlie Baker has publicly championed the idea, suggesting that expansion could “add value” and expressed a desire to see the issue resolved in the coming months. Baker has also indicated that the NCAA has been engaged in “good conversations” with key broadcast partners CBS and Warner Bros., whose lucrative deal for the tournament runs through 2032.

However, expansion isn’t without its complexities. Baker highlighted the “increasingly difficult logistics” associated with integrating more teams into the existing structure, especially concerning the preliminary First Four games.

the primary speculation surrounding expansion centers on the inclusion of more at-large bids, often favoring teams from major conferences.This potential shift has sparked debate, as it could come at the expense of automatic qualifiers from smaller conferences, a cornerstone of March Madness’s Cinderella-story appeal.Currently, two of the First Four games feature automatic qualifiers (16 seeds) who have earned their spot by winning their respective conference tournaments. The other two play-in games typically involve at-large teams with seeds around 11 or 12. History shows these “bubble teams” can make deep runs, with UCLA’s 2021 Final Four appearance as an 11-seed serving as a prime example.

“I don’t accept that that model just continues in the future,” stated Southeastern Conference Commissioner Greg Sankey at league meetings earlier this year. He pointed to North Carolina State’s Cinderella run to the 2023 Final Four as an 11-seed as evidence of the caliber of teams from major conferences that could be left out. Sankey acknowledged the differing perspectives, noting that automatic qualifier conferences would likely prefer the current system, but believes that “some really, really good teams… that I think should be moved into the tournament.”

Any formal proposal for expansion will require the ultimate approval of the NCAA’s Division I Board, which is slated to meet again in August. The coming months will be critical as college basketball navigates this potential seismic shift, charting a course for the future of one of America’s most anticipated sporting events.

How might an expanded tournament field impact the criteria the NCAA Selection Committee uses to evaluate teams for at-large bids?

The Current Landscape of NCAA Basketball Brackets

The clamor for March Madness expansion isn’t new,but recent discussions and shifting college basketball dynamics suggest its more attainable than ever. For years,the NCAA men’s basketball tournament has featured 68 teams. However, with conference realignment dramatically altering the competitive landscape and the increasing talent pool across the nation, the debate around expanding the field to 72, 80, or even 96 teams is gaining serious traction. Understanding the current structure is key:

Automatic Bids: 32 conferences receive automatic bids.

At-Large Bids: The NCAA Selection Committee awards 36 at-large bids based on a team’s performance, strength of schedule, and other criteria.

First Four: Four teams participate in the “First Four” play-in games to reduce the field to 64.

Driving Forces Behind Expansion: Conference Realignment & Competitive Balance

The seismic shifts in college athletics, particularly conference realignment, are arguably the biggest catalyst for considering NCAA tournament expansion.The power conferences – the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, pac-12 (soon to be restructured), and SEC – are becoming increasingly dominant. This creates a scenario where strong mid-major programs struggle to secure at-large bids, even with notable records.

Here’s how realignment impacts the discussion:

1. Fewer Competitive Games: Super-conferences may lead to fewer non-conference opportunities for quality wins against power conference opponents.
2. Increased Strength of Schedule Disparity: Mid-majors may find it harder to build strong enough schedules to impress the Selection Committee.
3. Potential for Snubs: More deserving teams from outside the power conferences could be left out, fueling frustration and calls for change.

Potential Expansion Models: 72,80,or Beyond?

Several models for March Madness bracket expansion have been proposed.Each comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

72-Team Tournament: This model would likely add four additional at-large bids, potentially giving more mid-major programs a chance. It’s considered the most conservative option.

80-Team Tournament: An 80-team field could include more automatic bids, potentially rewarding conferences that currently don’t receive one. this would significantly alter the balance of power.

96-Team Tournament: This is the most radical proposal, potentially including all Division I tournament champions. Concerns exist about diluting the tournament’s prestige and increasing the length of the event.

Financial Implications of a Larger Tournament

The financial impact of March Madness expansion is significant.The NCAA generates billions of dollars in revenue from the tournament through television rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships. A larger tournament would almost certainly increase revenue, but how that revenue is distributed is a key point of contention.

Increased TV Revenue: More games mean more opportunities for television broadcasts and streaming revenue.

Higher Ticket Sales: A larger field translates to more games and potentially higher ticket demand.

potential for Increased Sponsorships: A more expansive tournament could attract new sponsors.

revenue Distribution: A major debate revolves around how increased revenue would be distributed among conferences and institutions.

The Selection committee’s Role in an Expanded Field

An expanded tournament would necessitate adjustments to the role and responsibilities of the NCAA Selection Committee. With more teams in the mix, the committee’s task of evaluating and ranking teams would become even more challenging.

Key considerations include:

Evaluation Metrics: The committee may need to refine its evaluation metrics to account for the larger sample size of games.

Strength of Schedule: Assessing the strength of schedule will become even more critical.

Openness: Increased transparency in the selection process could help address concerns about fairness and objectivity.

Historical Precedent: Tournament Evolution

the NCAA tournament hasn’t always been a 68-team event. It has evolved over time, reflecting changes in the college basketball landscape.

1939: The first NCAA tournament featured just eight teams.

1951-1974: The field gradually expanded to 22 teams.

1975-1980: The tournament grew to 48 teams.

1985: The field expanded to 64 teams.

2011: