In a move that has stirred excitement, skepticism, and intense debate across the college basketball landscape, the NCAA is reportedly considering expanding its iconic men’s and women’s basketball tournaments—better known as March Madness—as early as the 2026 season. The discussion around expansion isn’t entirely new, but recent momentum from within NCAA leadership has made it feel more imminent than ever.
While the idea of a larger tournament may seem appealing on the surface, particularly to programs on the bubble of qualification each year, a fundamental question persists: Why? Why fix something that many argue isn’t broken? Why tamper with a format that has delivered so many iconic moments, buzzer-beaters, Cinderella runs, and unforgettable championship stories?
To understand the potential expansion of March Madness, we must dissect the motives, implications, and the underlying power struggles driving this shift. At the heart of the issue lies a battle between tradition and evolution, purity and profit.
The Expansion Talk: What’s on the Table?
Though no official bracket model has been released, the NCAA’s Transformation Committee has in recent years pushed for broader participation in championship tournaments. Specifically, the committee proposed that up to 25% of eligible teams in a sport should have access to the postseason. Applying that logic to Division I men’s basketball, which features around 360 programs, the tournament could expand from its current 68 teams to upwards of 90 teams.
Such a change would be the most significant alteration to the tournament since it expanded from 64 to 68 teams in 2011, a move that introduced the “First Four” play-in games held in Dayton, Ohio. Proponents of further expansion argue that the growth of Division I schools, increased competitiveness across conferences, and evolving television dynamics justify expanding the field.
But not everyone is sold.
The Push for Inclusion
One of the strongest arguments for expansion comes from the Power Six conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, Pac-12, and Big East). These leagues routinely see quality programs left out of the tournament due to either poor non-conference schedules, underwhelming records in tough leagues, or late-season slumps. Expansion could serve as a safety net for “bubble teams” from major conferences, granting additional slots for strong resumes that might not otherwise make the cut.
Then there are mid-majors, which often fight tooth and nail for a single automatic bid and are rarely rewarded with at-large spots. Expansion could potentially provide more representation to programs in the Mountain West, Missouri Valley, Atlantic 10, and other competitive but smaller leagues.
Additionally, athletic directors and coaches argue that more access to March Madness provides increased exposure and recruiting leverage. A trip to the tournament, even in an early-round game, boosts visibility, ticket sales, alumni engagement, and fundraising opportunities.
From a fairness standpoint, expansion also reflects the sheer size of Division I basketball. With more than 360 schools, a 68-team tournament excludes over 80% of the programs each year. Compare that to college football, which is finally expanding to a 12-team playoff for just 130 FBS teams. The NCAA’s own proportionality argument makes the case for growth.
Follow the Money
However, underlying nearly every argument for tournament expansion is the undeniable influence of television revenue. March Madness is a billion-dollar enterprise. The NCAA’s media rights deal with CBS and Warner Bros. Discovery (formerly Turner Sports) is valued at more than $8.8 billion over 14 years. More games mean more inventory—more commercials, more broadcast slots, and more revenue.
Adding early-round matchups, especially if they involve brand-name schools like Michigan, Syracuse, or Texas A&M—teams often hovering on the bubble—could increase viewership and advertising dollars. Television executives, already pressured to generate ratings in an increasingly fragmented media environment, are incentivized to push for expansion. If networks can sell a new “opening weekend” of 12 to 20 more games, that’s a massive windfall.
Even the NCAA, long resistant to change, cannot ignore its financial dependencies. Approximately 75% of the NCAA’s annual revenue comes from the men’s basketball tournament alone. Expanding the tournament gives the organization a broader safety net—especially as NIL, the transfer portal, and rising athlete demands strain its finances.
But at What Cost?
While the incentives are clear, critics argue that expansion risks diluting the product. The magic of March Madness lies in its exclusivity and unpredictability. Part of what makes the tournament thrilling is that not everyone gets in. Being selected is an honor, not a given. Expand too much, and the regular season—especially for power programs—loses its urgency and meaning.
Moreover, adding more teams could lead to blowouts and uncompetitive matchups. While upsets are a cherished part of March Madness, no one is clamoring to watch a 1-seed obliterate a 24-seed in a half-empty arena. Would the early rounds become the college equivalent of NFL preseason games?
There’s also a logistical challenge. An expanded bracket requires more venues, officials, and coordination—especially for the women’s tournament, which is still catching up in terms of equity and exposure. Academically, extending the season may also burden student-athletes, raising questions about travel and missed class time.
Coaches like Tom Izzo, Matt Painter, and Mick Cronin have spoken cautiously about expansion, warning that it could lead to “tournament fatigue” among fans. “More doesn’t always mean better,” Painter once said. “The beauty of this event is its difficulty. You water it down, and you risk losing the drama.”
What About the Women’s Tournament?
Interestingly, the women’s tournament may also expand in tandem. The 2023 women’s March Madness saw record-shattering ratings thanks to stars like Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese, and there’s a growing push to invest in its long-term growth. The tournament currently mirrors the 68-team men’s format, but given rising popularity, expansion could help more programs like Columbia, Florida Gulf Coast, or Richmond break through.
Still, women’s coaches and analysts have largely echoed the same concerns as their male counterparts. South Carolina’s Dawn Staley has emphasized competitive balance, warning against expansion simply for the sake of equity or revenue. “Growth is good,” she said. “But smart growth is better.”
Alternatives to Expansion
If expansion seems inevitable, some have suggested creative alternatives that preserve the tournament’s soul while providing broader access. Ideas include:
- Play-in Regionals: Instead of adding teams directly into the main bracket, create regional play-in tournaments the week before Selection Sunday.
- Relegation Format: Use conference performance over multiple years to determine automatic bids, reducing the randomness of one-bid leagues.
- Rebalanced At-Large Pool: Increase the number of at-large bids from mid-major conferences without increasing total teams.
Such models could allow more participation without bloating the event into a logistical nightmare.
The Real Reason: A Battle for Control
At its core, the NCAA tournament expansion debate may reflect a deeper struggle for control of college sports. With the rise of NIL, athlete compensation, super conferences, and expanded football playoffs, traditional structures are being challenged.
The Power Five (or now Power Four) conferences wield more influence than ever and are increasingly pushing for autonomy. Some speculate that tournament expansion is a way for the NCAA to appease these leagues and maintain centralized control. By granting more at-large slots to major conferences, the NCAA can prevent potential breakaway moves, such as the creation of a separate postseason tournament governed solely by the Power Four.
