The NCAA has recently discussed the possibility of expanding March Madness from its current format of 68 teams to a 72 or 76-team field in the coming years.
The goal is to add more play-in games before the field of 64 tournament officially starts on the Thursday following Selection Sunday.
While March Madness feels perfect the way it is, this should come as no surprise to college sports fans. This past season, the NCAA expanded the College Football playoff from four to 12 teams, despite a lot of skepticism from fans.
The NCAA’s motive is clear. More playoff teams equals more games, which equals more money. But is expanding March Madness good for the sport?
Why it makes sense
From the NCAA’s perspective, expanding the tournament feels like a no-brainer.Â
In the past 40 years, March Madness has added just four teams to its original 64-team format. In that same time, the NCAA has expanded from 278 teams to 364 teams as of today. The more spots added to the tournament, the more opportunities for teams to compete for a National Championship.
When the NCAA expanded the field from 64 teams to 68, they added four play-in games to be held on the Tuesday and Wednesday following Selection Sunday. Historically, however, the play-in games have had substantially less viewership than the rest of the tournament games. In 2024, the men’s tournament averaged 9.9 million viewers per game. The most viewed play-in game of all time came in 2021, where Michigan State vs. UCLA netted just 3.1 million views.Â
The NCAA hopes that expanding the field and the number of play-in games will draw more viewership to the Tuesday and Wednesday games before the tournament.
From this perspective, the NCAA is right. College basketball fans aren’t not going to tune in just because they don’t think the tournament should expand. It’s still a win-or-go-home tournament game. Also, with more teams competing in the tournament, it draws more fanbases in. So yes, viewership will ultimately rise. The question many college basketball fans have, however, is whether adding more teams makes the tournament any better.
Why it doesn’t make sense
In the current format, the eight teams that compete in the play-in games are the last four automatic qualifiers (teams that win their conference tournament) and the last four at-large or “bubble” teams.
The automatic qualifiers are normally a matchup of two 16-seeds, and the at-large teams are normally a matchup of two 11-seeds. For the sake of this argument, let’s just focus on the at-large teams because if the NCAA were to expand the tournament, it would be to add more at-large teams to the field.Â
One reason the average viewership is down for play-in games is that the teams often aren’t very good. The teams competing in the play-in games weren’t good enough in the regular season to safely make the field of 64. These are often very flawed teams.
Since 1985, 11 seeds in March Madness have an overall record of 104-156. They have reached the Final Four just five times. These teams often aren’t your championship contenders, so why add more of them?
The best part of March Madness is the Cinderella stories. The upsets. When a small mid-major school takes down a powerhouse, that’s what makes the Madness so special. So wouldn’t adding more teams allow more mid-majors the chance to compete in March? It’s complicated.
In short, adding more at-large teams would give spots to more mid-major teams. However, it also gives spots to power conference teams who do not deserve a bid. For example, let’s look at the 2024 bubble picture. Oklahoma, Seton Hall, Indiana State, and Pitt were the first four teams to miss the tournament.Â
Oklahoma, the first team to miss the tournament, had a brutal resume in 2024. They finished 20-12 and 8-10 in the Big 12. They also ended with an underwhelming 4-12 Quad 1 record and just two wins over teams who made the tournament.
Pittsburgh, the fourth team out, was a similar story. The Panthers finished with just two wins over tournament teams and suffered two brutal Quad 3 losses throughout the season. While neither of these teams proved they were tournament teams in the regular season last year, they both would be under the tournament expansion.
Even one of the last teams to make the tournament last year, Virginia, wasn’t exactly worthy of a spot either. The Cavaliers were 2-7 in Quad 1 and had just one quality win after Nov. 29. In their play-in game, they got smoked by Colorado State 67-42. The last thing college basketball fans want is for more undeserving power conference teams to clog the tournament.
What makes March Madness so great is that it isn’t easy to make the tournament. Each of the 31 conferences only gets one automatic representative. That leaves the other 37 spots “up for grabs” for the best remaining teams.Â
This makes it tough for even power conference teams to earn an at-large bid. Expanding the tournament takes the pressure off bigger schools, who now know they have more room for error in the regular season.Â
Now to the topic of the mid-majors. Much like how the beauty of March Madness comes from the difficulty of making the tournament for the power conference teams, the same can be said for the mid-majors.
It’s not easy to receive an at-large bid as a mid-major school. Not at all. For it to happen, a team usually needs multiple wins over power conference opponents while taking a limited number of losses throughout the season. The margin for error is thin, but that’s what makes mid-majors so special.Â
Let’s look at Indiana State from last year, which was the third team out. The Sycamores were the highest-ranked mid-major to miss the tournament. They ultimately missed getting a bid because of a Quad 4 home loss to Illinois State late in the season. They also didn’t have a win over a team that made the tournament.Â
Now, was Indiana State maybe more deserving of making the tournament over a team like Virginia? Maybe. But both were flawed teams that didn’t do enough to make the tournament safely. If the NCAA does expand, it’s going to allow more teams that didn’t do enough in the regular season to make the tournament, watering down the overall product.
The RealityÂ
Much like in college football, if the NCAA wants to expand the tournament, they ultimately will. If they believe there is money to be made, which there is, they will do it.Â
The reality is that fans are going to watch the games no matter what. Whether the expansion is a success or a failure as an on-court product isn’t going to change the minds of the NCAA.Â
The saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Don’t try to change March Madness when there’s nothing wrong with it.
Leave a comment