The NCAA is preparing to expand the men’s and women’s March Madness tournaments to 76 teams next year, a move that would overhaul the iconic bracket and ignite fierce opposition from fans and analysts alike.
Although no formal decision has been made, multiple sources indicate the expansion is all but certain. A source told CBS Sports there is a “very, very small chance” it will not happen. The change requires approval from several NCAA committees — including the men’s and women’s basketball selection committees, the Division I cabinet and the Board of Governors — all of which are expected to give the green light. The NCAA itself confirmed in a statement to ESPN that “expanding the basketball tournaments would require approval from multiple NCAA committees … and no final recommendations or decisions have been made at this time.”
Charlie Baker, the NCAA president and former governor of Massachusetts, has long championed expansion. “I think there’s some very good reasons to expand the tournament, so I would like to see it expand,” Baker told reporters in February.
A new opening round and the end of the First Four
The most significant structural change will be the replacement of the “First Four” play-in games with a far larger “opening round.” Instead of the current format — four matchups played in Dayton, Ohio — the new system will feature 24 teams playing 12 games across two venues. Dayton is expected to remain one of those sites, while a second location will be chosen in the Central, Mountain or Pacific time zone, according to CBS Sports.
The opening round will take place on the Tuesday and Wednesday before the traditional Round of 64 begins on Thursday. This will produce a tripleheader of games on each of those days, creating a new television lineup likely to attract fresh broadcast revenue. The NCAA’s current media deal with CBS and Turner Sports for the men’s tournament runs through 2032 and is valued at $8.8 billion as of 2018, equivalent to roughly $1.1 billion per year. ESPN holds the rights for the women’s tournament. The research briefing notes that media contracts for the expanded field are in the final stages of negotiation, though the additional income is expected to be only a “modest financial upside.”
The expansion will have a profound impact on the lowest-seeded teams, particularly those from smaller conferences. Under the new format, every single 16-seed and half of the potential 15-seeds will be forced into the opening round, needing to win an extra game just to reach the Round of 64. The remaining play-in games will involve matchups of 11-seeds and 12-seeds, with the possibility that some 13-seeds also take part.
This “seeding depression” means that teams which would have received higher seeds in a 68-team bracket will be pushed down. Research from the briefing suggests that 12-seeds in a 76-team field might have been 13-seeds previously. In this year’s tournament, for example, 15-seeds like Furman and Queens University would have been relegated to the 16-seed line, while 14-seeds Wright State and Kennesaw State would have become 15-seeds. The effect is a pronounced squeeze on the so-called low-major and mid-major programs that often produce the Cinderella stories beloved by fans.
Had a 76-team field been in place this season, Auburn — which missed the tournament entirely — would have become the first at-large bid with 16 losses in NCAA Tournament history and would have slotted in as an 11-seed alongside San Diego State. Other schools that would have made an expanded field include Indiana, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, Arizona State and Cal. The research briefing identifies these as teams that were considered among the “first four out” or “next four out” in recent bracketology.
The expansion adds eight at-large bids per tournament — one per gender — and the briefing notes that the additional spots are expected to go overwhelmingly to the “Power Four” conferences: the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC. SEC commissioner Greg Sankey has been a vocal proponent, arguing that automatic bids for smaller leagues were preventing more competitive teams from larger conferences from participating. This dynamic has fuelled criticism that the change primarily benefits power-conference schools while marginalising the mid-majors that give March Madness much of its magic.
Financial pressures and legal settlements
The expansion is widely seen as a response to the NCAA’s mounting financial challenges. The organisation faces ongoing lawsuits and settlements over Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) rights, eligibility rules and other issues. Most notably, the NCAA and the Power Four conferences agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement in the “In re College Athlete NIL Litigation,” to be paid over ten years to former Division I athletes. That settlement also includes provisions for direct payments and revenue sharing, with a compensation pool capped at roughly $20.5 million per school annually for the 2025-26 academic year.
The NCAA does not control the College Football Playoff, its most lucrative property, leaving the men’s basketball tournament as its primary revenue engine. Recent moves to boost income include converting dozens of media seats at the Final Four into luxury boxes sold for tens of thousands of dollars. The research briefing notes that the expansion is not expected to be a huge windfall, but it will provide a “modest financial upside” through new media rights and ticket sales — money the NCAA urgently needs as it grapples with unprecedented financial strain across collegiate athletics.
Fan and media backlash
Despite the institutional momentum, the expansion has been met with near-universal opposition from the American public. Fans, analysts and former players have taken to social media to condemn the move as a money grab that will ruin the sport’s most cherished event.
“Nobody hates college sports more than the people who run college sports,” wrote one user on X.
“Ruining the one thing that has a 100% approval rating is peak NCAA,” said another.
A third comment read: “This is horrible. Nobody wanted this. The bubble was putrid this year. Money grab to ruin the best tournament format in sports. Thank you, NCAA.”
Jeff Lowe of Barstool Sports wrote: “You could convince me to live with 76 team field and not complain so long as the expanded part is for at-large only. It’s not. It f***s over so many automatic qualifying teams. That alone is enough of a reason to call this dumb.”
College basketball content creator Ryan Hammer posted: “Don’t let anyone tell you this is actually good. It’s for money & more access for power conference teams while the decision makers frame it as ‘more access for everyone’ — that is a lie. Really is a shame they insist on changing the best postseason tournament in American sports.”
Yahoo Sports’ Pat Forde added: “Everyone knew ncaa tournament expansion to 76 was inevitable. Almost nobody wants it. Those trying to argue its merits are gaslighting you. I’ve written it many times — it’s a lousy development that contributes to the erosion of what makes college sports great.”
The tournament has grown from just eight teams in 1939 to 16 in 1951, 32 in 1975, 64 in 1985, and 68 in 2011. The women’s tournament followed a similar path, expanding from 32 in 1982 to 64 in 1994 and 68 in 2022. The move to 76 would be the biggest shake-up in a decade, and for the vast majority of fans, it is one they never asked for.
