NCAA Tournament expansion
- Thread starter RichmondNative
- Start date
not final but it does look like we're going to 76 teams starting in 26-27.
www.on3.com
NCAA Tournament expansion is coming -- and likely to 76 teams
NCAA executives are inching toward one that will see a move from 68 teams in the March Madness field to 76
Was going to post this earlier, but I don’t have On3 access so couldn’t read the article. Did read a summary though and sounds like 12 autobids from single bid conferences will be playing the last 12 at-large teams. The reward for winning a conference championship will be getting to play against a sub 500 P5 league team. Sounds like riveting TV. I guess this does give a lower level conference a better chance of getting 2 NCAA units, since more of them will be playing lower rated teams. Thus, I imagine all the ADs involved will be on board with this configuration and basically no one will care until the actual field of 64 is determined. Isn’t expansion great….not final but it does look like we're going to 76 teams starting in 26-27.
NCAA Tournament expansion is coming -- and likely to 76 teams
NCAA executives are inching toward one that will see a move from 68 teams in the March Madness field to 76
PhillySpider
Bench player
I believe the plan calls for the lowest 12 auto-bids to play each other for 6 spots in the field of 64 and the lowest rated 12 at-larges to play each other for 6 spots in the field of 64. So six of the lowest auto-bids will still make the "main" bracket. Of, course that means 8 more auto-bid non P5 schools have to play in the play-in round than currently. Meanwhile, the at-larges get 8 more bids to fill up their 12 slots! So no at-larges that would currently make the field of 64 would be relegated to the play-in but 8 more new auto bids would be and and the "main" field of 64 will ultimately include 4 fewer auto-bid (i.e non-power 5) teams and 4 more at-large (i.e Power 5 teams).
So screw the little guy again and let 8 more sub .500 in conference mediocre {Power 5) teams in. Soon enough, there will just be a "mini-tournament" for the lowest 32 ranked conferences to play their way in for 1 spot in the main tournament and 62 Power 5 teams and one non power 5 who went 27-3 and beat all three power 5 school they played will make it! Solves all sorts of problems for the Power 5 - - everybody can say they made it; no more annoying upsets of Power 5 schools by little dinky schools to upset fans and endanger coaches and best of all, I am sure we will pay all the money save a few bucks to the field of 64! So no more money going to those annoying non Power 5 schools. But best of all, they rename the play -in the first round and not only can they say they didn't really take anything away from the little guys, all the Power 5 schools can all say they made it to the 5th round of the NCAA (even with their 12-18 overall and 5-13 Conference records)!
So screw the little guy again and let 8 more sub .500 in conference mediocre {Power 5) teams in. Soon enough, there will just be a "mini-tournament" for the lowest 32 ranked conferences to play their way in for 1 spot in the main tournament and 62 Power 5 teams and one non power 5 who went 27-3 and beat all three power 5 school they played will make it! Solves all sorts of problems for the Power 5 - - everybody can say they made it; no more annoying upsets of Power 5 schools by little dinky schools to upset fans and endanger coaches and best of all, I am sure we will pay all the money save a few bucks to the field of 64! So no more money going to those annoying non Power 5 schools. But best of all, they rename the play -in the first round and not only can they say they didn't really take anything away from the little guys, all the Power 5 schools can all say they made it to the 5th round of the NCAA (even with their 12-18 overall and 5-13 Conference records)!
Thanks for the insight. I wanted to read the article, but not willing to pay On3.
I knew it had to be bad news for the small conferences, but figured that since money is the biggest driver that the P5 would want all the units they can get. If they have to play each other then that lowers the amount that could be gained.
@PhillySpider - I read this in a SB Nation article which seems to quote Ross Dellinger who broke the news and it suggests what I was saying IS the current plan:
Part of the new format also includes an important factor to point out: how are the teams picked? According to this new reporting, the 12 “play-in games” would be the “12 lowest-seeded conference champions against the 12 lowest ranked at-large teams.”
Last edited:
Jon Rothstein gets really fired up about this topic in his latest podcast. I happen to agree with him that the expansion is not a good thing. The funniest thing is all these coaches want more spots, but for some reason don’t realize that the pressure to make the NCAAs is going to be even greater because if your are a P5 team and can’t make the expanded tournament then your program is really sorry. JR does a breakdown of which teams would have gotten in an expanded tournament if it were in place last year and shows how the bottom of the barrel is really getting scraped.
podcasts.apple.com
A 76-Team NCAA Tournament?! + Tahaad Pettiford STAYING at Auburn & Hoya Paranoia!
Podcast Episode · Inside College Basketball Now · 10/06/2025 · 43m
podcasts.apple.com
he's so over the top. adding 4 early games will somehow take the juice out of college basketball? it's going to "rupture the greatest postseason tournament we have in sports"? smh
yes, it's unfortunate that some teams that would have played on Thursday will now play in the play-in games. that's the only downside. that happened to us in 1984 with the play-in game against Rider when the field was 48. good thing we won that one, giving us the shot at a program changing win against Auburn.
personally I usually tune in on Thursday anyway when we're at 64. maybe with day games on Tuesday and Wednesday I'll check in early. sure, some not great P5 teams get added. so what? adding Villanova ruins the tournament? Boise St also gets added. UC Irvine and Santa Clara get close, as 1st 4 out. how is this awful? the drama stays the same. expansion doesn't ruin anything.
yes, it's unfortunate that some teams that would have played on Thursday will now play in the play-in games. that's the only downside. that happened to us in 1984 with the play-in game against Rider when the field was 48. good thing we won that one, giving us the shot at a program changing win against Auburn.
personally I usually tune in on Thursday anyway when we're at 64. maybe with day games on Tuesday and Wednesday I'll check in early. sure, some not great P5 teams get added. so what? adding Villanova ruins the tournament? Boise St also gets added. UC Irvine and Santa Clara get close, as 1st 4 out. how is this awful? the drama stays the same. expansion doesn't ruin anything.
97spiderfan
Bench player
Agreed. I really don't have a strong preference one way or the other. But adding 8 more teams is not going to ruin the tournament. I have maintained that if they do expand, that they need to do something else to ensure these 8 additional slots just don't go to the 11th, 12th, and 13th place teams in the SEC/Big 10. Which we all know they will because the power conferences have gamed the NET. A simple solution in my mind is to put a requirement in that you have to finish .500 or above in your league.
Spider17
Starter
Give the P5s an inch and they’ll take a mile. Now reports are saying NCAA may have 12 lowest AQs in opening round. Incredibly unfair in my eyes to have teams win its conference AQ and have to play opening round so a 11 place Big 12 or SEC team can get into main group. I get now we have the opening round with 16 seeds that win AQ which is not ideal but better than what NCAA is potentially proposing. I’ve been big believer that if you win AQ you should be in the main field automatically.
they've always split the Dayton games evenly between at-larges and AQs. currently 60 teams are off until Thursday. 8 teams play early. 4 AQs and 4 at-larges.
now it would be 52 teams off until Thursday. 24 teams play early ... 12 AQs and 12 at-larges.
I actually think this gives more, not less of a platform for the early games which few people currently watch.
Spider17
Starter
I think the concern many of us had pushing back on the expansion is that we feel it’s going to lead the NCAA committee to find more ways to justify having an 18-15 12th place SEC team based on whatever metric they want than a very deserving mid major. Mid majors technically have more opportunity for at large too, but same way I technically have more of a chance of winning the lottery if I bought 8 tickets instead of 1. While possible, I don’t see more than 1 of those extra spots goes to a non-P5.
Spider17
Starter
Main round will always have more draw than opening rounds. So given a choice I’m willing to bet you that any coach for a 16 seed team would prefer playing Auburn on the main stage and losing than playing another 16 seed on opening day and losing. Way more eyeballs for Thursday/Friday than Tuesday/Wednesday.
If no one watches the current play-in games, why would they suddenly want to watch? Because there are more low quality games? If a P5 team barely makes it into the dance, I don’t think it’s fan base is going to clamor to watch their team play in the opening round especially if it is against one of the 12 AQ teams. That is the biggest unknown, how will the play-in games be structured? We know the 12/12 split but not the matchups. Will it be AQ vs AQ to get the four 16 seeds and 2 of the 15s and then the last of the at-larges racing off to get into the main draw? Or will it be AQ vs at large to get in? Or is it a mix of both? In all cases it is more games that a limited number of people care about and you demote more AQs to the play-in round. It simply dilutes the tournament.
guess it hasn't be declared, but pretty sure it'll be just as it's always been. AQ vs AQ. AL vs AL.
interesting how it plays out if UR ever again qualifies for the dance. I think if we're an AQ, we're probably strong enough to not play in the opening round. we wouldn't likely be a bottom 12 AQ.
but if we're an at-large ... it's very, very likely we're a bottom 12 at-large team.
Kneepad McKinney
Walk-on
This is what I say. Make it like the FA Cup. And you just start playing games in November, and the final 64 -- whomever they are -- play in March.
Random draw every round.