FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — It’s going to be interesting whenever we can hear from Arkansas coach John Calipari about the latest college basketball discussion.
The first Thursday of March Madness is the closest thing college basketball has to a national holiday. Offices empty, productivity drops, and millions of brackets are filled out, often more in hope than in knowledge.
Despite all that, behind the scenes of this American tradition, a debate is raging. Should the NCAA expand its men’s and women’s basketball tournaments beyond the current 68 teams?
The latest round of controversy was sparked by news that NCAA officials are actively considering adding up to eight more squads to the tournament field, possibly as soon as 2026.
NCAA president Charlie Baker confirmed ongoing talks with media partners CBS and Warner Bros. Discovery, suggesting that “expansion could come in 2026, if a deal is struck between now and early summer.”
It’s almost like somebody’s flat trying to get a little too greedy here. Apparently I’m not the only one on that island.
For many fans and analysts, the argument against expansion is straightforward.
“Almost no one is asking for it,” wrote ESPN’s Dan Wetzel, capturing the mood of a large segment of the basketball faithful.
There is no groundswell of public demand. The First Four play-in games, introduced when the field was expanded to 68 teams in 2011, do not generate massive ratings or excitement.
The First Four may be overkill and I’m not the only one saying it, either.
The pressure to expand is real and, in many ways not too surprising, inevitable. College sports are big business.
The men’s tournament alone generated over $900 million for the NCAA in fiscal year 2024, accounting for more than half of the organization’s total revenue. Adding more games means more television inventory, more ticket sales, and, crucially, more “units” or the shares of broadcast revenue that conferences distribute to their members.
“Expanding the NCAA Tournament is going to be expensive,” USA TODAY wrote. “Unless you can guarantee that schools and conferences won’t lose money by expanding, it’s a risky bet.”
Coaches and athletic directors, who often receive performance bonuses for tournament appearances, have mixed feelings. An anonymous poll of over 100 head coaches in 2024 found that about 65% favored some form of expansion, with the majority split between adding four or eight teams.
“As a mid-major coach, I think the more access we have the better. I know the high-major teams will take most of the additions, but I’d rather have the shot,” one coach told CBS Sports.
That’s not the majority opinion, though. There are exceptions that attempt to prove the validity of every argument.
The numbers behind the tournament’s composition are revealing. In 2025, the so-called Power 5 leagues (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, and SEC) secured 33 of the 37 at-large selections, with only four going to teams outside those conferences.
Critics argue that expanding the field would simply allow more middle-of-the-pack teams from dominant conferences to sneak in, rather than opening doors for true underdogs from smaller leagues.
Another point of contention is if the tournament really needs more “access”?
Every Division I team already has a path to the Big Dance through its conference tournament, where a Cinderella run can still punch a ticket.
“If you consider the conference tournaments a play-in round of its own, which it is, the NCAA tournament is already over 300 teams strong. Almost everyone already has a second chance,” Wetzel said.
To critics, offering eight more spots is granting a third chance, diluting the stakes and the drama that make March Madness unique.
Proponents of expansion, however, see a different picture.
“We need to expand the NCAA Tournament,” Missouri coach Dennis Gates said. “It needs to expand. Put me on the record; it has to expand. The opportunity has to be there for more kids, more teams, and more fans.”
For coaches at mid-majors and schools outside the Power 5, even a slim chance at an at-large bid can transform a program’s recruiting, finances, and morale.
The television landscape complicates matters. While marquee games in the Round of 64 and beyond routinely draw audiences of 9-18 million, First Four contests have traditionally lagged.
In 2025, the First Four set a record with 7.4 million gross viewers, a 20% increase from the prior year, but these numbers still pale compared to the main event.
Most First Four games average 2-3 million viewers, often relegated to cable’s TruTV. Critics argue the lack of buzz is a sign that the current field is already stretched.
Still, the NCAA’s financial incentives are real. Each tournament “unit” is worth about $2 million, paid out over six years, and shared by the conferences.
Even a handful of new spots could mean millions in additional revenue, not just for the NCAA but for each school that makes the cut.
For smaller athletic departments, this money can fund scholarships, facilities, and coaching salaries; for the biggest programs, it’s a matter of prestige and power.
Tradition might be the strongest argument against change.
The two-day wall-to-wall basketball binge at the start of March Madness is more than a sporting event. It’s a cultural ritual.
“These are pseudo national holidays, complete with people skipping work and school while tuning in at the office or during well-timed lunches,” Wetzel said.
For now, that magic endures, just barely. Each tweak to the format risks breaking a spell that has survived even as general interest in college basketball has waned.
As the debate rages on, the NCAA is left with a delicate calculus of chase short-term gains and risk long-term alienation, or protect the status quo and leave millions on the table.
The decision could come within weeks, but the ramifications will echo for years.
“Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered,” Wetzel warns, capturing a sense of foreboding shared by many who love the tournament as it is.
In the end, what’s at stake is something more than dollars and brackets.
It’s the balance between access and excellence, tradition and progress, that has made March Madness a fixture on the American calendar.
Whether the field stays at 68 or grows to 76, the real test will be whether the tournament can remain what it has always been, a celebration of the improbable, the unforgettable, and the uniquely American thrill of the upset.
