The case for (and against) an expanded NCAA Tournament

When the Michigan Wolverines won the 2023-24 College Football Playoff it was an achievement in itself, but it also signified history, serving as the end of the four-team playoff. That same feeling was not present when Dusty May cut down the nets last month (for a variety of reasons), but that Michigan team will also be known as the final champion of a specific NCAA Tournament era.

Of course, changes to the size of the postseason is nothing new. March Madness only included 64 teams starting in 1985, added a 65th in 2001, then introduced the First Four in 2011. While the 68-team era lasted longer than the four-team CFP, it is not like expansion is a foreign concept that has not been prevalent over the past decade. Nonetheless, support for these additions seems minimal.

Regarding the all-but-confirmed expansion to a 76-team tournament with 12 play-in games, I am not in love with the direction we are heading. But in all fairness, here are some pros and cons to consider when evaluating the new college basketball landscape.

Con: Devalued Regular Season

My biggest gripe with expanding the NCAA Tournament is less about the event itself, as adding more games on Tuesday and Wednesday is exciting at best and non-impactful at worst. For those who are so strongly against these changes that they want to boycott the play-in round — totally fair! No arguments here. However, the biggest issue is that the bubble is going to turn from an exciting race to essentially a non-factor.

The teams that just miss the at-large cutoff nearly always have a legitimate gripe. Auburn and Indiana were not making the Final Four this season, but they certainly could have made the second weekend. Now, the cut line is going to be dragged even lower, giving those who miss the 76-team field little legitimate argument for inclusion. Late February and early March contests will feel far less meaningful, as High Majors can finish under .500 in conference play and still find a way into the field.

Con: Confusing Bracket Pools

This is silly, but one of the first things that came to mind upon hearing the expansion news was how brackets will look next year. The 68-team versions were already awkward with slash lines occurring in places outside of No. 16 seeds that no one is picking anyway, and now that will be a staple across nearly every No. 11 and No. 12 seed line.

Will pools now require picking winners of these 12 early games? Will many Sweet Sixteens now feature a bunch of Team A/Team B placeholders? Will brackets need to be filled out between midnight and noon on Thursdays only? All of this is simply clerical, but such a large part of March Madness’ appeal is the bracket competition itself, and that just got a ton more confusing.

Pro: Redefined Success

Ironically, by expanding the size of the field, I think it actually condenses the number of postseason outcomes that will feel meaningful. Even for the Northwesterns and Rutgers of the world, simply making the NCAA Tournament is going to be considered less of an achievement. Maybe inclusions in the (actual) First Round will become a universally tracked metric, but the more likely outcome is less emphasis placed on things like “tournament streaks.”

That sounds like a good thing! Real success looks like making the Sweet Sixteen or the Final Four, not backing into a bloated field and exiting before the opening weekend even concludes. Like conference tournaments, now the vast majority of High Major programs will more or less have a shot at inclusion every year. We need to raise the bar to differentiate the true powers in the sport, and this change helps make that need clear.

Pro: Revamped Non-conference Slates

We saw Michigan challenge itself against Duke last February (and will do so again this December), and this mentality should only grow across the country. Quality teams are not going to be worried about making the 76-team field and can instead take on tougher early contests, knowing a loss does not significantly hurt their chances. Maybe there was always some truth to this, but optically I would expect coaches to feel much more comfortable taking these early gambles.

The upside is meaningful: teams get experience playing against the best, and a win can make a huge difference come seeding time. Fans get to see their teams play legitimate contests instead of pointless buy games, and even though the neutral-site aspect of these agreements is annoying, it is still hard to overhype games against programs like Duke and UConn. If expanding the tournament results in better non-conference games, I think the trade-off is worth it.