When the NBA moved its postseason to the Orlando “bubble” in the summer of 2020 amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, the league was forced to come up with creative solutions to its truncated season. So it created a “play-in tournament” that added four additional teams (two per conference) that fed into its traditional 16-team bracket.
The move was supposed to be temporary, but it proved to be so popular that two years later the NBA brought it back for good. Media howled, purists bemoaned and fans complained, but it didn’t take long for everyone to get used to the new reality. Based on the reaction to this year’s play-in tournament, many of the objectors decided that it wasn’t as awful as they thought. Many said it actually turned out to be a pretty good idea.
This dynamic has unfurled most every time a sport has expanded its postseason. The media objects, the fans complain, the people in charge do it anyway, and pretty soon it all feels normal. When Major League Baseball doubled from four teams to eight in 1994, traditionalists like Bob Costas railed against the idea. It worked so well the playoff now includes 12 teams. If anyone is still complaining, they are in a very quiet minority.
Ditto for college football, which had no postseason at all until 1998. Many hard-core fans insisted a playoff would devalue the regular season. The decision to play a two-team BCS created howls of outrage, but it worked so well that the leagues created a legitimate playoff bracket, which then expanded from four to 12 to its current 14 teams. There’s even a movement afoot to grow the field to 24.
The same thing happened to college basketball in 1974, when the NCAA decided to expand its men’s basketball tournament beyond just conference champions. The final tush push was N.C. State’s riveting 103-100 overtime win over Maryland in the ACC Tournament final. Both were top-five teams, but only N.C. State went to the NCAA Tournament, which it won. John Wooden was one of many people who argued that adding at-large teams would water down the tournament and undermine the regular season. When the NCAA went to 64 teams in 1985, Dave Gavitt, who belongs on the Mount Rushmore of college basketball innovators, vociferously argued against it.
When ESPN’s Pete Thamel broke the news on Tuesday that the NCAA men’s and women’s basketball tournaments are virtually certain to expand from the current field of 68 teams to 76 next year, the reaction on social media was overwhelmingly and predictably negative. Fans and the media have made their positions loud and clear: They love March Madness, and they don’t want it changed. That’s all well and good, but many hard-core fans and influencers have gone so far as to say that expansion isn’t just a bad or misguided idea, but rather an unmitigated disaster that will “ruin” the NCAA Tournament. Some have been insisting that the NCAA shouldn’t even explore, discuss or study the possibility. The E-word has become the Lord Voldemort of sports. Its name must never be spoken.
I have been one of the very few to argue in favor of expansion the last couple of years, but I’m not so much pro-expansion as I am anti-anti-expansion. I don’t think the tournament needs to expand, but I do think the positives outweigh the negatives.
Thus, my purpose here isn’t to convince anyone that this is a good idea. Rather, I hope to assuage your fears that it will be a disaster. Here are five reasons why expansion might not be as bad as you think.
1. More fan bases will be engaged down the stretch
The argument that a playoff would ruin college football’s regular season was always hollow. The lack of a playoff rendered the vast majority of games meaningless. If, say, Auburn and Alabama had bad losses in September, then the Iron Bowl was played for nothing but bragging rights. All but a few teams were eliminated from postseason contention by the first week of October. By Thanksgiving, only a handful of games mattered.
The success of the CFP has hopefully laid this argument to rest once and for all. There are way more consequential football games being played in the last couple of weeks of the season. The same will happen with March Madness. By adding eight more teams, that means 12 to 16 more fan bases will be invested in games played in late February and early March. More teams in the mix means more eyeballs on the games, and more fans enjoying the stressful runup to March Madness.
2. The bubble will still be fun
I’ve heard too many people argue that expanding the field will render the whole late-February bubble debate moot. This is simply untrue. All it will do is move the line down eight spots. There will still be plenty of debate as to who gets in and who will be left out. Bracketolgy will still be a thing.
Many people who oppose expansion argue that the bubble is already so weak that moving that line even further adds too many bad teams. This is a legitimate point, but it’s a subjective one. The First Four has only been in effect for 15 years, and two of those teams have made it to the Final Four. Lots of people argued that this year was the “worst bubble ever” (or at least, the worst since last year), yet one of those horrendous bubble teams, Texas, was a defensive rebound away from making the Elite Eight. Bubble teams have always been flawed. The frenzy over what the bracket should look like will be different next season, but I promise it will be no less pitched.
Seth's Updated Never-Too-Early Preseason Top 25
April 26: In light of recent transfer portal news, Seth Davis updates his early Top 25 NCAA rankings for the 2026-27 college hoops season. Florida jumps while Gonzaga falls behind.
3. More mid-major teams will get in
Again, people have argued against expansion by claiming that it’s bad for mid-majors. Yet, as I have reported in the past, most every mid-major commissioner I have spoken to is in favor of expansion. More spots means more chances for their teams to get into the bracket.
All you have to do is look at the list of teams that have been listed by the selection committee in the “first four out.” This season those four teams were Oklahoma, Auburn, San Diego State and Indiana. Last year they were West Virginia, Indiana, Ohio State and Boise State. That’s six power conference teams and two mid-majors, and probably along the lines of what the expanded field will look like.
4. Tuesday and Wednesday will be much better
When people say don’t touch the tournament because it’s perfect, my reply is, “Are Tuesday and Wednesday perfect?” I love the First Four and the games are often terrific. But most fans either ignore or demean them by saying “the tournament starts on Thursday.”
Next year, instead of having two games each night that people are barely watching, we’ll have six games throughout each day, and then the full slate of 16 Thursday and Friday. Many of those will include big-brand teams from power conferences. People will watch — and bet on — those games. And all the complaints about expansion will be forgotten the first time some kid hits a buzzer beater at two o’clock on Tuesday afternoon.
5. The tournament is too good to ruin
I understand why people don’t want this to happen. But it is ludicrous to suggest the tourament is going to be “ruined” by adding eight more teams. It’s just not that big of a deal.
Let’s be honest, fans are suckers. We complain about commercials, we bitch about officiating, we can’t stand it when athletes talk about politics, we’re outraged when there’s a work stoppage that cancels the World Series, we hate all those digital ads that clutter up our screens. And yet, when the ball is tipped, we have to watch. We can’t help ourselves, and wouldn’t want to if we could.
So yes, everyone, take to social media and your keyboards and the airwaves and the podverse and rail against expansion all you want. I get it. But I promise, when the 76-team NCAA Tournament gets underway next year, it will deliver just like it always has. March Madness will be different, but it will still be awesome.
Meet your guide
