By SPENCER BATES
Greed is a disease and the world of college basketball is not immune.
There is an extremely high possibility that for the first time since 2011, we will see an expansion of the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament with proponents urging for an increase from 68 to 72 or 76 teams in the field.
But do not let the talking heads fool you. Just because they have a more expensive microphone does not mean they are telling you the truth.
One of the points people will likely use in favor of growing the tournament is that more bids means more chances for teams to make the dance. They will use this “increased access” argument to try and paint themselves as heroes of the mid-majors, saviors from the money hungry conferences that are poised to take over the entire field one day.
But you can paint a turkey as many colors as you want, it will never be a peacock.
Deep down, these decision-makers don’t care about smaller market teams. They just want you to think they do, so in time when all the new, at-large bids are taken up by high-major teams, they can start the cycle again, pushing for more expansion.
We have seen the gradual weeding out of teams that deserved to be in the dance, in favor of teams from Power 5 conferences that, while they may have a worse record, will make the tournament because decision makers believe it will retain a larger fan base.
And it’s not like there’s no track record of this happening. Over the last two years, come Selection Sunday, it has been made clear that the NCAA would rather have bigger market teams in the tournament over smaller market teams that have better resumés.
Just this year, both UC Irvine and West Virginia were undeservedly passed over for Texas and North Carolina. The Mountaineers (23-10) and Anteaters (27-6) both finished the season with better overall records than the Longhorns (19-15) and Tar Heels (22-13). But if that argument is too surface level, let’s dive a little deeper.
North Carolina was an abysmal 1-12 (7% win rate) against quadrant one (Q1) opponents. Texas also had a losing record in Q1, finishing the year 7-10 (41%) against quality opponents. West Virginia closed out the year 3-6 (33%) against Q1 and UC Irvine ended 1-1 (50%). And while none of those marks are above a 50% win rate, strength of conference must be taken into consideration. Frankly, wins against Q1 opponents should, realistically, mean less for those teams in Power 5 conferences, especially if these conferences are allowed to continue to grow exponentially. Access to Q1 opponents should not be a determining factor in March Madness selection. But, if there’s a chance the NCAA makes more money as a result, they will have you believe it is.
But this is not just a one-year anomaly. In 2024, Indiana State was notably passed over for Virginia when it came to Selection Sunday.
The Sycamores finished the campaign a stellar 27-6 and while their record against Q1 opponents may have not been great (1-4, 20% win rate), the Cavaliers were not much better (2-7, 22% win rate). But again, access to better teams due to conference must be considered. Indiana State played a combined 10 games against Q1 and Q2 opponents while Virginia played 20. This means, according to the NCAA’s logic, that simply playing games against better teams goes in a team’s favor when it comes to March Madness bids.
So, the argument that more spots in the tournament will only give smaller market teams better chances falls apart right here. The proof is in the pudding, more spots only means more chances for the decision makers to deepen their pockets at the expense of more deserving teams.
Another argument that proponents will use in their favor is that it is not just these “talking heads” pushing for expansion, they have the support of mid-major conference commissioners as well. Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Hoops HQ, Seth Davis, a proponent for expansion, has made it a big point on X/Twitter that he has received messages from individuals such as Atlantic 10 Commissioner Bernadette V. McGlade who have expressed that they are in favor of growing the tournament as well. Once again, under the guise of increased tournament access.
What Davis and others in favor fail to realize is that while commissioners are the de facto figurehead for their conferences, they are far from a representation of the average Joe. They have special interests of their own and as Power 5 conferences only continue to absorb teams, it can be relatively understood that expansion may be a smaller league’s only chance for multiple bids to the tourney. But that is equivalent to the ant trusting the kid with a magnifying glass that he won’t burn him the first chance he gets.
Look no further than Field of 68 Founder Rob Dauster’s post on X/Twitter in which he put up a poll with a simple question: “Do you want NCAA Tournament expansion?”
Just shy of 12,000 votes from fans later, the result showed a whopping 94% of voters answered “No.”
This is where the complete lack of connection the higher ups in the world of collegiate athletics have with the fans can be fully seen. Talking heads and power-hungry conference commissioners have completely bullied their way into becoming the center of the college basketball universe. Through “NIL” or pay-to-play and, soon enough, through twisting the arms of those around them into giving them more tournament bids.
The answer from the fans is clear: do not expand the tournament. A statement that should not be overlooked in its value. Fans are the ones that keep college sports alive. And now any person that votes to approve a tournament expansion will expose themselves as not having the true desires of those they represent at heart.
If it’s not broke, don’t fix it. Do not expand March Madness or watch as the spirit of what makes the tournament great dies as its operators crack the whip, turning the system into a meat factory where smaller market teams only exist to put blue bloods on a shinier pedestal.
The tournament shouldn’t need more teams in order to give mid-majors and smaller programs access. Using that as an argument only solidifies the idea that you believe it is perfectly fine to overlook those teams with the current system in favor of bigger market teams who may not have nearly the resumé needed to get in on their own merit.
And while the most recent meetings in which expansion discussions were held resulted in no official decision being made, make no mistake about it, the money hungry will continue to apply pressure to get what they want as soon as they can. Senior Vice President of Basketball at NCAA Dan Gavitt noted that changes could occur as soon as “in advance of the 2026 or 2027 championships.”
This tournament should not be some cash grab. The spirit of the game is lost with expansion.
