It has been 40 years since the NCAA Tournament’s last major expansion, but this March could mark the last dance for the 68-team brackets as we know them.
The powers-that-be in college basketball are considering an increase to either 72 or 76 participants. Dan Gavitt, who oversees basketball for the NCAA, recently told CBS Sports that expansion is “definitely not a fait accompli.”
While that might be true for 2026, many believe the tournament is destined to expand eventually.
The SEC, Big Ten, ACC and Big 12 want more access.
“The prospect of expanding the tournament — call it what it is: It’s in discussion,” West Coast Conference commissioner Stu Jackson said recently during a wide-ranging conversation on ‘Canzano and Wilner: The Podcast.’
“Who’s motivating that discussion? It’s no secret that part of that motivation is coming from the power conferences, who feel that, because they invest more dollars in athletics, they should have more access.
“You can argue with the reasoning, because if investment level truly guaranteed you access and success, the Yankees win the World Series every year.”
The case for tournament expansion is straightforward: Since the brackets took their current shape in 1985, only four spots have been added. (The First Four was created in 2011.) But during that time, the number of schools in Division I has grown exponentially.
Of course, the Power Four aren’t pushing for expansion because the Southland Conference has added members. The latest round of realignment left them bloated, and they want more seats at the table.
The last thing the tournament needs is more 19-13 teams from the SEC and Big 12. The event’s mainstream popularity is rooted in the success of schools outside the power leagues. But there’s no guarantee the extra bids would be awarded to 25-win teams that lose in the Missouri Valley Conference or Horizon League championship games.
There is concern, too, that expansion would be accompanied by a change in the brackets that move all the automatic qualifiers from one-bid leagues (think: UMBC, Loyola and St. Peter’s) into the First Four, ensuring they would cannibalize each other before the round-of-64 begins.
Jackson, a member of the Division I basketball committee (aka: the selection committee), said the WCC could support expansion.
“My personal view is (expansion) is fine with me,” he said. “I don’t think the tournament is broken. If you’re talking about adding four more teams, eight more teams in an effort to appease the Power Four conference, and perhaps conferences like ours gaining one or two more spots, I’m all for it.”
But Jackson’s support would carry a crucial caveat:
“As long as the value of the basketball unit that many conferences around the country rely on for their athletic department budget isn’t compromised.”
The NCAA’s basketball performance fund awards approximately $350,000 for each game played (except the championship), then distributes the dollars earned every year for six years.
A trip to the Sweet 16 for Saint Mary’s, for example, would generate three units for the WCC worth $350,000 for six years — or $6.3 million. That revenue is shared equally by the conference members.
This is where expansion gets complicated.
Adding eight teams to the field — a second First Four, played somewhere other than Dayton — would require the NCAA to cover team travel, officials, game operations and, of course, the additional units for performance. But the March Madness contract with CBS and Turner doesn’t expire until the summer of 2032.
How could the NCAA cover the jump in cost without access to more TV revenue all while not reducing the existing unit value?
Related Articles
CFB recruiting roundup: Top out-of-state offensive targets for Pac-12 legacy schools
Mailbag: Merger scenarios for the Pac-12, Big 12, ACC, Big East and AAC
Mountain West approaches Pac-12 about mediation over poaching penalty lawsuit
Stanford AD Bernard Muir resigns: What the move says about the future of Cardinal football
Big 12 MBB outlook: Controversy-free Selection Sunday awaits
“If financially, the NCAA was able to somehow negotiate an expansion of the tournament that brings in more revenue as to not compromise that unit, okay,” Jackson said.
Another concern: The Power Four would force the NCAA to alter the revenue distribution model and use the threat of breaking away as leverage.
That sounds extreme, but it’s exactly the tactic SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and the Big Ten’s Tony Petitti used last spring to gain control of the College Football Playoff. They threatened to create their own postseason event unless the other conferences granted them control over the playoff format starting in 2026.
Fast forward to the present day, and the Big Two are pushing for a revamped, 14-team playoff structure that gives each of them four automatic bids.
Before the season begins, more than half the CFP slots would be reserved for the two conferences.
Naturally, the concept has encountered resistance — even ESPN is opposed — but the SEC and Big Ten could get their way.
Jackson and his peers across Division I should be wary of the Power Four using similar tactics to alter March Madness in a manner that reduces revenue and squeezes access for the smaller conferences.
And if they threaten to break away and destroy the best sporting event in the country, stand tall, dig in and call their bluff.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline
