The NCAA Tournament format change means March Madness is over as we know it

"Where does it stop?" Flight of the Conchords co-star Jemaine Clement questioned his co-star Bret McKenzie on stage during a live performance. "It's just going to get into this ridiculous Russian doll situation."

This quote came to mind as I learned the NCAA was taking the final steps to expand the NCAA basketball tournament fields from 68 (including the play-in rounds) to 76, adding eight more teams to the bracket.

On the surface, this seems like a win-win for both the NCAA and the consumer, as more basketball games mean more nail-biting finishes, more buzzer-beaters, more Cinderella runs, and more of what makes March Madness the most exciting and entertaining postseason in all of sports. For the NCAA, more games mean more ticket sales, TV revenue, and ad share. For those reasons, expansion was inevitable.

But the timing of this decision is questionable, and the actual implementation of this change makes the NCAA's intentions perfectly clear. This expansion is not for the benefit of smaller schools hoping to get on the map and reap the benefits of NCAA Tournament inclusion; it's for the fringe power conference teams that feel short-changed for falling on the wrong side of the bubble.

The new format will face off all 16 seeds and half of the 15 seeds in a play-in before the round of 64. Almost as an expansion of the First Four, the higher number of participants will force mid-major conference champions to play their way into the bracket. If the goal of these programs is to play more basketball, then the play-in accomplishes that effortlessly. If the goal is to compete against the best programs in the country, half of the 16-seeds will have to miss out.

We all know why this is really happening, and it's the same issue that faces the College Football Playoff (though thankfully to a much lesser extent): power conferences like the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, and Big East want more representation, and the NCAA is happy to oblige.

On a fundamental level, this change won't impact the tournament at the highest level. Most casual viewers will probably hardly notice the format has changed at all. But when you account for the teams on last season's bubble, I'm harder-pressed to push for a smaller field of competitors, rather than a larger one.

Take a look at the losers on last season's bubble.

2026 NCAA Tournament snubs

Auburn Tigers (22-16, 7-11 SEC)
Oklahoma Sooners (21-16, 7-11 SEC)
Indiana Hoosiers (18-14, 9-11 Big Ten)
Stanford Cardinal (20-13, 9-9 ACC)

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, I suppose, and these were the squeakiest wheels of the 2026 season. Teams in challenging conferences that, when given the opportunity to prove they could compete with the best, failed to get Ws when it mattered most. It was teams like these that howled at the prospects of 1-loss Miami (OH) reaching the field of 68 -- teams that claim to be better by default, simply due to conference affiliation.

I'm sorry, but if your conference is too difficult to finish above .500, then you simply weren't good enough. Cut and dry.

From the NCAA's perspective, though, these teams deserve a chance at the national championship.

Returning to the quote from the first paragraph of this article, I have to ask the question why stop at 76? Why not try 84? 92? 100? My slippery slope fallacy aside, I just can't help but wonder at what point the regular season loses all significance beyond conference tournament positioning. College football's playoff issue often boils down to "why play the games at all?" I hope college hoops never comes to that.

I'm not going to lose sleep over receiving more of my favorite annual sporting event. Just remember that the reason for this change isn't for more basketball; it's for more power conference participants.

Add us as a preferred source on Google

Follow