The NCAA is finalizing plans to increase the size of the pool of March Madness teams from 68 to 76. Though the characteristics of these additional eight additional play-in teams have yet to be formally announced, adding the next best eight at-large teams seems plausible. Unfortunately, increasing the size of the tournament is unnecessary, and has unintended consequences.
Since 2021, there have been 24 teams that have played in the play-in games that were the last teams selected for at-large bids. Amongst them, eight have been from mid-majors and 16 have been from power conferences. Adding additional play-in games would certainly add two or more mid-major teams into the tournament each year.
One issue is that many, if not all of these teams will forgo playing in the National Invitational Tournament (NIT). If the NIT is to continue, they in turn would need to offer teams that would otherwise participate in the College Basketball Crown (an eight team tournament), jeopardizing its existence. Two other tournaments (the College Basketball Invitational and the CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament) did not play in 2026. This trickle-down effect would place the College Basketball Crown at risk of closing down.
Every year, there are one or two teams who feel that they got a raw deal from the Selection Committee. Whether it was their NET ranking, the number of Quad 1 wins, or a poor conference record, some blemish would preclude them from being selected. Yet moving the number of teams from 68 to 76 will not change that. It will simply move the line in the sand a bit lower in the pecking order of team rankings.
Adding eight at-large teams also adds eight additional play-in games. Some will pit the bottom feeders of power conferences against each other, or one of these teams against a very good mid-major. In 2026, the eight NIT teams seeded No.1 or No. 2 were Auburn, New Mexico, Tulsa, Wake Forest, California, Nevada, Dayton, and Oklahoma State. Auburn was viewed by some as the first team out of the NCAA tournament. They also ended up winning the NIT.
All that adding eight teams to the NCAA tournament does is move a portion of the NIT into the play-in rounds. If the goal is to have more teams participate, then why not add 16 additional teams, or half of the NIT field?
Adding eight additional at-large teams will also increase the number of teams seeded No.11, No.12, and No. 13. In general, the last four at-large teams would participate in the play-in games, as well as automatic bid teams from mid-majors. Such a rule should be explicitly worked out prior to the field expansion.
Some may argue that money is driving this expansion. The NCAA has stated that the net revenue gain will be modest. Whether more people will tune-in to watch more games on Tuesday and Wednesday before the main bracket games are played remains to be seen. Certainly, the fans of these teams will watch. How many more will engage is unclear. The main attraction for these games is that the winners will feed into the main bracket, which people need to know when participating in bracket competitions.
Then there is the women’s tournament. Will they also be expanded from 68 to 76 teams??
The excitement of March Madness grows as the tournament proceeds, particularly during the round of 64 games when low-major teams search for upsets of high-power conference teams, on the second weekend when teams fight to survive and advance, and finally in the Final Four. It is then that the best teams remain and the quality of the competition is at its highest. Play-in games do not offer such excitement.
The NCAA expanded the tournament to 68 teams in 2011. There was even talk of increasing it to 128 or 96 teams at that time. It now took another 16 years to move from 68 to 76 teams.
Change is hard, and expanding the tournament by eight teams is one change that does not add much upside to a tournament that already attracts much media and popular attention. If a team cannot make the field of 68, should they be offered the opportunity to make an expanded field? Given that more does not mean better, such an expansion just does not add up.