The case for (and against) an expanded NCAA Tournament

When the Michigan Wolverines won the 2023-24 College Football Playoff it was an achievement in itself, but it also signified history, serving as the end of the four-team playoff. That same feeling was not present when Dusty May cut down the nets last month (for a variety of reasons), but that Michigan team will also be known as the final champion of a specific NCAA Tournament era. Of course, changes to the size of the postseason is nothing new.

March Madness only included 64 teams starting in 1985, added a 65th in 2001, then introduced the First Four in 2011. While the 68-team era lasted longer than the four-team CFP, it is not like expansion is a foreign concept that has not been prevalent over the past decade. Nonetheless, support for these additions seems minimal.

Regarding the all-but-confirmed expansion to a 76-team tournament with 12 play-in games, I am not in love with the direction we are heading. But in all fairness, here are some pros and cons to consider when evaluating the new college basketball landscape. Con: Devalued Regular Season My biggest gripe with expanding the NCAA Tournament is less about the event itself, as adding more games on Tuesday and Wednesday is exciting at best and non-impactful at worst.

For those who are so strongly against these changes that they want to boycott the play-in round — totally fair! No arguments here. However, the biggest issue is that the bubble is going to turn from an exciting race to essentially a non-factor.