Wetzel: Please Don’t Broaden the NCAA Basketball Championships

A Hard Case Against Expansion

In a thrilling finish, Florida snatched victory while Houston faltered, failing to make a shot in the dying moments of the game. (1:06)

The strongest argument against increasing the NCAA basketball tournaments for both men and women beyond 68 teams is rather straightforward: there’s minimal demand for it.

Fans are not rallying for expansion. Current play-in games, known as the First Four, haven’t generated impressive viewership numbers to indicate a public desire. Moreover, no teams have been unjustly overlooked for a spot; after all, they had 30 regular-season opportunities to secure their bids. There’s no substantial competitive rationale for the change.

Voices of Dissent

Aside from a handful of coaches and athletic directors—who stand to gain financially if their teams reach March Madness—there’s a striking lack of advocates for this shift.

Recently, ESPN’s Pete Thamel mentioned that a proposal to extend the tournament to 76 teams is still under consideration, with an announcement expected soon. For the sake of everyone who cherishes college basketball, particularly the tournament, we implore: please don’t go ahead with it.

In reality, 68 teams might already be too many, as it necessitates awkward play-in contests on Tuesday and Wednesday in Dayton, Ohio, before the tournament kicks off on Thursday.

The Magic of March

While it’s true that more basketball in March won’t lead to dire consequences, it’s still a puzzling move. Why alter something that’s almost perfect, merely to appease a few mediocre teams and potentially pocket a bit more cash from television deals?

For decades, the NCAA has held a rare treasure—two full days on the sports calendar, coinciding with the first Thursday and Friday of the tournament. This period has become almost like a national holiday, with fans ditching work and school to tune in from their offices or during lunch breaks. It creates a wave of excitement, drawing in casual viewers who fill out brackets with teams they may have never watched before.

This level of engagement is what fuels the frenzy of March and has turned this uniquely American event into a cultural phenomenon, even as overall interest in the sport has faded.

Protecting the Tradition

It’s crucial to safeguard this tradition. The earlier expansions from 64 to 65 teams in 2001 and then to 68 in 2011 were errors that disrupted the tournament’s flow. Originally, these changes were reactions to conference shifts that required starting the tournament ahead of schedule. It’s akin to unwrapping Christmas gifts on Christmas Eve, lacking the same joy.

Fortunately, audiences have largely overlooked the Tuesday and Wednesday doubleheaders, maintaining the allure of Thursday. However, adding eight more teams would mean a full schedule of games on these days, likely leading to a dilution of fan interest and potential confusion.

What’s the purpose of this expansion anyway? There’s no compelling reason to do so. While Division I basketball has grown, with 355 teams eligible last year, making it harder to secure a spot, the increase is largely due to small leagues expanding with teams from lower divisions, which doesn’t impact the selection of quality teams for at-large bids.

In 2025, the Power 5 conferences dominated at-large selections, leaving little room for high-quality teams to be left out. With each conference hosting its own tournament, teams already have a chance to earn their way into the NCAA tournament.

Labeling the conference tournaments as a play-in round makes it clear that the NCAA tournament already offers more than enough opportunities for teams to compete.

Considering the tournament’s established rhythm within American sports culture, adding eight more teams defies logic. The motivation appears to revolve around financial incentives, particularly bonuses for athletic directors and coaches, rather than genuine viewer interest.

For those who benefit from this, it may seem like a sensible short-term strategy. However, a broader perspective reveals little to gain and much to lose.

In conclusion, 68 teams are definitely sufficient.