NCAA Tournament expansion as early as next season.

[muwarrior69]

https://nypost.com/2025/05/29/sports/ncaa-looking-to-expand-march-madness-as-soon-as-next-season-in-shocker/

I wonder if this will happen.

[brewcity77]

I've been tilting at the 80-team expansion windmill for 3 years, and after the season ended I put together a 12-page expansion plan to go to 80 teams. By coincidence, I was finally ready to send it out today, the same day Charlie Baker talked about 72 or 76 (both of which would be mistakes, IMO).

I have an email list of a little over 2,000 league officials, athletics administrators, and coaches that I've compiled over the past couple weeks. I am in the process of sending my expansion plan out to all of them today. They'll probably bull ahead to a poor decision before I'm able to get any traction, but hoping I can get the discussion pushed in a positive direction (which 80 would be).

[Uncle Rico]

I've been tilting at the 80-team expansion windmill for 3 years, and after the season ended I put together a 12-page expansion plan to go to 80 teams. By coincidence, I was finally ready to send it out today, the same day Charlie Baker talked about 72 or 76 (both of which would be mistakes, IMO).

I have an email list of a little over 2,000 league officials, athletics administrators, and coaches that I've compiled over the past couple weeks. I am in the process of sending my expansion plan out to all of them today. They'll probably bull ahead to a poor decision before I'm able to get any traction, but hoping I can get the discussion pushed in a positive direction (which 80 would be).

If they go to 80 teams, the gap between Marquette and the top of the Big East will be enormous

[HutchwasClutch]

Great.  Let's add 4-12 more mediocre to lousy teams and water the event down some more.  All because coaches think more teams equals better chances getting in the field and keeping their jobs. 

[tower912]

I feel that way about posters.

[PJDunn]

The odds of the tourney getting expanded—- high

The odds of the powers that be listening to some rando MU scooper —- ZERO

[brewcity77]

Great.  Let's add 4-12 more mediocre to lousy teams and water the event down some more.  All because coaches think more teams equals better chances getting in the field and keeping their jobs. 

The event wouldn't be watered down at all, the field would be strengthened.

[1SE]

I've been tilting at the 80-team expansion windmill for 3 years, and after the season ended I put together a 12-page expansion plan to go to 80 teams. By coincidence, I was finally ready to send it out today, the same day Charlie Baker talked about 72 or 76 (both of which would be mistakes, IMO).

I have an email list of a little over 2,000 league officials, athletics administrators, and coaches that I've compiled over the past couple weeks. I am in the process of sending my expansion plan out to all of them today. They'll probably bull ahead to a poor decision before I'm able to get any traction, but hoping I can get the discussion pushed in a positive direction (which 80 would be).

[muwarrior69]

Great.  Let's add 4-12 more mediocre to lousy teams and water the event down some more.  All because coaches think more teams equals better chances getting in the field and keeping their jobs. 

...but with the court settlement perhaps the players will get a cut of that money not just the conferences and individual schools.

[The Sultan]

Great.  Let's add 4-12 more mediocre to lousy teams and water the event down some more.  All because coaches think more teams equals better chances getting in the field and keeping their jobs. 

You are not required to watch every game.

[Uncle Rico]

...but with the court settlement perhaps the players will get a cut of that money not just the conferences and individual schools.

More work for accountants

[tower912]

Teach the student athletes how to keep two sets of books.

[PointWarrior]

I've been tilting at the 80-team expansion windmill for 3 years, and after the season ended I put together a 12-page expansion plan to go to 80 teams. By coincidence, I was finally ready to send it out today, the same day Charlie Baker talked about 72 or 76 (both of which would be mistakes, IMO).

I have an email list of a little over 2,000 league officials, athletics administrators, and coaches that I've compiled over the past couple weeks. I am in the process of sending my expansion plan out to all of them today. They'll probably bull ahead to a poor decision before I'm able to get any traction, but hoping I can get the discussion pushed in a positive direction (which 80 would be).

Be sure to include Muggsy's 5 point plan as well - every little bit helps.

[tower912]

Open 3 and open lay up equals a 5 point plan.  Who needs the mid range?

[barfolomew]

I feel that way about posters.

I'm not worried. My Scoop buyout is too large.

[tower912]

I'm not worried. My Scoop buyout is too large.

I was told that your buyout was NIL.

[brewcity77]

The odds of the tourney getting expanded—- high

The odds of the powers that be listening to some rando MU scooper —- ZERO

So far, I've received feedback from multiple athletic directors, multiple coaches, a conference commissioner, and Dan Gavitt. So the odds of the powers that be listening to some rando MU scooper have moved from zero to 100%.

[Nukem2]

So far, I've received feedback from multiple athletic directors, multiple coaches, a conference commissioner, and Dan Gavitt. So the odds of the powers that be listening to some rando MU scooper have moved from zero to 100%.

Whats the general tone of the feedback?

[brewcity77]

Whats the general tone of the feedback?

Mostly positive, some neutral or non-committal (but I'm sure Dan Gavitt couldn't come out and say "I'll push this").

Strongest support is from mid-major leagues; WCC, A10, SoCon.

[Shaka Shart]

Teach the student athletes how to keep two sets of books.

Have we ever had any basketball players go onto dental school?

[DoctorV]

Mostly positive, some neutral or non-committal (but I'm sure Dan Gavitt couldn't come out and say "I'll push this").

Strongest support is from mid-major leagues; WCC, A10, SoCon.

Where can we see the proposal, or a cliffs-notes version for the tldr crowd?

[brewcity77]

Where can we see the proposal, or a cliffs-notes version for the tldr crowd?

For the most part, it's based on this Cracked Sidewalks article from December 2024. I've started trying to copy the PDF into a CS post, but there are a number of formatting issues that have made that a pain so far.

Here's a quick bullet-point version:

• Any expansion has to remain in the current calendar (per Dan Gavitt), which means the best expansion dates are Tuesday/Wednesday. To fill primetime windows on Tues/Weds the max number of teams would be going to 80. I think it's better to go directly to 80 because if they expand to 72 or 76, it's only a matter of time before they get to 80 anyway. The NCAA Tournament expanded 8 times from 1966-1985, with repeated criticism along the way. Avoid that by expanding once.
• 12 new at-large bids would be determined by the Selection Committee. My example field included the First Four Out, NIT 1-seeds, the top three Crown teams, and Wake.
• Play-in games would be fixed to seed lines. 11, 13 (at-large), 15, & 16 (auto) seeds would always be play-in games. This puts play-in games in the same cities/arenas that the Rounds of 64 & 32 occur in on Tuesday/Wednesday. This guarantees two play-in games per site (one per pod) and minimizes in-week travel.
• Tuesday/Wednesday would basically have a primetime slate that mirrored Thursday/Friday. These would be the most competitive games (on paper) of any in the first week of the Tournament.
• By eliminating 8 teams on the 15/16 lines, it strengthens the R64 field. Getting rid of the weakest auto-bids will mean the 16, 15, 14, & 12 lines are all stronger, and the teams playing in on the 13 line will be stronger metrically than old 12s would have been. Basically, every line from 12-16 will be better than ever before.

If you want the full plan, DM me your email address and I can send it over. It's probably about a 25 minute read.

[wadesworld]

I like the little guys getting the true first round games and always will. Plus I'd actually watch the "first four" (or 8, or however many games it is) if it's all at large teams.

[brewcity77]

I like the little guys getting the true first round games and always will. Plus I'd actually watch the "first four" (or 8, or however many games it is) if it's all at large teams.

The little guys prefer to get First Four games. It's a huge benefit financially as it's the best chance for the smallest single-bid leagues to get multiple NCAA Tournament credits. It has also been a huge boon for the 15/16 seeds odds of winning R64 games.

From 1985-2010, 15 & 16 seeds went 4-204 in their first round games, giving them just 1.92% chance of winning. Since 2011, 15 & 16 seeds are more than four times more likely to win a R64 game, going 9-103 (8.04%) in that time. That's because mathematically, the two "worst" 16s are knocked out, which pushes 15-seeds to the 16 line and 14-seeds to the 15 line.

If people truly want to see giant-killers, the best way to have that happen is not by letting all the one-bid league winners into the R64, but making sure the one-bid league winners in the R64 are the strongest ones possible.

And, admittedly, part of it is just economics. The P4 schools likely won't agree to all at-large play-in games because they lose credit opportunity in the R64 and beyond. Currently, the R64 effectively has 46 at-large caliber teams with single-bid leagues (generally) making up the last 22 bids on the 12-16 seed lines. When that cuts to 64, there are 44 at-large caliber and 20 single-bids. Expanding to 80 and splitting the play-ins would shift that dynamic to 48 & 16.

This would guarantee more single-bid leagues get two credits and would give them a better chance of winning R64 games, but at the expense of the number of them still standing when the R64 starts. And if the 16 games were all at-large teams, that would have put Marquette in a play-in game last year, and the play-in games would have went all the way up to S-Curve #24 Ole Miss. Not that Marquette or Ole Miss can't be in play-in games, but teams on the 6/7 lines feel a bit high to be play-in teams, IMO.

[muwarrior69]

Have we ever had any basketball players go onto dental school?

Maybe from the women's team? After all for every 43 men admitted there are 57 women admitted to  Marquette's Dental School of Criminology.