Candid Coaches: Should the NCAA Tournament remain at 68 teams, or expand to 72 or 76?

BleedGopher · Sep 4, 2024

Per CBS:

We've been waiting ever since to see what would come of said exploration. They're still exploring.

What was decided earlier this summer by the Division I men's basketball committee: The NCAA Tournament bracket is not going to be subject to significant expansion. If it expands, it will either inflate to 72 or 76 teams, no more. Staying at 68 also remains on the table. The timetable for that verdict remains TBD because it's a major consideration that is being seriously and deliberately examined by many of the key players in college athletics.

This is admittedly a topic that's not exactly the most ... objective for our voting populace. But we just had to know, so we asked a wide swath of coaches ...

Should the NCAA Tournament stay at 68, or expand to 72 or 76?

Expand to 76	38%
Stay at 68	35%
Expand to 72	27%

Quotes that stood out

Those who voted for 68

"My choice will always be 68. It's hard as hell to make it. I did it as a player. It's such a finite line that you have to be perfect down the stretch and into March to make it. We won our [mid-major] league, but we knew the only way to make it was to win the tournament and it took an overtime fadeaway 3 at the buzzer to get there. It was earned and that's the way it should be if you're not a Power Five. It's a very special 68 with 68 different stories."
"The current format works well and maintains a competitive balance. Keeping it as is preserves the tradition and excitement of the tournament."
"Keep it at 68. If high-majors can't get at-larges based off that, c'mon, man. Y'all got all the money, all the resources, 15 staff members. If you still can't make the tourney, that's your fault, not the committee."
"No reason to keep adding more mediocre Power Five schools — which is all that would happen."
"It's been so successful for years. I know college football is a little different and you shut out so many good teams, but that's what separates us from professional sports. You really gotta work to be good to get into the tournament. Letting more teams in, a team that's not as deserving gets in and it diminishes the quality of the tournament."
"I'd love them to expand because I'm trying to keep my job. We do have the best tournament, so you don't want to mess with it, so I'd stay at 68."
"It is perfect the way it is. The four or eight teams they would be adding are usually average, underachieving Power Five programs who've proven over four months not to be worthy."
"Doesn't make it better. Those extra teams won't really have done anything of significance to separate themselves as deserving. Just a bigger bubble of OK teams."
"We don't have the teams to go to 72 and the women definitely don't have the teams to go to 72."

Those who voted for 72

"I would expand to 72 and make the 'First Eight' the last eight in off the bubble. Stop making low- and mid-majors who won their leagues/tournaments play in Dayton. They earned it. A below-.500-in-league Big Ten team should be the ones earning their spot."
"There are always roughly four teams that 'deserve' to be in that are on the bubble. Those four getting the chance make it much more clear. More than four more teams would drastically change the field, though. Four is the perfect number."
"Make 11-seeds all play-in games and 16-seeds are automatic qualifiers. Tuesday will have a little more buzz, maybe make Wednesday as well."
"Expand. Too many subjective variables in selecting bubble teams. We've expanded Division I so we should expand the tournament. Every time the tournament has expanded there's been naysayers. It hasn't hurt it. It helped it."

Those who voted for 76

"Seventy-six, but only if auto-bids are automatically in the 64-team bracket. I think the additional 12 teams should play an expanded version of the First Four. What I do not want to see is the eight additional mediocre Power Five teams that get into the tournament get seeded directly into the 64-team bracket and 14s, 15s and 16s all have to play in."
From a low-major coach: "Would have the 15- and 16-seeds play each other to advance to play 1- and 2-seeds."
"I greatly dislike the play-in games, so if they can come up with a number that's not outrageous but eliminates play-in games (and worst-case maybe creates byes for the top seeds) that would be ideal. I think the play-in round significantly lessens the NCAA experience for the players/coaches."
"I'm in a one-bid league at a place where job security is tied directly to making the NCAA Tournament. Let's make it more feasible for non-Power Fives to get an at-large."
"As a mid-major coach, I think the more access we have the better. I know the high-major teams will take most of the additions, but I'd rather fight for a spot or two than stay with the current model. As someone who has played in the NCAA tourney and coached in it, I hate the venom out there toward expansion. There is no better experience than playing in the NCAA tournament and what comes with it. We should all want more of that for our players."
"I would like to see [76] only if more good mid-majors are truly considered and not another Power Five that's not even .500 in their conference. If it's not done for more mid-majors, then keep it at 68."