Sources: NCAA basketball tournaments set to move to 76 teams

I'll be honest I don't see the need for this, if you can't make it in a tournament that has 68 teams, you simply don't deserve to be there. I would be okay with this if it only involves non-big 4 conference teams, I would much rather watch teams that came in 2nd in their league than the 11th best B1G team or the 9th best Big 12 teams.

IMO, if you go to 76, at a minimum, you need to give both the regular season conference winner and the conference tourney winner auto bids. That would add some more non-power teams to the field.

……(sigh)…. Why?

Here’s one, how about you just let ‘everyone’ in the playoffs. It’s not a grouping of the best teams anyway.

51 minutes ago, 1Funduck said:

……(sigh)…. Why?

Here’s one, how about you just let ‘everyone’ in the playoffs. It’s not a grouping of the best teams anyway.

$$$$$$$

1 hour ago, Jon Joseph said:

Here’s one, how about you just let ‘everyone’ in the playoffs. It’s not a grouping of the best teams anyway

Yes! And, why stop at four year schools? Invite all the community colleges! Heck, we won’t even need a regular season anymore! October thru March Madness!

Think about this....the new 76 qualifiers includes women's teams also.

Aside from the top 8, and that's stretching it, the field is already too large when it comes to competitive games and possibility of reaching the Women's Final Four.

I can hear it now. All the whining and complaining about teams ranked 77-80 saying it's not fair. We should have been included! 😅🤣😂

Going to 76 will bring in additional and much-needed revenue.

College athletic departments have two Moneyball sports game inventory to market, football and men's basketball. With basketball a distant second to football.

This expansion may hurt the NIT, but would the athletes rather dance in the biggest ballroom? I believe so.

Consider the gauntlet Oregon men's and women's CBB teams face in the Big Ten, with the difficulty increased by travel demands. On the men's side, an 11th or 12th-place team in the Big Ten would deserve a spot in the tournament. And in CBB, the PO committee focuses on strength-of-schedule.

On the football front, Greg Sankey went to the SEC playing nine conference games because he thought Tony Petitti would fold, and 2026 would see a 16-team PO field.

On December 26, 2026, let's see where the SEC sits when the PO field is determined.

Miami and perhaps another ACC team, if the Canes do not finally win a conference title, will be in the field. The B12 champ is in. The highest-ranked G6 team is in. The B1G and the SEC champs are in. If Miami comes through, that's seven at-large (AL) spots to fill.

The Big Ten will take at least two of the AL spots, with a solid shot at a total of four teams in the field, and possibly more, depending on the outcome of the Ohio State at Texas, Oklahoma at Michigan, and Mississippi State at Minnesota games.

Three-loss Bama made the field last year because it's Bama. How many 3-loss SEC teams will knock out two-loss teams from other P4 conferences, especially two-loss teams from the Big Ten?

I'm happy to see the CBB field expanding, and I hope enough SEC teams suffer three losses and Sankey's constituents, except ESPN, demand a 24-team CFB PO field.

Tony Petitti was smart to support CBB expansion, and when it comes to CFB, Tony will soon be the smartest person in the room.

Love me some data, take from it what you will!

Pro Leagues (Approximate Percentages)

• NBA (Basketball): ~53% (16 of 30 teams).

• NHL (Hockey): ~50% (16 of 32 teams).

• NFL (Football): ~43% (14 of 32 teams).

• MLB (Baseball): ~40% (12 of 30 teams).

• MLS (Soccer): ~60% (18 of 30 teams). 

College Sports (Approximate Percentages)

• College Football Playoff (FBS): ~9% (12 of 130+ teams under the new 2024+ format).

• NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball: ~19-20% (68 of ~350+ teams)

College Baseball:

64 teams get to the playoffs out of 308 total D1 teams = only 21% make the NCAA playoffs. (20.77% to be precise)

Saw a video once of a kangaroo slam dunk. Why not?

So basketball can implement this into one off-season, yet football can't figure anything for years upon years. Do we really need 12 teams from the B1G or SEC? The answer is no, Auburn didn't deserve a bid with fifteen losses. Next year they'll get in with sixteen.

I'd like more mid majors, to me March Madness has been quite dull with straight chalk the last few years. Outside of SDSU and FAU in 2023, it's been pretty predictable.

Not trying to be data guy, but can fill that role for the thread. I was agreeing with the boring chalk comment in my head, so decided to research. So dark the con of man…the tourney masterfully provides the illusion of Maddness, and it certainly delivers opening week, but in the end:

Since the NCAA tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, seeds 1-4 have dominated, winning over 85% of championships. No. 1 seeds are the most successful, winning 24 of the 41 tournaments (58.5%) since 1979. No. 2 seeds follow with seven titles, while 3 and 4 seeds win significantly less often. 

NCAA.com

Championship Wins by Seed (Since 1985 expansion):

• No. 1 Seeds: ~58-60% (24+ titles)

• No. 2 Seeds: ~17% (7 titles)

• No. 3 Seeds: ~5-7%

• No. 4 Seeds: ~3-5% 

  NCAA.com +3

Key Findings:

• Dominant No. 1s: Since 1979, No. 1 seeds have won 24 of 41 championships.

• Final Four Presence: No. 1 seeds account for 40.6% of all Final Four spots since 1985.

• Highest Seeds Win: Since 1985, 35 of 40 champions (87.5%) were 1, 2, or 3-seeds.

• Rare Winners: Only one 8-seed (Villanova in 1985) has ever won the championship, making it the lowest seed to win.

• Consistency: 15 of the past 19 title winners have come from the top line (No. 1 seeds), according to NCAA.com data for 2026.