The debate over NCAA tournament expansion continues to rage on, with the NCAA men’s and women’s basketball committees meeting last week to discuss plans to add four or eight teams to the field.

While wildly unpopular with fans of the sport (one poll on X by prominent college hoops personality Rob Dauster showed just under 94% disapproval of the concept), expansion has more popularity among college sports administrators and some coaches. Without significant new media rights money on the table, the main case for expansion as explained by many in positions of authority is “access.” The NCAA tournament is one of the most exclusive American postseason events, with fewer than 20% of the now 365 Division I teams getting an invite. That said, among the most common criticisms expressed is that an expanded field would only further cater to power-conference teams and still leave behind top mid-majors that often just miss the cut on Selection Sunday.

To better understand exactly what some of these models might look like, Sports Illustrated projected which teams would’ve newly found themselves dancing in a 72- and 76-team field for the last four tournaments, plus took a look at how a bigger field might impact the bracket itself.

2025 

First Four Out (Teams 69–72): 

  • West Virginia (19–13)
  • Indiana (19–13)
  • Ohio State (17–15)
  • Boise State (24–10)

Next Four (Teams 73–76, based on résumé metrics average): 

  • UC Irvine (28–6)
  • George Mason (26–8)
  • Wake Forest (21–11)
  • San Francisco (24–9)

2024 

First Four Out (Teams 69–72): 

  • Oklahoma (20–12)
  • Seton Hall (20–12)
  • Indiana State (28–6)
  • Pittsburgh (22–11)

Next Four (Teams 73–76, based on résumé metrics average): 

  • Syracuse (20–12)
  • Princeton (24–4)
  • Ohio State (20–13)
  • Kansas State (19–15)

2023 

First Four Out (Teams 69–72): 

  • Oklahoma State (18–15)
  • Rutgers (19–14)
  • North Carolina (20–13)
  • Clemson (23–10)

Next Four (Teams 73–76, based on résumé metrics average): 

  • Vanderbilt (20–14)
  • North Texas (26–7)
  • Wisconsin (17–14)
  • Oklahoma (15–17)

2022 

First Four Out (Teams 69–72): 

  • Dayton (23–10)
  • Oklahoma (18–15)
  • SMU (23–8)
  • Texas A&M (23–12)

Next Four (Teams 73–76, based on résumé metrics average): 

  • VCU (21–9)
  • North Texas (24–6)
  • Xavier (18–13)
  • St. Bonaventure (22–11)

Based on the selection committee’s First Four Out that are announced each Selection Sunday, we already have hard data on who’d benefit most from a move from 68 to 72. In the last four tournaments, just four non-power-conference teams (2025 Boise State, ’24 Indiana State, ’22 Dayton, ’22 SMU) were in those first four teams out of the field. SMU has already joined the power-conference elite, while Boise State will be in the reconstituted Pac-12 starting in 2026. Of the 12 high-majors that would newly crash the Dance in the last four years, just four finished better than .500 in conference play.

The further expansion to 76 does, at least on paper, look like it could widen tournament access more to mid-majors. That said, projecting who’d get these bids is much more an act of guesswork than the rise to 72. For consistency’s sake, this exercise used an average of the résumé-based metrics the committee uses and took the next four highest-rated teams after the 72 we know would be in the field. In many cases, that brought in top teams from smaller conferences, sometimes helping teams with gaudy records that lost in their conference tournaments like 2025 UC Irvine or ’24 Princeton, and in other circumstances benefiting strong mid-majors from the A-10, American and WCC that weren’t quite good enough to sneak in. In all, eight of these 16 newly projected tournament teams come from outside the power conferences.

That said, the power conference teams that do sneak in from these circumstances bring even greater levels of mediocrity to the bubble. Take 2023 Oklahoma, which went 15–17 and finished tied for last in the Big 12 but gets in under this hypothetical. While it’s certainly possible the committee could put a foot down and ignore sub-.500 teams, middling squads like a 17–14 Wisconsin squad that lost in the play-in round of the Big Ten tournament likely squeak in. Plus, it’s certainly possible the committee prefers the power conference résumés with more quality wins despite what the résumé metrics may say. Perhaps 17–14 Nebraska, which failed to even make the Big Ten tournament last season, might have stolen San Francisco’s spot. SMU, which failed to beat a single NCAA tournament team all season in its first year in the ACC, might’ve been viewed as more deserving than George Mason. 

That said, many conference commissioners outside the power conferences seem willing to take that risk. Take Atlantic 10 commissioner Bernadette McGlade, whose league has often been in the thick of bubble conversations but has gotten only one bid to the dance in two of the last three seasons and hasn’t gotten more than two in the field since 2018. In a statement to HoopsHQ’s Seth Davis, she cited multiple reasons for her support, most notably mentioning that expansion of the power conferences has “tipped the balance” and wanting to ensure that “basketball-centric conferences like the A-10” still have access to the tournament. 

Essentially, the argument laid out by McGlade is that in the 68-team system, power conferences have already gobbled up almost all the real estate anyway. And there’s a good case to be made that she’s right: In 2025, the Mountain West with four bids and the WCC with two were the only two multibid conferences outside the Power 4 and Big East … and three of the four Mountain West teams and one of the two WCC teams are joining the new Pac-12 in 2026. In 2024, the A-10 and American each sneaked in a second team, but no traditional one-bid leagues stole an at-large bid. Just a decade ago, no league put more than seven teams in the Big Dance. This year, the SEC alone snagged 14 bids, and the SEC, Big Ten and Big East ate up 26 of the 37 at-large bids. And in a world where it has become increasingly rare for power-conference schools to willingly schedule games against strong mid-majors capable of pushing for at-large bids, it’s hard to imagine that trend reversing anytime soon. Even if expansion may mostly boost the middling power-conference bubble teams, perhaps it’s the only hope for teams outside that to sneak back into the mix. 

Impact on the Bracket 

The bigger the expansion, the more significant the impact will be on the format of the bracket. In the current 68-team tournament, the four First Four games feature the four lowest-ranked teams on the seed list competing as No. 16 seeds and the four lowest-ranked at-large teams on the seed list fighting for a spot in the main draw, typically around the No. 11 seed line. 

Take the 2025 bracket, for instance. The entire No. 12 through No. 16 seeds on the seed list were automatic qualifiers, representing 21 of the 23 conferences that got only one bid. The lone exceptions: a “bid stealer” in Colorado State that landed as the top No. 12 seed and Memphis, which earned a No. 5 seed as the American’s only qualifier. Two of the four No. 11 seeds were determined in the First Four.

In that same format but with four more at-large teams playing in the opening round, the No. 10 and No. 11 lines become dominated with play-in games. In this year’s case, it would force all four No. 10 seeds to lose their bye to the Round of 64 and instead play in the First Four/Eight. Here’s how those matchups might play out, with the caveat that it’s possible the No. 12 seeds that danced as automatic qualifiers might have landed higher on the seed list than some of the newly dancing squads. 

  • No. 16 Alabama State vs. No. 16 Saint Francis
  • No. 16 American vs. No. 16 Mount St. Mary’s
  • No. 10 Arkansas vs. No. 10 New Mexico
  • No. 10 Vanderbilt vs. No. 10 Utah State
  • No. 10 Texas vs. No. 10 Xavier
  • No. 10 San Diego State vs. No. 10 North Carolina
  • No. 11 West Virginia vs. No. 11 Indiana 
  • No. 11 Ohio State vs. No. 11 Boise State

VCU and Drake were each automatic qualifiers that landed on the No. 11 line and would occupy those other two spots. 

The NCAA could avoid a fifth and sixth play-in game involving at-large teams by making all four No. 16 seed slots play in the First Four instead of just two. That might not produce quite as much additional television revenue (an important conversation given decision-makers’ reticence to see the size of each tournament unit shrink), but it might clean up the bracket some and protect teams further from the tournament cut line from having to play in the First Four. In 2025’s case, that’d mean Bryant and Omaha sliding from the No. 15 to No. 16 line. In doing so, you’d create something like this instead: 

  • No. 16 SIUE vs. No. 16 Norfolk State
  • No. 16 Omaha vs. No. 16 Bryant
  • No. 16 Alabama State vs. No. 16 Saint Francis
  • No. 16 American vs. No. 16 Mount St. Mary’s
  • No. 11 Texas vs. No. 11 Xavier
  • No. 11 San Diego State vs. No. 11 North Carolina
  • No. 12 West Virginia vs. No. 12 Indiana 
  • No. 12 Ohio State vs. No. 12 Boise State

While this format might decrease some of the shine smaller schools like Omaha or Bryant get from a March Madness run, there’s financial upside attached. The chance to play a second game in the tournament by winning in the play-in round doubles the number of TV units that would get distributed to their team’s league, a key financial windfall at a time when many small athletic departments are cash-strapped. How it might impact upsets is the other angle worth considering: It’d strengthen the No. 16 line, perhaps making some of the weaker No. 1 seeds a bit more vulnerable. However, it might force strong mid-majors that traditionally were major threats as No. 12 or No. 13 seeds into tougher first-round matchups. For instance, McNeese, which knocked off a vulnerable Clemson squad, would’ve dropped to a No. 13 seed and faced a tougher foe. 

Expand to 76, and things get quite a bit more messy. Depending on how many additional automatic bids are relegated to the play-in round, there could be as many as 20 at-large teams competing for spots in the main 64-team draw. That would totally reshape the end of the college basketball regular season, with serious drama in who could climb out of the play-in games, perhaps replacing some of the lost drama of top bubble games that we currently witness. Here’s the most extreme example, maintaining the status quo for No. 16 seeds and throwing all eight new teams into play-ins. 

No. 16 Alabama State vs. No. 16 Saint Francis
No. 16 American vs. No. 16 Mount St. Mary’s

No. 9 Seeds: 

  • Creighton vs. Georgia
  • Baylor vs. Oklahoma
  • Arkansas vs. New Mexico
  • Vanderbilt vs. Utah State

No. 10 Seeds: 

  • Texas vs. Xavier
  • North Carolina vs. San Diego State
  • VCU
  • Drake 

No. 11 Seeds: 

  • West Virginia vs. Indiana
  • Ohio State vs. Boise State
  • UC Irvine vs. George Mason
  • Wake Forest vs. San Francisco

Like in the 72-team example, the number of at-large teams involved could be condensed some by forcing more automatic qualifiers to play their way into the 64-team main bracket. But even so, playing 12 play-in games (the first batch of which tip off approximately 48 hours after the main selection show) would be a massive logistical hurdle to work out, ignoring the basketball implications of teams that traditionally would’ve been safely in the field being forced to play their way into the 64-team draw. 


This article was originally published on www.si.com as How NCAA Tournament Expansion Would Have Changed Last Four Events.

Test hyperlink for boilerplate