When the idea of expanding the NCAA Tournament to 76 teams first surfaced, the reaction was one of cautious doubt. The author recalled a similar unease that followed the College Football Playoff's growth to 12 teams, a move he felt had stripped the sport of some of its cherished traditions.
Why the Playoff Expansion Became a Cautionary Tale
In college football, the playoff's enlargement meant that a handful of random Saturday matchups began to resemble the opening weekend of March Madness, diluting the sense of occasion that once made those games feel special. The regular season, once the true determinant of championship contention, was now just a prelude to a larger, more crowded postseason.
The author argues that the same risk looms over basketball if the tournament simply adds more at‑large bids without a thoughtful structure. Oversaturation could dilute the magic of the single‑elimination format that fans have come to love.
A Structured Fix: The First 24 Play‑In
To address the dilemma, he proposes an expanded play‑in round dubbed the "First 24." This stage would grant automatic spots to the top regular‑season champions from one‑bid conferences, while the remaining slots would be filled by at‑large selections of deserving teams from across the spectrum of conference strength.
The First 24 would function as a miniature tournament within the larger March Madness, creating a high‑stakes bridge between power‑conference programs and mid‑to‑low‑major schools. It would give the latter a concrete pathway to prove themselves on the national stage.
Under this layout, automatic qualifiers might include programs such as Belmont, Miami (OH), Stephen F. Austin, Utah Valley and Yale, while at‑large invitations could go to teams like Auburn, Missouri, New Mexico, NC State, Oklahoma, San Diego State, Santa Clara, SMU, Texas, Texas A&M and UCF. Each of these selections would add a fresh narrative thread to the bracket.
The author believes that this approach could preserve the excitement and tradition of the NCAA Tournament while delivering on the promise of more Cinderella stories. By giving mid‑major programs a legitimate chance to compete, the tournament could retain its unpredictable charm without sacrificing the integrity of its core format.
In the end, the proposal offers a middle ground: a larger field that still respects the sport’s heritage, and a carefully designed play‑in that ensures the added teams have earned their place through performance rather than mere invitation.