Winners and Losers of NCAA Tournament Expansion: Who benefits or suffers in new 76-team March Madness bracket

College basketball is expected to undergo a seismic shift during the 2026-27 season amid the anticipation of likely NCAA Tournament expansion. The 68-team format that American sports fans came to know and love is on the way out, and a 76-team format featuring a beefed up “opening round” is on the way in.

Though the move still must clear some bureaucratic hurdles within the NCAA’s legislative structure before it’s official, it is viewed mostly as a foregone conclusion now that the Big Dance will undergo its most seismic transformation since it grew to 64 teams in 1985.

This long-anticipated shift will bring significant fallout — for better or worse — as the sport’s many stakeholders grapple with seismic change to the postseason event that serves as the nexus of the entire season. The only constant in college sports these days is change, and that change is now coming to the NCAA Tournament. 

As we look ahead and attempt to unwind the ramifications here’s an early look at the winners and losers from Tuesday’s news that the NCAA Tournament is expected to expand to 76 teams.

Winners: Power conferences gain more power

The ACC, Big 12, Big Ten and SEC staunchly favored expansion, and now they have it. Data from the last several years suggests those conferences — and the Big East — will benefit the most in terms of soaking up the eight additional spots in the field. When applying the 76-team format to the 2026 Bracketology picture, the five high-major leagues would likely have received six additional bids while the Mountain West would have benefitted with two additional bids.

Within this win for the high-major conferences, there is also a loss. For coaches at power conference schools, there are now even fewer excuses for failing to reach the NCAA Tournament. Numerous teams with losing records in conference play are going to get in, and if you aren’t one of them, it will reflect poorly. Furthermore, merely reaching the Big Dance won’t be the achievement that it used to be as the door swings wider to admit more mediocre teams from high-major leagues.

Losers: Life gets tougher for most mid-majors 

Where the hits come is with the little guys. In the new format, the 12 worst-seeded automatic qualifiers will be slotted into the “opening round” and forced to play their way into the round of 64. That means the first round (round of 64) will feature significantly fewer low-major programs than in past years.

Additionally, there’s a natural seeding depression that will come as a result of the changing format. For example, if the 76-team format were applied to the 2026 field, all of the No. 12 seeds in the 2026 bracket would likely have been No. 13 seeds. All of the No. 13 seeds would have been No. 14 seeds. All of the No. 14 seeds would have been pushed down to the No. 15 seed line, and two of them would have been forced into opening round action. There will also be eight No. 16 seeds in the new format.

Not only will many of the little guys now be required to play in the preliminary round, they will also have less-favorable seedings, which means their first round opponents will be better if they are fortunate enough to advance out of their opening matchup.

Winners: Top mid-major conferences could benefit 

While the high-major conferences are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries, there is upside to expansion for quality mid-major leagues like the Atlantic 10, Missouri Valley and the re-formed Pac-12. Even if just 1-3 of the additional eight bids per year go to at-large teams from mid-major leagues, that’s more bites at the apple than they had before. 

The 2024 Indiana State team that got snubbed would have made the field in a 76-team format. San Diego State and New Mexico likely would have made it this past season, and Belmont and Tulsa would also have been a legitimate part of the 2026 bubble discussion. The high-major conferences are poised to benefit more significantly, but the good mid-major leagues should only stand to gain.

Losers: Casual college basketball fans could be confused 

For millions of casual sports fans, filling out a bracket is an annual rite of passage that serves as an easy entry point into the world of college basketball. But the task just got more complicated. Gone is the visual simplicity of the old format. Now, there is a clunky structure in which 12 of the 32 first-round matchups won’t be known until the middle of the tournament’s first week.

Those with any interest in predicting upsets in the No. 6 vs. No. 11 or No. 5 vs. No. 12 matchups will need to wait until late Wednesday night or early Thursday morning to finalize their brackets. The alternative is that all brackets will have to be finalized before opening round action begins on Tuesday, which would leave fans just 48 hours after the Selection Show to get their brackets squared away.

That’s going to convolute the timing around office pools and family games, which risks making the Big Dance less engaging to the general population. The simplicity of the old format was part of its beauty, and some of that has now been sacrificed.

Winner: Charlie Baker gets his wish

NCAA president Charlie Baker has long advocated for expansion of the NCAA Tournament. Now, he is about to officially get it. Amid a tumultuous period for the body tasked with governing college sports, pushing through something as big as this is a win. Even though public opinion is widely considered to be anti-expansion, this is a savvy political play for Baker because it should placate the power conferences. Why is that important?

A world in which those leagues divorce themselves entirely from the NCAA to create their own football-driven super league separate from the NCAA isn’t as far-fetched as you might think. That would be a nightmare for the NCAA, whose financial viability as an organization is dependent on its annual men’s basketball tournament being a cash cow. Expansion is a nod to the power wielded by those conferences — specifically the Big Ten and the SEC. They are the NCAA’s most important clients, and to remain a viable business, the NCAA needed to keep those clients fat and happy. 

Losers: Road gets tougher for No. 1 and No. 2 seeds

Whether or not it leads to an uptick in major upsets is anyone’s guess. But first round games for No. 1 and No. 2 seeds will likely be somewhat more difficult now. Previously, all No. 1 seeds were guaranteed to be playing one of the six worst-seeded teams in their first game. Now, there are eight No. 16 seeds, meaning a couple of teams that would have been No. 15 seeds under the old format could wind up playing No. 1 seeds in the first round.

Furthermore, two teams that would have been slotted as No. 14 seeds under the prior format will now be seeded as No. 15 seeds participating in an opening round game for the right to play a No. 2 seed. That means those No. 2 seeds are liable to be playing a better team — and one that will be feeling good coming off an opening round victory — to open their journeys.

Losers: Other postseason events take a hit

College basketball’s other postseason events will see a dilution in their team quality now that the Big Dance will be gobbling up eight schools that otherwise would have been prime candidates for either the NIT or the College Basketball Crown. Finding halfway decent high-major participants for those events was already a challenge. Now, it will be even tougher.