March Madness men's and women's tournament field will stay at 68 teams in 2026 but could expand in 2027
FacebookTweetLink
The next edition of March Madness will stay the same size in 2026.
The NCAA is sticking with 68 teams for this upcoming season for the field size of the men's and women's basketball tournaments – though the discussion of future expansion is still on the table.
'Expanding the tournament fields is no longer being contemplated for the 2026 men's and women's basketball championships,' said Dan Gavitt, the NCAA's senior vice president of basketball. 'However, the committees will continue conversations on whether to recommend expanding to 72 or 76 teams in advance of the 2027 championships.'
According to the Associated Press, the spring NCAA president Charlie Baker expressed interest in expansion and wanted a decision made in the next few months.
In 1939, the inaugural NCAA men's basketball tournament had eight teams. It expanded to 16 teams in 1951, jumped up to 32 teams in 1975, and then doubled to 64 teams in 1985. It expanded to 68 teams in 2011.
The women's tournament began as a 32-team field in 1982 and adopted the 64-team field format in 1994. The current format of 68 teams has been in effect since 2022.
The 2026 NCAA men's Final Four will be held at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis. In 2027, it will be at Ford Field in Detroit.
The NCAA women's Final Four in 2026 will be held in Phoenix at PHX Arena, while Columbus, Ohio, plays host in 2027 at Nationwide Arena.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
MrBeast Plans LeBron James vs. Michael Jordan Matchup With One Condition
MrBeast Plans LeBron James vs. Michael Jordan Matchup With One Condition originally appeared on Fadeaway World. In what can only be described as the most audacious idea yet to settle the greatest debate in basketball history, YouTube titan MrBeast has floated a fantasy matchup that would break the internet: LeBron James vs. Michael Jordan in a one-on-one duel. But there's a catch: LeBron would be handicapped. 'Like, so one of my most viewed videos in the last year is where I had Ronaldo 1v1 like a random fan for a million dollars. People loved it." "And so I was just randomly thinking the other day, I was like, imagine if we got LeBron and Michael Jordan to 1v1, but we like handicapped LeBron in some way. They would never do it, but like imagine if we could get that to happen. You know how fucking crazy that would be?' Yes, you read that right. Jimmy Donaldson, better known as MrBeast, recently appeared in a co-stream with fellow internet star Adin Ross, where he casually dropped the bombshell. Reflecting on a past video where Cristiano Ronaldo took on a random fan with $1 million at stake, MrBeast proposed a similarly wild challenge: get LeBron and MJ to go head-to-head. To level the playing field, considering Jordan is now 62 and LeBron is still an athletic monster at 40, the YouTuber suggested handicapping the Los Angeles Lakers star. Of course, the internet exploded with suggestions. Tie LeBron's shoes together. Make him play blindfolded. Take away his dominant hand. Or, as some joked, just don't let him score. It's absurd and clearly not meant to be taken entirely seriously, but the mere thought of this dream scenario sent fans into a frenzy. It's worth noting that this isn't just any fan's delusion. MrBeast is arguably the most influential content creator on the planet, with the financial means and global reach to at least make a pitch to both legends. Adin Ross was quick to hype up the idea, saying if anyone could make it happen, it was MrBeast. Even if it never sees the light of day, the buzz was immediate and relentless. Let's face it, this matchup will almost certainly never happen. Not because people don't want it, but because both LeBron and Jordan have far too much to lose. At their core, both are fiercely competitive and legacy-conscious. Neither would want to walk away with an 'L,' even if the circumstances were absurd. A handicapped exhibition would invite questions, memes, and media pressure that no PR team on Earth would willingly invite. Still, the idea isn't entirely without precedent. LeBron has openly admitted to once sharing the court with MJ in a pickup game when he was just 16. It wasn't one-on-one, but it happened. That story, where a teenage LeBron faced legends like Penny Hardaway and Ron Artest alongside Jordan, has only added to the mythical allure surrounding both players. Jordan, for his part, was once known to challenge Charlotte Bobcats players to competitive games well into his 40s and early 50s. But 62? That's a different beast altogether. Meanwhile, LeBron just wrapped up a season where he averaged 24.4 points and 8.2 assists per game, ranked 13th in scoring, and finished sixth in MVP voting, at 40 years old. Even with a handicap, it's hard to envision a matchup that wouldn't make LeBron the overwhelming favorite. Which is why, as hilarious and exciting as the idea is, it likely stays in the world of fantasy. But when MrBeast dreams, the world story was originally reported by Fadeaway World on Aug 2, 2025, where it first appeared. Solve the daily Crossword
New York Times
40 minutes ago
- New York Times
Can the Seattle Storm contend for a WNBA title? Mailbag answers from our expert
Welcome to part 2 of our midseason mailbag! If you missed Part 1, check it out for bigger league topics. In this edition, we're getting into team-specific queries. (Questions have been lightly edited for clarity and length.) What can the Storm do to put themselves in the title conversation, and how plausible (is) it that they could rise to the second seed? – Cole H. Why do you think the Seattle Storm have been so inconsistent this season with big wins over New York, Minnesota, Atlanta, Phoenix, but with some really bad losses to Connecticut, Dallas, and Golden State? … Also, should they trade draft assets to make a move at the deadline or keep all 3 first-round picks to build for the future around Malonga, Ezi Magbegor, and Jordan Horston? – Jeff B. Seattle hasn't been good enough offensively to win a championship. Despite all of the coach-speak about defense winning titles, the best teams in the WNBA can score the ball. The Storm move the ball well, don't turn it over and hit a high percentage of 2-pointers. Where they could stand to improve is on the offensive glass and getting to the free-throw line, as well as taking more 3s. Ideally, offensive rebounding can unlock both of those options, as many fouls are called on box-outs, and 3-pointers off of second chances convert at a higher rate. Advertisement It's difficult to remake a roster at the trade deadline, especially since Seattle's biggest movable salary is in veteran Alysha Clark, who has an important locker room presence and likely signed with the Storm to finish her career where it started. One thing I would like to see from Seattle is jumbo lineups with all three of Nneka Ogwumike, Ezi Magbegor and Dominique Malonga. The Storm could bludgeon the glass to create second chances, and Ogwumike is a decent enough shooter to avoid compromising spacing. Plus, playing that trio alongside Gabby Williams and Skylar Diggins would be an intimidating defensive lineup, especially if Seattle used them in a zone — just imagine the plays Williams could make in that system. Milestone moment for Dom 😤 — Seattle Storm (@seattlestorm) August 3, 2025 The Storm aren't alone in their inconsistencies. Outside of Minnesota (which even lost to Chicago), everyone has had regular ups and downs. Coach Noelle Quinn attributed this to more league-wide parity and the increased game cadence, making it harder to be ready to go on any given night. Given that inconsistency, and Seattle facing the second-hardest remaining schedule, my guess is the Storm land outside of the top four in the final regular-season standings. After reporting about Mystics looking to trade Aaliyah Edwards, she went on to perform well for them before her current injury, is there any more movement on that front? Do we think a team in playoff contention would make a move? Surely her recent play would drive up what the Mystics could potentially get for her. — Anna D. Given the confusion about how protection rules work with this year's expansion draft, how should the Mystics handle the trade deadline. Emily Engstler's play of late would presumably make Aaliyah Edwards expendable, but does trading her (for picks or a young prospect also on a rookie deal) make much sense? — Jayson W. Washington is in an enviable position. The Mystics have a boatload of good young players and some extra draft picks in the can. Furthermore, ownership seems content to give the rebuild process time. That means even with redundancies in the roster, Washington doesn't have to rush to move Aaliyah Edwards. Unless the Mystics get a compelling offer — it has to be at least two first-round picks, or an equally exciting young player — they can keep Edwards around. Stefanie Dolson won't be on the team for long, and it's also good to have depth beyond Shakira Austin and Kiki Iriafen. It's hard to find an ideal landing spot for Edwards because power forward is the fulcrum of almost every WNBA roster; every good team already has a four of the future. Connecticut would be an interesting trading partner because the Sun have young guards and a center in Olivia Nelson-Ododa, but no power forward (depending on your positional classification of Aneesah Morrow at the pro level). Whether Connecticut is interested in surrendering draft assets at this stage of their rebuild is an open question, and if the Sun move to Boston, the UConn connection might not be as attractive. Regarding the expansion draft, this is the one disadvantage the Mystics have with so many young players. Assuming the rules are similar to the Golden State draft — though several league executives have expressed that they are as in the dark as we are — Washington's six protected players would most likely be Georgia Amoore, Austin, Citron, Edwards, Iriafen and Brittney Sykes. Moving Edwards for future draft picks would allow the organization to protect any of Emily Engstler, Sika Koné, Jade Melbourne or Lucy Olsen. With all due respect to those four, none is necessitating an Edwards trade at this time. Unless the front office is really high on Engstler, I still think Edwards is the better prospect. Why do you think L.A. has been able to turn it around recently? — Merf E. Health and schedule strength have been the biggest factors in the Sparks' recent surge. It's boring, but it's true. L.A. toggled through Odyssey Sims, Shey Peddy and Grace Berger at point guard to start the season — in addition to Kelsey Plum at the one, an extra burden when she is also the team's leading scorer — while Julie Allemand dealt with injury and then went to EuroBasket. Now that she is back, Allemand is the stabilizing force Lynne Roberts' offense needs. When Allemand plays, L.A.'s offensive rating is 109.0 points per 100 possessions, right behind Minnesota for best in the league. The Sparks were also without Rae Burrell for seven weeks and Rickea Jackson with a concussion at the start of the season. Now, they have 40 minutes of consistent wing play. Replacing Mercedes Russell with Cameron Brink — even returning from an ACL — is also an upgrade. This recent stretch of six wins in seven games started with four wins against Connecticut and Washington. The Sun and Mystics have had their moments, but it's certainly an easier slate than playing Minnesota four times, which L.A. has already done. How on earth is Jeff Pagliocca still employed? His many bad moves have handicapped this franchise for the next decade. Making your 2026 FRP a swap to move up one spot and get Angel Reese, trading your 2027 swap for the No. 3 pick (Sonia Citron) and removing protections from the 2026 pick (semi-defensible, it was conveying anyway) for HVL were all bad moves. They could (have) stayed pat for Reese, and Atkins could very easily walk this offseason, leaving Chicago with nothing to show for a win-now trade that led to the Mystics winning now and later (that 2027 swap could gift Juju Watkins to D.C.). That's a level of GM malpractice typically only seen in the NBA, but at least the NBA has rules to stop GMs from themselves. The W might need its own Stepien Rule. — Jayson W. A lot to get into here, but the first is that the WNBA does have its own version of the Stepien rule. In the NBA, teams cannot be without first-round picks in consecutive years. In the WNBA, a team has to own at least one first-round pick in a three-year window. For example, the Las Vegas Aces have already traded away their 2026 and 2027 first-rounders (for Jewell Loyd and NaLyssa Smith, respectively), so they cannot move their 2028 first-round pick until the 2026 draft is over and they have access to their 2029 selection. Advertisement In terms of the Chicago Sky, suffice to say this season has not gone as well as hoped after the Sky made some aggressive moves to start 2025. But in Pagliocca's defense, I also believed in some of Chicago's vision. Tyler Marsh was one of the best coaches on the market, and his Aces counterpart, Natalie Nakase, has crushed it in Golden State. Courtney Vandersloot seemed like a smart signing, as was the deal to swap Lindsay Allen for Rebecca Allen. Moving up to draft Angel Reese also has to be a win — you can play chicken with Minnesota, but it's a risk, and Reese is really, really good. Flipping Mabrey at last year's deadline to get first-round swap rights with Connecticut in 2026 has also aged well. The one move that was a disaster in the moment was the Ariel Atkins trade, and it looks worse with every passing day. Mortgaging the future to that extent (the asset cost was No. 3 in 2025 and a first-round swap in the 2027 draft) is only acceptable for an MVP, and Atkins is not that. She's arguably already worse than the player selected in her spot, Citron, and that's before considering their contract statuses; Citron is under team control at a low value for at least three more years while Atkins is an unrestricted free agent. There is no forgiving that move. It's unlikely Chicago parts ways with Pagliocca so early in his tenure, as this is only his second season, but he has to be on thin ice. How and why do the Aces operate without a general manager? If the positions of head coach, general manager and president of basketball operations are typically full-time jobs, how does it work for Becky (Hammon) and Nikki Fargas to absorb that role? Could that be contributing to the Aces' struggles this season? Is there a benefit to this arrangement and/or a history of it in other sports contexts? — Inocb99 It was only about four years ago that a majority of WNBA teams were governed by a combo head coach and general manager. The season was short enough that it allowed one individual to focus on short-term priorities while games were being played and long-term team-building during the offseason. This arrangement also allowed WNBA ownership to save some money, paying one person for two jobs. Over the last few years, the league has become more professionalized. Front offices have expanded, and the season has grown in length. The only person in the league doing both jobs is Minnesota's Cheryl Reeve, and she has a long enough track record in both roles that there are few if any complaints about her doubling up. The Las Vegas situation is a little different because it let go of general manager Natalie Williams in the offseason and never replaced her. Team president Nikki Fargas has essentially been fulfilling that role in addition to her responsibilities related to the business of the Aces. That's a mistake. Williams wasn't perfect in her tenure — guaranteeing Kierstan Bell's fourth-year option was a bad call — but she kept the core four intact and on team-friendly deals while bringing in key role players for the back-to-back titles, including Alysha Clark and Cayla George. Things have spiraled since, and it's hard not to equate the roster-building woes with the lack of designated front office personnel. Other than one vice president of basketball operations, it's unclear who else is helping make these decisions: leaving Kate Martin unprotected in the expansion draft. Losing Clark, Tip Hayes and Sydney Colson in free agency. Overpaying for Jewell Loyd in the Kelsey Plum trade. Giving up a 2027 first-round pick for NaLyssa Smith. They are all bad moves. Advertisement The reason the WNBA moved past the dual-role arrangement is that it was too much work for one person. Las Vegas could easily rectify this problem — there are many qualified assistant general managers around the league — but hasn't. Give us your top 3 or 4 trade ideas with the trade deadline coming up. … Which coaches or GMs are/should be on the hot seat entering the second half of the season? — Robin W. Check out our episode of No Offseason for our best fake trades! Given that eight coaches are in their first year on the job, I wouldn't expect any of them to be on the hot seat. Reeve has permanent job security, while Hammon and Sandy Brondello have won titles recently enough not to worry. Nate Tibbetts also seems to have the backing in Phoenix, especially since Alyssa Thomas and Kahleah Copper consistently praise him, so the coach to keep an eye on would be Noelle Quinn. Seattle hasn't won a playoff game since losing Breanna Stewart and Sue Bird, and the talent on the roster would suggest the Storm can do better. Quinn is beloved by her players but was outcoached by Hammon in 2022, the one time she had a team that could realistically win a title. If Seattle is an early playoff exit yet again, maybe the Storm will attempt to upgrade. In terms of general managers on the hot seat, this is again a position with a lot of new faces. Pagliocca would seem to be in the most dire of circumstances, but if he had the organizational go-ahead to trade for Atkins, there must be some confidence in him. Is it just me who feels like the Minnesota Lynx are missing a piece to win it all? … What makes the Lynx so good defensively is that they don't play a lumbering center, effectively running two power forwards at all times (Collier, Smith, Shepard or even Kliundikova). Does Minnesota bite the bullet before the trade deadline and get a real center that can bang with the Joneses, Griners and Cardosos of the league, or should they stick to their guns? — Roberteaglesaner This question was sent in before the DiJonai Carrington trade, so clearly, Minnesota also agreed that it was a player short. I really like the idea of bringing in a wing instead of a big, though I would have preferred a player who was a better shooter to keep the Lynx offense humming (perhaps Rebecca Allen). Even so, this move helps Minnesota add some supplementary ballhandling, a dynamite athlete in transition who attacks the rim — which the Lynx don't have — and a great perimeter defender. Carrington has playoff experience and is comfortable coming off the bench. She also is purely additive, since Reeve didn't trust Diamond Miller and Karlie Samuelson was out for the season. Adding to the team's perimeter versatility makes more sense than changing their identity altogether. (Photo of Skylar Diggins and Nneka Ogumike: Soobum Im / Getty Images)
New York Times
40 minutes ago
- New York Times
NCAA Tournament expansion was tabled, but we should still scrutinize how the field is picked
The main reason a majority of college basketball fans did not want the NCAA Tournament field expanded is that they did not see a need for more middling high-major teams getting additional at-large bids. They got their wish on Monday, at least for now. The tournament will remain at 68 teams in 2026; however, conversations about whether to expand to 72 or 76 in 2027 will continue. Currently, the tournament selection committee uses a collection of different data sets — both resume and metric-based — to select and seed the field. How they weigh each is subjective. Ken Pomeroy, a leading analytic voice who runs the popular rankings site believes there should be a more objective means of selecting the field and sees the Wins Above Bubble (WAB) metric as the fairest way to do so. Unlike his rankings and the NET, WAB does not factor in scoring margin. Advertisement Essentially, it's a team's record compared to the expected win total of a team on the bubble playing that team's schedule. Had the field been expanded to 76 last year, these would have been the eight teams added by WAB: West Virginia, Indiana, Wake Forest, San Francisco, Boise State, UC Irvine, Ohio State and George Mason. Four more places for power-conference teams, but four for mid-majors who did not win their conference tournaments as well. 'I don't know if that's perfect, but it's much closer to perfection than the current process,' said Pomeroy, who added that the current setup dings a mid-major team that 'racks up a bunch of wins that aren't Quad 1 wins or aren't Quad 2 wins.' 'They're playing (more) Quad 3 teams on the road, and if you win 30 of those games, it's actually pretty impressive,' he said. Even if the selection committee continues to choose teams using its current criteria, an expanded tournament would present opportunities for mid-majors. I looked at the last five tournaments, using Bart Torvik's sorting tool to pull the top eight non-tourney teams in the NET, the top eight with the highest average resume ranking and the top eight with the highest average quality rating. Every year, there were two to five teams outside of the power conferences that would have been in consideration. Most likely, one or two of those teams would have made an expanded field each season. One negative of expansion could be forcing more of these mid-major at-large teams to the play-in round (currently known as the First Four), which has lacked the fanfare of the Round of 64 since its creation in 2011. In the past, the committee has pushed most conference tourney winners — with the exception of four 16 seeds — into the field of 64. I'd propose they take that a step further to protect the mid-majors who earn their way in with great regular seasons: If you won your conference's regular-season title, you are also exempt from the play-in round. Advertisement Another argument against expansion is that it would devalue the regular season. Pomeroy argues it will have the opposite effect. With more teams on the bubble, more teams would play meaningful games down the stretch. In a 76-team tournament, only 52 teams would automatically make the field of 64, compared to 60 now. It makes it more difficult to get a bye to Thursday and Friday, so even some of the teams safely 'in' will have more at stake. The pro-expansion view is that it's necessary because of the growth of the sport. Since 1985, when the field grew from 53 to 64, the number of Division I teams has expanded by almost 100. The counterargument is that adding teams to Division I should not mean adding teams to the tournament, because those teams are low- or mid-majors who aren't competing for at-large spots. But there have been breakthroughs. Florida Atlantic joined DI in 1993-94 and has made a Final Four. UC San Diego, in its first year of tourney eligibility in 2025, was a top-40 team at KenPom. Had the Tritons not won the Big West tournament, they likely would have been excluded from a 68-team field, similar to Indiana State's snub in 2024. But with an expanded field, they likely would have made it. Those of us who love college basketball see Selection Sunday and the first two days of the tournament as holidays, and the tournament captures the attention of the casual fan because almost everyone fills out a bracket. The sanctity of the 64-team bracket, a model that feels like perfection, likely wouldn't actually go anywhere with expansion. Just like when the field expanded to 65 and then 68, 64 teams would likely still tip off Thursday and Friday. Adding more teams would make it slightly harder to immediately fill out a bracket because of an expanded play-in round. But is that really going to stop people from filling out brackets? Advertisement And it's the great games, moments and upsets that make the tournament so popular. It's Valparaiso and Bryce Drew hitting a miracle shot to beat Ole Miss. It's UMBC over Virginia. It's George Mason and Florida Atlantic to the Final Four. It's the parity! 'Teams that you've never heard of can beat really good teams on any given night, and that's what makes it great,' Pomeroy said. Now, if the presidents at the big schools and power-conference commissioners find a way to drive out those smaller schools altogether, then yes, they will be taking the soul of the NCAA Tournament. That's worth fighting against. But if it's nostalgia that makes you hate expansion, that fight was lost when the first play-in games were created. And if you don't like watching those games on Tuesday and Wednesday, then just ignore them and tune in on Thursday. The magic wouldn't go anywhere. A few more teams would just have a chance to make the field. The energy should be spent making sure the mid-majors have a fair crack at those spots.
