In Reply to: $$$$$$$$$$$* posted by SagoBob on April 28, 2026 at 16:01:28
The expansion wasn't expected to be a financial windfall for the NCAA and its members, but sources stressed there would be a profit.
The added finances would cover the additional logistics cost for both the men's and women's tournaments, the additional NCAA tournament units that would come into play and still deliver "a modest financial upside."
The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences. The expansion has been pushed by power conferences, which have grown throughout the course of the current deal.
=======================
Universities want to be able to say, "our team made the tournament", and coaches believe that making the tournament is a key factor in their holding on to their jobs.
I hear people say, "lf Cronin doesn't make the tournament next year he will get fired." Getting a bid seems to be a big factor in evaluating coaches and programs. Maybe if they make getting a bid too cheap, it won't be treated the same. Maybe the criterion should be making the field of 64.
As a fan, I HATE the idea. Too many undeserving teams are getting in.
I know that without the first four, the 2021 team wouldn't have had that fun run to the Final Four, but I still don't love the First Four.
Also, I think that there should have been a provision for putting in some of the teams in 1-bid leagues who won their conference regular season and lost in the conference tournament. At least a couple of those should get in.
If there is anything good about it, it is that the dump Crown tournament will become even more irrelevant.