The college basketball offseason is here, and whether you like it or not, so is NCAA Tournament expansion.
Last week, the NCAA announced that the men’s and women’s selection committees officially voted to increase the number of tournament teams from 68 to 76, adding a handful of “Opening Round” games on Tuesday and Wednesday. A poll by The Athletic‘s The Pulse newsletter found that nearly 90 percent of readers are opposed to expansion — but the ship has sailed. And no, it’s unlikely to affect your bracket challenge or office pool.
Here’s Part 1 of our offseason mailbag. Part 2 will come out next week.
During the Division II men’s championship game, the announcers talked about coaches moving up (most famously Iowa’s Ben McCollum, who won big at Northwest Missouri State). What specific factors make DI harder than DII? More on court (better X’s and O’s, roster management, rotations), off court (NIL, travel, media responsibilities) or other considerations? — Kale F.
I called McCollum and Josh Schertz, who both successfully made the jump from Division II to Division I head coach and asked them. Here are their answers.
McCollum: “I would say it’s off court. The only on-court thing is literally just the players are better, so if you’re a good recruiter, you can get away with not very good coaching essentially, because the players are so good. I think that’s the biggest difference.
“The X’s and O’s, some are better at DII, some are better in Division I, but there’s not a lot of shocking difference there. I think the differences are, DII you’ve got to constantly adapt to your personnel because you don’t necessarily get exactly what you want consistently. Division I, you can kind of pick the style that you want to play and recruit to that a little bit more. But on court, I’d almost probably nod to Division II (as more difficult), except for the level and caliber of players is absurdly different. Off court, it’s just the differences in recruiting and the differences of the noise surrounding all of the recruiting and the players. More voices in the recruiting process that you’ve got to make sure that you’re paying attention to. And then the media is different, but it’s not overpowering. It doesn’t bother me a ton; (there’s) just more of it.
Schertz: “I think it is a little bit of everything. Off court, the main piece is the amount of responsibilities and obligations you have away from basketball — press conferences right after games, donor outings, boosters — you don’t really have that at Division II for the most part. Then I think recruiting, the way it’s formatted, is a little bit different. In Division II, you’re out evaluating guys you’re kind of keeping tabs on, and then as the schools take their pick, you’re kinda figuring out who’s gonna fall to that level, and then you’re bringing them to your campus. On a rare occasion, you’ll sign a guy early you really like, but for the most part, you gotta kind of wait the process out, and you’re going to lose a majority of guys to Division I.
“Top to bottom, there’s not as many advantages. In Division II, there’s differences in how many scholarships are offered, differences in how much coaches are paid, differences in how big staffs are. Like some staffs only have a GA as an assistant; other staffs have two or three full-time assistants. The playing field is much less leveled at Division II. If you have a good job versus a not good job, a lot of it is circumstances vary more widely than they do at Division I.” — CJ Moore
Ben McCollum has quickly established himself as one of the best coaches in college basketball after moving from the Division II level. (Maria Lysaker / Imagn Images)
How many years until the tournament expands again? This expansion eliminates the complaints of the bubble teams? There will always be bubble teams, no? Okay, so the only real solution is everyone gets a guaranteed game … oh wait, what are those things they call conference tournaments? — Craig R.
I asked NCAA senior vice president for basketball Dan Gavitt this exact question last week, when expansion was officially announced, and this was his answer:
“I think we can say with confidence that 76 (teams) is really maxing out the opportunity here, given the (three-week) time frame the tournaments operate in,” Gavitt said. “A larger field size wouldn’t be easily accommodated or even feasible to fit into that time frame. It also is expensive. We think we’ve optimized the media value with eight new teams and eight new games.”
Gavitt’s second sentence — about the feasibility of further expansion — is the big one. Especially with the NFL and college football calendars creeping further into the college hoops season, there really isn’t time to fit in any more games (or rounds) without drastically hurting the sport’s regular season. And unlike college football, where conference championships could soon be eliminated thanks to a potentially expanding College Football Playoff, league tournaments are a necessity in college basketball because of the auto-bid mechanism. All of which is to say I believe Gavitt here because of the logistics involved — and because nobody wants to see a 91-team bracket.
Could that change come in 2032 when the NCAA’s television contracts are up? Maybe, but 76 should hold for the foreseeable future. — Brendan Marks
Aside from Tommy Lloyd at Arizona, what current head CBB coaches (men or women) are more powerful than their ADs? Than the head football coach at their same school? — Tom W.
First, this question made me laugh out loud. Second, I think what you’re actually asking is, which head coaches could go to their school presidents and say, “I don’t want to report to the AD, I’d like to report straight to you.”
So, with that as the baseline, here are the ones who could (realistically) get away with that request, with the caveat that nearly everyone coaching at a power-conference program would like to think they could demand it. It’s also worth noting that many successful coaches wouldn’t want to report to the school president because their athletic director already gives them (mostly) everything they want.
1. Jon Scheyer, Duke
2. Bill Self, Kansas
3. Tom Izzo, Michigan State
4. Dusty May, Michigan
5. Geno Auriemma and Dan Hurley, UConn
6. Dawn Staley, South Carolina
7. Everyone who coaches at LSU
As for who is more powerful than the football coach at their school, I’d add Matt Painter at Purdue, Kelvin Sampson at Houston, and John Calipari at Arkansas. I seriously considered whether you could make an argument for Fred Hoiberg at Nebraska, too. — Lindsay Schnell
We are coming off a run of three straight dominant consensus Player of the Years on teams that achieved good or great success. Can you remember a run like this of POYs in your time covering the sport, and who is your pick for POY in the 2026-27 season? — Dan K.
The Johni Broome erasure! (The Auburn big man won Sporting News’ player of the year award in 2025, meaning Cooper Flagg wasn’t technically the “consensus” POTY. But I digress.) All jokes aside, it might be a while before we see another three-year POTY run like Zach Edey, Flagg and Cameron Boozer. The first back-to-back Wooden Award winner since Ralph Sampson in the 1980s, followed by the fourth and fifth freshmen ever to capture an award dating back to 1977? In my best Larry David voice: Pretty, pretty, pretty good.
To your question, Dan, it’s definitely the best three-season run since I’ve been covering the sport — broadly since 2013, and since 2019 for The Athletic — and probably the best since… Tyler Hansbrough, Kevin Durant and JJ Redick in 2006-2008? The first freshman to win the Wooden Award, sandwiched between Duke’s all-time leading scorer and the only four-time All-American in Division I history? Even that trio’s team success pales in comparison to Edey/Flagg/Boozer. So, yes, this has truly been a historic streak.
As for next season, a few frontrunners (in no particular order): Michigan State guard Jeremy Fears Jr., Florida wing Thomas Haugh, Virginia forward Thijs De Ridder, Gonzaga center Braden Huff, Tennessee wing Juke Harris and Duke guard John Blackwell. Add Vanderbilt guard Tyler Tanner to that list, too, if he ultimately returns to school. — Marks