Steven Pearl questions NCAA Tournament expansion as Auburn snub still lingers

Steven Pearl isn’t fully sold on NCAA Tournament expansion. However, he sees a path where it could work.

As momentum builds toward expanding the field from 68 to 76 teams, Pearl offered a candid assessment during an appearance on McElroy and Cubelic in the Morning, raising concerns about what the change could mean for the integrity of the bubble.

“It also makes the bubble a little bit weaker when teams like us who had 16 losses are able to get into the tournament,” Pearl said. “I’m not sure that really rewards the best 68, now 76, teams.”

Alas, that’s the central dilemma. While expansion could create more opportunities, it also risks diluting what has long made March Madness special, the idea that every bid must be earned. 

For a program like Auburn, which found itself on the wrong side of the bubble this past season, the debate hits close to home. Auburn was among the “First Four Out” in 2026, despite what many viewed as a résumé worthy of inclusion. 

The Tigers boasted wins over multiple conference champions and navigated one of the toughest schedules in the country, but ultimately fell short as the selection committee prioritized other profiles. That experience clearly shapes Pearl’s perspective.

Still, he didn’t dismiss expansion outright: “[It could be] a positive,” Pearl said, “as long as it’s not eight high-major [teams]. I hope it’s four high-majors and four mid-majors.”

Evidently, that balance, in his view, is critical. If expansion simply opens the door for more power-conference teams, it risks squeezing out the very programs that make the tournament unpredictable. But if done thoughtfully, it could enhance the field without compromising its identity.

All told, the NCAA appears to be moving quickly in that direction. According to reports, officials are nearing a final decision to expand both the men’s and women’s tournaments to 76 teams as early as the 2026-27 season. 

The proposal would add eight teams to the current play-in structure, potentially rebranded as the “Opening Round,” creating a larger entry point without drastically altering the main bracket. Even so, the move remains divisive.

Supporters point to increased access and modest financial upside, while critics worry about watering down the product. For Pearl, the answer lies somewhere in between, acknowledging the benefits while cautioning against overcorrection.

In a sport where every spot matters, more isn’t always better. But done the right way, it might be just enough, at least in Pearl’s view.