RESOLVING THE LEDGER
This is one outlet's own report from CBS Sports — the article as it was filed. Other outlets are covering the same event; open the full story to compare every source side by side.
See the full story · 1 sources
Welcome back to another year of CBS Sports' Candid Coaches feature. College basketball insiders Gary Parrish and Matt Norlander surveyed nearly 100 men's Division I coaches in the thick of the offseason; as always, interviewees were given the promise of anonymity in a swap for honest and enlightening answers on a medley of topics. Norlander and Parrish spanned the sport to get a wide range of feedback on nine survey questions. Below is the fourth in our 2026 series.
Two years ago, back in August 2024, we used one of the questions in our annual Candid Coaches series to ask whether the people working in Division I men's basketball believed the NCAA Tournament should stay at 68 teams or expand to 72 or 76 . Most of them told us they wanted the sport's season-concluding event to expand, and most of the ones who voted for expansion said they preferred 76 instead of 72.
As you likely know, on May 7, the NCAA officially announced that the NCAA Tournament is expanding to 76 teams this season. (Get ready for a bubble dumber than ever.) So the coaches -- or, at least, the coaches we polled two years ago -- got their wish. The NCAA Tournament will now include eight more teams than ever.
But what will it do to the coaching profession?
With this in mind, Matt Norlander and I decided to ask roughly 100 coaches the following question:
This appears to qualify as a "be careful what you wish for" situation. Two years ago, the coaches we surveyed mostly said they wanted the NCAA Tournament to expand. Now, the coaches we surveyed -- which, to be clear, is a mostly different bunch of coaches, but still -- believe expansion will hurt more than it helps as it pertains to job security for them.
You can read the above quotes to gain some perspective.
Personally, all answers to this question make some sense to me. I could argue any angle. But what was most interesting once the results started rolling in, at least from my perspective, was that many of the coaches who told us they believe job security moving forward will be shakier, as opposed to more secure, added that though they believe the expanded NCAA Tournament will play a role in that, they also believe revenue-sharing and NIL will serve as a major factor.
"I think there will be less job security -- especially now that revenue sharing is in full swing," one coach told Norlander. "I have a coaching friend at a prominent mid-major program. He told me that before a big game last February, the chancellor of the school came into the coaches' locker room and said to the entire staff, 'I did my job. Now it's time for you to do yours.' There will be more pressure and more expectations from administrators and boosters as investment dollars continue to rise."
I don't think there's any doubt about that.
Once upon a time, before revenue-sharing and NIL changed the game, a school's investment into its coach was mostly his salary plus all of the things it takes to run a program -- like travel and meals and whatever. But now some schools are paying for all of that and then throwing another $10 or even $25 million annually at the program, usually to be used at the head coach's discretion, for the purposes of roster-building.
If you're at one of those schools, it's a no-excuses deal.
Which is why I largely agree with the coaches who told us that a 76-team NCAA Tournament will lead to less job security, not more. Narratives matter. And the narrative now will be that if you're a power-conference coach with normal power-conference resources who misses the field of 76, the problem is probably you. And don't ever forget, it's boosters with money, not athletic directors who need boosters' money, who often make the call on whether coaches stay another year or get removed. So imagine being a booster who is not only making typical donations to his or her alma mater like you always have, but also literally giving hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, for your coach to use on his roster.
How frustrated would you get if things don't go well?
(It's already happening all over the country.)
Bottom line, since the NCAA Tournament expanded to 68, it's never actually been that difficult for strong programs with good coaches to make it. Michigan State does it every year. So does Gonzaga. So does Kansas. As I've said forever, we don't leave good teams out of the NCAA Tournament as often as we put mediocre teams in it. Starting this season, that'll be more true than ever. Athletic directors know it. Boosters know it. So good luck to the power-conference coaches with resources who can't break through enough. The days of blaming your shortcomings on a lack or history or a rival cheating are mostly over. If your AD and boosters give you the money to build a good team, you better build one -- and fast. Missing a 64-team or a 65-team or even a 68-team NCAA Tournament was one thing before revenue-sharing and NIL.
If you have resources, you shouldn't miss that. When you do, patience will be short.
AIPROPX is an independent multi-source news index — we track, compare, and connect coverage from across the web into one place you won't find anywhere else.