N※N

Dave Reardon Urges NCAA to Create a Separate Mid-Major Bracket for March Madness

  //sports-competition.news-articles.net/content/2 .. eparate-mid-major-bracket-for-march-madness.html
  Published in Sports and Competition on Wednesday, November 12th 2025 at 5:42 GMT by Honolulu Star-Advertiser

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-12 252 x 200 / 8841 Bytes

2025-11-12 206 x 224 / 9465 Bytes

2025-11-12 234 x 216 / 8672 Bytes

2025-11-12 224 x 224 / 4441 Bytes

Mid‑Major Madness: Dave Reardon Calls for a Separate NCAA Bracket

In the latest edition of the Star Advertiser, former Nevada Wolf Pack guard‑coach Dave Reardon takes a bold stance on a question that has haunted college basketball for years: why do the bright, often underrated mid‑major programs keep being forced into the same 68‑team bracket that pits them against power‑conference giants? In his opinion piece, Reardon argues that mid‑majors deserve their own competitive bracket—one that would give these teams a fair shot at national recognition and a chance to tell their own stories.

The Current Landscape

Reardon starts by painting the present state of the NCAA Tournament. The 68‑team field, expanded in 2011 from the original 64, is decided by a selection committee that, according to Reardon, heavily favors teams from the "Power Five" conferences—those that own the money and media contracts. Mid‑major schools—those from the Mid‑Continent, Horizon League, Missouri Valley, and others—often receive automatic bids, but at the cost of low seeding and early matchups against the top‑seeded power‑conference teams.

He points out that the odds of a mid‑major team pulling off an upset are statistically slim. The most famous mid‑major victory in recent memory, George Mason’s 2006 run, came from an exceptional set of circumstances that Reardon argues are not repeatable under current rules. Meanwhile, power‑conference teams have more depth, better facilities, and a higher probability of securing at‑large bids even if their records aren’t flawless.

The Case for a Separate Bracket

Reardon’s core argument is that a separate bracket would level the playing field. The idea is simple: instead of a single 68‑team tournament, create two distinct fields. One would feature the traditional 68 teams, while the other—dubbed the “Mid‑Major Bracket”—would host a smaller, more focused competition among those schools that are often overlooked. He cites the 2023 College Basketball Invitational and the College Basketball Invitational (CBI) as experimental steps in the right direction, but notes that those tournaments lack the prestige and national visibility of the NCAA Tournament.

To illustrate, Reardon uses the 2020‑21 season as a case study. The University of South Florida, a mid‑major program that finished 18‑10, was left out of the NCAA field entirely, yet they had a strong showing against a Power Five opponent in the regular season. In a separate bracket, Reardon suggests, such teams would receive the spotlight they deserve.

Historical Success of Mid‑Majors

Reardon spends a good portion of the piece tracing the lineage of mid‑major triumphs to show that the argument isn’t just theoretical. He references:

• Wichita State’s 2006 Final Four run (though they eventually made the tournament, they are frequently remembered for their Cinderella story).
• George Mason’s 2006 Final Four, the first time a non‑conference team reached that stage.
• Gonzaga’s rise in the 2010s, showing that a mid‑major program can dominate a conference and be a legitimate title contender.
• 2018‑19 Oakland and Wichita State reaching Sweet 16 and Elite Eight slots respectively, underscoring the potential for mid‑majors to compete at the highest level.

Each of these stories demonstrates that mid‑majors can break through, but Reardon argues that the tournament structure has become an obstacle rather than a catalyst.

Practicalities and Counter‑Arguments

Reardon acknowledges the practical difficulties of implementing a second bracket. He cites concerns about logistics—scheduling additional games, securing venues, and broadcasting rights—and about the NCAA’s willingness to split the national spotlight. There’s also the issue of how a second bracket would affect the overall number of teams that could be fielded in the main tournament. Would the main bracket shrink to accommodate a mid‑major tournament, or would the entire NCAA calendar expand? The piece notes that adding another 32‑team bracket would effectively double the amount of basketball the NCAA would have to coordinate.

Some commentators argue that a separate bracket would dilute the prestige of the “March Madness” brand. They point out that the NCAA’s revenue model, heavily dependent on the single tournament’s television contracts, could be jeopardized by splitting the audience. Others worry about the impact on smaller conferences that might lose the chance for their teams to appear on a national stage.

Reardon, however, suggests a phased approach. He recommends that the NCAA first experiment with a “Mid‑Major Showcase”—a 16‑team tournament—run concurrently with the main bracket. He points to the success of the 2024 College Basketball Invitational, where 16 mid‑major teams played a short, high‑stakes competition that drew respectable viewership and provided fans with a narrative of their own.

The Broader Implications

At the heart of Reardon’s argument is a belief that college basketball’s cultural relevance rests on its capacity to tell diverse stories. The “Mid‑Major Bracket” would give fans a new lens to view the sport, highlight regional rivalries, and keep smaller programs in the national conversation.

Reardon also touches on the financial side. A separate bracket would create new revenue streams from ticket sales, sponsorships, and media rights—especially if the tournament were branded as an extension of “March Madness” rather than a separate entity. He argues that the NCAA has an ethical obligation to treat mid‑major programs fairly, given that these schools often produce the same level of talent as larger programs but with fewer resources.

Call to Action

Reardon concludes his piece by urging the NCAA, the selection committee, and the broader college sports community to seriously consider this proposal. He proposes a working group to develop a blueprint for a separate bracket, complete with financial projections, scheduling models, and potential partnership with existing mid‑major tournaments.

He ends on a hopeful note: “College basketball thrives when it gives every team a chance to shine. Let’s give our mid‑major programs that chance—by creating a tournament that reflects their talent, their passion, and their place in the national conversation.”

In summary, Dave Reardon's opinion piece is a passionate plea for structural change in the NCAA Tournament. By advocating for a separate bracket for mid‑majors, Reardon underscores the need for fairness, representation, and sustainability in college basketball. While the proposal raises logistical and financial challenges, it also opens the door for a richer, more inclusive narrative that could benefit players, fans, and the sport as a whole. The Star Advertiser leaves us with an invitation to rethink what “March Madness” can mean when it includes every level of the game.