March Madness is losing much of what made it mad.
Signs of the shift were clear last year. Cinderella teams, the low-seeded upstarts that are supposed to deliver upsets and attention, didn’t surprise anyone. Instead, there were just 13 underdog wins — tied for the fewest since 1985 — and the Final Four featured only No. 1 seeds.
By the old logic of college basketball, it was a boring dud. But it turned out to be a surprise hit and good for the business of college basketball. The first week of the tournament enjoyed its best average viewership since 1993. The Final Four drew an audience of 18.1 million, the most since 2019.
That surge in attention is no accident. In a crowded sports entertainment marketplace, predictability isn’t just tolerated by the National Collegiate Athletic Association. It's the business model keeping the organization relevant as its control over college sports erodes.
Things weren’t always this way, of course. For decades, March Madness sold fans on the hope that an unknown, low-seeded team could upset an established favorite and wreak havoc on the bracket.
When those upsets happened, they weren’t novelties or sideshows; they were the marquee main event. Two decades later, serious college hoops fans are unlikely to remember who won the 2006 men’s national championship (University of Florida, a No. 3 seed, in a blowout over the University of California, Los Angeles, a No. 2 ). But most know about George Mason University’s legendary run to the Final Four as a No. 11 seed that same year. Along the way, the school knocked off four higher seeds, including the University of Connecticut, a No. 1 seed, in overtime.
This particular kind of March magic thrived in an era when viewers had fewer entertainment options and more shared viewing experiences than today. With games funneled to a handful of broadcasters, fans clustered around the same regular seasons and major events. Viewership for the championship game routinely exceeded 20 million well into the 2010s. A Cinderella in the Final Four could boost the numbers by as much as 35%, according to a 2013 study.
That world no longer exists because of streaming, social media and just about everything being on demand, making it harder for viewers to stay deeply engaged with a full season or even a multi-day event. According to Emarketer, a market research firm, nearly half of the March Madness audience doesn’t watch regular-season college basketball at all.
With fewer diehards, the tournament needs smoother onramps. Familiar brands, in the form of schools such as Duke University, the University of Arizona, and Florida, serve that role. Think of it like a multiplex on a Friday night. It’s more likely that ticket buyers show up for the well-known, big franchise sequels, not the small indie films.
Sports fandom often works the same way, especially in today’s crowded media environment. Casual fans, in particular, are drawn to the winners they already know or love to hate. The change in how people watch sports should've been trouble for March Madness. But viewing habits shifted just as college sports were undergoing massive changes that made the tournament more attractive.
Economics are at the heart of the transformation. Since 2021, college athletes have had the opportunity to earn money from their NIL rights. Players’ earning potential, combined with annual transfer freedom, has created an open talent market that concentrates the best athletes at the schools most able to attract and afford them.
The result is a sport in which breakout stars at small schools aren’t staying around long enough to turn their teams into upset threats. Instead, those athletes are transferring and strengthening schools with established brands and winning traditions. The numbers show just how much the landscape has shifted. In 2025, 40% of men’s basketball players transferred, according to the Athletic. Among the 68 teams in March Madness, there were 297 transfers, up almost 40% from 2024. It’s no surprise that low seeds didn’t advance very far.
This year’s competition is shaping up to be more of the same if the regular season is any guide. According to ESPN calculations, upset wins by small-conference teams in the 2025-26 season were down almost 60% compared to 2021–22.
In one sense, the madness hasn’t disappeared. It’s just shifted to the transfer portal and now plays out in an annual fight for talent.
College basketball, seeing the writing on the wall, has adapted to the changes. For example, several mid-major conferences have recently restructured their basketball championships to favor their best — and often most prominent — teams over low-seeded ones. Meanwhile, the NCAA continues to discuss expanding March Madness as soon as next year. If it happens, the added slots would most likely favor teams from the highest-profile conferences — not the mid-majors trying to fit into Cinderella’s shoe.
The betting markets are following suit. At the sportsbook BetMGM, Duke and Michigan account for 22% of all tournament wagers. Bettors aren’t the only ones leaning into established teams. Earlier this month, CBS Sports and TNT Sports told Adweek that they're seeing “tremendous demand” for event advertising, following last year’s success.
Of course, the beauty of March basketball is that anything can happen, upending brackets and expectations. But when the first round tips off on Thursday, fans and the NCAA will be looking for something else: more order on the court.
A message from Advisor Perspectives and VettaFi: Discover something new! Click here to register for our upcoming webcasts.
Bloomberg News provided this article. For more articles like this please visit
bloomberg.com.
Read more articles by Adam Minter
