In a landmark decision that could reshape the landscape of college basketball, the NCAA has officially approved an increase in the number of regular season games that men’s and women’s basketball teams are allowed to play. The move comes as part of a broader effort to modernize the sport, increase opportunities for athletes and programs, and align more closely with the evolving commercial and competitive realities of college athletics.
Under the new legislation, which was passed by the NCAA Division I Council, the maximum number of regular season games a Division I team can schedule will rise from 31 to 34. This change includes both non-conference and conference games and does not count postseason tournaments such as conference championships or NCAA Tournament appearances. The rule goes into effect beginning with the 2025–26 season, giving programs time to adjust their scheduling strategies accordingly.
The decision has been met with a mix of enthusiasm and cautious optimism across the college basketball world. Coaches, athletic directors, players, and broadcasters largely see the change as a positive step that brings numerous benefits, including increased exposure, revenue opportunities, and developmental time for student-athletes.
One of the most immediate impacts of the rule change will be felt in the non-conference portion of the schedule. Programs will now have the flexibility to schedule more marquee matchups, participate in early-season tournaments, and host additional home games—an important factor for schools that rely on ticket sales and local fan engagement to support their athletic budgets. For mid-major and smaller programs, the added games could also mean more chances to play high-profile opponents and potentially improve their résumés for postseason consideration.
From the players’ perspective, the expanded schedule offers increased opportunities for development, competition, and exposure. In an era where the transfer portal and name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities have transformed the student-athlete experience, playing more games provides athletes with a larger platform to showcase their skills. This could be particularly beneficial for players hoping to attract professional scouts or secure endorsement deals based on performance and visibility.
Coaches, too, may welcome the change, though it introduces new challenges related to roster management, travel, and health. Managing workloads and ensuring player well-being over a longer regular season will be critical, especially for programs that already face rigorous travel schedules. Some coaches have expressed concerns about the potential strain on student-athletes, particularly with academic commitments in mind. To address these issues, the NCAA has emphasized the need for balance and has encouraged programs to work closely with academic advisors and medical staff to maintain athlete welfare.
The television networks and media partners that broadcast college basketball are expected to be among the biggest winners in this shift. With more games on the calendar, there will be increased content to air across national and regional networks, streaming platforms, and social media channels. More games mean more advertising slots, greater viewership opportunities, and potentially expanded media rights negotiations down the line—benefiting not just the NCAA but also individual conferences and schools.
Importantly, the increase in allowable games comes at a time when college basketball is undergoing significant transformation. The rise of NIL collectives, increased player mobility through the transfer portal, and mounting pressure to share revenues with athletes have placed new financial and strategic pressures on athletic departments. Allowing teams to play more games helps programs meet some of those demands by boosting gate receipts, sponsorship deals, and overall program valuation.
For traditionalists, the decision may raise concerns about the integrity of the regular season and the potential dilution of game importance. Some critics argue that adding games could lead to scheduling of less meaningful matchups or create competitive imbalances. However, NCAA officials have countered that the change is about flexibility and opportunity, not forcing teams into bloated schedules. Schools will still have the freedom to tailor their calendars based on their own goals, resources, and student-athlete needs.
Conference commissioners have also weighed in, largely in support of the change. The additional games allow conferences to consider new formats, such as expanded conference schedules or additional cross-conference matchups. This flexibility could lead to innovative scheduling approaches that improve competitiveness and fan engagement.
As the college basketball community begins preparing for the expanded regular season format, attention will turn to how different programs adapt. Powerhouse schools may seek to capitalize by scheduling more high-profile matchups for television and national attention, while smaller programs may focus on finding winnable games to bolster postseason chances. Either way, the increase in games is likely to inject new energy, strategy, and unpredictability into the sport.
Ultimately, the NCAA’s decision to increase the number of regular season games reflects a broader shift toward modernization and athlete empowerment in college sports. As the lines between amateur and professional athletics continue to blur, the expanded schedule offers a new chapter for college basketball—one that promises more action, more opportunity, and a more dynamic experience for players, fans, and institutions alike.
