The NCAA Selection Committee’s 2025 Controversy: Bias, Financial Incentives, and Questionable Seeding Decisions

March Madness always delivers excitement, buzzer-beaters, and Cinderella stories, but before the games even tip off, the biggest drama often unfolds behind closed doors—within the NCAA Selection Committee. The 2025 bracket selection process has come under heavy scrutiny, with allegations of favoritism, conflicts of interest, and blatant disregard for competitive fairness.

From UNC’s controversial bid, where Athletic Director Bubba Cunningham personally benefitted from their selection, to Michigan’s puzzling seeding despite winning the Big Ten Championship, this year’s committee decisions have raised serious concerns about how teams are chosen and whether the process is truly impartial.

UNC’s Controversial Selection: Did Bubba Cunningham’s Bonus Play a Role?

Perhaps the most egregious storyline of this year’s tournament was North Carolina (UNC) receiving the final at-large bid, despite a 1-12 record against Quadrant 1 teams. That decision alone would be controversial, but what makes it even worse is that UNC’s Athletic Director, Bubba Cunningham, was the chair of the Selection Committee—and financially benefited from UNC making the tournament.

Cunningham received a $67,905 bonus for UNC’s selection and stands to earn even more depending on their success in the tournament. UNC’s tournament selection also secured $2 million in revenue for the ACC, which will be distributed across the conference through revenue sharing. Cunningham recused himself from discussions about UNC, but his influence as the committee chair still casts doubt on the process.

The conflict of interest here is glaring. While athletic directors serving on the committee is not new, the fact that Cunningham directly profits from UNC making the tournament raises serious ethical concerns.

The NCAA needs to address these conflicts. If athletic directors are allowed to serve on the selection committee, there should be strict financial restrictions to ensure their schools’ tournament inclusion doesn’t directly benefit them. Otherwise, fans, players, and coaches have every right to question the legitimacy of the selection process.

Michigan Gets Snubbed: How Was Purdue a 4-Seed While the Big Ten Champions Were a 5-Seed?

While the UNC controversy highlights conflict of interest issues, the Big Ten seeding disaster exposes another major flaw in the selection process—favoritism toward certain programs, regardless of on-court results.

Michigan won the Big Ten Championship, finishing 25-9. In the process, they defeated Wisconsin and Maryland—both of whom received higher seeds. Even worse, Purdue, a team Michigan beat twice and finished with a worse record (22-11), was somehow given a No. 4 seed, while Michigan was given a No. 5.

How does this make any sense? Michigan had the better record (25-9 vs. 22-11). Michigan won the Big Ten Tournament while Purdue was eliminated in the quarterfinal. Michigan beat Purdue twice head-to-head—yet Purdue was rewarded with a higher seed.

This decision sends a terrible message to teams competing in conference tournaments—winning your conference apparently doesn’t matter.

A Broken Selection Process: What Needs to Change?

With UNC’s questionable inclusion, Bubba Cunningham’s financial incentives, and Michigan’s unfair seeding, the 2025 Selection Committee’s decisions have damaged the credibility of the tournament.

Here’s how the NCAA can fix this broken system:

Ban Committee Members from Having Financial Incentives Tied to Tournament Selection

If an athletic director or committee member stands to gain financially from their school’s inclusion, that’s a clear conflict of interest. These individuals should either be ineligible to serve or be required to forfeit bonuses.

Make Selection Criteria More Transparent

The committee should be required to publish a ranking system and written justification for each team’s seed.

Ensure Conference Champions Receive Favorable Seeding

Single-elimination conference championships serve as the ultimate proving ground, testing a team’s resilience and readiness for March Madness. Winning such a high-stakes tournament should be properly recognized and rewarded.

If the NCAA wants to maintain the integrity of March Madness, it must address the glaring issues of selection bias, conflicts of interest, and inconsistent seeding. Without greater transparency and accountability, fans and teams alike will continue to question whether the tournament is truly about competition—or if it’s just another example of backroom politics shaping college sports