Broken Brackets: Lessons for Higher Education Leaders
March usually starts with a simple question, “did you fill out your bracket?” This question is then followed by a myriad of terms that you only hear in March, like “seeds”, “Cinderellas,” and the “big dance.” The wave of feigned loyalty and competitiveness that creeps up is infectious and unites millions of people. Soon you find yourself reading team statistics and choosing who is going to proceed to the next round after each “one and done” game. It is all in fun until that initial crushing blow when you picked the most likely team to advance based on these statistics only to learn of an upset, (McNeese State and Clemson, anyone?). The next thing you know, your bracket is on a downward spiral. This is the magic of March Madness: it gives us permission to believe in the underdog while simultaneously reminding us that stats, while helpful, don’t always tell the full story.
Statistics are important when making virtually any choice. We rely on them to share the blame for risky decisions. When facing negative outcomes, we refer back to statistics and rationalize the reason why the decision was the right one in the first place. However, as we come to find out, sometimes statistics fall short of providing all the information we need to make the correct decision. This is when a little bit of risk and gut instinct are required.
In higher education, we also lean heavily on statistics. We analyze trends, build strategic plans, and justify decisions based on numbers. But like your carefully crafted bracket that busts in the first round, sometimes the data leaves out the nuance. Sometimes it doesn’t account for what’s changing around us. As silly as it may sound, March Madness teaches a valuable lesson. You can rely on statistics, but if they are analyzed without looking at the whole picture, there is a risk of missing and planning for anomalies. Higher education operates with a mindset that postsecondary goals and achievements are primarily for students who can afford it. Those students who are willing to set aside four years after high school to pursue these ambitions. What higher education fails to fully embrace is that while the world continues to change around them, we insist on following the same pedagogy while hoping for different results. Industry shifts (the rise of the internet, a global pandemic, AI) require institutions to rethink how educational opportunities can be delivered and the viable solutions they offer to students. To initiate meaningful change, sometimes you have to place less weight on the statistics and evaluate the surrounding circumstances individually to adequately address the essential needs.
The following are some real truths that higher education needs to face to properly analyze statistics and create meaningful change.
Today’s Students: Today’s average students aren’t fresh out of high school and settling into dorm life—they’re more likely to be managing full-time jobs, caring for children or family members, and trying to upskill or pivot careers in an unpredictable economy. They aren’t looking for a four-year detour—they’re looking for career acceleration, stability, or a chance to build a better life. They want education that acknowledges their lived experience, offers flexibility, and delivers ROI. Meeting students where they are isn’t a courtesy anymore; it’s a necessity for institutional relevance and student success.
Distance Education: Online education is no longer a side offering—it’s a core part of how institutions serve today’s learners. The pandemic may have forced the shift, but ongoing demand has kept it front and center. Students want options that fit around their lives, not ones that require pressing pause on everything else. And while online learning isn’t the best fit for every program or every learner, it’s a powerful tool when it’s well-designed, well-supported, and mission-aligned. Institutions that treat it like a temporary solution or second-tier experience will struggle to compete with those who treat it like the strategic opportunity it actually is.
Regulatory Uncertainty: The higher education landscape today is constantly in flux. Whether it’s shifting rules around online learning approvals, evolving state licensure expectations, or new federal reporting requirements, institutions are often navigating change without a clear roadmap. That’s not always because regulators are resistant to innovation—sometimes they’re simply trying to keep up. The result is a climate of uncertainty where institutional compliance teams have to be both vigilant and nimble. The key isn’t avoiding change; it’s investing in the infrastructure and relationships that allow institutions to respond quickly, ask the right questions, and maintain alignment between compliance and mission-driven innovation.
Mo’ Money, Mo’ Problems: The economics of higher education are under pressure from all sides. Students are grappling with rising costs, stagnant wages, and mounting debt. Institutions are facing enrollment declines, increased operational expenses, and questions about long-term sustainability. Everyone’s asking the same question: Is the investment still worth it? To answer that, institutions need to rethink not just how they price their programs, but how they define value. That means offering programs that align with workforce needs, prioritizing student support and completion, and making sure that affordability doesn’t come at the expense of quality. The challenge is real—but so is the opportunity to get it right.
These aren’t hypotheticals or emerging trends. They’re the daily reality for millions of students across the country—individuals navigating a post-pandemic world, seeking education not as a luxury, but as a necessity for career advancement and financial stability. And while many institutions are still clinging to legacy systems and assumptions, others are actively adapting—rethinking delivery models, expanding access, and aligning programs with real-world needs. Those stories—innovative programs, new student support structures, thoughtful community engagement—give us hope. They’re higher ed’s equivalent of a “Cinderella story,” the unexpected successes that remind us what’s possible when institutions take bold, student-centered steps. We’re fortunate enough to work with several of them.
But just like the NCAA tournament can’t be won by one player alone, systemic change in higher education requires more than a few outliers. It takes a unified effort—a willingness across institutions to move beyond what’s comfortable or familiar and start making decisions based on where students actually are, not where we wish they were.
So, of course, statistics matter. But if March Madness teaches us anything, it’s that the most accurate predictions are still vulnerable to upsets. If we want higher education to thrive, we can’t rely on yesterday’s data to solve today’s problems. We need to be willing to adjust the playbook, trust our team, and build models that reflect the real game on the court. Because the needs are real, the stakes are high, and the clock is ticking.
“There is a point in every contest when sitting on the sidelines is not an option.”
—Dean Smith, University of North Carolina Tar Heels (1961-1997)
