With the 2016 March Madness college basketball tournament set to begin on March 15, the NCAA has updated its March Madness app with new features for iOS, the fourth-generation Apple TV and Apple Watch.

march-madness-apple-tv-app
The brand new Apple TV app comes with a significant feature for basketball fans: the ability to watch two games side-by-side in a split-screen interface. The feature, which is exclusive to Apple TV, also allows users to switch the audio from both the games, allowing basketball fans to hone in on exciting matches easier than before. Lisa Estrin, NCAA Digital's senior UX lead, told Variety that the Apple TV was the "perfect" platform for the feature.

"We believe Apple TV is the perfect platform to experiment with this and bring the two together in a shared environment," said Lisa Estrin, senior UX lead, NCAA Digital, at a Los Angeles showcase for Apple TV apps hosted by Apple earlier this week. "We look forward to more collaboration in the future."

The iOS version of the app received several new features, including AirPlay and Google Cast support. In addition to multitasking support, iPad users will also see a redesigned version of the app with an "immersive" new experience that features a new game timeline, up-to-the-minute stats and curated highlights from Twitter and Instagram. The March Madness app has also been made available for Apple Watch, allowing users to receive alerts for their favorite teams and quick access to scores and the tournament schedule.

All versions of the NCAA March Madness app require logging in with TV provider credentials to stream games.

NCAA March Madness for iOS is available in the App Store for free. [Direct Link]

Update: Games broadcast on CBS cannot be live streamed through the March Madness app even after cable authentication.

Top Rated Comments

69Mustang Avatar
81 months ago
We need to break the back of the cable monopoly, which is exactly this: if you just want to see content, you have to pay their fees. The provider of content should have the ability to collect money from you and the cable companies, or to have an agreement to accept funding by advertising and be free to show their property in whatever venue. Yes, this is exactly what a monopoly is: the pipe says it owns the content which it didn't finance. Uh-uh. In the '40s, the federal government broke up the studio's wholly-owned cinema chains for the same reasons. The MGM Theaters were showing only MGM, and nobody could show anything else. Capitol Theaters, etc., all were owned by the studios. (With some control by the mob, too.) So the guy with the movie house franchise in Chicago had to play the studio's content, no matter if it was a hit or not.
Breathe Swift, breathe. Your post is all over the place and making little sense. Cable companies own a lot of the content so they're more than just a pipe. In many cases they are the content provider as well. Bolded: Your quote assumes content providers can't show their property through whatever avenue they choose. They can. They choose to show their content through avenues that... sit down for this... pay them the most money. It's the reason they create content. They don't do it for your enjoyment. They do it for the money. Same reason Apple sells their products. Same for any company. It's something cord cutters seem to either not understand or completely ignore. In the grand scheme, they offer no value to anyone but themselves. When cord cutters can provide monetary incentive to any content provider they may start to see some of the things on their wish list. Right now they don't bring anything to the table. Why would any company want to deal with small incremental payments when they're currently getting very large payments from advertisers and cable companies.
Score: 2 Votes (Like | Disagree)
2010mini Avatar
81 months ago
We need to break the back of the cable monopoly, which is exactly this: if you just want to see content, you have to pay their fees. The provider of content should have the ability to collect money from you and the cable companies, or to have an agreement to accept funding by advertising and be free to show their property in whatever venue. Yes, this is exactly what a monopoly is: the pipe says it owns the content which it didn't finance. Uh-uh. In the '40s, the federal government broke up the studio's wholly-owned cinema chains for the same reasons. The MGM Theaters were showing only MGM, and nobody could show anything else. Capitol Theaters, etc., all were owned by the studios. (With some control by the mob, too.) So the guy with the movie house franchise in Chicago had to play the studio's content, no matter if it was a hit or not.
Find a way for content owners and distributors to make the same or more money with a new model. Or just pay up.
Score: 1 Votes (Like | Disagree)

Popular Stories

apple ar headset concept 1

Apple's Headset Said to Feature 14 Cameras Enabling Lifelike Avatars, Jony Ive Has Remained Involved With Design

Friday May 20, 2022 6:50 am PDT by
Earlier this week, The Information's Wayne Ma outlined struggles that Apple has faced during the development of its long-rumored AR/VR headset. Now, in a follow-up report, he has shared several additional details about the wearable device. Apple headset render created by Ian Zelbo based on The Information reporting For starters, one of the headset's marquee features is said to be lifelike...
iPhone 14 Purple Lineup Feature

Will the iPhone 14 Be a Disappointment?

Saturday May 21, 2022 9:00 am PDT by
With around four months to go before Apple is expected to unveil the iPhone 14 lineup, the overwhelming majority of rumors related to the new devices so far have focused on the iPhone 14 Pro, rather than the standard iPhone 14 – leading to questions about how different the iPhone 14 will actually be from its predecessor, the iPhone 13. The iPhone 14 Pro and iPhone 14 Pro Max are expected...
sony headphones 1

Sony's New WH-1000XM5 Headphones vs. Apple's AirPods Max

Friday May 20, 2022 12:18 pm PDT by
Sony this week came out with an updated version of its popular over-ear noise canceling headphones, so we picked up a pair to compare them to the AirPods Max to see which headphones are better and whether it's worth buying the $400 WH-1000XM5 from Sony over Apple's $549 AirPods Max. Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos. First of all, the AirPods Max win out when it comes ...
studio display 3

Apple's Rumored 27-Inch Mini-LED Display Now Said to Launch in October

Friday May 20, 2022 8:07 am PDT by
Apple now plans to release a new 27-inch display with mini-LED backlighting in October due to the Shanghai lockdown, which has resulted in production of the display being delayed, according to display industry consultant Ross Young. In a tweet, Young said Apple is in the process of moving production of the display from Quanta Computer to a different supplier and/or location, resulting in a...
HomePodandMini feature green

Kuo: Apple to Release New HomePod in Late 2022 or Early 2023

Friday May 20, 2022 8:55 am PDT by
Apple is working on an updated version of the HomePod that could come in the fourth quarter of 2022 or the first quarter of 2023, according to Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo. Kuo says that there "may not be much innovation in hardware design" for the new HomePod, and there is no word on what size the device will be and if it will be a HomePod mini successor or a larger speaker. Apple would ...
airtag purple

Best Apple Deals of the Week: Save on AirTag, AirPods 3, and iPads

Friday May 20, 2022 8:01 am PDT by
Solid markdowns on the AirTag, AirPods 3, and a few iPad models were introduced this week, and below you'll find all of the best deals of the past few days that are still available to purchase. AirTag Note: MacRumors is an affiliate partner with some of these vendors. When you click a link and make a purchase, we may receive a small payment, which helps us keep the site running. What's the...