As we’ve emerged from the opening days of the women’s NCAA Tournament, the dust has settled and we’ve reached the Sweet 16. Everyone has a moment to catch their breath before we head to the regionals, part of today’s topic of discussion.
The women’s sport has grown in tremendous ways over the past few years. There are stars that are garnering attention like never before such as Caitlin Clark, JuJu Watkins and UConn’s own, Paige Bueckers. Women’s college basketball has never had this much hype, giving this tournament the chance to take the sport to the next level. Though it’s lacked many of the upsets that increase its excitement, the stars have come to play and it has paid off.
Even with the increased viewership the sport has seen, the tournament’s structure is still far from perfect. Even as local as the Storrs, Connecticut pod this past weekend, coaches have found fault in the way both the first and second weekend is done. I’ll look at each concern and provide my thoughts.
TOP 16 TEAMS HOSTING
After 14-seed Jackson State was booted out of the first round by the hometown Huskies, head coach Tomekia Reed noted her reservations about the way the system works, currently involving each of the top 16 teams hosting a pod (four-team bracket, with the winner making the Sweet 16) on campus.
“I would love to see this tournament go to a neutral site like men’s basketball,” she said. “We would have a better chance, teams coming in at the 16 seed, 15, 14 have a better chance to compete and not have those jitters and be on an even playing field. I would love to see the game continue to grow to that.”
I have mixed feelings about Reed’s comments. In theory, I do agree that it would make sense to give the three teams not hosting an equal chance. After all, there is the aspect of the NCAA Tournament that involves the desire for an even playing field across all the participating teams. This is taken away with home court advantage.
However, there are some other factors to consider. The primary reason is the one that the NCAA likely is focusing on the most: revenue. If UConn’s women’s team was playing these first-round games at some neutral site like the men do, fewer people would be in attendance. Students can roll out of bed and be in their seats within 10 minutes. Especially given that more often than not, the team with the most fans is the host, ending up with the most excited supporters having the easiest access to attend. As such, Monday’s game against Syracuse was a sell-out and the first-round game on Saturday was pretty full. If the game was in Albany, New York or someplace similar, perhaps it’d be half full.
Though I understand that Reed is looking out for her team, I’m going to say that we stick with the current format of top-16 teams hosting. It’s great for the teams that get to host and does create an extra incentive to be one of those teams. If the sport keeps growing like it is now, then we should reconsider, but it’s just not ready yet.
TWO REGIONALS VERSUS FOUR
Last year, for the first time the women’s tournament switched to a two-regional format. Like in the men’s tournament, until 2023 regionals were played in four different locations around the country each year, typically geared towards basketball-centric areas like Greenville, South Carolina or Bridgeport, Connecticut, among others. If a team was a 1-seed, they could generally find a location that made sense geographically.
This changed last year, with the regional locations reduced to two. As such, eight teams go to each location and two emerge with final four bids. So far, these spots have been split on an east-west basis, with daunting travel for anyone who is either in the middle of the country or was picked for a location on the other side of America. The stated reason for this according to NCAA Associate Director for Media Rick Nixon was that it would help maintain neutral sites. In an interview with UConn WBB Weekly last week, UConn coach Geno Auriemma was not in love with it.
“It’s challenging for a lot of teams because if you’re a west coast team, you gotta go 3,000 miles,” he said. “If you’re an east coast team, you gotta go 3,000 miles. It’s a real challenge for those teams that have to travel that far.”
Auriemma wasn’t done there, expanding on the impact that it has on the fans of the sport too.
“I hope this is the last year of this nonsense with two regionals,” he said. “It makes absolutely no sense for anybody. The game of women’s basketball has never been better, never been stronger, never been more popular with people watching. So you limit how many places you can watch it. Now you go to Albany or you go to Portland and everybody in the rest of the country goes, ‘What about us?’ So I think it’s the dumbest thing ever.”
While I wasn’t in agreement with Reed, I do have to side with Auriemma here. Not everyone has the means to fly all over the country to see women’s basketball. One of the biggest goals when growing a sport is to make it more accessible to casual fans. Those who live in or near a big city might see that there’s women’s basketball being played at their local arena and decide to see what it’s all about. When you split the number of locations in half, you also split those viewers.
Whether people like it or not, the men’s tournament is swimming in viewers and could make an irresponsible decision like this to limit the tournament’s scope and still be okay. For a sport that’s still in something of a critical period like women’s basketball, I think that it needs to get switched back as soon as possible.
Give more people the chance to watch the sport, get more eyes on it. It’s silly to so strongly promote neutrality in the second weekend but go against it so strongly in the first weekend. Consistency is key here. Either way, this tournament has been a great product. People will continue to watch it on TV, even if it’s not as accessible in person.