Women’s NCAA Tournament Expansion on Hold

    0
    0

    The prospect of expanding the men’s NCAA Tournament has become a point of discussion, but extending the field may not be beneficial for the women’s March Madness. When examining the potential for the men’s tournament to increase to 72 or 76 teams, this raises questions about whether a similar expansion is justified or even feasible for the women’s competition. From both competitive and financial viewpoints, the women’s tournament currently lacks the readiness for such growth.

    In the current year, the first round of the women’s tournament witnessed numerous lopsided results, including a near-record for noncompetitive games, with six teams surpassing 100 points within the first two days. Several 50-point margins were recorded, and for the first time since the women’s tournament increased to 64 teams in 1994, no team seeded 11 or lower reached the second round. Such results fuel debate among coaches regarding whether expansion is warranted.

    Some coaches are open to the idea, depending on which teams would receive entry. UConn’s coach, Geno Auriemma, initially expressed skepticism about the expansion by highlighting how some might anticipate seeing mediocre teams compete for the national title. Yet, he gradually warmed up to expansion if it meant providing mid-major teams with opportunities, suggesting that if a greater number from this category were included, expansion would seem more attractive.

    Mississippi State coach Sam Purcell leans towards expansion, as his team was left out previously due to the fierce competition within his conference. He believes many good teams remain excluded, especially as conferences welcome increasingly powerful members. However, key procedures are required before expansions are finalized. Should the NCAA aim for 2026 expansions, the proposal must be initiated this spring. Approval would then be needed from the Division I Board of Directors following recommendations from either basketball selection committee.

    Even if the necessary approvals are obtained, expanding the tournament carries the risk of reducing the competition’s prestige and potentially decreasing revenue. A notable factor is the financial arrangements where tournament teams benefit from “units,” providing financial rewards for participation. Adding more teams without boosting the overall financial pool from ESPN, the broadcasting partner, could reduce the financial benefit for each participating team.

    An increase in participants would also drive up costs associated with travel, accommodation, and logistics covered by the NCAA for tournament teams. Institutions like William & Mary and Columbia participated in initial games, gaining additional financial benefits for their conferences, a scenario that might diminish if more teams were added. Reseeding the tournament presents an alternative strategy that promotes fairness and profitability. Creating brackets with 16 seeds engaging in extra play-in games could lead to more even contests in early rounds, allowing for a broader allocation of the financial benefits.

    For instance, this year, teams seeded 16th showed competitive spirits, with Southern defeating UC San Diego by 12 and William & Mary winning their match by six. In stark contrast, games featuring No. 1 seeds against 16 seeds had an average victory margin of 47 points. In the history of the women’s tournament, only Harvard, seeded 16th, has triumphed over a No. 1 seed, overcoming Stanford in 1998 amidst challenging circumstances for the favored team.

    Despite rising popularity and financial growth of the women’s tournament, rushing towards expansion without thorough consideration does not align with the current figures, both competitively and monetarily. While the notion of expanding fields in basketball tournaments generates intrigue and debate, the path forward must be guided by a careful balance of excitement and feasibility.