More Changes Coming?

For the past two years, the NCAA has used the incredibly stupid two-Reigonal format for the women's basketball tournament (even though there are four regions).  I've not hidden my disdain for this format.  It was supposed to last three seasons, but now they're reconsidering.  The women's basketball committee will meet this summer to discuss implementing potential changes a year earlier than scheduled.  Does that mean we could potentially see the return of four Regional sites in 2025?

The whole idea of having two different Regionals at the same site never quite made sense to me to begin with.  It took the NCAA a long time to move away from letting home teams play in a Regional that they're hosting to true neutral sites, which really just highlighted the strength of the women's game.  They didn't need to rely on their being a home team for fans to come to the games.  Sure, they'd still have UConn play somewhere in New England or New York, but the point remains.  They didn't need a home team to guarantee attendance.  At least for the Regionals.

Then, for some reason, the NCAA decided that even though they had no problem with attendance at four Regionals, they'd reduce the number to two.  The logic behind this move escapes me.  How exactly is it growing the game to give fewer people the opportunity to see the games without having to travel?  And it's not like they're playing in major metropolises either.  Last year, one was in Greenville, South Carolina, and this year's are in Albany and Portland!

Doesn't it make more sense to have the four Regions feed into four different Regional sites?  That way, you can spread it out more, too, which is better for both the fans and the participating teams.  The men have East, West, Midwest and South for a reason.  Shouldn't the women do the same thing?

They're also discussing potentially doing away with the longstanding tradition of having the top four seeds in each Region play their first- and second-round games at home.  Since those sites aren't determined until a few days beforehand, it can create logistical issues, some of which were highlighted this year, particularly in Spokane, where Gonzaga earned the right to host.  Except Spokane was also hosting the men's tournament and a major volleyball tournament that weekend, so hotel rooms were scarce.  As a result, some teams had to stay in Idaho, as far as 30 miles away.  And it was in one of those Idaho hotels where the ugly, racist incident involving Utah's team took place.

Those aren't the only logistical issues they have to deal with, either.  Another big one involves scheduling.  Two venues--the University of Iowa's Carver-Hawkeye Arena and Virginia Tech's Cassell Coliseum hosted both NIT and women's NCAA Tournament games in the same week.  Carver-Hawkeye also had a Women's First Four game, which was the night after the Iowa men's team played in the NIT.  Now, Iowa obviously knew they'd be hosting the women's tournament for a while, so that wasn't exactly a surprise, but having to schedule around the men's NIT certainly presented an added challenge.

And, since USC and UCLA were both top-four seeds, there were two different women's first- and second-round sites in Los Angeles...a week before a men's Regional in LA.  Now, LA's obviously a big enough city that hotel rooms, etc., weren't a problem.  And the fact that they were both good enough to host was purely a coincidence.  But, still, you had 16 first- and second-round sites, two of which were effectively in the same place.  (For the record, this happens in volleyball all the time with UCLA and USC both hosting.)

If they do go to predetermined sites, it wouldn't be the first time.  They tried it for a few years about a decade ago before going to the current format of the top four seeds in each Region hosting the 16 first- and second-round sites.  The one problem with that format they discovered, however, is that a host school that made the tournament automatically got to play on its home floor, even if they were the lower seed.  So, they could have, for example, a 7-seed playing a home game against a 2-seed in the second round.

However, should they go back to predetermined sites, I'm not sure there's a way around that.  Maybe they could put in some sort of stipulation that only a top-four seed can play at home, which would avoid the problem of a higher-seeded team playing a road game in the first or second round.  Or, they could simply say you can't host at all, which seems unlikely, since it would limit the amount of schools that put in to host.  It also wouldn't make any sense attendance-wise to have, for example, NCAA Tournament games in Storrs involving four random teams while UConn is playing somewhere else.

I can even remember a time when they only had eight opening weekend sites just like the men.  When I was in college, I did radio for the Canisius women's team.  We made our only NCAA Tournament appearance in 2005 and played Duke at the University of North Carolina.  Our game was a part of the afternoon session, while North Carolina's pod played at night.  Our game was not very well attended, as was the case with a number of other games in the eight-site format, so it was quickly abandoned and they went back to 16 sites.

Whether they make changes for next year's tournament or not, going back to eight sites is something I don't think they'll do.  It would obviously make things significantly easier for ESPN, who'd only need half as many broadcasters and production teams.  But the 16 sites actually give them greater scheduling flexibility that they'd be smart to continue taking advantage of.  Not to mention the fact that logistically, it's easier to find hotels for only four teams (in what will, presumably, be smaller cities than the men's tournament).  And, attendance could still be a worry on the first weekend, so letting teams play home games would at least guarantee better crowds than four teams on a neutral court would.

A few years ago, when they did that big analysis of the women's tournament and made suggestions for how to improve it, one of the recommendations was combining the Final Fours.  That, frankly, is an even dumber idea than the two Regionals!  You want to guarantee the Women's Final Four will be completely overshadowed?  Play it in the same city as the men's!  The women's game has shown it's perfectly capable of standing on its own.  It deserves to be a standalone event.  I'm glad that recommendation was ignored!

Just look at all the great, positive changes to the women's tournament in recent years as proof that it's thriving.  They moved the Championship Game to Sunday afternoon on ABC, and there were eight timeslots on ABC (two each on Saturday and Sunday) during the first two weekends.  And every game is broadcast live in its entirety on one of ESPN's networks.

Going back to four Regionals is another change that would be incredibly positive and needs to happen ASAP.  Because the two Regional site thing is just stupid!  As for the first- and second-round sites, I'm not sure.  I'd have to see what they come up with before I form an opinion.  Because I see the benefit of continuing to play on campus, but I can also see the benefit of going to predetermined sites.  Either way, they should stick with 16 of them.  Whether they will or not, that's a different question.