Super Regionals Not So Super

For the past few years in the women's NCAA Tournament, there have only been two Regional sites instead of four.  There are still four Regionals, but two are played at each site.  It's stupid for many reasons, and not just because the Regionals have ridiculous names like "Spokane 1."  And I'm not the only one who thinks so.  Two prominent coaches have voiced their displeasure with the current system and their desire to go back to the old format with four Regionals.

Geno Auriemma is really not a fan.  Now, I'm sure part of the reason he doesn't like it is because UConn's been a 2-seed and got sent out west in each of last two years.  But the fact that they got sent out west is precisely because there are only two Regional sites.  Would they have had to travel anyway?  Perhaps.  And USC has been their 1-seed two years in a row, so it's likely they still would've gotten sent out west.  But the point is the likelihood of teams having to travel long distances is greatly increased when there are only two options and one of them is a remote city in the Pacific Northwest.

His issue seems to have less to do with the inconvenience of the long travel, though.  (Although, he did point out that they'll spend all day Tuesday traveling from Spokane to Tampa for the Final Four to then turn around and play on Friday night, which would've been the case for whoever came out of "Spokane 4.")  Rather, his concerns seemed to stem from other inconveniences such as weird and/or early practice times since they're trying to accommodate eight teams instead of four...and, since there are games every day, they have to work practice times around the game schedule, too.

In her postgame comments after LSU's loss to UCLA (in the other Regional being played in Spokane), Kim Mulkey made it known that she agrees with Geno.  For an entirely different reason.  Because of the impact it has on attendance.  She specifically noted that a lot of LSU fans would've loved to attend, but couldn't afford to go to Spokane and would've gone to the game if it were closer.  And there were plenty of UConn shirts in the stands in Birmingham, even though the Huskies were playing in Spokane.  Clearly their fans bought tickets for Birmingham expecting UConn to be sent there (which they likely would've been if they were a 1-seed).

That point is the important one to consider.  The initial thought behind the two Regional sites was that it would be great for attendance.  It would be a celebration of women's basketball where fans would have the opportunity to all gather in one place.  That may have been the case had they picked places that were a little more convenient/easy to get to.  In reality, though, it's actually had the opposite effect.  It's limited the potential attendance by only opening it up to two areas instead of four all around the country.

I'm not saying more fans definitely would've traveled if there were four sites instead of two.  But I can say fairly confidently that some fans have definitely NOT traveled to the Regionals because of the distance involved.  And those fans probably would've traveled (or at least considered it) if the team was playing somewhere closer.

Even with Caitlin Clark now in the WNBA, women's college basketball has never been hotter.  They've done some brilliant things with the NCAA Tournament in recent seasons.  Among them are getting the weekend windows on ABC and moving the Championship Game to Sunday afternoon on ABC.  They should be looking to capitalize on that momentum by bringing the games to more people.  Instead, they're making people come to them.  It's a backwards model!

Part of the thought process here might be that the top teams only have to travel for the Regionals since the top 16 overall seeds get to play the first two rounds at home.  And the on-campus sites plus the Regionals and Final Four mean 19 different venues host women's NCAA Tournament games a year, which is six more than the men.  However, that argument falls apart when you consider that they go from 16 seeds on the first weekend to two for the second weekend.  The two Regional thing, frankly, isn't working out the way the NCAA had hoped.

The idea came about several years ago when the NCAA did a full assessment of the women's tournament and that was one of the suggestions made.  It's something that sounds good in theory to the person who thought of it before it's a fully fleshed out idea.  Then enough other people think it's worth a shot, so they jump on board, too.  Then it becomes a reality and they realize it's not all it was cracked up to be in their heads.

When they first went to the two-Regional format, I was like "this makes no sense!"  Three years later, my stance is still the same.  There was absolutely nothing wrong with the old format of four Regionals, which had been utilized in every NCAA Tournament until the entire 2021 edition was played in San Antonio during the pandemic.  The 2022 Tournament was the last with four Regionals before they went to the current format in 2023.  They've announced sites for the next three NCAA Tournaments, and each has only two Regional sites.  So, we're stuck with the current format until at least 2028.  Or are we?

There's a very obvious solution here, and it's the one Kim Mulkey suggested in her postgame comments.  No one is saying that the NCAA should take away the Regionals that have already been awarded.  What people are saying is that you keep them, but add two more each year.  Then, you go back to the preferred four-Regional format while also having better geographic distribution.  Instead of one site on the East Coast and one on the West Coast, venues could be spread around the country in a similar way to the men (which is what they used to do).

Going back to four Regionals would benefit the women's tournament in so many ways.  First and foremost, it would be easier and more convenient for fans to have their favorite teams play closer to home.  That, in turn, would benefit the teams.  It also makes no sense to have what are essentially two Regionals guaranteed to be on the West Coast when the majority of the schools are not (it worked out this year that both UCLA and USC were 1-seeds, but how often does that happen?).

More importantly, this is a time when the NCAA should be looking to capitalize on the women's game's momentum and bring the NCAA Tournament to more people.  The idea that these eight-team double Regionals would be a celebration of the sport simply hasn't panned out.  You know it's bad when even the most influential coaches are vocalizing their displeasure with it.  Does that guarantee a change back to four Regionals is imminent?  No.  Knowing the NCAA, they could easily be stubborn and double down.  But I think their making it known that they don't like it will certainly get the discussion going.

As someone who's never been a fan of the two Regionals instead of four to begin with, you know which side of the debate I'm on.  I thought it was stupid when they were first discussing it, and having seen it in action, it doesn't make any more sense now than it did then.  Especially since there was no reason to move away from four Regionals in the first place!  Hopefully common sense prevails and they go back to that format.  Preferably sometime before 2029.