By DOUG FEINBERG
Expanding the men’s NCAA Tournament would not be a good move for women’s March Madness.
The numbers don’t add up, though that may not matter.
If the men’s field expands to 72 or 76 teams as has been a topic of conversation the last few months, it would be almost a foregone conclusion that the women’s field would grow as well for equity reasons. Though it is questionable whether the men’s tourney is ready for expansion, it seems clear women’s March Madness is not. It’s not ready from a competitive or a financial standpoint.
Consider this: The first round of the women’s tourney this year featured a near record number of blowouts and noncompetitive games; six teams scored over 100 points in the opening two days; there were a handful of 50-point routs; and for the first time since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1994, no team seeded 11 or worse advanced to the second round.
Coaches, however, have mixed feelings on expansion.
For some, it depends on who gets in with any additional spots.
“Expanding the tournament? Who doesn’t look forward to March to watching six more teams, 4-12 in their league, playing for the national championship,” UConn coach Geno Auriemma sarcastically quipped.
He later warmed up to the idea if it gives potentially more mid-major teams a chance.
“If that was going to be the case, hey, we want to expand by 32 more teams. 20 of those 32 are going to be mid-majors that had great years, let’s let them in,” he said. “Do you really think that’s going to happen? No,” adding if that were to happen, “I’d be all for it.”
Mississippi State coach Sam Purcell wouldn’t mind seeing more teams get in. His Bulldogs were on the outside looking in last year, ending up on the wrong side of the bubble. This year, they got in after navigating a competitive Southeastern Conference schedule.
“I think there is lots of good teams that you see that didn’t get in,” he said. “Obviously, I’m one of those teams that is always on the back end because of how tough my conference is, especially as we continue to add more powerful members.”
Of course there are procedural steps to take before anything happens. For example, if the NCAA were to expand the 2026 tournament they would need to get it done by this spring. For that to even be considered, either the men’s or women’s basketball selection committee would have to put forth the recommendation. Then it would need approval by the Division I Board of Directors.
And if every domino falls into place, looming on the horizon would be the potential to weaken the competition and dilute earnings.
This year, 37 of the 68 teams came from the Power Four conferences. The Ivy League was the only other conference to get more than two bids. The first four teams left out of the field were Virginia Tech, James Madison, Saint Joseph’s and Colorado; two more power conference schools and two mid-majors.
There there’s the money.
Women’s teams in this year’s NCAA Tournament received “units” — financial incentives for tournament appearances — for the first time. Adding teams without adding more money from the NCAA’s television partner ESPN would lessen the value of those financial units for each team. There is no chance that either the women’s or men’s tournament would expand if it would decrease unit value.
Adding teams would also raise NCAA costs which could impact charter flights, hotels, buses, food and other expenses associated with teams in the tournament that are paid for by the sports’ governing body.
Schools like William & Mary and Columbia both competed in the play-in games. Both were victorious earning an extra $250,000 for their conferences over the next three years through the financial units. Add in another four to eight teams and the value of those units would decrease.
Instead of expanding the field, reseeding the field could be a more viable option. The NCAA could create brackets that allow 16 seeds to compete in more play-in games, leading to more competitive early round games and more distribution of the money. As it is now, two of the four play-in games involve 16 seeds.
This year, 16th-seeded Southern beat UC San Diego by 12 and William & Mary, another 16 seed, won by six in its game.
By contrast, the average margin of victory in the first-round games featuring No. 1 seeds against 16 seeds was 47 points. In the history of the women’s tournament, Harvard is the only 16 seed to beat No. 1 seed when The Crimson upset Stanford in 1998.
Even then, there were extenuating circumstances: The Cardinal had several players injured and no one to contain three-time Ivy league player of the year Allison Feaster, who was the fifth overall pick in the 1998 WNBA. Now the vice president of team operations and organizational growth for the Boston Celtics, she is also the mom of current stellar UConn freshman Sarah Strong.
With the women’s tournament enjoying increased popularity and flourishing monetarily, it might seem like the time to branch out. But the numbers just don’t add up — on or off the court.
On Basketball analyzes the biggest topics in college or pro basketball.
AP Sports Writer Beth Harris and freelance Jim Fuller contributed to this story.
AP March Madness bracket: https://apnews.com/hub/ncaa-womens-bracket and coverage: https://apnews.com/hub/march-madness. Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here.
Originally Published:
