Over the last month, The Athletic has spoken with more than 30 women’s college basketball coaches about an array of topics from name, image and likeness to athletic directors to X’s and O’s. These coaches, who hail from power conferences and high mid-majors, were granted anonymity to allow them to speak openly without fear of retribution from their own programs or the NCAA. Throughout the week, we’ll share coaches’ thoughts on the most pressing issues in their sport. Though not every response to each question is included, answers represent all opinions expressed.
Advertisement
Expansion of the women’s NCAA Tournament isn’t all that uncommon in some respects. Just last season, the tournament’s field grew for the first time since 1994 to create a field of 68 — equaling the size of the men’s NCAA Tournament. Though its most recent increase saw only four more schools receive bids, possible future expansion would seem more consequential.
Last month, the NCAA Division I Transformation Committee submitted a series of proposals to the Division I Board of Records recommending, among other notes, that all team sports sponsored by more than 200 institutions consider expanding their postseason fields to 25 percent of the teams that meet the standard in the sport. Both women’s and men’s college basketball surpass that number. Dan Gavitt, the NCAA’s senior vice president for basketball, recently told The Athletic he expects the men’s and women’s basketball committees to discuss the topic this spring and summer after this year’s tournaments.
The topic of more drastic growth in the NCAA Tournament has been hovering over men’s college basketball in recent years, with conference commissioners like the SEC’s Greg Sankey and the ACC’s Jim Phillips expressing support for the idea. Access and increased opportunity are among the benefits. There are, of course, financial incentives, too.
Here’s how women’s basketball coaches answered regarding expansion:
| Votes | Percent |
|---|---|
Yes | 23 |
No | 61 |
Maybe / Unsure | 16 |
Should the women’s NCAA Tournament expand?
Yes
“Expand to 96 teams. Instead of playing two games on Tuesday and two games on Thursday in the play-in games, you play 16 games on Tuesday, 16 games on Thursday. And you don’t want to cheapen the automatic bids, so the automatic bids have byes. So it still incentivizes the automatic bids. Take a team like Gonzaga — they lose in their (conference tournament) finals. When there’s only 68 teams, maybe they get in, maybe they don’t, but they deserve it. But with 96 teams, they get in but not with the automatic qualifier. So the 32 byes are automatic qualifiers, the next 64 are at-large teams that play to get to play against the automatic qualifiers.”
Advertisement
“With today’s rules and the portal, it’s hard. It’s not the same structure where you could build (a program) up and do it right. If you could expand it and let kids taste it, I think it’d make a huge difference for kids.”
“I was part of a conference for a long time where it was really hard to get that second bid. Not that we never got that second bid, but, man, it came down to the three days in March and you might go 15–3 and not get in. I think 90 would be fine. I’m not strongly in favor of it, but I would probably be slightly in favor of it because it gives more people an opportunity. There might not be 90 teams who could win the tournament, but there aren’t 68 teams that could win the tournament. If it was about providing opportunity, I’d be fine with it.”
“I just think that we need to create more opportunities for the teams like us (mid-major programs) that could potentially become a bubble team if you don’t win the conference tournament.”
“I like the NCAA Tournament going to 96, but in doing that, I think you should eliminate the NIT. And I’m only talking about the women’s game.”
“You don’t want to take away from the uniqueness of it, and I used to think we shouldn’t because of that. But now I think it can still be a unique tournament, and we can expand so more kids could have an opportunity to participate.”
No
“This isn’t a participation thing. You compete to win. You’re working to win games to earn your way into the tournament. Expanding the tournament may make more money but it lessens the specialness of it, it lessens the elite status of who gets in. So you want to figure out how to create an algorithm that’s better in selecting the best 64 teams or to figure out how to include more teams that are winning? Then do that, but don’t just expand it because that’s the easiest thing to do.”
Advertisement
“I don’t think our game is there yet.”
“I just like the length of time that the tournament is, and I like the exclusivity of it right now.”
“Sixty-eight is enough. It’s a perfect number. I don’t think (expansion) serves the purpose, especially in women’s basketball. I get that it saves people’s jobs and gives more kids the tournament experience, but I like where it is. I like the First Four — those are your four extras.”
“I like getting it to 68 like the guys. … I look at football, at all the dang bowls there are, and I shake my head because I think it takes the specialness away from needing to build a resume that’s going to get you into an exclusive group. It’s hard to get into the field of 68. If you expand, it takes the exclusivity away.”
“I like that we expanded a little bit, but it still has to mean something to get it. The more you add, it dilutes it.”
“I think either go all the way and add another weekend to it or you keep it as is. I wasn’t even in favor of the next four or whatever they call it, the play-in. Anybody who complains, it’s all relative. If you’re number 69, you’re gonna be, ‘Oh, we should have got in.’ No, you shouldn’t have.”
“I think it devalues it. I think if we expanded, it would be doing it because the men are doing it and I don’t think that’s a justifiable reason. I feel like our sport is gaining traction and validity and the parity is better. It’s a broader brush of interest in terms of who’s watching. I think that waters it down while we’re starting to gain momentum.”
“Everybody already has an opportunity with the number we have. I want it to be as competitive as possible.”
“If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.”
Maybe / unsure
“The longer the madness the better, in some ways, for viewership, at least. But does that then dilute the women’s game? And this is not popular to say as a women’s coach, but is the women’s game ready for that? Does it dilute the top group?”
Advertisement
“Only if the men do, too.”
“There’s a lot of parity right now. That could make for some really competitive games. Because there are going to be a lot of teams that don’t get into the tournament this year that are good enough to be there. But I’m a purist, and I don’t like change.”
“I think it would be terrible to have it expand. Believe me, would I vote for it at my school? I’m gonna vote for it to expand because I think that gives me a better chance of getting in, and I’m gonna be selfish with that vote. But when it comes to the overall integrity of women’s basketball, no, it does not need to expand.”
Required reading
(Photo: Andy Lyons / Getty Images)