The Problem(s) With Women's Basketball

It’s nice that the folks running the NCAA Women’s Tournament have copied the format of the men’s event in recent years. Equality for all (I guess).
But, by attempting to pass off their Tournament as an event with national interest, and trying to compete with the men, the NCAA has made a mockery of women’s basketball’s glamour event.
Empty arenas, a small number of upsets and anemic television ratings are staples of the NCAA Women’s Basketball Tournament and unless Tournament organizers acknowledge that their event is struggling and make some much-needed changes, things are unlikely to improve.
Let me get this out in the open before I continue: I hate women’s basketball. If given the choice between sitting through a women’s game or getting a root canal from a dentist who ate liverwurst for lunch whilst listening to James Taylor’s Greatest Hits, I’d choose watching the women’s game – but I’d actually give it some serious thought.
I can’t stand how ESPN forces the women’s game down our throats by including its scores on the bottom line or promo-ing the Tournament during every commercial break or beginning their ESPN-HD intro with a clip of a women’s tip-off (the cake-taker).
Nobody cares about women’s basketball and ESPN knows this – all they have to do is look at its ratings on the network (which fall somewhere in between First and 10 and NHL games).
I also can’t stand how every year around this time someone writes a column about the beauty of the women’s game and how it’s the purest form of basketball and how you’re a chauvinist if you automatically dismiss the fairer sex’s version of the game and yada, yada, yada. That’s all a complete load of crap; it’s not a better game and everyone knows it. Don’t make me feel guilty for hating on women’s ball by telling me I’m sexist. I hate on women’s’ ball because I have eyes and taste.
Keep in mind that I’m not one to rip of women’s sports. I prefer women’s tennis to men’s, acknowledge the greatness of Annika Sorenstam and love watching women’s track and swimming. But when it comes to women’s college basketball, I can’t stand the ugly shots, poor fundamentals and lack of competitiveness.
That being said, the women’s Tournament could, and should, be an event with mainstream appeal. But, copying the men’s format isn’t the way to do that.
How can the Tournament be saved then, you ask? Well, like most problems in the world, they can all be fixed if people would just listen to Chaz (that’s me).
Among the problems with the Women’s NCAA Tournament (with possible solutions):

Problem #1: No upsets
There isn’t nearly enough talent in the women’s game to justify having a 64-team field, but that didn’t stop the NCAA from expanding the women’s field from 48 to 64 beginning in 1994.
Since then there has been a #16 over #1 upset (Harvard beat Stanford in 1998), but in most years the regional finals consist of the #1 seed playing a #2 or #3 (this year three regional finals pitted the top two seeds in the region, while the fourth game was between a #1 and #3).
The possibility of upsets and Cinderella’s are what lure viewers in, but with a top-heavy women’s game, upsets are few and far between.
Solution: Cut back to a 32-team Tournament. This wouldn’t affect the amount of upsets, but it would get rid of the worthless first-round games and begin the Tournament with contests where they are better upset chances.

Problem #2: Attendance
Have you seen some of the crowds at the women’s games? (Of course you haven’t.) Some of these arenas are so empty they make Atlanta Hawks games look packed.
In the first round, crowds of 3,000 were the rule, not the exception and Monday’s two regional finals game were played in front of a total of 8,000 people – or about 22,000 less than were at the Carrier Dome Sunday for UNC-Wisconsin.
That same day, only 3,300 people in Philadelphia watched two of women’s basketball’s most storied programs (Tennessee and Stanford) face-off in a regional semifinal.
Thirty-three hundred people for a match-up between the Duke and Kansas of the women’s game? 4,100 people showed up earlier this year in Philly for a Drexel-UPenn game for crap’s sake!
Solution: Assuming a 32-team Tournament; play the first three rounds NIT-style (on the favored team’s home court). That should raise attendance. Only the Final Four should be played at a pre-determined site – preferably in a women’s hoops hotbed like Knoxville or Storrs.

Problem #3: Poor Ratings
Diana Taurasi’s Uconn teams provided a spike in ratings during their three-peat, but without a marquee star this season, women’s ratings have gone back in the tank.
It doesn’t help that the women’s final is played the night after the men’s final either.
Solution: Move the women’s Final Four back to its old Friday/Sunday schedule.

Problem #4: Nobody Likes Women’s Basketball
And ESPN force-feeding it to the sports-viewing public doesn’t help.
Solution: Instead of promoting what’s different about women’s basketball, like ESPN and the NCAA have done (example: no dunking makes for a more traditional game), talk about how it’s not much different than the men’s game. People like the men’s game, why would they want an alternative?

The heads of women’s basketball will never go for any of these, mind you, which is a shame. As a result of their stubbornness and refusal to admit something is wrong with the womens' game, the sport will never end up reaching the vast and untapped markets that have yet to discover just how boring women's college basketball really is.

Let the hate mail pour in. Reach me at: chrisachase@comcast.net