Should the NCAA tournament expand to women’s basketball? “I think it would be terrible.”

Over the past month, Athleticism spoke with more than 30 women’s college basketball coaches on a range of topics from name, image and likeness to athletic directors to X’s and O’s. These coaches, from power conferences and high mid-majors, were granted anonymity to allow them to speak openly without fear of reprisal from their own programs or the NCAA. Throughout the week, we’ll share coaches’ thoughts on the most pressing issues in their sport. Although not all answers to each question are included, the answers represent all opinions expressed.

The expansion of the NCAA women’s tournament isn’t that uncommon in some ways. Just last season, the tournament field expanded for the first time since 1994 to create a field of 68, equivalent to the size of the men’s NCAA tournament. Although its most recent increase saw only four additional schools receive offers, possible future expansion would appear more consequential.

Last month, the NCAA Division I Transformation Committee submitted a series of proposals to the Division I Records Council recommending, among other things, that all team sports sponsored by more than 200 institutions consider expand their postseason fields to 25 percent of the teams that meet. the norm in sport. Women’s and men’s college basketball exceeds this figure. Dan Gavitt, NCAA senior vice president for basketball, recently said Athleticism 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 loomed over men’s college basketball in recent years, with conference commissioners like SEC’s Greg Sankey and Jim Phillips of the ACC expressing support for the idea. Increased access and opportunities are among the benefits. Of course, there are also financial incentives.

Here’s how women’s basketball coaches responded regarding expansion:

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 play-in games, you play 16 games on Tuesday, 16 games on Thursday. And you don’t want to devalue autobids, so autobids are exempt. So this always encourages automatic bidding. Take a team like Gonzaga – they lose in their (conference tournament) final. When there are only 68 teams, maybe they will get in, maybe not, but they deserve it. But with 96 teams, they enter but not with automatic qualification. So the 32 byes are automatic qualifiers, the next 64 are at-large teams playing to be able to play against the automatic qualifiers.

“With the current rules and the portal, it’s difficult. It’s not the same structure in which you could create (a program) and do it well. If you could expand it and let kids have a taste of it, I think it would make a huge difference to kids. »

“I was in a conference for a long time where it was very difficult to get that second offer. Not that we never got that second offer, but, man, it came down to the three days in March and you could go 15-3 and not get in. I think 90 would be good. I’m not strongly in favor of it, but I would probably be slightly in favor, because it gives more people a chance. There may not be 90 teams that could win the tournament, but there aren’t 68 teams that could win the tournament. If it was about providing opportunities, I would be fine with that.

“I just think we need to create more opportunities for 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 to go to 96, but in doing so I think you should eliminate the NIT. And I’m only talking about women’s football.

“You don’t want to take away its uniqueness, and I thought we shouldn’t do it because of that. But now I think it can still be a unique tournament, and we can expand so that more kids can have the opportunity to participate.

No

“It’s not a question of participation. You compete to win. You work to win matches to qualify for the tournament. Expanding the tournament may bring in more money, but it diminishes the specialness of it, it diminishes the elite status of those who participate. So you want to understand how to create an algorithm that is better at selecting the top 64 teams or understand how to include more winning teams? So do it, but don’t just expand it, because that’s the easiest thing to do.

“I don’t think our game is there yet.”

“I just like the length of the tournament and I like how exclusive it is right now.”

“Sixty-eight is enough. It’s a perfect number. I don’t think (expansion) is helpful, especially in women’s basketball. I understand it saves 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 to 68 like the guys. … I watch football, all the damn bowls there are, and I shake my head because I think it takes away the specialness of needing to build a CV that will put you in an exclusive group. It’s difficult to enter the field of 68. If we expand, it takes away exclusivity.”

“I like that we’ve expanded a little bit, but it still has to mean something to get it. The more you add, the more it dilutes it.

“I think you 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 them, the play-ins. Whoever complains, it’s all relative. If you’re number 69, you’ll say, “Oh, we should have gone in.” No, you shouldn’t have.

“I think it devalues ​​him. I think if we expanded our business it would be because men are doing it and I don’t think that’s a justifiable reason. I feel like our sport is gaining ground and validity and that parity is better. It’s a broader focus in terms of who’s watching. I think that takes the edge off things as we start to gain momentum.