It's convenient for people to forget that around the country the womens game did not get the support from fans so tournament sites were picked to maximize ticket sales. It's why games are played at home courts and the regionals were placed where people would buy tickets. There is also a directive to minimize travel costs as most programs lose money. Most of this whining forgets the economics of the women's game.
As for advantages, many of the higher seeds, including IU were upset or pushed to the wire on their home court. iirc Home is worth a basket in most betting schemes.
The issue of neutral court versus home court for seeded teams in the postseason it's one that can keep us engaged, conversing, commenting and arguing for a long time.
Coach Abe articulated the neutral court perspective, one that has a significant contingent and a number of strong arguments.
Adia Barnes in her post game presser after the loss argued for the opposite with equal strength and analysis.
For the WBB fan without a horse in the race (NAU Lumberjacks) I think the case for neutral courts might be persuasive. Although I must admit as a Husky fan I absolutely love home courts.
Obviously for fans with a rooting interest the breakdown is along ranking lines. Fans of the higher ranked team love the opportunity to go to a home court contest. Fans of the lower ranked team would probably be equally passionate in their view for neutral court.
The one issue that rings in my mind is one of in court attendance. I would suspect that attendance would dip if games were all held on a true neutral court.
So for those of us who would like to see a higher profile for WBB, more energy and engagement, more attendance, and ultimately a movement toward equal exposure and resourcing I think this is a complex and extraordinarily important issue.
I would say right now to achieve the above goals we would want to continue to see home courts such as Iowa State, iowa, South Caolina, Tucson, and of course Connecticut. Those huge involved crowds really are an exemplar of what we'd like to see all across the sport.
But perhaps just perhaps if we take a long-term perspective locating the tournament at a true neutral side might offer opportunities for increasing interest in viewership and broadening the base. I think the rabid fans in our sport will always remain attached. I think the challenge is broadening that base to general sports fans or more casual fans. I'm not sure what the answer is but wouldn't it be great if those fans became more engaged. I know it would certainly help the game.
I think this is an extremely worthwhile topic and an important argument. Also it seems to be one on the by in which there's animated and informed discussion on both sides while still maintaining civility and collegiality. That may be one of the reasons I'm so engaged with it.