Huh, was someone lurking on the BY during our discussion of 2 vs 4 regional sites?
Again, apologies that the NYT doesn't let you gift articles from The Athletic
Has increased fandom created a need for four regional sites, like the men's tournament?
www.nytimes.com
Certain logistical difficulties come with the two-site model. Each team stays at its own hotel, which requires the availability of extra high-quality accommodations, and that hasn’t always been the case. In Albany in 2024, LSU was in a hotel with particularly slow Wi-Fi, and coaches had to go to the arena to download game film. Eight teams have to get onto one court compared to four in the prior regionals, which requires some practice and shoot-around times to be early in the morning.
The vast geographic spread also introduces extra travel for teams and fans. A wide swath of middle America hasn’t had a regional site within hundreds of miles over the last three seasons.
The current model of two sites rather than four, like in the men’s NCAA Tournament, reduces overhead costs, and the increase in gate revenue is an additional boon.
“Fiscal responsibility relative to operational expenses and revenue are very much an important component of this,” NCAA vice president of women’s basketball Lynn Holzman said,
The NCAA is experiencing a stress test to react fast enough to the changes in the sporting landscape. Its hope is that as women’s basketball experiences its explosive rise in popularity, it isn’t outpacing the mechanisms in place to guide its growth.
Interesting that the NCAA is concerned about overhead costs and fiscal responsibility when it comes to WBB, and yes, I understand that the men's tourney makes money, but still.
