Women's NCAA Tourney Expansion

[Timothy A]

I know we've discussed this in the past on other threads, but now there is a big equity push with a meeting on the 10th to consider increasing to the NCAA Tourney to 12 teams. From Watts I recall, many feel the quality of the teams does not warrant expansion, and that should be the driving force. This push says that the NCAA spends less money per player, spend less on the women's tourney than the men's (well duh, there are less teams and they frown on flying teams around and with attendance so low they don't need to spend money on support and infrastructure) and 7% less of the teams make the women's tourney than the men's. Discuss.

 

[Offsides Guy]

I’m more interested in them getting the seeding right and flying every team wherever they need to go to make that happen.

Having said that, if expanding the field gets all of the top 4 WCHA teams in, then I’m for it!

 

[Steamboat]

I know we've discussed this in the past on other threads, but now there is a big equity push with a meeting on the 10th to consider increasing to the NCAA Tourney to 12 teams. From Watts I recall, many feel the quality of the teams does not warrant expansion, and that should be the driving force. This push says that the NCAA spends less money per player, spend less on the women's tourney than the men's (well duh, there are less teams and they frown on flying teams around and with attendance so low they don't need to spend money on support and infrastructure) and 7% less of the teams make the women's tourney than the men's. Discuss.

These young women work just as hard as the young men do to learn the nuances of the game, and to try to get to the top. It is really, really annoying to me that we as a society don't credit women who do the same tasks as men. I don't care what (Watt?) sport you look at, these women put out 100% and should be recognized for that, and if the situation requires, compensated the same as the men.

 

[Lindsay]

Thanks for starting the thread. So glad for the coaches that are pushing this. Breaks my heart but the inequity starts the second you enroll your kids in sport. I already see it with my little kids in terms of jerseys and trophies, and field conditions. Truly disgusting. Add in what we saw out of Pittsburgh high school hockey this week towards the girl goalie. Gender inequality in sport is so awful. Bravo to the people pushing for this, and for the supporters who do what is right in a world that is wrong. Great point in the article that it’s about the student athlete experience, and that should be driving force not fan experience. I also hope that the seeding gets fixed- that impacts student athletes experience. I don’t understand the COC comment “wait until funding is available but also you should have asked for more teams.” Can someone explain? Does COC go to NCAA with requests? Very glad to see students understanding the inequities; they are ahead of my generation. Glad to see the old guard on the coaching side lead this charge.

 

[HawksHockey]

Up until recently, more teams in NCAA Division I were eliminating the sport rather than adding it. The sport of women’s ice hockey will not grow if the opportunities for championship access remain restrictive.

Simply put, the sport will continue to die at the National Collegiate level if teams have nothing to play for. Having the CHA and NEWHA share the fourth automatic qualifier, for example, is one way of preventing this growth.

Right now, you have over 400 NCAA Division II schools that could add the sport of men’s ice hockey, for example, that won’t do it because there’s nothing to play for and the NCAA has put up roadblock after roadblock for them to do so.

You want the “quality of the teams to improve”? Stop putting up roadblocks to championship access and recognize that these new programs in the last five years need time to grow, just like the time frame those women’s ice hockey programs in the early 2000’s did.

 

[Lindsay]

And it’s funny. NCAA had to commission a report but right nut said it way back in March—— something along the lines of the Erie Frozen Four did not compare to the men’s, and that it was more than likely all due to the NCAA support and not local organizing committee. Spot on. Time for change.

 

[vicb]

https://kaplanhecker.app.box.com/s/y17pvxpap8lotzqajjan9vyye6zx8tmz

 

[Timothy A]

And it’s funny. NCAA had to commission a report but right nut said it way back in March—— something along the lines of the Erie Frozen Four did not compare to the men’s, and that it was more than likely all due to the NCAA support and not local organizing committee. Spot on. Time for change.

You can organize and support all you want, but when as a sport you have very few non WI and MN fans, are teams imaginary fans going to suddenly pack the locations? No. Eastern teams get maybe 200-300 people to attend home games now. If every fan travelled to the FF, it's still only 200-300 people. If every MN or WI fan travelled to a FF, that's only 3500.

The most interesting point to me is the percent of teams making the tourney. There is a disparity between the men and the women. I wonder what the disparity is between
other sports that have both genders.

Now the facilities and the amenities for the players should be equal between the men and the women. That is a for sure. Nothing less than that is acceptable.

I have an interesting idea to make the women's tourney more compelling. Increase to 12 teams (it should do that anyway). Play a round robin at 3 sites (West Central East). The winners of each site and the highest seed to get bumped make the FF. Make that a round robin as well. There is precedence for round robining. The baseball and softball tourneys play some crazy quintuple elimination formats that last a month, so it is being done now. The teams have already traveled to a site, so why not play more games? It enhances the player's experience tremendously. The 3rd and 4th lines will get a chance to play in high leverage situations more. Another goalie might see action. Realistically from a competitive standpoint, all 4 teams could win a game. Even on day 3 if you have 2 winless teams playing, they are still playing to win a game in the ncaa tournament, to finish the year on a high note. Playing 3 games in 3 days isn't a big deal. In the wcha they play 2 games 2 day series exclusively. It does make it more worthwhile for the fans to travel too. You see your team 3 games for sure instead of 1. You could watch 6 games as a fan in person! Make the ticket prices reasonable, like a 25 buck pass gets you into every game. And then the ncaa should shell out some money to a network and pay them to televise the FF round robin.

Another idea is to run the women's and men's tourneys concurrently at the same neutral sites.

 

[Offsides Guy]

Up until recently, more teams in NCAA Division I were eliminating the sport rather than adding it. The sport of women’s ice hockey will not grow if the opportunities for championship access remain restrictive.

Simply put, the sport will continue to die at the National Collegiate level if teams have nothing to play for. Having the CHA and NEWHA share the fourth automatic qualifier, for example, is one way of preventing this growth.
.

If you’re going to expand to 12 teams you need to get rid of the Conference autobids and go with the 12 highest ranked teams making the tournament. Women’s hockey is not deep enough yet to have a Cinderella story come out of the NEWHA Conference for example. Better to have the 12 best teams involved in putting on the most competitive show possible for the sport. This still gives every program in the country a shot at making the tournament as the top 12 would not be limited at all by conference championships.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

If you’re going to expand to 12 teams you need to get rid of the Conference autobids and go with the 12 highest ranked teams making the tournament. Women’s hockey is not deep enough yet to have a Cinderella story come out of the NEWHA Conference for example. Better to have the 12 best teams involved in putting on the most competitive show possible for the sport. This still gives every program in the country a shot at making the tournament as the top 12 would not be limited at all by conference championships.

You will never get rid of conference autobids. So don't bother bringing that up again. Seriously.

 

[HawksHockey]

Lot of talk involving revenue generation and “fan excitement” in this thread and all around hockey Twitter.

Look at the vast majority of NCAA Championships in many sports in the early rounds - attendance is not impressive and there certainly is not much revenue being generated in ANY sport, men’s or women’s, outside of basketball. Even if there was, proceeds would go to the NCAA, so why people care so much about generating revenue is beyond me.

The focus of any change to the NCAA Championship should ultimately focus on these three things:

1) Create an equitable experience for women that is comparable to the men
2) Reverse a discouraging trend, which is Colleges and Universities eliminating the sport of women’s ice hockey
3) The experience of student-athletes should be at the forefront

The NEWHA and similar schools just began offering scholarships less than two years ago - unless the expectation of everyone was that all of the money should be spent on the first recruiting class, it’s going to take time to improve these teams.

Saying women’s hockey is “not deep enough” right now is one thing - expecting the NCAA to do the right thing in the future when it is “deep enough” is comical. These teams will get better ONLY by playing the best possible opponents and avenues for championship access are what recruits are interested in - that’s it.

Expand the field to 12 teams with the proper amount of autobids. This is not that hard and the lengths people go to overthink an obvious (and easy) solution is beyond me.

 

[Offsides Guy]

You will never get rid of conference autobids. So don't bother bringing that up again. Seriously.

That’s shortsighted and too bad. Having terrible conference champions getting blown out in the first round of an expanded tournament does nothing for anybody. Bad hockey does not draw more attention to the sport.

 

[Offsides Guy]

These teams will get better ONLY by playing the best possible opponents and avenues for championship access are what recruits are interested in - that’s it.

Sorry but the top tier recruits who want championship access and can truly lift programs are focused on playing for a national contender. They aren’t the type of players who will go to St Anselm, for example, just to make the tourney via the NEWHA autobid and get blown out by WI in the first game.

 

[Steamboat]

You can organize and support all you want, but when as a sport you have very few non WI and MN fans, are teams imaginary fans going to suddenly pack the locations? No. Eastern teams get maybe 200-300 people to attend home games now. If every fan travelled to the FF, it's still only 200-300 people. If every MN or WI fan travelled to a FF, that's only 3500.

The most interesting point to me is the percent of teams making the tourney. There is a disparity between the men and the women. I wonder what the disparity is between
other sports that have both genders.

Now the facilities and the amenities for the players should be equal between the men and the women. That is a for sure. Nothing less than that is acceptable.

I have an interesting idea to make the women's tourney more compelling. Increase to 12 teams (it should do that anyway). Play a round robin at 3 sites (West Central East). The winners of each site and the highest seed to get bumped make the FF. Make that a round robin as well. There is precedence for round robining. The baseball and softball tourneys play some crazy quintuple elimination formats that last a month, so it is being done now. The teams have already traveled to a site, so why not play more games? It enhances the player's experience tremendously. The 3rd and 4th lines will get a chance to play in high leverage situations more. Another goalie might see action. Realistically from a competitive standpoint, all 4 teams could win a game. Even on day 3 if you have 2 winless teams playing, they are still playing to win a game in the ncaa tournament, to finish the year on a high note. Playing 3 games in 3 days isn't a big deal. In the wcha they play 2 games 2 day series exclusively. It does make it more worthwhile for the fans to travel too. You see your team 3 games for sure instead of 1. You could watch 6 games as a fan in person! Make the ticket prices reasonable, like a 25 buck pass gets you into every game. And then the ncaa should shell out some money to a network and pay them to televise the FF round robin.

Another idea is to run the women's and men's tourneys concurrently at the same neutral sites.

I like this idea. When the WCHA mens tournament was always played in St. Paul, there was a Thursday win or lose game, followed by 2 games on Friday, and the consolation game and final played on Saturday. The winner then got an autobid to the NCAA final.
I made that tournament for many years running, watching all the games, and calling in sick to make sure I had Fridays open for hockey. It worked for the mens team, why not for the women?

 

[Steamboat]

That’s shortsighted and too bad. Having terrible conference champions getting blown out in the first round of an expanded tournament does nothing for anybody. Bad hockey does not draw more attention to the sport.

This is where Timothy's idea listed above comes in. Don't make it a one and done situation, play a round robin. I hadn't realized that I would agree with Timothy on anything, until I looked up his original post.

 

[HawksHockey]

Sorry but the top tier recruits who want championship access and can truly lift programs are focused on playing for a national contender. They aren’t the type of players who will go to St Anselm, for example, just to make the tourney via the NEWHA autobid and get blown out by WI in the first game.

Only three out of the 40-plus National Collegiate programs have won a National Championship in the last 10 years. Only four programs have ever won a National Championship in women’s ice hockey at the Division I level.

Unless you are one of those four programs, you are likely never locking down a “program-lifting, top-tier recruit” as you’ve described.

So what should these other 35 programs do? What do they sell these young women? The experience of simply making the First Round is life-changing and it’s what every team plays for - a shot.

I will say it again - the teams will not get any better and women’s ice hockey programs will continue to be slashed if there aren’t avenues for postseason play. Even if it is for the smallest chance at a National Championship.

 

[Steamboat]

Only three out of the 40-plus National Collegiate programs have won a National Championship in the last 10 years. Only four programs have ever won a National Championship in women’s ice hockey at the Division I level.

Unless you are one of those four programs, you are likely never locking down a “program-lifting, top-tier recruit” as you’ve described.

So what should these other 35 programs do? What do they sell these young women? The experience of simply making the First Round is life-changing and it’s what every team plays for - a shot.

I will say it again - the teams will not get any better and women's ice hockey programs will continue to be slashed if there aren’t avenues for postseason play. Even if it is for the smallest chance at a National Championship.

An excellent point. I heartily approve this message.

 

[Offsides Guy]

Only three out of the 40-plus National Collegiate programs have won a National Championship in the last 10 years. Only four programs have ever won a National Championship in women’s ice hockey at the Division I level.

Unless you are one of those four programs, you are likely never locking down a “program-lifting, top-tier recruit” as you’ve described.

So what should these other 35 programs do? What do they sell these young women? The experience of simply making the First Round is life-changing and it’s what every team plays for - a shot.

I will say it again - the teams will not get any better and women’s ice hockey programs will continue to be slashed if there aren’t avenues for postseason play. Even if it is for the smallest chance at a National Championship.

I realize no autobids is a hypothetical but I do think going with the top 12 ranked teams can make teams better as well - it just depends on which teams you’re talking about. Think how quickly the Penn State, UConn, Quinnipiac or Bemidji programs might jump to the next level in this scenario. These are decent teams that, with a couple of added players, could now make the tournament and put up a good fight - especially in the round robin format that has been smartly suggested. Sorry but I’d rather see an upgraded Q in the tourney than Post just because Post won their conference.

 

[waynorth907]

I realize no autobids is a hypothetical but I do think going with the top 12 ranked teams can make teams better as well - it just depends on which teams you’re talking about. Think how quickly the Penn State, UConn, Quinnipiac or Bemidji programs might jump to the next level in this scenario. These are decent teams that, with a couple of added players, could now make the tournament and put up a good fight - especially in the round robin format that has been smartly suggested. Sorry but I’d rather see an upgraded Q in the tourney than Post just because Post won their conference.

I think if they went with the top 12 teams, it may 'broaden' the motivation a little more across the middle-tier programs. I agree with your Q/BSU/PSU analysis; they are a few players away some years. And then 1 or 2 trips to the show could definitely impact recruiting, especially when it comes to the opportunity to get on the ice sooner and more often.

 

[HawksHockey]

I think if they went with the top 12 teams, it may 'broaden' the motivation a little more across the middle-tier programs. I agree with your Q/BSU/PSU analysis; they are a few players away some years. And then 1 or 2 trips to the show could definitely impact recruiting, especially when it comes to the opportunity to get on the ice sooner and more often.

People think expanding to 12 teams and REMOVING THE AUTOMATIC QUALIFIERS will "broaden the motivation" to make it? Are these programs already not motivated to make an EIGHT TEAM field? And, you're saying that expanding to 12 teams will net these mid-tier teams additional recruits?

This thread has completely lost the plot. It's no longer about gender equity and championship access - it's about blowing everything up and starting over, which is NOT what any of the coaches have asked for in their social media campaign.