The NCAA Women’s Tournament Bracket: A Missed Opportunity for Growth
The NCAA Women’s Basketball Tournament bracket is set, and while some seeding decisions are justifiable, the committee’s placement of USC and UConn in the same regional has sparked significant debate. The core issue isn’t the No. 1 overall seed, rightfully awarded to UCLA after their head-to-head victory over South Carolina. The problem lies in the Spokane 4 regional, where USC, led by freshman sensation JuJu Watkins, secured a No. 1 seed, and UConn, spearheaded by the dynamic Paige Bueckers, landed as the No. 2 seed. This arrangement sets the stage for a potential Elite Eight showdown between these two titans of the sport, a contest that many believe deserves a larger stage.
Derita Dawkins, the chair of the selection committee, acknowledged the lack of specific consideration regarding this potential matchup. However, in a sport experiencing unprecedented growth, driven by the appeal of star players, this oversight feels particularly egregious. The rise of women’s basketball has been fueled by the electrifying performances of players like Caitlin Clark, whose record-breaking scoring prowess captivated a nation, and Angel Reese, whose unapologetic style and dominance on the court drew significant attention.
Now, with Clark and Reese transitioning to the WNBA, Watkins and Bueckers have emerged as the next generation of must-see players. Their impact is undeniable. The December matchup between USC and UConn drew an impressive 2.23 million viewers on Fox, making it the most-watched women’s basketball game of the season. This data alone speaks volumes about the public’s fascination with these athletes.
Watkins and Bueckers possess a rare blend of skill, athleticism, and basketball IQ. They have the ability to single-handedly alter the trajectory of a game, evidenced by their performances against top-ranked opponents like UCLA and South Carolina. Their games are filled with highlight-reel moments, making them incredibly captivating to watch, regardless of one’s level of basketball knowledge.
Beyond their on-court brilliance, both players have transcended the sport, becoming cultural icons in their own right. Watkins boasts an impressive endorsement portfolio, highlighted by her State Farm commercial, which is already in heavy rotation, and her exclusive deal with Fanatics, making her the first female athlete to achieve this distinction. Her signature "JuJu bun" hairstyle has become a recognizable symbol, with young fans sporting it at games both at home and on the road.
Bueckers, on the other hand, has become a media darling, with a standing invitation to the ESPYs and a comedic rapport with UConn coach Geno Auriemma that regularly generates viral moments on SportsCenter. This unique blend of talent, personality, and marketability makes Watkins and Bueckers a true ratings goldmine.
To potentially limit their highly anticipated matchup to a game that falls short of the Final Four feels like a missed opportunity. Imagine the viewership numbers a Final Four or National Championship clash between USC and UConn would generate. It would be a landmark event, further solidifying the growth trajectory of women’s basketball.
USC coach Lindsay Gottlieb echoed this sentiment, expressing her surprise and disappointment with the committee’s decision. While acknowledging the strength of other teams and emphasizing the need to earn their way through each round, Gottlieb questioned the rationale behind the seeding, particularly the placement of her team as a No. 1 seed in a region with UConn as a No. 2 seed. She voiced a desire to understand the decision-making process and the priorities of those making these choices.
Dawkins defended the committee’s decision, explaining that Texas was chosen as the third No. 1 seed over USC based on their perceived performance against a common opponent, Notre Dame. She also pointed to USC’s loss to Iowa as being more damaging than Texas’ loss to Notre Dame.
However, this explanation fails to fully address the larger issue. There comes a point where subjective judgment enters the equation. The men’s selection committee, whether explicitly stated or not, understands the importance of creating compelling matchups that will generate viewership and excitement. The placement of Rick Pitino’s team in Providence, potentially setting up a second-round showdown with John Calipari, is a prime example of this strategic thinking.
While Dawkins will not admit it publicly, there are nuances to consider, and the eye test matters. There was a strong case to be made for seeding Southern California higher based on their two decisive victories over UCLA, their win over UConn, and the fact that their loss to Iowa occurred on the road. Similarly, UConn’s dominant win over South Carolina on the road, their ten consecutive victories all by double digits, and their No. 1 NET ranking could have justified a No. 1 seed over Texas.
Ultimately, the committee had the opportunity to strategically seed USC and UConn in a way that would have benefited the fans, increased viewership, and, most importantly, promoted the growth of women’s basketball. Instead, they appear to have lacked the vision to recognize and capitalize on this opportunity. This decision highlights a recurring issue: sometimes, the very individuals tasked with championing women’s sports are the ones who inadvertently hold them back. The future will tell if this decision will be regretted, or if the perceived missed opportunity has a silver lining, in that now the stakes are raised even higher.
