NCAA extends "March Madness" branding to women's tournament
twitter.com/NCAAWBB/status/1443219712599597057
twitter.comPosted Sep 29, 2021, 2:44 PM UTC
700189
twitter.comPeople are talking about how its long overdue on twitter, but I had no clue it wasn't really included in the march madness stuff.
188
Yeah, it was strange how dug in the NCAA's heels were on letting them use that for the longest time. Women's had to settle for just using Final Four in their tournament logos.
75
The NCAA digs in its heels on some really stupid bullshit. And then someone writes an article about it, it goes national, and then the NCAA has to backtrack on its stupidity. Like the limit on the food a college can give an athlete.
32
Is it possible the IHSA held up the process?
1
Wouldn't that be more proof of how overdue it was. So out of touch that many people wouldn't have even considered it not to be "March Madness"
7
It wasn’t already?
73
you do not watch women's basketball do you?
-57
I reckon a decent percentage of users here don’t
84
Who does?
71
I do but only the tournament final four and/or when Michigan or IU is playing. Had no idea they didn't call it that.
22
Unless your a Uconn or Baylor fan then probably not
9
Why would I watch women’s basketball?
9
[deleted]
1
The March Madness logo is, even unrelated to basketball, one of my favorite logos of all time
71
Really? It looks like something a local CrossFit gym would come up with.
0
TIL it wasn't already, like most people in this thread apparently.
45
It's heavily used by fans, but the tournament itself and ESPN have never been allowed to use it.
The closet they ever get is "March to the Arch", when the final 4 is in St. Louis.
15
Hopefully they extend the actual amenities to them as well.
38
Yeah. It’s ridiculous what they got last tournament compared to the guys.
12
Revenue
11†
They don’t promote the women’s tournament the way they promote the men’s.
The biggest name in college sports is a UCONN women’s basketball player, Paige Bueckers. She’s anticipated to be the highest paid college athlete. That should mean opportunity for the NCAA but they’re a bunch of misogynistic old pricks.
Edit: also here’s the executive summary of the NCAA’s gender equity report:
-10†
do you actually think women's bball doesn't get the same views or pull in the same revenue because they aren't being promoted as well?
17
It pays to be a good looking girl. Wouldn’t be surprised if her or cavinder twins are some of the highest paid basketball players between men and women. That’s just the reality. Doesn’t mean that more people watch them. Because no one really does.
I can assure you that those cavinder twins would be higher paid if Britney griner was the same age and still playing in college.
9
bruh ain't nobody ever heard of Paige Bueckers lmfao
9
Is it?
-10
About goddamn time.
Now hopefully they can invest some resources into presenting it and giving our women's student athletes a better tournament experience without being called out for bad behavior first.
20
hopefully they can invest some resources into presenting it and giving our women's student athletes a better tournament experience without being called out for bad behavior first
You and I both know that's not gonna happen.
7
Do I think it's going to happen? No, for a lot of reasons not the least of which is the way the TV deals work and the benefits the NCAA gains from making women's basketball look like it loses money.
At the same time, I'm always for giving people the opportunity to do the right thing.
1
women's tourney has always been chalk madness though.
17
Tbh I never knew it wasn’t already there,to be fair Women’s ball just doesn’t move the needle for me.Good for them though,they could hopefully use this extra exposure
12
This was way long overdue. The women's tournament can have just as much madness as the men's tournament.
10†
It can have as much madness now. For a long time I would argue it didn't. My wife and I do a men's and women's bracket every year and usually after the sweet sixteen our brackets look the exact same and are mostly correct.
Last year was a reprieve from the inevitability that can plague women's CBB and I think/hope it will continue.
15
[removed]
2†
[deleted]
1
[removed]
1
[deleted]
1
Facts. A 16 over a 1 happened over 20 years ago
1†
And no 14 or 15 seed has ever won a game in the women's tournament.
16
Lmao
10
Glad they are moving on from the long standing “March Layups and Set Shots” branding
7
Wait….it wasn’t already?
4
Are they also going to extend the amenities to the women's ballers that deserve proper weight rooms, practice gyms, etc etc?
3†
I thought all of the NCAA playoffs at all levels constituted "March Madness?" Oh well, I suppose someone is getting some ducats out of whatever this means.
2
It's a bit of a legacy issue, but no, heck for years, multiple groups owned the term "March Madness" as a basketball tournament(I think that's still a thing anyways)
3
The Final Four branding is used across multiple levels (and evem multiple sports), but never "March Madness"
1
I don't pay much attention to it (the "branding," and other promotional stuff). I just care about the games. And my brackets of course! Well, we all know it is March Madness, in March, because of the NCAA basketball tournament(s). I suspect this is something like I said above that is making money for someone, else they really wouldn't care, would they?
1
Money my friends. Money.
2
Had no idea they didn't already, but I imagine me and the other 90% of men's MM viewers who don't watch the women's tournament also have the same thoughts.
2
There were people complaining that without the ability to call the women’s tournament “March Madness” the women’s tournament took a big hit in viewership.
People actually thought people tune in just because of the “March Madness” branding.
This won’t change the viewership for the women and will only result in the “March Madness” brand being over used. And I say this as someone who follows the women.
2†
[deleted]
1
I thought it already was. Soon the women will want to use the same size ball as the men!! /s
1
Huh, to be honest I assumed they already did.
Tangentially related factoid: The first Women's World Cup in 1991 was not given the "World Cup" branding by FIFA. Instead it was officially called the 1st FIFA World Championship for Women's Football for the M&M's Cup.
Catchy
Quite a melt in your mouthful
someone needs to tell FIFA to stop with the vague names
Women do be lovin they chocolate tho
and shopping. Women be shopping. Man, you can’t stop a woman from shopping.
Nope they were never allowed yo use it.
That seems weird
It was rooted in sexism. Pretty sure they said it would devalue the brand.
Well that was shitty of them
Its not a sexist statement to say woman’s basketball is not good. Womens hockey is a far superior medium
[removed]
If UConn was unaware of Women's NCAA branding then I'm pretty sure no one could accurately answer.
I never equated it with the women’s bb until recently, because their tournament had been the most predictable tournament of any major sport. During the UConn years, the team that went undefeated all season and never won by less than 15 pts breezed through the tournament? Shocking…
For it to be madness, something MAD has to happen. Like a 15 beating a 2. And a 12 making a deep run into the elite 8.
The Women’s bracket had a 1/16 upset 20 years before the Men’s bracket (Harvard over Stanford in 1998)
the women's bracket tends to be more chalky then the mens. Year in and year out there are usually only around 6 teams that have a legitimate shot to win it all and the elite 8 tends to be pretty easy pick once the bracket drops with about 75% accuracy. Cinderella's almost never reach the sweet 16 in the womens game whereas in the mens there's usually 2-4 every year.
Wait you mean somebody complaining about this is actually not very well versed in the subject matter and just using it as some thinly veiled dislike of women's basketball (likely rooted in sexism)???
Get the fuck over yourself. This was a comment about the women's tournament generally producing fewer upsets, which is a fact.
Women's tournament since 1994 (expansion to 64 teams)
vs
Men's tournament since 1985 (expansion to 64 teams)
The link above is from 1985, but for a fair comparison, I'll only count any since 1994, which was when the women's tournament expanded.
16 > 1: Mens 1, Womens 1
15 > 2: Mens 7, Womens 0
14 > 3: Mens 14, Womens 0
13 > 4: Mens 23, Womens 7
12 > 5: Mens 42, Womens 23
11 > 6: Mens 41, Womens 33
For some reason the women's list stopped there, but counting those up, since 1994, there have been 128 upsets in the men's tournament and 64 in the women's. So literally TWICE as many upsets in the mens tournament.
And let's focus for a moment on the MADNESS, the games that make the entire country go nuts. In the men's tournament a 4 seed or better has lost in the first round 45 times since 1994. In the women's tournament, this has only happened 8 times. And by the stats above, you can see most of those were in the 13>4.
The women's tournament has historically been more 'chalk' than the men's tournament and has produced DRASTICALLY fewer huge upsets.
Now, this DOES NOT mean that the women's tournament does not deserve equal billing and marketing with the men's tournament. It does. And this doesn't mean the competition within the top 64 teams isn't as strong.
After all, the men's games are usually played at neutral sites which can often have more fans cheering for the underdogs. In the meantime, the early round games of the women's tournament are hosted by the higher seed which gives them an incredible advantage. By being a higher seed, they are likely a stronger team and now you ALSO give the home court advantage, so there will definitely be fewer upsets.
So again, this is not a critique of women's basketball. This is a commentary on the women's TOURNAMENT, which has historically produced fewer upsets, more predictable outcomes and less MADNESS.
the women's tournament is much much more chalky compared to the men's. That is a fact fwiw. I have nothing against women's basketball and I hope the sport grows. Just pointing out he was not wrong.
Last year's tournament was pretty awesome -- the 64-32 rounds weren't that exciting but from the sweet 16 on it was great.
That’s why I said ‘until recently‘. Last year’s tournament was indeed pretty awesome.
Idk, I've been kinda mad the last five years
Then you remembered what the ncaa is
Same! I had zero idea it wasn't branded that way until I saw the news announcement. Idk if that's good (because everyone already assumed it was) or bad (because everyone actually assumed it is when it wasn't).
same i'm kind of surprised that they didn't do this already
I too have literally never watched a game.