IBJNews

Final Four crowds show women still catching up

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Tuesday night’s NCAA women’s basketball championship game at Conseco Fieldhouse in Indianapolis would seem destined to pack the house.

After its upset of the heavily favored University of Connecticut, the University of Notre Dame is looking to claim the title against fellow underdog Texas A&M, which beat Stanford on Sunday. The matchup features a home-state hero in Notre Dame, which should help put more fans in the seats.

Those familiar with women’s basketball, however, say the game isn’t likely to be a sellout. As of Tuesday morning, tickets priced at $87.50 each were still available at the Conseco Fieldhouse box office for the 8:43 p.m. contest.

Despite having an in-state team in the Final Four and only 18,500 seats to fill, attendance at Conseco Fieldhouse was sparse Sunday for the semifinal round, with a total of 16,421 attending the two-game session.

Christine Brennan, a sports columnist for USA Today and president of the Association for Women in Sports Media, said Tuesday night’s matchup could look even more barren because the favorites have been eliminated. Most of the fans and officials from UConn and Stanford as well as the media personnel covering those teams have likely headed for home.

“There will be spots all along press row where newspaper reporters have gone home,” she predicted at a panel discussion about women’s basketball at IUPUI on Monday.

The game will need to be a sellout to avoid being one of the least-attended title games since the turn of the century. Every championship game since 2000 has drawn at least 18,211 fans. Last year’s title tilt in San Antonio drew 22,936, the biggest crowd in five years. The semifinals drew 25,817.

Indianapolis has seen big crowds for women's basketball in the past. More than 28,000 fans saw the title game at the RCA Dome in 2005.

The NCAA said attendance of regional rounds for this year’s women’s tournament was up 65 percent from last year, but the crowd at Conseco on Sunday shows there is still a big gap between the popularity of women’s and men’s basketball.

The men’s Final Four, which concluded in Houston Monday night, drew a record 145,797 to three games, with 75,412 on hand for Monday’s final game.  

Basketball remains the NCAA’s most popular women’s sport, but fans have been more selective in shelling out money for tickets in the wake of the recession.

Experts say the economy also took a toll on media coverage. As newspapers downsized, so did coverage for many teams. For newspaper sports desks, less-popular women’s sports beats are often the first to go. Last year’s women’s Final Four drew 100 fewer credentialed media members than it did in 2008.

Universities remain committed to keeping the sport a high-profile part of their athletic programs even though it’s a money-losing proposition. Bloomberg News noted that 53 public institutions across the six largest NCAA conferences reported big losses on women’s basketball in the past fiscal year.

College athletic directors often operate in the red with most sports, relying on revenue from football and men’s basketball to fund their operations. Women’s basketball is no exception, but its costs are significantly higher because of the nature of the sport, said Fred Glass, director of athletics for Indiana University.

“By and large, while there’s some exceptions at different places, women’s basketball is widely seen as one of the most prominent women’s sports,” Glass said. “It’s certainly treated that way by the NCAA. It sometimes carries the flag for women’s sports more broadly. That makes it significant.”

Glass, who runs a department of 24 varsity sports, said he does not sacrifice competitiveness in one sport for competitiveness in another. This makes some financial costs unavoidable. While women’s volleyball is comparable in revenue to the Hoosier women’s basketball program, the costs are very different.

“Coaches in women’s basketball tend to be more expensive than coaches in other women’s sports and coaches in other men’s sports as well, but we want to be competitive there,” he said. “Basketball is clearly more expensive and probably costs us more than any other women’s sport.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • NCAA Marketing
    The NCAA could use a little help in marketing its product, whether its the men's or women's tourney, and frankly, being a little more customer friendly.

    Example A: I have been going to NCAA Men's Tournament for the Sweet 16 Regional for 15 consecutive years, and I order tickets about 11-12 months before the games are played. However, since Ticketmaster has taken over the seating, the seats I receive I receive are consistently very poor, regardless of the arena. This year's tickets (8) in New Orleans were in the upper deck, in the corner; despite the fact that only 12,000 seats of the 19,000 were sold out in New Orleans, I received no consideration for better seating. So, not sure we are going for a 16th year. Ticketmaster runs the men's show more like a clerical function, and obviously, their priority is more clerical than customer oriented. But TV is the big driver, so not sure if the NCAA has any concerns about the fan draw.
  • There Could Be Free Tickets
    They still wouldn't sell out the place. I can see that level of competition at a boys JV high school game.
  • Clearly you haven't played a girl
    While the previous commenter is clearly ignorant I'll try to just ignore it. As for the ticket sales why don't they lower the price. It is a recession and more people are willing or would want to go if the price is more affordable!
  • Not there yet
    Until the ladies game catches up to the men's in skill and speed, there won't be the crowds generated by the men's game. It is good, but reflective of the men's game in the '30's. Sorry, but there is still a ways to go ladies. Keep it up, you are getting there.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. liek the rest of America

    2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

    3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

    4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

    5. whoa!

    ADVERTISEMENT