Women's Final Four crowds smallest since 1990s

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Tuesday night's NCAA women's basketball championship game at Conseco Fieldhouse in downtown Indianapolis was a near-sellout, but it was the smallest crowd to see the title game since 1997, according to the NCAA.

Texas A&M University, making its first Final Four appearance, defeated the University of Notre Dame, 76-70, before 17,473 spectators. Capacity at the stadium is 18,666.  

The 1997 tournament final in Cincinnati drew a crowd of 16,714.

The last time the game was played in Indianapolis, in 2005, a near-record 28,937 were in attendance, but that game was played at the RCA Dome.

Last year's title game in San Antonio drew 22,936.

Sunday's semifinals at Conseco attracted a total of 16,421 to the two-game session, the least-attended semifinal round since 1994, when the event was played in Richmond, Va., and drew 11,966 spectators.

Tickets to this year's event were priced at $175 for the entire tournament and $87.50 for the final game.

The NCAA conducted its first women's Final Four tournament in 1982. Indianapolis will host the event again in 2016.



  • not surprised
    First - Butler took the news, headlines and buzz, and just as important, my free time I could devote to sports. For example, Kelly Pickler in concert downtown Sat at 5:50. Butler played at 6pm. Oh well!
    Second - Cost. Economy is still down.
    Third - scheduling. This needs to be lead in to men's not an afterthought. Games on Friday and Sunday. (and not a late start time - screw the West Coast!)
    On Tuesday, we are talking about the finished men's championship game, not the Women's game. At that point - Who cares? (not many evidently).

    But main reason I think was Butler. My family did a lot the last time Womens FF was here, but this time, we were consumed with the Butler games and goings on.
  • Game Times
    The casual fans in the Indianapolis area would have trouble attending the games on Sunday and Tuesday. TV may have something to do with it, but a 7:00 p.m. start for a doubleheader on Sunday night?? I attended and was in bed at 12:45 a.m. and due at work at 8:00 a.m. How is a father going to take his school age daughter if classes are in session the next day? Use some common sense NCAA. Why couldn't the Sunday games have started at 3:00 or 4:00 p.m.? Otherwise, three great women's college basketball games on a neat looking floor.
    Why be surprised? The curiosity of women's bball and/or women's sports in general is beginning to wear off. Perhaps if they played their own game rather than a lame imitattion of men's bball.

    It's not good game and just....bad karma.
  • Bad Promotion
    No event promotion. Unreasonably high ticket prices. Fuzzy video feed. Terrible marketing. Should have made the tickets $49 each and held it at the LOS. Should also go Friday Sunday or hold it Saturday Monday on the week before the men's final while there is great interest in college basketball.
  • Too Much
    Between my Subaru payments and weekly hair cuts, I don't have enough spare cash to pay those prices.
  • Agree on lack of advertising
    While I would not have attended the game (I don't follow women's NCAA BB), I didn't realize Indy was hosting the Women's Final Four until 2 weeks before the event (and I work right by Conseco). The only advertising I saw in the area was for the Men's Big 10 tournament.
  • too expensive
    With ticket prices for one game at $87.50 -- it doesn't seem very likely that too many local folks would show up for one of the games - unless they were really die-hard fans. Were those even the prices for the upper level seats? Thats a lot of money!
  • Finals Attendance Answer
    The answer to the low number of people turning out to see the Women's Finals game is because no one knew about it locally. The only thing anyone heard about was the Men's Finals and it was in Houston. Sure, televison commericals touted "it's more than 3 games" - talking about tourney town, but the local news carried nothing about the home state Lady Irish in the finals until after the Men's Final game was over. I realize that the women's team draw less revenue, but with better adveritising of their events, that mey improve.

Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.