“If You’re Not Watching Women’s March Madness, What Rock Are You Living Under?” - Grace Kasabula
- mcgowank2
- Mar 29, 2022
- 3 min read
Updated: Nov 1, 2022
The start of a double header tipped off March 16 between Howard University and Incarnate Word in this year’s Women’s March Madness Tournament. That weekend saw the first and second round of games where 68 teams turned into 16. As we look ahead, we must remember the importance of the women’s tournament and resist its erasure in sports media.
Games so far have been relatively competitive and will become closer as the tournament progresses. The first weekend brought a number of upsets with seven teams ranked more than ninth seed winning first and second round games. The game between Oregon and Belmont Saturday night extended into double overtime until the Bruins pulled ahead three points in the end. The tournament itself has come a long way since their inaugural year in 1982. According to Sports Video Group, all games are now watchable on ESPN channels as the company is investing more than ever in production this year. And a team of former players and professional broadcasters make for intuitive and exciting broadcasts. This is also the first year that the March Madness branding will be used for the women’s tournament, a decision made after a review of gender inequalities in NCAA championships, which the company expects to increase marketing opportunities.
Oregon’s Sedona Prince called out the NCAA for blatant discrimination in player accommodations last year. All teams were confined to a bubble during last year's tournament because of Covid-19 and players were provided with amenities that were supposed to have included a weight room. But the forward showed a video of a vast set of machines provided for the men and compared her weight room for the women which consisted of one mere rack of hand weights. Prince called out the NCAA for blatant gender discrimination saying, “If you aren’t upset about this problem, then you’re a part of it.” Since then the athletic association has made significant changes in its handling of the women’s game, according to Sports Illustrated, such as equal accommodations in hotels, lounge areas, and gift packages. Although full gender equality in collegiate women’s basketball is still far from being reached, vital steps have been taken in the right direction.
Many of the right pieces are in place for success in the women's game; it’s only a matter of time before viewership follows. And viewers are noticing. The NCAA says that 4.077 million watched last year's final between Stanford and Arizona and they expect statistics for this year to double. Tournament viewership has already ticked up 15% in the first two rounds according to ESPN which possesses hopeful possibilities for the rating of the final. It’s time we start taking women’s basketball - and women’s sports as a whole - much more seriously. According to the NCAA, the percentage of collegiate women’s basketball players who enter professional leagues is a mere 6.9 compared with the men’s 21. Funding and exposure for the WNBA must increase so that young women see opportunities as professional athletes. A powerful photo circulating on social media responded to the age-old argument that women don’t watch sports by showing a photo of UConn point guard Paige Bueckers triumphantly facing her home crowd of young women pridefully cheering her on. Not only is it important to have women represented in athletic careers, but basketball also provides black women areas to lead and excel. There are a record 12 black female coaches heading teams in the women’s tournament this year including Dawn Staley who led her South Carolina team to the semi-final last year.
Women’s basketball is something to talk about. It's something to watch out for. It’s something to invest in. And it’s something to care about. It is up to viewers to show these companies that women’s sports matter and can be successful and profitable. As broadcaster Nikki Fargas said recently, “If you’re not watching women’s basketball, what rock are you under?”
Sources:
Comentarios