When the NCAA Division I Competition Oversight Committee approved expanding the women’s hockey tournament field from eight to 11 teams on Wednesday, they showed they are more interested in manufacturing the appearance of equality than in actually achieving it and ruined any illusions I may have had that fundamental, structural changes would take place in response to the Kapler, Hecker and Fink Equity Report (KHF).
Positive changes may be forthcoming, but with this as the NCAA’s opening gambit, it’s difficult to feel encouraged.
The working group of coaches and administrators that were petitioning for expansion of the women’s tournament field a second time in as many months asked for the field to increase to 12 teams and instead were given this nonsense.
Per the committee, they approved the expansion to 11 teams because that is 27% percent of the 41 teams that compete for the Championship each year. That matches the percentage of men’s teams that compete in the DI men’s tournament. The men have a 16-team bracket for their 60 teams.
The 27% just happens to be the team access point the men are at right now because brackets work best in multiples of four. Their tournament has 16 teams because that makes sense. The math means that’s 27% of men’s teams. It’s a random number with no real meaning here and it’s irrational and illogical to choose to adhere to something so arbitrary.
Rather than expand the championship because it merits expansion, or because the current set-up is fundamentally inequitable, the committee has opted to default to the barest version of numerical parity — without engaging with what actually makes sense for the sport, or for a logical tournament bracket.
It’s a pedantic and petty devotion to the percentage of teams eligible, a number that will constantly be in flux as schools add or cut programs. We all know they won’t add a 17th team or drop to 15 teams in the men’s tournament in the future to ensure they stay at 27%, which just highlights how absurd, hollow and senseless this decision is.
Beyond that, it’s particularly galling for the Competition Oversight Committee to decide to act like that’s the only piece of data that matters and be beholden to the team access point percentage when one of the findings in the KHF report is that the men are allowed to have three additional players on their championship rosters. By focusing on team access points over student athlete access points, they’re saying it’s perfectly reasonable for the men’s side to have a higher percentage of student athletes with the ability to play in the championship.
The Committee did not address whether or not women’s teams can have the same size roster in the NCAA tournament. They also didn’t address the massive spending disparities the report laid out in any way. Those numbers, it seems, are not ones they feel they need to be tied to.
Whether or not they meant it to (and I’m not feeling particularly inclined to give grace or the benefit of the doubt in this moment), this comes off as the Committee offering malicious compliance. It feels petty and like an attempt at a power move. They tabled this discussion two months ago and were forced to reconsider. This result feels like a tantrum tantamount to “You wanted expansion? Well good luck figuring out 11 teams.”
The NCAA release about the decision expressly says the Competition Oversight Committee will not be responsible for figuring out the logistics of an 11-team tournament. That’s being handed right back to the Women’s Ice Hockey Committee, whose job is usually to select the field based on the rules set up by the NCAA Championship Manual (and by extension, this Competition Oversight Committee).
The Women’s Ice Hockey Committee (and therefore the tournament itself) are not being set up to be successful. The ruling did not come with any information about increasing personnel or funding and that’s disconcerting.
Are there long term repercussions if the decision is to move forward for 2022 and then the tournament doesn’t go smoothly? If the argument is for one “fix” at a time, will failure here be used against the sport when requests for future changes to correct the inequities are made?
The NCAA wants to treat this like it’s a pure numbers game (while using the wrong numbers) and not make any actual fundamental changes that show they understand where they went wrong or have any commitment to actually correcting the inequities. This is a patronizing pantomime of adhering to the bare minimum of numerical equality with no work – or even a promise to work – towards any real, substantive change.
There are many people who are happy with this win – that expansion is approved – and view it as progress. I’m not sure I’m one of them.
There is too long a history of those in this sport (and women’s sports overall) being told to be happy with what they’re given. The KHF report says the working group was denied expansion to 10 teams while being told they should have asked for 12 teams. But when they asked for 12 teams, the Competition Oversight Committee gave them 11.
I wish the goalposts being moved was surprising, but it’s not. It’s all too familiar. None of this is a game, but it sure feels unwinnable
Expansion and a pass off to the Women’s Ice Hockey Committee to try and make an 11 team tournament happen, with no comments on money or support or any other changes is fundamentally ignoring the problem. They “fixed” (poorly) one of the many egregious failures they’ve allowed to go on for way too long and in doing so, only put more pressure on to stretch the meager budget and resources the women’s hockey tournament is allotted even further.
Additionally, the KHF report highlighted what poor timing it is to host the women’s hockey tournament in mid-March. This expansion requires additional games to be played in an already crowded time, which will be difficult for host sites to pull off in the best circumstances, much less four months from now.
I think we have to presume the top four seeds that would have hosted quarterfinal games under the old bracket structure will now be hosting an additional round of games. Based on past experience, those teams have no expectation of either personnel or monetary support to make that happen. They’ll be charged with squeezing a game into their campus schedule to host teams unlikely to draw local crowds. It’s a no-win situation for those programs.
All that was accomplished here is that more student athletes will be able to have a fundamentally unfair, subpar and inequitable championship experience. Through that lens, I have a hard time taking this as a win.
The KHF report laid out exactly how and why the women’s tournament is a poor experience for the student athlete (much less the fan) and adding three more teams without the NCAA addressing any of the other issues only exacerbates the issues as reported. How very on-brand for their fix to actually make everything else worse.
