Discussions about men’s, women’s Final Four in same city must ramp up

Within the broader discussion of gender equity in college basketball, a conversation that has been rightly amplified over the past year, one of the questions that has generated the most divergent opinions from coaches, administrators and commissioners is whether the men’s and women’s Final Fours should be jointly staged in the same city on the same weekend.

Compelling arguments exist on both sides. Sentiments are strong. And as the men’s and women’s basketball committees continue to explore the concept, sources say there is no clear indication what the outcome will be or even how to handicap which way momentum is leaning. The earliest the Final Fours could be played in the same city is 2027 because locations already are locked in through 2026.

The NCAA said it would explore the issue in light of recommendations by the external review of gender equity issues related to the inferior accommodations at the women’s tournament. Concrete changes already in place include the women’s tournament beginning to use “March Madness” for marketing and branding purposes this season. And the NCAA’s national office will start from scratch in determining the budgets for both tournaments, assessing whether there are legit business reasons for costs to be different on any line item.

A decision on a potential joint Final Four has to be made in the next several months, at the latest, because cities need to submit bids. The locations of the Final Fours between 2027 and 2031 are expected to be announced next fall. 

In a Women’s Basketball Coaches Association survey, 55 percent said they were in favor of a same city/same weekend plan. Advocates on both sides are outspoken, and it’s been challenging for even those involved to assess where the more silent majority stands. Logistical challenges aside — and staging joint Final Fours in the same city would be a massive undertaking — philosophical questions from stakeholders also linger.

Would it be an equitable experience? Is the aim also to increase the value of the women’s championship (an addendum to the review found that the NCAA “significantly undervalued” the women’s tournament in its media rights deal with ESPN, which runs through 2024)? Would combining Final Fours achieve that? What is the stated big-picture goal, and is it attainable? As one source familiar with the process told On3, “I don’t know how you make an informed decision unless you know what it is you’re trying to achieve.”

What’s reasoning behind move?

It’s important to note that the women’s Final Four isn’t exactly broken; it’s actually hugely successful. Last season’s national title game between Arizona and Stanford, despite featuring teams from the same conference, was the most-watched national championship since 2014. Seven of the past eight women’s Final Fours have been sold out. Some believe a jointly staged Final Four could wind up obscuring the women’s event rather than brightening the spotlight. To that point, they believe efforts would be better served focusing on bolstering the earlier rounds of the women’s tournament. 

“Is this being done to actually better the championships, or to cave to social media pressure?” said one veteran college basketball administrator. “Some of the logistics — better practice facilities, equal hospitality and gifts — can be fixed without having the events in the same city. The events each lose something by being in the same city. You provide greater exposure for the sport by having Final Fours in different cities. One Final Four in Atlanta and one in Los Angeles exposes (fans), boys and girls on both coasts, to the best basketball has to offer. You don’t get that with a combined event.”

Operational elements can and should be improved — including the locker room setup, hotel accommodations, meals and bus transportation — after the outrage that was sparked from the inferior amenities at the women’s tournament last season became public. But elements that are harder to control and improve relate to increasing fan attention and media coverage.

To that point, the review supported the idea of a single venue — not merely a single city — hosting both Final Fours. While a one-venue scenario hasn’t been ruled out, that could be a non-starter for many. Just figuring out scheduling without compromising teams’ experiences with practice and shootarounds likely would diminish the experience for both. In addition, the optics could be unflattering if some 70,000 fans attend the men’s games and 25,000 attend the women’s games in a cavernous dome.

Under the two-venue scenario, eligible cities would need to have a stadium with a minimum seating capacity of 60,000 for the men’s Final Four and also a modern NBA/NHL arena for the women’s games. That limits the number of potential locations. The 12 cities that would be in the mix are Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Detroit, New Orleans, San Antonio, Houston, the Dallas Metroplex, Indianapolis, Atlanta, St. Louis, Minneapolis and Phoenix. Because San Antonio (2025) and Indianapolis (2026) are hosting upcoming men’s Final Fours, each is extremely unlikely to be awarded the event in 2027. 

Problems with same city idea

Two logistically challenging locations could be Phoenix and the Dallas area because of the potential distance between men’s and women’s venues (unless in the Metroplex the men play in Arlington and the women in Fort Worth at Dickies Arena instead of in Dallas). Would the distance between venues defeat the purpose of a one-city approach and diminish the opportunities for cross-promotion? 

There likely would be barely enough hotel rooms in San Antonio or Indianapolis — two locations ideally suited to host the men’s Final Four — but no one would be in as favored a position for hotels as they would be without the other Final Four in the city. Would all parties be comfortable with that? Hotels need to accommodate not only teams but also corporate partners, TV partners and the NCAA’s membership. Also of note: Those who are accustomed to a particular price point for hotels at a typical women’s Final Four almost certainly would see a rise in hotel prices at a jointly staged event. 

While San Antonio and Indianapolis could be challenging locations, some sources believe the city best positioned to host both jointly is Las Vegas for two reasons: The sheer number of hotels and those hotels being located near the state-of-the-art T-Mobile Arena and also Allegiant Stadium, where the men’s Final Four would be held.

From an NCAA cost standpoint, sources said, there may be some cost efficiency, but the differences likely are marginal. But it could benefit corporate partners who could have activations in one city instead of two. The  well-publicized concert at the men’s Final Four, for instance, is paid for by corporate sponsors, namely Coca-Cola, AT&T and Capital One. 

What hasn’t been discussed much publicly is that the concept entails not only two jointly staged events but two events broadcast by different TV partners. CBS/Turner has the rights for the men’s Final Four; ESPN holds the rights for the women’s. The committees, sources said, need to be mindful of the broadcast partners, who typically are competitors and not engaged in the selection process. 

There has been some thought about staging the Final Fours in the same city but on different weekends so resources and the spotlight wouldn’t need to be divided. But at least at this point, there is not a strong push behind that idea.

The one-city, same-weekend concept generated some backing in 2013, initiated by a recommendation from Val Ackerman. Then-ESPN executive John Skipper and then-Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott were among notable individuals championing the concept. The NCAA convened a subcommittee to explore the possibility. Ultimately, the feeling from the men’s committee was that it would support it if it was clear that there was a tangible benefit to both events. Support on the women’s committee was mixed at best.

Now there is more optimism that this will happen, more momentum behind it. The issue is in the public domain and external pressure exists. Sizable logistical hurdles loom but can be managed. Philosophical questions also persist. There aren’t easy answers, but there is a much better chance of a joint Final Four becoming a reality now than seven or eight years ago. 

But if stakeholders don’t green-light it in the next several months, they know that the opportunity to see this concept before 2032 will be lost.