This is both accurate and misleading. The viewership for the finals was higher for the women over the men, but the tournament as a whole, which is the money you reference, is far higher on the men's side. Iowa games were highly viewed on the women's side, but random Sweet 16 and Round of 32 numbers were not very high. On the men's side, viewers tune in to each game but might not have a dog in the fight. On the women's side, there was a particular draw. To put that in perspective, there were two women's final four games:

Iowa vs. UCONN--14.4 million viewers

The game right before...South Carolina vs. NC State--7.2 million viewers, exactly half the audience.

Average game viewership for women's tournament through 57 games was 2.2 million viewers. The average game viewership for the men's tournament was 9.9 million. That's what the contract is for. And without the same star power in next year's women's bracket (maybe Bueckers, if she can be marketed well), I would imagine those women's numbers will see a significant decline.

That's what happens when the networks aired the men's game on a work night at 9:20.

The ladies had star power on their side. Also, I don't think it helped the mens ratings that it was (I assume) smaller fan bases in the final with Purdue and UCONN. A bigger "brand," like Duke/UNC/Kansas/etc... in the final would have probably boosted their ratings.

Agree, there's a lot to that. Quick, without looking, somebody rattle off the starting 5 at Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Kansas and UConn on the men's side. How many did you get? How about top national seeds like Houston or Iowa St? Even if you knew/learned them, how many were brand new this year? Hard to have emotional investment in things you have no ties to, other than maybe the coaches/history.

The women benefitted from a generational talent in Clark, coupled with returning rivalries of teams with name recognition. People remembered Paige Bueckers and Angel Reese and Cameron Brink from previous seasons. The fact that we got a bunch of rivarlry-esque rematches in the NCAA tourney (LSU-Iowa Part 2, UConn-Iowa Part 2, South Carolina-Iowa Part 2) all while following a generational talent, culminated in a perfect storm.

This was their version of Bird vs. Magic.

I imagine women's viewership will be up compared to average going forward, but it still won't match this seasons numbers. It was a perfect storm.

** Edit to add
As someone who never followed womens bball before, I must admit I appreciated the fundamentals and the smart, team-oriented play that was on display night after night. It was refreshing.

The men, for better or worse, can get so good, and so athletic, that they can succeed in spite of those things. It's like watching the NBA All-Star game. It's disgusting unwatchable "basketball" even if it's amazing individual talent.

I am more interested to see Paige Bueckers return at UConn next year than any player in men's CBB. I know she is returning and not portaling.

I am not sure I can tell you for certain any big-time players on the men's side I have bookmarked to watch next season. Any UConn dudes returning? No clue.

Edey was the biggest name in CBB since Zion, mostly because he's 7'4".

Women's felt like stepping back in time in a good way watching teams with players who have been with the same program for years.

I agree about Edey, but at the same time, I don't think he was ever "must see tv." At least not to non-Purdue people.

I feel like mens hoops is in an odd predicament/spot. Was it Jay Wright who said during the tourney this year that the days of teams full of 1-and-done's winning titles is over? To an extent, I agree with the statement. The past few years have shown that experienced teams win a lot of tournament games. UCONN has dominated the last two years and they don't have a bunch of freshman talent. Castle from this year's team was their only freshman who saw significant minutes. This is one of the reasons I was really shocked at UNC's early exit, given the immense amount of experience they had on their roster. Most of the "marquee players" in college are the hyped-up freshmen who are going to be the following spring's lottery picks. I'd argue that most casual fans don't know who these kids are coming out of high school. Couple that with the trend of teams loaded with high-caliber freshmen not winning tournaments, and I can see how ratings would dip.

Alabama seems to be the closest comp to that.

But worth noting that they actually sort of seem like the outlier. Here were the top ranked "portal classes" last season: https://247sports.com/season/2023-basketball/transferteam... /

Not a lot of great teams on the list until you get pretty far down the rankings. Kansas had a very disappointing year and the majority of the top 20 didn't make the tournament.

All I know as a once diehard fan going back to the MAC tourney at Battele, the $100 all you can watch, eat and drink at Seagate package, 1994 eighth rows seats at Landover and front row seats in The Garden all the way to an all access pass in St. Louis, with the state of things today, I couldn't care less.The times have changed as they often do but many of us have chosen not to board the bus. There's nothing wrong with that but I don't see our seats being taken by those same die hard fans.