There's a chicken and egg problem here: Geno is probably indisputably the best coach in terms of player development. I actually think Tara out-coaches him in terms of on court strategy, scouting, etc., but I don't think she develops her players' skills and playing abilities to the same degree that UConn does. If you're a top player and you want to go pro, why wouldn't you go to the place where you think you're most likely to develop your playing abilities? Stanford is one of the few places that makes a compelling counter-argument, because Tara is right there with the best, and Stanford is a 40-year decision in a way that UConn is not. But I can hardly blame KLS for choosing UConn when her prospects of being a top professional player were substantially better than Bonnie or Karlie.
There are also several factors specific to women's basketball that make it more difficult to achieve parity:
One is that the talent pool is smaller and shallower for women's basketball, and I think that leads to more clustering at the top. According to this, there are 550,000 boy's high school participants per year compared to 430,000 girls, and yet there are approx. 4,380 men's DI bball scholarships per year as compared to approx. 5,025 women's scholarship. That adds up to 125 high school boys eligible for each DI athletic scholarship as compared to 85 high school girls per scholarship. That means the bottom half of the DI talent pool is shallower, which also means weaker competition against top teams, less parity, more separation between the top of conferences, and clearer perennial blue chip programs.
I suspect, although I have no hard data, that the pool to coach women's programs is also shallower, as all other things equal, the pay would be so much better for coaching men's teams that most top coaches would understandably gravitate there. That leaves a smaller number of coaches like Geno, Tara, and Pat Summitt to distinguish themselves far more than one sees in the men's game. The talent is then going to cluster where the most talented coaches are.
The other problem is a shallower fan base: women's march madness has its Top 16 teams host its first two rounds because it ensures more butts in seats, but that means top teams also get home court advantage through the Sweet Sixteen. This reduces upsets, which in turn reduces perceptions of parity. They used to host at neutral sites for the first two rounds but attendance was so much worse at neutral sites that they abandoned it in favor of the current model. And they often host regional sites in places like Connecticut, Indiana, and Texas because those sites regularly get large turnout, but they also happen to be sites where there are top schools that more or less get a close-to-home-field advantage.
Finally, part of it is inherent in the sport of basketball. You only need two or three superstars to field a top team. It's easier to reload, it takes less work to get a team to gel, and there are so many scoring opportunities that fluke plays are far less significant than in soccer, football, or baseball. Basketball is much more a game of numbers; the more shots taken, the more likely the better team is to prevail over time.
I'm not sure that any of these factors is easily addressed. To some degree, over time I think the professonalization of the sport will help; John Wooden's dominance at UCLA in the 70s was arguably even more lopsided than Geno's has been at UConn or Summitt's was at Tenn in the 90s. The Celtics won 8 in a row in the late 50s and early 60s with Bill Russell, and the Bulls won 6 championships in 8 years with Jordan. Given the increasing $ and talent in the NBA, that kind of dominance seems improbable anymore, even with stacked teams like the Warriors. I think women's basketball will get there eventually, but for now, we'll continue to see a smaller number of perennial contenders.
There are also several factors specific to women's basketball that make it more difficult to achieve parity:
One is that the talent pool is smaller and shallower for women's basketball, and I think that leads to more clustering at the top. According to this, there are 550,000 boy's high school participants per year compared to 430,000 girls, and yet there are approx. 4,380 men's DI bball scholarships per year as compared to approx. 5,025 women's scholarship. That adds up to 125 high school boys eligible for each DI athletic scholarship as compared to 85 high school girls per scholarship. That means the bottom half of the DI talent pool is shallower, which also means weaker competition against top teams, less parity, more separation between the top of conferences, and clearer perennial blue chip programs.
I suspect, although I have no hard data, that the pool to coach women's programs is also shallower, as all other things equal, the pay would be so much better for coaching men's teams that most top coaches would understandably gravitate there. That leaves a smaller number of coaches like Geno, Tara, and Pat Summitt to distinguish themselves far more than one sees in the men's game. The talent is then going to cluster where the most talented coaches are.
The other problem is a shallower fan base: women's march madness has its Top 16 teams host its first two rounds because it ensures more butts in seats, but that means top teams also get home court advantage through the Sweet Sixteen. This reduces upsets, which in turn reduces perceptions of parity. They used to host at neutral sites for the first two rounds but attendance was so much worse at neutral sites that they abandoned it in favor of the current model. And they often host regional sites in places like Connecticut, Indiana, and Texas because those sites regularly get large turnout, but they also happen to be sites where there are top schools that more or less get a close-to-home-field advantage.
Finally, part of it is inherent in the sport of basketball. You only need two or three superstars to field a top team. It's easier to reload, it takes less work to get a team to gel, and there are so many scoring opportunities that fluke plays are far less significant than in soccer, football, or baseball. Basketball is much more a game of numbers; the more shots taken, the more likely the better team is to prevail over time.
I'm not sure that any of these factors is easily addressed. To some degree, over time I think the professonalization of the sport will help; John Wooden's dominance at UCLA in the 70s was arguably even more lopsided than Geno's has been at UConn or Summitt's was at Tenn in the 90s. The Celtics won 8 in a row in the late 50s and early 60s with Bill Russell, and the Bulls won 6 championships in 8 years with Jordan. Given the increasing $ and talent in the NBA, that kind of dominance seems improbable anymore, even with stacked teams like the Warriors. I think women's basketball will get there eventually, but for now, we'll continue to see a smaller number of perennial contenders.