View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18066 Location: Queens
Back to top |
Posted: 04/03/16 9:41 am ::: |
Reply |
|
LosLynxAngeles wrote: |
OK I think what are all missing.
Elena clearly recognized how much power and voice she now has within the WBB community and sports community in general and she is taking advantage of it. This alone is great. She started a national discussion that is getting picked up by all the sports media and more. I love this even if I don't agree with Elena. She is using her platform. Go Elena speak your mind. |
That's a really good point.
On the other hand, does it benefit the WNBA if a player uses her platform to espouse an opinion that reflects badly on the league? Look what happened to Sophia Young, and that was on a much smaller scale. Would something like this make it easier or harder for the next player to speak out?
_________________ Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11225
Back to top |
Posted: 04/03/16 9:52 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Actually, I do think both the actual playing of the game, and fan interest, have reached a plateau -- or more precisely, whatever improvement/growth occurs (and there certainly can be some) will be on the margins. A difference in degree, not in kind, if you will ...
The women's game is what it is; some people like it, some don't. Arena Football is what it is; some people like it, some don't.
One important point: People keep saying WNBA attendance is declining because they are simply looking at the numbers reported by teams, which as we all know range from outright fantasy to simple padding. What matters is how many people watch on TV, and how many people are actually in the arena ...
If you look at the reported attendance numbers, they are roughly the same as ten years ago, and last year's drop can be accounted for in part by the San Antonio situation. (If San Antonio had its normal attendance, I don't even know if there would have been a drop ...)
As for TV ratings, I wasn't able to find historical data with a quick Google search, but my feeling is those are again pretty much the same through time.
If my contention is correct that the game is what it is, and has essentially found the support that it is able to find (always room for some improvement, of course), then tweaking the game in whatever manner will have only a marginal impact.
And for me, lowering the rims is a major change (much bigger than moving a line on the floor) in the basic structure of the sport that would lead many to believe the WNBA is some kind of sideshow (Arena Football compared to the NFL with the shorter field, goofy kickoffs, etc., but still a kind of football) rather than the best league in the world (which it is).
And I just can't see that major change having a major impact on attendance and ratings ... in fact, my guess is that would have a barely noticeable impact regardless of how widely it is implemented. And so why do it?
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 Posts: 5065 Location: New York City
Back to top |
Posted: 04/03/16 10:00 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
Actually, I do think both the actual playing of the game, and fan interest, have reached a plateau -- or more precisely, whatever improvement/growth occurs (and there certainly can be some) will be on the margins. A difference in degree, not in kind, if you will ...
The women's game is what it is; some people like it, some don't. Arena Football is what it is; some people like it, some don't.
One important point: People keep saying WNBA attendance is declining because they are simply looking at the numbers reported by teams, which as we all know range from outright fantasy to simple padding. What matters is how many people watch on TV, and how many people are actually in the arena ...
If you look at the reported attendance numbers, they are roughly the same as ten years ago, and last year's drop can be accounted for in part by the San Antonio situation. (If San Antonio had its normal attendance, I don't even know if there would have been a drop ...)
As for TV ratings, I wasn't able to find historical data with a quick Google search, but my feeling is those are again pretty much the same through time.
If my contention is correct that the game is what it is, and has essentially found the support that it is able to find (always room for some improvement, of course), then tweaking the game in whatever manner will have only a marginal impact.
And for me, lowering the rims is a major change (much bigger than moving a line on the floor) in the basic structure of the sport that would lead many to believe the WNBA is some kind of sideshow (Arena Football compared to the NFL with the shorter field, goofy kickoffs, etc., but still a kind of football) rather than the best league in the world (which it is).
And I just can't see that major change having a major impact on attendance and ratings ... in fact, my guess is that would have a barely noticeable impact regardless of how widely it is implemented. And so why do it? |
Well said.
_________________ Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63947
Back to top |
Posted: 04/03/16 11:45 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Does anybody think this more of a personal issue for Delle Donne? If she was a 5'6 PG, would she be on this crusade for lower rims? She's a marginal dunker as it is right now at 6'5. She can dunk in practice but never has in a game. It probably frustrates her that she doesn't have the athleticism or confidence of a Griner to dunk in a game. I'm thinking instead of taking the easy way out and asking for lower rims, how about working harder to get stronger? I'm not saying she never works out, but I seriously doubt she's interested in doing a Blake Griffin level workout routine. She could be flipping tractor tires, running sand dunes, and dragging sleds to get stronger.
_________________ Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67139 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 04/03/16 11:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Shades wrote: |
I'm not saying she never works out, but I seriously doubt she's interested in doing a Blake Griffin level workout routine. She could be flipping tractor tires, running sand dunes, and dragging sleds to get stronger. |
With her Lyme disease she may not be capable of doing that kind of workout on a sustained basis.
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
UofDel_Alum
Joined: 10 Jul 2013 Posts: 3979 Location: Delaware
Back to top |
Posted: 04/03/16 11:59 am ::: |
Reply |
|
So my stance on the issue of lowering the rim is not misunderstood "I am not in favor of lowering the rim".
However, to turn this discussion into a personality issue is just acting like a child. Does not surprise me some peoples response. I do not believe there are no further options to improve the game and the WNBA should always look for ways to improve the WNBA game.
|
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 Posts: 5065 Location: New York City
Back to top |
Posted: 04/03/16 2:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
UofDel_Alum wrote: |
So my stance on the issue of lowering the rim is not misunderstood "I am not in favor of lowering the rim".
However, to turn this discussion into a personality issue is just acting like a child. Does not surprise me some peoples response. I do not believe there are no further options to improve the game and the WNBA should always look for ways to improve the WNBA game. |
Absolutely. I'm opposed to lowering the rims for reasons I've already stated here. But this discussion should be about the height of the rims and the difficulties facing the WNBA, not about Delle Donne.
_________________ Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9787
Back to top |
Posted: 04/03/16 8:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
.
One important point: People keep saying WNBA attendance is declining because they are simply looking at the numbers reported by teams, which as we all know range from outright fantasy to simple padding. What matters is how many people watch on TV, and how many people are actually in the arena ...If you look at the reported attendance numbers, they are roughly the same as ten years ago, |
They are not reflective of people in seats, but has their inaccuracy changed over time?
But you are right that announced attendance is not that different from 10 years ago. 2005 was 8,172 and 2006 was the 3rd lowest ever - 7,490.
Quote: |
and last year's drop can be accounted for in part by the San Antonio situation. (If San Antonio had its normal attendance, I don't even know if there would have been a drop ...) |
If San Antonio had gotten what they did in 2014 - 7,719 instead of 4,831, the league average would have increased from 7,318 to 7,559. Which would be higher than 2006, 2012 and 2013. Dallas has a chance to increase from 5,167 in Tulsa to 7,000 (capacity). Combined with San Antonio matching 2014, that would bring attendance to 7,712, which is higher than the last 4 years and 2006.
Quote: |
As for TV ratings, I wasn't able to find historical data with a quick Google search, but my feeling is those are again pretty much the same through time. |
I think the WNBA is gone from Saturday afternoons on ABC, but ESPN ratings are fairly level. I don't have an updated graph but 2014 was 240,000 for 19 ESPN2 games and 2015 was 202,000 for 10 ESPN2 and 1 ESPN game. Before that it was:
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67139 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11225
Back to top |
Posted: 04/07/16 7:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I have no concrete evidence for this, but I think the league is doing a little less blatant attendance-padding than in the past. I always felt they were above the industry standard in that regard, and I feel like they've reined it in a little -- so the numbers are lower, but the bodies in seats are the same.
The smaller ball affects the game, I believe, but it doesn't change the shape of the game. And its implementation made lots of money for sporting goods' firms, so there was an economic impetus. But lowering the rims just for the WNBA doesn't make anyone any money, and it changes the fundamental structure of the sport, so I just can't see it happening unless someone can demonstrate that it will have a major impact on attendance and TV ratings (at least 10%, but for me, it would have to be 20% to make it worthwhile).
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67139 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 04/10/16 11:30 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Val Ackerman says the W should have experimented with lower rims
http://www.si.com/wnba/video/2016/04/08/former-wnba-president-val-ackerman-lower-rims
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
UofDel_Alum
Joined: 10 Jul 2013 Posts: 3979 Location: Delaware
Back to top |
Posted: 04/10/16 11:45 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I am hearing two different types of answers from people willing to comment on lowering the rim;
1) No
2) Lower the rim on a trial basis
I still think this is not just a question of lowering the rim. It is more complicated then implementing that change. What effect does lowering the rim have to other parts of the basketball game?
|
|
Richard 77
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 4155 Location: Lake Mills, Wisconsin
Back to top |
Posted: 04/10/16 6:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I truly admire and understand the positions of Elena, Geno, and the opinion of others as to why they think the rims should be lowered. My final take on the matter is that those who insist on lowering the rims are trying to fix a game that isn't broken. It's like officially and permanently adding the numerous house rules people have created through the years to Monopoly._________________ If you cannot inspire yourself to read a book about women's basketball, or any book about women's sports, you cannot inspire any young girl or boy to write a book about them. http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Richardstrek
Adding: Write Funko. The WNBA should have Pops. |
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18066 Location: Queens
Back to top |
Posted: 04/10/16 7:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Fucking wonderful, now I have to worry about her trying to get the Big East to do exhibition games on a lower rim.
_________________ Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 Posts: 5065 Location: New York City
Back to top |
Posted: 04/11/16 8:55 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
I have no concrete evidence for this, but I think the league is doing a little less blatant attendance-padding than in the past. I always felt they were above the industry standard in that regard, and I feel like they've reined it in a little -- so the numbers are lower, but the bodies in seats are the same. |
If you have "no concrete evidence," then in my view nothing in this paragraph has any meaning. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. No one can know. Including you or me.
_________________ Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 04/11/16 9:04 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
The smaller ball affects the game, I believe, but it doesn't change the shape of the game. And its implementation made lots of money for sporting goods' firms, so there was an economic impetus. But lowering the rims just for the WNBA doesn't make anyone any money, and it changes the fundamental structure of the sport, so I just can't see it happening unless someone can demonstrate that it will have a major impact on attendance and TV ratings (at least 10%, but for me, it would have to be 20% to make it worthwhile). |
Can you explain this further? I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making. It strikes me as another detail, not conceptually different than a smaller ball, shorter arc, 40 vs 48 minute game, etc. They're differences. I'm missing how one is more "fundamental" than the others. It seems particularly equivalent to the smaller ball - another difference made to address physical differences. Smaller hands/smaller ball, shorter height/lower rim. Not seeing the big difference. I don't know the actual history but I assume the shorter 3pt arc and smaller restricted area arc in WBB were intended to address physical differences as well.
I don't have a strong feeling one way or another on whether the rim height should change, but I've found the hysteria about being different from the historical height or the men to be somewhat overblown as long as the games are already different in a number of respects.
If the concerns about causing a lack of respect are correct, then I would think there ought to be a movement to have the WNBA completely adopt the NBA rules in toto and eliminate all differences (and have a single set of rules for mens and womens college ball as well). I don't see how this one difference would be so much more cataclysmic than all the others.
But while the discussion is interesting, I think the likelihood of it happening is zero. I wouldn't want to see it happen unless it became the standard for all women's and girl's basketball (not WNBA by itself) and the logistics of requiring duplicate sets or adjustable rims everywhere would be next to impossible and cost prohibitive. I wish someone would address how they propose this could be implemented before they go off and conduct exhibition games or trial runs. I think some people are getting ahead of themselves.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11225
Back to top |
Posted: 04/11/16 9:35 am ::: |
Reply |
|
For me, at least, the smaller ball doesn't change much. I play with both, and I can miss equally well with either ball. The ballhandling component isn't a big deal, and I've always felt that the advantage gained by the ball fitting inside the basket ring more easily was offset to a significant degree by the smaller ball being more likely to bounce off the rim rather than fall through.
The game time issue is really an NBA one: It should be 40 minutes as well. It seems to me that high school should go to nine-minute quarters (Minnesota plays 18 minutes halves) and after that, 40 minutes is the game. In baseball, below a certain level it's seven innings, and above it's nine -- still the same game.
The three-point arc should also, in my view, be the same for college, international and WNBA play. I would say that the different arcs now in use don't impact the game in a fundamental way, though obviously they make a different. I would have high school be shorter and the NBA be longer than in college, international and WNBA, but the concept remains the same. (This is probably the best argument for lowering the rim, if indeed the different distances are a good idea.)
Changing the rim height, for me, is more fundamental because it has been a constant since the game was invented. Every court all around the world has the same rim height, and you can walk on that court and play the game. Maybe the three-point line is different, maybe the ball is a slightly different size, but the three-dimensional shape of the court is the same.
As a (bad) player, I can adjust pretty easily to different ball sizes, to different three-point distances, and be equally ineffective -- but if you lowered the rim, for me, it would be a huge adjustment, and I think for most players.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 04/11/16 10:03 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
For me, at least, the smaller ball doesn't change much. I play with both, and I can miss equally well with either ball. The ballhandling component isn't a big deal, and I've always felt that the advantage gained by the ball fitting inside the basket ring more easily was offset to a significant degree by the smaller ball being more likely to bounce off the rim rather than fall through.
The game time issue is really an NBA one: It should be 40 minutes as well. It seems to me that high school should go to nine-minute quarters (Minnesota plays 18 minutes halves) and after that, 40 minutes is the game. In baseball, below a certain level it's seven innings, and above it's nine -- still the same game.
The three-point arc should also, in my view, be the same for college, international and WNBA play. I would say that the different arcs now in use don't impact the game in a fundamental way, though obviously they make a different. I would have high school be shorter and the NBA be longer than in college, international and WNBA, but the concept remains the same. (This is probably the best argument for lowering the rim, if indeed the different distances are a good idea.)
Changing the rim height, for me, is more fundamental because it has been a constant since the game was invented. Every court all around the world has the same rim height, and you can walk on that court and play the game. Maybe the three-point line is different, maybe the ball is a slightly different size, but the three-dimensional shape of the court is the same.
As a (bad) player, I can adjust pretty easily to different ball sizes, to different three-point distances, and be equally ineffective -- but if you lowered the rim, for me, it would be a huge adjustment, and I think for most players. |
We used to go play sometimes for fun at a local elementary school that had 8 foot rims on their playground. It was fun that all of us could actually dunk and goaltend (goaltending was permitted in our 8 foot games), but it was still basketball. Same balls, mostly same rules, same skills. Just an additional dimension added. (BTW that was during the period when dunking was banned in college and HS. It was still fun and players who could still did except in regulation games.)
The "courts everywhere are the same" is true, and is the reason it would be cost-prohibitive to change, but that's still just logistics. I don't see it as fundamental to the game.
If this had been done 50 years ago, there would be 8ft and 10 ft courts all over the world today.
I hear and understand some people feeling that for the sake of respect the women need to play the same game as the men. But if you really feel that strongly about it, then you should be demanding the same game across the board. I don't understand this picking and choosing "this difference is ok, but that one difference would be horrible." Either differences are ok, or they're not.
As an aside, they played a bunch of HS tournament games this spring (in GA I think) on a court where the baskets were set up wrong and were too close to the endline, making it farther from the FT line. (Off by a foot, IIRC.) Notwithstanding the "courts everywhere are the same", this change in the dimensions was not considered so fundamental to the game that the games had to be replayed, and the games instead all counted as played. And I believe most if not all YMCAs use lower rims in youth leagues, depending on the age.
|
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 12634 Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008 Posts: 32341
Back to top |
Posted: 04/12/16 9:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Michael V Pearson wrote: |
I see this everywhere on my timelines. Ones that struck the most are Griner's, Latta's and Augustus's reaction. There may be pros or cons of lowering the rim but it's not stupid. People who think it 's stupid gets on my nerves. EDD is actually being honest about it. She may not be right but at least we get insider's thought about this, particularly from the players.
My wife is so impressed how vocal WNBA players can be, considering most players like to lay low. We get that most players are against it. But all this lowering discussion is not stupid, it's good for the league actually. It helps open up more discussions, like viewership, marketing, salary etc |
Let me get on your nerves. I think it's beyond stupid. Very stupid. I like Taurasi's response "might as well put us in skirts and back in the kitchen" I have yet to see a GOOD reason to lower the rims. Not ONE.
_________________ For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
UofDel_Alum
Joined: 10 Jul 2013 Posts: 3979 Location: Delaware
Back to top |
Posted: 04/12/16 12:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
myrtle wrote: |
Michael V Pearson wrote: |
I see this everywhere on my timelines. Ones that struck the most are Griner's, Latta's and Augustus's reaction. There may be pros or cons of lowering the rim but it's not stupid. People who think it 's stupid gets on my nerves. EDD is actually being honest about it. She may not be right but at least we get insider's thought about this, particularly from the players.
My wife is so impressed how vocal WNBA players can be, considering most players like to lay low. We get that most players are against it. But all this lowering discussion is not stupid, it's good for the league actually. It helps open up more discussions, like viewership, marketing, salary etc |
Let me get on your nerves. I think it's beyond stupid. Very stupid. I like Taurasi's response "might as well put us in skirts and back in the kitchen" I have yet to see a GOOD reason to lower the rims. Not ONE. |
I agree, this issue has not been thought out, a reason why I wished EDD did not bring the subject up.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63947
Back to top |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9787
Back to top |
Posted: 04/12/16 7:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
myrtle wrote: |
Michael V Pearson wrote: |
I see this everywhere on my timelines. Ones that struck the most are Griner's, Latta's and Augustus's reaction. There may be pros or cons of lowering the rim but it's not stupid. People who think it 's stupid gets on my nerves. EDD is actually being honest about it. She may not be right but at least we get insider's thought about this, particularly from the players.
My wife is so impressed how vocal WNBA players can be, considering most players like to lay low. We get that most players are against it. But all this lowering discussion is not stupid, it's good for the league actually. It helps open up more discussions, like viewership, marketing, salary etc |
Let me get on your nerves. I think it's beyond stupid. Very stupid. I like Taurasi's response "might as well put us in skirts and back in the kitchen" I have yet to see a GOOD reason to lower the rims. Not ONE. |
2015 WNBA Playoffs Minnesota Lynx visiting Los Angeles Sparks
Arena Stats: ARENA Long Beach State, The Pyramid
ATTENDANCE 3112 DURATION 2:01
OFFICIALS #39 Michael Price, #34 Maj Forsberg, #35 Billy Smith
I suspect that if this game had been played at their regular arena it would have had an announced attendance of 7,000+. But the Long Beach State arena has a capacity of only 4,000 and you have to announce less than 4,000 if you clearly didn't fill it.
First or second round WNBA playoff games are ones in which they don't appear to give tickets out, at least not to the amount they do during the year or in finals. So they give a better look at what the real paid attendance is.
Last edited by tfan on 04/12/16 7:19 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67139 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 04/12/16 7:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
tfan wrote: |
myrtle wrote: |
Michael V Pearson wrote: |
I see this everywhere on my timelines. Ones that struck the most are Griner's, Latta's and Augustus's reaction. There may be pros or cons of lowering the rim but it's not stupid. People who think it 's stupid gets on my nerves. EDD is actually being honest about it. She may not be right but at least we get insider's thought about this, particularly from the players.
My wife is so impressed how vocal WNBA players can be, considering most players like to lay low. We get that most players are against it. But all this lowering discussion is not stupid, it's good for the league actually. It helps open up more discussions, like viewership, marketing, salary etc |
Let me get on your nerves. I think it's beyond stupid. Very stupid. I like Taurasi's response "might as well put us in skirts and back in the kitchen" I have yet to see a GOOD reason to lower the rims. Not ONE. |
2015 WNBA Playoffs Minnesota Lynx visiting Los Angeles Sparks
Arena Stats: ARENA Long Beach State, The Pyramid
ATTENDANCE 3112 DURATION 2:01
OFFICIALS #39 Michael Price, #34 Maj Forsberg, #35 Billy Smith |
What evidence do you have that lowering the rim will make a difference in attendance?
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9787
Back to top |
Posted: 04/12/16 7:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
tfan wrote: |
myrtle wrote: |
Michael V Pearson wrote: |
I see this everywhere on my timelines. Ones that struck the most are Griner's, Latta's and Augustus's reaction. There may be pros or cons of lowering the rim but it's not stupid. People who think it 's stupid gets on my nerves. EDD is actually being honest about it. She may not be right but at least we get insider's thought about this, particularly from the players.
My wife is so impressed how vocal WNBA players can be, considering most players like to lay low. We get that most players are against it. But all this lowering discussion is not stupid, it's good for the league actually. It helps open up more discussions, like viewership, marketing, salary etc |
Let me get on your nerves. I think it's beyond stupid. Very stupid. I like Taurasi's response "might as well put us in skirts and back in the kitchen" I have yet to see a GOOD reason to lower the rims. Not ONE. |
2015 WNBA Playoffs Minnesota Lynx visiting Los Angeles Sparks
Arena Stats: ARENA Long Beach State, The Pyramid
ATTENDANCE 3112 DURATION 2:01
OFFICIALS #39 Michael Price, #34 Maj Forsberg, #35 Billy Smith |
What evidence do you have that lowering the rim will make a difference in attendance? |
I have the same evidence that people against lowering the rim have that it will not make a difference in attendance. As has been said, it is very easy to do trials during pre-season to see what effect it has.
If you were to make a list of teams that regularly fill 3/4 of the seats in their lower bowl - what teams would you put on that list?
|
|
|
|