RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Why don't WCBB fans follow players to the WNBA
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 12495
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 7:54 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

readyAIMfire53 wrote:
As a girl growing up in the sixties, I followed the UCLA men and LA Lakers. I saw the UCLA women play LA Tech at Pauley Pavilion, then followed Cal women when I lived in Berkeley. When I moved to Durham, NC, I started attending the local Duke women's games - along with a few hundred of my friends. I got very attached to players - especially Mo Currie - during the Coach G era. I won't say much about the McCallie era, except that Chelsea Gray is one of the most phenomenal talents I've ever seen.

As far as the WNBA, I am one of those who's excited it exists and I follow it because it's there. The closest team geographically was 2 hrs away in Charlotte, NC, and I attended a bunch of games, but when they picked Kelly Miller over Tamika Catchings, they lost me as a fan. Next closest team was the Mystics - 5 hours away. Coincidentally, Alana Beard became the franchise player, then Mo Currie and Lindsey Harding. I've stuck with the Styx through the horrendous Trudi Lacey years and I'm excited for the team this year after adding Delle Donne.

Now, the LA Sparks would have been a natural for me as an LA native, but Lisa Leslie was just too prissy for me. Now, she's gone and Chelsea Gray is there so I'm all in on the Sparks. So much so that I'm afraid to watch an LA Sparks/Wash Mystics game this week.

I cheered for Alana and Chelsea in the WNBA finals as both contributed to winning the rings. To begin this season, Mo Currie has finally gotten some much deserved attention as the bright spot on the SA Stars missing their entire starting backcourt. Basically, I follow the former Duke players, but it's fun to have "my teams" that I'm pulling for.

And, for me, with the current stench in the Duke Women's Basketball program, the WNBA season is more fun than the college season right now. I'd love to have a more year round women's basketball fandom and hopefully I'll be returning to the stadium in my back yard and follow Duke to some FF's again.

I realize I'm part of the "old guard" who dreamed of being able to watch women play when the only teams available as a girl were men's teams. And now, with Live Access available for most games, I can catch a majority of WNBA games on TV or online, which adds to the fun. Both of my teams won their first games and look like they can compete for the title. The best outcome would be for both to make the Finals - and the worst outcome would be for one of them to lose in the Finals.

And here's one more thing: Tina Charles led the league in points AND rebounds but Nneka Ogwumike's magical season beat her out for MVP. There's a Big Six vying for MVP this season and all but 1 have already won at least one MVP - Nneka, Candace Parker, Maya Moore, Tina Charles. Breanna Stewart will win at least one MVP in her career and this year could be her first. Or will it be her teammate Jewell Loyd, who's started out red hot.

With any luck, one person reading this will decide to give the WNBA a shot. It's a LOT more fun if you pick a team to be "your" team and if you pick a game to watch that's got at least one team gelling. The Sparks/Mystics game this Thursday would be a good one to start with - two well coached teams with star power and full squads.


I enjoyed this post Cool



_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
Jet Jaguar



Joined: 11 Feb 2014
Posts: 1111



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 10:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm going to put a different spin on this that many WNBA fans aren't going to like. Sorry, but it's slightly off topic. Not only do fans not follow players to the WNBA, but most women's basketball players aren't even big fans of the WNBA; yet most are big fans of the NBA. Why? (this is the part you won't like) Because, simply put, the NBA is exciting and the WNBA is not. And I'm not just talking about dunking. You can be exciting without dunking. I'm talking pace of play, highly skilled basketball displays, showmanship. Let's be honest. You may be a big fan of Sue Bird and think she's great, but does she REALLY excite you? I mean are you going to see some awesome dribbling skills like a Kyrie Irving or ridiculous passes like Steph Curry or some others? No, not really. She just kind of does her fundamental stuff and gets it done. Which is great, but it's not really going to get you pumped up. I don't think many girls get the showmanship part of the game. Maybe they were taught at a young age that this is how "girls play". Players like Shoni Schimmel and Samantha Prahalis got it. But the WNBA doesn't get it. I watch WNBA "highlights" and I'm like "how the hell is a pick and roll a highlight?" This is why people make fun of the WNBA. Being fundamental all the time is all well and good, but it doesn't make for super exciting basketball. This all falls on the GM's too. They keep vets who are old and boring instead of giving some young exciting quick skilled player fresh out of college or a young exciting player playing overseas a chance. So the games will just continue to be slow and plodding and unexciting. I understand it's a small league and they don't want to wait for a player to get acclimated to the league, but it would be better in the long run if the league would think more in terms of entertainment value with more young and exciting players.

Again, sorry it wasn't completely on topic. So you can ignore it if you want. But it's my opinion on the matter.



_________________
Oderint dum metuant - Let them hate, so long as they fear
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7746
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 11:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

One thing I DO like about the WNBA is that in the All-Star game they still play like it means something. There isn't an ASG in any other sport where this happens.



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 1:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Jet Jaguar wrote:
I'm going to put a different spin on this that many WNBA fans aren't going to like. Sorry, but it's slightly off topic. Not only do fans not follow players to the WNBA, but most women's basketball players aren't even big fans of the WNBA; yet most are big fans of the NBA. Why? (this is the part you won't like) Because, simply put, the NBA is exciting and the WNBA is not. And I'm not just talking about dunking. You can be exciting without dunking. I'm talking pace of play, highly skilled basketball displays, showmanship. Let's be honest. You may be a big fan of Sue Bird and think she's great, but does she REALLY excite you? I mean are you going to see some awesome dribbling skills like a Kyrie Irving or ridiculous passes like Steph Curry or some others? No, not really. She just kind of does her fundamental stuff and gets it done. Which is great, but it's not really going to get you pumped up. I don't think many girls get the showmanship part of the game. Maybe they were taught at a young age that this is how "girls play". Players like Shoni Schimmel and Samantha Prahalis got it. But the WNBA doesn't get it. I watch WNBA "highlights" and I'm like "how the hell is a pick and roll a highlight?" This is why people make fun of the WNBA. Being fundamental all the time is all well and good, but it doesn't make for super exciting basketball. This all falls on the GM's too. They keep vets who are old and boring instead of giving some young exciting quick skilled player fresh out of college or a young exciting player playing overseas a chance. So the games will just continue to be slow and plodding and unexciting. I understand it's a small league and they don't want to wait for a player to get acclimated to the league, but it would be better in the long run if the league would think more in terms of entertainment value with more young and exciting players.

Again, sorry it wasn't completely on topic. So you can ignore it if you want. But it's my opinion on the matter.


All good points. Part of the fun of watching basketball, or any sport, are the occasional amazing displays of raw athleticism -- and they happen much more often in men's sports than women's because the men at that level are bigger, stronger, faster and more explosive. In short, a male player is much more likely to make a jaw-dropping athletic play than a female player, and jaw-dropping athletic plays are fun to watch.

That said, an exciting up-and-down game with plenty of scoring and lots of skill can also be a lot of fun, and bad men's basketball, even with the occasional spectacular dunk, is less attractive to many than a top-shelf women's game that features a lot of players with skill and the ability to score.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 3:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think expectations can be a barrier to following players from college to the WNBA.

1. the average fan not familiar with the WNBA does not understand how big a step up in average skill per player from college; thus, when some players have to change their game or don't make as big an impact, it's easy to blame on some sort of nebulous "quality of play" or "coaching", when it's just that overall skill level is not as differentiated as in college, meaning the "style" of play is rougher.

2. If you follow a star player through college who gets drafted into the WNBA, chances are they played for a top college program...that didn't lose very often. Particularly if they are a lottery player, suddenly they either go to a team that loses a lot, or they don't get much playing time.
It's the same sort of thing I see when fans fall away from a team that's rebuilding after having won the big game or multiple championships.

3. There is a difference in showmanship between the NBA and WNBA. There are fundamental differences in how the game is played. I'm always so surprised at how small the NBA court is when I watch the odd NBA game! Laughing It's a stark contrast.

4. There's a curious societal pressure regarding professional basketball that it's tough for me to articulate. There's this idea from men (particularly white men, since I think there was a demographic study of fandom that pointed to black men being more supportive of the WNBA) that they can match or surpass what they're seeing on the WNBA court (even if they're wrong), so it's not worth their time? I'm not saying this is necessarily conscious, or even germane to the conversation of college vs WNBA fandom, but it's hard not to mention it. And it's not just men, but the article I read focused on men. I'll try to find the reference.



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 3:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Jet Jaguar wrote:
I'm going to put a different spin on this that many WNBA fans aren't going to like. Sorry, but it's slightly off topic. Not only do fans not follow players to the WNBA, but most women's basketball players aren't even big fans of the WNBA; yet most are big fans of the NBA. Why? (this is the part you won't like) Because, simply put, the NBA is exciting and the WNBA is not. And I'm not just talking about dunking. You can be exciting without dunking. I'm talking pace of play, highly skilled basketball displays, showmanship. Let's be honest. You may be a big fan of Sue Bird and think she's great, but does she REALLY excite you? I mean are you going to see some awesome dribbling skills like a Kyrie Irving or ridiculous passes like Steph Curry or some others? No, not really. She just kind of does her fundamental stuff and gets it done. Which is great, but it's not really going to get you pumped up. I don't think many girls get the showmanship part of the game. Maybe they were taught at a young age that this is how "girls play". Players like Shoni Schimmel and Samantha Prahalis got it. But the WNBA doesn't get it. I watch WNBA "highlights" and I'm like "how the hell is a pick and roll a highlight?" This is why people make fun of the WNBA. Being fundamental all the time is all well and good, but it doesn't make for super exciting basketball. This all falls on the GM's too. They keep vets who are old and boring instead of giving some young exciting quick skilled player fresh out of college or a young exciting player playing overseas a chance. So the games will just continue to be slow and plodding and unexciting. I understand it's a small league and they don't want to wait for a player to get acclimated to the league, but it would be better in the long run if the league would think more in terms of entertainment value with more young and exciting players.

Again, sorry it wasn't completely on topic. So you can ignore it if you want. But it's my opinion on the matter.


That doesn't explain why people who follow WCBB, which is even less showy, don't follow the WNBA.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 4:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:

That doesn't explain why people who follow WCBB, which is even less showy, don't follow the WNBA.


In order to explain that, you'd first have to address why they are following WCBB. Are they simply fans of their school (students, staff, alums, parents, whatever) and attend lots of their school's sporting events regardless of whether they are fans of the particular sport or not? That doesn't make them "followers of WCBB" nor should you expect them to follow the WNBA. I think, for example, there are a lot of people who may attend college soccer games who don't even like soccer and would never attend a soccer match if it wasn't their school playing (and probably never watch professional or international soccer except when the US team is playing). Probably some universe of people who fit that description for WCBB as well.

Are they simply going to the local college WCBB games because the tickets are cheap and it's a nice night out for seniors or for families with young kids? Again, not necessarily fans of the game itself or readily transferable to the pro game.

So after you consider that of the 350 Div I teams, there are only 25 averaging 4000 fans/game, and that most schools average in the hundreds, plus all the Div II, Div III , NAIA, etc with tiny audiences, how many people are actually in the stands or watching on TV primarily because they love Women's basketball?


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/16/17 11:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Somebody on a board one time gave the answer of an avid UConn fan when asked about why they didn't follow the Sun - "It's just not the same when they are older".


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/23/17 10:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

In terms of access to game viewing, the WNBA has the best deal in sports streaming that I'm aware of- nearly every game for $15. They are also archived for convenient viewing.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Speebs56



Joined: 19 Aug 2015
Posts: 226
Location: Orange county, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 6:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I must be an exception to the norm. I grew up in SoCal in the 60's and 70s as a huge LA sports fan: Lakers, Dodgers, Rams, and then I moved to the Midsouth in the early 80's for grad school. I've always kept my love for the Dodgers, but over the years my affinity for other teams grew.

As an Ole Miss grad student I HATED Lady Vols b/c the Lady Rebs could never beat UT, even in those great years of Van Chancellor, Jen Gillom, Eugenia Conner, etc. The only team that was able to beat the Lady Vols was UConn; first with Lobo, Jen, Kara, Kool Keesh -- so in '95 UConn became "my team". And I've stayed a huge UConn fan ever since. I even bought season tickets for Boston College when I lived in Memphis so I could get to see UConn in person (at BC) in 2004 b/c UConn tickets were impossible to get. (Yeah, the Taurasi years.)

I have followed all the UConn players into the WNBA over the years. Dee was my fave for years, with Sue B a close second....so Phoenix and Seattle were faves. And this in spite of the fact that I was a Sacramento Monarchs season ticket holder for 3 years while living in SF. (Ok -- I did love Ruthie, Yo, and Ticha -- and they were in their prime before Dee and Sue got to the WNBA.)

I now live in Orange County, CA and go to Sparks games when I want to see the Lynx or Seattle, with Maya or Stewie or KML. Never did like the Sparks since they were the Monarchs nemesis, and per noted by poster above, Lisa just didn't work for me.

I guess point of all this is that I am a women's sports fan and follow players from college to WNBA when the players make it. I am a sports fan -- and while women's sports is what I love most, I also watch NFL and occasionally, NBA.

I cannot "justify" my likes and dislikes -- I just know that there are some players I've watched for years in college and pros, and now that many are retired and moved into coaching or front office roles (Swin, Kelly Schumacher, Wilnett Crockett, Jen Rizzoti, among others) I am eager to see how the new generation of UConn players will bring it to the pros.

And I will keep watching. WNBA League Pass with ChromeCast streaming allows me to see ALL the players I like, for the most affordable ticket I know of!


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/25/17 11:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

norwester wrote:
4. There's a curious societal pressure regarding professional basketball that it's tough for me to articulate. There's this idea from men (particularly white men, since I think there was a demographic study of fandom that pointed to black men being more supportive of the WNBA) that they can match or surpass what they're seeing on the WNBA court (even if they're wrong), so it's not worth their time? I'm not saying this is necessarily conscious, or even germane to the conversation of college vs WNBA fandom, but it's hard not to mention it. And it's not just men, but the article I read focused on men. I'll try to find the reference.

Ya. This!

I experienced something surprising (to me) in San Antonio in '14. My first visit there, to stay with my husband's niece and her wife. I begged to go see a game in our limited time there. Niece (who even played hoops) obliged very begrudgingly....yet, she was rabid in following the Spurs to their championship during that same time. She and her friends just didn't give a rat's ass about SAS. Defies logic, imo. Oh well.... Razz



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
PlayBally'all



Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 271



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/29/17 12:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I don't follow the NBA, much less the WNBA. The fact that the league has lost this much money for this long of a period of time and is still afloat is really amazing.


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16346
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/29/17 12:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I would be curious how much the men's college audience overlaps with the NBA. In my small circle, most that are fans follow one or the other, but no really both.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/29/17 1:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
I would be curious how much the men's college audience overlaps with the NBA. In my small circle, most that are fans follow one or the other, but no really both.


I know a lot of people who follow both, but I don't see much of continuing to follow favorite college players like there is on the women's side. And when there is a college link at all, it's more of a curiosity that usually fades after only a year or two. People I know either have a favorite pro team, or a couple of favorite pro star players (like KD or Labron) who they follow and root for. Maybe in part it's because most of the best players only attended college for one year at most.

I have to admit that when I watch an NBA game, it seems like I barely know where half the US players even went to college. And I watch a lot of MCBB.

The NBA certainly does not rely for its audience on people "following" players from their favorite colleges. It stands on its own.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin