| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TigerVol
Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 2209
Location: ATL
Back to top |
 Posted: 07/22/18 9:27 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
I don’t buy the “worse product” line. People will watch all levels of a sport, even if those different levels can’t compete.
March madness makes over a billion dollars every year. More than the NFL playoffs. The G league would run over the March Madness winner too. Yet, guess what is more popular.
In some areas of the country, HIGH SCHOOL football, is the most popular sport. Again, college and professionals would run over those teams.
So why does it matter with the WNBA? This idea that it isn’t popular because players from different leagues would beat up on the WNBA doesn’t quite fit.. |
Same sport different products IMO.
I watch very little NBA because I don't like clear out one on one style that is played by many teams.
It is arguably the best men's league with the most athletic talent.
I'll take men's ncaa every day given the choice. I'll take wnba given the choice. Personal preference.
There are plenty of college ball (men's or women's bball or football) in who don't follow the pro game. There are pro fans that don't follow the college game.
If you are a huge fan of the one on one spectacular aspect of the NBA vs team ball (ie hate the way the spurs historically play as plenty of NBA fans do)... You aren't apt to care for the Wnba on the basis of how the game is played.
I'm sure there is some gender bias impacting the overall popularity of the sport but it is not the only or necessarily the driving reason.
Bottom line we have a glut of riches when it comes to sports in the country. Tons to watch at all levels and if you have a kid or two who play - good luck finding time to follow any other team. Women's aau volleyball and bball and soccer are all consuming (time and $).
People will never invest their energy, time and dollars equally across all sports whether male or female...
_________________
"Never put an age limit on your dreams" - Dara Torres 2008
|
|
TigerVol
Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 2209
Location: ATL
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/18 9:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justinabina wrote: |
| calbearman76 wrote: |
My point is that comparing men's and women's salaries in a sport is not the product of an unjust prejudice but rather a determination made by consumers of the sport. |
Right - but my original point is that consumers and their tastes are informed by a history of widespread negative (or limiting) attitudes about women, women's athleticism, and women's sports. I don't understand how economics and ideas about gender can be separated, since, as mentioned, ideas about gender have for a very long time determined who gets what type of job and what type of salary. It doesn't make sense to me say "WNBA and NBA wage gap is about economics, not gender." To me, the wage gap is about economics and gender. |
Two different though related topics IMO.
1.the difference of the pay structure under the cba of the leagues.
This is economic. If the players are underpaid relative to what the league can afford it has zero to do with their gender. It has everything to do with owners wanting to pay as little as possible. This is exactly how every league (men's or women's) works until the league hits a certain level of prosperity and the players a certain level of economic power.
The revenue comparison, while better that the salary comparison, still isn't apples to apples.
If they want to argue for open books and a fair percentage more power - they should. But is about fair within THIS league not compared to the NBA and has nothing to do with gender.
2. Gender bias in the culture impacting poparity of the sport and in part influencing the wage gap
I'm sure this has an impact though it isn't the only factor in personal preference. (I prefer wnba and ncaa men's/women's over NBA on style of play). Not everyone likes sports or likes them the same way for the same reason.
That said it is a cultural and not a league issue. It isn't the leagues responsibility or capability to offset the bias cost to the players.
_________________
"Never put an age limit on your dreams" - Dara Torres 2008
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9624
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/18 9:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
I don’t buy the “worse product” line. People will watch all levels of a sport, even if those different levels can’t compete.
March madness makes over a billion dollars every year. More than the NFL playoffs. The G league would run over the March Madness winner too. Yet, guess what is more popular.
In some areas of the country, HIGH SCHOOL football, is the most popular sport. Again, college and professionals would run over those teams.
So why does it matter with the WNBA? This idea that it isn’t popular because players from different leagues would beat up on the WNBA doesn’t quite fit.. |
Why don’t the same number of people watch G league as watch the NBA? Why is minor league attendance worse than MLB?
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3318
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/18 9:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TigerVol wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
I don’t buy the “worse product” line. People will watch all levels of a sport, even if those different levels can’t compete.
March madness makes over a billion dollars every year. More than the NFL playoffs. The G league would run over the March Madness winner too. Yet, guess what is more popular.
In some areas of the country, HIGH SCHOOL football, is the most popular sport. Again, college and professionals would run over those teams.
So why does it matter with the WNBA? This idea that it isn’t popular because players from different leagues would beat up on the WNBA doesn’t quite fit.. |
Same sport different products IMO.
I watch very little NBA because I don't like clear out one on one style that is played by many teams.
It is arguably the best men's league with the most athletic talent.
I'll take men's ncaa every day given the choice. I'll take wnba given the choice. Personal preference.
There are plenty of college ball (men's or women's bball or football) in who don't follow the pro game. There are pro fans that don't follow the college game.
If you are a huge fan of the one on one spectacular aspect of the NBA vs team ball (ie hate the way the spurs historically play as plenty of NBA fans do)... You aren't apt to care for the Wnba on the basis of how the game is played... |
This may all be true, but it also completely ignores the point of @mercfan3's post, which is that the reason many of the WNBA's more vocal critics cite for not watching is because the WNBA is a "worse" product, compared to the NBA. An argument which, I agree, doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny. You and others preferring the NCAA to the NBA for aesthetic and stylistic reasons doesn't change the fact that the NBA is objectively better than the NCAA. But, among those who prefers the NBA to the NCAA, nobody ever, ever cites "worse product" as a reason why.
Same goes for the point that @mercfan3 made about high school football. There are several reasons why someone might prefer high school football to college football, or college football to the NFL, but you know what one of those reasons isn't? It isn't because high school football is objectively better than college football, or because college football is objectively better than the NFL.
And those are two examples where it is way easier to make an apples-to-apples comparison than it is to compare men's basketball and women's basketball. Like, you can tell me that you don't like the NBA because you don't like the clear out, one-on-one style, and that's totally valid. What you can't tell me is that you like college basketball more than the NBA because college basketball is better, because that's objectively, provably false. By any measure, other than personal taste (which is subjective), the NBA is better. And so is the G-League. But the G-League isn't even a blip on the radar compared to college basketball, which is how you know that people saying that they don't watch the WNBA because it's not as good are full of shit.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21928
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/18 10:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ^ #Amen #LikeHard
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/18 10:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
I don’t buy the “worse product” line. People will watch all levels of a sport, even if those different levels can’t compete.
March madness makes over a billion dollars every year. More than the NFL playoffs. The G league would run over the March Madness winner too. Yet, guess what is more popular.
In some areas of the country, HIGH SCHOOL football, is the most popular sport. Again, college and professionals would run over those teams.
So why does it matter with the WNBA? This idea that it isn’t popular because players from different leagues would beat up on the WNBA doesn’t quite fit.. |
Why don’t the same number of people watch G league as watch the NBA? Why is minor league attendance worse than MLB? |
Marketing.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3318
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/18 10:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
I don’t buy the “worse product” line. People will watch all levels of a sport, even if those different levels can’t compete.
March madness makes over a billion dollars every year. More than the NFL playoffs. The G league would run over the March Madness winner too. Yet, guess what is more popular.
In some areas of the country, HIGH SCHOOL football, is the most popular sport. Again, college and professionals would run over those teams.
So why does it matter with the WNBA? This idea that it isn’t popular because players from different leagues would beat up on the WNBA doesn’t quite fit.. |
Why don’t the same number of people watch G league as watch the NBA? Why is minor league attendance worse than MLB? |
Marketing. |
The thing that I find fascinating about it is that a lot of the popularity of college athletics is rooted in tribalism: I mean, seriously, I know about a guy who graduated from an Ivy League school, and actually played football for his alma mater, but still roots for UGA, which he did not attend, because it's the largest state school in Georgia. What else can that be but tribalism?
You would think that that same tribalism would result in popularity for minor league/semi-pro sports teams, at least in areas that don't have major league professional sports, like college does... but it usually doesn't.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9624
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/18 10:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
I don’t buy the “worse product” line. People will watch all levels of a sport, even if those different levels can’t compete.
March madness makes over a billion dollars every year. More than the NFL playoffs. The G league would run over the March Madness winner too. Yet, guess what is more popular.
In some areas of the country, HIGH SCHOOL football, is the most popular sport. Again, college and professionals would run over those teams.
So why does it matter with the WNBA? This idea that it isn’t popular because players from different leagues would beat up on the WNBA doesn’t quite fit.. |
Why don’t the same number of people watch G league as watch the NBA? Why is minor league attendance worse than MLB? |
Marketing. |
Strange that they haven't figured out that they would be as popular as the major leagues if they only marketed more.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9624
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/18 11:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
This may all be true, but it also completely ignores the point of @mercfan3's post, which is that the reason many of the WNBA's more vocal critics cite for not watching is because the WNBA is a "worse" product, compared to the NBA. An argument which, I agree, doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny. You and others preferring the NCAA to the NBA for aesthetic and stylistic reasons doesn't change the fact that the NBA is objectively better than the NCAA. But, among those who prefers the NBA to the NCAA, nobody ever, ever cites "worse product" as a reason why. |
The comparison should be between pro leagues, as the women's NCAA tournament Final Four gets more viewership than the WNBA Finals. A lot more. For example, the 2015 Final game got 4.27 million viewers. In 2016 it was 3.081 million viewers. The 2016 WNBA Sparks/Lynx finals averaged 487,000 viewers. Game 5 had 528,000 viewers. The 2015 finals averaged 502,000 and Game 5 had 583,000 viewers. A country-wide 64 team tournament generates excitement, and college has the alumni connection in addition to local affiliation.
| Quote: |
Same goes for the point that @mercfan3 made about high school football. There are several reasons why someone might prefer high school football to college football, or college football to the NFL, but you know what one of those reasons isn't? It isn't because high school football is objectively better than college football, or because college football is objectively better than the NFL. |
A lot of people (students, parent/relatives, neighbors, alumni) going to a high school football game in Texas doesn't make high school football more popular than college or pro. Try and watch a high school football game on ESPN.
| Quote: |
And those are two examples where it is way easier to make an apples-to-apples comparison than it is to compare men's basketball and women's basketball. Like, you can tell me that you don't like the NBA because you don't like the clear out, one-on-one style, and that's totally valid. What you can't tell me is that you like college basketball more than the NBA because college basketball is better, because that's objectively, provably false. By any measure, other than personal taste (which is subjective), the NBA is better. And so is the G-League. But the G-League isn't even a blip on the radar compared to college basketball, which is how you know that people saying that they don't watch the WNBA because it's not as good are full of shit. |
What do you mean by "better" when you say it is objectively provably false that college basketball is better than the NBA.
Last edited by tfan on 07/23/18 5:56 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
PRballer
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 2544
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 12:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| If we are basing this argument for increased pay on percentages to revenue (like the men) isn’t it simply making max deals $250K and minimum salary at $70K?
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24353
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 6:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| Quote: |
And those are two examples where it is way easier to make an apples-to-apples comparison than it is to compare men's basketball and women's basketball. Like, you can tell me that you don't like the NBA because you don't like the clear out, one-on-one style, and that's totally valid. What you can't tell me is that you like college basketball more than the NBA because college basketball is better, because that's objectively, provably false. By any measure, other than personal taste (which is subjective), the NBA is better. And so is the G-League. But the G-League isn't even a blip on the radar compared to college basketball, which is how you know that people saying that they don't watch the WNBA because it's not as good are full of shit. |
What do you mean by "better" when you say it is objectively provably false that college basketball is better than the NBA. |
Again, it's that the NBA teams are all clearly better at the sport. If they played each other, even the Kings or the Suns would destroy the NCAA champions. The NBA is all the best players from the NCAA (plus the rest of the world), closer to their peak, distilled down to 30 teams. Yet people watch college basketball in their gazillions. So people are clearly willing to watch and become heavily invested in something that isn't the 'elite' version of the sport. |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9624
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 6:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| Quote: |
And those are two examples where it is way easier to make an apples-to-apples comparison than it is to compare men's basketball and women's basketball. Like, you can tell me that you don't like the NBA because you don't like the clear out, one-on-one style, and that's totally valid. What you can't tell me is that you like college basketball more than the NBA because college basketball is better, because that's objectively, provably false. By any measure, other than personal taste (which is subjective), the NBA is better. And so is the G-League. But the G-League isn't even a blip on the radar compared to college basketball, which is how you know that people saying that they don't watch the WNBA because it's not as good are full of shit. |
What do you mean by "better" when you say it is objectively provably false that college basketball is better than the NBA. |
Again, it's that the NBA teams are all clearly better at the sport. If they played each other, even the Kings or the Suns would destroy the NCAA champions. The NBA is all the best players from the NCAA (plus the rest of the world), closer to their peak, distilled down to 30 teams. Yet people watch college basketball in their gazillions. So people are clearly willing to watch and become heavily invested in something that isn't the 'elite' version of the sport. |
I was asking him for his definition of "better" which is objectively provably false. People here will say that the WNBA is "better basketball" than the NBA.
I know the NBA players are better than college players. I know that the college men are better than junior college men. I know that junior college men are better than the WNBA. I also think there are boys high school teams in the country that would win the WNBA, and that the boys McDonald's All-American teams would beat the USA Basketball National Team. Men are bigger, quicker, jump higher, and run faster. Basketball is also a sport that highlights the differences more than any other I can think of.
People will watch college men, but as I mentioned, that same phenomenon is on the women's side - and to a greater extent. The women's championship game far outdraws the WNBA finals, while the men's championship game gets great ratings, but the NBA finals ratings are close. For example, the NBA finals were around 20 million viewers from 2015 to 2017 and then dipped to 17 million-ish this year. The NCAA championship game was [28.263M, 17.752M, 22.998M and 15.967M] in that same four years. The idea of amateurs affiliated with colleges in a 64-team national tournament fires people up.
But people don't watch minor league men in large numbers. And you can't start up a competing pro league like the XFL, World Football League, United States Football League, or any of the Arena football leagues with lesser players and expect the same viewership as the NFL.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24353
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 8:42 am ::: |
Reply |
|
It's an interesting point you make about how people do watch the women's NCAAs, at least in numbers that dwarf the WNBA. I think it's hard to break into the sporting landscape from a low point. College sports, at least in the major sports, are part of the landscape. Which means they get coverage in newspapers and on websites and on TV, which means people talk about them, and people watch them. Around the huge interest in March Madness, enough bleeds over that people watch the women as well (once we're late enough in the tournaments that they aren't playing directly against the men).
I also think there's much less of an investment required in watching March Madness. People tune in to watch the excitement, then many happily go back to barely paying attention for the next 11 months. With a professional league the perspective is different. Maybe a few people will start paying attention only for the playoffs, but most won't if they haven't cared to that point. It's like over here, the women's FA Cup final (soccer) is shown every year on a major TV channel, and I believe gets decent ratings. It's a showpiece, one-off event each year that people feel like they can watch without year-long investment. But while interest in the actual women's league is growing, attendance and viewing figures are still miniscule. |
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3318
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 8:51 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| The comparison should be between pro leagues, as the women's NCAA tournament Final Four gets more viewership than the WNBA Finals. |
Not when someone is citing "quality of play" as a reason why they don't watch the WNBA, it shouldn't. The popularity of women's college basketball, relative to the WNBA, has fuck-all to do with quality of play, which you even partially acknowledged, when you stipulated to this:
| Quote: |
| A country-wide 64 team tournament generates excitement, and college has the alumni connection in addition to local affiliation. |
The popularity of college sports has way more to do with tribalism than it does with quality of play. "Excitement" is a subjective assessment.
| Quote: |
A lot of people (students, parent/relatives, neighbors, alumni) going to a high school football game in Texas doesn't make high school football more popular than college or pro. |
It makes it more popular in Texas; it doesn't have to be more popular nationwide. The fact that it's more popular anywhere is enough to prove the point, because the point is that there are people who say that they don't watch the WNBA because it isn't "good," a sentiment that is directly contradicted by the fact that they are loyal fans of other sports that are objectively worse than higher levels of that sport, which they can also watch.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3318
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 8:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| I was asking him for his definition of "better" which is objectively provably false. |
I don't have that kind of time, so I'll answer your question with a question, instead: what objective criteria can the NBA be evaluated on, in which it isn't better than college basketball?
| Quote: |
| People here will say that the WNBA is "better basketball" than the NBA. |
Well, find someone who actually said that shit, then, and argue with them about it. I'm not interested in being your sparring partner, while you practice your Strawman-Fu.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 9:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Here is your objective standard..who wins, NCAA champions vs NBA champions.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9624
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 10:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
I also think there's much less of an investment required in watching March Madness. People tune in to watch the excitement, then many happily go back to barely paying attention for the next 11 months. With a professional league, the perspective is different. Maybe a few people will start paying attention only for the playoffs, but most won't if they haven't cared to that point. It's like over here, the women's FA Cup final (soccer) is shown every year on a major TV channel, and I believe gets decent ratings. It's a showpiece, one-off event each year that people feel like they can watch without a year-long investment. But while interest in the actual women's league is growing, attendance and viewing figures are still minuscule. |
That same phenomenon occurred in the United States. There was tremendous excitement, with stands full of enthusiastic young females for the 1999 Fifa Women's World Cup that was held in the United States and won by the United States. As a result, the Women's United Soccer Association was formed in February 2000 and began to play in April 2001. But it only lasted for 3 years. There was another league that went from 2007 to 2012, and now a third league is going and maybe going to last as it is having good success in places like Portland, Oregon.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9624
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 10:08 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| Here is your objective standard..who wins, NCAA champions vs NBA champions. |
I don' think anyone is arguing the NCAA has better players or better teams than the NBA. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it isn’t more entertaining to watch. I have frequently seen it stated that WNBA is more entertaining to watch than the NBA due to the way the players play.
But they do have a difference other than the players - young amateurs affiliated with colleges who have a massive one-and-done tournament which causes so much excitement it got named "March Madness" versus pros affiliated with some rich owners who have playoff series.
Last edited by tfan on 07/23/18 3:13 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9624
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 10:15 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| The comparison should be between pro leagues, as the women's NCAA tournament Final Four gets more viewership than the WNBA Finals. |
Not when someone is citing "quality of play" as a reason why they don't watch the WNBA, it shouldn't. The popularity of women's college basketball, relative to the WNBA, has fuck-all to do with quality of play, which you even partially acknowledged, when you stipulated to this:
| Quote: |
| A country-wide 64 team tournament generates excitement, and college has the alumni connection in addition to local affiliation. |
|
Who is citing "quality of play" as a reason they don't watch the WNBA - NBA fans or NCAA women's fans?
| Quote: |
| The popularity of college sports has way more to do with tribalism than it does with the quality of play. "Excitement" is a subjective assessment. |
Then it shouldn't be compared with pro sports and used to allegedly demonstrate that people don't care about how athletic the players are.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
A lot of people (students, parent/relatives, neighbors, alumni) going to a high school football game in Texas doesn't make high school football more popular than college or pro. |
It makes it more popular in Texas; it doesn't have to be more popular nationwide. |
More popular in Texas than what?
| Quote: |
The fact that it's more popular anywhere is enough to prove the point, because the point is that there are people who say that they don't watch the WNBA because it isn't "good," a sentiment that is directly contradicted by the fact that they are loyal fans of other sports that are objectively worse than higher levels of that sport, which they can also watch. |
Is Texas high school football more popular than Texas college football? Is Texas college football more popular than Texas pro football? I don't think either is the case, but high school football has factors other than the quality of play that get people excited about it. Like your son or grandson or nephew or brother is out there playing. Or your classmates. Texas University football (etc.) has the factor that you or your spouse or your parents went to or go to Texas University.
Last edited by tfan on 07/23/18 10:34 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9624
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 10:22 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| I was asking him for his definition of "better" which is objectively provably false. |
I don't have that kind of time, so I'll answer your question with a question, instead: what objective criteria can the NBA be evaluated on, in which it isn't better than college basketball? |
What are the objective criteria is it evaluated on in which it is better than college basketball?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| People here will say that the WNBA is "better basketball" than the NBA. |
Well, find someone who actually said that shit, then, and argue with them about it. I'm not interested in being your sparring partner, while you practice your Strawman-Fu. |
My point is the Strawfman-Fu is comparing college and pros as if there are no non-game differences. You have younger amateur players (not as nasty and cocky) affiliated with colleges (alma maters) in one and not the other. You have a 64-team one-and-done tournament in one, which gets people so excited they refer to it as "March Madness", and not the other.
|
|
so-many-pickles
Joined: 17 May 2018
Posts: 97
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 11:07 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| TigerVol wrote: |
I'm sure there is some gender bias impacting the overall popularity of the sport but it is not the only or necessarily the driving reason.
|
It's hard to believe that when most of the anti-WNBA commentary I see includes references to kitchens, sandwiches, or laundry.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 11:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| Here is your objective standard..who wins, NCAA champions vs NBA champions. |
I don' think anyone is arguing the NCAA has better players or better teams than the NBA. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it is more entertaining to watch. I have frequently seen it stated that WNBA is more entertaining to watch than the NBA due to the way the players play.
But they do have a difference other than the players - young amateurs affiliated with colleges who have a massive one-and-done tournament which causes so much excitement it got named "March Madness" versus pros affiliated with some rich owners who have playoff series. |
But that’s the whole point.
The criticism of “WNBA players couldn’t make an NBA team” or “random NBA player would kill it in the WNBA” doesn’t hold up, because the same sport at different levels aren’t given the same standard.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
TigerVol
Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 2209
Location: ATL
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 12:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| so-many-pickles wrote: |
| TigerVol wrote: |
I'm sure there is some gender bias impacting the overall popularity of the sport but it is not the only or necessarily the driving reason.
|
It's hard to believe that when most of the anti-WNBA commentary I see includes references to kitchens, sandwiches, or laundry. |
I will agree that gender bias (and probably latent insecurity) drives the people making those posts.
The people making those comments are a small subset of the people who aren't interested. Kind of like the danger of making medical decisions based solely on internet message boards - it is generally the people with a bad experience who post so you get a skewed perspective.
I have very few friends who are interested in following the wnba. They know it exists. Have been to games. Appreciate the game play. But aren't at a point where they can add anything more to their schedule or aren't interested in replacing teams/sports they already follow.
Some have zero interest in sports beyond humoring me when I talk about it. They aren't anti anyone or anything just have other interests.
I'm not suggesting the gender bias doesn't exist or doesn't have an impact (plenty of misogyny still out there) but I don't believe everyone who does not choose to invest their time and money supporting this league are driven by gender bias.
Even among basketball fans. Are all wnba fans equally passionate about the NBA and ncaa ball? I have no data but my guess is they are not.
_________________
"Never put an age limit on your dreams" - Dara Torres 2008
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3318
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 12:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| Who is citing "quality of play" as a reason they don't watch the WNBA - NBA fans or NCAA women's fans? |
NBA fans, and (mostly male) WNBA critics. I don't really know why there are women's college fans don't like the WNBA, but my knee-jerk WAG would be that they lowkey don't actually like women's basketball that much, at all (and maybe don't even like basketball, period), and are only in it for the tribalism.
| Quote: |
| Then it shouldn't be compared with pro sports and used to allegedly demonstrate that people don't care about how athletic the players are. |
Men's sports shouldn't be compared to women's sports, period. There are too many physiological differences between men and women for women's sports and men's sports to be objectively evaluated according to the same metrics. And there is no professional sports league in North America that the WNBA can be accurately compared to. The only thing that even vaguely approximates an apples-to-apples comparison to the WNBA is women's college basketball.
| Quote: |
| More popular in Texas than what? |
In much of West Texas? More popular than both: the Dallas Cowboys and Houston Texans don't have any real cache in West Texas. And, I mean, there are UT fans everywhere, but it's not as big in West Texas and up by the panhandle as high school ball is. And I know that anecdotes are not data, but I have similarly observed in my travels that high school football tends to be the most popular in areas where the football program at the biggest state school is inconsequential, and the closest pro team has been around for less than two generations. Basically, if your daddy loves football, but he didn't grow up rooting for the local NFL team, because there wasn't one, you probably grew up in a household where high school football is a big deal. This appears to be more prevalent in the southwest, but also seems to be a thing in parts of Virginia and North Carolina. I suspect that it's the sort of thing that's likely to happen in any rural area, where people tend to live their whole lives within a 25-30 mile radius of where they were born, and where there are fewer options available for higher levels of play.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3318
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/23/18 1:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| What are the objective criteria is it evaluated on in which it is better than college basketball? |
You appear to be disingenuous, at this point, but I'll play along, one more 'gain. Relative to NCAA, the NBA, objectively:- has more physically mature players.
- has more athletic players.
- has more skilled players.
- utilizes more technically advanced offenses (and yes, that includes the "clear-out, one-on-one" offense that some people hate).
- utilizes more technically advanced defense.
- has better coaching.
- has better officiating (you heard me).
- is played at a faster pace, with more possessions, due to a shorter shot clock.
There's also a whole list of things at which the NBA is subjectively better than the NCAA, but I've got better things to do than argue with someone I don't know over the internet over their personal tastes.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
|
|
