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

Why WNBA MVP Elena Delle Donne wants to lower the rims
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
miller40



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 971



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/01/16 3:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
HBO and The Ringer's Bill Simmons is joined by Diana Taurasi to discuss her WNBA return from Russia, UConn's dominance (6:00), the stupidity of lowering the rims (13:00)

https://soundcloud.com/the-bill-simmons-podcast/ep-85-diana-taurasi


Michael V Pearson



Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Posts: 64



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/01/16 4:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

miller40 wrote:
Quote:
HBO and The Ringer's Bill Simmons is joined by Diana Taurasi to discuss her WNBA return from Russia, UConn's dominance (6:00), the stupidity of lowering the rims (13:00)

https://soundcloud.com/the-bill-simmons-podcast/ep-85-diana-taurasi


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


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6584
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/01/16 4:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

http://espn.go.com/espnw/voices/article/15112298/layshia-clarendon-says-lower-rims-not-answer

Layshia Clarendon with an excellent article for espnW.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Jet Jaguar



Joined: 11 Feb 2014
Posts: 1111



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/01/16 4:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Michael V Pearson wrote:
miller40 wrote:
Quote:
HBO and The Ringer's Bill Simmons is joined by Diana Taurasi to discuss her WNBA return from Russia, UConn's dominance (6:00), the stupidity of lowering the rims (13:00)

https://soundcloud.com/the-bill-simmons-podcast/ep-85-diana-taurasi


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

Guess I'm going to get on your nerves....



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



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/01/16 10:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Changing the rim height, up or down, has been a very old and always discredited idea. It began at least as early as George Mikan's college days in the 1940's. In 1967 it was felt that dunking would so RUIN the game -- rather than improve it -- that dunking was banned in college for 10 years.

Geno Auriemma has mentioned lowering the basket several times during this century, and he clearly has meant it for all levels of the female game. It would make no sense to have different rim heights at different levels of the sport. It makes the least sense, to me, to have the lowest rim level at the highest level of the sport -- the WNBA -- if that is what EDD is indeed advocating.

WBB is considered unwatchable by most basketball fans simply because it is boring in all aspects, not because of an absence of dunks.

Men slam dunk in circumstances that don't arise that often, relatively speaking, in WBB:

1. Off power drives through and over traffic. Virtually no woman player can drive like this.

2. Off fast breaks. Women's teams don't have that many fast breaks. In the Oregon State vs. Baylor E8 game last week, which had two of the top guard tandems in WCBB, there was only one fast break basket by both teams combined, for example. When WBB teams do get fast breaks, it's often by short guards who steal the ball. These short female guards would never dunk even on a nine foot rim, whereas a substantial percentage of top college and NBA guards can easily dunk on 10 foot rims.

3. Off high lobs and alley oops into the post. Women's teams are often so inept at teamwork they can't even pass the ball into the post. As one simple example, Oregon State with a "giant center" had only 18 points in the paint against Baylor. If a team has trouble getting any kind of shot in the paint, it's not going to be able to set up dunks by post players.

Finally, players who dunk are not necessarily interesting to watch. Griner can dunk sort of like a guy, but some fans would rather click off than watch her. Some felt the same about Shaq's one dimensional offense.

Lowering the basket is flawed idea born mainly of desperation or, possibly, by attention seeking.
LosLynxAngeles



Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Posts: 860



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/01/16 10:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.


UofDel_Alum



Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Posts: 3816
Location: Delaware


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/01/16 11:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.


I absolutely agree with you.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5646



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 1:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

In the Hartford Courant article where Geno Auriemma advocated lower rims, he never mentioned dunking as a reason. He talked about missed layups and how they lowered offensive efficiency and that turned off viewers.

I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger.


UofDel_Alum



Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Posts: 3816
Location: Delaware


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 10:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
In the Hartford Courant article where Geno Auriemma advocated lower rims, he never mentioned dunking as a reason. He talked about missed layups and how they lowered offensive efficiency and that turned off viewers.

I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger.


Absolutely, this is the number 1 reason this issue started. I would not be surprised if the 3 point line is brought into this discussion also.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6584
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 10:21 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:

I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger.

I think everyone is. Both the Fagan article and the Clarendon one explained quite clearly why lowering the rims would not do this. If rim height were the actual reason that people were not watching I think most people would be in favor of lowering them. But they are not. It is a much deeper issue than that, one that lowering would have no effect on. In fact, lowering would only serve to feed some of those issues.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Bob Lamm



Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 2017
Location: New York City


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 11:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
tfan wrote:

I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger.

I think everyone is. Both the Fagan article and the Clarendon one explained quite clearly why lowering the rims would not do this. If rim height were the actual reason that people were not watching I think most people would be in favor of lowering them. But they are not. It is a much deeper issue than that, one that lowering would have no effect on. In fact, lowering would only serve to feed some of those issues.


Agreed. Lowering the rims would be wonderful fuel for the misogynists and their contempt for women's basketball and women's sports in general.



_________________
Let's remember Anucha Browne, who was sexually harassed by Isiah Thomas. In recent years, she has served as a vice president of the NCAA focusing on women's basketball championships.
Michael V Pearson



Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Posts: 64



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 2:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Jet Jaguar wrote:
Michael V Pearson wrote:
miller40 wrote:
Quote:
HBO and The Ringer's Bill Simmons is joined by Diana Taurasi to discuss her WNBA return from Russia, UConn's dominance (6:00), the stupidity of lowering the rims (13:00)

https://soundcloud.com/the-bill-simmons-podcast/ep-85-diana-taurasi


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

Guess I'm going to get on your nerves....


That's alright, at least my we're talking someone is an active WNBA players who is also an MVP, not a 4-wnba-teams-rejected bum scrapping in the European league


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8495



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 3:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Would a higher shooting percentage -- the main improvement the 9-foot basket might bring -- increase paid attendance and viewership?

Presumably the game would be more exciting, which would be to the good, if making baskets is more exciting than missing them (which I would say is true). But would incrementally more baskets and points attract fans who are not already fans?

I think it would be fair to say that the game would move along at a better pace and scores would be higher with a lower rim, but what are the costs that come with that benefit -- and not just financial costs?

I think Auriemma and EDD feel that the game as it is has plateaued and they may well be right, but the plateau isn't a bad one (as long the high school participation numbers quit decreasing). There's a risk in trying to push the interest higher, and it's unclear to me that the reward is worth the risk.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 4:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MeJnBytUYZI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5646



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 6:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
tfan wrote:

I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger.


I think everyone is. Both the Fagan article and the Clarendon one explained quite clearly why lowering the rims would not do this. If rim height were the actual reason that people were not watching I think most people would be in favor of lowering them. But they are not. It is a much deeper issue than that, one that lowering would have no effect on. In fact, lowering would only serve to feed some of those issues.


Expressing an opinion, even if done by two people, does not make something true. Auriemma and Delle Donne saying it would increase viewership doesn't mean it will. Fagan and Clarendon saying it won't doesn't mean it won't.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5646



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 6:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:


I think Auriemma and EDD feel that the game as it is has plateaued and they may well be right, but the plateau isn't a bad one (as long the high school participation numbers quit decreasing).


Adam Silver is also not happy with the status quo of the WNBA. And the league is on it's fourth President.




Last edited by tfan on 04/12/16 11:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 6:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Let's have some really creative thinking by the FBB doom-and-gloomers who want to "improve" the game.

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2ouXw328WYI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6584
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 6:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
justintyme wrote:
tfan wrote:

I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger.


I think everyone is. Both the Fagan article and the Clarendon one explained quite clearly why lowering the rims would not do this. If rim height were the actual reason that people were not watching I think most people would be in favor of lowering them. But they are not. It is a much deeper issue than that, one that lowering would have no effect on. In fact, lowering would only serve to feed some of those issues.


Expressing an opinion, even if done by two people, does not make something true. Auriemma and Delle Donne saying it would increase viewership doesn't mean it will. Fagan and Clarendon saying it won't doesn't mean it won't.

No. Stating a simple opinion does not make it true. However, neither the Fagan nor Clarendon articles stopped at the opinion. Really, what they offered was a conclusion. The article details out the logical reasoning and evidence that they used to draw that conclusion. So if someone wants to take umbrage with their logic, go for it. But if someone is going to argue this position they need to at least address the evidence/reasoning cited.

The most important part of those articles is that they addressed the underlying assumptions that EDD and Geno used about why people weren't watching. It exposes the flaw in their logic. It is not opinion to say that someone else position is illogical, that is something that can be objectively argued.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6584
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 6:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
ClayK wrote:


I think Auriemma and EDD feel that the game as it is has plateaued and they may well be right, but the plateau isn't a bad one (as long the high school participation numbers quit decreasing).


Adam Silver is also not happy with the status quo of the WNBA. Besides saying "It's not where we thought it would be", he fired Laurel Richie.

You are talking about two seperate things. The plateau is about the skill level/excitement level of the game. The other is about the overall state of the game.

You (assuming you are arguing to lower the rims) are making the assumption that an increase to one would have a direct correlation to the other. We are arguing that this isn't the case. That the "excitement" added by lowering the rims (through increasing FG% and adding slam dunks) would have a negligible at best impact on the viewership. The sociological and historical evidence should demonstrate well that this is the case. And that lowering the rims would actually have a deleterious effect on the ability to reach more people by feeding into certain social biases.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5646



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 10:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
tfan wrote:
justintyme wrote:
tfan wrote:

I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger.


I think everyone is. Both the Fagan article and the Clarendon one explained quite clearly why lowering the rims would not do this. If rim height were the actual reason that people were not watching I think most people would be in favor of lowering them. But they are not. It is a much deeper issue than that, one that lowering would have no effect on. In fact, lowering would only serve to feed some of those issues.


Expressing an opinion, even if done by two people, does not make something true. Auriemma and Delle Donne saying it would increase viewership doesn't mean it will. Fagan and Clarendon saying it won't doesn't mean it won't.



No. Stating a simple opinion does not make it true. However, neither the Fagan nor Clarendon articles stopped at the opinion. Really, what they offered was a conclusion. The article details out the logical reasoning and evidence that they used to draw that conclusion. So if someone wants to take umbrage with their logic, go for it. But if someone is going to argue this position they need to at least address the evidence/reasoning cited.


Clarendon states some familiar opinions. Women's basketball is less popular because of less coverage,cultural bias and sexism. Those opinions do not disprove the opinion that it would be more popular with lower rims. All four could be true, all four could be false. Even if we assume all three of her opinions as true, it doesn't preclude lowered rims from having a positive effect on interest.


She also equates lowering the rims to wearing tighter uniforms when she should be equating it to having a closer three point line and a smaller ball. She does correctly point out that playgrounds would be the wrong height but it doesn't have to change for elementary, high school or even college.

Women's basketball is getting more coverage than ever. There are now three channels dedicated to showing the sports of a college conference (Big 10, Pac-12, SEC) and they are broadcasting many women's games. So we will see if extra coverage of the college game can translate to better ESPN WNBA ratings. But there is the situation in that ESPN has paid the WNBA more money for the right to show fewer games. And that happened with five dedicated sports channels now fighting for sports content.

Her call for background material or "get to know" type articles/videos on individual players should be directed right to the league office. Or her team's head office. They both have youtube and wnba.com to use for free.

Quote:

The most important part of those articles is that they addressed the underlying assumptions that EDD and Geno used about why people weren't watching. It exposes the flaw in their logic. It is not opinion to say that someone else position is illogical, that is something that can be objectively argued.


I just read the Clarendon article and I don't see any flaws exposed in Auriemma and Delle Donne saying that lowering the rims could get more viewers or attendees. She just says "that won't work it's a distraction - this is why people don't watch". And she leaves athletic ability out of the equation, even athletic ability "viewed through a patriarchal lens".

And as Auriemma said - just do it as an experiment. It's like using a piano and guitar in church instead of an organ or having the pastor wear business clothes instead of a robe in an attempt to boost declining attendance. The church sees if it helps attendance and if not they can reverse it to please the current parishioners who were happy with the way things were and take offense at the suggestion that changes are needed.


Clarendon concludes with:

Quote:
We need to band together as a league and say we're enough. Because we are.


Maybe. But if things are good enough right now why is attendance still declining?




Last edited by tfan on 04/03/16 12:54 am; edited 8 times in total
mb1



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 4651
Location: Scottsdale,AZ,USA


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 10:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

How about raising the men's rim to eleven feet.*

*sarcasm



_________________
I've got a crush on Rebby!

LONG LIVE THE WNBA!
Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 19635
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 11:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Maybe. But if things are good enough right now why was Laurel Richie fired?

Considering you're so keen to point out whether things are entirely proven or not, it seems fair to point out that officially she wasn't. Richie 'stepped down', 'departed', or 'left the league to pursue her other interests' depending on which line of the releases you wish to use. You can assume she was fired if you wish, but we have no more evidence of that than we have that she was sick of the job and decided to do something else.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5646



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 11:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
tfan wrote:
ClayK wrote:


I think Auriemma and EDD feel that the game as it is has plateaued and they may well be right, but the plateau isn't a bad one (as long the high school participation numbers quit decreasing).


Adam Silver is also not happy with the status quo of the WNBA. Besides saying "It's not where we thought it would be", he fired Laurel Richie.


You are talking about two disperate things. The plateau is about the skill level/excitement level of the game. The other is about the overall state of the game.



I see now that ClayK was probably talking about the skills of the players being at a plateau, whereas I thought he was discussing fan interest.

Quote:

You (assuming you are arguing to lower the rims) are making the assumption that an increase to one would have a direct correlation to the other. We are arguing that this isn't the case. That the "excitement" added by lowering the rims (through increasing FG% and adding slam dunks) would have a negligible at best impact on the viewership. The sociological and historical evidence should demonstrate well that this is the case. And that lowering the rims would actually have a deleterious effect on the ability to reach more people by feeding into certain social biases.


I think that it should be tried as Auriemma suggested, in some exhibitions. I would not say that it would definitely increase interest or enjoyment of fans, but if I had to bet one way or the other I would bet that it would. And I don't know whether or not it would be significant enough to make a difference. But I wouldn't do it 9'7" like Auriemma said. It should be tried at different heights between 8 and 9 feet.

I don't think that the WNBA trying lower rims for a few games would permanently tarnish the league if they ultimately didn't go that way. Although I do see that the WNBA trying something different is a suggestion that the current product is flawed. But I think it would be quickly forgotten.




Last edited by tfan on 04/03/16 2:16 am; edited 4 times in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5646



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/02/16 11:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
tfan wrote:
Maybe. But if things are good enough right now why was Laurel Richie fired?


Considering you're so keen to point out whether things are entirely proven or not, it seems fair to point out that officially she wasn't. Richie 'stepped down', 'departed', or 'left the league to pursue her other interests' depending on which line of the releases you wish to use. You can assume she was fired if you wish, but we have no more evidence of that than we have that she was sick of the job and decided to do something else.


True, people can quit jobs without having another for reasons other than "resign or be fired". And I felt a little guiltful each time I wrote that she was fired.

So I will change it to:

"Maybe. But if things are good enough right now why does attendance keep declining?"


miller40



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 971



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/16 8:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
justintyme wrote:
tfan wrote:
justintyme wrote:
tfan wrote:

I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger.


I think everyone is. Both the Fagan article and the Clarendon one explained quite clearly why lowering the rims would not do this. If rim height were the actual reason that people were not watching I think most people would be in favor of lowering them. But they are not. It is a much deeper issue than that, one that lowering would have no effect on. In fact, lowering would only serve to feed some of those issues.


Expressing an opinion, even if done by two people, does not make something true. Auriemma and Delle Donne saying it would increase viewership doesn't mean it will. Fagan and Clarendon saying it won't doesn't mean it won't.



No. Stating a simple opinion does not make it true. However, neither the Fagan nor Clarendon articles stopped at the opinion. Really, what they offered was a conclusion. The article details out the logical reasoning and evidence that they used to draw that conclusion. So if someone wants to take umbrage with their logic, go for it. But if someone is going to argue this position they need to at least address the evidence/reasoning cited.


Clarendon states some familiar opinions. Women's basketball is less popular because of less coverage,cultural bias and sexism. Those opinions do not disprove the opinion that it would be more popular with lower rims. All four could be true, all four could be false. Even if we assume all three of her opinions as true, it doesn't preclude lowered rims from having a positive effect on interest.


She also equates lowering the rims to wearing tighter uniforms when she should be equating it to having a closer three point line and a smaller ball. She does correctly point out that playgrounds would be the wrong height but it doesn't have to change for elementary, high school or even college.

Women's basketball is getting more coverage than ever. There are now three channels dedicated to showing the sports of a college conference (Big 10, Pac-12, SEC) and they are broadcasting many women's games. So we will see if extra coverage of the college game can translate to better ESPN WNBA ratings. But there is the situation in that ESPN has paid the WNBA more money for the right to show fewer games. And that happened with five dedicated sports channels now fighting for sports content.

Her call for background material or "get to know" type articles/videos on individual players should be directed right to the league office. Or her team's head office. They both have youtube and wnba.com to use for free.

Quote:

The most important part of those articles is that they addressed the underlying assumptions that EDD and Geno used about why people weren't watching. It exposes the flaw in their logic. It is not opinion to say that someone else position is illogical, that is something that can be objectively argued.


I just read the Clarendon article and I don't see any flaws exposed in Auriemma and Delle Donne saying that lowering the rims could get more viewers or attendees. She just says "that won't work it's a distraction - this is why people don't watch". And she leaves athletic ability out of the equation, even athletic ability "viewed through a patriarchal lens".

And as Auriemma said - just do it as an experiment. It's like using a piano and guitar in church instead of an organ or having the pastor wear business clothes instead of a robe in an attempt to boost declining attendance. The church sees if it helps attendance and if not they can reverse it to please the current parishioners who were happy with the way things were and take offense at the suggestion that changes are needed.


Clarendon concludes with:

Quote:
We need to band together as a league and say we're enough. Because we are.


Maybe. But if things are good enough right now why is attendance still declining?


I honestly doubt lowering the rim will make any difference to people who already dislike women's basketball. People who hate the women's game are still going to find reasons to hate on the women's game. This was the response when Bleacher Report reposted Parker's dunk. "But it's a 9 foot rim" would probably become the haters most Tweeted sentence.


Bleacher Report ‏@BleacherReport Apr 1
Candace Parker puts an end to the rim discussion (via @Candace_Parker)

Jeff Martini ‏@jeff_martini5 Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker she's 6'4 I would hope she could dunk

Justin Gregorio ‏@justingregorio9 Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker that is 8 feet tho 😐

Jos Manuel. ‏@Joey101_ Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker one handed dunk. So many highlights

Baxx Mlackburn ‏@maxxblackburn Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker @jesselyonxvii still a terrible dunk

Seor Byrom ‏@kylebyrom Apr 1 El Rio, CA
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker @vine She barely got it in there......

Cole ‏@JayCole_35 Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker @vine 8 feet tho.....😐😐

KJ ‏@thekjhaluska Apr 1 Gary, IN
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker @vine DAMN she got like 4 inches off the ground!

Beans ‏@DortmundKuba16 Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker I mean, I could dunk on 8 feet too...

Tay ‏@Taylor_Seltzer Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker 9 feet

BSTILLZ ‏@BS_till69 Apr 1
@BleacherReport woman basketball 😂😂😂😂😢😂😂

Austin G ‏@AustinG_Says Apr 1
@BleacherReport 6'4" with a 6'8" wingspan and a women's ball.... There's nothing impressive here

Randy ‏@N0MoreFreeRandy Apr 1
@AustinG_Says haha that's how I dunked when I was 14

Austin G ‏@AustinG_Says Apr 1
@N0MoreFreeRandy lol right and she's tryna act so cocky and cool... Like you better be able to do that shit

Jameson Gallagher ‏@jamogallagher Apr 1
@StRoNGissoBaD @BleacherReport @Candace_Parker she's over 6'2" though, I'd still give her a run though

taywrex ‏@taywrex Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker @vine women's ball don't count.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15259
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/16 9:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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?



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8495



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/16 9:52 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 2017
Location: New York City


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/16 10:00 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
Let's remember Anucha Browne, who was sexually harassed by Isiah Thomas. In recent years, she has served as a vice president of the NCAA focusing on women's basketball championships.
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 45119



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/16 11:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 55145
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/16 11:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know
UofDel_Alum



Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Posts: 3816
Location: Delaware


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/16 11:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 2017
Location: New York City


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/16 2:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
Let's remember Anucha Browne, who was sexually harassed by Isiah Thomas. In recent years, she has served as a vice president of the NCAA focusing on women's basketball championships.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5646



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/16 8:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 55145
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/16 7:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Cheryl Reeve weighs in:

http://www.kare11.com/entertainment/television/programs/breaking-the-news/should-the-wnba-lower-the-rim/125021715

Quote:
I think it would be a mistake to go the gimmick route



_________________
Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8495



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/16 7:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 55145
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/10/16 11:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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



_________________
Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know
UofDel_Alum



Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Posts: 3816
Location: Delaware


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/10/16 11:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
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 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: 3737
Location: Lake Mills, Wisconsin


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/10/16 6:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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
Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15259
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/10/16 7:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
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


Fucking wonderful, now I have to worry about her trying to get the Big East to do exhibition games on a lower rim.



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
Bob Lamm



Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 2017
Location: New York City


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/11/16 8:55 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
Let's remember Anucha Browne, who was sexually harassed by Isiah Thomas. In recent years, she has served as a vice president of the NCAA focusing on women's basketball championships.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12107



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/11/16 9:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 8495



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/11/16 9:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 12107



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/11/16 10:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 4306
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/11/16 8:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

hyperetic wrote:
pilight wrote:
Candace Parker weighs in

https://www.instagram.com/p/BDqpG32u3ys/

Quote:
People WANA know how I feel about the "rim discussion" .... Here's my ANSWER.


Laughing Laughing Laughing Good one, Ace.


Agreed 👀😊 #DontMatter



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 20922



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/12/16 9:49 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Michael V Pearson wrote:
miller40 wrote:
Quote:
HBO and The Ringer's Bill Simmons is joined by Diana Taurasi to discuss her WNBA return from Russia, UConn's dominance (6:00), the stupidity of lowering the rims (13:00)

https://soundcloud.com/the-bill-simmons-podcast/ep-85-diana-taurasi


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.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
UofDel_Alum



Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Posts: 3816
Location: Delaware


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/12/16 12:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
Michael V Pearson wrote:
miller40 wrote:
Quote:
HBO and The Ringer's Bill Simmons is joined by Diana Taurasi to discuss her WNBA return from Russia, UConn's dominance (6:00), the stupidity of lowering the rims (13:00)

https://soundcloud.com/the-bill-simmons-podcast/ep-85-diana-taurasi


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: 45119



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/12/16 6:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This session with Reeve covers three topics, lowering the rims, people complaining about UConn being so good lately, and the draft.

The conversation about the rims was the best part and it comes first. There's nothing specific about the draft, as expected.
Both audio and transcribed.

http://lynx.wnba.com/news/catching-cheryl-reeve-part-2-lowering-rim-uconn-draft/?utm_content=Cheryl+Reeve+Part+2&utm_campaign=&utm_source=14499&utm_term=1460497156



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5646



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/12/16 7:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
Michael V Pearson wrote:
miller40 wrote:
Quote:
HBO and The Ringer's Bill Simmons is joined by Diana Taurasi to discuss her WNBA return from Russia, UConn's dominance (6:00), the stupidity of lowering the rims (13:00)

https://soundcloud.com/the-bill-simmons-podcast/ep-85-diana-taurasi


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: 55145
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/12/16 7:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
myrtle wrote:
Michael V Pearson wrote:
miller40 wrote:
Quote:
HBO and The Ringer's Bill Simmons is joined by Diana Taurasi to discuss her WNBA return from Russia, UConn's dominance (6:00), the stupidity of lowering the rims (13:00)

https://soundcloud.com/the-bill-simmons-podcast/ep-85-diana-taurasi


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?



_________________
Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5646



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/12/16 7:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
tfan wrote:
myrtle wrote:
Michael V Pearson wrote:
miller40 wrote:
Quote:
HBO and The Ringer's Bill Simmons is joined by Diana Taurasi to discuss her WNBA return from Russia, UConn's dominance (6:00), the stupidity of lowering the rims (13:00)

https://soundcloud.com/the-bill-simmons-podcast/ep-85-diana-taurasi


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?


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
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