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

2017 TV Ratings
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11688



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 9:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

[quote="pilight" The D-league is not profitable, but no one makes similar complaints about it.[/quote]

Totally different situation. The D league is a farm system. Making money is not the reason it exists, even if they'd prefer that it did. If it loses money, it's just a cost of doing business for the NBA.

What is the non-financial reason for the WNBA's existence?


Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6590



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 9:36 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The WNBA is a farm system for players to develop and monetize their skills for overseas teams that pay well and the various national teams.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5442



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 9:42 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
josephkramer44 wrote:
I have discovered one of the reasons a lot of people don't care for the WNBA is the fact that it is dependent upon subsidies from the NBA. "You call it a subsidy, I call it charity" is how one person I asked responded. The linking of the WNBA with the NBA in advertisement and events and so on actually has an opposite effect. "If I can't get paid to do what I love because it isn't profitable then why should they (the players in the WNBA) be able to?" It is a bit on the bitter side but there is some truth to these statements.


That's not the real reason they're not watching. That's just the business casual version of misogyny. The D-league is not profitable, but no one makes similar complaints about it.


I just went looking for info on the D-league (now G for Gatorade league) and found a 2015 article by an agent that says the league’s salaries range from $13,000 to $25,500. They play a 50 game winter schedule, so the players give up playing in Europe to play in the D league.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8420



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 10:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Somehow I doubt that showing off new uniforms is going to make more people buy tickets or watch on TV.

And the WNBA is neither new nor particularly hip. Yes, it's heavily populated by black women and lesbians, but the demographic mix (and better unis) are not what people pay to see. The product is the game on the court, and in the end, any industry is selling its product, not its accessories.

I do agree about the smaller venues, though. I think if the league played in 8,000-seat arenas it would improve the look significantly -- but the problem there is that NBA-affiliated teams pretty much have to fill those 17 summer dates in the NBA arenas. That's one of the major attractions for an NBA owner.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11688



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 12:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Somehow I doubt that showing off new uniforms is going to make more people buy tickets or watch on TV.

And the WNBA is neither new nor particularly hip. Yes, it's heavily populated by black women and lesbians, but the demographic mix (and better unis) are not what people pay to see. The product is the game on the court, and in the end, any industry is selling its product, not its accessories.

I do agree about the smaller venues, though. I think if the league played in 8,000-seat arenas it would improve the look significantly -- but the problem there is that NBA-affiliated teams pretty much have to fill those 17 summer dates in the NBA arenas. That's one of the major attractions for an NBA owner.


The new motivation, if Leonsis is any indication, is to provide cheap content for his streaming service during the slow summer months.

Oh, and as a bargaining chip to trade for Government subsidies for his "serious" businesses.

Either way, selling tickets or filling off season his big downtown arena seems far down the list.

The problem I have with smaller arenas is that it caps future growth. Now maybe that's just being realistic and I'm dreaming to think that in ten years WNBA games might attract 10 or 12 thousand, but if you lock them in to long term leases on 6 or 8 thousand seat arenas (and I'll ignore 4200 as hopefully an aberration), then they aren't ever going to draw more than that. And if ticket sales are capped, realistically so are the absurdly low player salaries. I'd be willing to trade half full arenas today to at least keep alive the possibility of significant future growth. It's pretty depressing to think the status quo is also the upper limit.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 54945
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 4:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
pilight wrote:
The D-league is not profitable, but no one makes similar complaints about it.


Totally different situation. The D league is a farm system. Making money is not the reason it exists, even if they'd prefer that it did. If it loses money, it's just a cost of doing business for the NBA.

What is the non-financial reason for the WNBA's existence?


I stand by my statement. NBA subsidies are not why guys refuse to watch the W.



_________________
Happiness depends, as Nature shows,
Less on exterior things than most suppose
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11688



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 5:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
pilight wrote:
The D-league is not profitable, but no one makes similar complaints about it.


Totally different situation. The D league is a farm system. Making money is not the reason it exists, even if they'd prefer that it did. If it loses money, it's just a cost of doing business for the NBA.

What is the non-financial reason for the WNBA's existence?


I stand by my statement. NBA subsidies are not why guys refuse to watch the W.


I never suggested a dislike of NBA subsidies is the reason people didn't like or watch the WNBA. I find that a somewhat bizarre excuse.

But I also think comparing the financial situation of the WNBA to the D League is equally far fetched.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5442



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 5:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:

I never suggested a dislike of NBA subsidies is the reason people didn't like or watch the WNBA.


But josephkramer44, the person pilight was responding to, did.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11688



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 5:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:

I never suggested a dislike of NBA subsidies is the reason people didn't like or watch the WNBA.


But josephkramer44, the person pilight was responding to, did.



Since you felt compelled to butt in, maybe you can show me where exactly in this post was Pilght's reply 'I stand by my statement. NBA subsidies are not why guys refuse to watch the W" addressed to josephkramer.

pilight wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
pilight wrote:
The D-league is not profitable, but no one makes similar complaints about it.


Totally different situation. The D league is a farm system. Making money is not the reason it exists, even if they'd prefer that it did. If it loses money, it's just a cost of doing business for the NBA.

What is the non-financial reason for the WNBA's existence?


I stand by my statement. NBA subsidies are not why guys refuse to watch the W.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5442



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/17 6:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
tfan wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:

I never suggested a dislike of NBA subsidies is the reason people didn't like or watch the WNBA.


But josephkramer44, the person pilight was responding to, did.



Since you felt compelled to butt in, maybe you can show me where exactly in this post was Pilght's reply 'I stand by my statement. NBA subsidies are not why guys refuse to watch the W" addressed to josephkramer.

pilight wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
pilight wrote:
The D-league is not profitable, but no one makes similar complaints about it.


Totally different situation. The D league is a farm system. Making money is not the reason it exists, even if they'd prefer that it did. If it loses money, it's just a cost of doing business for the NBA.

What is the non-financial reason for the WNBA's existence?


I stand by my statement. NBA subsidies are not why guys refuse to watch the W.


He made a response to something josephkramer44 said, which was that some people don't watch the WNBA because it is subsidized. You don't agree with the position of josephkramer44 but still want to debate his response to josephkramer44. He wasn't swayed by your argument that his argument was invalid.


josephkramer44



Joined: 23 Aug 2016
Posts: 106



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/16/17 4:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Don't underestimate what a good campaign and re-branding can accomplish. A great example from the early 1990s is Kentucky Fried Chicken. They were on their way out and with a whimper. However a careful combination of a new name that made the fried aspect of their food less obvious and some new fashion and a renewed effort towards customer satisfaction and outreach brought them back. Their food was the same as before (disgusting), nothing changed except for a few different names and combinations. But they rescued themselves (there was also a legal aspect to the name change as well). So don't be too dismissive.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5442



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/16/17 6:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

My suggestion for improving the viewership would be to lower the foul limit to 3 from 6. I don't know if that would do anything, but you see people here complaining all the time about the number of fouls being called in a game.


FollowtheCardinalRule



Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 4989
Location: Denver


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/16/17 11:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
My suggestion for improving the viewership would be to lower the foul limit to 3 from 6. I don't know if that would do anything, but you see people here complaining all the time about the number of fouls being called in a game.


Good! We can have Griner, Fowles, Jones, and Charles foul out in the first quarter and watch a slugfest between Pedersen, George, Zahui B, and Howard! Exactly what the league needs to bench the biggest stars!

I'm not sure that reducing the number of fouls is the way to go especially with the number of questionable calls that can happen in a game.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5442



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/17/17 12:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FollowtheCardinalRule wrote:
tfan wrote:
My suggestion for improving the viewership would be to lower the foul limit to 3 from 6. I don't know if that would do anything, but you see people here complaining all the time about the number of fouls being called in a game.


Good! We can have Griner, Fowles, Jones, and Charles foul out in the first quarter and watch a slugfest between Pedersen, George, Zahui B, and Howard! Exactly what the league needs to bench the biggest stars!

I'm not sure that reducing the number of fouls is the way to go especially with the number of questionable calls that can happen in a game.


The women of the WNBA are allocated the most fouls per minute. More than NBA, and NCAA. And not surprisingly, they commit the most fouls per minute. I suspect that given the lowest foul allocation, the WNBA players would commit the least fouls per minute. The top players would adjust their play to commit less fouls. And if they somehow found that impossible, I think the average fan enjoys watching Pedersen, George, Zahui B and Howard as much as they do the Olympians. Less fouls allocated would mean more scoring by all players on all teams as defenders would have to back off and not be "physical".

Or alternatively, you could get an even greater speed up of the game by eliminating foul shots. Just award points and continue play. There's a lot of complaining here about fouls slowing down the game (always attributed to the refs and not the players), in addition to the normal complaints that the rooted-for team didn't commit a lot of the fouls that were called.


Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6590



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/17/17 7:09 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I would definitely go for 5 fouls per game. Same per minute as the NBA. I don't care if the stars foul out or not. Most star players are playing around 30-34 minutes anyway.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8420



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/17/17 10:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

josephkramer44 wrote:
Don't underestimate what a good campaign and re-branding can accomplish. A great example from the early 1990s is Kentucky Fried Chicken. They were on their way out and with a whimper. However a careful combination of a new name that made the fried aspect of their food less obvious and some new fashion and a renewed effort towards customer satisfaction and outreach brought them back. Their food was the same as before (disgusting), nothing changed except for a few different names and combinations. But they rescued themselves (there was also a legal aspect to the name change as well). So don't be too dismissive.


An excellent point ... but that example is from 25 years ago. In that span, how many marketing plans have failed to move the needle? McDonald's has been trying to shift its market base to 20somethings for a while now, but they're still struggling.

It might be possible for the WNBA to rebrand and re-emphasize, but what precisely would that rebranding and re-emphasis change? Though the KFC model is a nice one, it also could be that people began to believe that chicken was a lot healthier than beef, and there was much more cultural emphasis on healthy eating than a few years before. It could be that the marketing did it all by itself.

Still, though, we've seen a lot of different marketing efforts from the WNBA over the years, from sex appeal to skilled play to hard work ... maybe the magic wand is out there waiting to be waved, but it's not like the league has been run by idiots who have just done the same thing for 20 years.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6590



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/17/17 10:56 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

McDonalds is a good example of a very small change making a big difference. In the past year they went to an all day breakfast menu. Has helped them a lot. As for the WNBA, I don't think there are many silver bullets out there, but I think maybe the Daily Fantasy and Twitter deals may help generate more fan interest. They ought to push than angle a lot. Nothing better than an addiction (like gambling) to keep people interested. Perhaps your ticket number can be worth some amount of $ on Fan Duel/Draft Kings.


josephkramer44



Joined: 23 Aug 2016
Posts: 106



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/17/17 5:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

True true. But I don't feel Lisa Borders is the one to do it. I have said it before but I strongly feel she is full of hot air and lies. There have been a lot of missteps in marketing, but there have also been some good ideas. But boy have the bad ones fallen flat and in many ways have had to opposite effect.

A real issue is that after the big push last year and a lack of any real tangible results (despite what some people say) is that unless something is done then maybe the WNBA has reached its peak.

IF (and a big if) this is the best that can be hoped for then where is the incentive to own and operate a team? Even for an NBA linked team they are fortunate on a good year to break even for extra man hours and effort (by their own admission). I see ESPN2 going off the air within the next few years as well as cable TV continues its march towards the abyss and even if it somehow survives the TV money is going to decline. I don't see additional NBA teams stepping up either (years ago the Portland Trailblazers declined to intervene when the Fire asked for help). So unless the appeal is expanded beyond its current base I could see long term problems.


WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 4094
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/18/17 7:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

josephkramer44 wrote:
True true. But I don't feel Lisa Borders is the one to do it. I have said it before but I strongly feel she is full of hot air and lies. There have been a lot of missteps in marketing, but there have also been some good ideas. But boy have the bad ones fallen flat and in many ways have had to opposite effect.

A real issue is that after the big push last year and a lack of any real tangible results (despite what some people say) is that unless something is done then maybe the WNBA has reached its peak.

IF (and a big if) this is the best that can be hoped for then where is the incentive to own and operate a team? Even for an NBA linked team they are fortunate on a good year to break even for extra man hours and effort (by their own admission). I see ESPN2 going off the air within the next few years as well as cable TV continues its march towards the abyss and even if it somehow survives the TV money is going to decline. I don't see additional NBA teams stepping up either (years ago the Portland Trailblazers declined to intervene when the Fire asked for help). So unless the appeal is expanded beyond its current base I could see long term problems.



Years ago ? You mean like a decade plus ago Laughing The WNBA is not going anywhere and there is no ceiling to peak or fall . The league is still young has been around twice as long as anyone expected and will still be here for year 50 so please calm calm



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



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8420



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/18/17 9:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

josephkramer44 wrote:
True true. But I don't feel Lisa Borders is the one to do it. I have said it before but I strongly feel she is full of hot air and lies. There have been a lot of missteps in marketing, but there have also been some good ideas. But boy have the bad ones fallen flat and in many ways have had to opposite effect.

A real issue is that after the big push last year and a lack of any real tangible results (despite what some people say) is that unless something is done then maybe the WNBA has reached its peak.

IF (and a big if) this is the best that can be hoped for then where is the incentive to own and operate a team? Even for an NBA linked team they are fortunate on a good year to break even for extra man hours and effort (by their own admission). I see ESPN2 going off the air within the next few years as well as cable TV continues its march towards the abyss and even if it somehow survives the TV money is going to decline. I don't see additional NBA teams stepping up either (years ago the Portland Trailblazers declined to intervene when the Fire asked for help). So unless the appeal is expanded beyond its current base I could see long term problems.


I think the entire sports industry will face long-term problems, given not only the steadily advancing age of the audience, but also the impact of drug and genetic modifications to human performance. When CRISPR/Cas9 starts being used on humans (if it isn't already), the fundamental nature of competitive sports will change completely.

But that's long-term. Short term, I don't see the WNBA going anywhere because regardless of the form of the broadcast industry, content is still king, and the WNBA is cheap content.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
josephkramer44



Joined: 23 Aug 2016
Posts: 106



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/18/17 1:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If ESPN2 goes off the air then that could be the silver bullet. ESPN has made several big mistakes in the last few years and their ratings (even on their more popular programs) are sinking like a rock. Downsizing will probably continue there. Unless there is enough demand that real money can be made off of streaming services. I think that for the less popular sports in the world that is the wave of the future. Stuff like soccer, lacrosse and so on won't be broadcast on tv at all, because the advertising dollars won't be there.
If the NBA wants it the WNBA can be supported for as long as it wants. The costs aren't too great. But it will be as a charity case. Which is sad. It will be hard to find anyone willing to independently finance a team that will at very best break even.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8420



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/18/17 1:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

josephkramer44 wrote:
If ESPN2 goes off the air then that could be the silver bullet. ESPN has made several big mistakes in the last few years and their ratings (even on their more popular programs) are sinking like a rock. Downsizing will probably continue there. Unless there is enough demand that real money can be made off of streaming services. I think that for the less popular sports in the world that is the wave of the future. Stuff like soccer, lacrosse and so on won't be broadcast on tv at all, because the advertising dollars won't be there.
If the NBA wants it the WNBA can be supported for as long as it wants. The costs aren't too great. But it will be as a charity case. Which is sad. It will be hard to find anyone willing to independently finance a team that will at very best break even.


I think the NBA will likely continue to require the WNBA be televised as part of its contract.

One reason is that the NBA-owned teams use up 17 arena dates in the summer, which are hard to come by. Having 4,500 people in the arena is better than having it dark.

Another reason is that if the WNBA dies another women's league -- albeit at a lower financial level -- would appear, and though it seems remote, the threat of any other professional league forming in the U.S. outside the NBA's control is a serious danger to the NBA monopoly. Any pro league could wind up being a springboard for a challenge to the NBA (think ABA and AFL), and a very expensive challenge to thwart.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6590



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/18/17 3:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK I think you have hit the nail on the head. The NBA would rather the WNBA didn't need support, but they would much rather have that than another women's league spring up in the regular NBA season. Even if it wasn't very good it would be in competition with the NBA for fans $. No team wants another sports team in town during their season. Only a small single digit % drop in ticket sales would likely cost the NBA far more than the WNBA does. Further, by linking the NBA and WNBA TV contracts the owners effectively cut the cost in half because half of NBA revenue goes to players under the CBA. On top of that there is the tax effect to boot. So it ends up costing NBA teams very little to support the WNBA.

Now, ESPN probably doesn't like this at all, which is why they do such a crappy job of covering the WNBA and go out their way at times to make the league look bad.


josephkramer44



Joined: 23 Aug 2016
Posts: 106



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/18/17 11:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

One thing I think everyone can agree on is that ESPN's coverage of the league is not very flattering and downright damn terrible to say the least.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8420



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/19/17 10:01 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

josephkramer44 wrote:
One thing I think everyone can agree on is that ESPN's coverage of the league is not very flattering and downright damn terrible to say the least.


By now you know I'm a contrarian ...

I watch the NBA and the summer league pretty regularly, and I notice that ESPN has one of its main NBA guys doing play-by-play for the W, and Rebecca Lobo is a good analyst.

The production values aren't the same as the NBA, but they aren't bad either (it's cheap to do basketball once you have the truck).

I don't notice anything particularly unflattering or negative about the ESPN coverage, but maybe I'm missing some things. What specifically is ESPN doing that's bad for the WNBA?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 14569



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/19/17 11:08 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Well, we have to be grateful that ESPN is paying the league to televise games. However, I've been saying for years that we need a second TV partner. More exposure the better for the league. Oh, and Twitter doesn't count.



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
StevenHW



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 9995
Location: Sacramento, California


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/19/17 2:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK, in part, wrote:
...I don't notice anything particularly unflattering or negative about the ESPN coverage, but maybe I'm missing some things. What specifically is ESPN doing that's bad for the WNBA?



I find it intriguing that ESPN coverage on a WNBA game will sometimes include mentioning about non-basketball aspects of WNBA players or finding a human interest angle. Yet, some RebKellers here hate this type of trivial reporting. For example, one or two seasons ago, ESPN reporter LaChina Robinson talked about a player's hat collection during a game. The camera even showed some of that player's hats. (I don't recall the player's name, though) And there was some discussion on these boards about why ESPN had to mention that.



_________________
"My mechanic told me, 'I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder'." - comedian Steven Wright
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 4094
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/19/17 2:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

StevenHW wrote:
ClayK, in part, wrote:
...I don't notice anything particularly unflattering or negative about the ESPN coverage, but maybe I'm missing some things. What specifically is ESPN doing that's bad for the WNBA?



I find it intriguing that ESPN coverage on a WNBA game will sometimes include mentioning about non-basketball aspects of WNBA players or finding a human interest angle. Yet, some RebKellers here hate this type of trivial reporting. For example, one or two seasons ago, ESPN reporter LaChina Robinson talked about a player's hat collection during a game. The camera even showed some of that player's hats. (I don't recall the player's name, though) And there was some discussion on these boards about why ESPN had to mention that.


Essence Carsons Embarassed



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



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 19557
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/19/17 2:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Pretty sure it was Holly Rowe who did the piece on Carson's hats, rather than LaChina. It wasn't the item in and of itself that people objected to - it was that it didn't fit into the time they gave it, and late in a close game we missed game action while they were pissing about with the hats. Then I think they tried to split-screen the game and the end of the hat piece because it wasn't quite done. It was just a mess. That's the sort of crap people don't liike (whether in national or local broadcasts).

I don't think ESPN's TV coverage is too bad these days either, now that Carolyn Peck is finally gone. It's the number of games shown (we'd obviously like more) and their dismal online coverage of the League that's disappointing.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 1529



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/25/17 8:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Sometimes we actually have ratings in this thread...

The All Star Game averaged 606,000 viewers. Compare that to the regular season and most of the playoffs and you can see why it will continue to happen.
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 4094
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/25/17 10:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

awhom111 wrote:
Sometimes we actually have ratings in this thread...

The All Star Game averaged 606,000 viewers. Compare that to the regular season and most of the playoffs and you can see why it will continue to happen.


ASG was on ABC. The reg season games are mostly NBA TV (Paid extra) or ESPN2 which arent that many so of course the viewership would be higher.



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



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8420



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/26/17 10:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
awhom111 wrote:
Sometimes we actually have ratings in this thread...

The All Star Game averaged 606,000 viewers. Compare that to the regular season and most of the playoffs and you can see why it will continue to happen.


ASG was on ABC. The reg season games are mostly NBA TV (Paid extra) or ESPN2 which arent that many so of course the viewership would be higher.


I wonder what the viewership would be for Sparks-Lynx on ABC, with the same amount of hype.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 4094
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/26/17 10:58 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
WNBA 09 wrote:
awhom111 wrote:
Sometimes we actually have ratings in this thread...

The All Star Game averaged 606,000 viewers. Compare that to the regular season and most of the playoffs and you can see why it will continue to happen.


ASG was on ABC. The reg season games are mostly NBA TV (Paid extra) or ESPN2 which arent that many so of course the viewership would be higher.


I wonder what the viewership would be for Sparks-Lynx on ABC, with the same amount of hype.


Game 1 last year although the hype was not the same , Until after A. Beards shot !



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11688



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/26/17 6:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This was Sports Media Watch's comments:

"It was one of the better All-Star games in league history, but the WNBA’s midseason showcase struggled to find an audience.

The WNBA All-Star Game earned a 0.4 final rating and 606,000 viewers on ABC Saturday afternoon, down 20% in ratings and 19% in viewership from 2015, when coverage aired on both ESPN and ABC (0.55, 746K), but up a tick and 28% respectively from 2014, when the game aired on ESPN alone (0.3, 475K). There was no game last year due to the Olympics.

It was the fourth-least watched WNBA All-Star Game ever (14 games dating back to 1999), ahead of only 2014 (475K), 2006 (501K) and 2009 (475K). Keep in mind that does not include the WNBA vs. USA Basketball exhibitions in Olympic years.

Despite the lower numbers, Saturday’s telecast delivered the largest WNBA audience on any network since the 2015 All-Star Game — topping every game of the past two WNBA Finals, both of which went the full five games."


WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 4094
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/26/17 7:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Funny i seem to believe 2014 was actually one of the Best ASGs I've ever seen.



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



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 17712



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/26/17 8:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
Funny i seem to believe 2014 was actually one of the Best ASGs I've ever seen.

Best one in ages, because it actually felt like a contest, and some clutch plays didn't hurt either.



_________________
Seems rike no one takes me serirousreee
awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 1529



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/26/17 8:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Liberty-Lynx averaged 188,000 viewers. Exhibition soccer (with two clubs that are below the top tier in terms of name recognition) averaged 298,000 viewers on ESPN at the same time.
awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 1529



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/11/17 8:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Mercury-Wings averaged 144,000 viewers.

For those of you who wish the game was on ESPN, the Little League Baseball regional games on at the same time averaged 606,000 and 708,000 viewers.
awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 1529



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/17/17 11:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Sparks-Mystics averaged 170,000 viewers. Little League Softball after the game averaged 360,000 viewers.
awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 1529



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/07/17 8:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The second game averaged 243,000 viewers. The first game was not among the top 150 cable broadcasts among 18 to 49 year olds so we are unlikely to ever get that number.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8420



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/08/17 9:08 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

awhom111 wrote:
The second game averaged 243,000 viewers. The first game was not among the top 150 cable broadcasts among 18 to 49 year olds so we are unlikely to ever get that number.


Another reason the first round is one-and-done ...



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 1529



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/14/17 11:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Game 1 of Mercury-Sparks averaged 311,000 viewers. The other game and the Sunday games were not in the top 150 cable broadcasts among 18 to 49 year olds so we should not expect those numbers.

For those curious, programming on ESPN during the Tuesday games had these average viewers:
8:00-9:30: 1,231,000
9:30-10:00: 832,000
10:00-11:00: 779,000
11:00-12:00: 690,000
awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 1529



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/15/17 7:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Mystics-Lynx averaged 244,000 viewers and Mercury-Sparks averaged 222,000 viewers.

At approximately the same time, New Mexico-Boise State football averaged 1,053,000 viewers on ESPN and the NFL game on NFL Network averaged 8,080,000 viewers.
awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 1529



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/19/17 11:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Sparks-Mercury averaged 254,000 viewers. The first game did not make the day's top 150 cable broadcasts among those ages 18 through 49 so we are out of luck.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 54945
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/25/17 1:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2017/09/buzzer-beater-wnba-finals-game-1-delivers-best-overnight-ever/

Quote:
Game 1 of the 2017 WNBA Finals, which aired Sunday, Sept. 24, on ABC delivered a 0.6 overnight rating, the best overnight ever for a Game 1 on the ESPN networks. The matchup between the Minnesota Lynx and the Los Angeles Sparks resulted in a +20% increase from last year’s Game 1.



_________________
Happiness depends, as Nature shows,
Less on exterior things than most suppose
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8420



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/25/17 1:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2017/09/buzzer-beater-wnba-finals-game-1-delivers-best-overnight-ever/

Quote:
Game 1 of the 2017 WNBA Finals, which aired Sunday, Sept. 24, on ABC delivered a 0.6 overnight rating, the best overnight ever for a Game 1 on the ESPN networks. The matchup between the Minnesota Lynx and the Los Angeles Sparks resulted in a +20% increase from last year’s Game 1.


Good news ... the NFL slate wasn't spectacular, and football may be struggling a little, given everything that's going on.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 19557
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/25/17 2:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
The top five markets were: Nashville (4.6); Minneapolis (1.9); Birmingham (1.2); Hartford-New Haven (1.3); and Knoxville (1.1). Los Angeles delivered a 0.7 metered market rating.

Why the hell has this league never managed to place a team somewhere, anywhere, in Tennessee?



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



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 44364



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/25/17 2:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Is Nashville watching because they love the Vols as a in-state brotherly thing, or do they hate the Vols and hope Parker falls flat on her face? Maybe some of both depending on the individual?



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



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8420



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/25/17 3:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
Quote:
The top five markets were: Nashville (4.6); Minneapolis (1.9); Birmingham (1.2); Hartford-New Haven (1.3); and Knoxville (1.1). Los Angeles delivered a 0.7 metered market rating.

Why the hell has this league never managed to place a team somewhere, anywhere, in Tennessee?


Since the league is driven by TV potential, the small markets in Tennessee are a killer.

That said, Tennessee is big for girls' basketball, though the worship of the holy LVs has declined in recent years.

There's a nice arena in Nashville but my limited knowledge of Tennessee dredges up something about Vanderbilt not liking UT, Nashville/Knoxville rivalry. Maybe that's part of it ...

And of course, some owners have to be willing to lose $5 million or so in the first five years for a franchise that will have zero value on the open market.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 19557
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/25/17 4:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

But from what I remember, the league made a pretty signifcant push to find an owner in Atlanta so that they could put a team there, and the same thing may well have happened with Chicago. When they want a team in City X for commercial reasons, they make an effort to get one there.

As you've said yourself ClayK, WNBA interest tends to be centered around places with a team (for obvious reasons), but it seems like there's interest in Tennessee already. Surely Nashville or Memphis could support a team if they could ferret out an owner from somewhere.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
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  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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