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

WNBA Has More Fans In 21st Season Than NBA Had In 21stSeason
Goto page 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
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63711



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/09/17 11:30 pm    ::: WNBA Has More Fans In 21st Season Than NBA Had In 21stSeason Reply Reply with quote

http://fadeawayworld.com/2017/09/09/shocking-but-true-wnba-has-more-fans-in-its-21st-season-than-the-nba-had-in-its-21st-season/


Quote:
According to the WNBA’s press release on Wednesday, in their 21st regular season, teams averaged 7,716 fans per game. The league also recorded its highest total attendance at 1,574,078.he NBA’s 21st regular season was in 1966-67, and according to the league, its ten teams averaged 6,631 fans per game that year.



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



Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 104



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/10/17 12:34 am    ::: Re: WNBA Has More Fans In 21st Season Than NBA Had In 21stSe Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
http://fadeawayworld.com/2017/09/09/shocking-but-true-wnba-has-more-fans-in-its-21st-season-than-the-nba-had-in-its-21st-season/


Quote:
According to the WNBA’s press release on Wednesday, in their 21st regular season, teams averaged 7,716 fans per game. The league also recorded its highest total attendance at 1,574,078.he NBA’s 21st regular season was in 1966-67, and according to the league, its ten teams averaged 6,631 fans per game that year.


The country's population was much smaller in 1967, so this isn't really a fair comparison.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/10/17 1:15 am    ::: Re: WNBA Has More Fans In 21st Season Than NBA Had In 21stSe Reply Reply with quote

merlina wrote:
Shades wrote:
http://fadeawayworld.com/2017/09/09/shocking-but-true-wnba-has-more-fans-in-its-21st-season-than-the-nba-had-in-its-21st-season/


Quote:
According to the WNBA’s press release on Wednesday, in their 21st regular season, teams averaged 7,716 fans per game. The league also recorded its highest total attendance at 1,574,078.he NBA’s 21st regular season was in 1966-67, and according to the league, its ten teams averaged 6,631 fans per game that year.


The country's population was much smaller in 1967, so this isn't really a fair comparison.

The popluation in 1967 was about 61% of today.

The WNBA claims 92592 fans in attendance per game league wide, while the NBA claimed 66,310 for its league wide attendance per game in 1967.

By adjusting for population differences, the WNBA drew 56481 fans per game this year in 1967 peoples.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/10/17 6:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I don't think population scaling makes much sense. In 1966-67 the NBA had only 10 teams. If population scaling makes any sense it would have to scale the average population of 12 WNBA cities down to the 10 NBA cities. It might be interesting to compare for ex the 2017 Sparks and Liberty to the 66-67 Knicks and Lakers, Another factor is ease of access to games. Traffic is so bad in most cities now that even if the SMSA has grown 50% that doesn't mean that 50% more people have easy access to games. I think there are a lot of other factors as well - arena sizes, ticket prices, availability of local broadcasts (which may be a very big factor), competing entertainment options etc.

In truth, comparing the old NBA to the current WNBA probably doesn't make much actual sense in the first place for many of the same reasons.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9542



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/10/17 7:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The NBA announced attendance over that 20 years may not have looked like what the WNBA announced attendance for 21 years does:



merlina



Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 104



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/10/17 8:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:
I don't think population scaling makes much sense. In 1966-67 the NBA had only 10 teams. If population scaling makes any sense it would have to scale the average population of 12 WNBA cities down to the 10 NBA cities. It might be interesting to compare for ex the 2017 Sparks and Liberty to the 66-67 Knicks and Lakers, Another factor is ease of access to games. Traffic is so bad in most cities now that even if the SMSA has grown 50% that doesn't mean that 50% more people have easy access to games. I think there are a lot of other factors as well - arena sizes, ticket prices, availability of local broadcasts (which may be a very big factor), competing entertainment options etc.

In truth, comparing the old NBA to the current WNBA probably doesn't make much actual sense in the first place for many of the same reasons.


The more dominant presence of basketball in our current-day culture is also surely relevant and reflects poorly on current attendance for the W. What would an additional men's league look like now if it had started 20 years ago? Probably a lot more successful. Seattle supposedly loves basketball and keeps on trying to get back an NBA team, yet I don't get the impression that a lot of these sad NBA fans go to Storm games.


toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22470
Location: NJ


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/10/17 9:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

And yet it was sad being at the Liberty game and seeing so many empty seats. Reported attendance was 9,500 but looked more like 8,000.



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

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
StevenHW



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 10979
Location: Sacramento, California


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/10/17 11:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Articles like this makes my eyes roll, if only because of the various ways the WNBA is trying to positive spin on what could have been disappointing news.

Rolling Eyes



_________________
"The more I see of the moneyed classes, the more I understand the guillotine." -- George Bernard Shaw
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11102



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/17 9:46 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

StevenHW wrote:
Articles like this makes my eyes roll, if only because of the various ways the WNBA is trying to positive spin on what could have been disappointing news.

Rolling Eyes


That's the marketing spin that people feel is what's missing from the league.

One thing to consider: The WNBA is on TV many, many times more than the NBA was in the 50s and 60s.

Another: Racism was much more endemic and accepted during those years, so the NBA's reputation as a black league made a huge difference in its popularity. I have a feeling most on this board were not around during that time and thus can't really understand just how different the landscape was.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
hyperetic



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5344
Location: Fayetteville


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/17 11:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
StevenHW wrote:
Articles like this makes my eyes roll, if only because of the various ways the WNBA is trying to positive spin on what could have been disappointing news.

Rolling Eyes


That's the marketing spin that people feel is what's missing from the league.

One thing to consider: The WNBA is on TV many, many times more than the NBA was in the 50s and 60s.

Another: Racism was much more endemic and accepted during those years, so the NBA's reputation as a black league made a huge difference in its popularity. I have a feeling most on this board were not around during that time and thus can't really understand just how different the landscape was.


And taking it from that standpoint, some of the popularity (or lack there of) issues the W has been experiencing can be directly attributed in part to racism counterpart aimed at women, misogyny/gender bias.
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5152
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/17 7:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The problem with this comparison is that it relies on the accuracy of the attendance figures. Setting aside the padding of some of the teams, the number of tickets given away for kids days and other promotions skew these numbers dramatically. The NBA was far more successful by the mid 60's than the WNBA is today, but if you want to go back to that time maybe the WNBA should try some of the promotions they did run. I can remember seeing a doubleheader in Boston involving 4 teams (regular season). This probably wouldn't work today because most people don't seem to have that long an attention span but for real basketball fans it would be great.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8151
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/17 8:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm not sure I believe those NBA numbers and I'm positive I don't believe the WNBA numbers.

It's true that the NBA started out in 1946 as small potatoes and, early on, in some medium cities -- Rochester, Fort Wayne, Syracuse, Minneapolis -- and took time to grow. But in 1946 there were several men's pro basketball leagues, white and black and mixed, going continuously back at least 25 years earlier. In addition, men's college basketball from 1946 to 1967 was a much, much more popular sport than women's college basketball from 1996 to 2017.

Also keep in mind that in the NBA's 21st year in 1967, pro basketball was popular enough that a very strong and pretty big-bucks rival league sprang up, the ABA, which ended up merging with the NBA in 1976. Anyone see that scenario arising this year for the WNBA?

As to racism and sexism, there can be many ways to define those terms, some of them very implausible. In my opinion, I don't think racism significantly affected NBA arena attendance in 1967 and don't think sexism significantly affects WNBA attendance today. In fact, under some definitions of racism (not plausible to me), one could say that there is more racism affecting the NBA today than 50 years ago, and that many of those anti-NBA "racists" comprise a significant portion of the WBB fan base. On the other hand, the vast majority of men's basketball fans don't watch women's basketball mainly for the same reason they don't watch para-Olympic basketball: they simply don't like, are bored by, and have no interest in watching the product. It's not bias against women or paraplegics as people.

I think one thing is undeniable and favorable to the WNBA in 2017 versus the NBA in 1967. There are a much higher percentage of games televised, and of course there were no such things as home computers, smart phones and videostreaming in 1967. The WNBA probably has a bigger potential audience today, in person and in pixel, than the NBA did in 1967. What the actual audiences were and are, I'm skeptical.
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/17 9:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm pretty sure attendance padding was not invented by the WNBA and was firmly entrenched in the NBA in 1967.


Bob Lamm



Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 5065
Location: New York City


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/17 9:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

hyperetic wrote:
ClayK wrote:
StevenHW wrote:
Articles like this makes my eyes roll, if only because of the various ways the WNBA is trying to positive spin on what could have been disappointing news.

Rolling Eyes


That's the marketing spin that people feel is what's missing from the league.

One thing to consider: The WNBA is on TV many, many times more than the NBA was in the 50s and 60s.

Another: Racism was much more endemic and accepted during those years, so the NBA's reputation as a black league made a huge difference in its popularity. I have a feeling most on this board were not around during that time and thus can't really understand just how different the landscape was.


And taking it from that standpoint, some of the popularity (or lack there of) issues the W has been experiencing can be directly attributed in part to racism counterpart aimed at women, misogyny/gender bias.


Since this has now been disputed here, I want to agree with you. I feel strongly that sexism/misogyny, racism, and homophobia are all part of why the WNBA continues to struggle. I'll add this: of all the men I know who are sports fans, younger to older, there isn't one who is really a fan of women's sports of any kind.



_________________
Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8151
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/17 10:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Bob Lamm wrote:
I'll add this: of all the men I know who are sports fans, younger to older, there isn't one who is really a fan of women's sports of any kind.


I would rarely quibble with someone else's personal experience, but surely, Bob, you can't mean this.

What about all the men on this very board. Are they not "really fans" of "women's sports of any kind?"

What about all the men in the stands at high school, AAU, college and professional women's basketball games? What about the fathers of the Liberty players?

You really don't know "one" man who is a fan of women's tennis, figure skating, gymnastics, swimming, skiing, equestrian, UFC, volleyball, golf, track, field hockey, curling, softball, soccer, and dozens of other women's collegiate and Olympic sports? Really??

You are free to believe that sexism, misogyny, homophobia and racism negatively affect the WNBA's fortunes, but you're really not free (from challenge) to make up colossally global "facts" about male sports fans that are demonstrably false, and then credibly pass them off as your universal life experience. Not that I mind some rhetoric and hyperbole . . . now and then.

As to the NBA's attendance statistics from 1946 to 1967, I believe they are much more likely to be unavailable and incomplete than padded and misreprented.
Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24326
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/17 10:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Basically the whole landscape is so different that it's a nonsensical and pointless comparison. But it draws a few clicks so it gets regurgitated every now and then.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
Bob Lamm



Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 5065
Location: New York City


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/17 10:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Bob Lamm wrote:
I'll add this: of all the men I know who are sports fans, younger to older, there isn't one who is really a fan of women's sports of any kind.


I would rarely quibble with someone else's personal experience, but surely, Bob, you can't mean this.

What about all the men on this very board. Are they not "really fans" of "women's sports of any kind?"

What about all the men in the stands at high school, AAU, college and professional women's basketball games? What about the fathers of the Liberty players?

You really don't know "one" man who is a fan of women's tennis, figure skating, gymnastics, swimming, skiing, equestrian, UFC, volleyball, golf, track, field hockey, curling, softball, soccer, and dozens of other women's collegiate and Olympic sports? Really??

You are free to believe that sexism, misogyny, homophobia and racism negatively affect the WNBA's fortunes, but you're really not free (from challenge) to make up colossally global "facts" about male sports fans that are demonstrably false, and then credibly pass them off as your universal life experience. Not that I mind some rhetoric and hyperbole . . . now and then.

As to the NBA's attendance statistics from 1946 to 1967, I believe they are much more likely to be unavailable and incomplete than padded and misreprented.


I don't "know" any man on this board. In most cases, people use fake social media names, so I have no idea about their gender. Even when people seem to be using real first names that are probably male, I wouldn't say that I "know" any man on this board. I don't regard social media that way. I was referring to the men I know in my life off the computer. Not one is a fan of any women's sport. I said nothing, NOTHING, about men who aren't part of my life.

P.S. I don't know men in the stands at Madison Square Garden for Liberty games unless they are friends who've come with me. One male friend did. Once. He's not a fan of women's basketball. And I definitely do not know the fathers of any New York Liberty players, though I'd love to meet them.



_________________
Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63711



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

Randy wrote:
I'm pretty sure attendance padding was not invented by the WNBA and was firmly entrenched in the NBA in 1967.


There also wasn't much competition back in 1967. What'd people do back in 1967? Go to movies, go to a choice of 3 sports, watch one of 3 channels on TV, listen to the radio, read a book. Compare that to all the things you can do today rather than watch the WNBA.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
josephkramer44



Joined: 23 Aug 2016
Posts: 136



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/17 11:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The majority of men are not avid haters of women and have genuine respect for them as they are our mothers, sisters, wives and daughters. However simply putting a product out there and failing to market it properly and then insulting people when they decline to partake of the product is not a way to win a market share in an already extremely crowded market in the US (televised sports). I have said before and will say it again that a little bit of creative marketing and subtle changes could get gentlemen to partake of the product. It has to be better than "they can beat you at basketball so you should come watch" marketing ploy that has been tried before though.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8151
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/12/17 12:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Okay, Bob, I think I "know" your general point. Peace.

My next poll was going to be on the sex of the members of this board . . . or it it gender . . . but I'm now paralyzed as how to word it.

I'm a male and post under my real name, and am a fan of multiple men's and women's sports. I've never met Clay Kallam in person, who also posts under his real name, but I feel I know him well enough to know that he is also a fan of both. Bob Corwin, whom I have met at a FSU women's college basketball game, posts on this board and devotes a huge chunk of his retirement time to scouting girl's high school teams all over the country, and writing for various WBB ezines.

It is a real tragedy of this pixelated and pixilated era, and retirement, that I now probably "know" more people electronically than I do personally. I post regularly on other subject boards than WBB.
Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18013
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/12/17 7:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hmmm. Bob, our experiences have been very different, though I grant that most of my social circle comes from basketball and thus there's definitely confirmation bias at play. I've known a lot of male WNBA and WCBB fans, ranging from the one I ended up marrying, to our fellow superfan at St. John's, to a couple of guys from my parents' generation.



_________________
All your Rebecca are belong to the Liberty.

(now with spelling variations)
Bob Lamm



Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 5065
Location: New York City


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/12/17 8:08 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
Hmmm. Bob, our experiences have been very different, though I grant that most of my social circle comes from basketball and thus there's definitely confirmation bias at play. I've known a lot of male WNBA and WCBB fans, ranging from the one I ended up marrying, to our fellow superfan at St. John's, to a couple of guys from my parents' generation.


I'm glad that's been your experience. I think it's terrific that there are men active on this board, that there are men who come to WNBA and WCBB games, and so forth. But, in general, I believe that the number of men who love women's sports--or even a single women's sport--is pathetic and a reflection of sexism and homophobia.



_________________
Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
cthskzfn



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/12/17 10:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
Basically the whole landscape is so different that it's a nonsensical and pointless comparison. But it draws a few clicks so it gets regurgitated every now and then.



In a nutshell. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3302



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/13/17 12:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:

... On the other hand, the vast majority of men's basketball fans don't watch women's basketball mainly for the same reason they don't watch para-Olympic basketball: they simply don't like, are bored by, and have no interest in watching the product. It's not bias against women or paraplegics as people.


The trouble that I have with this passage is: how do you unravel the systemic and institutionalized sexism that we have all been indoctrinated with, both consciously and subconsciously for decades, nigh unto centuries, from whatever we believe to simply be a reasonably-formed opinion, regarding sports/entertainment? Like, maybe it sounds reasonable to say, "I'm not sexist/I'm not biased against women's basketball! I just don't think that it's entertaining."But how do you take a statement like that at face value, in a manner which dilutes or removes all of the context that led up to that opinion being formed?



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard

My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
Bob Lamm



Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 5065
Location: New York City


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/13/17 12:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:

... On the other hand, the vast majority of men's basketball fans don't watch women's basketball mainly for the same reason they don't watch para-Olympic basketball: they simply don't like, are bored by, and have no interest in watching the product. It's not bias against women or paraplegics as people.


The trouble that I have with this passage is: how do you unravel the systemic and institutionalized sexism that we have all been indoctrinated with, both consciously and subconsciously for decades, nigh unto centuries, from whatever we believe to simply be a reasonably-formed opinion, regarding sports/entertainment? Like, maybe it sounds reasonable to say, "I'm not sexist/I'm not biased against women's basketball! I just don't think that it's entertaining."But how do you take a statement like that at face value, in a manner which dilutes or removes all of the context that led up to that opinion being formed?


Great questions, right on the mark. And the parallel questions can all be asked about entertainment of any kind involving people with disabilities.



_________________
Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
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 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 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