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

2020 TV Ratings
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10430



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/20 8:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Tuesday's game should have gotten a bump from 9:30 on as people turned away from mud wrestling....



_________________
#NADF
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10571



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/20 10:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

On the one hand, 200,000 dedicated followers is a pretty good number.

On the other, it's not really enough to make the league solid financially.

The WNBA, and the women's basketball community, has worked hard over the past 25 years to broaden the base, and at this point, I don't know what it would take to make any kind of quantum leap.

Almost every basketball fan has seen women's games on TV, so it's not as if the product needs more exposure or marketing. And changing the women's game -- lower rims, etc. -- would remove much of its legitimacy in the eyes of many.

So what is the way forward? Or is women's basketball what it is, a niche sport with a solid group of followers and a good TV deal?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 10005
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/20 1:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
On the one hand, 200,000 dedicated followers is a pretty good number.

On the other, it's not really enough to make the league solid financially.

The WNBA, and the women's basketball community, has worked hard over the past 25 years to broaden the base, and at this point, I don't know what it would take to make any kind of quantum leap.

Almost every basketball fan has seen women's games on TV, so it's not as if the product needs more exposure or marketing. And changing the women's game -- lower rims, etc. -- would remove much of its legitimacy in the eyes of many.

So what is the way forward? Or is women's basketball what it is, a niche sport with a solid group of followers and a good TV deal?



At this point it wouldn't hurt to try , we already experimented with the bubble. Why not lower the rims for 1 season and see the effects it has on the viewer and the player.



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



Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 75



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/20 2:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Lowering the rims won't help. People would then complain that the dunks aren't as good men's dunks. People already dismiss Brittany's dunking ability. Do you really want to see a couple extra dunks by Delle Donne and Fowles just for a couple highlights on SC that will be ridiculed by the losers on Twitter regardless?

I love the women's game for what it is. Some people just never will. Sucks for them. I just hope my support and the support of those who do care can be enough to sustain this league and that hopefully it will grow.


WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 10005
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/20 2:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

johnjohnW wrote:
Lowering the rims won't help. People would then complain that the dunks aren't as good men's dunks. People already dismiss Brittany's dunking ability. Do you really want to see a couple extra dunks by Delle Donne and Fowles just for a couple highlights on SC that will be ridiculed by the losers on Twitter regardless?

I love the women's game for what it is. Some people just never will. Sucks for them. I just hope my support and the support of those who do care can be enough to sustain this league and that hopefully it will grow.


They're going to be ridiculed regardless. And yes i do think seeing Delle Donne or Fowles throw it down multiple times a game would excite me more. I'm speaking for myself of course. How do you know what will help and wont help unless you try it ? Maybe an All star game in the future or something , but i would not dismiss it bc the GOAT doesn't like it.



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



Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 75



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/20 4:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I agree that the league gets flack no matter what but the optics of a concerted overture to win people over, which lowering the rims would definitely be, just to be met with even more ridicule isn't worth it to me. It's high risk with no reward.


Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10430



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/20 5:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The are already dismissed a bit for the smaller ball. Don't add to the irrelevance argument in the twitterverse.



_________________
#NADF
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 10571



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/20 11:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Dunks are a high-percentage shot but often are not particularly exciting. Watching someone strain to just get the ball over the rim isn't that exhilirating.

The fun dunks are the spectacularly athletic ones over a defender, and you'd have to lower the rims a lot more than 12 inches to have that happen very often in the women's game.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 8174



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/20 11:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

johnjohnW wrote:
I agree that the league gets flack no matter what but the optics of a concerted overture to win people over, which lowering the rims would definitely be, just to be met with even more ridicule isn't worth it to me. It's high risk with no reward.


There is no way to know for sure if the players being able to dunk would increase interest without trying it. Firm predictions don’t substitute for that.


WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 10005
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/20 12:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
johnjohnW wrote:
I agree that the league gets flack no matter what but the optics of a concerted overture to win people over, which lowering the rims would definitely be, just to be met with even more ridicule isn't worth it to me. It's high risk with no reward.


There is no way to know for sure if the players being able to dunk would increase interest without trying it. Firm predictions don’t substitute for that.


+1



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


Joined: 01 Jun 2008
Posts: 3959



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/20 1:17 pm    ::: Niche Sport Reply Reply with quote

I think women's basketball will always be a niche sport.

I think too many guys aren't capable of appreciating female athletes and too many women don't follow sports much at all. A lot of women wear a football jersey and then just . . .make Totino pizza rolls, lol. (I apologize in advance for the obligatory Totino videos below but they ARE hilarious.)

https://youtu.be/3dzOLoOEToc



https://youtu.be/A4kpVO56OBU


Most sports are niche sports no matter what gender plays them. Maybe we only have room for a few major sports in each country's culture and everything else has to find a niche. Team handball. Cornhole. Korfball. Heck, volleyball is a niche sport and so is rugby. I just don't think there is a lot of room for high-paid major sports beyond what we have.

I love women's basketball but, to be honest, I think women's soccer has a better shot at growing past niche status over time.



_________________
Winning takes talent; to repeat takes character.
--John Wooden
awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 2786



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/05/20 11:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Game 1:
10/2 Storm-Aces ESPN2 344,000
Michelle89



Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 15944
Location: Holland


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/06/20 2:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

awhom111 wrote:
Game 1:
10/2 Storm-Aces ESPN2 344,000


Quote:
Her Hoop Stats
@herhoopstats
334k people watched Game 1 of the #WNBAFinals on Friday night. That's up 47% over last year's 244k for Game 1 at 3E/12P on a Sunday on ESPN. Also up 18% over 2 years ago on a Friday at 9E/6P on ESPN. Numbers per
@ShowBuzzDaily


#WNBA #IfYouShowIt #PlentyOfInterest
10:22 p.m. · 5 okt. 2020·TweetDeck



_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
johnjohnW



Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 75



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/06/20 7:26 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's pretty well established that showing a game on ABC will always have higher numbers than ESPN or the deuce. I fear the sweep narrative (which isn't really accurate as Vegas have stayed competitive in each game), will hinder the Game 2 and 3 numbers.

Still, I think this season's overall numbers are healthy given the circumstances. Increased exposure, several channels showing games on a near nightly basis, compressed schedule, etc. I hope the league is able to capitalize off this next year with increased ABC games and maybe another CBS game. Man, imagine if ABC gave them a night game.


awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 2786



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/06/20 11:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Game 2:
10/4 Storm-Aces ABC 405,000
awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 2786



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/07/20 11:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Game 3 averaged 570,000 viewers.

The game rated well enough for us to get more detail on demographics, expressed as the percentage of people in that group that were watching on average. The F12-34 number is pretty interesting.
18-49: .19
F18-49: .14
M18-49 .24
18-34: .17
F12-34: .16
M12-34: .13
25-54: .22
50+: .25
johnjohnW



Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 75



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/08/20 8:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Wow. That is the exact opposite of what I predicted for a lackluster obvious sweep on ESPN2. Great number for the league.


StevenHW



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 10616
Location: Sacramento, California


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/09/20 12:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

awhom111 wrote:
Game 3 averaged 570,000 viewers.

The game rated well enough for us to get more detail on demographics, expressed as the percentage of people in that group that were watching on average. The F12-34 number is pretty interesting.
18-49: .19
F18-49: .14
M18-49 .24
18-34: .17
F12-34: .16
M12-34: .13
25-54: .22
50+: .25


It would seem to appear that the WNBA's biggest audience (at least, the TV audience) are those who 50 years old or older. But I suspect this is true for fans of women's basketball, WNBA and college.



_________________
"The more I see of the moneyed classes, the more I understand the guillotine." -- George Bernard Shaw
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
Page 3 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