View previous topic :: View next topic |
How do you feel about the overall coverage in general of those who write about/analyze the League? |
It's good/good enough |
|
11% |
[ 3 ] |
It's bad/not good enough |
|
73% |
[ 19 ] |
No opinion/Don't really care about the overall coverage |
|
15% |
[ 4 ] |
|
Total Votes : 26 |
|
Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66773 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 06/22/21 1:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
D-I WCBB has expanded 28% since 1990 (from 278 teams to 355). Has that lessened the interest? Is it less appealing?
_________________ Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021 Posts: 2862
Back to top |
|
huskiemaniac
Joined: 24 Nov 2004 Posts: 1049 Location: NE CT
Back to top |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11105
Back to top |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9544
Back to top |
Posted: 06/22/21 7:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
huskiemaniac wrote: |
Water-down the product to make it more appealing?
|
Attendance and TV ratings declined as the WNBA shrank down to 12 teams and a "less watered down product".
The more markets the league is in the more people who will have a team in their area. Having a team in the area increases the possibility a person will have interest in the WNBA. There are NHL fans in warm weather cities like Las Vegas who only became so due to a local team.
What leagues have been hurt when they expanded and "watered down their product"?
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8152 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 06/22/21 8:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I voted no opinion/don't care because written coverage is largely irrelevant to me and I think its mostly fallacious to believe that written coverage can stimulate a non-fan's interest in the WNBA or any sport.
I watch a lot of games including lots of teams at all levels, so I have no interest in reading superficial coverage of games I've watched. I do read box scores of every WNBA game, and I feel that's all I need in writing for the games I don't watch. Of course, if someone points out an interesting feature article on some aspect of the WNBA, I'll read it.
To me, the in-game commentary and TV analysis is much more important. And I think it generally stinks for the obvious reasons most other folks here do and constantly rail about.
As to generating interest in non-fans, I believe there is a false syllogism floating around in threads like this. It's this:
1. There aren't enough people who watch or are interested in watching a WNBA game (or fill in any other sport).
2. If there were a lot more interesting and in-depth written coverage of the WNBA, these non-fans would read it.
3. After they read it, they will become interested in watching the WNBA.
4. Therefore, more interesting and in-depth written coverage of the WNBA will result in more WNBA fans.
The logical flaw is premiss #2. I don't believe non-fans of any sport or subject will read written coverage about it. I have never had any interest in hockey or soccer and I don't read about it -- no matter how great the coverage -- because I have no interest in it.
Sports fandom does not come from written words. I comes most naturally from playing the sports as a child. Or from interest passed along from family or friends, who play or watch or talk about or take you to games. Or, in older adults, when children or grandchildren become involved in a sport. Or maybe from a good movie or book about a sport.
I've written a lot about WBB for 20 years on the internet and digital publications, and I've never gotten the feeling that my writings ever attracted a non-fan or even interested most committed fans. I think I got a lot more interest from the high school videos I produced for a few years.
I don't even know if people under 30 read anything more than 30 words about anything anymore. |
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014 Posts: 3304
Back to top |
Posted: 06/22/21 8:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
GlennMacGrady wrote: |
... The logical flaw is premiss #2. I don't believe non-fans of any sport or subject will read written coverage about it. I have never had any interest in hockey or soccer and I don't read about it -- no matter how great the coverage -- because I have no interest in it. |
This is completely circular. Your lack of belief doesn't mean that the logic is flawed. Show your work, please?
_________________ Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8152 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 06/22/21 8:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Silky Johnson wrote: |
GlennMacGrady wrote: |
... The logical flaw is premiss #2. I don't believe non-fans of any sport or subject will read written coverage about it. I have never had any interest in hockey or soccer and I don't read about it -- no matter how great the coverage -- because I have no interest in it. |
This is completely circular. Your lack of belief doesn't mean that the logic is flawed. Show your work, please? |
I'm not sure what you mean or are asking.
I believe premiss #2 is factually false and hence the syllogism is logically fallacious. The reason I believe premiss #2 to be factually false is simply my lifetime of experience (more than 70 years) observing how people of different ages, and in different ages, become interested in various sports.
In general, my empirical observation is that interest in a sport comes from some other source first, which can then generate an interest in reading about it. Not vice versa. |
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014 Posts: 3304
Back to top |
Posted: 06/22/21 9:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Silky Johnson wrote: |
GlennMacGrady wrote: |
... The logical flaw is premiss #2. I don't believe non-fans of any sport or subject will read written coverage about it. I have never had any interest in hockey or soccer and I don't read about it -- no matter how great the coverage -- because I have no interest in it. |
This is completely circular. Your lack of belief doesn't mean that the logic is flawed. Show your work, please? |
I'm not sure what you mean or are asking.
I believe premiss #2 is factually false and hence the syllogism is logically fallacious. The reason I believe premiss #2 to be factually false is simply my lifetime of experience (more than 70 years) observing how people of different ages, and in different ages, become interested in various sports.
In general, my empirical observation is that interest in a sport comes from some other source first, which can then generate an interest in reading about it. Not vice versa. |
The plural of anecdote is not data.
_________________ Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021 Posts: 2862
Back to top |
|
huskiemaniac
Joined: 24 Nov 2004 Posts: 1049 Location: NE CT
Back to top |
Posted: 06/23/21 12:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
www
|
|
huskiemaniac
Joined: 24 Nov 2004 Posts: 1049 Location: NE CT
Back to top |
Posted: 06/23/21 12:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
tfan wrote: |
huskiemaniac wrote: |
Water-down the product to make it more appealing?
|
Attendance and TV ratings declined as the WNBA shrank down to 12 teams and a "less watered down product".
The more markets the league is in the more people who will have a team in their area. Having a team in the area increases the possibility a person will have interest in the WNBA. There are NHL fans in warm weather cities like Las Vegas who only became so due to a local team.
What leagues have been hurt when they expanded and "watered down their product"? |
I have no idea. But I agree with your premise and its extrapolation- if every city in the USA had a WNBA franchise, attendance would increase.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11105
Back to top |
Posted: 06/23/21 5:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
huskiemaniac wrote: |
tfan wrote: |
huskiemaniac wrote: |
Water-down the product to make it more appealing?
|
Attendance and TV ratings declined as the WNBA shrank down to 12 teams and a "less watered down product".
The more markets the league is in the more people who will have a team in their area. Having a team in the area increases the possibility a person will have interest in the WNBA. There are NHL fans in warm weather cities like Las Vegas who only became so due to a local team.
What leagues have been hurt when they expanded and "watered down their product"? |
I have no idea. But I agree with your premise and its extrapolation- if every city in the USA had a WNBA franchise, attendance would increase. |
Attendance will go up, in total. Ratings will go up, in total.
Sponsorship money may increase but will be split more ways. TV revenue may increase but will be split more ways.
And the quality of any product is reflected in its ability to generate sales. Regardless of how one feels about how many quality WNBA players are not on rosters, at some point there will be a noticeable lessening of the caliber of play. (Mid-major college basketball is not the same as P5 basketball.)
But even disregarding that issue, the key for expansion is the willingness of owners to step forward, and as we know, the value of franchises is crucial as far as that goes. There are some who disagree with me that WNBA franchises have no value, and it may be they are worth something. But the more of them there are, the less they will be worth -- unless of course expansion triggers a major boost in profit for all franchises, which seems unlikely.
And since we're all pretty sure the WNBA would welcome new owners into the fold (at some entry fee, undoubtedly), the fact that there aren't any new franchises would indicate there aren't a lot of prospective owners available.
_________________ Oį¹ TÄre TuttÄre Ture SvÄhÄ
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9544
Back to top |
Posted: 06/23/21 5:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
huskiemaniac wrote: |
I have no idea. But I agree with your premise and its extrapolation- if every city in the USA had a WNBA franchise, attendance would increase. |
When I mentioned attendance I was talking "per team" attendance. That is, New York etc. had lower per-game attendance averages after the league shrank back to 12 teams and the product was allegedly better since it was "less watered down". There could be other reasons for that, but there is no evidence to support the claim that gets made on this board that expansion would make the game less enjoyable for fans. And while some amount of aficionados on a tiny message board will be adamantly against expansion, others will lament each year that certain players can't make a roster.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 24327 Location: London
Back to top |
Posted: 06/23/21 6:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
And since we're all pretty sure the WNBA would welcome new owners into the fold (at some entry fee, undoubtedly), the fact that there aren't any new franchises would indicate there aren't a lot of prospective owners available. |
I don't think that part's necessarily true. After too much fluctuation and movement, and too much general uncertainty, I think the league was avoiding the prospect of expansion in recent years. They didn't want to go beyond what the league seemed comfortable with, so I actually buy the company line that they were trying to make their existing franchises secure before worrying about adding more. The fact that they've found new owners for each franchise that people have wanted to get rid of, often in the same city and usually fairly quickly, suggests there are prospective owners out there who want to be involved. |
|
huskiemaniac
Joined: 24 Nov 2004 Posts: 1049 Location: NE CT
Back to top |
Posted: 06/23/21 6:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
After 25 years, there is, IMO, no reason to think that the level of its success won't continue for the WNBA.
|
|
johnjohnW
Joined: 11 Aug 2020 Posts: 1828
Back to top |
Posted: 06/23/21 7:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Decreased attendance and contraction of the league could be casually related as the novelty wore off and people who were initially interested became less so.
I still think the league could support at least 2 more teams and even though there may always be an Indiana level bad team, the league would be better for having 2 more teams.
|
|
UK1996
Joined: 03 Sep 2015 Posts: 403
Back to top |
Posted: 06/23/21 8:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
As far as expansion goes I believe there is enough talent out there to sustain at least 2, maybe 4-6 more teams. IMO there are a lot of Benijah Laneys and Allie Quigleys out there who havenāt ever landed in a good situation. Hell look what going to different teams did for Chelsea Gray and Natasha Howard. Making a roster is as much perception, and current team make up as it is talent. If a coach brings in players to training camp with the mindset that they are ābodies.ā A lot of coaches have too much of a stubborn mindset for anything beyond Taurasi level talent to change that. As far as attendance goes Iām curious to see the long term affects of Covid. There are some people who lived perfectly happy not going to sporting events and concerts who may decide they can live without it, especially when they see how much money they have saved. There are also others who may have discovered they enjoy watching games on their couch better than having to deal with parking, transportation, food etc. To counter this there are probably people like me who did nothing before but are feeling restless. (Iām a crabby hermit but I like having the option not to be.) Iāll probably hit up some games for sports teams in my area and a concert or two.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9544
Back to top |
Posted: 06/23/21 8:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
And the quality of any product is reflected in its ability to generate sales. Regardless of how one feels about how many quality WNBA players are not on rosters, at some point there will be a noticeable lessening of the caliber of play. (Mid-major college basketball is not the same as P5 basketball). |
There are 65 Power Five conference schools starting 325 players each year. Even in the most extreme scenario - each P5 school starts the same 5 players for four years, that is an average of 81.25 P5 starter-level players a year available to draft. The league could become as big as the men's leagues and still not have to even draft players from mid-majors.
Last edited by tfan on 06/23/21 9:05 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019 Posts: 4701
Back to top |
Posted: 06/23/21 8:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
johnjohnW wrote: |
I still think the league could support at least 2 more teams and even though there may always be an Indiana level bad team, the league would be better for having 2 more teams. |
I agree. And speaking of Indianaā¦ā¦ā¦..
Indiana Fever President and COO on season: 'It's harder than we expected'
Quote: |
āItās been a tough season for us,ā [Team President & COO Dr. Allison Barber] said. āItās harder than we expected, quite frankly; what weāre watching, though, is the emergence of new leadership, and that does take time.ā
ā¦
āYou know they say leadership takes 36 months to change a culture, so we brought in D-Rob and Jantel and we said āyouāre the veterans along with Kelsey and Tiffany Mitchell and how do we reimage our team,āā Barber said. ā But we kind of asked them to do it overnight. Thatās impossible, so what I like seeing is the emergence of their leadership traits in the locker room.ā |
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 06/23/21 8:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Typical article from a team exec who says positive things that will be completely forgotten when they decide to fire Stanley or Catchings or both....
|
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019 Posts: 4701
Back to top |
Posted: 06/23/21 9:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Itās not the type of article I was looking for regarding addressing the Feverās situation ā and saying the process has been āharder than we thoughtā is certainly a soundbite to put out there, all right ā but it had my attention the whole time at least, and I respect that someone at least pretended to care & ask the Fever Prez an uncomfortable question or two.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 24327 Location: London
Back to top |
Posted: 06/24/21 12:09 am ::: |
Reply |
|
You'll never guess what the lead item in my column is tomorrow, by the way... |
|
johnjohnW
Joined: 11 Aug 2020 Posts: 1828
Back to top |
Posted: 06/24/21 5:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Is it a fluff piece about the adversity Catchings faced growing up and how she overcame it to be one of the best of all time? All praise, no analysis.
It's funny, I watched an episode of We Need To Talk and it was all fluff piece portraits.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004 Posts: 19725
Back to top |
Posted: 06/24/21 8:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
johnjohnW wrote: |
I think the problem (if it even is one) is that the W media actually loves the league and wants it to succeed, so they don't have a vested interest in anything hyper critical |
Nobody covers a league they want to fail. W media seems to think calling a bad team bad will actually make a difference, something you don't get in more established leagues. |
I donāt think thatās true.
Bad teams and small market teams are ignored across the board.
Look at the mediaās take on the NBA finals. āBoring, unknown teams..ā
Youād have to be really paying attention to know much about any of those teams (in the finals)..but the last four teams feature 3 (4 if you count Aytob) budding superstars and the Clippers. The Suns are one of the most fun teams in the league to watch, Giannis has a brilliant story, Trae Young is fantastic..and the Clippers are a scrappy team who have had a historic run in many ways..but because none of this is one of the four stories this season..and because we donāt have Joker/Luka/Lebron vs Durant..media says āboring.ā
Ignoring teams is typical of media..the Fever is terrible..terrible doesnāt get press.
_________________ āAnyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is āLord Dampnutāā- Colin Mochrie
|
|
|
|