I noticed that too. Maybe it's because Tennessee is still on spring break. Nevertheless 20 years ago, their stands would have been filled. The big 10 teams have crowds (Ohio State, Indiana, Iowa).
Tennessee used to have a championship contender 20 years ago.
Big Ten teams have crowds because "offense sells tickets."
I think this is the reason why the big 10 sells out. The 2nd game in Indiana lost much of their spectators. Maybe the Tennessee fans are at home watching their men play.
I've been visiting big 10 schools with my HS Sr kid and have attended hockey, lacrosse and even tennis matches. The atmosphere in every school has been awesome. We're not used to this coming from NY.
Part of the (toxic) feminism movement is to pretend women's basketball is equal to men's basketball. It is a product that generates revenue and the men's game is vastly superior but the agenda won't acknowledge that fact. Women have financial opportunities in other industries that favor them over men. These feminists ironically have one thing in common that they lack the self awareness to acknowledge--they are all selfish, entitled and ignorant. They are dragging anyone who joins their clan down with them whether it be males or females. Pure toxicity with the guise they're helping when they're actually hindering.
^As expected, Letsrun's #1 incel has contributed his incoherent incel jabber to yet another Letsrun incel thread...
I went to 9ne WNBA game once and there were less than 3,000 people there. The answer is no, people don't watch girls basketball. If they did the league would be profitable without the men subsidizing them.
I went to 9ne WNBA game once and there were less than 3,000 people there. The answer is no, people don't watch girls basketball. If they did the league would be profitable without the men subsidizing them.
It depends which team is playing. A few teams do very well and get a lot of fans out. Not NBA type of attendance but a pretty good number. Most do not. Yes, without the NBA subsidizing the other teams the league would fold.
Someone has a teeny tiny peeny weeny and a fragile ego and decided to start another thread to start an incel circle jerk echo chamber…talk about borrrrring 💤
Iowa is on spring break yet sold out both women's games this week within 1 hour.
It should be noted that the Women's NCAA Tournament is not structured the same as the men's. The top-4 seeds in each regional, meaning 16 total teams or one-fourth of the entire field, plays their opening two games at home. There is a high likelihood that Iowa (and other top teams) may have larger crowds for the rounds of 64 and 32 than they do for the Sweet 16 and Elite Eight. The men's tournament pretty much sells out regardless of who is playing where. The men's #1s played in Birmingham (Houston and Alabama), Columbus, OH (Purdue), and Des Moines, IA (Kansas).
Women's basketball isn't as popular as mens, but there are still people who watch each and every game. Each team has a handful of fans right there on the bench.
Women's basketball isn't as popular as mens, but there are still people who watch each and every game. Each team has a handful of fans right there on the bench.
Iowa is on spring break yet sold out both women's games this week within 1 hour.
It should be noted that the Women's NCAA Tournament is not structured the same as the men's. The top-4 seeds in each regional, meaning 16 total teams or one-fourth of the entire field, plays their opening two games at home. There is a high likelihood that Iowa (and other top teams) may have larger crowds for the rounds of 64 and 32 than they do for the Sweet 16 and Elite Eight. The men's tournament pretty much sells out regardless of who is playing where. The men's #1s played in Birmingham (Houston and Alabama), Columbus, OH (Purdue), and Des Moines, IA (Kansas).
So they don't have faith they would sell out a neutral site like the men do? That kind of answers the question about which is better supported right there.
It should be noted that the Women's NCAA Tournament is not structured the same as the men's. The top-4 seeds in each regional, meaning 16 total teams or one-fourth of the entire field, plays their opening two games at home. There is a high likelihood that Iowa (and other top teams) may have larger crowds for the rounds of 64 and 32 than they do for the Sweet 16 and Elite Eight. The men's tournament pretty much sells out regardless of who is playing where. The men's #1s played in Birmingham (Houston and Alabama), Columbus, OH (Purdue), and Des Moines, IA (Kansas).
So they don't have faith they would sell out a neutral site like the men do? That kind of answers the question about which is better supported right there.
I don’t think anyone questions which is better supported. That doesn’t make these insecure threads any less pathetic.
Women’s basketball has made tremendous strides in the past 30 years. It is awesome to see the improvement, it really makes the games interesting, if you are a fan of sport.
I dislike the tone of the OP and of this thread but women's basketball is objectively not as good as other women's sports. And there is a reason why.
Did it ever occur to anyone to let the women play on 9'4 foot rims so they had the same shot angles and dunks as the men? It would be awesome. They lower the nets in volleyball (7'4 vs. 7'11). They lower the hurdles in track. They use a smaller ball in basketball and a different three-point line.
It would be so much fun to watch women dunking. I bet it would be fun for them too. It is like a big piece of the game is missing for the women because nets weren't adjustable back in the olden-days when they wrote the rule book and now people are too stuck in the past to update the rules.
p.s. In my opinion, most sports (Tennis, golf, skiing, cycling, ski-jump, softball, swimming, running), the women's game is just as good as the men's game --- since it is relative to the ladies around them. Only basketball is "worse" because the hoops are set at the men's height.
I dislike the tone of the OP and of this thread but women's basketball is objectively not as good as other women's sports. And there is a reason why.
Did it ever occur to anyone to let the women play on 9'4 foot rims so they had the same shot angles and dunks as the men? It would be awesome. They lower the nets in volleyball (7'4 vs. 7'11). They lower the hurdles in track. They use a smaller ball in basketball and a different three-point line.
It would be so much fun to watch women dunking. I bet it would be fun for them too. It is like a big piece of the game is missing for the women because nets weren't adjustable back in the olden-days when they wrote the rule book and now people are too stuck in the past to update the rules.
p.s. In my opinion, most sports (Tennis, golf, skiing, cycling, ski-jump, softball, swimming, running), the women's game is just as good as the men's game --- since it is relative to the ladies around them. Only basketball is "worse" because the hoops are set at the men's height.
Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't care about dunking. I enjoy ball movement- cutting, screening, finding the open man/woman. I enjoy watching defenses and offenses countering each other.
I dislike the tone of the OP and of this thread but women's basketball is objectively not as good as other women's sports. And there is a reason why.
Did it ever occur to anyone to let the women play on 9'4 foot rims so they had the same shot angles and dunks as the men? It would be awesome. They lower the nets in volleyball (7'4 vs. 7'11). They lower the hurdles in track. They use a smaller ball in basketball and a different three-point line.
It would be so much fun to watch women dunking. I bet it would be fun for them too. It is like a big piece of the game is missing for the women because nets weren't adjustable back in the olden-days when they wrote the rule book and now people are too stuck in the past to update the rules.
p.s. In my opinion, most sports (Tennis, golf, skiing, cycling, ski-jump, softball, swimming, running), the women's game is just as good as the men's game --- since it is relative to the ladies around them. Only basketball is "worse" because the hoops are set at the men's height.
Though you’re getting downvotes, I think you make a good point. Women’s relative lack of athleticism compared to men is more apparent because they both play on 10 foot rims.
But they are only "less athletic" if you put them on men's equipment. Mikaela Shiffrin would suck if she had to ski on the wrong size slalom skis. Just because men use 185cm, well, she has to too. Sorry, no 155s for you.
You never watch elite women's skiing, running (Keely? Mu? Femke? Sifan?), swimming or tennis and think they are "bad" at their sports. They aren't; they are literally the best women in the world.
But with basketball, just because the old gyms didn't have adjustable hoops, women look so different from men when they are playing.
People who are hating on women should be hating on the people who designed the old gymnasiums and fixed rims. It is not hard to make them adjustable.