Anyone listen to Dana Altman's post game press conference? The Oregon men's coach complained about the low attendance at the game. Only 3,300 spectators showed up to support the men's team. Lack of attendance occurs across all sports.
-
11
-
MartinaN wrote:
The woke crowd. Look at the ruckus the wokes created over the difference between the gyms the women and the men had at their Final Fours.
I enjoy WBB but it should be treated no different than every other sport that loses money (which is every sport except football, MBB and a couple of baseball programs), which means the coaches get paid around $100,000, teams use buses and vans for games a few hours away and players don't stay at the Four Seasons for road games. They are completely riding the gravy train of MBB and that is wrong.
If the point of college sports was to add to the college experience, all sports would be treated equally. But it ain't about that is it?
00 -
Ruxton Towers XC wrote:
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.
You may be on to something. I watch the women's game and there is something about it visually that is disproportionately worse than the men's game. Like in skiing, I can barely tell the diff. But BBall looks like CYO league. Maybe the rim is too high and changes the game visually. Other sports like skiing, tennis, golf, track, softball, Vball I dont see this striking difference.
10 -
coach wrote:
Anyone listen to Dana Altman's post game press conference? The Oregon men's coach complained about the low attendance at the game. Only 3,300 spectators showed up to support the men's team. Lack of attendance occurs across all sports.
C'mon? Have you seen women's bball outside TN, Uconn, SC, and a few others? Literally only parents in the stands. Im at a major Big10 school and they give away tix free. Now yes if you are comparing to non basketball sports then yes...swimming, cross country...no fans men or women.
11 -
I. Rex wrote:
Why do trolls think this kind of thread is still funny and creative? cant you guys come up with something new? and why do mods allow tons of these tired sad mysoginstic threads to stay up despite being straight forward attacks on female athletes? oh thats right, because trolls posting hate is how they generate revenue here.
Anyway, the answer to this insincere "question" is yes. millions do. also, the most entertaining player in college basketball is female. and if you dont believe thats true than you havent been paying attention to either mens or womens basketball.
Pointing out reality isn't "mysoginstic".
You can't claim "the most entertaining player in college basketball is female" and expect to be taken seriously.
The worst men's team in any power 5 conference would beat the women's national champion by 50+.
36 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Pointing out reality isn't "mysoginstic".
You can't claim "the most entertaining player in college basketball is female" and expect to be taken seriously.
The worst men's team in any power 5 conference would beat the women's national champion by 50+.
thanks for proving you dont watch college basketball. and also for proving you dont understand what the word "entertaining" means. feel free to crawl back to your sad political threads where you can troll endlessly in meaningless ideological circles that go nowhere and prove nothing. Ill be watching the women's sweet sixteen myself.
41 -
I. Rex wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Pointing out reality isn't "mysoginstic".
You can't claim "the most entertaining player in college basketball is female" and expect to be taken seriously.
The worst men's team in any power 5 conference would beat the women's national champion by 50+.
thanks for proving you dont watch college basketball. and also for proving you dont understand what the word "entertaining" means. feel free to crawl back to your sad political threads where you can troll endlessly in meaningless ideological circles that go nowhere and prove nothing. Ill be watching the women's sweet sixteen myself.
Well "entertaining" is subjective but the overwhelming majority of Americans find the men's game much more entertaining.
If you think the women are on the same level as the men you're delusional.
15 -
I. Rex wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Pointing out reality isn't "mysoginstic".
You can't claim "the most entertaining player in college basketball is female" and expect to be taken seriously.
The worst men's team in any power 5 conference would beat the women's national champion by 50+.
thanks for proving you dont watch college basketball. and also for proving you dont understand what the word "entertaining" means. feel free to crawl back to your sad political threads where you can troll endlessly in meaningless ideological circles that go nowhere and prove nothing. Ill be watching the women's sweet sixteen myself.
Don’t worry, he will.
50 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
I. Rex wrote:
thanks for proving you dont watch college basketball. and also for proving you dont understand what the word "entertaining" means. feel free to crawl back to your sad political threads where you can troll endlessly in meaningless ideological circles that go nowhere and prove nothing. Ill be watching the women's sweet sixteen myself.
Well "entertaining" is subjective but the overwhelming majority of Americans find the men's game much more entertaining.
If you think the women are on the same level as the men you're delusional.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the women are on the same level just as no one is suggesting that the college men's game is at the same level as the NBA. However the women's game and this year's tournament has been highly entertaining with more parity than ever. Are there blowouts? Sure but #1 teams have already been upset which never happened before. Are some stadiums empty? Yes but many are filled as well.
40 -
Empty stands wrote:
My guess is no! The stands are all empty. It’s comical. Yet espn wants to promote womens basketball to no end. Kinda sad. Women play inferior basketball to men and the games are boring
booooo
Your question is does anyone actually watch women's basketball. The answer is Yes!
71 -
Empty stands wrote:
My guess is no! The stands are all empty. It’s comical. Yet espn wants to promote womens basketball to no end. Kinda sad. Women play inferior basketball to men and the games are boring
booooo
Women's basketball is almost like cross country. Mostly other women basketball players watching along with family and friends.
Question is who watches distance running.
02 -
coach wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Well "entertaining" is subjective but the overwhelming majority of Americans find the men's game much more entertaining.
If you think the women are on the same level as the men you're delusional.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the women are on the same level just as no one is suggesting that the college men's game is at the same level as the NBA. However the women's game and this year's tournament has been highly entertaining with more parity than ever. Are there blowouts? Sure but #1 teams have already been upset which never happened before. Are some stadiums empty? Yes but many are filled as well.
The men's tournament makes close to a billion dollars in profit every year.
The women's tournament loses money every year.
If the product was equally entertaining this wouldn't be the case.
Collegiate women play at the level of an elite middle school boy's team.
Middle school basketball is entertaining too. No one pays to see it.
17 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
coach wrote:
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the women are on the same level just as no one is suggesting that the college men's game is at the same level as the NBA. However the women's game and this year's tournament has been highly entertaining with more parity than ever. Are there blowouts? Sure but #1 teams have already been upset which never happened before. Are some stadiums empty? Yes but many are filled as well.
The men's tournament makes close to a billion dollars in profit every year.
The women's tournament loses money every year.
If the product was equally entertaining this wouldn't be the case.
Collegiate women play at the level of an elite middle school boy's team.
Middle school basketball is entertaining too. No one pays to see it.
Do you follow track and field? Do you find track meets entertaining? Many aren't revenue producing with many spectators. Nevertheless I find them entertaining as do track and field fans.
41 -
coach wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
The men's tournament makes close to a billion dollars in profit every year.
The women's tournament loses money every year.
If the product was equally entertaining this wouldn't be the case.
Collegiate women play at the level of an elite middle school boy's team.
Middle school basketball is entertaining too. No one pays to see it.
Do you follow track and field? Do you find track meets entertaining? Many aren't revenue producing with many spectators. Nevertheless I find them entertaining as do track and field fans.
Fans of things find those things entertaining. That's why they're fans.
The revenue comes when there's more fans. There's more fans when more people find it entertaining.
This isn't really as complicated as you're trying to make it.
25 -
coach wrote:
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the women are on the same level just as no one is suggesting that the college men's game is at the same level as the NBA. However the women's game and this year's tournament has been highly entertaining with more parity than ever. Are there blowouts? Sure but #1 teams have already been upset which never happened before. Are some stadiums empty? Yes but many are filled as well.
In 1998, #1 Stanford lost to #16 Harvard in the first round, and #1 Texas Tech lost to #9 Notre Dame in the second round. So it has happened before, unless you are referring to two #1 seeds both losing in the second round, which has never happened before.
10 -
I. Rex wrote:
Marketing bux wrote:
I think the question is what should be done about it? Colleges overpay for coaches, tv networks overpromote a not so popular product. Ok true, but they are entitled to make these choices; who is bullying them to do this?
nobody is bullying anyone. On the contrary, they have spent the entire course of sports history UNDER promoting womens sports only to have the misogynists turn around and say "see nobody watches them" and blatantly ignore the clear double standard of the unlevel marketing playing field. and when you present that fact to them, they reply "no, nobody watched them because they arent entertaining" which is BS because millions of people DO watch the women’s game when you promote it and put it on accessible airwaves. Thats why 4.9 million people watched last year’s championship game. because it was promoted and made available and people were interested enough to watch.
the misogynists also like to declare that women’s college basketball is a money pit and conveniently ignore the fact that the NCAA has always bundled women’s basketball with like 30 non revenue generating sports that operate at a loss. its like claiming that a perfectly decent working car is a junker because its bundled and sold with 30 junkers. but its not. if you separated it from that bundle you could sell it at a much higher average rate. the current contract (which ends next season) gives ESPN all 30+ of those sports for $34 million which the NCAA then divides evenly based on the total number of sports in that package to justify the statement that the women’s game "loses money" so that they could continue with the vicious cycle of not promoting or funding them. but thats a joke because it criminally undervalues it. in no way is womens basketball the same value as field hockey or squash. in fact, most independent experts estimate that the women’s tournament could have a market value of over $100 million per year if it was sold as a separate package. why dont they bundle fencing and diving and, oh, TRACK AND FIELD with the football contract? not to mention that the women get NO revenue sharing for making it to the NCAA Tournament like the men do to the tune of like $350,000 just for losing your first game. the women get nothing at all even if they win the Championship. that money could be used on better facilities and development opportunities which would lead to an even better game which is what the misogynists like to complain about to begin with. so you figure, based on that logic, they would be fully on board with more revenue sharing but my guess is they are happy to own the double standard on that point as well. anything that will allow them to continue to btch about the women’s game and the fact its on tv. and make pathetic threads like this endlessly...
This independent report estimates women's tournament is worth $81-112 million a year.
11 -
4587 wrote:
Women's basketball is almost like cross country. Mostly other women basketball players watching along with family and friends.
wow so the South Carolina and Connecticut team members last year had 4.85 million combined "family and friends"? are they all Catholic?
30 -
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
I. Rex wrote:
nobody is bullying anyone. On the contrary, they have spent the entire course of sports history UNDER promoting womens sports only to have the misogynists turn around and say "see nobody watches them" and blatantly ignore the clear double standard of the unlevel marketing playing field. and when you present that fact to them, they reply "no, nobody watched them because they arent entertaining" which is BS because millions of people DO watch the women’s game when you promote it and put it on accessible airwaves. Thats why 4.9 million people watched last year’s championship game. because it was promoted and made available and people were interested enough to watch.
the misogynists also like to declare that women’s college basketball is a money pit and conveniently ignore the fact that the NCAA has always bundled women’s basketball with like 30 non revenue generating sports that operate at a loss. its like claiming that a perfectly decent working car is a junker because its bundled and sold with 30 junkers. but its not. if you separated it from that bundle you could sell it at a much higher average rate. the current contract (which ends next season) gives ESPN all 30+ of those sports for $34 million which the NCAA then divides evenly based on the total number of sports in that package to justify the statement that the women’s game "loses money" so that they could continue with the vicious cycle of not promoting or funding them. but thats a joke because it criminally undervalues it. in no way is womens basketball the same value as field hockey or squash. in fact, most independent experts estimate that the women’s tournament could have a market value of over $100 million per year if it was sold as a separate package. why dont they bundle fencing and diving and, oh, TRACK AND FIELD with the football contract? not to mention that the women get NO revenue sharing for making it to the NCAA Tournament like the men do to the tune of like $350,000 just for losing your first game. the women get nothing at all even if they win the Championship. that money could be used on better facilities and development opportunities which would lead to an even better game which is what the misogynists like to complain about to begin with. so you figure, based on that logic, they would be fully on board with more revenue sharing but my guess is they are happy to own the double standard on that point as well. anything that will allow them to continue to btch about the women’s game and the fact its on tv. and make pathetic threads like this endlessly...
This independent report estimates women's tournament is worth $81-112 million a year.
Now read the rest of it.
"Worth $81-112 million beginning in 2025"
Meaning that's an estimate and not what it's worth now.
The men's tournament made almost $900 million just in profit in 2019.
03 -
I. Rex wrote:
4587 wrote:
Women's basketball is almost like cross country. Mostly other women basketball players watching along with family and friends.
wow so the South Carolina and Connecticut team members last year had 4.85 million combined "family and friends"? are they all Catholic?
The men's title game had 10.7 million viewers. Were the extra 7 million all just misogynists?
23 -
It's a massive stretch to call this an "independent" report. The law firm is a left wing law firm that was going to conclude that WBB is valuable regardless of the actual facts. The report comically concludes:
The NCAA Women’s Basketball Championship (“WBBC”) is also one of the most
valuable U.S. sports media properties, and has grown to merit a place on this list.
Unlike most sports TV properties today, the WBBC viewing audience and prestige
continues to grow; its Championship Game viewership is up 32% since 2015, total
impressions for the entire event are up 48% over the same period. Therefore, its media
rights value continues to grow substantially.You cannot conclude that something is valuable and then not cite how valuable it is and then rely on some growth numbers. Viewers at my local county high school tournament could have similar growth numbers but that doesn't make it valuable.
As opposed to a lot of people on here, I actually have watched some of the WBBT games on television and they have been entertaining. The Miami/Indiana game probably was the most entertaining one (it didn't hurt that the Cavinder twins play for Miami). However, as has been noted above, entertaining does not necessarily mean valuable as 8th grade basketball games are entertaining but not worth anything. My issue is that the women demand the same VIP treatment (staying at the Four Seasons and paying coaches 7 figures) as the men but MBB actually is valuable and the WBB is not. There is no way that a WBB coach should be making 7 figures to basically be the CEO of an entity that is guaranteed to lose money.
21
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.