Do you watch women's track and field or do you go to the bathroom when the women's Olympic 100 meter final starts?
-
11
-
Sally Vix wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
That's an absurd comparison. Even if we pretend it isn't the difference you're trying to spike the football over could be completely accounted for by the growth in the population as a whole.
Men are better at sports than women. The women's national soccer team loses to middle school boys.
Women's sports are not popular. This is why their average attendance is low. You can't use the cream of the crop to represent attendance for the whole sport. No honest person would try to represent baseball attendance by citing only the Yankees numbers. The USWNT are the Yankees of the female sports world.
The NBA average regular season attendance is 17,000. That includes the worst teams.
The WNBA playoffs averages 9,800 a game.
You've started with a belief and you will ignore anything and everything that doesn't fit the conclusion you made before you knew anything.
I highly doubt the WNBA averages 9,800 a game. I would put that figure around 3,000. Have you ever seen the seats at an WNBA game - they are empty. That figure probably includes all the free seats they gave out. No way 9,800.
He said playoff games, not regular season. The regular season attendence average was about 5700 last year. Seattle averaged over 10,000, but there are a few teams that draw very poorly. Seattle will probably lose some fans because they lost both Bird and Stewie. But NY and Vegas will have more fans. I cannot think of any NBA matchup more interesting than NY Liberty vs. Las Vegas Aces.
10 -
BTW, FIFA President just complained some TV stations offered as little as 1% of money for rights to the women's World Cup, although the viewership is between 50-80% of men's World Cup in various markets.
10 -
coach wrote:
Do you watch women's track and field or do you go to the bathroom when the women's Olympic 100 meter final starts?
I enjoy watching any sport where I know I couldn't walk on the field or court and compete with the people I'm watching.
This is generally not the case with women's team sports.
24 -
MartinaN wrote:
This post is full of more false information. According to you, you can market anything and, presto, it's popular. That's not how the real world works. Look at all of the massively marketed sports that have failed or faced massive interest decline (like the USFL, track (which gets massively marketing every 4 years only to have the public quickly forget about it), MLB, boxing, etc).
What rock have you been under if you think this is the very first year WBB has been pushed? For years, ESPN has shown games and next to nobody watches them. Not only do people not watch the games on TV, nobody goes to most games in person as well. This is why WBB stopped reporting attendance figures. It's beyond embarrassing to disclose that only 800 people attended a game between BCS schools (and most of them were friends and family). It's also why for years, WBB has had the first two rounds played on the home courts of the higher seed (and still many of these games are played in empty stadiums, like the UCLA game I posted a picture of earlier in this thread). You are delusional if you think that games that people don't attend in person will draw interest on television.
I'm also not the person you should be complaining to as I have already said that I have watched WBBT games this year and I do find watching Clark enjoyable. I just don't think WBB coaches should be getting paid 7 figures and the women should be traveling first class like the men simply because they don't generate the revenue to justify it.
Im not complaining to you nor do I care that you are fixated with how much Geno Auriemma makes. my point was NOT marketing something pretty much guarantees it wont ever reach its potential. do you really disagree with that? and your argument against not trying to market the womens game AS ITS SHOWING BUSINESSES ARE ACTIVELY INTERESTED IN IT AS A PRODUCT is because it might fail in the long run? remind me to never hire you as a marketing manager.
The NCAA has gone out of its way NOT to invest in womens basketball including spending like 95% of its marketing budget on the mens game. despite that the ratings for the womens Tournament have only increased in recent years. this year, when they finally include them in their March Madness promotion and when ESPN is broadcasting every game, the first and second round numbers have been through the roof. and thats what advertisers are focused on: PEOPLE WATCHING THE BROADCASTS. I dont think its such a reach to speculate that that trend might continue if they really focus on the womens game in a way they did with the men. why are you incapable of accepting that perfectly reasonable assumption based on the numbers?
21 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
coach wrote:
Do you watch women's track and field or do you go to the bathroom when the women's Olympic 100 meter final starts?
I enjoy watching any sport where I know I couldn't walk on the field or court and compete with the people I'm watching.
This is generally not the case with women's team sports.
So do you not watch the 100 because you're a sub 11, or do you nor watch the 5k because youre sub 15? Kobe Bryant was the biggest supporter of women's sports. Male professional athletes are supporting women's sports. But the adult on the message board is an all around stud athlete who can dunk, shoot a ball from 35 feet, bend a direct kick around a wall, save a slap shot, hit a curve ball. I get it.
10 -
coach wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
I enjoy watching any sport where I know I couldn't walk on the field or court and compete with the people I'm watching.
This is generally not the case with women's team sports.
So do you not watch the 100 because you're a sub 11, or do you nor watch the 5k because youre sub 15? Kobe Bryant was the biggest supporter of women's sports. Male professional athletes are supporting women's sports. But the adult on the message board is an all around stud athlete who can dunk, shoot a ball from 35 feet, bend a direct kick around a wall, save a slap shot, hit a curve ball. I get it.
I enjoy all of track and field.
01 -
I. Rex wrote:
MartinaN wrote:
This post is full of more false information. According to you, you can market anything and, presto, it's popular. That's not how the real world works. Look at all of the massively marketed sports that have failed or faced massive interest decline (like the USFL, track (which gets massively marketing every 4 years only to have the public quickly forget about it), MLB, boxing, etc).
What rock have you been under if you think this is the very first year WBB has been pushed? For years, ESPN has shown games and next to nobody watches them. Not only do people not watch the games on TV, nobody goes to most games in person as well. This is why WBB stopped reporting attendance figures. It's beyond embarrassing to disclose that only 800 people attended a game between BCS schools (and most of them were friends and family). It's also why for years, WBB has had the first two rounds played on the home courts of the higher seed (and still many of these games are played in empty stadiums, like the UCLA game I posted a picture of earlier in this thread). You are delusional if you think that games that people don't attend in person will draw interest on television.
I'm also not the person you should be complaining to as I have already said that I have watched WBBT games this year and I do find watching Clark enjoyable. I just don't think WBB coaches should be getting paid 7 figures and the women should be traveling first class like the men simply because they don't generate the revenue to justify it.
Im not complaining to you nor do I care that you are fixated with how much Geno Auriemma makes. my point was NOT marketing something pretty much guarantees it wont ever reach its potential. do you really disagree with that? and your argument against not trying to market the womens game AS ITS SHOWING BUSINESSES ARE ACTIVELY INTERESTED IN IT AS A PRODUCT is because it might fail in the long run? remind me to never hire you as a marketing manager.
The NCAA has gone out of its way NOT to invest in womens basketball including spending like 95% of its marketing budget on the mens game. despite that the ratings for the womens Tournament have only increased in recent years. this year, when they finally include them in their March Madness promotion and when ESPN is broadcasting every game, the first and second round numbers have been through the roof. and thats what advertisers are focused on: PEOPLE WATCHING THE BROADCASTS. I dont think its such a reach to speculate that that trend might continue if they really focus on the womens game in a way they did with the men. why are you incapable of accepting that perfectly reasonable assumption based on the numbers?
If you televise men's tournament games vs women's tournament games the men's games will win.
So long as the games are played at the same time it makes no sense to market the women at the same level as there's only so many channels to show the games.
02 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Men are better at sports than women. The women's national soccer team loses to middle school boys.
Women's sports are not popular. This is why their average attendance is low. You can't use the cream of the crop to represent attendance for the whole sport. No honest person would try to represent baseball attendance by citing only the Yankees numbers. The USWNT are the Yankees of the female sports world.
The NBA average regular season attendance is 17,000. That includes the worst teams.
The WNBA playoffs averages 9,800 a game.
You've started with a belief and you will ignore anything and everything that doesn't fit the conclusion you made before you knew anything.
LOL! I love when peoples arguments breakdown to "yeah well none of that matters because men are better! so shut up!" LOL! And you know youve won when they break out the tired old "lost in a scrimmage to a boys team", the number one misogynist internet talking point used when they have nothing else they can say. what happened in a kick-about scrimmage in 2017 has absolutely zero to do with the fact that the 2022 womens team sold out Wembley in 24 hours. Or that a wide variety of womens sports is viable, entertaining and well worth watching. I know it kills you that thats true but your scrimmage reference doesnt make that not true.
Oh, and also the Barca men's team lost to a 4th tier US semipro team in a practice friendly too. why dont you misogynists ever mention that fact...
21 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
If you televise men's tournament games vs women's tournament games the men's games will win.
So long as the games are played at the same time it makes no sense to market the women at the same level as there's only so many channels to show the games.
LOL!! More "men bigger! men number higher!" arguments. ESPN/ABC is an entirely different network than CBS/TNT/TBS/truTV. Theres plenty of room for both. And as Ive already noted earlier, theres a very significant segment of the audience that watches the womens game that does NOT watch the mens game. So why wouldnt you want to tap into that marketing segment you just havent been reaching up to now? Thats marketing 101! You make no sense.
01 -
I. Rex wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Men are better at sports than women. The women's national soccer team loses to middle school boys.
Women's sports are not popular. This is why their average attendance is low. You can't use the cream of the crop to represent attendance for the whole sport. No honest person would try to represent baseball attendance by citing only the Yankees numbers. The USWNT are the Yankees of the female sports world.
The NBA average regular season attendance is 17,000. That includes the worst teams.
The WNBA playoffs averages 9,800 a game.
You've started with a belief and you will ignore anything and everything that doesn't fit the conclusion you made before you knew anything.
LOL! I love when peoples arguments breakdown to "yeah well none of that matters because men are better! so shut up!" LOL! And you know youve won when they break out the tired old "lost in a scrimmage to a boys team", the number one misogynist internet talking point used when they have nothing else they can say. what happened in a kick-about scrimmage in 2017 has absolutely zero to do with the fact that the 2022 womens team sold out Wembley in 24 hours. Or that a wide variety of womens sports is viable, entertaining and well worth watching. I know it kills you that thats true but your scrimmage reference doesnt make that not true.
Oh, and also the Barca men's team lost to a 4th tier US semipro team in a practice friendly too. why dont you misogynists ever mention that fact...
Why does a Mercedes cost more than a KIA?
Is it because Mercedes puts out a higher quality product or because KIA doesn't market enough?
Admitting that Mercedes puts out a superior product than KIA does doesn't mean I hate KIA.
It is idiotic to call someone a misogynist for thinking men are better at sports.
The USMNT is terrible. The USWNT is the cream of the crop. If they played head to head the USMNT would win 50-0.
I've never said women's sports aren't viable. I simply said, in general, they aren't as entertaining.
There's a reason you're obsessed with 1 game. It's very rare that a woman's game outdraws a men's game. But if the USMNT was any good they wouldn't have gotten outdrawn by that massive 7,000 you're hinging your entire argument on.
12 -
I. Rex wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
If you televise men's tournament games vs women's tournament games the men's games will win.
So long as the games are played at the same time it makes no sense to market the women at the same level as there's only so many channels to show the games.
LOL!! More "men bigger! men number higher!" arguments. ESPN/ABC is an entirely different network than CBS/TNT/TBS/truTV. Theres plenty of room for both. And as Ive already noted earlier, theres a very significant segment of the audience that watches the womens game that does NOT watch the mens game. So why wouldnt you want to tap into that marketing segment you just havent been reaching up to now? Thats marketing 101! You make no sense.
Last weekend I watched men's wrestling, men's and women's basketball, women's hockey, men's and women's gymnastics. Yes, plenty of room for both.
20 -
I. Rex wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
If you televise men's tournament games vs women's tournament games the men's games will win.
So long as the games are played at the same time it makes no sense to market the women at the same level as there's only so many channels to show the games.
LOL!! More "men bigger! men number higher!" arguments. ESPN/ABC is an entirely different network than CBS/TNT/TBS/truTV. Theres plenty of room for both. And as Ive already noted earlier, theres a very significant segment of the audience that watches the womens game that does NOT watch the mens game. So why wouldnt you want to tap into that marketing segment you just havent been reaching up to now? Thats marketing 101! You make no sense.
Except there's more than 2 shows in town. It isn't a choice between 2 sports it's a choice between women's basketball and all other sports and shows available in that time slot..
Talk shows on ESPN get better ratings than women's basketball.
13 -
coach wrote:
I. Rex wrote:
LOL!! More "men bigger! men number higher!" arguments. ESPN/ABC is an entirely different network than CBS/TNT/TBS/truTV. Theres plenty of room for both. And as Ive already noted earlier, theres a very significant segment of the audience that watches the womens game that does NOT watch the mens game. So why wouldnt you want to tap into that marketing segment you just havent been reaching up to now? Thats marketing 101! You make no sense.
Last weekend I watched men's wrestling, men's and women's basketball, women's hockey, men's and women's gymnastics. Yes, plenty of room for both.
I've never said there wasn't room for both.
I simply say the data shows that the idea that there's some misogynist conspiracy to keep women earning less in sport is nonsense.
12 -
I. Rex wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
"could"
They promote the WNBA. No one watches. They promote the women's world cup. No one watches.
The problem is that the market for women's sports is smaller than men's sports.
Pretending this is a marketing problem is ignorant and dishonest.
People like to see greatness. If the best middle school boy in the world can dominate you. You're not great.
Its really sad how you will just blatantly lie to try to cling to your "women suck" agenda no matter the actual facts. First, I would note that the bait and switch about the WNBA and the Womens World Cup shows your inability to speak facts about the womens NCAA Tournament which is what that entire post was about. But even on these things you are wrong. Especially about womens soccer which is seeing viewership growth that is absolutely undeniable to anyone that takes 2 minutes to look at it. "No one" watches the womens world cup?
FromWhen the US went to England last October, they sold out Wembley in less than a day. Thats 80,000 tickets gone like that. Pretty shocking for a sport that "nobody" watches. Did all these people think that the US men were playing there? Probably not since the US mens match against England at Wembley in 2018 sold only 68,000 tickets.
The NWSL's 10th season outperformed MLS’ 10th season by 43% in playoff attendance. Isnt it interesting what you see when you look at an apples to apples comparison...
I could go on and on about womens soccer numbers and I could also note that the WNBA is also seeing double digit growth in viewership which is a lot more than "no one" but youll probably then change the subject to focus on another sport to try to cling to your absurd agenda. Well you are running out of sports...
US numbers are irrelevant. What are the world wide numbers? No way that final even compares world wide with some of the group stage games in the men's world cup.
20 -
9 pages of answering when the answer is obviously “yes”.
Letsrun sometimes…
50 -
Kia doesnt market at all? Also, how does this analogy work when you yourself admit that the USWNT is the "cream of the crop". Sounds like a Mercedes to me. Or something better than a Mercedes. You really need to break from this concept that just because men on average are stronger than women that that means the game they play has to be more entertaining. muscle does not necessarily = higher ratings. thats a kindergartners logic. there are some girls high school games Ive seen that were FAR more entertaining than an NBA game where the guys are going through the motions and someone loses by 35. Doesnt mean there arent some really entertaining NBA games but thats not true simply because of the physiological status of the players.
And its not just about "one game". I could give you a long list of games where women have shown an ability to pull in huge numbers of fans. I mean just this past summer, Barcelona and Wolfsburg women played to a crowd of 92,000 fans. Same with Barcelona and Real Madrid. And these are club teams! 23 million people, a third of the ENTIRE UK population, watched Englands UEFA game against Germany. People watch womens sports and they perform quite well. And thats true no matter how much stronger men are because that fact is entirely irrelevant.
10 -
CBB is apparently doing well but the WNBA is losing money and subsidized by the NBA for 25 years because the league has empty seats. Women are staying home watching Real Housewives and the Kardashians. Bill Burr broke this down recently and he has not yet had an intelligent answer for this statement.
23 -
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
Absolutely not…are you crazy?
12
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.