Does anyone actually watch womens basketball?

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?

From

Link:www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/us-viewership-...

When 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...

I. Rex wrote:

MartinaN wrote:

This is a false statement. Some people think that may be right but it by no means is "widely believed."

I also don't want to hear how WBB isn't marketed as well as MBB. Of course it isn't because it isn't as popular. The NCAA has been pushing WBB for years and other than a few programs like UConn it is widely unpopular and is played in empty arenas (and UConn blows most of its extra revenue on wildly overpaying Geno and his staff for the UConn program usually barely breaks even).

Some people? The NCAA itself hired that firm that came to that conclusion and most in the industry (especially those happily buying up cheap ad space) agree that the NCAA's numbers are at best conservative or more likely a case of cooking the books to justify their treatment of womens basketball. If the womens game really is only worth $5.7 million why doesnt the NCAA open its books to prove that?

As to marketing the womens game, do you not understand how marketing works? You market to increase viewership. The logic that you shouldnt market something because its not "widely" popular makes zero sense. If you dont spend some cash to promote something you shouldnt be surprised that that thing doesnt sell as well as the thing you pump all your money into. Do you think the mens game just magically got popular overnight without any marketing? According to your logic no one should ever have invested in the sport because it was not popular enough.

And "pushing womens basketball for years"? Get serious. The NCAA has engaged in a willful lack of promotion of the womens Tournament up until this very year. Thats not some secret. They wouldnt even allow the women to use the term "March Madness" in their marketing until this year! They didnt even televise all the games until 2021! But despite the neglect from the NCAA, the women's game has been growing and numbers have been rising across the board.

Women have been saying for years that there’s a market for women’s sports. They just need the right platform and more exposure. And now that the womens game is available on ESPN and ABC you are seeing numbers sore. So they were right. New records have been set this year for 1st and 2nd round viewership. One 2nd round game drew 1.5 million viewers alone! A 2nd round womens basketball game! And thats why businesses see womens sports today as THE BEST investment out there and are flocking to buy up ad space. For a fraction of the cost of a mens Tournament ad, they can get a foothold into a market that includes a significant segment who they arent accessing in the mens game. They see this as an absolute no brainer. And the NCAA would be foolish not to market and further promote the games growth instead of maintaining it in a below-market deal that treats womens basketball as a sponsorship throw in for mens basketball. In doing this, the NCAA has deprived the sport of millions in additional revenue while creating an inferior on-air product.

Casual dad fan wrote:

I have watched a few of the women’s games this year and have enjoyed them. my daughter is 8 and said the other day as we were watching a men’s ncaa game, “this is boring how come we can’t watch the women play?” part of the reason I haven’t watched more is access - if they showed wnba and womens ncaa on cbs and nbc more I’d probably watch them more. Now I have to go find a stream somewhere and I’ve bummed my parents Hulu live so that has made it easier to watch ncaa women’s games.

I played basketball growing up and for a while thought that I just couldn’t watch girls/women’s bball. Yes the game is different than the men’s game but when two women’s teams are playing it’s still great to watch. We’ve even gone to a few high school girls games this year and I really enjoyed them and was impressed by the play of the teams. If you’re a real basketball fan and just enjoy the game there is a lot to love about women’s game, you just have to give it a chance. Watch a few women’s games without watching any men’s games in between. If you only watch women’s ball expecting it to be the same as men’s, you’ll be disappointed. But if you watch it expecting some great players and teams, you’ll be rewarded and probably enjoy it. it also helps to have a daughter to realize it’s dumb to disparage a sport that you want her to enjoy and succeed at. We can’t only watch mens bball - what does that say to her if I’m trying to get her to go out and practice her shot in the driveway? I think she can’t be any good or that she’d be boring to watch play?

I caught the Louisville-drake 5-12 seeded game the other night and it was awesome. scrappy underdog team and Louisville’s star player with a great 2nd half. it had a terrible ending that I blame on a bad rule (drake down 3 with 3 seconds left was fouled before ball could be inbounded and forced to shoot 2 free throws which basically made it unwinnable - that rule should be changed and that foul called a T like I think how NbA does it now), but I’d write it was just as good as any of the early round mens ncaa games.

I. Rex wrote:

You are the one operating under the flawed logic that because the women dont have the EXACT same numbers as the men, therefore "nobody" watches. And you accuse ME of being dishonest? The point of that article about the women having millions of people watching them is that it refutes your implication that womens soccer is not viable because the numbers are so low. this is just patently incorrect and can be shown to be so over and over and over including most deliciously in that they had more american eye balls watching them in their world cup than the men did in theirs. I then purposefully gave you two VERY apples to apples examples of womens soccer not only having viable viewership numbers and ticket sales but actually doing better than the mens. How come you had zero to say about the fact that the women sold much better in their Wembley match then the men did in their friendly at Wembley? Its the exact same situation. the EXACT same. but the women outsold the men. and outsold them overnight. If the womens product is so uninteresting as you insist, how could that happen?

I have never once said womens soccer on the whole outsells mens soccer. Nor that the womens NCAA Tournament is more lucrative than the mens Tournament. So stop acting like thats what Im saying. My point is that womens sports in those areas ARE viable. and that they achieve numbers that mean something and are growing by leaps and bounds. this is undeniable. Your argument changes from "nobody watches" to "less people watch than the men therefore nobody watches". Your argument is fully disingenuous. Why cant you admit the womens game has real and obvious potential in the market place and thats already shown to be true in a number of sports in spite of the underinvesting in womens sports overall, the limited ability to watch it and the misogynist crew like yourself online trying to spread lies about it and discourage people from watching and knowing the facts.

I. Rex wrote:

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

Now that your argument has been completely destroyed you're retreating to "more than zero people watch".

LOL!

I never said any woman's sport wasn't "viable".

You cherry picked data from 1 season of professional soccer. I don't know if your numbers are even correct. I do know the average attendance of US professional soccer skews heavily in favor of the men.

The 10th season of the the NWSL was 2022. The average attendance in 2022 was 7,917.

In 2022 the MLS average attendance was 21,006.

Are you lying or just wrong about your "apples to apples"?

my point has always been plenty of people are watching and plenty more could watch if its done right. Im not the one changing arguments with every post. also, what part of "playoff attendance" do you not understand? and "10th season" which was 2006 for MLS. stop trying to sneak an orange in there. I love when people accuse me of the very tactics they are using. and again crickets on the Wembley matches. not surprised.

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

Former Never Trumper wrote:

“Seeing as the Men’s Tournament accounts for nearly 90% of revenue for the NCAA, it makes sense that the conference of a team, as it progresses through the tournament, is paid a portion that accumulates as they succeed. In 2017, that amount was $266, 183, resulting in a near $1.6 million pay-out for the team that makes the Finals.”

This is what the $266,183 represents. Because you are too dumb to actually read and oblivious to reality, someone putting it in the wrong place on a chart actually duped you into believing the total revenues across all NCAA women’s bball programs and media rights is only $266k.

Link:www.yahoo.com/video/ncaa-revenue-budge...

"The 2019 men’s tournament, the NCAA said, generated $917.8 million in revenue, and $864.6 million in net income. The 2019 women’s tournament, it said, generated $15.1 million in revenue, and that $2.8 million in net losses."

The 917 million tracked with the 933 million on the other sites chart so I brazenly assumed the women's number was correct as well. Sue me.

You're still wrong.

I. Rex wrote:

MartinaN wrote:

This is a false statement. Some people think that may be right but it by no means is "widely believed."

I also don't want to hear how WBB isn't marketed as well as MBB. Of course it isn't because it isn't as popular. The NCAA has been pushing WBB for years and other than a few programs like UConn it is widely unpopular and is played in empty arenas (and UConn blows most of its extra revenue on wildly overpaying Geno and his staff for the UConn program usually barely breaks even).

Some people? The NCAA itself hired that firm that came to that conclusion and most in the industry (especially those happily buying up cheap ad space) agree that the NCAA's numbers are at best conservative or more likely a case of cooking the books to justify their treatment of womens basketball. If the womens game really is only worth $5.7 million why doesnt the NCAA open its books to prove that?

As to marketing the womens game, do you not understand how marketing works? You market to increase viewership. The logic that you shouldnt market something because its not "widely" popular makes zero sense. If you dont spend some cash to promote something you shouldnt be surprised that that thing doesnt sell as well as the thing you pump all your money into. Do you think the mens game just magically got popular overnight without any marketing? According to your logic no one should ever have invested in the sport because it was not popular enough.

And "pushing womens basketball for years"? Get serious. The NCAA has engaged in a willful lack of promotion of the womens Tournament up until this very year. Thats not some secret. They wouldnt even allow the women to use the term "March Madness" in their marketing until this year! They didnt even televise all the games until 2021! But despite the neglect from the NCAA, the women's game has been growing and numbers have been rising across the board.

Women have been saying for years that there’s a market for women’s sports. They just need the right platform and more exposure. And now that the womens game is available on ESPN and ABC you are seeing numbers sore. So they were right. New records have been set this year for 1st and 2nd round viewership. One 2nd round game drew 1.5 million viewers alone! A 2nd round womens basketball game! And thats why businesses see womens sports today as THE BEST investment out there and are flocking to buy up ad space. For a fraction of the cost of a mens Tournament ad, they can get a foothold into a market that includes a significant segment who they arent accessing in the mens game. They see this as an absolute no brainer. And the NCAA would be foolish not to market and further promote the games growth instead of maintaining it in a below-market deal that treats womens basketball as a sponsorship throw in for mens basketball. In doing this, the NCAA has deprived the sport of millions in additional revenue while creating an inferior on-air product.

I. Rex wrote:

A ten year old league is a ten year old league! The comparison is absolutely correct. If this was the womens first year would you really say it was ok to compare it to the numbers in a league that has been operating for almost 30 years?

You slam womens basketball for not having the numbers of mens basketball when mens basketball has been around essentially 70 years longer than the womens game and have had the vast preponderance of media attention and marketing during that time. so you are fine comparing unequal things as long as it supports your incorrect point. thats the problem with all the misogynist arguments on this subject, they are based on purposeful inconsistencies that favor the mens metrics. I think in many cases in a truly apples to apples comparison the mens sports would likely still have higher numbers on average than the womens sports but the womens sports would be a LOT closer than the comparisons that are generally used today. the NWSL/MLS stat and the Wembley mens and womens stat are great examples of this because they actually show the women with higher numbers. would that be true in all cases? probably not. but it very much proves the point that many womens sports are popular and that their growth potential is enormous.

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

I. Rex wrote:

A ten year old league is a ten year old league! The comparison is absolutely correct. If this was the womens first year would you really say it was ok to compare it to the numbers in a league that has been operating for almost 30 years?

You slam womens basketball for not having the numbers of mens basketball when mens basketball has been around essentially 70 years longer than the womens game and have had the vast preponderance of media attention and marketing during that time. so you are fine comparing unequal things as long as it supports your incorrect point. thats the problem with all the misogynist arguments on this subject, they are based on purposeful inconsistencies that favor the mens metrics. I think in many cases in a truly apples to apples comparison the mens sports would likely still have higher numbers on average than the womens sports but the womens sports would be a LOT closer than the comparisons that are generally used today. the NWSL/MLS stat and the Wembley mens and womens stat are great examples of this because they actually show the women with higher numbers. would that be true in all cases? probably not. but it very much proves the point that many womens sports are popular and that their growth potential is enormous.

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.

Link:www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas...

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.