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..
I dont even understand this argument. This doesnt even make any sense at all. "Because there are other shows, they shouldnt market the womens Tournament". What? Sure seems to be working out pretty well for ESPN so far.
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.
Kia can market to wealthy people all it wants. Virtually none of them will buy a KIA.
The USWNT is the cream of the female sports world crop. They are the KIA of sports. They will never be a Mercedes.
Would you rather watch middle school basketball or Michael Jordan? The best women in the world perform at a middle school boy level and the best men... are guys like Michael Jordan. The higher skilled athletes will make more money.
Again, I've never said women's sports are irrelevant or unentertaining. I say men's sports are more relevant and more entertaining because the athletes are more skilled.
People also like winners. If the women's national team is great and the men's team stinks they will get a bump. If both teams are equally competitive the men blow the women away in every single sport.
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..
I dont even understand this argument. This doesnt even make any sense at all. "Because there are other shows, they shouldnt market the womens Tournament". What? Sure seems to be working out pretty well for ESPN so far.
There are limited funds to allocate to marketing.
There are limited channels available to carry the games.
If there is a better option in a time slot the women's game will get bumped.
It is far more likely that a better option is available to bump a woman's game than a men's game.
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
It actually gets worse in the WNBA. the NBA actually has to supplement the WNBA with tons of $$. Otherwise, there would only be about three teams.
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?
That is simply false. Are you not aware that most BCS schools have more WBB scholarships than MBB scholarships in order to comply with Title IX? Forcing schools to offer more scholarships to the women than the men in the same sport hardly is going out of its way to not invest in a sport.
Through the roof? Give me a break. The average men's game averaged 9 million viewers. The average women's first round game averaged 257,000 viewers. That is NOT "through the roof." The BEST WBB game had less than 1.5 million viewers. That was the BEST game. That is not "through the roof." It's good but it is by no means some massive breakthrough in viewership. What do you think curling or archery or any other niche sport would have done if played on ESPN in prime time slots? Not anywhere near zero viewers so 257,000 viewers is anemic.
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?
That is simply false. Are you not aware that most BCS schools have more WBB scholarships than MBB scholarships in order to comply with Title IX? Forcing schools to offer more scholarships to the women than the men in the same sport hardly is going out of its way to not invest in a sport.
Through the roof? Give me a break. The average men's game averaged 9 million viewers. The average women's first round game averaged 257,000 viewers. That is NOT "through the roof." The BEST WBB game had less than 1.5 million viewers. That was the BEST game. That is not "through the roof." It's good but it is by no means some massive breakthrough in viewership. What do you think curling or archery or any other niche sport would have done if played on ESPN in prime time slots? Not anywhere near zero viewers so 257,000 viewers is anemic.
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?
That is simply false. Are you not aware that most BCS schools have more WBB scholarships than MBB scholarships in order to comply with Title IX? Forcing schools to offer more scholarships to the women than the men in the same sport hardly is going out of its way to not invest in a sport.
Through the roof? Give me a break. The average men's game averaged 9 million viewers. The average women's first round game averaged 257,000 viewers. That is NOT "through the roof." The BEST WBB game had less than 1.5 million viewers. That was the BEST game. That is not "through the roof." It's good but it is by no means some massive breakthrough in viewership. What do you think curling or archery or any other niche sport would have done if played on ESPN in prime time slots? Not anywhere near zero viewers so 257,000 viewers is anemic.
9 million figure is not PER GAME. It is the total of all games shown simultaneously on different channels. 257,000 for women's tournament is per game, as is the 1.5 million for the Iowa-Georgia game. Apples to Oranges comparison.
That is simply false. Are you not aware that most BCS schools have more WBB scholarships than MBB scholarships in order to comply with Title IX? Forcing schools to offer more scholarships to the women than the men in the same sport hardly is going out of its way to not invest in a sport.
Through the roof? Give me a break. The average men's game averaged 9 million viewers. The average women's first round game averaged 257,000 viewers. That is NOT "through the roof." The BEST WBB game had less than 1.5 million viewers. That was the BEST game. That is not "through the roof." It's good but it is by no means some massive breakthrough in viewership. What do you think curling or archery or any other niche sport would have done if played on ESPN in prime time slots? Not anywhere near zero viewers so 257,000 viewers is anemic.
9 million figure is not PER GAME. It is the total of all games shown simultaneously on different channels. 257,000 for women's tournament is per game, as is the 1.5 million for the Iowa-Georgia game. Apples to Oranges comparison.
Someone complained about the salary of women's coaches. Here is why they need to be paid the money they get. If Temple offered significantlly more money, Staley could be leaving USC.
Someone complained about the salary of women's coaches. Here is why they need to be paid the money they get. If Temple offered significantlly more money, Staley could be leaving USC.
"In 2018, LSU’s athletic department reported $145 million in revenue to the NCAA. Of that, LSU reported $87 million came from football. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. LSU also reported $39 million from media rights, the result of the SEC’s negotiations with ESPN and CBS. The athletic department only credited $12 million of that to football, even though anyone in college sports would tell you the vast majority of CBS’ interest in the SEC was football-based. Football’s real contribution was well over $100 million of LSU’s $145 million in total athletic money. But even going by LSU’s accounting, football made $55 million in profit. Men’s basketball and baseball, together, added a little less than $1 million. Everything else lost money, but thanks to football, the department still made about $8 million."
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
It actually gets worse in the WNBA. the NBA actually has to supplement the WNBA with tons of $. Otherwise, there would only be about three teams.
WNBA is its own beast, personally I prefer the college game. The reason the NBA is involved here is not about investing in women, or making a profit, it's actually so they have control of a potential competitor, and so they can own and manage it, if it takes off. As long as it is break even/modest loss, NBA is happy to slowly keep driving this forward with continued slow growth.
so now we are just going to make up numbers? are you too sloppy to get true numbers or are you actually trying to trick people? the highest rated mens game in the first two rounds was like 3.4 million. which is certainly more than 1.4 million but does not diminish the 1.4 million as insignificant in any way. the link you yourself provided notes the numbers are up 28% for the women not for the men. Do you know how significant a 28% jump is in marketing? In one year? When the "roof" is 300,000 and you exceed it by 90,000, thats through the roof. when the roof is 860,000 and you exceed it by 600,000 into the millions thats through the roof! and thats only the first two rounds. as you yourself have already admitted, as long as Clark and Fudd are still playing those numbers should continue to be sky high. But even without them the increase would be measurable. stop trying to spin the numbers to downplay that.
It actually gets worse in the WNBA. the NBA actually has to supplement the WNBA with tons of $. Otherwise, there would only be about three teams.
WNBA is its own beast, personally I prefer the college game. The reason the NBA is involved here is not about investing in women, or making a profit, it's actually so they have control of a potential competitor, and so they can own and manage it, if it takes off. As long as it is break even/modest loss, NBA is happy to slowly keep driving this forward with continued slow growth.
LOL!!!
So your argument is the WNBA averages 1500 fans a night because the NBA is holding them down to keep the WNBA from stealing it's market.
Apples to apples the men's final averaged 16.9 million viewers and the women's final averaged 4 million viewers.
It is bananas that you people can't see the obvious truth.
Celebrity Wheel of Fortune got over 4 million viewers and it was on once a week not once a year.
weve already presented these numbers you twit. I corrected you when you had them wrong before remember? and my response was that it doesnt matter that *18.1 million is a big number, *4.85 million is a big number too and is certainly enough to get the attention of advertisers. And Wheel of Fortune has serious advertisers. thanks for making my point again.
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?
That is simply false. Are you not aware that most BCS schools have more WBB scholarships than MBB scholarships in order to comply with Title IX? Forcing schools to offer more scholarships to the women than the men in the same sport hardly is going out of its way to not invest in a sport.
Through the roof? Give me a break. The average men's game averaged 9 million viewers. The average women's first round game averaged 257,000 viewers. That is NOT "through the roof." The BEST WBB game had less than 1.5 million viewers. That was the BEST game. That is not "through the roof." It's good but it is by no means some massive breakthrough in viewership. What do you think curling or archery or any other niche sport would have done if played on ESPN in prime time slots? Not anywhere near zero viewers so 257,000 viewers is anemic.
Title IX has little to do w/ basketball, it's driven by federal government supporting all women's sports. The extra hoops scholarships are not to invest there, but combined with extra scholarships in every woman's sport to balance football. Tv is not investing, the NCAA is not investing, the school is not investing, it's merely the school meeting the minimum standard to run an athletic department.
Apples to apples the men's final averaged 16.9 million viewers and the women's final averaged 4 million viewers.
It is bananas that you people can't see the obvious truth.
Celebrity Wheel of Fortune got over 4 million viewers and it was on once a week not once a year.
weve already presented these numbers you twit. I corrected you when you had them wrong before remember? and my response was that it doesnt matter that *18.1 million is a big number, *4.85 million is a big number too and is certainly enough to get the attention of advertisers. And Wheel of Fortune has serious advertisers. thanks for making my point again.
And there's our first insult. Well done.
I understand your argument now.
Pizza and tuna salad are both foods. While most people prefer pizza some people like tuna salad. Therefore, tuna salad and pizza are equal and should be treated the same. In addition, the only reason people like pizza more than tuna salad is because pizza gets more marketing dollars.
Its all pizza. its just some is well marketed as "gourmet" and some is bundled with tuna salad and egg salad and vegemite by the NCAA as a throw in to the gourmet pizza. but its all pizza to me and millions of other people and we will keep eating both.
Its all pizza. its just some is well marketed as "gourmet" and some is bundled with tuna salad and egg salad and vegemite by the NCAA as a throw in to the gourmet pizza. but its all pizza to me and millions of other people and we will keep eating both.
I will meet you half way and upgrade women's sports to microwave pizza.
Good enough in a pinch but nobody's first choice.
This post was edited 11 seconds after it was posted.
According to a financial report authored by the NCAA Membership Financial Reporting System — data requested in a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by The Michigan Daily and also in the Equity in Athletics Data Anal...
