| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thesixthwoman
Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 6296
Location: NYC
Back to top |
 Posted: 01/24/08 1:09 am ::: SI.com: Rutgers Women are a Story in Perseverance |
Reply  |
|
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/dave_zirin/01/23/womens.hoops/
...Despite the exponential rise in players and participants, the sports media is still stubbornly male. While Imus at least took time to denigrate the Rutgers women, most sports radio folks barely mentioned their Cinderella ascent to the Final Four. In other words, silence, not derision, is the number one obstacle women's sports face. The maddening part about it is that women's hoop nation has proven that it has an audience and a viable market.
|
|
el_barrio_96_125
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 1411
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/08 2:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Dave Zirin and LZ Granderson are quickly becoming the only sports columnists worth reading. Please do yourself a favor and read Welcome to the Terrordome. |
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/08 2:41 pm ::: Re: SI.com: Rutgers Women are a Story in Perseverance |
Reply |
|
As an aside, have to question the viable part. Only two women's basketball programs turn a profit (UConn and Tennessee...and TN's profit was $50,000 two years ago). And it isn't like all WNBA teams are turning a profit. And we aren't talking about huge attendance numbers here either.
|
|
el_barrio_96_125
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 1411
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/08 2:52 pm ::: Re: SI.com: Rutgers Women are a Story in Perseverance |
Reply |
|
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
As an aside, have to question the viable part. Only two women's basketball programs turn a profit (UConn and Tennessee...and TN's profit was $50,000 two years ago). And it isn't like all WNBA teams are turning a profit. And we aren't talking about huge attendance numbers here either. |
True. But most D1 football programs don't make money either and I'm not talking about the LSU's, Notre Dame's and OSU's of the world. I'm talking about schools whose football programs leave the entire athletic departments in debt, which is actually most of them.
I don't think women's sports will ever really have to make money to be viable, especially at the collegiate level. They just have to increase attendance. As long as you have large congregations of people in any one location, you'll always have sponsors. As long as you have cash flow, you don't need to make a profit. At the professional level, of course it's a little different with private ownership.
But, I do agree that until more people actually show an interest in women's basketball, the coverage will remain the same. With newspapers being dead in the water, thus only covering sure bets, and the internet segmenting how we get our news, there is no chicken or the egg. The numbers need to come before the press. That's just the way it is. |
|
thesixthwoman
Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 6296
Location: NYC
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/08 3:07 pm ::: Re: SI.com: Rutgers Women are a Story in Perseverance |
Reply |
|
| el_barrio_96_125 wrote: |
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
As an aside, have to question the viable part. Only two women's basketball programs turn a profit (UConn and Tennessee...and TN's profit was $50,000 two years ago). And it isn't like all WNBA teams are turning a profit. And we aren't talking about huge attendance numbers here either. |
True. But most D1 football programs don't make money either and I'm not talking about the LSU's, Notre Dame's and OSU's of the world. I'm talking about schools whose football programs leave the entire athletic departments in debt, which is actually most of them.
I don't think women's sports will ever really have to make money to be viable, especially at the collegiate level. They just have to increase attendance. As long as you have large congregations of people in any one location, you'll always have sponsors. As long as you have cash flow, you don't need to make a profit. At the professional level, of course it's a little different with private ownership.
But, I do agree that until more people actually show an interest in women's basketball, the coverage will remain the same. With newspapers being dead in the water, thus only covering sure bets, and the internet segmenting how we get our news, there is no chicken or the egg. The numbers need to come before the press. That's just the way it is. |
I would also argue that viable does not necessarily equal profitable -- at least , not yet. Eventually, yes. But becoming more profitable at a reasonable pace (and now we would have to define what reasonable is) seems a good indication of viability to me.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/08 3:34 pm ::: Re: SI.com: Rutgers Women are a Story in Perseverance |
Reply |
|
I must admit that I find discussions of whether WCBB is profitable to be annoying, for three different reasons.
The first, already mentioned, is that very few football programs are profitable, in large part because they use cash at incredible rates. Even the ones that make money often make less than you think - Ohio State in a recent year only made a couple of million dollars.
Second, pretty much the only sport that's profitable on a regular basis (and I have my doubts about that one, too) is men's basketball. As for the rest of the sports, with very limited exceptions (some hockey, wrestling and maybe baseball teams), they all lose money no matter how you play with the numbers. Unlike most of these other sports, however, women's basketball has the potential for intangible returns to a school through TV exposure (even the Northeast Conference has a TV deal, and I get their games on Comcast SportsNet here in Washington), and those returns can be pretty significant when you're talking about a national TV game on an ESPN network, CSTV or even the Fox Sports feeds that get played on multiple regional networks.
Third, ADs cook the books on a regular basis, mostly to make football and men's basketball look better. There are tons of ways to do this, ranging from allocation of sponsorship revenues (Rutgers women's and men's basketball have the same sponsors - what proportion of those revenues do you think is allocated to the women?) to putting costs incurred for football like weight rooms into the general athletic budget, where they get spread among all of the teams. The natural consequence of these hijinks is that the budget numbers for women's basketball look worse than they would otherwise.
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18031
Location: Queens
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/08 5:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| el_barrio_96_125 wrote: |
| Dave Zirin and LZ Granderson are quickly becoming the only sports columnists worth reading. Please do yourself a favor and read Welcome to the Terrordome. |
If anyone needs to borrow a copy, drop me a note. You can borrow mine for as long as you want.
_________________
Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/08 5:43 pm ::: Re: SI.com: Rutgers Women are a Story in Perseverance |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| The first, already mentioned, is that very few football programs are profitable, in large part because they use cash at incredible rates. Even the ones that make money often make less than you think - Ohio State in a recent year only made a couple of million dollars. |
Success in football brings in donations, one thing you overlook.
You also overlook the television deals and BCS money. Duke football makes money, thanks to this, and the program is terrible with bad attendance.
| beknighted wrote: |
| , pretty much the only sport that's profitable on a regular basis (and I have my doubts about that one, too) is men's basketball. As for the rest of the sports, with very limited exceptions (some hockey, wrestling and maybe baseball teams), they all lose money no matter how you play with the numbers. Unlike most of these other sports, however, women's basketball has the potential for intangible returns to a school through TV exposure (even the Northeast Conference has a TV deal, and I get their games on Comcast SportsNet here in Washington), and those returns can be pretty significant when you're talking about a national TV game on an ESPN network, CSTV or even the Fox Sports feeds that get played on multiple regional networks. |
Why does women's basketball have a greater potential for returns than other sports? It costs more than a lot of niche sports. Plus, you don't have the same television packages or fan following as other sports (e.g., men's basketball, hockey, baseball, etc.)
| beknighted wrote: |
Third, ADs cook the books on a regular basis, mostly to make football and men's basketball look better.
The natural consequence of these hijinks is that the budget numbers for women's basketball look worse than they would otherwise. |
And the proof?
There are plenty of people on this board who act as if women's basketball "deserves" more coverage or is a major sport. Some even blog regularly about it. Frankly, the arugment is crap. Given the empty arenas for Regionals where UConn and Tennessee aren't playing, please explain how it "deserves" more.
|
|
thesixthwoman
Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 6296
Location: NYC
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/08 7:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Queenie wrote: |
| el_barrio_96_125 wrote: |
| Dave Zirin and LZ Granderson are quickly becoming the only sports columnists worth reading. Please do yourself a favor and read Welcome to the Terrordome. |
If anyone needs to borrow a copy, drop me a note. You can borrow mine for as long as you want. |
Can I ask for a mini-review? i.e., why should I read this book? (I know nothing about it - and I can just google it, but since you guys are recommending it, I'd like to hear why... if you don't mind)
|
|
timber
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 1024
Location: look behind you
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/08 7:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| thesixthwoman wrote: |
| Queenie wrote: |
| el_barrio_96_125 wrote: |
| Dave Zirin and LZ Granderson are quickly becoming the only sports columnists worth reading. Please do yourself a favor and read Welcome to the Terrordome. |
If anyone needs to borrow a copy, drop me a note. You can borrow mine for as long as you want. |
Can I ask for a mini-review? i.e., why should I read this book? (I know nothing about it - and I can just google it, but since you guys are recommending it, I'd like to hear why... if you don't mind) |
It's one of the best sociology books disguised as a book about sports that I've ever read.
It's a broader and less anal $40 Million Dollar Slaves (William C. Rhoden).....which was a good book, but was Captain Obvious'ish, longwinded and tedious at times.
I love Rhoden, but his book has a tendency to sound a little preachy whereas Welcome to the Terrordome is more like a conversation with an intelligent fellow avid sports fan.
Rhoden's book is also more about the rise and fall of the black athlete and how money has dehumanized and decentralized most black athletes from the black community through a carefully organized system designed to prevent another Jim Brown, Kareem or Ali. It's more of how we don't stand for anything and thus fall for everything.
Welcome to the Terrordome gets deep into that as well but has a less myopic view and deals with an array of issues, such as the place sports has in our society, systematic oppression and exploitation based on race, gender, culture and class, cultural differences between athletes and fans and how that impacts how we view each other, economics, the rise and fall of the socially aware athlete, women's athletics, unionizing and free agency, sports media, hip-hop vs. America, the influence of players like Roberto Clemente and Jackie Robinson, the influence of lesser known but extremely important athletes, the plantation known as the NCAA.....a few examples.
Zirin tackles a lot of recent sports events like the Imus thing, some thoughts from Swoopes & Amaechi....an interview with Etan Thomas and some other athletes on a few issues.
The idea behind the title of the book is partially an ode to Public Enemy (Chuck D. writes a pretty poignant forward) and partially pointing to the fact and the irony that a lot of the people in New Orleans during the Katrina aftermath forced to flee to the Superdome aka the Terrordome (given the circumstances of why they were there) had never been able to afford to watch a Saints game there, yet the dome was publicly funded....and how we care more about publicly funding sports organizations who act as private businesses than we do things that really matter like our education systems.
As someone who "does sports" for a living, I thought it was a pretty on point portrayal of some of the issues. There are some great historical references thrown in there throughout the book too.
It's not perfect by any means. But I definitely recommend it. If you're really into this sort of thing like I am, I'd recommend reading $40 Million Dollar Slaves first due to its more historical/what are we going to do now approach, then Welcome to the Terrordome, then Souled Out? by Shaun Powell.
It's a quick and easy read but it will make you think and view the games a little differently. But he makes a point to not make it seem like he's just complaining and whining about everything or is above it all. You can tell he's writing from the perspective of a fan, but not as a fan who just wants athletes to shut up and play, like the majority of fans do.
_________________
Give Kia the ball.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/08 8:26 pm ::: Re: SI.com: Rutgers Women are a Story in Perseverance |
Reply |
|
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
Success in football brings in donations, one thing you overlook.
You also overlook the television deals and BCS money. Duke football makes money, thanks to this, and the program is terrible with bad attendance.
* * *
Why does women's basketball have a greater potential for returns than other sports? It costs more than a lot of niche sports. Plus, you don't have the same television packages or fan following as other sports (e.g., men's basketball, hockey, baseball, etc.)
* * *
And the proof [that the books are cooked]?
There are plenty of people on this board who act as if women's basketball "deserves" more coverage or is a major sport. Some even blog regularly about it. Frankly, the arugment is crap. Given the empty arenas for Regionals where UConn and Tennessee aren't playing, please explain how it "deserves" more. |
(I've nipped and tucked to shorten this up. With any luck I haven't left anything important out.)
First, let me say that I'm not one of the people who argues that WCBB "deserves" more coverage, and although I think the question of whether it's a major sport is interesting, that's not something I'm looking to discuss right now. (I will say that you have to ask yourself whether NHL hockey is a major sport before you start the argument about WCBB, though.)
As for the rest:
1. The Chronicle of Higher Education regularly looks at these things and it's the source for the statement that the vast majority of football teams lose money. That said, it's nearly self-evident. The BCS money is effectively available to six conferences plus Notre Dame, and it's split among every school in those conferences (which, ironically, means that a major conference program that isn't really trying might be better off financially than one that is trying.) While half the teams in the Bowl Subdivision go to bowls, in practice they don't make money on most of them because (a) they have to split the payouts; and (b) their expenses aren't remotely covered by the bowl committees. And, don't forget, about the only football teams that have any chance of making money are the Bowl Subdivision teams, and there are lots more Championship Subdivision, Division II and Division III teams than Bowl Subdivision teams.
2. Note that my second point in my original post was about intangible returns, by which I meant media exposure for the university. (The desire for these kinds of returns is one of the constant refrains of universities that decide to spend additional buckets of money on already money-losing football and men's basketball teams, so I think it's entirely fair to make the comparison.) WCBB has greater potential for intangible returns because it gets a lot more TV coverage than other non-football, non-MCBB sports. (You won't trap me into using the word "niche" to describe any of them.) To pick the most popular other sport, there is essentially no coverage of baseball at all on ESPN until the NCAA tournament, and if hockey gets on at all, it's only for the Frozen Four. There is essentially no college swimming, water polo, wrestling, etc. on national media. WCBB, on the other hand, now has ESPN2 games more or less on a weekly basis, has the championship games of most conference tournaments on ESPN or ESPN2, has every game of the NCAA tournament on those channels - with significant promotion, to boot - and has a much-improved presence on regional sports networks, ESPN U and CSTV. And, let me add, there are cases (Rutgers, as an obvious example) where the women's team gets considerably more of this kind of exposure than the men's basketball team. Heck, GWU's women will be on ESPN U and ESPN 2 this year, and the men won't be at all. The other sports you mention - hockey and baseball - do have more regional coverage than WCBB, but a lot of that is pretty narrow in scope. I don't get any college hockey here, and very little college baseball from my local sports channel, but I do get a fair amount of WCBB.
3. The book-cooking also is something that the Chronicle has, uh, chronicled. It's also entirely rational if you're an AD, since no matter what you do some sports will lose money, and people will judge you on the success of MCBB and football.
4. About donations: A lot of people make this point, but most individual athletic department donations are not tied to a particular sport, so it's very hard to track what matters to specific people. Now, the really big donations often do get tied to specific things, but they also typically are for capital expenses, like stadium improvements, a weight training facility, etc., and are not for operating costs.
5. Finally, about non-BCS TV: These days, conferences sell their sports as packages. (Heck, the Big 10 network is one big package.) It gets very hard to separate out what part is football, what part is MCBB, etc., particularly for the regional networks, ESPN and CBS (which owns CSTV). While I think it's a safe bet that the two biggest chunks of revenue from those deals ought to belong to football and MCBB, I'm not confident that you can assume that nothing should be allocated to WCBB. Despite that, I bet that's happening at a lot of schools that have WCBB games broadcast under these deals.
|
|
el_barrio_96_125
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 1411
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/08 9:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I'm on the Crackberry so I'm not quoting it, but what Timber said. All of it. I'm reading Souled Out? now. Terrordome is on point. I just wished he'd have gotten into the sneaker wars. |
|
thesixthwoman
Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 6296
Location: NYC
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/24/08 9:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
wow - thanks timber.
and el barrio.
|
|
|
|
