| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Durantula
Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 5223
Back to top |
 Posted: 11/22/15 5:16 pm ::: Womens basketball still struggles for attention |
Reply  |
|
The News and Observer is a Raleigh, NC based paper, and I dont' think they really devote any resources to Duke, UNC, or NC State WBB, but they did take the time to talk about the lack of attention for the women's game, which is ironic. Some decent points, especially about losing out to volleyball which I do seem to see more of on TV now. On the flip side, some big matchups like S. Carolina-Ohio State are relegated to the internet.
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/article45661614.html
|
|
dtrain34
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Posts: 409
Location: Lacey, Washington
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/22/15 7:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Not sure I agree with the bit about the clothing. Basketball players wear more than beach volleyball players but less than NCAA volleyball players (who sometimes wear long sleeves) and softball is popular on TV and its players are relatively bundled up. Seems like just another chance to toss a stereotypical barb at male viewers.
I think basketball's problem is simply one of comparison. Men play volleyball, but it's associated more with women so people don't note the bigger, faster, stronger factor as much. Track and tennis and swimming feature women matched up against women so even if the running or serving is slower, its not jumping out at you from the TV screen.
But if a male basketball player gets free on the fast break, the basket support is going to rattle. If a female does, she'll bank in a layup. My favorite women's player was a state high jump champion in high school and can just graze the bottom of the rim in basketball.
When I was an administrator at a small college whose league played doubleheaders with the women first followed by the men, all of us at the table -- scorekeepers, timers, even me as the P.A. guy -- noticed we had to ramp up our efforts when the men's game started, it was so much faster.
Fans notice. Women fans notice. Women's PLAYERS notice -- there is not a big fan base among high school girls (except those being recruited by colleges) to watch college women and college women (again, with the possible exception of those who might be drafted) pretty much ignore the WNBA.
Not sure there's an "answer" to this issue when it comes to basketball.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/22/15 10:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| dtrain34 wrote: |
| Not sure I agree with the bit about the clothing. Basketball players wear more than beach volleyball players but less than NCAA volleyball players (who sometimes wear long sleeves) |
I haven't read the article, but if they're talking about clothing I doubt they're talking about sleeves. College volleyball players invariably wear very short tight lycra hot pants, in contrast to shapeless below the knees baggies worn by basketball players. That's generally what is being addressed when the difference in attire is discussed.
|
|
stever
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Posts: 6916
Location: https://womensbasketballdaily.net
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/23/15 11:06 am ::: The Million-Dollar Question |
Reply |
|
http://www.curvemag.com/Lifestyle/The-Million-Dollar-Question-763/
| Quote: |
In the end, ladies, its on us to help increase the coverage and viewership of womens sports. So, Instead of asking how we can get more men interested in womens sports, lets put our heads together and figure out how we can get more women interested in womens sports.
|
|
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/23/15 4:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The discussion of the athletes' attire and overall sexuality in the article misses the mark:
| Quote: |
Finch believes female athletes are as often celebrated for their sexuality as much as for their achievements, and so ascribes much of the popularity of womens beach volleyball cited by Antonelli to the bikinis worn by competitors. Men like to see womens legs and other body parts, she says. That fondness is one that supporters of womens basketball are loathe to accommodate.
If you turn womens basketball into the Lingerie League, they would get a lot more viewers as well, agrees Barbara Osborne, an associate professor in the Department of Exercise and Sports Sciences at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who specializes in research on gender discrimination in sports. Which is pretty much the way beach volleyball has chosen to promote itself. Because diving into the sand with a bikini isnt really healthy.
She adds tennis and figure skating as sports that benefit in popularity from the skimpy outfits female athletes wear.
Such considerations fit a broader, sexualized social pattern, Osborne says. For all the progress thats been made, she still sees females involved in athletics relegated to second-class status in everything from wages to the number of cameras assigned to game telecasts to individuals endorsement opportunities.
Sport absolutely led as far as (promoting) racial integration, Osborne points out, but sport have been very much lagging behind relative to gender equality. It has created way more barriers than it has opportunities.
|
I somewhat agree with Finch about women's sexuality playing a role in popularity, but I believe that the issue is less sex than role in society. The comments by Barbara Osborne are truly disturbing because they show a disdain for popular society that may be more harmful to building women's sports than anything else. She sounds like a bitter hag who hates men. The idea that she is a professor who is imparting her brand of idiocy to young minds is aggravating and sad.
College women's volleyball is a sport in its ascendancy. There may be lessons to be learned which could apply to women's basketball. But making the jump from college volleyball to women's professional beach volleyball makes no sense. Lingerie basketball was tried, and failed miserably, while the WNBA rolls on as a small success. The issue is not attire.
There are reasons for NCAA women's basketball not growing, most of which were addressed in the article. The lack of competitive balance is number one. The perception that the sport is inferior to the men's game because women are not as good athletes is another. (Volleyball does not suffer as much because men's volleyball is rarely seen.) And the overall role of women in society is a third. I'm sure there are others as well.
Volleyball, softball and soccer are the three most popular team sports for girls, and so it is easy to root for them as "daughters." The racial makeup of those sports adds to it. 80% of volleyball, 83% for softball and 85% of soccer players in the NCAA are white. Women's basketball is only 59%. For Division I, the disparity is even greater (75%, 77%, 80% and 40%, respectively.)
Osborne also bemoans that "gender equality" has not been aided by sports as was the case with racial integration. She completely misses the point. When Texas Western beat Kentucky in the NCAA championship game with an all black starting lineup, it showed they were at least the equals of whites. If the UConn women were to play the Grambling men (the lowest rated Division 1 men's team) they would lose. Sports does not aid "gender equality" because the genders are far from equal at sports.
(Note: The racial statistics are from the NCAA student ethnicity report for 2010.)
|
|
TechDawgMc
Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 401
Location: Temple, TX
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/23/15 6:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I didn't think the clothing point was a very important part of the argument. And, frankly, I doubt it makes much difference. Guys might stop on beach volleyball if they're flipping channels, but they aren't going to go watch a sport just because there's a pretty woman wearing shorts--there's just too many other alternatives if that's what you're looking for.
DTrain hit on what I think is a key problem. More than any other sport (except I guess for baseball/softball), the women's game just looks very different from the men's game. Sure there are differences in the speed of tennis or volleyball, but that's not terribly noticeable just watching on TV. And since the men have a higher net in volleyball, the difference in jumping ability isn't as obvious.
OTOH, the athleticism difference shows up dramatically in basketball. Both in terms of jumping (not just dunking, the rebounding looks very different as well) and in terms of the speed of shooting and defense. Women's fans can talk about "fundamentals" all they want, but some of those fundamentals only even work because of the lack of athleticism.
I'm not sure what the answer is to that. You really can't teach speed or jumping ability.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/23/15 6:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TechDawgMc wrote: |
I didn't think the clothing point was a very important part of the argument. And, frankly, I doubt it makes much difference. Guys might stop on beach volleyball if they're flipping channels, but they aren't going to go watch a sport just because there's a pretty woman wearing shorts--there's just too many other alternatives if that's what you're looking for.
DTrain hit on what I think is a key problem. More than any other sport (except I guess for baseball/softball), the women's game just looks very different from the men's game. Sure there are differences in the speed of tennis or volleyball, but that's not terribly noticeable just watching on TV. And since the men have a higher net in volleyball, the difference in jumping ability isn't as obvious.
OTOH, the athleticism difference shows up dramatically in basketball. Both in terms of jumping (not just dunking, the rebounding looks very different as well) and in terms of the speed of shooting and defense. Women's fans can talk about "fundamentals" all they want, but some of those fundamentals only even work because of the lack of athleticism.
I'm not sure what the answer is to that. You really can't teach speed or jumping ability. |
Serious question, but I've ever understood entirely why that is. On the men's side you have 6'0" and 6'1" guards dunking and playing above the rim routinely. Even with some consideration for physical strength differences, why is it that at least 6'3" and 6'4" women aren't regularly dunking the ball?
By the way I think speed of play is almost entirely taught and practiced. This isn't football. It's not about 40 times. It's about how fast you can run while dribbling, and that is an acquired skill. It's how well you see the floor and how quickly you pass the ball and how quickly you react. Also acquired skills. I don't believe the speed of the game can entirely be attributed to physical strength. I think the faster game is more a matter of skill level than physical characteristics.
|
|
LegoMyEggo
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 284
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/23/15 7:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Men and women are anatomically different. Period. It's why men and women of similar stature compete separately in Olympic Track and Field. Men typically have different muscle fiber composition than women and generate more power. The women's 100 sprint world record has stood since 1988 and we all know that one was from Flo-Jo using PEDs. Meantime, the men's side continues to go lower on a much more regular basis. They could be hitting the PEDs too, but it's all relative.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/23/15 10:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| LegoMyEggo wrote: |
| Men and women are anatomically different. Period. It's why men and women of similar stature compete separately in Olympic Track and Field. Men typically have different muscle fiber composition than women and generate more power. The women's 100 sprint world record has stood since 1988 and we all know that one was from Flo-Jo using PEDs. Meantime, the men's side continues to go lower on a much more regular basis. They could be hitting the PEDs too, but it's all relative. |
I understand there are differences. I said that. I don't necessarily expect 6'0" womens guards to be doing tomahawk slams. But unathletic 6'3 men have been dunking for decades. Not sure why strong athletic 6'3" or 6'4" women couldn't be.
And as I said, speed of play has little to do with how fast you can run.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7831
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/23/15 11:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| It's a different game. The Man doesn't particularly enjoy MBB at all, and didn't watch WBB until he met me. Now he not only watches, but enjoys and understands WBB, and enjoys the athleticism of the women playing it. Their sexuality has nothing to do with it. We do occasionally watch MBB, but it's so different that he loses interest after awhile.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
TechDawgMc
Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 401
Location: Temple, TX
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/24/15 9:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Serious question, but I've ever understood entirely why that is. On the men's side you have 6'0" and 6'1" guards dunking and playing above the rim routinely. Even with some consideration for physical strength differences, why is it that at least 6'3" and 6'4" women aren't regularly dunking the ball?
By the way I think speed of play is almost entirely taught and practiced. This isn't football. It's not about 40 times. It's about how fast you can run while dribbling, and that is an acquired skill. It's how well you see the floor and how quickly you pass the ball and how quickly you react. Also acquired skills. I don't believe the speed of the game can entirely be attributed to physical strength. I think the faster game is more a matter of skill level than physical characteristics. |
The dunking part probably has more to do with the size of the hands than anything else. To dunk with authority, you have to be able to control the ball well with one hand. I know guys who are smaller who can dunk a volleyball, but can't dunk a basketball. I suspect that's part of it. The other part is that a lot of the 6'3" or better women don't really have the hops -- they don't tend to have the long lanky look of men of similar height that makes jumping easier.
As far as speed is concerned, perhaps I was thinking more in terms of what we might call quickness. I think about how quickly the men react on defense, how quickly they can cover a few yards. That makes it necessary for shooters to have a very quick release (which is partly about practice, I'd agree, but it's also partly about natural selection--if you don't have a quick release, you don't survive long in the men's game).
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/24/15 11:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| TechDawgMc wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Serious question, but I've ever understood entirely why that is. On the men's side you have 6'0" and 6'1" guards dunking and playing above the rim routinely. Even with some consideration for physical strength differences, why is it that at least 6'3" and 6'4" women aren't regularly dunking the ball?
By the way I think speed of play is almost entirely taught and practiced. This isn't football. It's not about 40 times. It's about how fast you can run while dribbling, and that is an acquired skill. It's how well you see the floor and how quickly you pass the ball and how quickly you react. Also acquired skills. I don't believe the speed of the game can entirely be attributed to physical strength. I think the faster game is more a matter of skill level than physical characteristics. |
The dunking part probably has more to do with the size of the hands than anything else. To dunk with authority, you have to be able to control the ball well with one hand. I know guys who are smaller who can dunk a volleyball, but can't dunk a basketball. I suspect that's part of it. The other part is that a lot of the 6'3" or better women don't really have the hops -- they don't tend to have the long lanky look of men of similar height that makes jumping easier.
As far as speed is concerned, perhaps I was thinking more in terms of what we might call quickness. I think about how quickly the men react on defense, how quickly they can cover a few yards. That makes it necessary for shooters to have a very quick release (which is partly about practice, I'd agree, but it's also partly about natural selection--if you don't have a quick release, you don't survive long in the men's game). |
I think the quickness, both on defense and the "quick release", are more a result of thousands of hours of playing playground ball than physical characteristics.
It's part of the skill level, not genetics.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11142
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/24/15 11:31 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Pace is different than speed -- and women can play at just as fast a pace as men. In fact, the 35-second clock allows men to play at a slower pace in college, and it makes the women look better.
But raw athleticism -- think "explosiveness" in all aspects -- is a huge advantage for men. The best WNBA team would not beat the worst D1 men's team, and not just because of size. Due to genetics, men are much more explosive than women, and every loose ball, every play that involved jumping, and every play that involved speed and/or quickness would go to the men.
Note that elite women's college teams practice against guys all the time, and the guys are better -- yet none are close to being D-1 level on the men's side.
Every once in a while, someone will make a claim that a girls' high school team could play against the boys, but even the best girls' team can not play against a boys' varsity team. Maybe, just maybe, a bad JV team, but the best matchup for a topflight girls' team is the boys' frosh -- and that will be a close game.
As noted, all of this shows up on TV. In person, close to the floor, the skill, strength and power of the women becomes apparent, but even halfway up a large arena, it's much harder to see than the dramatic athleticism of elite men.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
|
|
