A couple of articles recently have centered around the subject of women’s athletics at the college and professional levels. First, Christina Hoff Summers:
Diana Nyad, sports show host for National Public Radio affiliate KCRW and a celebrated distance swimming champion, was moved to write a special introduction to the latest report: “Women’s athletic skill levels have risen astronomically over the past twenty years … It is time for television news and highlights shows to keep pace with this revolution.” She describes the neglect of women’s sports as “unfathomable and unacceptable.”
But the heavy focus of news and highlights shows on men’s sports is not only fathomable but obvious—that is where the fans are. And that is where advertisers expect to find customers for “male” products such as beer, razors, and cars. Men’s professional sports are a fascination (obsession is more like it) to many millions of men, because they offer extreme competition, performance, and heroics. Women’s professional sports, however skilled and admirable, cannot compare in Promethean drama.
Even women prefer watching male teams. Few women follow the sports pages and ESPN, but many enjoy attending live games—featuring male athletes. According to Sports Business Daily, 31 percent of the NFL’s “avid fans” are women.
By and large, men want to watch men play. Most sports fans are men. But women that are interested in sports usually want to watch what the men are watching. This is true in part because it was likely their father or brother or husband that got them into sports in the first place. So they are introduced primarily to men’s sports. There are some exceptions to this, such as gymnastics and ice-skating, but it still remains generally so.
Once interested in the NBA of NCAA MBB, there’s no reason for them not to branch off to women’s basketball or, for that matter, volleyball. But sports are, generally speaking, a social activity. It’s not as fun to watch a sport that nobody cares about because, apart from Internet chatting, there’s nobody to talk to about it. So while Lacrosse may be a perfectly respectable sport, if you try to talk to anybody about the National Lacrosse League you’re simply going to bore them. I run into the same thing when it comes to non-alumni of Southern Tech University athletics. They’re not national players. Their conference is not one of the three or four premier conferences. Better to be able to talk about the wildly successful Delosa Panthers who draw 80k a game than the Southern Tech Packers who struggle to draw half of that.
That’s why a lot of universities that have difficulty succeeding in football or men’s basketball don’t just switch to another sport that they can dominate. A few have done so, but is the fact that the University of Denver and Alabama-Huntsville have stellar hockey teams something that registers at all? Did you even know that they had really good hockey teams? Or that Cal State-Fullerton has a really good baseball team? Given how hopeless it would be for these universities to build good football programs, going the hockey route may indeed be the best option for them, but collegiate hockey and women’s basketball are never going to really dominate our interest and so it’s not worthwhile to throw a whole lot of investment that way.
Of course, to some extent they don’t have a choice when it comes to women’s basketball or softball or soccer. Title IX requires that they field teams and that these teams are funded adequately. A lot of people like to rip on Title IX, but was (perhaps an overreaching) solution to a real problem. My father-in-law was actually the first coach of the Vandalia Fighting Vandals women’s basketball team many years ago. The pre-T9 accommodations were nothing short of pathetic. Since the reason for college athletics is ostensibly to support student athletes, there’s no reason that they shouldn’t be adequately funded in some relation to the way that men’s athletics are funded. That’s not to say that Title IX couldn’t use some tweaking – I would argue that revenues brought in by men’s sports should count for something – but I consider a lot of the criticisms off-base.
Less off-base, though, than complaints about the media. Other than perhaps soccer, no sport has ever been pumped up by the sports media more than women’s basketball. Indeed, when I was growing up there were three major college sports and women’s basketball was one of them. Now there are two major sports and two secondary ones with women’s basketball in the latter category along with college baseball. A few years ago I wondered exactly what happened to women’s basketball. What I discovered is that there was really a lack of interest. Why did interest decline? I don’t think it did. I think that the interest was never there. ESPN and the like just spent a whole lot of time and effort trying to build the interest. Sports media wants there to be more popular sports. Nothing would please them more than a robust women’s college basketball system because it would give them more stuff to sell you and it would increase leverage with Atlantic 10 men’s basketball to be able to play off Big East women’s basketball against it (“If you don’t take this paltry sum, we’ll just show this other thing instead!”). Attempts by ESPN and Fox Sports and the like to build sport interest are spotty. Particularly women’s sports, though there was a push for hockey a few years back that was unsuccessful as well. The only successful one I can think of is Poker.
The second article (teaser, really) on the subject I’ve read is one about a Division III conference getting in trouble for playing the women’s game before the men’s in double-headers. Like James Joyner, I initially thought the objection was that it was demeaning to the women athletes to have to open up for the men. If that were the case, my response would be the above. While it’s good that women are given an equal chance to play as men, we can’t just pretend that there is or could be equal interest. And having them as the “opening act” probably goes them a greater service than having them play on different nights. I was a JV basketball player at the junior high level and we benefited greatly by playing before the varsity squad and drew better crowds than varsity women’s who played on a different night. As it turns out, that’s only part of the object. The other part, that earlier games cut more into class times than later ones, is a more valid objection. In that case, it might actually be better for them to play on different nights.
About the Author
11 Responses to Sporty Ladies
Leave a Reply to john Cancel reply
please enter your email address on this page.
The Sports Curmudgeon, one of the links on my blogroll, had this amusing line a couple of weeks ago:
Will everyone who knew that Tina Thompson became the all-time scoring leader in the WNBA last weekend please raise your hand. Fine.
OK, Tina, you can put your hand down now…
I just don’t understand the relentless hyping of women’s basketball. It’s not that women’s sports in general are pointless or uninteresting, it’s that for a variety of reasons basketball as played by women simply isn’t particularly thrilling to watch even if you’re a basketball fan.
Interesting point: even though the University of Connecticut’s women’s basketball team is hugely dominant, one of the most successful teams of all time in any sport, most of its home games are shown on public television. Commercial broadcasters aren’t interested. It’s difficult to imagine taxpayer-subsidized public broadcasting showing any men’s sports.
I live in Houston, where the WNBA Comets were very successful, at least in the beginning (about 10-15 years ago, give or take). What’s interesting, to me, is that Comets games are notorious for being dominated by lesbians, particularly the in-your-face variety. I’ve known more than one guy who has tried to get interested but was so turned off by the demographic after going to one game that they just completely gave up on the sport.
Given how hopeless it would be for these universities to build good football programs, going the hockey route may indeed be the best option for them, but collegiate hockey and women’s basketball are never going to really dominate our interest and so it’s not worthwhile to throw a whole lot of investment that way.
One thing to consider is that it’s much cheaper to develop a top team in a minor sport than in a revenue sport. In fact, it’s probably cheaper to develop a dominant hockey/baseball/women’s basketball team than to develop a mediocre football team, possibly basketball too.
“It’s not that women’s sports in general are pointless or uninteresting”
You sure about that?
“What’s interesting, to me, is that Comets games are notorious for being dominated by lesbians, particularly the in-your-face variety”
I’m pretty sure this is a leaguewide thing. Definitely in my area.
Anyway, the bottom line is this:
Remember about a year ago there was some buzz about a guy trying to start a whites-only basketball league? And it was universally criticized as stupid, pathetic, and racist? Well the WNBA is just like that but even worse. And yet the laws of PC demand that it be taken seriously, at least in mainstream venues. In a way, the WNBA represents a lot of what’s wrong with our culture.
It’s really hard to believe the WNBA has actually been around for 10-15 years or so. In more ways than one.
Peter, good point about expense, though it depends somewhat on the sport. Football is expensive no matter how you cut it. Basketball is less so, which is why a lot of schools try their hands at it. A school like George Mason or Butler can get a leg up on a relatively tight budget. In part because they don’t have a football team.
John, in some ways I actually prefer women’s basketball over men’s. Less emphasis on dunking, more passing. It’s mildly more strategic. Softball vs baseball is a wash at higher levels where they can really throw the softball fast. Anyway, back to basketball for a second, one of the funny things is that when I heard about the proposal for the white’s only basketball league, one of my thoughts is that it could actually have some of the same advantages as women’s basketball.
Attention: there’s a new Sexy Pterodactyl post with real time PUA Game demo!
——Related thought:
If more women started seriously strength-training at an earlier age, while the male and female athletic performance graphs would probably never be equal, there would be substantially more overlap. As it is now, a relative genetic mediocrity like EscapistArt@Wordpress can easily be the strongest girl in the gym, simply because everybody else is doing “light toning lifts” with 5 lb weights. T-nation ladies, t-nation (pull-ups, pushups, squats, etc + paleo/primal diet = becoming more badass and better looking).
Women’s sports will get more interesting as they get both more resources and more training (see above) – in some sports, women today are in a similar place/style of play/level of performance as men were in prior decades. In some sports (e.g. the recent Winter Olympics ski jump with that one famous lady) there has even been the prospect of women equaling or surpassing men (but in the latter case, I recall reading that the commission limited her ability to participate)
Here’s a link to the article, direct from a key element of my Perfidious Slut Matrix (got a new post up, with a real time Roissy game demo – check it out!)
http://jezebel.com/5477179/competing-while-female-on-the-winter-olympics–womens-sports
Seriously though, as with anything else I read/link to, I do not agree with everything this source has said or thought in its entire life.
Watching the Tour de France, I found out that the riders often take “natural breaks” while coasting downhill. Yes, they pee on the run.
I have no idea how a woman rider would pull that off.
It’s not that women’s sports in general are pointless or uninteresting
You sure about that?
Yes. Some women’s sports can be interesting to watch, but rightly or wrongly we’ve come to expect an athletic style of play in basketball, with above-the-rim play and fast breaks. Women’s basketball doesn’t feature that sort of play and therefore is going to have a hard time gaining mainstream acceptance.
It actually puzzles me that the WNBA has never seriously considered lowering the rim in order to allow for more men’s-style play. There’s a precedent of sorts in women’s tennis, which IINM uses narrower court dimensions than the men’s version. Changing the playing style to emphasize fast breaks as opposed to passing wouldn’t require any physical changes. Of course many players and others involved with the WNBA would bristle at the idea of changing the playing style, but given the league’s ongoing money woes something clearly has to be done. David Stern is in his late 60’s, he’s not going to be NBA Commissioner forever, and his successor just might be less inclined to keep subsidizing the WNBA.
—
Football is expensive no matter how you cut it. Basketball is less so, which is why a lot of schools try their hands at it. A school like George Mason or Butler can get a leg up on a relatively tight budget. In part because they don’t have a football team.
Just having a Division I basketball team isn’t going to do a university or its students much good unless the team plays in a major or semi-major conference and does reasonably well. Let’s say you’re a graduate of Quinnipiac College in Connecticut, and you’re applying for a job in Arizona. You’re not going to get much of an advantage merely because the Pioneers play in Division I hoops.
Men (and women) like to watch women play tennis and figure skate. Ladies’ tennis matches have the added benefit of being mercifully briefer than men’s matches.
I’ve found that participation in sports is an advantage for resumes and such – it shows a certain level of toughness and dedication. That’s another reason why it’s important for access to athletic opportunities
My favorite sport involves both females and males: Swooping Submissive Foreign Babes.
There’s even a demo of it at my site (the video with the lake), with participation by Roissy.
Can you find the evil Easter Egg at the end?
For those who don’t know, CHS is well-known for pushing back against the excesses of feminism.