TheAgitator.com
Sometimes, the Dogs Just Don’t Like the Dog Food
Thursday, March 20th, 2008USA Today’s Christine Brennan is distraught. Yes, newspapers are giving lots of space to the women’s college basketball tournament. Yes, ESPN will televise every game. Yet clearly, we’re not doing enough to force people to like the women’s game. You see, there’s just just not nearly as much excitement about the women’s games as there is for the men’s. This, Brennan says, sends the wrong message “to the 12-year-old girl shooting hoops on the driveway.”
I’m at a loss as to why this is a problem. Does all of America really owe it to 12-year-old-girls shooting hoops in the driveway to pay as much attention to women’s sports as we do to men’s? Does pre-teen girl self-esteem really rest on whether or not we’re holding office pools for the women’s tournament?
Brennan’s solution is weird, too. She wants to put the men’s and women’s Final Fours in the same city, and have them play at about the same time. How this would help women’s basketball, I don’t know. I guess she thinks that because all the media will be in town for the men’s game, they’ll have to go ahead and cover the women, too. I doubt it. I think it would probably create more competition between the two tournaments. There’s only so much of a city to share. Unless Brennan thinks that under such a scenario, the merits of women’s basketball would make it preferable to men’s. In which case she’s delusional.
And no matter what she says in the column, Brennan’s proposal isn’t about giving the women a “fair shake.” It’s about letting the women leech some of the men’s tournament’s enormous popularity. I actually don’t have a problem with the idea. But it won’t work. And when it doesn’t, Brennan will come up with another excuse rooted in sexism to explain why women’s basketball isn’t as popular as men’s. Maybe her next column will ask the FCC to enforce a Title IX for televised sports.
Also, there’s this:
That certainly has made a significant difference in women’s tennis, where the shared Grand Slam events helped make the women more popular than the men.
I doubt the shared venue has anything to do with it. Women’s tennis is popular because the women are good, and because the women are hot. Right or not, I think most men feel like they could be at least an average player in women’s college basketball (again, this may not actually be true, but I do think it’s the perception). Most men by now realize they couldn’t win a game in three sets against just about anyone on the women’s tennis tour. And right or not, men and women prefer women’s sports where the top women retain some femininity while they win.
Women’s college basketball (and for that matter, the WNBA) has been given every possible opportunity to succeed. Where it doesn’t get the attention men’s basketball does, Brennan sees sexism. I see a game that just isn’t very entertaining to watch.
What, no direct Freud cigar quote?
Radley, what the fuck was this femininity bullshit? Even fucking Imus had recognized them as female.
Have a female basketball team version of Billie Jean King and maybe people might care.
Way to miss the point entirely.
Why do you think women’s figure skating is more popular than men’s?
Why is most of the country familiar with Maria Sharapova, but not last year’s WNBA MVP?
Yes, femininity is a contributing reason why some women’s sports do better than others. There are other factors, of course. But that’s one of them.
And I don’t think it’s particularly outrageous to say that basketball isn’t a particularly feminine sport, or that some of the attributes that make one better at the sport — size and strength, for example — aren’t what we normally associate with femininity.
And yes, there are exceptions. There are very good, very feminine basketball players. And there are female tennis players with extremely developed physiques.
I didn’t say female basketball players aren’t female. I’m saying it’s a sport that doesn’t lend itself to traditional notions of femininity. Which is why the public tends to prefer watch men play the game.
I respect anyone who works hard at their sport, male or female, and there are womens’ sports I actually enjoy watching (soccer, tennis, rugby, gymnastics) but the WNBA and college womens’ basketball really piss me off…for years now we’ve been forced to spend our tax dollars to subsidize sports at hundreds of schools that people at only a couple of schools even care about watching, at the expense of sports that people at most schools do want to watch:
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/515gdyfj.asp
Frankly, if Christine Brennan thinks women’s basketball is getting such a raw deal, let’s see her push the WNBA to throw that support they’ve been given back in the NBA’s face so they can strike out on their own. I guarantee that’ll be a short f***ing season.
By the way, if the men’s and women’s NCAA tournament were played at the same time in the same city, I’ll wager that it would kill the womens’ NCAA tournament…because given a choice between who to cover the news stations aren’t going to pick the womens’ tournament because the viewers simply don’t care. How little do they care? So little that I can’t even find the Nielsen ratings for last years’ women’s tournament.
And I don’t think that femininity is as important to enjoy watching women’s sports as seeing them in sports that actually fit their natural abilities. Rugby is certainly not a sport that encourages femininity, and yet when the women play it it’s actually fun to watch because there’s not as huge a disparity in skill sets and presentation between the mens’ and womens’ game in rugby as there is in basketball.
I have a cousin who played D1 and now coaches high school girls (yea, yea). I try to see her games whenever I can not only for the support, but because I’ve learned to enjoy the priority of the perimeter game in women’s hoops. That being said, basketball is a game that is simply less suited for women. Tennis, softball, golf, and gymnastics are just better suited for the female body.
Also, it’s nice to see Radley back fighting the PC crowd again. Well played, sir.
My twin sister played D1 basketball, then semi-pro in Australia, and I *LOVED* to watch her and her friends (who became my friends) play. But after I had no personal emotional investment, it held no interest for me. I’ll never forget trying out the WNBA, and the first game I watched went like this:
Opening tip
Turnover
Missed layup
Missed jumper
Turnover
Missed jumper
Turnover
Missed layup
Made layup
No joke. It took ‘em eight, count ‘em eight possessions to score a single point. Yikes. ‘Course, now that my Trojans choked and got bounced in the first round by the freaking Wildkittens, I’m not sure how much joy I’m going to have in watching the TarFoots and the bRuins eke their way towards playing each other here in my own hometown on April 7. Speaking of which, guess how many, out of the 44k+ seats in the Alamodome, were made available to the general public? 4,600, just over 10%. A travesty, IMO.
More dunking, please.
Good points (no pun intended) about the femininity angle, but there might be another reason for the lack of interest in womens b-ball.
There is ALREADY too much basketball. Here it is March, the regular season started when, October? When does it finally end, May? Way too much roundball!
Cut the whole thing in half and then maybe people will take an interest in women’s basketball.
There’s another good reason for people to like women’s tennis: women are not as overpowering than men, and thus a tennis match turns into a game of skill at tactics. On men’s side this kind of play has died with Pete Sampras taking over (I still like watching old recordings of Jimmy Connors vs. John McEnroe for their skill instead of power). The kind of tennis many women still play is thus more pleasing to the eye, thanks to the longer exchanges and a better chance to keep out of a monotonous routine. Basketball, on the other hand, has devolved into an overpowering spectacle where teams run from one end to the other, score and then sprint back to try to prevent (and usually fail) the other team from scoring. It’s simply not slow enough and doesn’t offer enough opportunity for on-the-spot tactical changes to be allow the smarter, yet physically less adept people to shine.
Regular college BBall season starts in mid November and ends at the very beginning of April, so we get 4.5 months. That’s not so bad when you consider some other sports like pro baseball and hockey, where the season seems to last frickin forever.
Jozef nailed it. When the men got stronger and more athletic, tennis got boring. But in basketball, the extra speed and vertical just made for a fast break, behind the back, above the rim game that’s much more exciting than the women’s game.
The only male sports fans that ever extol the virtues of women’s basketball are old white guys who go on about fundamentals and don’t like the speed and brash nature of today’s athletes.
As for “the 12-year-old girl shooting hoops on the driveway,” I’d lay money that 9 times out of 10 she’d rather go see the NBA or NCAA-M over a women’s game.
Ah, Christine Brennan. To call her a self-righteous scold would be an insult to self-righteous scolds. Perhaps it is because of the school’s lackluster athletic history, but Northwestern seems to produce more than its share of sportswriters who hate sports, or who hate sports fans, at least.
I think all of your points are valid. Her position about playing the tournaments together is intriguing but ultimately unworkable. Now that the NCAA prefers to play in large domed stadiums instead of traditional arenas, there just aren’t that many cities that can host a men’s Final Four. The hotels in cities like St. Louis and Indianapolis already are packed to the gills with just one event in town.
The 12 year-old girl argument held water 30 years ago, but it doesn’t today. Women have ample scholarship opportunities and the women’s tournament is widely covered on TV. Why do women’s basketball players ‘deserve’ more coverage than men’s soccer players? Am I a bad person for failing to watch college cross country? It’s just silly. Women’s basketball is less fun to watch, period.
Jason,
If it’s any consolation, Kansas State is a very difficult team for anyone to beat when both Walker and Beasley are on their games. Walker’s so inconsistent, though, that I think they go down in the second round.
And I sympathize with your apathy. Every season my interest in the NCAA tournament evaporates the second Kansas gets eliminated. Thankfully, I don’t think that’s going to happen this year
Christine needs to understand that women do not have the physical skills of men.There will never be a women MLB NBA or NFL player.People want to see the best.Most men can not achieve this status.I’m a golfer,my handicap[7] puts me in the top 95% of all golfers yet not near the pro game.That said,it bothers me the NCAA is a taxpayer funded minor league.The best go to school 1-2 years and then the pros.Radley,why do you shill for these punks?
Jozef,
At the NBA level I blame a combination of the 24 second shot clock and the short stays in college for many of the players. The NBA isn’t as much of a learning environment as the college game is, the practices tend to be less hands-on and instructive, there’s more personnel turnover on teams which can throw off chemistry….basically, if the individual players haven’t honed their game by the time they get to the NBA it’s much tougher for them to do so once they’re there because players who haven’t established themselves early get buried behind guys who have a proven track record and may not see an opportunity for playing time again.
The 24 second clock adds to this by pushing teams to put the ball only in the hands of a couple of players rather than to work it around to find the better shot. I suspect it’s the reason you see so many isolation plays run and why athleticism is often more important at the NBA level than skill…there’s just not enough time to consistently run a good offense, so game management skills become less important…you have to move it to the other end, then gun it up. The shot clock’s set so low to increase possessions and create more scoring, but I honestly wouldn’t be bothered to see them put about 6 more seconds on the shot clock, or even just match it up with the college game. Scoring might drop a little, but I think we’d see a dramatic rise in the overall quality of play.
It also wouldn’t hurt to fire about half the referees in the NBA, since a lot of them apparently haven’t even read the rule book.
Radleys got it spot on when it comes to wanting to watch femininity in a game with women in it. The few times I’ve watched any sport ( I’m just not in to sports) its been ice skating, gymnastics or on the rare occasions tennis. In all of theis sports the women kept there femininity. In Basketball they seem to lose it somewhere between the uniform and just overly large muscles. Its just not as pleasing to the eye to watch someone miss a slam dunk as it is to see a triple twist turn with a perfect landing.
Michael,
To the NBA’s credit, they tried to set the age limit for incoming players at 21 (so the colleges had three years to develop players or weed out the non-hackers) but the player’s union shot it down during collective bargaining.
Honestly, I just wish the NBA would work the kinks out of their developmental league and find a way to have each NBA team get their own farm team. I think that would drastically improve the overall quality of play at the NBA level as well and give players a chance to actually develop.
UCrawford,I think a minor league would be better.Making men go to school for 3-4 years[at no pay] to play BBall makes a farce of higher education.I don’t believe Lebron James or Kobi Bryant would have been better off going to school .It bothers me the NCAA and the schools make BILLIONS while the kids receive little.All tax supported.Look at Greg Oden.He left early, has a nice contract and s injured.If he had stayed at OSU he would be sitting out,his draft status hurt and would have to play another year ‘free’ to prove his worth.
How about, once the champions of both men’s and women’s basketball are chosen, they play each other. You’d have more people watch a woman’s game under those circumstances.
In this instance at least I can say I treat both genders with complete equality. I was born without the genetic component necessary to show anything more than a passing interest in sports. I can’t explain it and I stopped trying to pretend years ago. One exception, I do follow baseball a little, but is that really a sport?
Maybe women could take performance enhancing drugs to level the playing field but do we want a bunch of women with Barry Bonds foreheads? Frightening thought.
In Albuquerque, New Mexico, the name of the game for the longest time was men’s basketball at UNM. Fans would pack the Pit and sell out almost every home game for the men’s games, regardless of how well they did or who they were playing. Meanwhile, the women’s team was not doing well, and they got almost no attendance or media coverage.
Then Coach Flanagan was hired to coach the women’s team. When Flanagan coached at Eldorado HS, EHS was the exact opposite from UNM. The women’s b-ball team at EHS got all the attention because they won almost every game and the state title year after year. He turned the UNM team around and got people around here excited about women’s basketball. Now, the women’s team at UNM makes the postseason often, while the men struggled for a long time and are just now making it back to the postseason. The UNM women’s games are as much of a draw as the men’s. Men’s attendance actually dropped for a while, but is now getting back to occasional sellouts under new HC Steve Alford.
The UNM women’s team got popular without any forced media coverage or pundits shoving the game down our throats, yakking about how it’s so unfair. It was accomplished because the women’s team got good, made some noise, and the fan base decided to support UNM women’s basketball on their own. You can’t make people care about a sport or a team. Winning does seem to attract fans though.
As for the femininity argument, not quite sure I agree with that. That’s what the cheerleaders are for. I think it has more to do with how much more vertical (dunks, blocked shots) the men’s game is, which almost everyone finds more exciting to watch.
I can see why people bristle at you using the term ‘femininity” when you really mean ‘hotness.’
Personally, I’ll watch women’s college ball before I’ll watch the NBA, because the NBA is just putrid, but I’ll almost never watch a women’s game that doesn’t involve my MSU Spartans. (I will watch a men’s game that I don’t care about) But then again, I think I maybe oggle a wider range of women then the general public, too. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a WNBA game, though.
As for having the women’s NCAA on ESPN as much as it is, I like it. I can’t imagine the horrible crap ESPN would fill its airtime with if it never showed women’s games. “Who’s Now?” anyone?
I think that people desperate to find discrimination and sexism will always find it, whether it’s there or not. This is one of those cases where it’s not truly a factor. One main problem is that Brennan sees two indisputable facts that are correct, one being that women’s basketball only has women playing it, and the other being that the sport isn’t deemed very watchable, but then incorrectly concludes that there is a cause and effect relationship that can be fixed if the evil, oppressive men would just accommodate her in the ways she sees fit. She’s wrong.
The reason I don’t watch women’s basketball is the same reason, essentially, that I don’t ever watch international men’s basketball (unless team USA is playing). The game is slower, it’s below the rim, it’s perimeter focused, the athleticism and “wow” factor just isn’t present, and that after watching the NBA for so long, lowering my standards to accommodate a game that doesn’t provide the things I like to watch seems absolutely wasteful.
I’d agree with some of the above comments about women’s tennis, though. There are a number of things that distinguish it from the unwatchable sleepfest of women’s basketball. The fact that the game is slower is truly an advantage, I can only watch Andy Roddick win games with consecutive ace serves so long before I get bored. And, of course, sex appeal is a real factor. You might think that women’s basketball would supply that same appeal, but it really doesn’t.
It’s important to admit that men’s basketball and women’s basketball are fundamentally different games that are played in totally different ways. It’s not the fact that women are playing that makes it less popular and watchable, it’s the fact that the game isn’t as entertaining. The reasons that it’s less entertaining coincide with the characteristics that women bring to the game, but that’s not the same as sexism.
“Right or not, I think most men feel like they could be at least an average player in women’s college basketball (again, this may not actually be true, but I do think it’s the perception).”
Check out the book “Andy Roddick Beat Me With a Frying Pan” by Todd Gallagher. Gallagher tries to verify or refute common outlandish sports questions (like “how good would a baseball line-up of all midgets be?” or “would a morbidly obese hockey goalie be any good?”). Anyway, he has a section on the difference in athletic ability between men and women. I was quite surprised to see how great the difference really is.
That being said, the only women’s sports I enjoy watching are Olympic ice hockey (any sport where sub-5′10″ players can be stars should translate to the women’s game pretty well) and curling (because there are a couple hot chicks on the American team). Of course, if these sports were featured more than once every four years I’m not so sure I’d pay as much attention. Oh, and no, I’m not Canadian.
I think another reason the W-NCAA draw less is that it is less competitive. The gap between the best and worst teams in the women’s game is much greater than in the men’s.
I also the point made about saturation is valid. No one pays attention to the NIT either. America only has enough interest to watch one tournament, not three.
Finally, another sport that gets added to the popular women’s sports is volleyball. It’s another sport where feminity can be retained.
She wants them to play at about the same time?
Right now the final four weekend is about as good as it could be. The Women play on Friday and Sunday the Men on Saturday and Monday.
I know that but honestly i have no idea when the earlier rounds are played. If they were played at about the same time as the mens games - i would be even further from playing any attention. I mean during these four days I don’t pay attention to any non-M.Bball sports news. Manning could be traded to the Pats and I wouldn’t notice until next Monday. Having the games on the same day would be a killer.
And unfair to those (few) schools which seem to excel in both (Tenn, U Conn, Purdue, Duke, UNC)
And it might be hard for the NCAA to pull it all off at the same time…
Forgot about volleyball…that’s actually interesting to watch, although I probably would only watch it if I happened to see it on TV. I’d go out of my way to watch women’s soccer or rugby or gymnastics, though. The WNBA and women’s NCAA basketball just makes me want to turn the channel because the talent disparity compared the the men’s game is so great…similar to the way I can’t stand watching MLS because I’ve seen too many English Premier League games not to notice that MLS is a worse product.
all good comments above. Sometimes sexism becomes a dirty word when used in sports discrimination. There is no joy in Mudsville, Mighty Brennan has struck out.
Actually, my understanding is that the differences between top men and women in tennis ability is really huge. But by the nature of the game (head to head matches), they’re not as apparent to viewers.
There was a recent article on men’s players at connecticut who helped the women’s team practice. The men were some of the best campus basketball players not on the men’s team. And they were distinctly inferior to the women’s team. They could dunk, and the women can’t, but they weren’t getting many opportunities to dunk.
I really prefer men’s basketball, because the athleticism and the dunk make a big difference to watching the game, but that’s not the same as saying the men are more skilled overall.
Justin’s right that the difference between professional men’s tennis and professional women’s tennis is extreme–far more than the difference in, say, golf. I don’t know that any top-ten women could take more than a game or two (out of a three-set match) off of any of the top 500 players on the mens’ tour.
However, one of the things that makes women’s tennis more watchable than other professional women’s sports is that the difference between female professional tennis players and your perennial-local-club-tournament-winning-player (to say nothing of weekend warriors) is even more extreme. Your very good local player wouldn’t win a point against someone like Shaparova or Ivanovic unless Sharapova or Ivanovic broke a string on a service return (or hit a ball out due to boredom).
The skill level with which female tennis players play is astonishing and, to me, therefore, worth viewing. That male tennis players are several factors more astonishing doesn’t take anything away from the women.
It seems to me that the gulf between your very-good local male basketball player and professional women’s basketball player isn’t as big, if it even exists at all, which is why I don’t watch it.