Don't mean to start a men vs women thing, but...

[HuskyNan]

...since I've already started down that path with the Opals thread, why, I'll just keep going.

I was on the USABasketball.com site this morning and was struck by these two headlines:

USA Men's Fast Start Paves Way To 86-80 Win Against Argentina
USA Women Pluck Win From Upset-Minded Turkey

Which team was it that won by 19?

 

[OneTrickPony]

We know which team has the sympathy of the media...they need it!

 

[alexrgct]

This seems like a non-issue to me, especially given that the final score of the men's game was included in the headline.

Argentina is the only country since 1988 other than the US to win gold medal in Olympic men's basketball. They're a pretty good team. The Spain game will also be competitive. The early struggles by the women's team against Turkey were something of a surprise.

 

[mcannon1]

I'm so disappointed the last two women's games were not on t.v.

 

[OneTrickPony]

I'm so disappointed the last two women's games were not on t.v.

They were available online at:
http://www.skyturk360.com/canli.asp

Don't know if they can be replayed...

 

[Waquoit]

USA Men's Fast Start Paves Way To 86-80 Win Against Argentina
USA Women Pluck Win From Upset-Minded Turkey

Which team was it that won by 19?

I'm guessing it's the women because 86 minus 80 is 6, not 19. But what is your point? That somehow the women here are being snubbed? Talk about a reach. The headline writer was simply trying to work in a pun. Turkey, pluck get it? Don't be one of those women fans.

 

[doggydaddy]

I'm guessing it's the women because 86 minus 80 is 6, not 19. But what is your point? That somehow the women here are being snubbed? Talk about a reach. The headline writer was simply trying to work in a pun. Turkey, pluck get it? Don't be one of those women fans.

"USA stuffs Turkey" would have been better.

 

[UConnCat]

More of the same.

A recent study by Univ of Del -- article linked at womenshoopsblog.wordpress.com -- found differences in how sportscasters talked about athletes depending on race, gender and nationality.

The gender-based study published in the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media found:

• When female athletes succeed, commentators tend to focus on luck and less on physical ability.
• When female athletes fail, physical ability and commitment are noted.
• When male athletes succeed, commentators applaud their skill and commitment to the sport.
• When male athletes fail, it is not necessarily about their failure, but about how their competitors succeeded.
• In 2010, 75 percent of the most-mentioned athletes were male.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120618161903.htm

 

[speedoo]

I'm guessing it's the women because 86 minus 80 is 6, not 19. But what is your point? That somehow the women here are being snubbed? Talk about a reach. The headline writer was simply trying to work in a pun. Turkey, pluck get it? Don't be one of those women fans.

OK, but what is your answer to the fact that ESPN said NOTHING about the women's game, while devoting plenty of minutes to the men's game, plus discussions by their talking heads about the upcoming men's game vs. Spain.

I thought that was far more egregious than the headline.

 

[speedoo]

More of the same.

A recent study by Univ of Del -- article linked at womenshoopsblog.wordpress.com -- found differences in how sportscasters talked about athletes depending on race, gender and nationality.

The gender-based study published in the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media found:

• When female athletes succeed, commentators tend to focus on luck and less on physical ability.
• When female athletes fail, physical ability and commitment are noted.
• When male athletes succeed, commentators applaud their skill and commitment to the sport.
• When male athletes fail, it is not necessarily about their failure, but about how their competitors succeeded.
• In 2010, 75 percent of the most-mentioned athletes were male.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120618161903.htm

Great find, Cat. But very troubling. Up to now, I thought women's broadcasters were simply incompetent, but now it appears they are badly biased as well. And that bias probably comes from ignorance.

 

[HuskyJohn]

A recent study by Univ of Del -- article linked at womenshoopsblog.wordpress.com -- found differences in how sportscasters talked about athletes depending on race, gender and nationality.

The gender-based study published in the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media found:

• When female athletes succeed, commentators tend to focus on luck and less on physical ability.
• When female athletes fail, physical ability and commitment are noted.
• When male athletes succeed, commentators applaud their skill and commitment to the sport.
• When male athletes fail, it is not necessarily about their failure, but about how their competitors succeeded.
• In 2010, 75 percent of the most-mentioned athletes were male.

I suspect the first four differences can be traced mainly to gender bias. However, IMO, the last difference has another large component - MONEY!

 

[Waquoit]

OK, but what is your answer to the fact that ESPN said NOTHING about the women's game, while devoting plenty of minutes to the men's game, ...

You know why.

 

[HuskyNan]

I'm guessing it's the women because 86 minus 80 is 6, not 19. But what is your point? That somehow the women here are being snubbed? Talk about a reach. The headline writer was simply trying to work in a pun. Turkey, pluck get it? Don't be one of those women fans.

My point was to start a thread for discussion. People will draw conclusions about my "intent" depending on their biases. Guess we know yours.

 

[speedoo]

You know why.

Yeah, I do. But that is also the best explanation for the headline issue raised by HuskyNan, in contrast to your condescending reply to her.

So, not to be inhospitable, but I have to ask, what are you doing here?

 

[EricLA]

Two different issues - but the answer to the reason ESPN doesn't show highlights from the women's game is because there is little interest for it. Those who watch ESPN would much rather see car racing, the British Open, baseball, and men's hoops highlights. I'm not one of those people but I bet if you put a poll out there for what highlights the average ESPN watcher would like to see, Women's hoops (even Olympic hoops) would be down below almost any men's sport, except maybe bowling and curling...

 

[Ozzie Nelson]

Over a few years I have known Waquoit to be a blunt and interesting poster. I wish he would post here more often. We don't need any more milquetoast Ozzie Nelsons.

 

[vtcwbuff]

The problem with citing a headline to make a point about bias is that you run the risk of someone else finding a headline that is just the opposite.

An example (one of several I found) here's USA Today's link to the coverage -

"US Men survive scare from Argentina "

I think yesterdays Comcast article was headed "USA wins in a squeaker"

 

[speedoo]

Over a few years I have known Waquoit to be a blunt and interesting poster. I wish he would post here more often. We don't need any more milquetoast Ozzie Nelsons.

Yeah, we can always use more blunt and interesting around here.. Condescending, not so much.

(and yes, I fully appreciate that what I consider condescending, others may not)

 

[vtcwbuff]

Two different issues - but the answer to the reason ESPN doesn't show highlights from the women's game is because there is little interest for it. Those who watch ESPN would much rather see car racing, the British Open, baseball, and men's hoops highlights. I'm not one of those people but I bet if you put a poll out there for what highlights the average ESPN watcher would like to see, Women's hoops (even Olympic hoops) would be down below almost any men's sport, except maybe bowling and curling...

All I have to do is look around at my own circle of friends, male or female. All the guys follow sports, mostly football but also just about anything except NASCAR. The few women that I know that are actual sports fans are mostly into football and men's college basketball. With the exception of my wife and one of her friends, nobody I know cares a whit about women's basketball including my kids who are UConn alum.

Change that and the coverage will change.

 

[grizz36]

Over a few years I have known Waquoit to be a blunt and interesting poster. I wish he would post here more often. We don't need any more milquetoast Ozzie Nelsons.

Anyone who has spent an entire lunchtime with HuskyBill is no milquetoast!

 

[OneTrickPony]

Athletics are star-driven...witness the resurrection of the NBA when Magic Johnson and Larry Bird came into the league...and the impact of the steroid-induced home run derbies on the MLB.

Maybe Maya Moore will be the one with just the right mix of athleticism and personality to bring WBB into the public consciousness the way Olga Korbut and Nadia Comaneci did for gymnastics and Peggy Fleming and Dorothy Hamill did for figure skating.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Athletics are star-driven...witness the resurrection of the NBA when Magic Johnson and Larry Bird came into the league...and the impact of the steroid-induced home run derbies on the MLB.

Maybe Maya Moore will be the one with just the right mix of athleticism and personality to bring WBB into the public consciousness the way Olga Korbut and Nadia Comaneci did for gymnastics and Peggy Fleming and Dorothy Hamill did for figure skating.

I'm not sure I would define gymnastics and figure skating as being in the public consciousness. Except, of course, for the olympics. In the individual sports, certain individual athletes brought attention, but I don't think the sport, for many folks, remains relevant except at the select times. There have, for example, been some great skaters (and I always enjoy the olympics), but I will admit I couldn't name a current one and don't expect to see them for another 2 years.

The women's team sports are always a bit niche. Even Women's Soccer at its top - where is a significant pro women's league now? I actually think the women's National Team garners as much support as it does not only because the players have charisma, but because the men's team is much less storied.

I just don't see women's team sports (sadly) as ever having a significant share of team sports fandom. For those that love them, the more coverage the better, but . . .

 

[OneTrickPony]

I'm not sure I would define gymnastics and figure skating as being in the public consciousness. Except, of course, for the olympics. In the individual sports, certain individual athletes brought attention, but I don't think the sport, for many folks, remains relevant except at the select times. There have, for example, been some great skaters (and I always enjoy the olympics), but I will admit I couldn't name a current one and don't expect to see them for another 2 years.

The women's team sports are always a bit niche. Even Women's Soccer at its top - where is a significant pro women's league now? I actually think the women's National Team garners as much support as it does not only because the players have charisma, but because the men's team is much less storied.

I just don't see women's team sports (sadly) as ever having a significant share of team sports fandom. For those that love them, the more coverage the better, but . . .

That is the current status quo regarding WBB in the United States, without question. And Olympic Sports do seem to disappear after the torch is extinguished, so they don't prove anything about longevity.

But niche sports in the US...think Track & Field...have acquired strong followings in Europe. In fact, WBB has several thriving leagues in Europe, as well. I think the product is excellent, and I'm just looking for reasons to be optimistic...or maybe just less pessimistic. The WSJ article featuring LeBron James and Maya Moore started me thinking!

 

[Wonkster]

.
Don't mean to piss off HuskyNan, but ... () how come women are such lousy sports fans?

In general, women are a small percentage of the live crowd. I'm talking across all sports. My current working hypothesis is that sports don't mean as much to women as it does to men (a substitute for war). And I don't think the situation is likely to change significantly in the future.

 

[Waquoit]

Yeah, I do. But that is also the best explanation for the headline issue raised by HuskyNan, in contrast to your condescending reply to her.

So, not to be inhospitable, but I have to ask, what are you doing here?

I've been a women's hoop fan since Kim Mulkey wore pigtails. And I don't know if my reply was anymore "condecending" than her OP. One really has to stretch to find an issue there so I posted as much. What's the problem?