DT calls out lazy sportswriters

[HuskyNan]

You tell ‘em, Dee!

 

[Geew1992]

She isn't wrong.

 

[lne001]

When 60% of the WNBA audience is male, many broadcasters would be well advised to serve their needs. Using male professional players as a frame of reference 'might' be beneficial in that regard.

A survey conducted in March of this year by Statista.com found 4% of the females interviewed described their interest in the WNBA as 'Avid', 19% as 'Casual', and 77% as 'None'. The corresponding numbers for males were 11%, 29% and 60% respectively.`

Those numbers succinctly define the WNBA's problem - insufficient female fans.

And while TitleIX has been an overly generous godsend for college female athletes (while being supported by football), it has been a disaster for many male athletes. Thankfully there is yet no TitleIX for professional athletics.

 

[Huskee11]

Ironically, when DT was at UConn you would be hard pressed to find anyone at that time in either the NBA or WNBA to compare her to.

 

[CB360]

Maybe I'm giving these Sports writers too much credit and in NO way am I'm say D is incorrect BUT, are the comparisons to maybe help the casual WBB fan or a new fan to WBB a reference to players they may know better and understand what that particular player plays like? Just a thought......

 

[psconn]

100% agree with DT. In fact, I made that point here to some fellow 'Yarders a long while back who were making similar "inappropriate" comparisons... as I recall, I took considerable pushback on the point.

But when DT speaks, people listen.

 

[darrell]

Ironically, when DT was at UConn you would be hard pressed to find anyone at that time in either the NBA or WNBA to compare her to.

I was too young during that time, but when did her “White Mamba” (Kobe) comparisons start? After she was in the WNBA?

 

[psconn]

I'm older than DT... when I think rebounding, I think Yolanda Griffith.

 

[HuskyNan]

When 60% of the WNBA audience is male, many broadcasters would be well advised to serve their needs. Using male professional players as a frame of reference 'might' be beneficial in that regard.

A survey conducted in March of this year by Statista.com found 4% of the females interviewed described their interest in the WNBA as 'Avid', 19% as 'Casual', and 77% as 'None'. The corresponding numbers for males were 11%, 29% and 60% respectively.`

Those numbers succinctly define the WNBA's problem - insufficient female fans.

And while TitleIX has been an overly generous godsend for college female athletes (while being supported by football), it has been a disaster for many male athletes. Thankfully there is yet no TitleIX for professional athletics.

Sportcasters could use the opportunity to say, “Angel rebounds like Rodman, or his WNBA equivalent, Rebekah Brunson” so the fans could learn something

 

[TheFarmFan]

When 60% of the WNBA audience is male, many broadcasters would be well advised to serve their needs. Using male professional players as a frame of reference 'might' be beneficial in that regard.

Isn't this a bait and switch though? DT is talking commentating on college ball, not WNBA games. And if anything, WNBA fans should know who Brunson and Smith are/were. My guess, based on my sense of the Stanford WBB fan base, is that as many fans today know who recent WNBA legends are/were as older NBA ones like Rodman.

And while TitleIX has been an overly generous godsend for college female athletes (while being supported by football), it has been a disaster for many male athletes. Thankfully there is yet no TitleIX for professional athletics.

I'm curious what you're basing this "disaster" claim on. In 1972 (when Title IX was enacted), there were far fewer D1 male college athletes than there are today: Charts: The State of Women’s Athletics, 40 Years After Title IX

Today, in an era where far more than 50 percent of college students are women, and at many schools student tuition and/or special fees go to help subsidize the athletic department (including, notably, at UConn), it seems odd to think women would be entitled to any less than half the athletic opportunities a school chooses to offer.

 

[VaConnFan11]

The answer is simple.

90% of people know who Steph Curry is and 1% (I'm being generous) know who Katie Smith is.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

While I largely agree with Taurasi, certain comparisons are inevitable. Caitlin Clark's game very much resembles Steph Curry -- and Steph's impact on the game of basketball. Since coming into the NBA, teams have sought to emulate what he brings and how offensive schemes are designed.

Clark herself is a byproduct of Steph's influence on the game of basketball, especially for that position. Katie Smith, as great of a player as she was, did not have the comparative impact on the women's game as Steph did for the NBA.

And there are certain comparisons that are inevitable because there is no female player equivalent (e.g., Lauren Jackson and Dirk Nowitzki).

As an aside, I see Reese as being closer to Brunson than Rodman, but neither is a great comparison for her.

But I appreciate Taurasi raising the issue to highlight more female basketball players as comparators.

 

[Bone Dog]

Just to clarify a misunderstanding: women’s college athletics are not supported by men’s athletics. Title IX does not mean this. All sports are paid for by the general fund of the school. All Title IX requires is that schools make comparable athletic opportunities available to men and women. It’s a mere accident that a couple of men’s sports actually bring in more revenues than they cost. Most sports, men’s and women’s, are a net cost to each school.

It’s thinking like this that reinforces the very prejudice DT is pointing out in that interview.

 

[lne001]

Just to clarify a misunderstanding: women’s college athletics are not supported by men’s athletics.

I don't believe there is a women's college sports team which brings in enough revenue to cover their own expenses, while there are some men's sports teams (football, basketball) which do.

All sports are paid for by the general fund of the school.

Technically yes, but no in reality. There is not a public university in the US which now doesn't expect sports revenue to equal or
exceed sports expenses. Those with athletic deficits (UConn $53 million in 2022, Rutgers $73 million, and numerous others), are covered by General Fund subsidies and Student Fees. These subsidies are no longer being tolerated by state government.

All Title IX requires is that schools make comparable athletic opportunities available to men and women.

And in so doing requires schools to provide the same number of athletic scholarships. Since women are not yet playing tackle football, the result was the elimination of numerous men's sports and the padding of the number of women's scholarships (see rowing for one popular dumping ground) to cover 85 football scholarships.

It’s a mere accident that a couple of men’s sports actually bring in more revenues than they cost.

Wrong. Ask Dave Benedict how important is increasing revenue. And any such significant revenue increases will be driven by football.

Most sports, men’s and women’s, are a net cost to each school.

Which is one of the many reasons why I believe athletic scholarships have no place in American higher education.

It’s thinking like this that reinforces the very prejudice DT is pointing out in that interview.

Hardly.

 

[Bone Dog]

Wow. You’re really calling me out. The thing is, I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing. I see that you say I’m wrong a couple times. But the evidence you cite actually proves my points. More importantly, you cloud the issue DT is pointing to.

To say football programs pay for women’s sports makes about as much sense as to say they pay for the Math department. WBB does not need to be compared to MBB — not in college and not in the pros. It can be valued independently and in its own terms.

 

[Cuango]

Just to clarify a misunderstanding: women’s college athletics are not supported by men’s athletics. Title IX does not mean this. All sports are paid for by the general fund of the school. All Title IX requires is that schools make comparable athletic opportunities available to men and women. It’s a mere accident that a couple of men’s sports actually bring in more revenues than they cost. Most sports, men’s and women’s, are a net cost to each school.

It’s thinking like this that reinforces the very prejudice DT is pointing out in that interview.

I freely acknowledge my lack of expertise on this but I have constantly heard how football pays for most of the other sports. If that is true then men’s athletics do support women’s sports. Perhaps not exclusively but certainly partially. I mean, without the NBA there would be no WNBA. Again, I’m certainly no expert but, as Humpty Dumpty said, “I’d rather see that done on paper”. Taking the football revenue and placing it in some general fund then drawing from that fund doesn’t change th fact that it’s football money that is being distributed.
As for Dee’s complaint, I see her point but I think so few people know the WNBA players that the reference would not mean anything. Perhaps, as Nan said, they could reference the female and then her male equivalent. As the fan base grows, knock wood, that would no longer be necessary.

 

[azfan]

Those numbers succinctly define the WNBA's problem - insufficient female fans.

And while TitleIX has been an overly generous godsend for college female athletes (while being supported by football), it has been a disaster for many male athletes. Thankfully there is yet no TitleIX for professional athletics.

The WNBA "problem" well as the problem of WCB is a lack of fans regardless of gender.

There has been considerable thought, analysis, discussion, and wishful thinking on this board regarding this issue.

With more pickleball professional franchises than WNBA franchises the evidence strongly suggests a much smaller fan base for our favorite sport than many many other sports.

The degree to which this will evolve and change over time is uncertain but I would argue it's going to be at a much slower pace than any of us here on the BY would hope.

That said DT's observation and implied criticism which is entirely valid, is directly on point.

An insightful broadcaster or sports writer could properly contextualize the excellence we have in the WNBA via a set of references that would be linked to accessibility but more important to history....in the WNBA.

 

[JellyBean]

Well said by DT. I mean if you are a sportswriter, covering the WNBA, you have to do your research. With technology the way that it is now, you can't be that lazy.

 

[AzzisBraids]

I see both sides. If you are going to cover the sport, know the sport and use references adjacent to sport you are covering. But also, there has to be a way we can educate and not demean sportswriters whom I think, are wholeheartedly are trying to compliment these players in terms that run-of-the-mill basketball fans will know and tune in for.

 

[lne001]

To say football programs pay for women’s sports makes about as much sense as to say they pay for the Math department.

What I said is that football helps pay for all other sports, and that many public universities still have large deficits that they are expecting the Athletic Department to reduce.

At some schools (eg. University of Texas) the football program covers the revenue/expense shortfall for all their sports and generates a surplus on top of that ($14 million in 2022), which is then turned back to the school for use elsewhere (possibly even the Math department ).

 

[JoePgh]

I don't believe there is a women's college sports team which brings in enough revenue to cover their own expenses, while there are some men's sports teams (football, basketball) which do.

I would be surprised if the UConn WBB program did not pay its own way, particularly in the 1995-2004 era when every home game was sold out. Even today, and even with the ample salaries paid to the coaching staff, I suspect that between ticket sales and TV revenue, the WBB program at least breaks even. As far as I know, UConn does not publish anything which would allow this to be verified or disproven (all their financial statements are for the athletic program as a whole).

I was surprised to read recently that when the NCAA tournament's TV contract opens up again in the next year or two, the women's NCAA tournament's TV rights will be sold separately for the first time, and are expected to go for about $100 million. So we may be entering a new era.

There is not a public university in the US which now doesn't expect sports revenue to equal or
exceed sports expenses. Those with athletic deficits (UConn $53 million in 2022, Rutgers $73 million, and numerous others), are covered by General Fund subsidies and Student Fees. These subsidies are no longer being tolerated by state government.

However, "state government" has a dilemma, assuming that it doesn't want to shut down its football programs, which its constituents value for many reasons, including non-financial reasons. In a world without Title IX, it could require the public universities to shut down all sports except perhaps football and men's basketball. But Title IX requires that 50% of scholarships and other financial resources must go to women's sports, so the state legislatures face a choice between giving up football or subsidizing the athletic deficit that results from Title IX requirements. They have consistently chosen to do the latter.

 

[Bone Dog]

At some schools (eg. University of Texas) the football program covers the revenue/expense shortfall for all their sports and generates a surplus on top of that ($14 million in 2022), which is then turned back to the school for use elsewhere (possibly even the Math department ).

I know that in the media, people are fond of making comparisons like the one you're offering. It's a tempting shorthand for the way university budgeting appears to work from the outside. But the Athletic Dept at any state university, including U of T, does not control the revenue that results from any of its programs. Thus it is never in a position to turn anything back to the the school. Of course, I'm sure the president of the U of T and the Board does make judgments about particular programs on the basis of a cost-revenue basis. As a result, they may increase or decrease the budget for the athletic department on the basis of performance or any other factor. And naturally, they consider the impact of all such decisions on the alumni donor base and the way they'll respond to particular budget decisions.

It's a complex story, but the upshot is that to say that football pays for WCBB is simply mistaken, or more precisely, is no more accurate or informative than to say it pays for the Math or English department. Similarly, we should practice thinking about WBB in its own terms and not allow the cavalier shorthand the media sometimes uses to describe university budget decisions. Even more importantly, we shouldn't indulge the falsehood that Title IX somehow took. money from the football program. Title IX merely requires the equitable distribution of a public asset, namely education funding. This is a matter of law, not an attempt to cheat the football program of anything.

How about this for compromise -- let's just say football pays for men's water polo, golf, tennis and wrestling. Leave WCBB out of it.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I would be surprised if the UConn WBB program did not pay its own way, particularly in the 1995-2004 era when every home game was sold out. Even today, and even with the ample salaries paid to the coaching staff, I suspect that between ticket sales and TV revenue, the WBB program at least breaks even. As far as I know, UConn does not publish anything which would allow this to be verified or disproven (all their financial statements are for the athletic program as a whole).

I was surprised to read recently that when the NCAA tournament's TV contract opens up again in the next year or two, the women's NCAA tournament's TV rights will be sold separately for the first time, and are expected to go for about $100 million. So we may be entering a new era.

However, "state government" has a dilemma, assuming that it doesn't want to shut down its football programs, which its constituents value for many reasons, including non-financial reasons. In a world without Title IX, it could require the public universities to shut down all sports except perhaps football and men's basketball. But Title IX requires that 50% of scholarships and other financial resources must go to women's sports, so the state legislatures face a choice between giving up football or subsidizing the athletic deficit that results from Title IX requirements. They have consistently chosen to do the latter.

UConn WBB does not pay for itself. You are correct that there were times in the past when it did. This information is available, although I don't personally know where. At the high point, I believe there were about 5 programs that broke even, this was in the era you mention, I believe.

More generally, athletic statements are interesting documents that can be massaged to reflect what the powers that be want. Very well known reality. Never-the-less, periodically there are reports.

As noted by others, Football is often the only sport that generates more than it costs, although this isn't every school by any means. As noted, Texas is well known to be one of the few athletic departments that make more than they cost. Rutgers is a notable program that needs a lot of subsidizing.

The TV rights for the women's tournament is key. The men's rights subsidize the NCAA (remember, the conferences make the money from bowl games and football media). Each school gets considerable payouts generally based on how their conference performed. On the women's side, they don't get anything, so far as I know, although it has been discussed.

 

[CL82]

Maybe I'm giving these Sports writers too much credit and in NO way am I'm say D is incorrect BUT, are the comparisons to maybe help the casual WBB fan or a new fan to WBB a reference to players they may know better and understand what that particular player plays like? Just a thought......

One could argue that by comparing a current female player to a male player known for excellence in a certain aspect of their game, the commentator is avoiding gender stereotyping. Why shouldn't a female player be compared to an exceptional male player or for that matter why should a male player be compared to an exceptional female player?

 

[Chax]

When 60% of the WNBA audience is male, many broadcasters would be well advised to serve their needs. Using male professional players as a frame of reference 'might' be beneficial in that regard.

A survey conducted in March of this year by Statista.com found 4% of the females interviewed described their interest in the WNBA as 'Avid', 19% as 'Casual', and 77% as 'None'. The corresponding numbers for males were 11%, 29% and 60% respectively.`

Those numbers succinctly define the WNBA's problem - insufficient female fans.

And while TitleIX has been an overly generous godsend for college female athletes (while being supported by football), it has been a disaster for many male athletes. Thankfully there is yet no TitleIX for professional athletics.

Ok, cool, I guess?

You did not succeed in making the point you were attempting to (good lord, at least I hope not) and I'm not going to rush to judgement and crucify you for how your post came across so I'm going to ask for clarification... unless you really were trying to say (in the weakest and safest way possible) that only men would know about male pro players and women only about women pro players?

God bless the First Amendment.

Agreed wholeheartedly but what does the government have anything to do with this thread?