Noticing the obvious (WNBA)

[DefenseBB]

The key point is that fans are attracted to women's basketball, both at the college and pro level, for their fundamentals. Women players far better schooled in team basketball, and that makes the game fun to watch. I can't stand watching a regular season NBA game. All that goes on is one player is given the ball, while everyone else on the court, except for that player's defender, just stand there and watch. And don't even talk about going for offensive rebounds; everyone is just loping down the court when the shot goes up.

It's boring, it's lacking in team play, it's not worth it. The NBA game is the exact opposite of UConn basketball, which involves speed, passing, amazing, spectacular fast breaks, and tenacious team defense. And add to that the eye-popping winning record and you've got to be amazed!

I follow the WNBA to watch the players I've come to know from the NCAAB game, as well as some of the foreign players. Emma Meeseman is a fascinating, talented, typical "European player," who is a forward/center, but can pop from the outside, dribble well, and pass. No wonder she was just named the MVP of the European championship tournament, though her team lost to Maya's team.

And can't wait to see Nadeeva (spelling?) play, the teenager from Russia who helped dismantle UConn during the European tour during the summer (I've got that right, correct?), and was a key player in the European tournament.

The WNBA athletes deserve bigger salaries and much greater exposure from ESPN.

I applaud your enthusiasm and passion for the women's game! I would echo that the women's game is played below the rim and is more the game the vast majority of us played when we were young. However, you last sentence is either ignorant or willfully self-serving. Sponsorship, TV revenue and attendance all contribute to the revenue pool for salaries and this is a business. The business has never opened its books for scrutiny to the public though the constant discussion lends us to believe the league doesn't make money. You are promoting the NBA to continue subsidizing at an even greater level without profits that simply is not realistic. It's not your money. Unless the owners see the revenue stream improving with better evidence, why put more money in? That's why Silverman is hypothesizing moving the season to the fall/winter aspect to see if more fans will come and if TV revenue could improve.

I am no a fan of the NBA per se' as I also agree with some of your fundamental comments but would say the better passing and defensive teams in the NBA rise during the playoffs. I don't understand officiating as it seems the game is too physical at times and no fouls called and then at other times a mere bump is a foul. The Warriors have a great passing game and many of the pros shooting is pretty impressive.

That said, the WNBA has a few perception issues it needs to get out and address if it really wants to make inroads into attendance and making real money. Some of my comments are observational and may irk some readers so I warn you ahead of time.

The WCBB demographic is older people and these people tend to live rural, not urban, hence their attendance at colleges and not big city locations where the pros play.

The sexual orientation for the players is no different than softball, golf or tennis but the latter two do a better job of promoting their games, though the LPGA has fallen on harder times lately. Softball has failed miserably in the pros while WCSB is second only to WCBB in attendance at the collegiate level. I don't think the sexual orientation is an issue that can't be overcome per se'. Ultimately, they need to proceed on 2 tracks:
1. Promote the skills of the players first AND subtly educate the masses on tolerance and positive role models what many of these players do for their communities (regardless of orientation) to allow the fans to see the players as individual people.
2. Whether we like talking about here or not, Pretty women sells and is what advertisers and fans want. To deny that is myopic. I am not saying objectify any of these women but I would much prefer to see Elena Delle Donne over Britany Griner or Sue Bird over Lindsay Whelan. Skyler Diggins, Candace Parker, Maya Moore are easy to sell-so promote them.

While the WNBA and WCBB games themselves may be more aesthetically beautiful with passing, shooting and defensive efforts, the pro's have an image issue of too many outspoken individuals who want to push their social agenda and add in the excessive tattoos and it is tough to get the mainstream to buy in. Even UConn doesn't want visible tattoos as it brings the attention to the individual, not the team. I care about basketball, regardless of the orientation but if you constantly put the orientation (and I mean any orientation) and excessive tattoos in my face, I am turned off as the message becomes blurred to what I tuned in for. I want to root for good individuals and good players and enjoy the game. That's all.

Again, apologies to anyone who takes offense to my observations about mainstream growth and I am looking forward to hearing feedback on these.

 

[crewbear742]

The WNBA athletes deserve bigger salaries and much greater exposure from ESPN.

You deserve what you earn. You earn what you are worth. You are worth what the market says you are worth. The market will determine your worth by the marginal cost of replacing you. There is no such thing as a "Social Justice Theory of Value".

Basketball is an entertainment industry. It creates value by attracting eyeballs. ESPN isn't going to feature a sport that if presented will induce people to change the channel.

 

[augustaTC]

OK, they seem to want women in the 21-34 age bracket in the seats. My first question is, where are these women now? What do they do with their free time? Almost by definition they're urban dwellers. Presumably they have jobs to afford regular ticket purchases.

My sense is (strictly from watching my nieces grow up) that young ladies are wrapped up in starting careers, exploring relationships and having fun....not necessarily in that order. And unless they played the game or otherwise grew up loving WBB, attending a WNBA game is not high on a priority list aimed toward ticking off any of those boxes. Do you meet interesting guys/girls there? Maybe, but there are probably much better ways if that's your goal. Is watching a game you never played and don't understand a great evening out? Doubtful.

Yes the WNBA needs to promote players better. And at the end of the day I suppose it will be the Sue Bird's, EDD's, Maya Moore's and Skylar Diggins' who get promoted the most because they're attractive and articulate. Apologies if that statement offends anyone, but that's life. Sports need "faces".

Maybe they need to experiment with changing the game a little. Seems to me Geno has been a proponent of a 9' basket for quite a while. Why not try it? Put some real $ up for the champion and somehow include some fans in the action.

They certainly can experiment with what happens in the venues - Happy Hours before? BOGO ticket offers, pick the final score lotteries, etc, etc. I'm sure marketing people have a million different ways to make a game more exciting to the rank & file women they want to attract who have only the vaguest idea what's going on.

Honestly not sure their stated goal is even achievable, but it is going to take time and commitment and buckets of $.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

You deserve what you earn. You earn what you are worth. You are worth what the market says you are worth. The market will determine your worth by the marginal cost of replacing you. There is no such thing as a "Social Justice Theory of Value".

Basketball is an entertainment industry. It creates value by attracting eyeballs. ESPN isn't going to feature a sport that if presented will induce people to change the channel.

Actually, I believe that statement is contradicted by decades of women's contract disputes in other sports. Recall when women at Wimbledon were paid far less than male players. After they agitated for fair prize money, they got it. And consider the women's national soccer team. Didn't they just win a big boost in their compensation? Didn't the hockey players, after protesting, get a better deal from the USOC?

If WNBA players made a stink about their salaries, perhaps WNBA management would try harder to get better TV contracts which which to pay them.

Keep in mind that it took a lawsuit from Curt Flood many years ago to force major league baseball to create a free market for players, which led to skyrocketing salaries and a healthier game overall.

History shows that you earn what you bargain for, what you organize for, what you fight for, and win the right to earn.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Nice try @augustaTC . Noble effort. Truth in my family circle ... none of the women are the least bit interested in WNBA or similar. They are busy with life. Real life. Improving in their job/profession. The healthy outdoor life thing ... hiking, half marathons, whole enchilada marathons, my tomatoes are bigger than yours gardening, and a whole bunch of other stuff that's real and living large. Truth I feel is that in a man dominated culture, where men have made war during the day and played hard at night, it's the organized rituals of sports and sports fandom that we have had time for; the women folk (that'll make some mad right? ) have had the brains and the time to be more well rounded in their lives. For them there is a time for childish games and a time to move on (boy, will I take a hurtin' for saying that!). Niche is niche. The really strange thing is how many people seem enamored of men sweating profusely in skimpy uniforms or getting creamed on a football field. The answer is, of course, simple. Men are simply boys who grew hair in certain places and like to punch each other. I can't explain us; it's what we do. Women are more complex and interesting and hopefully we can't change them.

 

[emjay]

Actually, I believe that statement is contradicted by decades of women's contract disputes in other sports. Recall when women at Wimbledon were paid far less than male players. After they agitated for fair prize money, they got it. And consider the women's national soccer team. Didn't they just win a big boost in their compensation? Didn't the hockey players, after protesting, get a better deal from the USOC?

If WNBA players made a stink about their salaries, perhaps WNBA management would try harder to get better TV contracts which which to pay them.

Keep in mind that it took a lawsuit from Curt Flood many years ago to force major league baseball to create a free market for players, which led to skyrocketing salaries and a healthier game overall.

History shows that you earn what you bargain for, what you organize for, what you fight for, and win the right to earn.

Much appreciation for this thoughtful post.

 

[augustaTC]

Nice try @augustaTC . Noble effort. Truth in my family circle ... none of the women are the least bit interested in WNBA or similar. They are busy with life. Real life. Improving in their job/profession. The healthy outdoor life thing ... hiking, half marathons, whole enchilada marathons, my tomatoes are bigger than yours gardening, and a whole bunch of other stuff that's real and living large. Truth I feel is that in a man dominated culture, where men have made war during the day and played hard at night, it's the organized rituals of sports and sports fandom that we have had time for; the women folk (that'll make some mad right? ) have had the brains and the time to be more well rounded in their lives. For them there is a time for childish games and a time to move on (boy, will I take a hurtin' for saying that!). Niche is niche. The really strange thing is how many people seem enamored of men sweating profusely in skimpy uniforms or getting creamed on a football field. The answer is, of course, simple. Men are simply boys who grew hair in certain places and like to punch each other. I can't explain us; it's what we do. Women are more complex and interesting and hopefully we can't change them.

Extraordinarily well put!

 

[Bigboote]

Why doesn’t the NBA contribute more to the WNBA for marketing?

Probably the same reason they don't broadcast many W games on the NBA network. Every WNBA game has cameras, most have TV broadcasters for local/League Pass broadcast. Yet the NBA network carries, what, about 10-12 games? Most WNBA nights, NBA is showing 20-40 year old men's games. If they want to get the word out, they need to get the word out. What does it say to potential fans that the league owners think a 20-year-old NBA game is more worthwhile than a WNBA game?

 

[emjay]

This has been a fascinating thread to read. I belong to that demographic mentioned above - women in their 30s with no prior exposure to basketball. I’m not an athlete and did not grow up watching sports much (apart from the Blue Jays World Series wins and the Leafs during the Doug Gilmour years. Winning is always interesting, as residents of Connecticut know).

This is what got me interested in women’s basketball: Brittney Griner.

I read some mainstream media coverage of her coming out and her entry into the WNBA, and was intrigued. She seemed like an awesome queer role model. An artist I like, Julie Mehretu, posted about her. She’s since had some public personal meltdowns, and “role model” isn’t necessarily how I think of her now, but I still appreciate her desire to be out and encouraging of queer youth.

I had no knowledge of the sport before I started watching (on WNBA League Pass). I couldn’t see those fundamental skills people have been mentioning as an attraction. This is what kept me hooked:

- Strong personalities like Griner, Seimone Augustus, Diana Taurasi.

- The easily accessible narratives of the sport - the team and player rivalries, etc.

- The hair, the tattoos - they’re awesome, I have them, most people I know around my age have them; anything hip and expressive of personality like this is intriguing.

- The out queer players; my sense that the league was a comfortable, cool space for queer athletes.

- The social justice work of several of the teams and players.

- The strength and athleticism and physical swagger of the players. It still blows my mind to look at their bodies and see how strong they are. I’ve always been a femme arty bookworm type, and didn’t care much for physical activity beyond keeping myself in shape. It was a revelation to discover that a woman’s body could be like Maya Moore’s or Tamika Catchings’.

This is long, sorry, but the takeaway is that representation matters. If the media makes the effort to cover the sport more meaningfully, to make it seem as cool and awesome as I think it is, more people will pay attention.

 

[augustaTC]

This has been a fascinating thread to read. I belong to that demographic mentioned above - women in their 30s with no prior exposure to basketball. I’m not an athlete and did not grow up watching sports much (apart from the Blue Jays World Series wins and the Leafs during the Doug Gilmour years. Winning is always interesting, as residents of Connecticut know).

This is what got me interested in women’s basketball: Brittney Griner.

I read some mainstream media coverage of her coming out and her entry into the WNBA, and was intrigued. She seemed like an awesome queer role model. An artist I like, Julie Mehretu, posted about her. She’s since had some public personal meltdowns, and “role model” isn’t necessarily how I think of her now, but I still appreciate her desire to be out and encouraging of queer youth.

I had no knowledge of the sport before I started watching (on WNBA League Pass). I couldn’t see those fundamental skills people have been mentioning as an attraction. This is what kept me hooked:

- Strong personalities like Griner, Seimone Augustus, Diana Taurasi.

- The easily accessible narratives of the sport - the team and player rivalries, etc.

- The hair, the tattoos - they’re awesome, I have them, most people I know around my age have them; anything hip and expressive of personality like this is intriguing.

- The out queer players; my sense that the league was a comfortable, cool space for queer athletes.

- The social justice work of several of the teams and players.

- The strength and athleticism and physical swagger of the players. It still blows my mind to look at their bodies and see how strong they are. I’ve always been a femme arty bookworm type, and didn’t care much for physical activity beyond keeping myself in shape. It was a revelation to discover that a woman’s body could be like Maya Moore’s or Tamika Catchings’.

This is long, sorry, but the takeaway is that representation matters. If the media makes the effort to cover the sport more meaningfully, to make it seem as cool and awesome as I think it is, more people will pay attention.

This has been an interesting set of posts and appreciate the perspective you've brought. I doubt there is a single answer but will leave you with this thought. I think the NBA is asking, how do we generate the "numbers" (butts in seats, eyes on TV) within this very broad demographic (women the same age as the WNBA players). Clearly to do so, whatever efforts they pursue will have to cut across all sorts of cultural/demographic lines to appeal to new groups of female fans without turning off the current fan base - male, female, gay, straight, old and young.

 

[tomcat]

Well, I disagree with this. I think the dunk is good for the women's game. I think players should be allowed to express themselves how they want. If anything, individuality among the players will help fans identify with them.

College ball is fundamentally different from the WNBA. If the powers that be think that turning women into men with breasts will boost attendance, that's what they will do. So we will see tattoo-covered, chest-beating, ego-driven basketball peppered with dunking. (I just cannot get excited about women coloring their hair. They have been doing that since God was a child, and there's nothing even remotely radical about it).
It will be the female version of the men's game and because women are not men and cannot perform athletically in the same way, it will forever be a cheap version of the men's output. Note please, I did not say men's sport, because I am not convinced it is that any more, but that's another topic for another time.
Bronx23 is right, and thinking about what he wrote leads me to ask whether for many WCBB fans the principal attraction is a form of nostalgia -- a return to basketball the way we remember it and the way we insist it should be played? If that is the case, the WNBA is going in the wrong direction for now, but all of women's basketball -- college and pro -- might eventually go the way of the dinosaurs as we dinosaurs shuffle off this mortal coil, to scramble a metaphor or two. At some point there just will be no one around who remembers the way the game was played, and no one who cares.

 

[eebmg]

I believe there was a strong window of opportunity for the WNBA to really get a leghold when the league was new and the NBA game itself was looking like bully ball and isolation play really dominated. I think a big "problem" right now is that the mens's game is steadily improving with the proliferation of 3pt shooting (averages going up) opening up the court to driving and interior passing and more teams going to motion offenses (or at least 2-3 man sets). This has increased to the point that traditional big men who do not adapt will be pushed out of the league leading to a more positionless brand of game. The success of Golden State and Steph Curry in particular have made shooting and passing 'cool' so when an albatross like Carmelo Anthony does his iso schtick, it is mocked. A newer generation of players who have a pass first mentality are also starting to enter the NBA like Ben Simmons and Lonzo Ball.

In trying to compare,

First 100 NBA players 3pt stats are > 36% (averages to 3+ per team)

NBA Basketball Player Stats - Three Point Field Goal Percentage

In the wnba, 18 players (1.5 per team average)

League Leaders - WNBA.com - Official Site of the WNBA



My point is that the WNBA players imo have to continue to get better at shooting the ball. There are so few players who really can take over a game at the 3 pt line in the WNBA and even if they do, they are not dual threats that can take advantage of overplay. Also, with so few real 3pt threats on a team, you can scheme them out better. In a previous era when the men's game looked so clunky, that may not have been such an issue but in a market where a better product is observed (even if not in direct competition), that is a problem.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

In trying to compare,

First 100 NBA players 3pt stats are > 36% (averages to 3+ per team)
NBA Basketball Player Stats - Three Point Field Goal Percentage
In the wnba, 18 players (1.5 per team average)
League Leaders - WNBA.com - Official Site of the WNBA

My point is that the WNBA players imo have to continue to get better at shooting the ball. There are so few players who really can take over a game at the 3 pt line in the WNBA and even if they do, they are not dual threats that can take advantage of overplay. Also, with so few real 3pt threats on a team, you can scheme them out better. In a previous era when the men's game looked so clunky, that may not have been such an issue but in a market where a better product is observed (even if not in direct competition), that is a problem.

@eebmg , I respectfully disagree with you.

First, it is difficult to make comparisons in terms of numbers. The WNBA has 12 teams, with a maximum of 12 players per roster. The NBA has 30 teams, with a maximum of 15 players per roster.

Second, the issue is not shooting. The issue is creation. Much fewer WNBA players can create their own shots, which is why there needs to be more reliance on screens and set plays. This leads me to my biggest concern with the WNBA - PLAYMAKING.

Last year, the WNBA had 11 players who averaged 4.0 assists (or more) per game:
League Leaders - WNBA.com - Official Site of the WNBA

Counting Lindsay Whalen (who only played in 22 games, but averaged 4.1 assists per game), that makes 12 players.

In the NBA, 62 players averaged at least 4.0 assists per game.
Players Traditional

Yes, the games are longer. But the disparity between the men's and women's game in this statistic is astronomical. On average, that is over 2 players per NBA team, whereas the WNBA barely has an average of 1 player per team at 4.0 APG. And those 12 WNBA players, two played for the CT Sun (J. Thomas and A. Thomas), two played for Minnesota (L. Whalen and S. Augustus), and two played for Chicago (C. Vandersloot and C. Pondexter). So six of the twelve played for three teams. So while the average may be one per team, there are a number teams without a playmaker at 4.0 APG.

If the WNBA is selling fundamentals, the passing/playmaking needs to improve.

 

[eebmg]

@eebmg , I respectfully disagree with you.

First, it is difficult to make comparisons in terms of numbers. The WNBA has 12 teams, with a maximum of 12 players per roster. The NBA has 30 teams, with a maximum of 15 players per roster.

Second, the issue is not shooting. The issue is creation. Much fewer WNBA players can create their own shots, which is why there needs to be more reliance on screens and set plays. This leads me to my biggest concern with the WNBA - PLAYMAKING.

Last year, the WNBA had 11 players who averaged 4.0 assists (or more) per game:
League Leaders - WNBA.com - Official Site of the WNBA

Counting Lindsay Whalen (who only played in 22 games, but averaged 4.1 assists per game), that makes 12 players.

In the NBA, 62 players averaged at least 4.0 assists per game.
Players Traditional

Yes, the games are longer. But the disparity between the men's and women's game in this statistic is astronomical. On average, that is over 2 players per NBA team, whereas the WNBA barely has an average of 1 player per team at 4.0 APG. And those 12 WNBA players, two played for the CT Sun (J. Thomas and A. Thomas), two played for Minnesota (L. Whalen and S. Augustus), and two played for Chicago (C. Vandersloot and C. Pondexter). So six of the twelve played for three teams. So while the average may be one per team, there are a number teams without a playmaker at 4.0 APG.

If the WNBA is selling fundamentals, the passing/playmaking needs to improve.

Good points. Probably a combination of playmaking and 3 pt proficiency are needed which will allow for better spacing for screening and force more single coverage. Improved 3pt shooting also frees up drive plays that collapse the defense allowing for pass outs to 3 pt shooters. Probably no accident that the Chicago team with the best assists numbers in your example also have some of the best 3 pt shooters Quiqley, Vandersloot and Dolson are top 15 3pt . A bit of chicken and egg I guess

 

[SWHuskyFan]

I happen to be a fan of women's basketball and the NBA. The NBA game has opened up and skill players are able to dominate again. As for fundamentals, the NBA game is all about the pick and roll game and motion offenses at the moment. If you can't operate and defend against the pick and roll you can't beat even the bad teams. The ball handling at the NBA level is crazy good at this point. I was turned off by the early 90's NBA with all the big bodies smothering any offense. The NBA is a long way from that now. I think if people watched it again they would be amazed at how it's improved over the last few years. The Warriors game is spreading all around the league.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

The NBA is a long way from that now. I think if people watched it again they would be amazed at how it's improved over the last few years. The Warriors game is spreading all around the league.

As Phoenix Suns fan, a version of the basketball that the Warriors play was implemented by Mike D'Antoni during the Steve Nash era, with shooting from all over the court (especially when Amare was injured, as Tim Thomas was our default center).

The Warriors implemented better defensive schemes, but D'Antoni maximized shooting from all positions during his time with the Suns, leading the Suns to the WC Finals (and the system in which Steve Nash won two MVP awards).

 

[crewbear742]

Actually, I believe that statement is contradicted by decades of women's contract disputes in other ssports

Women's Tennis has the advantage of an audience. Even the USWNT has an audience albeit once every four years. The WNBA just got removed from MSG. For E-Sports. Why? Because the opportunity cost was just too high. The WNBA didn't deserve the venue. The WNBA can try to demand what it likes, but what leverage does it possess? The "cause" of Women's Basketball can only get them so far.

The problem with the WNBA isn't bad marketing or lack of exposure or any of the other excuses offered up. The problem is the product. For good or ill, the population that drives sports consumption in this country has no interest in the WNBA. There are reasons for that reality. Some of those reasons may be considered socially acceptable. Some not. That doesn't make them any less real. And they can't be ameliorated by a "consciousness raising" campaign.

The WNBA is a niche sport with a very low ceiling. Trying to make it into something it can never be is only going to lead to frustration.

 

[j66kicker]

From ESPN The Magazine:

Will the NFL combine be obsolete in 2028?

From "The WNBA in 2028" section (scroll to the bottom):

"In 2025, the league expanded to 16 teams, with new franchises in the Bay Area, South Carolina, Tennessee and Montreal. Teams play 50 games a year, and relaxed free-agency rules have led to Jonquel Jones signing with LA and Breanna Stewart landing in Vegas."

"In 2028 the dunk takes over. The heightened athleticism that hit the WNBA in the mid-2010s is stoked by Azzi Fudd, a 5-11 guard who became a teen web sensation in 2017-18. In 2028, the player once compared to Maya Moore wins her second straight MVP ... just as Moore's 17-year, nine-title WNBA career winds down with a farewell tour."

"In the 2028 WNBA draft, three players from the same school go 1-2-3 for the first time since 2016. Yes, Oregon has emerged as the sport's new juggernaut, having supplanted UConn after Geno Auriemma retired in 2022 to take over as director of USA Basketball."

"Under recently named WNBA president Tamika Catchings, the age for draft entry is lowered to 19.... And suddenly ... one-and-done becomes the league's most controversial issue."

 

[DaddyChoc]

NBA players are soooooooo fundamentally sound you dont notice it due to the quickness of the defender or the flashiness of the player.

crazy how we keep comparing... if you as a male ever played basketball you'd know how advanced and fundamentally sound you are.

the men were sound when the game was invented... not the players are bigger, faster etc.

lets put the 95' team up against the Jefferson, Tuck and Stewie teams... things get better over time