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.
