From: ronnie@uts.amdahl.com (Ronnie Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Why there's no support for women's basketball
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:05:02 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Aug11.195032.19449@leland.Stanford.EDU> bohnert@leland.Stanford.EDU (matthew bohnert) writes:
>>>   right playing it?  I mean I find women's volleyball often MORE exciting th
>>>   the men's game; women's tennis is as enjoyable as men's; running, swimmin,
>>>   diving, gymnastics -- in virtually every other dual-sex sport women both
>>>   excel, and are enjoyable to watch playing.  But, women's basketball, man,
>>>   it's just boring to watch.  Every layup and free-throw's an adventure,
>
>I don't know about `exciting', but I've always wondered myself why women stars
>in track and field, tennis, golf, etc., command high salaries and attention
>when women's basketball doesn't.  The few attempts at women's professional
>leagues in this country have been total failures.  It's obvious that support
>is needed from both sexes to provide interest and income for any sport.
>
>My basic theory is that few adults are willing to pay to see caliber of 
>play that isn't that much greater than their own.  Now before I get flamed
>to death for being sexist (or something else), I think it's instructive to 
>look at comparisons of `average ability' in various sports fields.  
>
>For example, Martina Navratalova, or probably any women's player ranked in
>the top 100, would kick the ass of even a pretty good male tennis club member
>(and certainly all of the women).  Track & field?  Forget it.  Gail Devers or
>Merlene Ottey would blow by `the fastest guy on the softball team'.  Many
>male golfers play 3-4 times a week for years and can't approach Nancy Lopez.
>As a result, there is general interest in viewing athletes of either sex
>participate in these sports, since the viewer is witnessing someone with
>abilities far greater than his own.  Diving would be another obvious example.
>
>I just don't think the same can be said for basketball.  I'm what you might
>call a typical college `intramural gym rat'; I played some ball in high school,
>and probably could have played on a modest Division III type team, at a college
>with about ~2000 students or so.  I certainly don't have the skills to play
>legitimate Division I type ball.  I've also been fortunate enough at U of
>Illinois and here at Stanford to have `contacts' that let me play with a
>group of people that generally includes a few members of both the mens and
>womens teams in the off-season.  We can usually finagle our way into the
>main gym about once or twice a week.  My graduate studies have regrettably
>reduced this frequency in the past few years.
>
>At U of Illinois, I played alongside Janelle Polk, whom I believe was Big 10
>MVP her senior season, and here at Stanford the women's team won the NCAA's
>twice.  I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I must say that our intramural 
>team could beat the Stanford women about 100-30 in a legitimate game.  
>At U of I, Janelle Polk couldn't score against even one of our weaker players.
>These aren't the absolute best players in the world, of course, but they're 
>getting pretty close, since they generally make national squads, or are
>close alternates.  They would probably be typical of a women's professional
>starter.

Matt, you make some good points here but what you say about hoops holds true 
for almost *any* sport. I good (not great) male athlete at almost any sport 
would be right there with the top females of the world. I often watch the 
women's track and field and smile as I see high 10 or low 11's (times I can
still run fairly consistently now at age 32) win the women's 100 meters.  Your
gym rat anecdote reminded me of our girls volleyball team when I was in high 
school in Orlando. When I was a sophomore, we would often get out of football
practice about the time the women's volleyball team would be scrimmaging. 
About once a week, a bunch of us footballers would scrimmage them. Over the 
course of the season we must've scrimmaged them 10-15 times. Not once did they 
score more than 2 points in a set against us and it took them about 10
scrimmages to finally score a point. ... What's my point? You ask... they 
were 35-1 and Florida state runner-ups in 4A that year... against girls. 

>
>I know that I simply don't have any desire to pay to watch athletics that
>aren't fairly well elevated above my own ability.  Since I consider myself
>to be of `average' ability, and masses of `average' paying customers are
>what's needed for sustained, longterm support, I'm not surprised that women's
>Bball doesn't generate much interest.  There are probably many holes in
>my theory, but I guess that's what flame wars are for.
>
It's no secret that most sports which requires speed, strength and quickness
favor men over women.   I don't share your view that they have to be miles and 
miles ahead of me to be worth watching though. The ladies can be entertaining 
to watch (for more than just athletic reasons :-)  but I think if a person is
a fan of the sport, as I am of T&F they watch both the men's and women's 
events with equal fervor.  T&F is the *only* sport in which I consider my 
abilities to rival world-class females,  but I still watch the babes run! 
I also watch them play hoops, volleyball and would probably even go watch 
them play competitive softball ... Because the sports dollar in this country 
is generally spent by men, I think your attitude is probably more prevalent
than mine and I don't think it's bound to change any time soon.  It's going to
be tough for women's pro leagues to gain momentum here in the states... strange
that in a society that basically spawned the liberated woman, we won't give 
them their due as athletes and they have to go places where women are openly 
regarded as second-class citizens to get paid to do what they do best... 

go figure! 



-- 
Ronnie
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not cynical... I just don't believe in anything....