Carmichael Dave 5/29
- Thread starter HollerAttaBaller
- Start date
Since 10, it's been a whole conversation about the WNBA -- the women's appearances, improvements the league could make, ex-Coach Whiz, etc.
It was a little annoying in the beginning, as he sat there criticizing the league and its accomplishments, but its since then cleaned up and there's been some pretty legit comments about the league and improvements it could undergo to increase its fanbase.
It was a little annoying in the beginning, as he sat there criticizing the league and its accomplishments, but its since then cleaned up and there's been some pretty legit comments about the league and improvements it could undergo to increase its fanbase.
Open Invitation to Carmichael Dave
I heard a good chunk of it and I was disappointed with the ridiculous comments he and Krishna Parker were making early. For a guy who admits to not caring about the league until the semi finals he sure was spouting off with a lot of suggestions that backed that lack of knowledge up.
Hey Dave, know you cruise this site....come in here and converse with some fans of the league and run your suggestions by us. And we maybe can also educate you on how the league operates, who the owners are etc. and what happens at games you don't attend.
Engage us the fans Dave.
I heard a good chunk of it and I was disappointed with the ridiculous comments he and Krishna Parker were making early. For a guy who admits to not caring about the league until the semi finals he sure was spouting off with a lot of suggestions that backed that lack of knowledge up.
Hey Dave, know you cruise this site....come in here and converse with some fans of the league and run your suggestions by us. And we maybe can also educate you on how the league operates, who the owners are etc. and what happens at games you don't attend.
Engage us the fans Dave.
I don't remember saying anything about Coach Wiz.
I can talk a little about it, but I have to be careful. I work for the "Home of the Monarchs", and that can be a conflict.
If you listened to the entire segment, you would know that I was trying to steer it serious. Yes, there were some tongue in cheek comments made, but realize:
1. you have no idea the amount of calls/emails I received about bikinis, cooking, etc that i didnt let get thru.
2. I have to do a subject like that carefully. If i go over the top Monarchs, my audience goes bye bye. There has to be a modicum of entertainment and humor in there, to make sure the actual meat of the subject gets through. Trust me on this.
My main contention is that the sport is simply unwatchable to most. I understand if you're a female, and can identify with the players. I understand if you're a male, and you have daughters or other family and are just looking for a cheap basketball alternative.
And of course, there are exceptions to the rule. No doubt. If you are a Monarchs fan, and you enjoy the games, good for you. The players and staff work tirelessly to present a good product, and I honestly do root for them, in large part because they have a love of the game on a real human level, not the bling superstar music video level that so many of their male counterparts have.
I believe that without the NBA's help, there would be no WNBA. Am I wrong? Show me. Go to ESPN.com. Find the WNBA coverage. Where is it? Right under Horse racing, the America's cup, and LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL.
ESPN isnt stupid. They actually televise the games. Of course they would love to promote it. But no one cares. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't ESPN and ABC televise the national games? Aren't those the same networks that do NBA games? Do you think David Stern and co aren't having this done as a package deal?
The question last night was this: If you were commissioner of the WNBA, and your salary was tied to the increase in revenue your changes would bring, what would you do? Here were some of the suggestions:
1. Lower the rims to 8 1/2 feet. This would allow a more above the rim game, and people love dunks. Yeah, fundamentals are great, but boring. That's why Vince Carter is 1000000000 times more marketable than Steve Nash.
2. Make all tickets General Admission. Part of the joke of watching/listening to the WNBA is it sounds like a high school game. You can hear the high pitched screaming of individuals, and scattered clapping. Not cheering, clapping. Get everybody down close, for the sound and cameras. Its an aesthetic change, but a necessary one.
3. With tix General Admission, make all Kings season tickets dual season tickets, and let them attend. You open up the upper level if necessary, increase revenue at concessions and parking, and improve the visibility. If the don't want to go, they dont. Those seats are generally available during the regular season anyway.
4. Let each team start one guy. Yeah, this was the most ludicrous suggestion, but remember: as commish, you are trying to increase visibility. Just like Riggs v Billie Jean King, the battle of the sexes is always intriguing. I would love to see an NBADL player, or even an over the hill NBA player get involved. The home team gets to choose the 2 quarters their male player plays, and the other team gets to play theirs in the other two quarters. This means its always that guy guarded (and guarding) a female. Sure, it would be fun to see some guy dunking on a girl, but what about a female stuffing a man's shot? What about the value of a talented ex-NBA player saying "these girls are fantastic"......
Look, as I said earlier, to each his/her own. I don't think less of WNBA fans, I just don't understand them. I am not against women's sports, in fact....i prefer womens boxing, tennis, figure skating, and gymnastics to their male counterpart. But to me, the WNBA is less watchable than a male high school varsity game, and I very much believe that a men's division III team would destroy any WNBA team.
You might say "what's the point of that statement dave? they're two different sports". My point is, people generally gravitate towards the best talent in a sport. The fastest paced style of game, played at the highest level. Do you see women's baseball? How about football?
IMO, womens college basketball is more entertaining than the WNBA.
Just my .02. Please refrain from throwing sharp objects. You asked me to swing by, I'm just being honest.
I can talk a little about it, but I have to be careful. I work for the "Home of the Monarchs", and that can be a conflict.
If you listened to the entire segment, you would know that I was trying to steer it serious. Yes, there were some tongue in cheek comments made, but realize:
1. you have no idea the amount of calls/emails I received about bikinis, cooking, etc that i didnt let get thru.
2. I have to do a subject like that carefully. If i go over the top Monarchs, my audience goes bye bye. There has to be a modicum of entertainment and humor in there, to make sure the actual meat of the subject gets through. Trust me on this.
My main contention is that the sport is simply unwatchable to most. I understand if you're a female, and can identify with the players. I understand if you're a male, and you have daughters or other family and are just looking for a cheap basketball alternative.
And of course, there are exceptions to the rule. No doubt. If you are a Monarchs fan, and you enjoy the games, good for you. The players and staff work tirelessly to present a good product, and I honestly do root for them, in large part because they have a love of the game on a real human level, not the bling superstar music video level that so many of their male counterparts have.
I believe that without the NBA's help, there would be no WNBA. Am I wrong? Show me. Go to ESPN.com. Find the WNBA coverage. Where is it? Right under Horse racing, the America's cup, and LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL.
ESPN isnt stupid. They actually televise the games. Of course they would love to promote it. But no one cares. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't ESPN and ABC televise the national games? Aren't those the same networks that do NBA games? Do you think David Stern and co aren't having this done as a package deal?
The question last night was this: If you were commissioner of the WNBA, and your salary was tied to the increase in revenue your changes would bring, what would you do? Here were some of the suggestions:
1. Lower the rims to 8 1/2 feet. This would allow a more above the rim game, and people love dunks. Yeah, fundamentals are great, but boring. That's why Vince Carter is 1000000000 times more marketable than Steve Nash.
2. Make all tickets General Admission. Part of the joke of watching/listening to the WNBA is it sounds like a high school game. You can hear the high pitched screaming of individuals, and scattered clapping. Not cheering, clapping. Get everybody down close, for the sound and cameras. Its an aesthetic change, but a necessary one.
3. With tix General Admission, make all Kings season tickets dual season tickets, and let them attend. You open up the upper level if necessary, increase revenue at concessions and parking, and improve the visibility. If the don't want to go, they dont. Those seats are generally available during the regular season anyway.
4. Let each team start one guy. Yeah, this was the most ludicrous suggestion, but remember: as commish, you are trying to increase visibility. Just like Riggs v Billie Jean King, the battle of the sexes is always intriguing. I would love to see an NBADL player, or even an over the hill NBA player get involved. The home team gets to choose the 2 quarters their male player plays, and the other team gets to play theirs in the other two quarters. This means its always that guy guarded (and guarding) a female. Sure, it would be fun to see some guy dunking on a girl, but what about a female stuffing a man's shot? What about the value of a talented ex-NBA player saying "these girls are fantastic"......
Look, as I said earlier, to each his/her own. I don't think less of WNBA fans, I just don't understand them. I am not against women's sports, in fact....i prefer womens boxing, tennis, figure skating, and gymnastics to their male counterpart. But to me, the WNBA is less watchable than a male high school varsity game, and I very much believe that a men's division III team would destroy any WNBA team.
You might say "what's the point of that statement dave? they're two different sports". My point is, people generally gravitate towards the best talent in a sport. The fastest paced style of game, played at the highest level. Do you see women's baseball? How about football?
IMO, womens college basketball is more entertaining than the WNBA.
Just my .02. Please refrain from throwing sharp objects. You asked me to swing by, I'm just being honest.
These two statements are incongruous. The quality of play in the WNBA is substantially superior to the quality of women's college basketball.
The other issue that I take with the "best talent" statement is that it is constructed in such a way as to suggest that the female talent should be evaluated against male talent, which is a straw man of the worst kind. Given the biological and physiological differences between men and women, why would any rational person try to make the argument that women should be judged on the same standards for athleticism that men are? What kind of sense does that make?
You judge the quality of a league against the quality of other leagues in that sport only. The quality of the basketball in the WNBA should be judged against women's college ball and other women's pro leagues, not men's leagues.
The other issue that I take with the "best talent" statement is that it is constructed in such a way as to suggest that the female talent should be evaluated against male talent, which is a straw man of the worst kind. Given the biological and physiological differences between men and women, why would any rational person try to make the argument that women should be judged on the same standards for athleticism that men are? What kind of sense does that make?
You judge the quality of a league against the quality of other leagues in that sport only. The quality of the basketball in the WNBA should be judged against women's college ball and other women's pro leagues, not men's leagues.
I appreciate you swinging by Dave, I'll be back to take on your comments a bit later.
Nobody's going to throw sharp objects, you are entitled to your opinions - you just wield a mightier forum with which to express them and as a fan of this league I'd hope you'd be somewhat factual in the things you were stating at facts or "I've heard that..." that you were discussing Tuesday night. Breton used to play the "don't kill the messenger card too", and that card still continues to offend me. I'll converse with you as I'm sure will other members of this forum without the need to resort to "violence" or ad hominems. Just recognize this is a different choir.
Nobody's going to throw sharp objects, you are entitled to your opinions - you just wield a mightier forum with which to express them and as a fan of this league I'd hope you'd be somewhat factual in the things you were stating at facts or "I've heard that..." that you were discussing Tuesday night. Breton used to play the "don't kill the messenger card too", and that card still continues to offend me. I'll converse with you as I'm sure will other members of this forum without the need to resort to "violence" or ad hominems. Just recognize this is a different choir.
"Do you see women's baseball? How about football?"
Dave,
In short, yes.
Women's football:
http://www.womensfootballassociation.com/Schedule.html
http://www.sacramentosirens.net/
http://www.iwflsports.com/
Women's baseball:
http://www.awbf.org/
http://www.cwbl.net/
They both exist. A lot of women's sports are still overlooked. Go check out a Siren's game sometime.
Dave,
In short, yes.
Women's football:
http://www.womensfootballassociation.com/Schedule.html
http://www.sacramentosirens.net/
http://www.iwflsports.com/
Women's baseball:
http://www.awbf.org/
http://www.cwbl.net/
They both exist. A lot of women's sports are still overlooked. Go check out a Siren's game sometime.
my bad. good research.
the statement should have read: "do you see women's baseball or basketball being played professionally where ANYONE cares or watches"? Prophetess: the sports are overlooked because NO ONE cares. They are unwatchable, and unworthy of any sort of broadcast contract.
Slim:
Those statements are NOT incongruous. Which sport draws better ratings? Little League World Series games, or Triple A baseball? I certainly am not suggesting that the kids could outplay the major league prospects, but people would rather watch the kids for many reasons.
I would rather watch the college girls, if for no other reason the pageantry and history.
Of course I'm judging the WNBA versus the NBA. Funny how the "biological differences" card gets played in this case, but when the union and others moan about payscale indifferences, everyone screams "equality".....
I (as a guy) am not going to watch a sport simply because women are playing. If the men are playing the same sport, its going to be better. The exceptions for me are tennis, gymnastics, boxing, figure skating, and of course beach volleyball.
That of course is my opinion.
the statement should have read: "do you see women's baseball or basketball being played professionally where ANYONE cares or watches"? Prophetess: the sports are overlooked because NO ONE cares. They are unwatchable, and unworthy of any sort of broadcast contract.
Slim:
Those statements are NOT incongruous. Which sport draws better ratings? Little League World Series games, or Triple A baseball? I certainly am not suggesting that the kids could outplay the major league prospects, but people would rather watch the kids for many reasons.
I would rather watch the college girls, if for no other reason the pageantry and history.
Of course I'm judging the WNBA versus the NBA. Funny how the "biological differences" card gets played in this case, but when the union and others moan about payscale indifferences, everyone screams "equality".....
I (as a guy) am not going to watch a sport simply because women are playing. If the men are playing the same sport, its going to be better. The exceptions for me are tennis, gymnastics, boxing, figure skating, and of course beach volleyball.
That of course is my opinion.
Pageantry? I give you history, but guess what, it takes time to have history.
Pay scales are different, because there is more interest, creating more revenue. I get that. It has nothing to do with which is superior.
"If men are playing the same sport, it's going to be better, though?" If men and women play the same sport, its going to be different due to biology. One of those italicized words is an opinion, the other is fact. Opinions can change and that is what the WNBA has to try and do with marketing. That may or may not be successful. I hope it is.
By the way, if you haven't noticed, men are "better" (term used loosely) at tennis, gymnastics, boxing, figure skating and beach volleyball for the same kinds of reasons people say men's basketball is better than women's basketball.
The only reason men are more willing to watch those has little to do with the comparative quality of the athletic performances.
Pay scales are different, because there is more interest, creating more revenue. I get that. It has nothing to do with which is superior.
"If men are playing the same sport, it's going to be better, though?" If men and women play the same sport, its going to be different due to biology. One of those italicized words is an opinion, the other is fact. Opinions can change and that is what the WNBA has to try and do with marketing. That may or may not be successful. I hope it is.
By the way, if you haven't noticed, men are "better" (term used loosely) at tennis, gymnastics, boxing, figure skating and beach volleyball for the same kinds of reasons people say men's basketball is better than women's basketball.
The only reason men are more willing to watch those has little to do with the comparative quality of the athletic performances.
and there is more interest, because the quality of play is better.
low quality of play + no sex appeal = no ratings
i am not a chauvanistic supporter of the women playing in bikinis by the way. i am speaking about the masses. guys in general think that way, and they can't watch the sport. women could completely support it and make it successful, but they don't.
low quality of play + no sex appeal = no ratings
i am not a chauvanistic supporter of the women playing in bikinis by the way. i am speaking about the masses. guys in general think that way, and they can't watch the sport. women could completely support it and make it successful, but they don't.
I give you credit for coming in and voicing your opinion. And since you took the time to come in, I think it fair to respond to your points.
1. you have no idea the amount of calls/emails I received about bikinis, cooking, etc that i didnt let get thru.
Uhh sure we have an idea.
We get people we effectionally refer to as trolls coming into our chat boards. Not this one per se but the ESPN Board was an absolute nightmare. Men questioning the sexuality of the players. Attacking their looks. Attacking Anything and everything but the product on the floor. 80% of the time because most had never taken the time to actually see the product. And the majority because it had nothing to do with the product itself, it was simply about the gall of women having a pro basketball team. SO the question I have for the callers who bring this type of foolishness up is this. Why the Hell do you care??? Nascar... Not interested. Hockey... Not interested. Arena Football totally not interested. But the last thing I would do is call a radio station and talk about the players. Or get on a chat board and write disparaging messages about the sport the players and the league.
I challenge You... to say if you don't like it, Don't watch it. But don't waste my airwaves with stupidness like Bikinis and cooking.
2. I have to do a subject like that carefully. If i go over the top Monarchs, my audience goes bye bye. There has to be a modicum of entertainment and humor in there, to make sure the actual meat of the subject gets through. Trust me on this.
My main contention is that the sport is simply unwatchable to most. I understand if you're a female, and can identify with the players. I understand if you're a male, and you have daughters or other family and are just looking for a cheap basketball alternative.
And of course, there are exceptions to the rule. No doubt. If you are a Monarchs fan, and you enjoy the games, good for you. The players and staff work tirelessly to present a good product, and I honestly do root for them, in large part because they have a love of the game on a real human level, not the bling superstar music video level that so many of their male counterparts have.
I believe that without the NBA's help, there would be no WNBA. Am I wrong? Show me. Go to ESPN.com. Find the WNBA coverage. Where is it? Right under Horse racing, the America's cup, and LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL.
ESPN isnt stupid. They actually televise the games. Of course they would love to promote it. But no one cares. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't ESPN and ABC televise the national games? Aren't those the same networks that do NBA games? Do you think David Stern and co aren't having this done as a package deal?
You make some interesting points about the broad support of the league. Would we have games Televised if it weren't tied to the NBA??
Of Course not... We all understand that. Perhaps you should google ABL and see what comes up. Maybe the ABL would have survived if David Stern hadn't been hell bent on Killing the League. No one knows for sure. But That league was in stratigic Women's Basketball Markets. And Yes there actaully are Women's Basketball Markets. That for some reason they are just now really starting to tap into.
There are plenty of people who actaully do care. And could and would support the league. But there has to be a fair comparision of success. If they don't draw 20,000 a night is that a total failure. Because I watched the Charlotte Bobcats play quite a few games with far less people in the stands than the average Monarchs game. And a higher payroll. How Long did Marc Cuban struggle with the Mavs before they were profitable.
What about Arena Football, and Major League Soccer. I don't see them Clogging up the airwaves. Are they non-entities? Again my point... if folks are not interested in the WNBA, that is their perogative. But why does the populace feel the need or the right for that matter to Poo-Poo people that do? Where does that mindset come from.
The question last night was this: If you were commissioner of the WNBA, and your salary was tied to the increase in revenue your changes would bring, what would you do? Here were some of the suggestions:
1. Lower the rims to 8 1/2 feet. This would allow a more above the rim game, and people love dunks. Yeah, fundamentals are great, but boring. That's why Vince Carter is 1000000000 times more marketable than Steve Nash.
2. Make all tickets General Admission. Part of the joke of watching/listening to the WNBA is it sounds like a high school game. You can hear the high pitched screaming of individuals, and scattered clapping. Not cheering, clapping. Get everybody down close, for the sound and cameras. Its an aesthetic change, but a necessary one.
3. With tix General Admission, make all Kings season tickets dual season tickets, and let them attend. You open up the upper level if necessary, increase revenue at concessions and parking, and improve the visibility. If the don't want to go, they dont. Those seats are generally available during the regular season anyway.
4. Let each team start one guy. Yeah, this was the most ludicrous suggestion, but remember: as commish, you are trying to increase visibility. Just like Riggs v Billie Jean King, the battle of the sexes is always intriguing. I would love to see an NBADL player, or even an over the hill NBA player get involved. The home team gets to choose the 2 quarters their male player plays, and the other team gets to play theirs in the other two quarters. This means its always that guy guarded (and guarding) a female. Sure, it would be fun to see some guy dunking on a girl, but what about a female stuffing a man's shot? What about the value of a talented ex-NBA player saying "these girls are fantastic"......
Okay I was gonna address these suggestions.
But clearly these were made by those who don't even follow the sport of basketball nonetheless Womens basketball. Perhaps you should ask a group of NBA fans and then WNBA fans. Or even College Basketball fans. See what they think. And if you think the notion of co-ed basketball actually works http://www.abalive.com/news/releases/?newsid=2005111506004 a former WNBA player actaully started a game for the ABA. Of course it was a bit of a side show. And for me other than the General admission, the rest of these suggestions would make the league a Side show.
And quite frankly it is not.
BTW Rebekkah Brunson is very capable of Dunking. A clean Dunk in fact. Candice Parker from Tennessee is capable of Dunking. Michelle Snow is capable of Dunking. All of which have dunked in Game time situations. Well Snow Dunked in the All-Star game, but she dunks a few times in college while at Tennessee. Parker did a few times last season. Bekkah threw one down overseas. So the athleticism is definately there. For me at really doesn't do whole lot. Yeah it is cool to see. And it is novel for the women's game. But it is being done more and more every day.
Look, as I said earlier, to each his/her own. I don't think less of WNBA fans, I just don't understand them. I am not against women's sports, in fact....i prefer womens boxing, tennis, figure skating, and gymnastics to their male counterpart. But to me, the WNBA is less watchable than a male high school varsity game, and I very much believe that a men's division III team would destroy any WNBA team.
So your arguement is that a Women's Basketball is less watchable because bigger and stronger athletes could beat them. Hmmmm. We'll then your arguement is flawed. Because by rights then Lela Ali shouldn't be as interesting as Oscar De La Hoya. Cause in a toe to toe bout De La Hoya should beat her soundly. Or Serena Williams shouldn't be as interesting as Roger Federer.
Figure Skating is the only true level playing field because it is not based on power, it is based on artistic espressing and executing the moves.
You might say "what's the point of that statement dave? they're two different sports". My point is, people generally gravitate towards the best talent in a sport. The fastest paced style of game, played at the highest level. Do you see women's baseball? How about football?
Yes in fact there is a Womens Football league. I think San Francisco's team is called the Stingrays. ANd not there is not a Womens baseball team right now. But have you seen a League of their Own? True story...
IMO, womens college basketball is more entertaining than the WNBA.
Yeah I agree with you there. I have emotional attachments to the Alma Mater... What can I say.
Just my .02. Please refrain from throwing sharp objects. You asked me to swing by, I'm just being honest.
Again I think it is good that you put it out there Dave. But Now you have to take it upon yourself to Do some homework. Find out the histories of the leagues. How long did it take them to truly flurish?
The WNBA is not for everyone. But I would have more respect for folks if they said "Hey it aint for me" rather than coming up with condesending, backhanded, mean-spirited, triffling excuses to drum the league out of existance.
Keep the dialogue Coming Dave.
1. you have no idea the amount of calls/emails I received about bikinis, cooking, etc that i didnt let get thru.
Uhh sure we have an idea.
We get people we effectionally refer to as trolls coming into our chat boards. Not this one per se but the ESPN Board was an absolute nightmare. Men questioning the sexuality of the players. Attacking their looks. Attacking Anything and everything but the product on the floor. 80% of the time because most had never taken the time to actually see the product. And the majority because it had nothing to do with the product itself, it was simply about the gall of women having a pro basketball team. SO the question I have for the callers who bring this type of foolishness up is this. Why the Hell do you care??? Nascar... Not interested. Hockey... Not interested. Arena Football totally not interested. But the last thing I would do is call a radio station and talk about the players. Or get on a chat board and write disparaging messages about the sport the players and the league.
I challenge You... to say if you don't like it, Don't watch it. But don't waste my airwaves with stupidness like Bikinis and cooking.
2. I have to do a subject like that carefully. If i go over the top Monarchs, my audience goes bye bye. There has to be a modicum of entertainment and humor in there, to make sure the actual meat of the subject gets through. Trust me on this.
My main contention is that the sport is simply unwatchable to most. I understand if you're a female, and can identify with the players. I understand if you're a male, and you have daughters or other family and are just looking for a cheap basketball alternative.
And of course, there are exceptions to the rule. No doubt. If you are a Monarchs fan, and you enjoy the games, good for you. The players and staff work tirelessly to present a good product, and I honestly do root for them, in large part because they have a love of the game on a real human level, not the bling superstar music video level that so many of their male counterparts have.
I believe that without the NBA's help, there would be no WNBA. Am I wrong? Show me. Go to ESPN.com. Find the WNBA coverage. Where is it? Right under Horse racing, the America's cup, and LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL.
ESPN isnt stupid. They actually televise the games. Of course they would love to promote it. But no one cares. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't ESPN and ABC televise the national games? Aren't those the same networks that do NBA games? Do you think David Stern and co aren't having this done as a package deal?
You make some interesting points about the broad support of the league. Would we have games Televised if it weren't tied to the NBA??
Of Course not... We all understand that. Perhaps you should google ABL and see what comes up. Maybe the ABL would have survived if David Stern hadn't been hell bent on Killing the League. No one knows for sure. But That league was in stratigic Women's Basketball Markets. And Yes there actaully are Women's Basketball Markets. That for some reason they are just now really starting to tap into.
There are plenty of people who actaully do care. And could and would support the league. But there has to be a fair comparision of success. If they don't draw 20,000 a night is that a total failure. Because I watched the Charlotte Bobcats play quite a few games with far less people in the stands than the average Monarchs game. And a higher payroll. How Long did Marc Cuban struggle with the Mavs before they were profitable.
What about Arena Football, and Major League Soccer. I don't see them Clogging up the airwaves. Are they non-entities? Again my point... if folks are not interested in the WNBA, that is their perogative. But why does the populace feel the need or the right for that matter to Poo-Poo people that do? Where does that mindset come from.
The question last night was this: If you were commissioner of the WNBA, and your salary was tied to the increase in revenue your changes would bring, what would you do? Here were some of the suggestions:
1. Lower the rims to 8 1/2 feet. This would allow a more above the rim game, and people love dunks. Yeah, fundamentals are great, but boring. That's why Vince Carter is 1000000000 times more marketable than Steve Nash.
2. Make all tickets General Admission. Part of the joke of watching/listening to the WNBA is it sounds like a high school game. You can hear the high pitched screaming of individuals, and scattered clapping. Not cheering, clapping. Get everybody down close, for the sound and cameras. Its an aesthetic change, but a necessary one.
3. With tix General Admission, make all Kings season tickets dual season tickets, and let them attend. You open up the upper level if necessary, increase revenue at concessions and parking, and improve the visibility. If the don't want to go, they dont. Those seats are generally available during the regular season anyway.
4. Let each team start one guy. Yeah, this was the most ludicrous suggestion, but remember: as commish, you are trying to increase visibility. Just like Riggs v Billie Jean King, the battle of the sexes is always intriguing. I would love to see an NBADL player, or even an over the hill NBA player get involved. The home team gets to choose the 2 quarters their male player plays, and the other team gets to play theirs in the other two quarters. This means its always that guy guarded (and guarding) a female. Sure, it would be fun to see some guy dunking on a girl, but what about a female stuffing a man's shot? What about the value of a talented ex-NBA player saying "these girls are fantastic"......
Okay I was gonna address these suggestions.
But clearly these were made by those who don't even follow the sport of basketball nonetheless Womens basketball. Perhaps you should ask a group of NBA fans and then WNBA fans. Or even College Basketball fans. See what they think. And if you think the notion of co-ed basketball actually works http://www.abalive.com/news/releases/?newsid=2005111506004 a former WNBA player actaully started a game for the ABA. Of course it was a bit of a side show. And for me other than the General admission, the rest of these suggestions would make the league a Side show.
And quite frankly it is not.
BTW Rebekkah Brunson is very capable of Dunking. A clean Dunk in fact. Candice Parker from Tennessee is capable of Dunking. Michelle Snow is capable of Dunking. All of which have dunked in Game time situations. Well Snow Dunked in the All-Star game, but she dunks a few times in college while at Tennessee. Parker did a few times last season. Bekkah threw one down overseas. So the athleticism is definately there. For me at really doesn't do whole lot. Yeah it is cool to see. And it is novel for the women's game. But it is being done more and more every day.
Look, as I said earlier, to each his/her own. I don't think less of WNBA fans, I just don't understand them. I am not against women's sports, in fact....i prefer womens boxing, tennis, figure skating, and gymnastics to their male counterpart. But to me, the WNBA is less watchable than a male high school varsity game, and I very much believe that a men's division III team would destroy any WNBA team.
So your arguement is that a Women's Basketball is less watchable because bigger and stronger athletes could beat them. Hmmmm. We'll then your arguement is flawed. Because by rights then Lela Ali shouldn't be as interesting as Oscar De La Hoya. Cause in a toe to toe bout De La Hoya should beat her soundly. Or Serena Williams shouldn't be as interesting as Roger Federer.
Figure Skating is the only true level playing field because it is not based on power, it is based on artistic espressing and executing the moves.
You might say "what's the point of that statement dave? they're two different sports". My point is, people generally gravitate towards the best talent in a sport. The fastest paced style of game, played at the highest level. Do you see women's baseball? How about football?
Yes in fact there is a Womens Football league. I think San Francisco's team is called the Stingrays. ANd not there is not a Womens baseball team right now. But have you seen a League of their Own? True story...
IMO, womens college basketball is more entertaining than the WNBA.
Yeah I agree with you there. I have emotional attachments to the Alma Mater... What can I say.
Just my .02. Please refrain from throwing sharp objects. You asked me to swing by, I'm just being honest.
Again I think it is good that you put it out there Dave. But Now you have to take it upon yourself to Do some homework. Find out the histories of the leagues. How long did it take them to truly flurish?
The WNBA is not for everyone. But I would have more respect for folks if they said "Hey it aint for me" rather than coming up with condesending, backhanded, mean-spirited, triffling excuses to drum the league out of existance.
Keep the dialogue Coming Dave.
I guess I need your definition of "low quality." To me different doesn't = inferior quality. Otherwise, women's tennis, boxing, figure skating (and yes, power does count big time); etc are all lower-quality "play."
The NBA could garner more women fans if the men went back to short-shorts or played shirtless, or both. Should they? Would that "improve" the sport?
The NBA could garner more women fans if the men went back to short-shorts or played shirtless, or both. Should they? Would that "improve" the sport?
No. To me, playing below the rim, shooting 30 something percent regularly, less athleticism, less strength, less of a fan base, and the inability to see your favorite team play on a regular basis because no one wants to televise it equals "lower quality".
Sure, perhaps the NBA could get more women fans by doing that, but the NBA is not contracting teams, nor are its players averaging 5 figure salaries. In other words, they don't NEED to cater to women.
However, Stern is pretty smart. I would venture a guess that he believes that women are more likely to watch the NBA product, if they have a lure like the WNBA to get them interested in a sport. Therefore, the losses accrued by the women's league are ok, because the exposure to women of the sport in general, and subsequent increase in female viewership of the NBA is worth it.
Back to what was said earlier: no NBA= no WNBA. The women's league is present simply at the discretion of the men's league.
Sure, perhaps the NBA could get more women fans by doing that, but the NBA is not contracting teams, nor are its players averaging 5 figure salaries. In other words, they don't NEED to cater to women.
However, Stern is pretty smart. I would venture a guess that he believes that women are more likely to watch the NBA product, if they have a lure like the WNBA to get them interested in a sport. Therefore, the losses accrued by the women's league are ok, because the exposure to women of the sport in general, and subsequent increase in female viewership of the NBA is worth it.
Back to what was said earlier: no NBA= no WNBA. The women's league is present simply at the discretion of the men's league.
You know Dave I am right with you on the issue of Contracting the League.
There have been a few situations where Teams have folded that had no reason to fold. Other than disinterested and/or Poor management.
Cleveland Rockers For example had almost record Numbers in the seats.
Had All-Star caliber players and Mr. Gund folded the team because LeBron James was better prospect.
Which lends some credibility to your arguement. SOME...
But here is the thing. Cleveland had Butts in the seats. And He Still folded them.
Why I believe the WNBA is on the way to expansion is that
1) A Gang of talent is coming out of the College Ranks in the next 3 years. Very exciting talented group of players who can "Create their own shot", Eye candy for the straight males, and 2 or 3 who can Dunk.
2) The league has finally starting the growing pain process of waning off of the NBA tit. Disinterested owners who were forced to take franchises are just about gone. In fact this year I believe is it. I personally know of 3...count them 3 outfits in the Bay Area who want to bring a WNBA team to the South Bay. And believe me they have the cheese to back up the team.
Not to mention they are in a Women's Bsketball Market with a bunch of Wealthy soccer kids and bored housewives pining for something to do while Stanford is in its off season.
I would love nothing better than to see the WNBA completely independant of the NBA. I would love to see the point when they are in their own Arenas. But again Look at your history. How Long did the Warriors play at the Cow Palace before they got their own Arena? How many teams played at Civic Auditoriums?
The problem with the WNBA is that they hit the ground and it seems like detractors expected this league to be multi-billion dollar enterprises. I think we would be naiive to believe that in the next 10 years these players will be signing Multi-million dollar contracts.
Hell it is not even reasonable to assume that. But I have a issue with the notion that because they are not earning 6 figures that this is not respectable.
Tell me something... and I am not singling you out Dave. In fact I have made this arguement to my fellow fans of the WNBA.
How many people on this board Make more than 70K a year. Do you Dave? I live in San Francisco and make slightly More than what Brittany Wilkins does. And she is the 13th man on a 12 man squad.
So because these other sports folks Make obsene amounts of money, that makes them better? So when the Dr.J's and the Wilt Chamberlains played and they barely made 100k we're they not as good as Kobe, or Kevin Garnett? Okay they made maybe a couple 100k but not nearly what they made now. Not even close to the marketability. In fact I was reading something and I will have to add it later when I find it, where Pro athletes as late as the 1970's were delivering Ice in the off-season to support their families. And these weren't the scrubs. These were the starters and All-stars. Well that was the case in Football. But there were plenty of B-Ball players with 2nd jobs in the off season. So again I encourage you to read the history.
Where is the WNBA on the timeline?
As for your demographics yes I understand your audience may not be all that informed about the W. And hey maybe it is our fault for not flooding your airwaves. But I guess that really is our challenge. I think Monach's Talk is about 2 hours. But I have trouble calling it since I am in the Bay Area.
Either way, I think you may be surprised in the upcoming years at the independance of the league.
As for the WNBA being a hook for the NBA...
Almost everyone that I know that regularly follows the WNBA has actually lost some interest in the NBA. Of course the play-offs are interesting, but for the most part the WNBA has been more attractive.
The WNBA may end up always being a Niche sport. And you know what that really is okay. But again you haven't really addressed the need for folks to poo-poo the league or the players? I know the W has screwed some things up, but for the most part we are 100% better than advertised.
FYI...
Google Becky Hammon... or go to WNBA.com and see what she did this last outing.
And we also dont have a competition committee that totally discourages defense, and allows 50 and 80 point efforts from one player. Ask Kobe how fun life is right now being the one man show.
Hey this is really good stuff Dave. Keep it coming...
There have been a few situations where Teams have folded that had no reason to fold. Other than disinterested and/or Poor management.
Cleveland Rockers For example had almost record Numbers in the seats.
Had All-Star caliber players and Mr. Gund folded the team because LeBron James was better prospect.
Which lends some credibility to your arguement. SOME...
But here is the thing. Cleveland had Butts in the seats. And He Still folded them.
Why I believe the WNBA is on the way to expansion is that
1) A Gang of talent is coming out of the College Ranks in the next 3 years. Very exciting talented group of players who can "Create their own shot", Eye candy for the straight males, and 2 or 3 who can Dunk.
2) The league has finally starting the growing pain process of waning off of the NBA tit. Disinterested owners who were forced to take franchises are just about gone. In fact this year I believe is it. I personally know of 3...count them 3 outfits in the Bay Area who want to bring a WNBA team to the South Bay. And believe me they have the cheese to back up the team.
Not to mention they are in a Women's Bsketball Market with a bunch of Wealthy soccer kids and bored housewives pining for something to do while Stanford is in its off season.
I would love nothing better than to see the WNBA completely independant of the NBA. I would love to see the point when they are in their own Arenas. But again Look at your history. How Long did the Warriors play at the Cow Palace before they got their own Arena? How many teams played at Civic Auditoriums?
The problem with the WNBA is that they hit the ground and it seems like detractors expected this league to be multi-billion dollar enterprises. I think we would be naiive to believe that in the next 10 years these players will be signing Multi-million dollar contracts.
Hell it is not even reasonable to assume that. But I have a issue with the notion that because they are not earning 6 figures that this is not respectable.
Tell me something... and I am not singling you out Dave. In fact I have made this arguement to my fellow fans of the WNBA.
How many people on this board Make more than 70K a year. Do you Dave? I live in San Francisco and make slightly More than what Brittany Wilkins does. And she is the 13th man on a 12 man squad.
So because these other sports folks Make obsene amounts of money, that makes them better? So when the Dr.J's and the Wilt Chamberlains played and they barely made 100k we're they not as good as Kobe, or Kevin Garnett? Okay they made maybe a couple 100k but not nearly what they made now. Not even close to the marketability. In fact I was reading something and I will have to add it later when I find it, where Pro athletes as late as the 1970's were delivering Ice in the off-season to support their families. And these weren't the scrubs. These were the starters and All-stars. Well that was the case in Football. But there were plenty of B-Ball players with 2nd jobs in the off season. So again I encourage you to read the history.
Where is the WNBA on the timeline?
As for your demographics yes I understand your audience may not be all that informed about the W. And hey maybe it is our fault for not flooding your airwaves. But I guess that really is our challenge. I think Monach's Talk is about 2 hours. But I have trouble calling it since I am in the Bay Area.
Either way, I think you may be surprised in the upcoming years at the independance of the league.
As for the WNBA being a hook for the NBA...
Almost everyone that I know that regularly follows the WNBA has actually lost some interest in the NBA. Of course the play-offs are interesting, but for the most part the WNBA has been more attractive.
The WNBA may end up always being a Niche sport. And you know what that really is okay. But again you haven't really addressed the need for folks to poo-poo the league or the players? I know the W has screwed some things up, but for the most part we are 100% better than advertised.
FYI...
Google Becky Hammon... or go to WNBA.com and see what she did this last outing.
And we also dont have a competition committee that totally discourages defense, and allows 50 and 80 point efforts from one player. Ask Kobe how fun life is right now being the one man show.
Hey this is really good stuff Dave. Keep it coming...
Not gonna wade through all the conversation that took place earlier and address a lot of what's already been addressed. Let me touch on some things I saw in your post Dave and curiously some things you left out of your post but you mentioned during your show...not your callers...you.
NBA and WNBA are related....no...really? the "nba" part of the name tipped me off that their might be a connection but I wasn't sure after 11 years. Thanks for the clarification. Of course the league bankrolled this. This point has been raised and answered over the course of the 11 years this league has been in existence. The answer...a big fat "so what" Who cares why the league exists? It does. I'm not going to bore readers of this thread with the tired stories we trot out to rebuke this "criticism" or whatever it is or why ever it is you raise it. (I'll come back to this in a sec). Somebody has to bankroll something before it can get started. If Stern didn't believe in the product or want to keep his league's brand on it, it would have been gone Dave. Which is the flip side of the criticism raised. He hasn't and by all accounts he wont. But please keep mentioning this, because in year 20 of this league it might actually sink in that the David is fine with his decision to co-brand this league. And for goodness sakes, don't make me recite the "nba wouldn't exist if arena owners didn't decide to bankroll a pro bball league to fill their arenas when there were no circuses. Please don't. That's as tired as the No NBA $ = No WNBA. Asked and answered.
You raised on air but not here that I saw that "there must be some reason behind owners sinking millions of dollars into this league...it CAN'T be because they believe in and support women's sports...must be some tax advantage of loophole" Again...OF COURSE THERE IS...why do you think ANY owner sinks money into a pro franchise and is willing to lose a shirt over it? Isn't that Bus Econ 101? You think the owners in the Pro Lacrosse League believe in the power that is lacrosse and do it for the love of the sport? Hell Yeah They do, but also there are economic realities that make it an incentive to get into something like that...and lose said shirt. If you make it work you get a nice ROI, if you don't you get a nice write off. And good lord, let's not get into the discussion of what pro teams in other sports make money. Think the AFL owners are flush? Do you care if they are or if they have some incentive to own the teams they own...doubt it, or else this would come up on your show regularly too. (see, there's that sneaky "regularly" word again...see how blanket that can be?)
But back to the question...yes Dave, there are owners in the W. If you do indeed work for the Monarchs...(tell me how it is you do, I'm curious) you would know that the brothers Maloof do. They and the other owners in the league during the time the ownership structure changed, ponied up their own money to run their franchises and stay in the WNBA...That's when the Orlandos, Miamis, Clevelands, Portlands of the WNBA exited. Oh but wait Dave, here's another news flash...since you may not be aware since you asked the question...there are teams in this league with NO NBA affiliation. And folks ponied up money on their own to get into this league...See: Chicago and Connecticut. Oh, and now Houston and Los Angeles. New owners with money who get this, wanted into the league. For whatever reason and motivation. These folks are writing the checks to keep their respective franchises around, their players paid, the lights on in the gym, oh yeah, and the gym doors open.
The pagentry and history...could you explain that more concretely. What exactly does that translate to on the floor. It can't be the basketball or the athleticism. As Slim pointed out, that is clearly better at the pro level. There generally speaking is not a lot of dunking in the college game. I don't think ESPN is getting money under the table to produce and air women's college games. But somehow that's much more watchable to you. I'm not sure I completely understand what changes when these women get their sheepskin and leave their respective programs that makes their game so unwatchable. Or what makes the college game more watchable if its just as below the rim, and "atrocious" (a word you used on the show) as the women's pro game is purported to be. Is it the tournament? Is it Tennessee/UConn? what exactly is it. This might be more important to know for marketing purposes than how a high school game is more interesting.
You made the comment that the arenas are quiet and you can hear individual conversations on radio. Funny, I can hear people too, the ones yelling behind the broadcast table. Funny too, I can hear yellers too during NBA games 1140. Sure that's just random mic noise or something. Now, when I'm AT ARCO, I sometimes can't hear a conversation in front of me with the noise in the arena. I've been fortunate enough to attend games in other arenas (Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington, Phoenix, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Houston and San Antonio) and I can tell you, those arenas are loud with W. fans in it. Myriad of reasons why the W thinks the attendance lags early in the year, kids are still in school. Attendance usually picks up later. I think the league is also trying to understand why attendance has fluctuated for some of its franchises. A lot more marketing needs to be done. Which is why we fans talk about it so much. And funny, never seems to turn to lowering rims, bikinis or adding men. But I digress and foreshadow other comments.
The adding men thing. Damn straight that's ridiculous. What would adding one man do to make you watch, other than be humorous. It stops being a sport if the intent is to humor or amuse. You also made the comment, a div III men's team could beat a W team. I would sorta hope so if they were bigger. I guess you made it DIII to give the women equal footing and JuCo would be insulting? But again, so what. You seem intent on as Slim points out, to compare athleticism and size to interest. That's cool. If that's what you want, there are games on tv that give you that. I'm just not sure why the W needs to have you or your audience if you're already opposed to it.
I don't tend to believe the "if they dunked" or "if the rims were lower" or "if the court were shorter" I would come.... If then statements. I just don't. Because they always seem to involve things that ain't gonna happen. Or if they did, you still wouldn't come. How many dunks would have to happen in a game to be exciting or is it the potentiality of seeing a dunk that would get you there. We have dunkers in the league now, its just not part of the womens game to dunk. Parker's arrival may change that, but I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced since she still doesn't dunk all that often in college. Again, I digress.
You also said (may have said here too) I don't watch the WNBA its unwatchable...its atrocious...I'd rather watch high school boys play. While at the same time Tuesday night you say you watch the Monarchs when they reach the semis, which I take to mean the first round of the playoffs. Now, of all the things you said must happen for you to find the W more watchable...what changes during the first round. Did they lower the rims, shorten the court, dunk all of a sudden? Breton rolled this out one year and I asked him this too, never got an answer for it. So I'm curious as to what magically changes. Do they shoot better, score more? What?
I'm not sure I get the general admission theory. Why exactly is that better? Especially if you are raising the concession and parking to generate revenue I presume you are losing in dropping the ticket price levels? If its no longer afforable for you to park or eat at the arena (sure, I'm presuming is affordable to do so now, so grant me that for the sake of this argument) and its families that are the target of this league, how do you jive that?
What percentage of Kings fans are dual season ticket holders now? Why would they come to Ms games just because their tickets allow them to? How much more would you have to raise Kings tickets to generate enough revenue to run your W franchise? How would that work when I think the Maloofs are contending they don't raise enough revenue already to bank the Kings like they'd like to - cough..new arena..cough...and Kings fans are already starting to balk at the price they are paying and the quality of the NBA team on the floor. And how does this strategy work for the non NBA affiliated franchises I mentioned earlier?
If you would rather watch _____ than the W. I've always wondered why you don't just do that. Why does the W have to market to you? There is a segment of the population that might go if they knew it existed or they know it exists and have never been but want to go. You know it existed and say you don't like it as does a large part of your audience. I don't understand that argument. Lot of sports I don't like, I just don't watch them or pay attention to them if I can't watch them. I don't go around spending time trying to come up with suggestions to make them change to make me like them. I'm not who they care about, or I'm lowest on the totem pole of where they are going to spend their time marketing or cultivating new fans.
Kudos to you for spending two hours talking about the WNBA. I guess it was fruitful. It got us talking here. Its been a long offseason and our team hasn't played in front of us since Mother's Day. We needed the amusement and something to get us stirred up for Opening Day.
If you ever want to come to a game Dave, I'll throw down the gauntlet..you can come as my guest. You need to be a fan of the Monarchs before the playoffs, you miss a lotta good basketball that happens up until then.
Oh and Dave, I'm sure when you make comparisons about this league and the NBA, you get that the women have less game time than the men do in the, so they have more possessions. So um, yeah. Kinda wouldn't shock me that the highest scoring team in each league would be sorta on different levels. That's what bothers me about the blanket statement thing....
NBA and WNBA are related....no...really? the "nba" part of the name tipped me off that their might be a connection but I wasn't sure after 11 years. Thanks for the clarification. Of course the league bankrolled this. This point has been raised and answered over the course of the 11 years this league has been in existence. The answer...a big fat "so what" Who cares why the league exists? It does. I'm not going to bore readers of this thread with the tired stories we trot out to rebuke this "criticism" or whatever it is or why ever it is you raise it. (I'll come back to this in a sec). Somebody has to bankroll something before it can get started. If Stern didn't believe in the product or want to keep his league's brand on it, it would have been gone Dave. Which is the flip side of the criticism raised. He hasn't and by all accounts he wont. But please keep mentioning this, because in year 20 of this league it might actually sink in that the David is fine with his decision to co-brand this league. And for goodness sakes, don't make me recite the "nba wouldn't exist if arena owners didn't decide to bankroll a pro bball league to fill their arenas when there were no circuses. Please don't. That's as tired as the No NBA $ = No WNBA. Asked and answered.
You raised on air but not here that I saw that "there must be some reason behind owners sinking millions of dollars into this league...it CAN'T be because they believe in and support women's sports...must be some tax advantage of loophole" Again...OF COURSE THERE IS...why do you think ANY owner sinks money into a pro franchise and is willing to lose a shirt over it? Isn't that Bus Econ 101? You think the owners in the Pro Lacrosse League believe in the power that is lacrosse and do it for the love of the sport? Hell Yeah They do, but also there are economic realities that make it an incentive to get into something like that...and lose said shirt. If you make it work you get a nice ROI, if you don't you get a nice write off. And good lord, let's not get into the discussion of what pro teams in other sports make money. Think the AFL owners are flush? Do you care if they are or if they have some incentive to own the teams they own...doubt it, or else this would come up on your show regularly too. (see, there's that sneaky "regularly" word again...see how blanket that can be?)
But back to the question...yes Dave, there are owners in the W. If you do indeed work for the Monarchs...(tell me how it is you do, I'm curious) you would know that the brothers Maloof do. They and the other owners in the league during the time the ownership structure changed, ponied up their own money to run their franchises and stay in the WNBA...That's when the Orlandos, Miamis, Clevelands, Portlands of the WNBA exited. Oh but wait Dave, here's another news flash...since you may not be aware since you asked the question...there are teams in this league with NO NBA affiliation. And folks ponied up money on their own to get into this league...See: Chicago and Connecticut. Oh, and now Houston and Los Angeles. New owners with money who get this, wanted into the league. For whatever reason and motivation. These folks are writing the checks to keep their respective franchises around, their players paid, the lights on in the gym, oh yeah, and the gym doors open.
The pagentry and history...could you explain that more concretely. What exactly does that translate to on the floor. It can't be the basketball or the athleticism. As Slim pointed out, that is clearly better at the pro level. There generally speaking is not a lot of dunking in the college game. I don't think ESPN is getting money under the table to produce and air women's college games. But somehow that's much more watchable to you. I'm not sure I completely understand what changes when these women get their sheepskin and leave their respective programs that makes their game so unwatchable. Or what makes the college game more watchable if its just as below the rim, and "atrocious" (a word you used on the show) as the women's pro game is purported to be. Is it the tournament? Is it Tennessee/UConn? what exactly is it. This might be more important to know for marketing purposes than how a high school game is more interesting.
You made the comment that the arenas are quiet and you can hear individual conversations on radio. Funny, I can hear people too, the ones yelling behind the broadcast table. Funny too, I can hear yellers too during NBA games 1140. Sure that's just random mic noise or something. Now, when I'm AT ARCO, I sometimes can't hear a conversation in front of me with the noise in the arena. I've been fortunate enough to attend games in other arenas (Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington, Phoenix, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Houston and San Antonio) and I can tell you, those arenas are loud with W. fans in it. Myriad of reasons why the W thinks the attendance lags early in the year, kids are still in school. Attendance usually picks up later. I think the league is also trying to understand why attendance has fluctuated for some of its franchises. A lot more marketing needs to be done. Which is why we fans talk about it so much. And funny, never seems to turn to lowering rims, bikinis or adding men. But I digress and foreshadow other comments.
The adding men thing. Damn straight that's ridiculous. What would adding one man do to make you watch, other than be humorous. It stops being a sport if the intent is to humor or amuse. You also made the comment, a div III men's team could beat a W team. I would sorta hope so if they were bigger. I guess you made it DIII to give the women equal footing and JuCo would be insulting? But again, so what. You seem intent on as Slim points out, to compare athleticism and size to interest. That's cool. If that's what you want, there are games on tv that give you that. I'm just not sure why the W needs to have you or your audience if you're already opposed to it.
I don't tend to believe the "if they dunked" or "if the rims were lower" or "if the court were shorter" I would come.... If then statements. I just don't. Because they always seem to involve things that ain't gonna happen. Or if they did, you still wouldn't come. How many dunks would have to happen in a game to be exciting or is it the potentiality of seeing a dunk that would get you there. We have dunkers in the league now, its just not part of the womens game to dunk. Parker's arrival may change that, but I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced since she still doesn't dunk all that often in college. Again, I digress.
You also said (may have said here too) I don't watch the WNBA its unwatchable...its atrocious...I'd rather watch high school boys play. While at the same time Tuesday night you say you watch the Monarchs when they reach the semis, which I take to mean the first round of the playoffs. Now, of all the things you said must happen for you to find the W more watchable...what changes during the first round. Did they lower the rims, shorten the court, dunk all of a sudden? Breton rolled this out one year and I asked him this too, never got an answer for it. So I'm curious as to what magically changes. Do they shoot better, score more? What?
I'm not sure I get the general admission theory. Why exactly is that better? Especially if you are raising the concession and parking to generate revenue I presume you are losing in dropping the ticket price levels? If its no longer afforable for you to park or eat at the arena (sure, I'm presuming is affordable to do so now, so grant me that for the sake of this argument) and its families that are the target of this league, how do you jive that?
What percentage of Kings fans are dual season ticket holders now? Why would they come to Ms games just because their tickets allow them to? How much more would you have to raise Kings tickets to generate enough revenue to run your W franchise? How would that work when I think the Maloofs are contending they don't raise enough revenue already to bank the Kings like they'd like to - cough..new arena..cough...and Kings fans are already starting to balk at the price they are paying and the quality of the NBA team on the floor. And how does this strategy work for the non NBA affiliated franchises I mentioned earlier?
If you would rather watch _____ than the W. I've always wondered why you don't just do that. Why does the W have to market to you? There is a segment of the population that might go if they knew it existed or they know it exists and have never been but want to go. You know it existed and say you don't like it as does a large part of your audience. I don't understand that argument. Lot of sports I don't like, I just don't watch them or pay attention to them if I can't watch them. I don't go around spending time trying to come up with suggestions to make them change to make me like them. I'm not who they care about, or I'm lowest on the totem pole of where they are going to spend their time marketing or cultivating new fans.
Kudos to you for spending two hours talking about the WNBA. I guess it was fruitful. It got us talking here. Its been a long offseason and our team hasn't played in front of us since Mother's Day. We needed the amusement and something to get us stirred up for Opening Day.
If you ever want to come to a game Dave, I'll throw down the gauntlet..you can come as my guest. You need to be a fan of the Monarchs before the playoffs, you miss a lotta good basketball that happens up until then.
Oh and Dave, I'm sure when you make comparisons about this league and the NBA, you get that the women have less game time than the men do in the, so they have more possessions. So um, yeah. Kinda wouldn't shock me that the highest scoring team in each league would be sorta on different levels. That's what bothers me about the blanket statement thing....
Well said, MBF. Atta girl! And one more thing I haven't seen mentioned here, the women are doing better at their game than the men are at theirs. At least in Sacramento. Maybe we should put a woman on every Kings game, just to help improve the score. Not for the bikini potential, mind you, just to help out the boys.
that's a lot of stuff. good job.
listen, i want to come back to this, but this is what i was afraid of. WNBA fans standing up and waving their WNBA flag, almost like i am attacking women in general.
this was the main of what i was saying: the league is boring. the play is boring. this is reflected by ratings and attendance. take a picture of any player you want, go to arden fair, and see how many people know who it is. YOU may like the league, and good for you! but you are in a serious minority.
I'm in REALLY dangerous waters here, but your response deserves the truth back from me. you asked why i dont just ignore the league, that if i don't like it, why is it that i need to bring it up?
Simple: the games are broadcast before my show. i get a load of complaints every time there's a game on, wondering what's going on. both the monarchs and kings are a package deal (another example of the W's dependancy) and we HAVE to broadcast them. Keep in mind, I am in NO WAY speaking for the station or the team when I say this.....but it is the reason why i originally brought it up.
Hey listen, if I wasnt forced to deal with it, you're right: i would happily let the game do its thing, twist around, and eventually fold. or succeed. whatever. but that's why i care, and why i brought up ways to make the game more interesting and watchable.
im in and out today, but here's my favorite writer, saying a lot of things that make a lot of sense about this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/050901
listen, i want to come back to this, but this is what i was afraid of. WNBA fans standing up and waving their WNBA flag, almost like i am attacking women in general.
this was the main of what i was saying: the league is boring. the play is boring. this is reflected by ratings and attendance. take a picture of any player you want, go to arden fair, and see how many people know who it is. YOU may like the league, and good for you! but you are in a serious minority.
I'm in REALLY dangerous waters here, but your response deserves the truth back from me. you asked why i dont just ignore the league, that if i don't like it, why is it that i need to bring it up?
Simple: the games are broadcast before my show. i get a load of complaints every time there's a game on, wondering what's going on. both the monarchs and kings are a package deal (another example of the W's dependancy) and we HAVE to broadcast them. Keep in mind, I am in NO WAY speaking for the station or the team when I say this.....but it is the reason why i originally brought it up.
Hey listen, if I wasnt forced to deal with it, you're right: i would happily let the game do its thing, twist around, and eventually fold. or succeed. whatever. but that's why i care, and why i brought up ways to make the game more interesting and watchable.
im in and out today, but here's my favorite writer, saying a lot of things that make a lot of sense about this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/050901
I dont think I addressed the gender thing at all Dave. The gender/misogyny argument thrown at folks who think women's pro basketball is ..to use your term "atrocious" is sorta immaterial because y'all always can counter with a woman's sport you like or that you are pro woman. Kinda like you just did and have done throughout this thread. And because as Krishna demonstrated, being a woman does not automatically incline you to be a fan of this league. You either like it or you dont - gender is immaterial - which is why the league's marketers have such a hard time with marketing....they don't really know who to target. That and they have no creativity or ability to think outside of the box at all, and their marketing tends to fall in line with the NBA's (because of that connection you so aptly pointed out to us earlier) which has a completely different demographic altogether and it misses people it could reach in for the W product.
You may not be speaking for the station, but you are speaking as an employee of it or MSE. You said you "work for them" meaning the Monarchs, which is why I find your comments so curious and your "Im in dangerous waters" line too. You already let the genie out of the bottle. You already called the product atrocious before you even took the calls Tuesday night.
I get that you have a job to do and perhaps even have to address the calls you get complaining about the game. But you and your callers? Damn, the Monarchs have been on that station the past 11 years. Did y'all just realize the games roll into your time slot or is it just because there is a local 9pm show now that this is even an issue? Because I'm quite certain this isnt new. I'm just asking why you as the host of the show felt the need to give it airtime. And you as host of your show and purported employee of the Monarchs felt the need to call their product atrocious. Again, if you needed ratings and callers, cheap way to get it. And the connection of which you speak between the broadcast package - good thing you had that or else you would have had to come up with other material to discuss that night.
Again, with the NBA connection. So what. There are teams in this league now that have media deals and NO NBA affiliation. Next subject...
You may not be speaking for the station, but you are speaking as an employee of it or MSE. You said you "work for them" meaning the Monarchs, which is why I find your comments so curious and your "Im in dangerous waters" line too. You already let the genie out of the bottle. You already called the product atrocious before you even took the calls Tuesday night.
I get that you have a job to do and perhaps even have to address the calls you get complaining about the game. But you and your callers? Damn, the Monarchs have been on that station the past 11 years. Did y'all just realize the games roll into your time slot or is it just because there is a local 9pm show now that this is even an issue? Because I'm quite certain this isnt new. I'm just asking why you as the host of the show felt the need to give it airtime. And you as host of your show and purported employee of the Monarchs felt the need to call their product atrocious. Again, if you needed ratings and callers, cheap way to get it. And the connection of which you speak between the broadcast package - good thing you had that or else you would have had to come up with other material to discuss that night.
Again, with the NBA connection. So what. There are teams in this league now that have media deals and NO NBA affiliation. Next subject...
Last edited:
from Simmons' piece
"Two changes should happen regardless of how you feel about the league. First, the WNBA should accept its place in the Sports Fan Pecking Order alongside NFL Europe, indoor lacrosse, minor-league hockey, bowling, celebrity poker and every other niche sport that appeals to a specific audience. (That's just where they are. None of those sports get preferential, wink-wink treatment from TV networks. Neither should the WNBA. If not for corporate nepotism, the WNBA would have pulled a WUSA and disappeared years ago. Don't forget this.) And second, Sugar Daddy Stern needs to accept the fact there's a fine line between promoting a business venture to your audience and antagonizing that same audience. Until he makes that connection, the league will remain an easy target for troublemaking schmucks like me."
Yeah, the language is loaded, but I agree with him here Dave to a degree. And if you had addressed the topic on your show more cogently I probably wouldn't have called you out. But here's what I've preached forever to Val Ackerman the previous commish. "Stop with the talk that you are the 5th major sport. You're not." We are along the lines of every other sport trying to find a niche. The majors are sucking off the tailpipe that is ESPN and Fox, don't forget that Dave as long as that gravy train continues those sports will be flush and as long as ESPN and Fox dictate what is hip and not, and don't think that y'all don't dictate what is hip and "acceptable" to watch by what you say and what you air. Sure its generated by ratings but you have to power to influence what the marketers/advertisers think they want to buy into. You have as much power to create an audience and you know that. Well, not you but the royal "you."
Yeah, um...as soon as hockey leaves the radio airwaves and tv airwaves...(yes, that means the Outdoor Network they were banished to when they stupidly decided to cancel their season)
But you know, Simmons here makes the same argument I find disingenous and maybe you can answer it since you're floating in and out today. Why is it,y'all and I mean you too now, not the royal y'all. ALWAYS want to point to the little sports like Lacrosse, Arena Football, MLS, etc and say, the WNBA is no better than those guys so get the hell off my radio station and cable channels because you are only there because of a sugar daddy. While at the same time seeming to ignore the fact that those leagues ARE in fact on radio and tv. Why IS that. If the W is niche, which I argue it is, who the hell cares that its on in the patheon of these other sports which also are on air. Don't think their arenas and stadia are full either or that they have the ratings and history to justify their appearance. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong...people call and ***** about soccer too. Funny, its still on TV tho. Weird.
Simmons talks earlier about "don't force it down my throat" LOVE THAT ARGUMENT...JUST LO VE IT!!!! GAWD DO I LOVE THAT ONE. I need to get a macro for that so I dont have to type so much to respond to that. Perhaps Dave, you can explain - since you are giving Simmons an "amen" here...how this league is forced on you all unfairly? I mean damn. Turn it off. There are 300 other damn channels and other sports radio stations turn it off. I just don't get that. I *wish* Orender and Stern could find a way to make every damn TV and radio automatically tune to and stay on a tv or radio station that has a WNBA game on and make the whooooooooooooole country pay attention since that would mean I'd get to damn see it too since I don't get to see and hear games when I want to. But somehow it only that handy mechanism at the offices in the Ivory Tower in New York only seem to work on the tvs and radios of those who despise the league. Damn that sucks.
But lemme also raise this question or make this comment...you tell me what you think of this idea. Since Simmons talks about NFL Eurpoa (which I sorta think ABC/ESPN had on air for a while) being in the same boat and getting preferential treatment from ESPN/ABC. (cough..I think the NFL forced that package too...if they didn't I'd be hella surprised...cough), let me go there with this statement. NFL Europa left the networks and the Bristol mothership when NFL Network launched right? If the W was aired exclusively on the channel the NBA owns and populates with content I would be DE LIGHTED because it would mean I would get more games than I presently get with the ABC/ESPN set up. Why doesn't the league do that is an eternal question I have. Well it's not exactly eternal, long standing perhaps. But here's why I don't think they do, and why I don't think necessarily ESPN is crying that they are having to air WNBA games on their family of channels. You see, ESPN paid a BOAT LOAD of money and I mean an unprecedented BOATLOAD of money to take the rights to the women's college tournament away from CBS back when they did that. A BOAT LOAD...and it was unprecedented, if I didn't emphasize that enough. They have a stake in continuing to stoke that. But that's immaterial. I'm still on the NBAtv kick. I'd personally love that Dave, that way y'all can go back to having World Strongest Men airing in that weekday timeslot ESPN has carved for the WNBA.
As far as players being unrecognizable to the general public? (see: marketing discussion earlier...or the condensed version...marketing sucks for this league PERIOD). Now, as an employee of the Monarchs as you say you are, what have you done to reverse that with the airwave time you have? You might have been the one if I recall, who used to have Chantelle Anderson on when she was here...who have you had since she was traded? And if it was your show that Chantelle would appear on from time to time, how did you jive that with the fact that your callers HATE the WNBA by in large? Again, I'm curious how you juxtaposed the two countervailing forces.
"Two changes should happen regardless of how you feel about the league. First, the WNBA should accept its place in the Sports Fan Pecking Order alongside NFL Europe, indoor lacrosse, minor-league hockey, bowling, celebrity poker and every other niche sport that appeals to a specific audience. (That's just where they are. None of those sports get preferential, wink-wink treatment from TV networks. Neither should the WNBA. If not for corporate nepotism, the WNBA would have pulled a WUSA and disappeared years ago. Don't forget this.) And second, Sugar Daddy Stern needs to accept the fact there's a fine line between promoting a business venture to your audience and antagonizing that same audience. Until he makes that connection, the league will remain an easy target for troublemaking schmucks like me."
Yeah, the language is loaded, but I agree with him here Dave to a degree. And if you had addressed the topic on your show more cogently I probably wouldn't have called you out. But here's what I've preached forever to Val Ackerman the previous commish. "Stop with the talk that you are the 5th major sport. You're not." We are along the lines of every other sport trying to find a niche. The majors are sucking off the tailpipe that is ESPN and Fox, don't forget that Dave as long as that gravy train continues those sports will be flush and as long as ESPN and Fox dictate what is hip and not, and don't think that y'all don't dictate what is hip and "acceptable" to watch by what you say and what you air. Sure its generated by ratings but you have to power to influence what the marketers/advertisers think they want to buy into. You have as much power to create an audience and you know that. Well, not you but the royal "you."
Yeah, um...as soon as hockey leaves the radio airwaves and tv airwaves...(yes, that means the Outdoor Network they were banished to when they stupidly decided to cancel their season)
But you know, Simmons here makes the same argument I find disingenous and maybe you can answer it since you're floating in and out today. Why is it,y'all and I mean you too now, not the royal y'all. ALWAYS want to point to the little sports like Lacrosse, Arena Football, MLS, etc and say, the WNBA is no better than those guys so get the hell off my radio station and cable channels because you are only there because of a sugar daddy. While at the same time seeming to ignore the fact that those leagues ARE in fact on radio and tv. Why IS that. If the W is niche, which I argue it is, who the hell cares that its on in the patheon of these other sports which also are on air. Don't think their arenas and stadia are full either or that they have the ratings and history to justify their appearance. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong...people call and ***** about soccer too. Funny, its still on TV tho. Weird.
Simmons talks earlier about "don't force it down my throat" LOVE THAT ARGUMENT...JUST LO VE IT!!!! GAWD DO I LOVE THAT ONE. I need to get a macro for that so I dont have to type so much to respond to that. Perhaps Dave, you can explain - since you are giving Simmons an "amen" here...how this league is forced on you all unfairly? I mean damn. Turn it off. There are 300 other damn channels and other sports radio stations turn it off. I just don't get that. I *wish* Orender and Stern could find a way to make every damn TV and radio automatically tune to and stay on a tv or radio station that has a WNBA game on and make the whooooooooooooole country pay attention since that would mean I'd get to damn see it too since I don't get to see and hear games when I want to. But somehow it only that handy mechanism at the offices in the Ivory Tower in New York only seem to work on the tvs and radios of those who despise the league. Damn that sucks.
But lemme also raise this question or make this comment...you tell me what you think of this idea. Since Simmons talks about NFL Eurpoa (which I sorta think ABC/ESPN had on air for a while) being in the same boat and getting preferential treatment from ESPN/ABC. (cough..I think the NFL forced that package too...if they didn't I'd be hella surprised...cough), let me go there with this statement. NFL Europa left the networks and the Bristol mothership when NFL Network launched right? If the W was aired exclusively on the channel the NBA owns and populates with content I would be DE LIGHTED because it would mean I would get more games than I presently get with the ABC/ESPN set up. Why doesn't the league do that is an eternal question I have. Well it's not exactly eternal, long standing perhaps. But here's why I don't think they do, and why I don't think necessarily ESPN is crying that they are having to air WNBA games on their family of channels. You see, ESPN paid a BOAT LOAD of money and I mean an unprecedented BOATLOAD of money to take the rights to the women's college tournament away from CBS back when they did that. A BOAT LOAD...and it was unprecedented, if I didn't emphasize that enough. They have a stake in continuing to stoke that. But that's immaterial. I'm still on the NBAtv kick. I'd personally love that Dave, that way y'all can go back to having World Strongest Men airing in that weekday timeslot ESPN has carved for the WNBA.
As far as players being unrecognizable to the general public? (see: marketing discussion earlier...or the condensed version...marketing sucks for this league PERIOD). Now, as an employee of the Monarchs as you say you are, what have you done to reverse that with the airwave time you have? You might have been the one if I recall, who used to have Chantelle Anderson on when she was here...who have you had since she was traded? And if it was your show that Chantelle would appear on from time to time, how did you jive that with the fact that your callers HATE the WNBA by in large? Again, I'm curious how you juxtaposed the two countervailing forces.
Last edited:
again, floating in and out. its hard for me to make long replies in the daytime (note the timing of most of my posts) but i am enjoying reading your responses, they're great.
it was the guy before me (who shares your username) who had Chantelle on, not me. I have had zero WNBA guests on. Why? No interest. Not from my audience.
You ask what I have done to increase visibility....not my job. I think you misconstrued my earlier "employee" reference, and that's my fault I'm sure. I am an employee of CBS radio (the broadcast partner of the Kings and M's), and I also do locker room interviews for the Kings for Comcast.
To me, its not my job to promote the league if I don't find an interest. My job is to put on whatever entertains the audience. Please don't take this the wrong way, its just how I work. Believe me, not everything I do is entertaining.
it was the guy before me (who shares your username) who had Chantelle on, not me. I have had zero WNBA guests on. Why? No interest. Not from my audience.
You ask what I have done to increase visibility....not my job. I think you misconstrued my earlier "employee" reference, and that's my fault I'm sure. I am an employee of CBS radio (the broadcast partner of the Kings and M's), and I also do locker room interviews for the Kings for Comcast.
To me, its not my job to promote the league if I don't find an interest. My job is to put on whatever entertains the audience. Please don't take this the wrong way, its just how I work. Believe me, not everything I do is entertaining.
You were miscontruing your relationship then so I'm glad you cleared it up. Ok, if it was Montemayor with Chantelle on his show, and presumably he had the same audience you do, weird huh, that he could get away with that?
If you're not an employee of the team or MSE having no obligation to market or promote...good, continue to not do so. My question...or should I say that question was premised on you hosting Chantelle.
If you're not an employee of the team or MSE having no obligation to market or promote...good, continue to not do so. My question...or should I say that question was premised on you hosting Chantelle.
Last edited:
To say the WNBA game is "unwatchable", is a statement of opinion, NOT fact -- more accurately stated as "I find the WNBA unwatchable".
To say NOBODY cares, is in fact UNTRUE, because I for one DO care. Therefore this statement is erroneous, and not worthy of ever being stated again.
Oh Boy on this one, first off you need a new favorite writer, Simmons sucks, and I find him unreadable! Why does he insist on writing about that which he doesn't care for? Here's the insight -- there's a thousand things he doesn't care for or about, but he's not writing one whiff about them, no, he keeps coming back to ragging on the WNBA -- why? Because he feels better about himself by having somebody to put down, the WBA threatens him, the idea of women who could KICK HIS @SS in basketball does not compute in his male ego mind. It's safer for him to say the whole thing is a joke.
Also, I am not buying for a second, that these types of comments are not swipes at women in general. It's almost comical how utterly clueless the guys who make them are to their misogyny. Except it's not funny.
Isn't that all males? We all have mothers & grandmothers! (My Granny was on her high school basketball team ... a shoe really had a LOT of laces in those days) Some of us have sisters, daughters, or a wife.
CarmichaelDave, if you (or Bill Simmons) had a daughter that had WNBA talent would you tell her not to bother because of bla, bla, bla all your reasons the league sucks in your opinion?
If you would discourage her, wow, what a drag for your daughter!
If you would encourage her, then say it on your show; say, "If my daughter had WNBA talent I would encourage her to play in the league"
To say NOBODY cares, is in fact UNTRUE, because I for one DO care. Therefore this statement is erroneous, and not worthy of ever being stated again.
Oh Boy on this one, first off you need a new favorite writer, Simmons sucks, and I find him unreadable! Why does he insist on writing about that which he doesn't care for? Here's the insight -- there's a thousand things he doesn't care for or about, but he's not writing one whiff about them, no, he keeps coming back to ragging on the WNBA -- why? Because he feels better about himself by having somebody to put down, the WBA threatens him, the idea of women who could KICK HIS @SS in basketball does not compute in his male ego mind. It's safer for him to say the whole thing is a joke.
Also, I am not buying for a second, that these types of comments are not swipes at women in general. It's almost comical how utterly clueless the guys who make them are to their misogyny. Except it's not funny.
Isn't that all males? We all have mothers & grandmothers! (My Granny was on her high school basketball team ... a shoe really had a LOT of laces in those days) Some of us have sisters, daughters, or a wife.
CarmichaelDave, if you (or Bill Simmons) had a daughter that had WNBA talent would you tell her not to bother because of bla, bla, bla all your reasons the league sucks in your opinion?
If you would discourage her, wow, what a drag for your daughter!
If you would encourage her, then say it on your show; say, "If my daughter had WNBA talent I would encourage her to play in the league"
Last edited by a moderator: