New WNBA Commercial

[1kingzfan]

And yeah, the WNBA ball is smaller but, seeing as how it's the same size as the FIBA ball, it seems like a legitimate tradeoff, as it were.

Regardless, it is smaller than the NBA ball because someone decided that the NBA ball was too big for the WNBA women, due to the average hand size of WNBA women versus NBA men. I am sure they felt that they could handle the smaller ball better and shoot it better.

What's the difference between that and saying that the women shouldn't try a litle bit lower rim, since the average WNBA player height is much, much less than the average NBA player height? Easier finishing at the rim, and all the other reasons already mentioned.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Smaller ball = easier for the women to handle = fewer turnovers = more fluid game.

Shorter rim = bastardization of basketball. Not only will it not improve the quality of the game play, it would most likely lower FG percentages league-wide, as everybody in the league would have to re-calibrate their shots on a lower rim.

Lowering the rim would not draw money for the WNBA, and would hurt more than it could help.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

And the 8-second backcourt advance rule didn't kick in until last season.

On quick research, quite a few WNBA rule changes in recent years to sync up with the men's game.

Yes, because other than the obvious difference in gender and the propensity to dunk more than master more fundamental shots, there is no difference between the two games. Not so coincidentally I might add about the same time that the talent level made it's most marked increase.

Ditto to slim on the recalibration issue....thankfully FIBA changed the size of the ball it uses recently. Goodness knows the first few weeks of the W season was painful because the players who had been playing overseas with a bigger ball had a hard time adjusting to the smaller ball. So of course it would make logical sense to lower the rims here so when the players come back we can spend time watching them readjust to that now.

MBF wouldn't say that...would you?

 

[Airfoil]

Yes, very good discussion.

My thing is this...if the league has not penetrated the "new" markets that apparently exist in 12 years, outside of men in general, it just ain't gonna happen with some reconstituted catchy slogans, player profiles, playing up rivalries, greater player access, etc. Some sort of serious change is in order.

Mostly agree. I'd argue though that the lack of penetration is due to the fact that they haven't seriously presented the game in a way that appeals to the casual fan. At least none that I've seen. A serious change in my eyes would be thinking outside of the box when it comes to marketing the league. I guess they kind of tried that this year, but the execution was less than stellar. I'm sure they have talented people trying to bring fans in, but all that really seems to change are the slogans and the pop tune they use to back commercials.

For once I'd like to see some really clever marketing that I didn't expect.

 

[Kingsgurl]

This is an interesting discussion. One thing we all mostly seem to agree on is the fact that the current marketing strategy is not likely to do much to stimulate attendance.


I wouldn't consider lowering the basket a bit to be either bastardization of the game or a statement that the women are not as athletic, merely that we are slightly shorter, which we ARE. I don't think this comes as any huge surprise to anyone. Why SHOULD we have to play on a 10 foot rim? Just because someone who is a foot taller than we are does? That means we would have to be MORE athletic just to appear to be close to what the men are. It's just a matter of scale.

Face it, the CASUAL fan likes to see play above the rim. They don't appreciate the nuances of the game the way hard core fans do. They can't take the same enjoyment out of watching a well run play because they don't really see the entire picture of it, they see action.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

The problem tho, is that lowering the rims is a tacit acknowledgement that the game needs to be played above the rim. The only reason this is considered is because the NBA is an above the rim game, for better or for worse.

I think the bastardization argument comes from those who feel it doesn't. There are women in this league who can play above the rim (see: Rebekkah Brunson, Lisa Leslie, Michelle Snow, Candace Parker, Sylvia Fowles and if you want smaller players Deanna Nolan and if you saw her at the open practice LaTangela Atkinson).

If there women already play there why does the rim need to be lowered a foot? The game will evolve if it is meant to happen in that direction when more of the dunking women come up into the pro game. It is not an element because the rim is too high, the women are too short or whatever. It's just not philosophically an element of the women's game. You could give the women trampolines and it would not invite more dunking if that is not how the game is played right now.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Just take a look at Dydek... does anyone actually believe she couldn't dunk? She could dunk without leaving the ground: she wouldn't dunk. She didn't want to dunk; she felt it would have been "showing up" her opponents. A lot of women athletes are like that. As MBF alluded to, lowering the rim will not change the mindset of the women playing. And, as I mentioned earlier, it'd screw everybody's shot up.

 

[Kingsgurl]

I'm not sure I am following your argument. Are you saying that they just DON'T dunk because it would be showing up their opponent? BS. Are you trying to say that women don't have the same competitive desire to shove it down the opponents throat? I played, I call BS.
Dydek is NOT relevent to this discussion, since we WERE talking about athleticism, not height specifically. I'm not even sure Dydel COULD dunk even given her height. She is not exactly athletic.

 

[1kingzfan]

The problem tho, is that lowering the rims is a tacit acknowledgement that the game needs to be played above the rim.

Nope. Not true. It is merely one suggestion I made to put more male sports fan butts in the stands (the largest untapped market to date) and make the league more than a niche proposition, perhaps even key its long-term survival, perhaps even make it thrive rather than merely hang on as it has.

There are women in this league who can play above the rim (see: Rebekkah Brunson, Lisa Leslie, Michelle Snow, Candace Parker, Sylvia Fowles and if you want smaller players Deanna Nolan and if you saw her at the open practice LaTangela Atkinson).

If there women already play there why does the rim need to be lowered a foot? The game will evolve if it is meant to happen in that direction when more of the dunking women come up into the pro game. It is not an element because the rim is too high, the women are too short or whatever. It's just not philosophically an element of the women's game.

Once agian, this is not solely about dunking. There is more excitement for many to view with play above the rim than dunking. Secondly, there is currently NO Play above the rim in the WNBA. Just because a few players in the league can dunk unopposed or every now and then you see the finger tips of a tip-in near the rim does not mean there is play above the rim. At best, you can say there is some play just below the rim, and this is totally different than play just a foot higher.

Incidentally, FG% would go UP. Very simple law of physics.

And finally, smaller ball is OK, but lower rim is not OK? Inconsistent.

 

[1kingzfan]

Just take a look at Dydek... She didn't want to dunk; she felt it would have been "showing up" her opponents.

And if she were on a pro volleyball team, she would never spike, only dink.

 

[StevenHW]

...Dydek is NOT relevent to this discussion, since we WERE talking about athleticism, not height specifically. I'm not even sure Dydel COULD dunk even given her height. She is not exactly athletic.

Agreed. The only reason why she's been in the WNBA is that she's 7'2". Considering the passive way she plays the game, if she was 6'2", she would not be on any WNBA roster. Now that Margo gave birth to a kid recently, she will not be playing this year. I highly doubt she will return to the WNBA in 2009.

So I could not care less if Margo or any other WNBA player would dunk. Besides, I personally feel dunking is overrated.

I'll take a hook shot over a slam-dunk any day.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

Dydek is relevant to this discussion IMO...if the argument for lowering the rims was because the rim was too high for the women to play above the rim. Dydek did not want to dunk. If you think there are women in this league who can't dunk because the rim's too high, that's a little farfetched. It is philosophically not a part of the women's game universally. If I can find what I did with them, I'll post some articles that talk about this mindset. The most recent one I read was Van Chancellor trying to get his center Sylvia Fowles to dunk more. Not from a breakaway, not uncontested, but in the paint because she has the ability to dunk in the paint contested if she wanted to. I don't think he's full of BS. I don't think Pat Summitt is either when she talks about the women just not thinking about it as something to do in a game.

Finger rolls are layups. If you saw the open practice the Monarchs had you would see that not only can these women roll with the best of them, they can get above the rim with the ball. The game is there. The only thing that isn't that would make sense to me in this counter argument is dunking.

Re: the smaller ball...I think the women would prefer to play with the bigger ball. They managed fine with it when FIBA used it.

But to tell me this isn't making a tacit acknowledgement that the game needs to be played above the rim? Aren't you saying that very thing when you tell me that it needs to be played above the rim to get more males in the seats? That's EXACTLY what I'm arguing. Your argument is that this game fundamentally needs to be played above the rim. I don't agree and I don't agree that all males fans who might come to a game and become fans need a game that is played above a rim. Well played by talented players yes, but entirely above the rim no.

Again, I don't see the repulsion to the idea that this is a niche sport...right now. NASCAR was. The NBA was. But let me actually go with a contemporary...Arena Football is I believe is 20+ years old now. That's a viable model for the W. It's found it's niche and has survived, it's family friendly entertainment. In the age of cable and satellite and non stop entertainment choices, that's about as much as a new league can ask for 12 years in.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I'm not sure I am following your argument. Are you saying that they just DON'T dunk because it would be showing up their opponent? BS.

Not BS. Several players have alluded to it, and Dydek has said it outright.

Dydek is NOT relevent to this discussion, since we WERE talking about athleticism, not height specifically.

Dydek is relevant because the claim was made that, if the rim were lowered, there would be more "above the rim" play. I state that this is not necessarily true, and players like Dydek are germane to why it is not necessarily true. Lowering the rim might lead to more "above the rim" play years down the line, but it's not going to change any time soon because, with few exceptions, it simply isn't part of the players' game. You aren't going to see anyone trying to dunk on a nine-foot rim that wouldn't have tried to dunk on a ten-foot rim. and they already do layups, so what else is there to "above the rim" play?

I'm not even sure Dydel COULD dunk even given her height. She is not exactly athletic.

Dydek could dunk flatfooted, if she wanted to, athleticism be damned.

EDIT - MBF types faster...

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Incidentally, FG% would go UP. Very simple law of physics.

More like trigonometry. For eight months out of the year, you're aiming at a target that's at a 60° angle, and then you spend four months in the summer shooting at a target that's at a 52° angle, and you're telling me that shots won't be affected? That shooting percentages will go up? I'm not buying.

 

[uncommonclay]

hmmmm ...

to my somewhat surprise, these commercials are growing on me ... i like the way they are shown over and over -- in this country spin seems to shape reality, and tv commercials are the utmost form of spin ... it's kinda cool to see the players call bullspit on the haters again and again and again ... right in their NBA playoff watching faces ... ; (

will it bring any more fans?, i don't know ... the situation with the haters has a lot more to do with the psychology of the haters, than it does with the "quality" of play in the "W" ... the play is what it is, and if someone can't appreciate it, it's really their loss ... not mine ...