2024 NCAA Tournament Thread

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I am disappointed with all the people who are attributing the lack of financial success for the WNBA and its players to misogyny and/or racism.

At a minimum it is revealing the shocking lack of understanding of basic economics.

I think they understand the economics just fine.  I think they believe that at least part of the reason the econimics are what they are is due to misogyny

[warriorchick]

I think they understand the economics just fine.  I think they believe that at least part of the reason the econimics are what they are is due to misogyny

It's a different product. Not being a fan of the WNBA does not make one a misogynist.

Women's gymnastics is much more popular than men's gymnastics. Are the people who watch women's gymnastics but not men's misandrists?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

It's a different product. Not being a fan of the WNBA does not make one a misogynist.

Women's gymnastics is much more popular than men's gymnastics. Are the people who watch women's gymnastics but not men's misandrists?

I'm sure someone on the internet has claimed that people who aren't fans of the WNBA are misogynists. I haven't. I said that some people "believe that at least part of the reason the economics are what they are is due to misogyny". That some people believe this is a fact. I also happen to agree with them though I think we would differ on the degree to which misogyny is to blame.

To answer your other question, I do not think people who watch women's but not men's gymnastics are misandrists. I do think misandry and homophobia play a role in why more people watch women's gymnastics than men's gymnaistics.

[MuggsyB]

I am disappointed with all the people who are attributing the lack of financial success for the WNBA and its players to misogyny and/or racism.

At a minimum it is revealing the shocking lack of understanding of basic economics.

I am as well warriorchick.  One league generates 2.6 billion, the other 60 million.  You're exactly right, this is economics 101.  Yet, we have countless moronic and asinine comments from all sorts of public figures on the subject. 

[MuggsyB]

I'm sure someone on the internet has claimed that people who aren't fans of the WNBA are misogynists. I haven't. I said that some people "believe that at least part of the reason the economics are what they are is due to misogyny". That some people believe this is a fact. I also happen to agree with them though I think we would differ on the degree to which misogyny is to blame.

To answer your other question, I do not think people who watch women's but not men's gymnastics are misandrists. I do think misandry and homophobia play a role in why more people watch women's gymnastics than men's gymnaistics.

Huh?  This is absurd. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Huh?  This is absurd.

How so?

[Hards Alumni]

How so?

Don't worry, it's not.  It's spot on.

[WhiteTrash]

Huh?  This is absurd.

Welcome to the internet.

[Pakuni]

I am disappointed with all the people who are attributing the lack of financial success for the WNBA and its players to misogyny and/or racism.

At a minimum it is revealing the shocking lack of understanding of basic economics.

Who are  all" the people?

[warriorchick]

Who are  all" the people?

I guess you don't have access to my feed, but I assure you, there are plenty.

[Pakuni]

I guess you don't have access to my feed, but I assure you, there are plenty.

Awesome.  Name some.

[warriorchick]

Awesome.  Name some.

I am not going to do your work for you.

if you follow college basketball at all, it will show up in your own feed.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I am not going to do your work for you.

if you follow college basketball at all, it will show up in your own feed.

[MU82]

The NYT's DealBook newsletter this morning led with a piece headlined:

Can the W.N.B.A. make money?

After the Indiana Fever made Caitlin Clark the W.N.B.A.’s No. 1 draft pick this week, the team’s ticket prices soared. The basketball star’s long-distance shots and huge following have landed her on “Saturday Night Live,” attracted interest from sponsors like Nike and sold out jerseys at a rapid pace.

In exchange for Clark’s once-in-a-generation talent, the W.N.B.A. will pay her … $76,535.

News of the paltry first-year salary has ignited a countrywide debate that even President Biden weighed in on, commenting that “even if you’re the best, women are not paid their fair share.”

It also highlighted a hard truth that largely goes unspoken about the W.N.B.A. and many women’s sports leagues: They aren’t profitable.

The simplest reason the W.N.B.A. isn’t paying Clark more is that the league brings in just $200 million annually and relies on the N.B.A. for some of its funding. The N.B.A., by contrast, brings in about $10 billion.

When the N.B.A. and its commissioner at the time, David Stern, founded the W.N.B.A. in 1996, return on their investment wasn’t their immediate focus. As Stern later recounted, he wanted “to develop new fans, more programming, have arena content outside the N.B.A. season, give more girls an incentive to play basketball.”

And, he added, “we knew it was going to be a long haul.”

Indeed, many argue that the W.N.B.A. simply needs more time: The N.B.A. had a 50-year head start, and stars like Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan helped lift it up in the 1980s and ’90s.

People who strongly agree that they get the right amount of recognition are 30% less likely to experience burnout than those who don’t. But what’s the “right amount”? The truth is, it varies. For example, 24% of male employees agree that they receive the right amount of recognition versus 11% of female employees. This points to a crucial difference between equity and equality in the workplace. Learn how social recognition can lead to a more equitable work environment.

The question now is whether Caitlin Clark is the W.N.B.A.’s own Larry Bird or Magic Johnson, a huge star coming at exactly the right time to raise interest across the sport. Or is she more like the league’s Tiger Woods: a talent whose popularity as a prodigy has yet to be replicated?

The W.N.B.A.’s profitability hinges on media rights. The league’s $60 million annual deal is up for renewal in 2025, and several trends are working in its favor, including a race among streamers to collect rights to live sports and a rise in legalized gambling that leaves bettors eager to expand their outlets.

College stars like Clark, Cameron Brink, Angel Reese, Alissa Pili and Aaliyah Edwards, who are joining the W.N.B.A. in fashionable style, bring an additional jolt to the league. Their collective drawing power during the N.C.A.A. tournament helped deliver a television audience for the women’s championship game that topped viewership for the men’s final for the first time.

“We’re way undervalued today,” Cathy Engelbert, the commissioner of the W.N.B.A., told DealBook.

Stars have powered viewership peaks in women’s sports. In a 2018-19 survey by researchers at Ohio State University, only 3 percent of respondents said women’s sports constituted all or almost all of their sports consumption, and 10 percent said half or most of it. But viewers will show up in hordes, particularly when those matches are being played on a big global stage.

Serena Williams’s final match of the 2022 U.S. Open brought in between 4.8 million and 6.9 million views, the most for a tennis match in ESPN’s history
A record 6.43 million viewers tuned in to watch the women’s U.S. soccer team, which included Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe, play in the World Cup last year.

Clark’s final college game, a loss in the N.C.A.A. championship game, drew 18.87 million viewers on ABC and ESPN, about four million more than the men’s championship game.

Alex Michael, a managing director at the investment bank LionTree, said the value of stars might be increasing as media consumption continued to shift away from broadcast television. “It’s not only the live games, but just their lives — whether it’s social media or other facets of storytelling,” he said.

The chicken-or-the-egg problem. While more viewers translate to more money for the league, it takes money to find new viewers. In 2022, the W.N.B.A. raised $75 million from an investor group that includes Nike, Condoleezza Rice, Laurene Powell Jobs and Michael Dell. The league is also planning multiple expansion teams that it hopes will bring in more money.

The 2022 funding has gone into marketing, ad campaigns, influencer marketing and live events, Engelbert said. And some of those efforts may be paying off: This past season, the league averaged 627,000 viewers per game on ABC — still a fraction of the 1.09 million for N.B.A. games, but its most-viewed regular season in more than a decade.

“The seeds were sown over the last five years for this monumental growth,” Chiney Ogwumike, a host for ESPN who was the W.N.B.A.’s first overall draft pick in 2014, told DealBook.

As evidence of ESPN’s role in that progress, she cited pregame shows for the W.N.B.A. and an increasing number of shows about women’s college basketball.

Some industry executives say it’s especially hard to ignore this stat. More than 2.4 million people tuned in to the W.N.B.A. draft, beating the previous record by more than 300 percent.

Bobby Sharma, the founder of Bluestone Equity Partners, who previously worked as a senior legal executive in the N.B.A. office, told DealBook that he was one of the many viewers who had tuned in for the first time.

“There is a real possibility we may be witnessing a transformational moment for the W.N.B.A., for the sport of basketball, and maybe even a cultural and economic shift for women’s sports in America,” he said.