They actually do.I’m sure they also hate the legions of college sports subsidized by the big programs. I await their outrage.
They actually do.I’m sure they also hate the legions of college sports subsidized by the big programs. I await their outrage.
I'm on SSI, I'm in subsidized housing. I get shit on. I read memes shitting on people like me daily. I see other people in my position being shit on daily.I am on SSI
I own my home
I do not get shit on ...
... unless I pay for it
I just did not see SSI and TANF making an appearance here and wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. Also I ain’t touching a V and N topic so there you go.Why would Bill Burr randomly run with it? Hmm.
And yea, people on SSI and TANF usually live in subsidized housing and get shit on. Do Republicans not go after welfare moms?
My point is you’re trying to have this both ways: acting like this is a reasonable position to hold but also having no insight into why it is reasonable.I don't get your point.
I didn't say it was reasonable. I said it was their position and that quite a lot of people have it. That's why Bill Burr is doing a skit on it.My point is you’re trying to have this both ways: acting like this is a reasonable position to hold but also having no insight into why it is reasonable.
if this is your position, you should explain yourself. If it’s not, I don’t get why you’re pushing back when people are incredulous.
I think you’re just facing some pushback because you’re saying there’s a widespread dislike of the WNBA for a really idiosyncratic reason (as applied to pro sports lots of pro sports is subsidized) and essentially no one else has heard people make that argument against the WNBA.I didn't say it was reasonable. I said it was their position and that quite a lot of people have it. That's why Bill Burr is doing a skit on it.
You are talking to someone with ASD and I really have no clue what your point is. You are asking to me explain why a position is reasonable even though I never said it was reasonable.
Am I supposed to explain why it's not surprising so many people have this view point? Probably because they are mimicking the likes of Bill Burr that they hear on Joe Rogan. The vast majority of them are Kyles.
Someone literally linked a well known comedian doing a brand new act about the topic on a new Netflix release.I think you’re just facing some pushback because you’re saying there’s a widespread dislike of the WNBA for a really idiosyncratic reason (as applied to pro sports lots of pro sports is subsidized) and essentially no one else has heard people make that argument against the WNBA.
And I literally had never heard the argument before roughly 745 tonight. It’s just surprising.Someone literally linked a well known comedian doing a brand new act about the topic on a new Netflix release.
Fair enough. Bill Burr probably isn't SoSH friendly either. SoSH is "woke." I thought his new stand up was more offensive than funny.And I literally had never heard the argument before roughly 745 tonight. It’s just surprising
I knew you people were taking my hard earned tax dollars for your weird perversions!I am on SSI
I own my home
I do not get shit on ...
... unless I pay for it
My theory on the increased viewership is that it coincides with the rapid spread of legalized gambling. The league’s attendance had been on a gradual decline year over year since its inception. Personally, I don’t hate the product. As others have said, I’d prefer it over SL and G-League but that is admittedly a very low bar. It will be interesting to see how the NBA utilizes gambling to help promote this product that hasn’t taken off in this country.The WNBA was created in 1996. So It's lost $220 million+ since its existence.
https://www.sports-king.com/wnba-lose-money-3361/
edit: Despite this lack of profitability, they all got 53% pay raises in the new CBA.
https://en.as.com/en/2022/03/07/nba/1646677389_970277.html
It looks like viewership is up so maybe this is worth the long term investment but this is why a lot of people hate the WNBA. It's subsidized.
Lower the rim would make the game different from the NBA product but I guess that's a very touchy subject. Plus, the rest of the world uses a 10 ft rim. Play 4 against 4 on smaller courts. Make the game different from the NBA game.I knew you people were taking my hard earned tax dollars for your weird perversions!
The people actively hating the WNBA are failed athletes jealous that others with superior talent get a spotlight. Boo hoo.
Leaning into identity stuff isn’t the worse idea. It’s an inferior product so its impossible to market. There aren’t even gimmicks I don’t think like the xfl or usfl or arena league where people can excuse watching an inferior product because there are built in extras.
So, how do you market an inferior sports product? Look to college sports. Why do people care about college sports? Tradition and tribalism. So, go for tribalism, I guess?
As should be noted tonight, I am a W Stan. But that said there is little doubt that gambling has increased interest in the W and probably will in Women's College Basketball this winter. But, yeah, especially the W. For one, the books treated it as an afterthought for the past couple years until tightening up in July. But then tonight they got blown away again because it's still too new for them. They set these lines like they were NBA game ones with the 1 and 2 seeds playing. Eventually, the books will catch on to everything and tighten up everywhere.My theory on the increased viewership is that it coincides with the rapid spread of legalized gambling. The league’s attendance had been on a gradual decline year over year since its inception. Personally, I don’t hate the product. As others have said, I’d prefer it over SL and G-League but that is admittedly a very low bar. It will be interesting to see how the NBA utilizes gambling to help promote this product that hasn’t taken off in this country.
I think you're saying this but we cannot underestimate how many non-NBA men in America think they're good enough to make a W team. I'm sure some could no doubt but most of the ones doing the complaining would struggle to make my girls varsity team.I knew you people were taking my hard earned tax dollars for your weird perversions!
The people actively hating the WNBA are failed athletes jealous that others with superior talent get a spotlight. Boo hoo.
Leaning into identity stuff isn’t the worse idea. It’s an inferior product so its impossible to market. There aren’t even gimmicks I don’t think like the xfl or usfl or arena league where people can excuse watching an inferior product because there are built in extras.
So, how do you market an inferior sports product? Look to college sports. Why do people care about college sports? Tradition and tribalism. So, go for tribalism, I guess?
We’re members of a board where dudes who probably can’t touch their toes post “I could’ve had it” while watching professional athletes. Nobody’s underestimatingI think you're saying this but we cannot underestimate how many non-NBA men in America think they're good enough to make a W team. I'm sure some could no doubt but most of the ones doing the complaining would struggle to make my girls varsity team.
Minor league baseball is subsidized by MLB because they perform a valuable service for MLB teams by developing their prospects, getting them ready to contribute at the major league level. Same thing with NFL Europe. It was kind of like a minor league for the NFL, and it was also an investment in growing the international market for American Football. Both of those things benefit the NFL.Every affiliated minor league baseball team is subsidized by MLB (by the simple fact that they provide the players). Those parks still fill.
The people that hate on the WNBA are just making excuses for their misogyny.
Who cares?How does the existence of the WNBA benefit the NBA?
This is exactly right. The NBA is in a great position to not only grow the game amongst youth leagues, but to open the game up to adult women as well. The nature of the sport allows for a women's league played almost exactly the same fashion as the men's game. Same court, same basket, etc. Whereas baseball and football could dump a boatload of money into supporting women's franchises and the game would not come close to resembling the men's version. If those leagues were in the same position to potentially pick up thousands more fans of the sport through a women's division, they'd probably jump on an investment. It is not an empty investment either, as the WNBA drew over 1 million fans throughout the league this season.Unless you're an NBA owner, "who cares?" is the right question. However, I do think there's value for the NBA to investing in other parts of the basketball ecosystem. A richer basketball culture benefits everyone in basketball, and certainly the NBA which sits at the top of that ecosystem. And at $226M (if that's accurate) across 26 years across 30 NBA owners, it's a pretty modest investment.
Because women don’t play college baseball. Or football. So there is no pipeline of quality players with years of experience growing up with the game like there is with women’s basketball in the US.Why would women's baseball be all that different than men's baseball?
Edit: I'd also argue the WNBA isn't really anything like the NBA. The NBA is played above the rim.
Yeah but if MLB invested a boatload of money into it, I don't see why the game of baseball would be any different. Is switching from softball to baseball a huge hurdle?Because women don’t play college baseball. Or football. So there is no pipeline of quality players with years of experience growing up with the game like there is with women’s basketball in the US.
For the athletes, I'd say yes. A diamond with 60 foot base paths is different from a diamond with 90 foot base paths. Pitching over-hand from 60 feet 6 inches is different from pitching underhand from 43 feet. It would take at least a generation, if not longer, to have a viable pipeline of women's baseball talent to fill a pro league.Yeah but if MLB invested a boatload of money into it, I don't see why the game of baseball would be any different. Is switching from softball to baseball a huge hurdle?
If MLB did invest in a women's baseball league, would that be the death of softball? It does look like women's baseball is gaining popularity though. Apparently, 6 women played in college last year and 8 this year.For the athletes, I'd say yes. A diamond with 60 foot base paths is different from a diamond with 90 foot base paths. Pitching over-hand from 60 feet 6 inches is different from pitching underhand from 43 feet. It would take at least a generation, if not longer, to have a viable pipeline of women's baseball talent to fill a pro league.
First, it probably says something about the state of the Red Sox that after 20+ years of lurking, my first post is about ESPN's treatment of the WNBA. And Jose, I'm replying to you because I've always liked your posts, and I respect your nuanced take on this.I don't care that the WNBA is subsidized--hell I'm in favor of it--the NBA is too rich. I do get really annoyed about the pay equity stuff though. It's one thing in the world of quasi public enterprise like the national teams, but in a private enterprise it makes no sense, for all the reasons everyone knows.
I also think Burr has a fair point that it's not like women are enthusiastically supporting the WNBA. A lot of people yelping aren't buying the product either.
That said, I'm thinking about starting to follow the Mystics, at least some, I've got a four year old girl, they're a local team where I have no conflicting loyalty, they're generally pretty good, and tickets are cheap.
I've watched some college women's hoops with my wife in the last couple of years, and the quality of play really has increased enormously from the last time I gave it a fair shot, say 10 years ago.
https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/espn-nba-stephen-smith-alternacast-1235409418/Stephen A. Smith has found time to take on yet another job for ESPN.
The “First Take” commentator and “NBA Countdown” analyst will tackle the increasingly in-demand job of hosting an alternative broadcast for some of ESPN’s NBA games, the latest effort by the sports-media giant to generate new audiences for the games it shows thanks to pricey rights deals with big sports leagues.
When Smith debuts the first of four scheduled “NBA in Stephen A’s World” shows on October 26, he intends to give NBA fans a look at how he watches sports. Viewers will see “a very relaxed format,” he tells Variety in an interview, that will put a spotlight on “how I watch a game, the kind of things that I pay attention to, the kind of things I talk about when I’m just sitting around talking to family and friends.” He will bring on high-profile guests from the world of sports, entertainment, and media.
Who cares?Why?
who the hell asked for this?
at least Lucille Ball had tallent, SAS "tallent" is yelling like a crazy person on TV,Who cares?
Who asked for I Love Lucy? Nobody. Still, it was a true classic sitcom. Nobody asks for anything but, somehow, a lot of things keep happening.
SAS is literally one of the best of all time at what he does.at least Lucille Ball had tallent, SAS "tallent" is yelling like a crazy person on TV,
At lunch I considered starting a thread about SAS based on this news. I was and remain completely perplexed by ESPN’s decision to make him their featured star personality.Why?
who the hell asked for this?
https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/espn-nba-stephen-smith-alternacast-1235409418/
He's basically a selfie version of a Candid Camera victim. "Why should that Funt guy make any money. I'm gonna make myself look stupid."People like him in part because they enjoy his entertainment value and like making fun of him. They are not looking for great analysis when they turn on First Take, they are looking for outrageous takes and over-the-top reactions to current event, which is what he provides.
What SAS does he does better than everyone for way longer and much harder.(phrasing) What he does is nearly impossible.He's basically a selfie version of a Candid Camera victim. "Why should that Funt guy make any money. I'm gonna make myself look stupid."
I have no idea WTF this means or if this is parody.What SAS does he does better than everyone for way longer and much harder.(phrasing) What he does is nearly impossible.
Sure, him being a hot take machine can be tiring, but he's the best at what he does and he's given the time AND the money because of it. He certainly doesn't look stupid to me. And he makes 1 million dollars a month to talk about sports.
Seems like ESPN is banking on the old Stern strategy...I have no idea WTF this means or if this is parody.
I don’t mean to suggest that nobody likes SAS or that everybody immediately changes the channel. There’s obviously some entertainment value with him and some people clearly like him. That’s what ESPN is banking on with all this exposure they’ve given him.
But in politics there is such thing as “high negatives” and without looking at the data (which none of us are btw) I have little doubt that he has the media personality equivalent. He is absolutely a guy that for every viewer he attracts to ESPN drives a certain number away.
I also wouldn’t give ESPN anything close to the benefit of the doubt here as sports networks generally have been struggling with falling subscriptions and rising costs. ESPN is known to fudge ratings. They laid tons of people off during the pandemic (multiple times) and tried to spend their way out of it by paying through the nose for a boatload for talent. They’ve also gone through a ton of senior staff shake ups.
All of which is to say, there’s no reason to believe that The Ascension of SAS is likely anything more than a gamble on a big personality who some new-ish executive sold to his bosses as a way to turn around a ton of long-term trends that are all terrible for the network. That they are doubling, tripling and quadrupling down by turning the network into a place where you see his face (and HEAR HIS VOICE) 24/7 is not proof that he is ratings gold – rather that somebody in senior management is desperately hoping he is.
Why does ESPN's internally fudging of numbers have anything to do with this? To fudge numbers you presumably need to know the real numbers. Occam's Razor suggests the programs he is on do better across all relevant channels (TV, social, etc.) when he is on them vs. not on them and that is why ESPN is doubling down on him. It's not like he's an unknown or new quantity. The above reads like starting at a conclusion and coming up with a rationale and dream narrative after the fact. Ratings are also relative so his ratings could be going down but less compared to others personalities, other programs, etc.I have no idea WTF this means or if this is parody.
I don’t mean to suggest that nobody likes SAS or that everybody immediately changes the channel. There’s obviously some entertainment value with him and some people clearly like him. That’s what ESPN is banking on with all this exposure they’ve given him.
But in politics there is such thing as “high negatives” and without looking at the data (which none of us are btw) I have little doubt that he has the media personality equivalent. He is absolutely a guy that for every viewer he attracts to ESPN drives a certain number away.
I also wouldn’t give ESPN anything close to the benefit of the doubt here as sports networks generally have been struggling with falling subscriptions and rising costs. ESPN is known to fudge ratings. They laid tons of people off during the pandemic (multiple times) and tried to spend their way out of it by paying through the nose for a boatload for talent. They’ve also gone through a ton of senior staff shake ups.
All of which is to say, there’s no reason to believe that The Ascension of SAS is likely anything more than a gamble on a big personality who some new-ish executive sold to his bosses as a way to turn around a ton of long-term trends that are all terrible for the network. That they are doubling, tripling and quadrupling down by turning the network into a place where you see his face (and HEAR HIS VOICE) 24/7 is not proof that he is ratings gold – rather that somebody in senior management is desperately hoping he is.
No doubt he's good at it. We disagree what "it" is (beyond attracting eyeballs and advertisers), which is fine. It's not much different than music or any other form of art or entertainment.What SAS does he does better than everyone for way longer and much harder.(phrasing) What he does is nearly impossible.
Sure, him being a hot take machine can be tiring, but he's the best at what he does and he's given the time AND the money because of it. He certainly doesn't look stupid to me. And he makes 1 million dollars a month to talk about sports.
You’re starting at a conclusion as well: assuming that SAS’s ratings must be good because ESPN keeps promoting him.Why does ESPN's internally fudging of numbers have anything to do with this? To fudge numbers you presumably need to know the real numbers. Occam's Razor suggests the programs he is on do better across all relevant channels (TV, social, etc.) when he is on them vs. not on them and that is why ESPN is doubling down on him. It's not like he's an unknown or new quantity. The above reads like starting at a conclusion and coming up with a rationale and dream narrative after the fact. Ratings are also relative so his ratings could be going down but less compared to others personalities, other programs, etc.