Girls elite eight
- Thread starter Walleye70
- Start date
The depth of talent is greater for men.
20 or 30 years ago most men's teams only played 6 to 7 players. The drop-off from those top 6 or 7 to the next three or four guys was surely greater then than now (my experience attests to this).
The women's game is evolving. In 20 years the talent drop-off from that top 6 or 7 to the next three or four will likely be a lot less and you will see more teams playing 8 or 9 players.
The bigger--and much more obvious--problem is the depth of talent from the top handful of teams to the rest of the world. The drop-off there is staggering....as we've all talked about numerous times. I would certainly love to be wrong, but I would assume after this fabulous season by the gals, we'll drop back to our "also-ran" status with everyone else.
That same problem existed for the men 30+ years ago.
I love the women's game. Defend it all the time. I played college basketball. My first organized basketball experience was summer workouts and preseason practices with the Bradley women's team when I was 10. The impact of the experience, witnessing how the women work just as hard (often harder) and are just as passionate about the game (often more passionate), was immediate. So what I am about to say hopefully is in consideration of this.
The women's game is in some ways a few decades behind the men, which is to be expected. It hasn't had the same attention, support or funding. But it is evolving along the same continuum.
That said, its being "behind" does not make it necessarily an inferior product, meaning it depends a bit on subjective perspective. It's a different product, no doubt. I actually prefer the product in some ways. The women's game feels less corporate, less corrupted, more "pure". The athletes are more accessible, less spoiled by the trappings. I always say that it's easy for me to be a fan of the women's game given that they train just as hard (often harder, and often alongside the men), play just as hard (often harder), and for so, so much less fame and riches. The implication, or deduction, here is that it has to be for the love of the game… because why else? They're not going to get famous or rich—with very, very rare exception. So it's gotta be for the love.
My friend, Laurel Richie, when she became president of the WNBA I went to work consulting for her. My being a brand strategist and an ex-player, off-and-on coach and personal trainer, of course I had a lot of thinking to share. The gist of my pleas to her was to avoid emulating the NBA product. Market the WNBA as less corporate, more accessible. Be okay with being a niche product, let it grow organically from there. I pled with her that people are more and more tiring of aspects of pro sports (and semi-pro, like P5 football and big time men's BB), aspects such as the unrelatable (for many) riches, the "entitled" or "spoiled" athlete, the inaccessibility, and, simply, the exorbitant ticket prices. Spotlight the WNBA as a break from that, an alternative, while also drawing attention to how the women's approach to their craft, the expressions of their passion for the game. This is what draws us in—that passion and that investment.
Some of my thinking found its way into the "Watch Me Work" campaign, though I wasn't super excited about how the end creative. I was pushing for a very unpolished, simple expression, almost filterless. It ended up looking staged, a little inauthentic. But that's the problem with hiring creative agencies. They think they have to create. Sometimes it's as simple as recording footage, editing it a bit, and smart placements. I told Laurel don't even put a logo on some of this stuff, just let the footage leave an imprint so as not to sell the WNBA, but rather sell the game, trust the seed-planting and that people will figure it out.
Anyways. I love the women's game. It's basketball. Two teams giving everything they have for each other. The drama is there whether it is women or men, middle schoolers or pros. It's clutch free throws, big makes and painful misses, refs easy targets for cathartic releases of frustrations of anything from being the fan to simply being human with human daily frustrations.
Go Hawks.
Last edited:
We have come to like the women more than the men’s game. It is fast, coaches aren’t the focus, fewer timeouts and they just look like they are having so much fun. Hope those 11000 that saw them in postseason will buy season tickets next year.
Thanks. Best part is it got a like from @ObeseMuffins, which may be my new favorite poster handle.
I think men's players leaving for the NBA explains much of why the top teams in women's basketball seem more dominant by comparison. Take the Duke men as an example. Duke gets top players each year, but has to keep reloading because its top players constantly leave early. That leaves Duke with talented players, but without significant experience or time to develop those players.
In women's basketball, the top players stay all 4 years. The top schools still get most of the top recruits, but have time to develop them and ease them into pressure situations.
When men's basketball teams take on the top teams, they might have less talent, but they also have more experience to compensate. When women's teams take on top teams, they often have an even bigger talent deficit, and the experience levels are often much closer.
In women's basketball, the top players stay all 4 years. The top schools still get most of the top recruits, but have time to develop them and ease them into pressure situations.
When men's basketball teams take on the top teams, they might have less talent, but they also have more experience to compensate. When women's teams take on top teams, they often have an even bigger talent deficit, and the experience levels are often much closer.
The womens game now seems very similar to the mens game in the 1980s. I love that the players are in roles more analogous to the 80s, with a pivot, a power forward, etc. Its a game I can relate to.
I agree that the womens game is less corporate and less crass. We went to 5 womens games this year, including the tourney. We go to about one mens game a year, and its usually a stinker in November or December.
I agree that the womens game is less corporate and less crass. We went to 5 womens games this year, including the tourney. We go to about one mens game a year, and its usually a stinker in November or December.
They aren't girls, they're women. The men's team are never referred to as boys. The women's game has become more entertaining than the men's game, primarily because they play below the rim. The Iowa coaches are exceptional and get the most out of their talent every season.
And get this: You can have 15 scholarship players in the women's game. UConn's roster is loaded year after year where players 6-15 would probably be starting at other universities. Instead, they sit & watch on the UConn bench.
For the men, you can have 13 on scholarship.
When I last watched the WNBA finals the unis did not seem to have the team names or town on them but some company, that is, if I remember correctly.
Yep, went the way of some other pro sports leagues around the world. Tough deal for the WNBA, player salaries are a fraction of what the players make overseas. So fundraising is a serious concern for the league and its owners. And the thing is these women are GREAT “endorsers” of just about anybody’s brand.
Even the NBA now has corporate sponsors on their jerseys.
Yep WNBA maximum salary is like 120k I think whereas some WNBA players go overseas and make 800k to 1mil
