ADVERTISEMENT

Megan Gustafson waived

Why does war exist?

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: fivec61
Nah, if i wanted to see that level of skill I would go to the local high school gym.

Does it bother the women in the league the fact that the only reason the league exists is because of men?

That must sting a little bit.
Go to a game and ask a player or ten yourself. They’re very accessible.
 
I do, yes. You should go to a game. It’s a good product. You wouldn’t even have to tell anybody. You know, protect that fragile identity of yours.


I would disagree. It's not a good product. It's actually a really bad product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K OKeefe
It is inferior basketball and that makes it a "bad product."
Not necessarily that simple, KOK.

I've gone over this before in other WNBA-related threads. Copy/paste of one of my offerings:

As for the WNBA… I wish people were more accepting or enthusiastic or whatever. Full disclosure, I work for the WNBA (and G League). More full disclosure, my first organized basketball experience was practicing with the Bradley women's team as a 5th grader. So to say I have an ingrained respect for the women's game should be clear. Here's my argument for the WNBA: hate entitled, rich athletes? None of them in WNBA. Hate athletes who never cared about education? Very, very rare in the WNBA. I bet cumulative college GPA is 3.0 or so for the WNBA players. The women train just as hard, make all the same physical sacrifices (if not more) as the men—often with the men—for pennies on the dollar. The women, damn near all the pros, have no offseason, going straight from WNBA to their overseas paycheck. The women are appreciative of their ability to eek out a living doing what they love (and most of them are eeking out a living). They're unbelievably approachable, endearing. Do they soar above the rim? Nope. But go to a WNBA game and sit close to the floor. Watch. The skill level is wonderful. The passion is palpable. These women, who obviously aren't playing for fame or riches, must love the game. Why the hell else would they play? And they only get 30 games or so. Each one matters. We all agree that NBA season, baseball season, even football season is now too many games. Players don't play them all the same, and that is not good for the product. This isn't true of the WNBA. Oh, and you can take your family and still make your house payment. I love the WNBA, love it. But then I tend to love the underdog, gravitate to the underdog.​

I don't mind someone having the opinion that WNBA is an inferior product to the NBA. Fine with that. But a bad product? Depends on what you want out of the product.

I love going to WNBA games. Fans are great, players are great, games are full of the same passion and intensity—often more so—than the men's games. Just less eyeballs on the game, which is part of why the passion and intensity are appreciation-worthy (in my opinion).

I don't expect everyone to like the WNBA, certainly not as I do, but I don't think it's fair to say "bad product"—especially given I doubt most with that type of opinion have actually given it a chance.

Go to a game. Very affordable, and easier to sit close. I hesitate to do this because it sounds demeaning to the WNBA, but their games are enjoyable for some of the same reasons that minor league baseball games are enjoyable.

Anyways, I wish people would simply open their mind to going to a game. It's a good product, especially in person. Maybe the best argument I can make in favor of the WNBA is that, given they're not getting rich or famous playing the game, they must be playing for the love of the game. And as someone with a deep, deep love affair with basketball, I am drawn to enjoy the game through them.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily that simple, KOK.

I've gone over this before in other WNBA-related threads. Copy/paste of one of my offerings:

As for the WNBA… I wish people were more accepting or enthusiastic or whatever. Full disclosure, I work for the WNBA (and G League). More full disclosure, my first organized basketball experience was practicing with the Bradley women's team as a 5th grader. So to say I have an ingrained respect for the women's game should be clear. Here's my argument for the WNBA: hate entitled, rich athletes? None of them in WNBA. Hate athletes who never cared about education? Very, very rare in the WNBA. I bet cumulative college GPA is 3.0 or so for the WNBA players. The women train just as hard, make all the same physical sacrifices (if not more) as the men—often with the men—for pennies on the dollar. The women, damn near all the pros, have no offseason, going straight from WNBA to their overseas paycheck. The women are appreciative of their ability to eek out a living doing what they love (and most of them are eeking out a living). They're unbelievably approachable, endearing. Do they soar above the rim? Nope. But go to a WNBA game and sit close to the floor. Watch. The skill level is wonderful. The passion is palpable. These women, who obviously aren't playing for fame or riches, must love the game. Why the hell else would they play? And they only get 30 games or so. Each one matters. We all agree that NBA season, baseball season, even football season is now too many games. Players don't play them all the same, and that is not good for the product. This isn't true of the WNBA. Oh, and you can take your family and still make your house payment. I love the WNBA, love it. But then I tend to love the underdog, gravitate to the underdog.​

I don't mind someone having the opinion that WNBA is an inferior product to the NBA. Fine with that. But a bad product? Depends on what you want out of the product.

I love going to WNBA games. Fans are great, players are great, games are full of the same passion and intensity—often more so—than the men's games. Just less eyeballs on the game, which is part of why the passion and intensity are appreciation-worthy (in my opinion).

I don't expect everyone to like the WNBA, certainly not as I do, but I don't think it's fair to say "bad product"—especially given I doubt most with that type of opinion have actually given it a chance.

Go to a game. Very affordable, and easier to sit close. I hesitate to do this because it sounds demeaning to the WNBA, but their games are enjoyable for some of the same reasons that minor league baseball games are enjoyable.

Anyways, I wish people would simply open their mind to going to a game. It's a good product, especially in person. Maybe the best argument I can make in favor of the WNBA is that, given they're not getting rich or famous playing the game, they must be playing for the love of the game. And as someone with a deep, deep love affair with basketball, I am drawn to enjoy the game through them.
I appreciate your sentiment and understand that you enjoy the WNBA. I find it to be an inferior level of basketball. In addition, I do not find the attitudes of the players to be worthy of my time. If you want to get paid then put fannies in the seats and viewers in front of their TV's, which is something that the WNBA is incapable of doing. The league would not exists without the NBA and the TV money. The TV ratings are horrendous. "

"Ratings remain poor in comparison to NBA games. WNBA games averaged just 413,000 viewers, compared to 1.46 million viewers for NBA games. The 2009 regular season on ESPN2 (13 telecasts) concluded with an average of 269,000 viewers, up 8% vs. 2008 season (248,000 viewers)."

Players whining about not being paid commensurate with the men, lackluster level of play, and the less than remarkable balance suggests a poor product. The lack of viewership and attendance supports this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 24 so far
I appreciate your sentiment and understand that you enjoy the WNBA. I find it to be an inferior level of basketball. In addition, I do not find the attitudes of the players to be worthy of my time. If you want to get paid then put fannies in the seats and viewers in front of their TV's, which is something that the WNBA is incapable of doing. The league would not exists without the NBA and the TV money. The TV ratings are horrendous. "

"Ratings remain poor in comparison to NBA games. WNBA games averaged just 413,000 viewers, compared to 1.46 million viewers for NBA games. The 2009 regular season on ESPN2 (13 telecasts) concluded with an average of 269,000 viewers, up 8% vs. 2008 season (248,000 viewers)."

Players whining about not being paid commensurate with the men, lackluster level of play, and the less than remarkable balance suggests a poor product. The lack of viewership and attendance supports this.
Good lord KOK!! Lot to unpack here.

First, regarding the inferior level of basketball—I will say that in some ways it has positive comparisons. Don't like all of the emphasis on the three-pointer in the NBA? WNBA game looks more like NBA of 15-20 years ago. Like ball and player movement as opposed to isolation and dudes standing in spots on the arc? Check out the WNBA. Point being, there are aspects of the WNBA game that make it an interesting product for basketball junkies. Hell, NBA players go to the games regularly.

Second, regarding "I do not find the attitudes of the players worthy of my time,"—what does this even mean? Given your suggestion that players whine, am I to assume you think the attitudes of players is bad? If so, please provide context. I'm telling you—firsthand—WNBA players are almost all incredibly appreciative for everything they have. Are they politicking and pushing for more support? Of course. Who doesn't do this? When is the first or last time you heard any professional athlete of any sport ever ask for less attention paid to their sport? And then you go on to say "If you want to get paid then put fannies in the seats and viewers in front of their TV's, which is something that the WNBA is incapable of doing. The league would not exists without the NBA and the TV money. The TV ratings are horrendous," followed by stats that show viewership and attendance has been incrementally increasing. You're funny.

Third, regarding the viewership stats—okay, so what? Is the WNBA only worthwhile if they can match the NBA's TV viewership? Again, what is your contention? Is it that the WNBA should fold because it's not NBA-level? Do you think I don't know this type of information already? What if I told you that the NBA itself got off to a similarly inauspicious start back in the day. Should they have folded?

Fourth, regarding players whining—link? I do know that there has been some discussion over trying to raise the pay, but it's hardly whining. Do you get upset when male professional athletes hold out for more money? Who complain about a contract or some aspect of their compensation? Everybody wishes they were paid more for their work—especially those working their asses off in a career that could end any day. So even if a WNBA player whines—which I have literally never witnessed—so what? And then, how is the play lackluster? Most of the stats mirror the men. Effort? Arguably better. Passion? Wow, don't get me started—and I love the NBA, too. Coachability? Commitment? Competitive integrity? Name one aspect of team sport that you love, and I can virtually guarantee you the WNBA produces it in spades.

Fifth, regarding less than remarkable balance—please explain. Yes, Minnesota has had a run, as has Phoenix. Indiana and LA interrupted their runs on occasion. Seattle has been good. It's arguably no less balanced than the NBA. So maybe explain yourself further. Again, if lack of balance suggests poor product, then the NBA with its dynasties of LA, Celtics, Bulls, Warriors must really suck.

Last, regarding viewership "confirming" poor product—viewership has increased year over year with maybe one interruption. Memory foggy on this. WNBA has obstacles. I spent years working on this. Women's game is obviously not supported like the men's, and even the women playing in the WNBA have little issue with this. The men's game is, by and large, the most popular sports product in the world right now—meteoric rise in our lifetime. Then there is the timing of the season. WNBA has to be in the summer to coexist with the Europe/overseas leagues (where the women make the bulk of their money). People, even my junkie ass, have basketball fatigue. I don't watch the first month of the WNBA season on TV—I don't want to watch any more basketball after the NBA Playoffs. Fatigue. But the numbers are fairly steady and sponsors are there. So WNBA is doing something right.

I really don't understand the insistence on denigrating the WNBA, presenting it as a "poor product" when, I am led to believe, you've never been to a game. I just don't get it. For what? Why denigrate an entire group of people who love something that you apparently enjoy also? And the fact that you're judging this product without having actually experienced it? Why?

Do you need to feel like you're a better judge of the WNBA than me? I already admitted I am biased and explained the origins of the bias, but I've also been to countless games, interacted with countless players, worked out and/or played with many, and worked with some amazing people who are trying to grow and improve the league.

It's weird. Everything you say about the WNBA I could say about, I dunno, college wrestling. And I go to Iowa wrestling meets. And I love them. But the TV numbers aren't great, most programs are funded by football/basketball, blah blah. Does that make college wrestling a "poor product"? Fück no. College wrestling is awesome. It's not for everybody, but it's awesome.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: farfaraway

People buy good
Products. The basketball is worse than any men’s college team. If u have an inferior product, which women’s basketball is not even close to men’s basketball, it’s a bad product
 
People buy good
Products. The basketball is worse than any men’s college team. If u have an inferior product, which women’s basketball is not even close to men’s basketball, it’s a bad product
Interesting. People buy the WNBA, and are happy with it, too.
 
I enjoy college more than the NBA. The NBA consists of the greatest collection of players in the world.
I do too, so much so that I've watched about 12 minutes of the NBA Playoffs this year and used to have a time where I watched a good deal of it, early rounds included.

Now it's all about SuperMax contracts, players whining about money constantly, don't know the players (little to no College, lots of overseas guys, etc.), so the interest isn't there for me. Duck and Chuck style of play, etc.

When you can follow the good to great players thru the NCAA Tournament for a few years and get a bit of history, it's far more interesting to see how that plays out over time. They've pretty much lost me as a fan, but whatever.
 
I do too, so much so that I've watched about 12 minutes of the NBA Playoffs this year and used to have a time where I watched a good deal of it, early rounds included.

Now it's all about SuperMax contracts, players whining about money constantly, don't know the players (little to no College, lots of overseas guys, etc.), so the interest isn't there for me. Duck and Chuck style of play, etc.

When you can follow the good to great players thru the NCAA Tournament for a few years and get a bit of history, it's far more interesting to see how that plays out over time. They've pretty much lost me as a fan, but whatever.
Imo, at the college level most players perform for the name on the front of the jersey. I am not saying that does not happen at the NBA level, but I believe is happens much more frequently at the collegiate level.
 
Not necessarily that simple, KOK.

I've gone over this before in other WNBA-related threads. Copy/paste of one of my offerings:

As for the WNBA… I wish people were more accepting or enthusiastic or whatever. Full disclosure, I work for the WNBA (and G League). More full disclosure, my first organized basketball experience was practicing with the Bradley women's team as a 5th grader. So to say I have an ingrained respect for the women's game should be clear. Here's my argument for the WNBA: hate entitled, rich athletes? None of them in WNBA. Hate athletes who never cared about education? Very, very rare in the WNBA. I bet cumulative college GPA is 3.0 or so for the WNBA players. The women train just as hard, make all the same physical sacrifices (if not more) as the men—often with the men—for pennies on the dollar. The women, damn near all the pros, have no offseason, going straight from WNBA to their overseas paycheck. The women are appreciative of their ability to eek out a living doing what they love (and most of them are eeking out a living). They're unbelievably approachable, endearing. Do they soar above the rim? Nope. But go to a WNBA game and sit close to the floor. Watch. The skill level is wonderful. The passion is palpable. These women, who obviously aren't playing for fame or riches, must love the game. Why the hell else would they play? And they only get 30 games or so. Each one matters. We all agree that NBA season, baseball season, even football season is now too many games. Players don't play them all the same, and that is not good for the product. This isn't true of the WNBA. Oh, and you can take your family and still make your house payment. I love the WNBA, love it. But then I tend to love the underdog, gravitate to the underdog.​

I don't mind someone having the opinion that WNBA is an inferior product to the NBA. Fine with that. But a bad product? Depends on what you want out of the product.

I love going to WNBA games. Fans are great, players are great, games are full of the same passion and intensity—often more so—than the men's games. Just less eyeballs on the game, which is part of why the passion and intensity are appreciation-worthy (in my opinion).

I don't expect everyone to like the WNBA, certainly not as I do, but I don't think it's fair to say "bad product"—especially given I doubt most with that type of opinion have actually given it a chance.

Go to a game. Very affordable, and easier to sit close. I hesitate to do this because it sounds demeaning to the WNBA, but their games are enjoyable for some of the same reasons that minor league baseball games are enjoyable.

Anyways, I wish people would simply open their mind to going to a game. It's a good product, especially in person. Maybe the best argument I can make in favor of the WNBA is that, given they're not getting rich or famous playing the game, they must be playing for the love of the game. And as someone with a deep, deep love affair with basketball, I am drawn to enjoy the game through them.


I agree with you. NCAA, high School and AAU are inferior to the NBA but are fun to watch.
 
It is inferior basketball and that makes it a "bad product."
The NBA is all 3 point shots and dunks. If you think that type of basketball is superior to playing defense, passing, setting up plays, and fundamentally sound basketball of the women’s game.....then good for you.

The NBA is a basketball “show”, akin to the Harlem Globetrotters. The WNBA is basketball games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGHAWK
The NBA is all 3 point shots and dunks. If you think that type of basketball is superior to playing defense, passing, setting up plays, and fundamentally sound basketball of the women’s game.....then good for you.

The NBA is a basketball “show”, akin to the Harlem Globetrotters. The WNBA is basketball games.

You confuse bad offense with good defense in college. NBA actually runs half court sets, unlike college which is motion. Also, the NCAA averaged 37.5% of their shots from behind the arc last season. The NBA averaged 36% of their shots from behind the arc.
But seeing that you're strictly a college bball fan, I expect you to gloss over these facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K OKeefe
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT