ADVERTISEMENT

Women’s basketball viewership

BlIIlken2

HR All-American
Nov 23, 2021
4,840
11,098
113
Do the eyes and numbers continue with CC gone? A lot of people say she has transformed the game but these big numbers were to see her. What will the future hold? More than before but not quite like this years run?
 
Do the eyes and numbers continue with CC gone? A lot of people say she has transformed the game but these big numbers were to see her. What will the future hold? More than before but not quite like this years run?
I think it might've been different had Iowa won today and proven that a team like Iowa could win a national championship.

Instead, the story will be more of the same.
 
Not with the stacked teams with many elite players and a deep bench and the ref's still pretty bad. The longer the blue's keep winning these the less folks will watch. But who knows, maybe the CC effect changes that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LetsGoHawks83
Yeah stacked teams with many elite players and a deep bench and the ref's still pretty bad. The longer the blue's keep winning these the less folks will watch. But who knows, maybe the CC effect changes that.

UConn had 5 players get injured this season. Weren't they all highly rated? And we barely beat them.

UConn and South Carolina are probably gonna continue to dominate, unfortunately

With no parity, I think viewership goes back to shit
 
The lack of parity will continue to be a problem, but there are a few programs out there that are looking to get their foot in the door.

Bluder has done an amazing job with CC and her players. She has recruited well, and if Deal can live up to her recruiting ranking and stay healthy, we might have another run in us.

USC with Juju will be interesting over the next couple of years. They’ve got a chance to be the next Iowa style team to spoil the party of the blue bloods.

Can Fennelly parley his young players into a team to deal with over the next couple of years? He’ll need a PG as Ryan was a stud.

But other than that, we might as well get used to SC, LSU, UConn, UCLA, Stanford in the final 4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MitchLL
I think the numbers go back to shit moving forward
Agree, unless there’s another player that can pass like CC and shoot 35 footers. Juju can’t do it and neither can Buekers or Hilgado. Iowa has supported the women’s team for a long time and will continue to do so but the average fan can now afford to get to a game again.
 
No way the ratings stay up because Clark didn't really grow the actual game's popularity, she just became a unique star that kind of followed in the Steph Curry mode that became popular herself. She was the draw otherwise women's games not involving Iowa would be highly rated too. Nobody cared about watching USC or LSU unless they were playing Iowa. Angel Reese got Instagram followers because of her looks and attitude, not from people that are going to watch a basketball game. And outside of Iowa, Clark really wasn't a national star as a freshman, and then they sort of choked her sophomore year in the tournament so we don't know if they could've built this up a year earlier. Last year's postseason was her coming out party and this whole season was a different level because they kept trying find new gimmick records like Pistol Pete to keep eyeballs and it worked every time. But the popularity has to catch on organically to maintain itself, the media trying to force Juju Watkins into the role just because she scored points as freshman won't work. Lots of college girls have been great at basketball, but only Cheryl Miller and Caitlin Clark have really been part of multiple top ten ratings draws in it's history (Technically LSU twice because they played Iowa twice, and also Kim Mulkey from the first ever title game in 1982 as a player, but those were happenstance).
 
Big drop in interest from fans going forward.

a friend of mine who doesn't live in Iowa ONLY got interested in WBB last year because of Caitlin. He then followed Iowa all of this season. He's been texting regarding today's game. And he's already said he won't be tuning in next year to watch ANY WBB games. He's also asked me if anyone will tune in to watch WNBA games just because of CC.
 
Numbers won’t be this years numbers, but I think there are enough stars that have name recognition that it will probably settle around last year’s numbers.
 
As long as the announcers are all former UCONN and SC alum, I might watch but with the game muted. The officiating really needs an upgrade to keep interest, today was brutal (again) for a championship game. Or maybe it’s just SEC favoritism which has been dominant in football for decades. Regardless, won’t keep my viewership if it’s not the Hawks.

Any truth to the Steulke getting drug tested story? Don’t see anything on the board and don’t want to pass on disinformation.
 
Nah people won’t be interested in the sport going back to its ridiculous lack of parity. And people won’t have their team to hatewatch like they had in our team.
Yep, this team drew Iowa fans and national fans cheering for CC and the underdogs but also drew viewers with nothing better to do than hate on CC's success and there was a large number of viewers wanting the "mostly white" team to lose.
 
No way the ratings stay up because Clark didn't really grow the actual game's popularity, she just became a unique star that kind of followed in the Steph Curry mode that became popular herself. She was the draw otherwise women's games not involving Iowa would be highly rated too. Nobody cared about watching USC or LSU unless they were playing Iowa. Angel Reese got Instagram followers because of her looks and attitude, not from people that are going to watch a basketball game. And outside of Iowa, Clark really wasn't a national star as a freshman, and then they sort of choked her sophomore year in the tournament so we don't know if they could've built this up a year earlier. Last year's postseason was her coming out party and this whole season was a different level because they kept trying find new gimmick records like Pistol Pete to keep eyeballs and it worked every time. But the popularity has to catch on organically to maintain itself, the media trying to force Juju Watkins into the role just because she scored points as freshman won't work. Lots of college girls have been great at basketball, but only Cheryl Miller and Caitlin Clark have really been part of multiple top ten ratings draws in it's history (Technically LSU twice because they played Iowa twice, and also Kim Mulkey from the first ever title game in 1982 as a player, but those were happenstance).
LSU vs SC this year had 9.5 million viewers….Someone cared
 
LSU vs SC this year had 9.5 million viewers….Someone cared

I'm seeing 1.56 million for their first game and 1.96 million for the SEC title game (but please correct me if I'm wrong). Those are great numbers compared what the women's game has generally drawn (top five all time regular season viewership type numbers in fact), but that's also the most high profile matchup the sport could've had outside Iowa and UConn being involved. SC-NC State had 7.1 million. So hitting 2 million in a regular season game or 7 million for the final four games will be a good benchmark to watch going forward.
 
Yeah, 3 or 4 of the same teams dominating doesn't help grow the sport.
Agreed. If South Carolina has one loss total in three years the TV sets will find something else.

You need a level of parity or it ends up being interesting only to a few regional fan bases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amahawk
I think they’ll drop a little next year but better than they were. The WNBA will certainly see a bump. Then they will decrease going forward as you simply are never going to get big interest in the women’s pro game. CC and others bring eyes because they are college kids and she was special. Seeing the same few teams every year won’t hold interest and while JuJu is very talented, she is not on the same level entertainment-wise.
In a few years it will likely be back to what it was 5 years ago
 
Yep, this team drew Iowa fans and national fans cheering for CC and the underdogs but also drew viewers with nothing better to do than hate on CC's success and there was a large number of viewers wanting the "mostly white" team to lose.
Is there such a thing as bad publicity?
 
I wonder if this is the end or the beginning of an era for women's hoops.
Neither. It'll supply a small bump,and they'll try to hype the next star (likely JuJu Watkins) but you're not going to see the level of excitement you did this year. It was an anomaly.

amahawk:
Is there such a thing as bad publicity?

Yes. Just ask anybody who's been "cancelled" or had their career or life destroyed by a bad story. The "no such thing as bad publicity" cliche' comes from a different time when getting noticed was very difficult.
 
I always tape sporting events, so I can watch them when convenient and replay sections that I wanted to see more closely. Yesterday, I mistakenly started taping the game on ESPN, which had the game with ongoing dialog among some former UConn players, who seem to be everywhere. They spent a lot of time continuing the crap about the illegal pick call "that cost UConn a chance to win the game." Taurasi (sp?) seems to also have a grudge she is carrying about Caitlin getting so much attention and being called the GOAT. Fortunately, I started watching about a quarter into the game, so I was able to watch all but the first quarter on ABC, but I still listened to their rooting for SC and heavy bias against Iowa. Except for a visit from Snoop Dog, who likes Iowa, the UConn girls refused to give Iowa or CC much credit, even when they were whipping SC in the first quarter. The blue bloods don't like it when someone disrupts their dominance...
 
Last edited:
I always tape sporting events, so I can watch them when convenient and replay sections that I wanted to see more closely. Yesterday, I mistakenly started taping the game on ESPN, which had the game with ongoing dialog among some former UConn players, who seem to be everywhere. They spent a lot of time continuing the crap about the illegal pick call "that cost UConn a chance to win the game." Taursi (sp?) seems to also have a grudge she is carrying about Caitlin getting so much attention and being called the GOAT. Fortunately, I started watching about a quarter into the game, so I was able to watch all but the first quarter on ABC, but I still listened to their rooting for SC and heavy bias against Iowa. Except for a visit from Snoop Dog, who likes Iowa, the UConn girls refused to give Iowa or CC much credit, even when they were whipping SC in the first quarter. The blue bloods don't like it when someone disrupts their dominance...
Agree.

There definitely was some resentment towards the "new kids on the block".
 
LSU vs SC this year had 9.5 million viewers….Someone cared
Think a lot of that was Iowa fans watching to see the road of possibilities in the tourney. And Angel Reece to lose lol. Not saying they don't draw big numbers, but CC def had an affect on other game numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onlyTheObvious
I'm seeing 1.56 million for their first game and 1.96 million for the SEC title game (but please correct me if I'm wrong). Those are great numbers compared what the women's game has generally drawn (top five all time regular season viewership type numbers in fact), but that's also the most high profile matchup the sport could've had outside Iowa and UConn being involved. SC-NC State had 7.1 million. So hitting 2 million in a regular season game or 7 million for the final four games will be a good benchmark to watch going forward.
Sorry….fat finger typo on my part. Meant 1.5 mill. Thanks for keeping me straight. That’s still lots of eyes.
 
Fans may be watching their own teams more than they did before, like me, but I won't be watching other teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pawkhawk1
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT