WBB: 2024 NCAA Tournament

I’ve been annoyed by both sides of the discussion of her greatness, but mostly by the side that blows smoke up her a$$. I was watching a men’s BB game, I think in the Elite 8. So one of the best men’s teams in the country. A guy makes a long 3. Announcer says (paraphrasing) he’s looking like Steph Curry out there. Another announcer says “or Caitlin Clark.” And it made me want to barf. You can talk about her being good without being so moronic it becomes a joke. And it’s not that the guy was saying she could do well in the NBA. It’s obnoxious because she hasn’t played a single second against the equivalent female competition. If she had been in the WNBA 10 years and put up Curry like numbers, the comment wouldn’t bother me. 

Anyhow, there is no way she joins the 3 on 3 league. She doesn’t seem to do well (or I should say as well) against physical, athletic female defenders. She won’t be able to shoot over or get open against men who are 6-18” taller than her typical defenders. Not to mention she’d be a huge liability on defense unless the team composition required 1 female per team. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
I’ve been annoyed by both sides of the discussion of her greatness, but mostly by the side that blows smoke up her a$$. I was watching a men’s BB game, I think in the Elite 8. So one of the best men’s teams in the country. A guy makes a long 3. Announcer says (paraphrasing) he’s looking like Steph Curry out there. Another announcer says “or Caitlin Clark.” And it made me want to barf. You can talk about her being good without being so moronic it becomes a joke. And it’s not that the guy was saying she could do well in the NBA. It’s obnoxious because she hasn’t played a single second against the equivalent female competition. If she had been in the WNBA 10 years and put up Curry like numbers, the comment wouldn’t bother me. 

Anyhow, there is no way she joins the 3 on 3 league. She doesn’t seem to do well (or I should say as well) against physical, athletic female defenders. She won’t be able to shoot over or get open against men who are 6-18” taller than her typical defenders. Not to mention she’d be a huge liability on defense unless the team composition required 1 female per team. 
Click to expand...
Not only are they taller, but they are much quicker, stronger & jump higher.  She's 6' tall, but most of her 3's are shot from her chest so anyone who guards her tightly will be able to block her shot easily.

 
It was a very good game. And, anyone who thinks women’s basketball isn’t worth watching….hasn’t watched. 
 


 
BigRedBuster said:
It was a very good game. And, anyone who thinks women’s basketball isn’t worth watching….hasn’t watched. 
 
Click to expand...
Dudes title game drew under 15 million viewers.  I’m sure we can try to come up with 100 reasons to explain it away, but there is no denying there is a market for women’s sports when they are as hyped up as men’s.  And honestly, it makes complete sense. 

 
Husker03 said:
Dudes title game drew under 15 million viewers.  I’m sure we can try to come up with 100 reasons to explain it away, but there is no denying there is a market for women’s sports when they are as hyped up as men’s.  And honestly, it makes complete sense. 
Click to expand...
Yep. 
 


 
Husker03 said:
Dudes title game drew under 15 million viewers.  I’m sure we can try to come up with 100 reasons to explain it away, but there is no denying there is a market for women’s sports when they are as hyped up as men’s.  And honestly, it makes complete sense. 
Click to expand...
You can try to come up with 100 reasons, but only two matter - network & time.  ABC vs TBS & Sunday afternoon vs Monday night (9:20 tip on the east coast).

The only other one that might matter is people wanting to see Clark win (Iowa) or lose (most of the rest of the country).

 I didn't watch a single second of the women's game (or the entire tournament for that matter) & watched all but the last minute of the men's game (and took of the 21st & 22nd to watch as much of the first round as I could).

 
ECisGod said:
You can try to come up with 100 reasons, but only two matter - network & time.  ABC vs TBS & Sunday afternoon vs Monday night (9:20 tip on the east coast).

The only other one that might matter is people wanting to see Clark win (Iowa) or lose (most of the rest of the country).

 I didn't watch a single second of the women's game (or the entire tournament for that matter) & watched all but the last minute of the men's game (and took of the 21st & 22nd to watch as much of the first round as I could).
Click to expand...
What were the numbers for the Saturday prime time final 4 games, again?

Again, the argument is immediately moot anyways. Fact is, give women the network and time and hype, the numbers are there.

 
Husker03 said:
What were the numbers for the Saturday prime time final 4 games, again?

Again, the argument is immediately moot anyways. Fact is, give women the network and time and hype, the numbers are there.
Click to expand...
In doing some basic research, it looks like games with Clark drew huge ratings.  All the other games, not so much - though South Carolina vs NC state drew slightly more than the two men's final four games (7.2 vs 6.7 & 5.3) and I wonder how much of that was SC being undefeated, wondering who Iowa (Clark) might play or real interest in the game.

If they get better TV ratings than the men next year, then they might have something.  I would guess that won't be the case.  Clark was a huge draw, but the NBA is seeing that if you promote a few players as stars instead of the entire league you don't get much for ratings if the "stars" (LeBron, Steph, Giannis) are not playing.

I would say that women's college basketball is in the same place the men's game was in the late 70's/early 80's.  They have just come off a decade of one team being dominant (UConn women vs UCLA men) & if you aren't one of the teams ranked in the top 10-15 before the tournament you have virtually no chance to make the final 4.

There was exactly 8 games where the lower seed won in the women's NCAA tournament in 63 games & only one of those was in the first round (there was ten in the first round of the men's tournament).  One was a 5 seed beating a 4, 3 were a 3 seed beating a 2.  Weirdly the elite 8 was all four 1 seeds vs all four 3 seeds.  The only two games that most people would call real upsets were Middle Tennessee beating Louisville (11 over 6) and Duke beating Ohio State (7 over 2).  The other two were the 3 seeds beating 1 seeds to get to the final 4.

The only sport where women consistently get better ratings than men is tennis.  Even the US men's national soccer team outdraws the women's team despite the fact that the women are the best team in the world and the men are in the 15-20 range.

I know this is a long and kind of rambling post, but I'm just trying to point out that a one year blip doesn't mean much.  If it's the start of a trend, good for the women who play college basketball but if it will be forgotten in a couple of years.

 
ECisGod said:
The only sport where women consistently get better ratings than men is tennis. 

I know this is a long and kind of rambling post, but I'm just trying to point out that a one year blip doesn't mean much.  If it's the start of a trend, good for the women who play college basketball but if it will be forgotten in a couple of years.
Click to expand...
And all I am saying is that, when it comes to "fandom," there is nothing inherently superior about men's sports vs womens, it is just what has been broadcast and hyped for the past 50 years.  There is a reason that when you make Caitlyn Clark and Angel Reese a "thing," people are interested. There is a reason, when Nebraska volleyball is a "thing", people follow that much more passionately than they do mens soccer. There is a reason when you create a fan following, fans follow. 

The networks weren't shoving women's basketball at us this year. The networks saw a revenue stream and exploited it. Basketball fans tuned in because the product delivered. 

 
Husker03 said:
And all I am saying is that, when it comes to "fandom," there is nothing inherently superior about men's sports vs womens, it is just what has been broadcast and hyped for the past 50 years.  There is a reason that when you make Caitlyn Clark and Angel Reese a "thing," people are interested. There is a reason, when Nebraska volleyball is a "thing", people follow that much more passionately than they do mens soccer. There is a reason when you create a fan following, fans follow. 

The networks weren't shoving women's basketball at us this year. The networks saw a revenue stream and exploited it. Basketball fans tuned in because the product delivered. 
Click to expand...
The bolded is why they were successful this year.  Women's sports in recent years has improved quite a bit to actually be somewhat entertaining.  Previous to that, it was not watchable.  That to me is a reason for the success.  Then you throw in a few superstars that are intriguing. (name me an intriguing women's basketball superstar from the early 2010s?)  Boom, here you go.

In other words.  It's a bit of both of what you guys are saying.  And to EC's point, what happens next year.  Does Juju take the mantle from Clark?

soup said:
The bolded is why they were successful this year.  Women's sports in recent years has improved quite a bit to actually be somewhat entertaining.  Previous to that, it was not watchable.  That to me is a reason for the success.  Then you throw in a few superstars that are intriguing. (name me an intriguing women's basketball superstar from the early 2010s?)  Boom, here you go.

In other words.  It's a bit of both of what you guys are saying.  And to EC's point, what happens next year.  Does Juju take the mantle from Clark?
Click to expand...
The fact that I even know who Juju is, is a testament.  (assuming that is her name.  The superstar freshman from SoCal)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top