Caitlin Clark’s rookie salary is $76,000 (2 Viewers)

[Kev4029]

I heard a great perspective on this from Michelle Wie on Daniel Tosh's podcast of all places (10/10 would recommend). She didn't address the economics of the issue as much as the practical enjoyability of the viewing experience - Men's sports are significantly better to watch on TV because the media has made it so. She said that for Men's golf tournaments there would be something like 80 cameras with different kinds of cameras to get different/better views and it allows the viewer to jump around and watch a variety of different golfers and holes with Jim Nantz announcing, while women get 10 cameras that are mostly just watching a few different pairings with an announcer you don't know. She recognized that there is a bit of a cause and effect thing here where the popularity drives the coverage, but to some level the coverage could drastically change the popularity as well. Additionally, men's sports have been around for decades longer than women's pro sports, so there has been more time and more tradition in building a fan base.

Her and Tosh brought up women's major tennis as the counter to traditional men's v women's coverage - women get nearly identical coverage and prizes which drives the viewership to be relatively similar. I also see something similar in Olympic coverage in that the announcers and quality are fairly even across men's and women's and the viewership isn't substantially different for many of the sports.

I generally kind of buy into what she said. For the sake of this discussion, I don't think there is anything that could be done to raise the WNBA's popularity to the NBA's, but I do think there is a world where the WNBA is turning a strong profit and their top players are making millions of dollars a year rather than tens of thousands.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Now, will it translate to the WNBA? I have my doubts as it's just not watched by anybody, really. I don't know if the attendance is any good either, but regardless, what we just witnessed in women's sports in terms of viewership is astonishing.

The attendance has been a big problem in the league for many many years.

Here is a chart that shows the long slow trend in the wrong direction. I have to assume that they will get a fairly is significant bump this summer but the real question will be if can it continue

WNBA Historical Attendance Data - Across the Timeline

I'm thinking they should remove the WNBA from giant cities with a lot going on. For example, Atlanta. Atlanta can't even fill their NBA stadiums (or, at least, that was the knock on them for years). Atlanta has the Braves and Falcons, Georgia football.....how on earth is a WNBA team going to compete in that market?

Maybe look at mid-markets that are starved for sports entertainment. Obviously I'm biased, but the Portland Thorns sell out many of the NWSL games and I'd bet a WNBA team would do fine here too. Move Dallas to OKC.

They are definitely looking to expand. A new team in Golden State is coming next year. The commissioner said today: "We continue to engage with cities. I'll throw some of those out there because I've already thrown them out there. We continue to engage with cities like Philadelphia and Toronto, and Portland and Denver and Nashville and South Florida"

So you may get your wish.

 

[matttyl]

How much revenue is generated by the WNBA compared to the NBA?

NBA makes about $10B a year, with teams worth about $2.9B on average. The WNBA makes about $60M per year, but that’s expected to grow rapidly with the new faces entering that league.

That said, the NBA makes over 150x more than the WNBA currently.

 

[NewlyRetired]

I'm thinking they should remove the WNBA from giant cities with a lot going on. For example, Atlanta. Atlanta can't even fill their NBA stadiums (or, at least, that was the knock on them for years). Atlanta has the Braves and Falcons, Georgia football.....how on earth is a WNBA team going to compete in that market?

Atlanta United averages over 47k a game themselves, which is a massive number in the same time of the year the WNBA plays in.

I agree, there is no room for an Atlanta WNBA team. They have continually downsized where they play.

I believe they currently play in an arena that only hold 5k max and they averaged 3k last season.

 

[General Malaise]

I'm thinking they should remove the WNBA from giant cities with a lot going on. For example, Atlanta. Atlanta can't even fill their NBA stadiums (or, at least, that was the knock on them for years). Atlanta has the Braves and Falcons, Georgia football.....how on earth is a WNBA team going to compete in that market?

Atlanta United averages over 47k a game themselves, which is a massive number in the same time of the year the WNBA plays in.

I agree, there is no room for an Atlanta WNBA team. They have continually downsized where they play.

I believe they currently play in an arena that only hold 5k max and they averaged 3k last season.

Yeah, I forgot about the MLS there - that's been a huge success.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Smaller markets is a good point. The AA baseball team here averages over 6200 people a game, which would be the 4th highest WNBA attendance. Have to think a professional basketball team would do well.

 

[Keith R]

I watch WNBA occasionally, will probably watch more now. It's in that sweet spot after the NBA finals and before the NFL kickoff and I prefer women's basketball to baseball. I even finished first in a WNBA fantasy league last year before losing in the semis.

 

[General Malaise]

I watch WNBA occasionally, will probably watch more now. It's in that sweet spot after the NBA finals and before the NFL kickoff and I prefer women's basketball to baseball. I even finished first in a WNBA fantasy league last year before losing in the semis.

If you have an opening in this, I'd be interested. Seriously.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Smaller markets is a good point. The AA baseball team here averages over 6200 people a game, which would be the 4th highest WNBA attendance. Have to think a professional basketball team would do well.

it is definitely a balancing act.

While attendance would almost certainly be better in the smaller markets, the league also has to worry about sponsorships and TV ratings, which are typically driven by being in the bigger markets.

 

[NewlyRetired]

This is a MASSIVE number. Maybe Clark is that once in a lifetime player that can put an entire league on her back

===========================

Sports TV Ratings
https://twitter.com/SportsTVRatings
@SportsTVRatings

2.446 million viewers for the WNBA Draft on ESPN from 7:30-9:29 PM ET.

 

[Stoneworker]

I heard a great perspective on this from Michelle Wie on Daniel Tosh's podcast of all places (10/10 would recommend). She didn't address the economics of the issue as much as the practical enjoyability of the viewing experience - Men's sports are significantly better to watch on TV because the media has made it so. She said that for Men's golf tournaments there would be something like 80 cameras with different kinds of cameras to get different/better views and it allows the viewer to jump around and watch a variety of different golfers and holes with Jim Nantz announcing, while women get 10 cameras that are mostly just watching a few different pairings with an announcer you don't know. She recognized that there is a bit of a cause and effect thing here where the popularity drives the coverage, but to some level the coverage could drastically change the popularity as well. Additionally, men's sports have been around for decades longer than women's pro sports, so there has been more time and more tradition in building a fan base.

Her and Tosh brought up women's major tennis as the counter to traditional men's v women's coverage - women get nearly identical coverage and prizes which drives the viewership to be relatively similar. I also see something similar in Olympic coverage in that the announcers and quality are fairly even across men's and women's and the viewership isn't substantially different for many of the sports.

I generally kind of buy into what she said. For the sake of this discussion, I don't think there is anything that could be done to raise the WNBA's popularity to the NBA's, but I do think there is a world where the WNBA is turning a strong profit and their top players are making millions of dollars a year rather than tens of thousands.

So basically a "build it and they will come" argument. Unfortunately that only works in the movies.

No media company is going to invest in that much production cost upfront without demand pulling them to do so.

 

[hagmania]

Clark's no Rousey yet.

What the league needs to do is tank and let the Indiana Fever make the playoffs. Serious. Rig it.

EDIT: OK not serious. But the best thing to happen is for Clark to continue making an impact and to drag her team to the Finals.

 

[belljr]

The WNBA was losing tons of cash for the longest time but the NBA kept it going. If they start getting more fans I think salaries will increase

 

[hagmania]

The WNBA was losing tons of cash for the longest time but the NBA kept it going. If they start getting more fans I think salaries will increase

If the league makes more money the players will bargain for more, yes.

 

[TLEF316]

Lol my daughter is so typical! She just texted me that she saw on TikTok that Clark is getting $76,000, it’s being discussed by everyone she knows, it’s totally unfair, part of the “Patriarchy”, etc., etc. Apparently it’s blowing up social media.

I asked her three questions: (1) Has she ever watched a WNBA game? (2) Can she name a WNBA player? (3) Can she name a WNBA team? I guessed the answers to the first 2 would be no, but I thought she at least might be able to name the Sparks. The answers to all 3 were no.

Bill Burr explains this pretty well.....(obviously some NSFW language) If women as a whole supported the WNBA by putting their eyeballs on the screen (consistently) or their butts in the seats, they'd make more money. But there's probably more women in the studio at the Bachelor Finale show than there is at most regular season WNBA games. If women supported WNBA players with 2% of the enthusiasm with which they support Taylor Swift, this "problem" would be solved.

"Women failed the WNBA" - Bill Burr

www.youtube.com

 

[dgreen]

I heard a great perspective on this from Michelle Wie on Daniel Tosh's podcast of all places (10/10 would recommend). She didn't address the economics of the issue as much as the practical enjoyability of the viewing experience - Men's sports are significantly better to watch on TV because the media has made it so. She said that for Men's golf tournaments there would be something like 80 cameras with different kinds of cameras to get different/better views and it allows the viewer to jump around and watch a variety of different golfers and holes with Jim Nantz announcing, while women get 10 cameras that are mostly just watching a few different pairings with an announcer you don't know. She recognized that there is a bit of a cause and effect thing here where the popularity drives the coverage, but to some level the coverage could drastically change the popularity as well. Additionally, men's sports have been around for decades longer than women's pro sports, so there has been more time and more tradition in building a fan base.

Her and Tosh brought up women's major tennis as the counter to traditional men's v women's coverage - women get nearly identical coverage and prizes which drives the viewership to be relatively similar. I also see something similar in Olympic coverage in that the announcers and quality are fairly even across men's and women's and the viewership isn't substantially different for many of the sports.

I generally kind of buy into what she said. For the sake of this discussion, I don't think there is anything that could be done to raise the WNBA's popularity to the NBA's, but I do think there is a world where the WNBA is turning a strong profit and their top players are making millions of dollars a year rather than tens of thousands.

So basically a "build it and they will come" argument. Unfortunately that only works in the movies.

No media company is going to invest in that much production cost upfront without demand pulling them to do so.

Yeah, that argument seems completely backwards. It sounds like she recognized the opposite is true on some level, but it sounds like she weights the coverage way more than I think it should be.

I think it's a good point to mention how much longer men's sports have been around, but I think that recognition should lead us to realize that we shouldn't expect, or even demand, closer equality for a long time...if that ever even comes.

 

[Brony]

This is a MASSIVE number. Maybe Clark is that once in a lifetime player that can put an entire league on her back

===========================

Sports TV Ratings
https://twitter.com/SportsTVRatings
@SportsTVRatings

2.446 million viewers for the WNBA Draft on ESPN from 7:30-9:29 PM ET.

I just want to thank you for not using the term "generational player" even though I could sense that you wanted to.

 

[The Gator]

Lol my daughter is so typical! She just texted me that she saw on TikTok that Clark is getting $76,000, it’s being discussed by everyone she knows, it’s totally unfair, part of the “Patriarchy”, etc., etc. Apparently it’s blowing up social media.

I asked her three questions: (1) Has she ever watched a WNBA game? (2) Can she name a WNBA player? (3) Can she name a WNBA team? I guessed the answers to the first 2 would be no, but I thought she at least might be able to name the Sparks. The answers to all 3 were no.

Bill Burr explains this pretty well.....(obviously some NSFW language)

"Women failed the WNBA" - Bill Burr

www.youtube.com

Great bit.

"The money listens..."

 

[dgreen]

Lol my daughter is so typical! She just texted me that she saw on TikTok that Clark is getting $76,000, it’s being discussed by everyone she knows, it’s totally unfair, part of the “Patriarchy”, etc., etc. Apparently it’s blowing up social media.

I asked her three questions: (1) Has she ever watched a WNBA game? (2) Can she name a WNBA player? (3) Can she name a WNBA team? I guessed the answers to the first 2 would be no, but I thought she at least might be able to name the Sparks. The answers to all 3 were no.

Bill Burr explains this pretty well.....(obviously some NSFW language) If women as a whole supported the WNBA by putting their eyeballs on the screen (consistently) or their butts in the seats, they'd make more money. But there's probably more women in the studio at the Bachelor Finale show than there is at most regular season WNBA games. If women supported WNBA players with 2% of the enthusiasm with which they support Taylor Swift, this "problem" would be solved.

"Women failed the WNBA" - Bill Burr

www.youtube.com

Yeah, I especially enjoy the part about how commentators on TV have to act like they don't know the answer.

ECON 101 needs to be a mandatory HS class.

 

[Gally]

but to some level the coverage could drastically change the popularity as well.

I think that is true for an initial push kind of like this year in women's college ball. The Clark hype was pushed so much that it made the non-sports fan want to at least see what the hype was about. The question is was the hype justified and the real deal? Because if it's just hype to try and pull people in with no substantial improvement in the quality of the game overall (not just one or two players) then that won't make new "fans" stick with it. You will get an initial boost but then it will settle back in to where it always has been because it's not very entertaining.

So marketing, publicity, etc can help with the initial draw but if the product isn't good enough it won't last.

 

[Gally]

Her and Tosh brought up women's major tennis as the counter to traditional men's v women's coverage - women get nearly identical coverage and prizes which drives the viewership to be relatively similar.

I think this is based on the style of play. Women actually play tennis with rallys and prolonged play. Men is primarily about the serve and it's very short lived play. By and large many people (based on the ratings) enjoy women's tennis more because there is more game substance (at least I have read articles etc with this viewpoint as to why women's tennis rivals the mens side).

So it goes to the product. If the product captures an audience and sustains viewership it can survive.

ETA: It goes to the product...............not the coverage. This was the point I was trying to make here. The part I quoted is stating the "identical coverage and prizes" that driver viewership and I think the coverage and prizes is because the product is preferred by the viewers. Not the other way around.

 

[Stoneworker]

So it goes to the product. If the product captures an audience and sustains viewership it can survive.

Yep. Taylor Swift does not suffer from any type of pay discrepancy because her entertainment product is simply superior as proven by her vast audience.

 

[Dickies]

The 2023 NBA Finals were watched by an average of 11.64 million viewers in the United States.

The 2024 Women’s College Basketball national championship game between South Carolina and Iowa averaged 18.7 million viewers, peaking at 24 million on ABC & ESPN.

Not really apples to apples comparison. The NBA Finals is a series with multiple games. There isn't the all or nothing excitement of a one and done game. That type of game has a lot more stakes involved and bigger build up.

I would guess if the NBA went to a single elimination playoffs with a a one and done Finals that the viewership would be a lot higher.

That woman's NCAA final was the highest watched BASKETBALL game in the last 5 years. Includes men's NCAA tournament, all NBA finals, etc, etc....

I tuned in to watch Clark play a couple times this tournament and I honestly found the games more entertaining than the games I watched on the men's side. Maybe I'm a sucker who just bought into the hype, but there are a few sports I like watching women play more than the men such as tennis and lingerie football.

 

[dgreen]

While it doesn't surprise me that there's a huge gap between the salary of a top NBA pick and a top WNBA pick, the $76,000 figure did surprise me a bit. And even more surprising that the top salary is only $250,000. I would have expected higher on both of those. I am admittedly pretty ignorant of the WNBA, but I probably would have guessed the top pick would easily be six figures and that there would have been someone out there making high six figures as the top contract. There's a ton of money flying around out there in various industries, that I would have assumed they'd be doing better than they are.

 

[Dickies]

Her and Tosh brought up women's major tennis as the counter to traditional men's v women's coverage - women get nearly identical coverage and prizes which drives the viewership to be relatively similar.

I think this is based on the style of play. Women actually play tennis with rallys and prolonged play. Men is primarily about the serve and it's very short lived play. By and large many people (based on the ratings) enjoy women's tennis more because there is more game substance (at least I have read articles etc with this viewpoint as to why women's tennis rivals the mens side).

So it goes to the product. If the product captures an audience and sustains viewership it can survive.

ETA: It goes to the product...............not the coverage. This was the point I was trying to make here. The part I quoted is stating the "identical coverage and prizes" that driver viewership and I think the coverage and prizes is because the product is preferred by the viewers. Not the other way around.

This is 100% correct. Women by and large do not have the overpowering serves that the men have, so it leads to them actually playing tennis. Another factor which may not be of any consequence to most people who watch women's tennis is that they play BO3 while the men play BO5 which allows an entire match to be watched within the framework of a busy schedule.

 

[-OZ-]

Just asking, but does anyone care that the vast majority of the highest earning only fans stars are female? Presumably that’s true in various genre of movies too.

17 Highest Paid OnlyFans in 2023 (+Their Net Worth)

Over the years, OnlyFans has revolutionized the content creation world by creating a strong platform on which creators can share their work. Though often

moneyinc.com

 

[Stoneworker]

Her and Tosh brought up women's major tennis as the counter to traditional men's v women's coverage - women get nearly identical coverage and prizes which drives the viewership to be relatively similar.

I think this is based on the style of play. Women actually play tennis with rallys and prolonged play. Men is primarily about the serve and it's very short lived play. By and large many people (based on the ratings) enjoy women's tennis more because there is more game substance (at least I have read articles etc with this viewpoint as to why women's tennis rivals the mens side).

So it goes to the product. If the product captures an audience and sustains viewership it can survive.

ETA: It goes to the product...............not the coverage. This was the point I was trying to make here. The part I quoted is stating the "identical coverage and prizes" that driver viewership and I think the coverage and prizes is because the product is preferred by the viewers. Not the other way around.

This is 100% correct. Women by and large do not have the overpowering serves that the men have, so it leads to them actually playing tennis. Another factor which may not be of any consequence to most people who watch women's tennis is that they play BO3 while the men play BO5 which allows an entire match to be watched within the framework of a busy schedule.

I love the women's game as outlined in these posts.

What keeps me away is the incessant moaning and grunting and shrieking after every shot. No thanks.

 

[Gally]

What keeps me away is the incessant moaning and grunting and shrieking after every shot. No thanks.

There is a mute button on most TV's

 

[Kev4029]

I heard a great perspective on this from Michelle Wie on Daniel Tosh's podcast of all places (10/10 would recommend). She didn't address the economics of the issue as much as the practical enjoyability of the viewing experience - Men's sports are significantly better to watch on TV because the media has made it so. She said that for Men's golf tournaments there would be something like 80 cameras with different kinds of cameras to get different/better views and it allows the viewer to jump around and watch a variety of different golfers and holes with Jim Nantz announcing, while women get 10 cameras that are mostly just watching a few different pairings with an announcer you don't know. She recognized that there is a bit of a cause and effect thing here where the popularity drives the coverage, but to some level the coverage could drastically change the popularity as well. Additionally, men's sports have been around for decades longer than women's pro sports, so there has been more time and more tradition in building a fan base.

Her and Tosh brought up women's major tennis as the counter to traditional men's v women's coverage - women get nearly identical coverage and prizes which drives the viewership to be relatively similar. I also see something similar in Olympic coverage in that the announcers and quality are fairly even across men's and women's and the viewership isn't substantially different for many of the sports.

I generally kind of buy into what she said. For the sake of this discussion, I don't think there is anything that could be done to raise the WNBA's popularity to the NBA's, but I do think there is a world where the WNBA is turning a strong profit and their top players are making millions of dollars a year rather than tens of thousands.

So basically a "build it and they will come" argument. Unfortunately that only works in the movies.

No media company is going to invest in that much production cost upfront without demand pulling them to do so.

I don't necessarily disagree with the point, and I don't feel like Michelle Wie was either. It's a long play without a defined financial winner from the media perspective. If Disney/ABC/ESPN could sign a 10 year contract with some sort of triggers to maintain the contract afterwards to guarantee that if they put the money in to see the results of the investment, maybe it would be worth it. But with 5 or 6 year contracts, the ROI would lag too far beyond the investment.

But going back to the tennis comparison, it does seem like there may be a way for the league (in this case, initially the NBA) to drive viewership through more investment in their end. Force their TV partners into including WNBA games into primetime slots as part of the upcoming NBA TV contract or something.

 

[pollardsvision]

Obviously, Clark is the driver here, but it's a star-studded group of rookies in general. The women's tournament was so much more interesting than the men's this year.
Cardoso and Reese going to Chicago made me think about ordering a Sky jersey.

It'l be interesting to see what happens if Clark struggles early on. And it would make sense that she should struggle early on.
She's gonna go from playing 18 year olds to grown women in less than a month.

 

[Zow]

She’s the #1 pick. Meanwhile, the #1 pick in the NBA draft will be paid around 10 million.

Of course Clark is set to earn millions of dollars in endorsement money- she already has. But there are a lot of people this morning discussing the disparity.

It seems to me that this is simply a matter of economics. People don’t watch the WNBA like they do the NBA. Men’s sports gets a lot more viewers, so the salaries are higher. Simple as that. Perhaps Clark can change this dynamic. Who knows?

The 2023 NBA Finals were watched by an average of 11.64 million viewers in the United States.

The 2024 Women’s College Basketball national championship game between South Carolina and Iowa averaged 18.7 million viewers, peaking at 24 million on ABC & ESPN.

Now, will it translate to the WNBA? I have my doubts as it's just not watched by anybody, really. I don't know if the attendance is any good either, but regardless, what we just witnessed in women's sports in terms of viewership is astonishing.

I think the WNBA really needs to work on its scheduling. They should utilize the down months of February and March and claim Tuesday evenings or some such as their night.

I honestly don't even know when the WNBA season is and I' bet that I pay more attention to pro sports than the average person by a wide margin.

 

[Zow]

Crazy idea (which I think has been rejected in the past) is to lower the hoop, say, six inches. The diameter of the basketball is an inch smaller than the men's ball, so I don't know why they can take the extra step of lowering the hoop ... I'm assuming most hoops are designed such that they can be easily adjusted. Might be a expensive to refit hoops up and down the spectrum of women's basketball if existing hoops can't be adjusted.

This would open up all kinds of exciting play on the court. I know I'd be more likely to watch, says guy who was first attracted to the NBA game by Dr. J.

Should they be allowed 6 steps like the NBA?

The NBA doesn't allow 6 steps. The players are just huge and freakishly athletic so it looks like they're traveling when they aren't.

 

[Zow]

FWIW- my daughter’s knowledge of professional sports is basically limited to Travis Kelce plays for the Kansas City Chiefs- and she only learned that fact late last year…

You mean Taylor Swift's boyfriend?

 

[Dickies]

Her and Tosh brought up women's major tennis as the counter to traditional men's v women's coverage - women get nearly identical coverage and prizes which drives the viewership to be relatively similar.

I think this is based on the style of play. Women actually play tennis with rallys and prolonged play. Men is primarily about the serve and it's very short lived play. By and large many people (based on the ratings) enjoy women's tennis more because there is more game substance (at least I have read articles etc with this viewpoint as to why women's tennis rivals the mens side).

So it goes to the product. If the product captures an audience and sustains viewership it can survive.

ETA: It goes to the product...............not the coverage. This was the point I was trying to make here. The part I quoted is stating the "identical coverage and prizes" that driver viewership and I think the coverage and prizes is because the product is preferred by the viewers. Not the other way around.

This is 100% correct. Women by and large do not have the overpowering serves that the men have, so it leads to them actually playing tennis. Another factor which may not be of any consequence to most people who watch women's tennis is that they play BO3 while the men play BO5 which allows an entire match to be watched within the framework of a busy schedule.

I love the women's game as outlined in these posts.

What keeps me away is the incessant moaning and grunting and shrieking after every shot. No thanks.

Some of the men do it too.

 

[pollardsvision]

She’s the #1 pick. Meanwhile, the #1 pick in the NBA draft will be paid around 10 million.

Of course Clark is set to earn millions of dollars in endorsement money- she already has. But there are a lot of people this morning discussing the disparity.

It seems to me that this is simply a matter of economics. People don’t watch the WNBA like they do the NBA. Men’s sports gets a lot more viewers, so the salaries are higher. Simple as that. Perhaps Clark can change this dynamic. Who knows?

The 2023 NBA Finals were watched by an average of 11.64 million viewers in the United States.

The 2024 Women’s College Basketball national championship game between South Carolina and Iowa averaged 18.7 million viewers, peaking at 24 million on ABC & ESPN.

Now, will it translate to the WNBA? I have my doubts as it's just not watched by anybody, really. I don't know if the attendance is any good either, but regardless, what we just witnessed in women's sports in terms of viewership is astonishing.

I think the WNBA really needs to work on its scheduling. They should utilize the down months of February and March and claim Tuesday evenings or some such as their night.

I honestly don't even know when the WNBA season is and I' bet that I pay more attention to pro sports than the average person by a wide margin.

Pre-season starts in 2 weeks (I learned that last night).

 

[Jayrod]

Aesthetically, the women's game is typically clunky and unimpressive. That's the biggest problem. Female athletes simply cannot stop and start and jump and run as well as top male athletes.

In the NCAA, the quality of the men's game has greatly suffered due to the transfer portal and top tier players leaving after 1 year (or never even playing college at all). The inability to form a cohesive team with 2-4 year talented players makes for some ugly basketball, even at the big programs. That's one reason why UCONN was so dominate this season is that they had both the talent and some cohesiveness (had 7 players back from previous championship team). Very few power 5 schools return even 4 or 5 guys from the previous year and certainly don't have many talented seniors. That does work in the women's favor as they mostly stick around for 4 years and don't transfer nearly as frequently building team chemistry and raises the quality of the team play.

 

[Stoneworker]

What keeps me away is the incessant moaning and grunting and shrieking after every shot. No thanks.

There is a mute button on most TV's

Does the mute button on "most TV's" come with an EQ filter to allow crowd noise, announcers and ball hitting the racket? You know, the enjoyable part

 

[General Malaise]

As a reformed degenerate gambler who no longer uses off-shore books, do the Draft Kings and Fanduels offer up as much wagering opportunities as the NBA? My hunch says "no". Just went to DK and saw no WNBA futures wagers.

Promote fantasy WNBA leagues and increase wagering options on the game. Get idiots like me hooked.

Related: I'd like to start a WNBA dynasty fantasy league. Entry fee $100. Cap at 10 teams. Takers? I'll start a thread tomorrow if there's any interest....

 

[Gally]

What keeps me away is the incessant moaning and grunting and shrieking after every shot. No thanks.

There is a mute button on most TV's

Does the mute button on "most TV's" come with an EQ filter to allow crowd noise, announcers and ball hitting the racket? You know, the enjoyable part

Depends on the model of your TV. You pay extra but worth it.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Crazy idea (which I think has been rejected in the past) is to lower the hoop, say, six inches. The diameter of the basketball is an inch smaller than the men's ball, so I don't know why they can take the extra step of lowering the hoop ... I'm assuming most hoops are designed such that they can be easily adjusted. Might be a expensive to refit hoops up and down the spectrum of women's basketball if existing hoops can't be adjusted.

This would open up all kinds of exciting play on the court. I know I'd be more likely to watch, says guy who was first attracted to the NBA game by Dr. J.

Should they be allowed 6 steps like the NBA?

The NBA doesn't allow 6 steps. The players are just huge and freakishly athletic so it looks like they're traveling when they aren't.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I think the WNBA really needs to work on its scheduling. They should utilize the down months of February and March and claim Tuesday evenings or some such as their night.

I honestly don't even know when the WNBA season is and I' bet that I pay more attention to pro sports than the average person by a wide margin.

The WNBA season runs May-September, and it's because most of the players play overseas for more money in the traditional basketball months. They won't have freedom with their scheduling until they can offer enough to get the stars to stay home year-round, which will take more than 76K.

On the bright side for the WNBA, Russia was one of the top employers of its players and that has fallen off since the Griner incident.

 

[Stoneworker]

What keeps me away is the incessant moaning and grunting and shrieking after every shot. No thanks.

Some of the men do it too.

Yes. It is obnoxious when the women do it but not the men. Sheesh.

 

[SFBayDuck]

Aesthetically, the women's game is typically clunky and unimpressive. That's the biggest problem. Female athletes simply cannot stop and start and jump and run as well as top male athletes.

In the NCAA, the quality of the men's game has greatly suffered due to the transfer portal and top tier players leaving after 1 year (or never even playing college at all). The inability to form a cohesive team with 2-4 year talented players makes for some ugly basketball, even at the big programs. That's one reason why UCONN was so dominate this season is that they had both the talent and some cohesiveness (had 7 players back from previous championship team). Very few power 5 schools return even 4 or 5 guys from the previous year and certainly don't have many talented seniors. That does work in the women's favor as they mostly stick around for 4 years and don't transfer nearly as frequently building team chemistry and raises the quality of the team play.

This is the best chance the women's game has - the top players make as much money playing in college now via NIL as they do turning pro. So they tend to stay 3-4 years, can build a following, and just as importantly can build rivalries. That's what will bring fans to the women's game, and many will follow their favorite players to the WNBA. I know I did, I watch several NY Liberty (Sabrina) and Dallas Wings (Satou Sabally) games every year now, when before those players left Oregon I watched maybe 1-2 games a year. Between Clark and Reese and Brink, they'll be bringing new fans to the WNBA game.

The women's tournament this year was way more compelling and entertaining than the men's tourney was, and the ratings back that up. I'd bet that continues going forward with Bueckers and JuJu and lesser but well known players like Van Lith still around, but I'm sure they'll lose a little momentum next year.

And @General Malaise , count me in on a dynasty league.

 

[General Malaise]

Aesthetically, the women's game is typically clunky and unimpressive. That's the biggest problem. Female athletes simply cannot stop and start and jump and run as well as top male athletes.

In the NCAA, the quality of the men's game has greatly suffered due to the transfer portal and top tier players leaving after 1 year (or never even playing college at all). The inability to form a cohesive team with 2-4 year talented players makes for some ugly basketball, even at the big programs. That's one reason why UCONN was so dominate this season is that they had both the talent and some cohesiveness (had 7 players back from previous championship team). Very few power 5 schools return even 4 or 5 guys from the previous year and certainly don't have many talented seniors. That does work in the women's favor as they mostly stick around for 4 years and don't transfer nearly as frequently building team chemistry and raises the quality of the team play.

This is the best chance the women's game has - the top players make as much money playing in college now via NIL as they do turning pro. So they tend to stay 3-4 years, can build a following, and just as importantly can build rivalries. That's what will bring fans to the women's game, and many will follow their favorite players to the WNBA. I know I did, I watch several NY Liberty (Sabrina) and Dallas Wings (Satou Sabally) games every year now, when before those players left Oregon I watched maybe 1-2 games a year. Between Clark and Reese and Brink, they'll be bringing new fans to the WNBA game.

The women's tournament this year was way more compelling and entertaining than the men's tourney was, and the ratings back that up. I'd bet that continues going forward with Bueckers and JuJu and lesser but well known players like Van Lith still around, but I'm sure they'll lose a little momentum next year.

And @General Malaise , count me in on a dynasty league.

Co-commish. Nice.

THAT'S 2!

 

[Keith R]

Related: I'd like to start a WNBA dynasty fantasy league. Entry fee $100. Cap at 10 teams. Takers? I'll start a thread tomorrow if there's any interest....

I'm interested but that's too rich for me

 

[Ghost Rider]

Lol my daughter is so typical! She just texted me that she saw on TikTok that Clark is getting $76,000, it’s being discussed by everyone she knows, it’s totally unfair, part of the “Patriarchy”, etc., etc. Apparently it’s blowing up social media.

I asked her three questions: (1) Has she ever watched a WNBA game? (2) Can she name a WNBA player? (3) Can she name a WNBA team? I guessed the answers to the first 2 would be no, but I thought she at least might be able to name the Sparks. The answers to all 3 were no.

Bill Burr explains this pretty well.....(obviously some NSFW language) If women as a whole supported the WNBA by putting their eyeballs on the screen (consistently) or their butts in the seats, they'd make more money. But there's probably more women in the studio at the Bachelor Finale show than there is at most regular season WNBA games. If women supported WNBA players with 2% of the enthusiasm with which they support Taylor Swift, this "problem" would be solved.

"Women failed the WNBA" - Bill Burr

www.youtube.com

Bill Burr nails it every single time. And is always hysterical when doing so.

 

[eoMMan]

I bet an OF account could make $76k in a few days.

 

[Chris B.]

Unfun fact - The Houston Comets dissolved 16 years ago. I had no idea they didn't exist anymore, much less them having been gone for a very long time.

 

[Courtjester]

Lol my daughter is so typical! She just texted me that she saw on TikTok that Clark is getting $76,000, it’s being discussed by everyone she knows, it’s totally unfair, part of the “Patriarchy”, etc., etc. Apparently it’s blowing up social media.

I asked her three questions: (1) Has she ever watched a WNBA game? (2) Can she name a WNBA player? (3) Can she name a WNBA team? I guessed the answers to the first 2 would be no, but I thought she at least might be able to name the Sparks. The answers to all 3 were no.

Bill Burr explains this pretty well.....(obviously some NSFW language) If women as a whole supported the WNBA by putting their eyeballs on the screen (consistently) or their butts in the seats, they'd make more money. But there's probably more women in the studio at the Bachelor Finale show than there is at most regular season WNBA games. If women supported WNBA players with 2% of the enthusiasm with which they support Taylor Swift, this "problem" would be solved.

"Women failed the WNBA" - Bill Burr

www.youtube.com

Bill Burr nails it every single time. And is always hysterical when doing so.

This was the first thing I thought of when i saw this thread.

People are complaining that the WNBA players are not getting the same percentage of the revenue as their NBA counterparts. but if they wanted the same percentage compensation, they would actually OWE $75k per player to the league. It has lost money every year and the NBA makes up the difference to keep it around.

They draw zero fans, but I like GM's idea that they should have put these teams in smaller markets. I know Denver isn't considered a small market, but we have rabid fans here for every one of our teams. Heck, the Rockies have one of the highest attendance and they suck year in and year out.

I am not trying to make this controversial or make a generalization, but (as Burr suggested) women simply don't support other women. They make up like 53% of our population and the WNBA stadiums are empty. Worse yet, we are seeing what current WNBA players and former WBNA players are saying about Clark. Instead of realizing that this was probably one of the best draft classes they have seen in a while as a whole and that the league could really use this to actually make $$, they are choosing to to run Clark down because of jealously and bitterness.

That being said the Fever could be competitive this year. They have Boston last year's ROY as their center.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Lol my daughter is so typical! She just texted me that she saw on TikTok that Clark is getting $76,000, it’s being discussed by everyone she knows, it’s totally unfair, part of the “Patriarchy”, etc., etc. Apparently it’s blowing up social media.

I asked her three questions: (1) Has she ever watched a WNBA game? (2) Can she name a WNBA player? (3) Can she name a WNBA team? I guessed the answers to the first 2 would be no, but I thought she at least might be able to name the Sparks. The answers to all 3 were no.

Bill Burr explains this pretty well.....(obviously some NSFW language) If women as a whole supported the WNBA by putting their eyeballs on the screen (consistently) or their butts in the seats, they'd make more money. But there's probably more women in the studio at the Bachelor Finale show than there is at most regular season WNBA games. If women supported WNBA players with 2% of the enthusiasm with which they support Taylor Swift, this "problem" .

Worse yet, we are seeing what current WNBA players and former WBNA players are saying about Clark. Instead of realizing that this was probably one of the best draft classes they have seen in a while as a whole and that the league could really use this to actually make $$, they are choosing to to run Clark down because of jealously and bitterness.

this doesn’t seem unique to women’s sports. Pros in all sports disrespect younger players.