The crisis in women's sports covereage

YCN · 07-10-2010, 01:59 PM

I decided to do a thread on this after checking what the attendance numbers were for the Sooners' basketball games in the women's tournament.

Whether we like it or not, unless there is a way to motivate the movers and shakers of big-time sports to promote women's sports, including basketball, then the hill may be too large to climb, and in spite of tremendous gains in sports participation by women of all ages, with its attendant rises in female self-esteem and accomplishment in general, we may see women's sports wither on the vine. For lack of watering, so to speak.

And I'm not talking women's beach volleyball here. This is a very serious issue, because it impacts the image and well-being of women across society, and promotes healthy attitudes toward those whose membership represents half of our society, although to watch sports media you'd think it wasn't a tenth so much.

Below I've linked to an article discussing the lack of impact of women's sports in media coverage. It's worth a look, as is the whole issue of women in sports. Vast segments of the population have treated Title IX as though it was a corrupt misstep by the Supreme Court which has diminished men's sports as a result of unequal and unfair promotion of women's sports at the expense of men's.

This is laughably false, but to promote the idea feeds the prevailing meme of "women's sports = bad" that has been around for so long, and that's terribly sad, and a trend that is urgently needed to stop, and soon.

OU women's basketball attendance in the 2010 NCAA tournament:

5,368 - South Dakota State @ Norman
6,305 - UALR @ Norman
5,907 - vs. Notre Dame @ Kansas City
4,423 - vs. Kentucky @ Kansas City
25,817 - vs. Stanford @ San Antonio

Oklahoma averaged 7,681 in home attendance this year. Last year the Sooners averaged 9,007 and the year before the average was 9,963.

In spite of fielding a team that appears to be increasingly successful on the court, that represents an attendance decline of 22.9% in just a two year span. Local and national coverage of women's basketball has declined much more drastically, as exhibited in the article that I referenced above.

The association between media coverage and apparent declining interest cannot be ignored any longer. It's time to start taking a stand, and to let our feelings show about how the sport is being minimized. Forget about ESPN's status as a "for-profit" organization. They are swimming in money, so that's simply a canard. The socially responsible thing to do is NOT being done (except perhaps for the local college team), and that has to change.

The Dramatic Drop in Women's Sports Coverage: An Interview with Mike Messner

sybarite · 07-10-2010, 03:08 PM

This is somewhat of a political issue. Thus, I don't want to get started on it on this board. There is one thing that could be done that really isn't all that political, although it does reveal my contempt for sportswriters. I don't think a sports desk, on TV or on a newspaper, will ever cover women's sports as anything other than a sideshow. There is a lot of male ego in sportswriters, as well as a contempt for anything other than their own agendas. Frankly, they seem to have no sense of history or concern of the future.

It will take a separate women's page in a newspaper, and probably a separate sports report on TV. Even when they do report on women in sports, it is a circus act. Danica Patrick isn't given credit for being one of the better drivers. She is often ridiculed for being there in the first place. There may be more concern about what she is wearing than in what she did to get to second place in the 500. Other women's stars are covered similarly, a lament that I had with the treatment of Courtney. Someone with a good figure is portrayed as a model rather than as an athlete. We have calendars for the Australian women's basketball and soccer teams. We are more likely to know that Jenny Finch is pretty than that she is very good. If she were ugly, she probably wouldn't get any ink at all.

Although I have a complete contempt for those who are in the media for the way that they cover the sports, there is also a problem with women. Why don't they support women's sports? There is a political and social problem.

Dem Coltz · 07-10-2010, 07:53 PM

Listen you two, let me lay down some knowledge: until the percentage of women who play and actively support women's sports equals the demand of sports coverage by men, there will always be a disparity. If there's anything we've learned, it's that ESPN has no taste, they only want to make money (integrity be danged). So if enough women spent money to go to games and buy merchandise and tune in on TV, you can be dang sure there would be equal amount of fans in seats and news reporting on women's sports. Don't you see that?

The bare truth is there...attendence is the purest indicator of demand for a sporting event. If only that small amount of viewers are willing to actually attend the event compared to a similar event for men, why would coverage deserve to be equal? Whatever moves product gets the coverage...not saying women's product is worse, just that less people are going out to buy it. The main reason is most women aren't as interested in sports as men. The end.

YCN · 07-10-2010, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dem Coltz

Listen you two, let me lay down some knowledge: until the percentage of women who play and actively support women's sports equals the demand of sports coverage by men, there will always be a disparity. If there's anything we've learned, it's that ESPN has no taste, they only want to make money (integrity be danged). So if enough women spent money to go to games and buy merchandise and tune in on TV, you can be dang sure there would be equal amount of fans in seats and news reporting on women's sports. Don't you see that?

The bare truth is there...attendence is the purest indicator of demand for a sporting event. If only that small amount of viewers are willing to actually attend the event compared to a similar event for men, why would coverage deserve to be equal? Whatever moves product gets the coverage...not saying women's product is worse, just that less people are going out to buy it. The main reason is most women aren't as interested in sports as men. The end.

ESPN's viewing numbers for women's college games are 32.6% of what the numbers are for men's games. I'd suggest that there's a tiny chance that that percentage would be higher if not for the fact that ESPN devotes only 1.4% of their coverage to women's sports on Sportscenter in the evening.

It's a shame that you couldn't bother to research the topic before posting a reply. This isn't some outrageous demand of unreasonable standing, women's sports are being systematically destroyed by male-dominated media, and a persistent campaign to convince us that lesser is better.

You don't have to believe that, but you'd better believe that the world will be a lesser place when the NCAA decides that women's sports are no longer "worth the cost". ESPN couldn't care less, they are making boatloads of money as it is, so removing women's sports just increases their profitability of the sports they do cover. You know, "jock sports".

I'm out of here. I'm not going to engage further in this, because I learned a long time ago not to beat my head against the wall.

35TangoTango · 07-10-2010, 09:10 PM

Which team do you think will have the better attendance next year? OU Men's basketball or OU Women's basketball?

soonerolds · 07-10-2010, 10:21 PM

People pay to go see what they want to see. Whether it be OUWBB or Men's basketball of football, it's all an entertainment product. And the people decide with their dollars what product to buy or not buy. It's simple. Attendance is down at OUWBB because the Paris sisters are gone. Stars sell tickets. Cleveland Cavs have sold out the past several years. Think they will next year. Attendance is not down because ESPN doesn't cover WBB. ESPN doesn't cover WBB because most of their audience just doesn't care that much.

sybarite · 07-10-2010, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dem Coltz

Listen you two, let me lay down some knowledge: until the percentage of women who play and actively support women's sports equals the demand of sports coverage by men, there will always be a disparity. If there's anything we've learned, it's that ESPN has no taste, they only want to make money (integrity be danged). So if enough women spent money to go to games and buy merchandise and tune in on TV, you can be dang sure there would be equal amount of fans in seats and news reporting on women's sports. Don't you see that?

The bare truth is there...attendence is the purest indicator of demand for a sporting event. If only that small amount of viewers are willing to actually attend the event compared to a similar event for men, why would coverage deserve to be equal? Whatever moves product gets the coverage...not saying women's product is worse, just that less people are going out to buy it. The main reason is most women aren't as interested in sports as men. The end.

Things are what they are, and we shouldn't change them. Right? Of course, the purpose of education is to be able to adapt and change. The idea of Title IX was to change things. The reason for granting women the right to vote was to change things. Life is about changing things.

We no longer demand that the vanquished die in the coliseum after the match. There is even some long time coming movement toward banning bull fighting. The captain of the ruling team rarely has his head chopped off any more, unless he scored an "own goal" in a World Cup match. What people want changes as we learn to appreciate something new.

35TangoTango · 07-10-2010, 10:37 PM

I'm willing to bet that the women will outdraw the men next year. Back to back Final Fours, a Senior that will be on every trophy list and has become quite personable, the return of everyone's favorite player that had to sit out last year, some very interesting new players. Nicole will get immediate attention because of her height similarity to BG....you know the marketing will be good.

And the men will be offering.....all their superstars gone under inauspicious circumstance, questions about the staff, can't see too much excitement building there.

SoonerSpock · 07-11-2010, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 35TangoTango

I'm willing to bet that the women will outdraw the men next year. Back to back Final Fours, a Senior that will be on every trophy list and has become quite personable, the return of everyone's favorite player that had to sit out last year, some very interesting new players. Nicole will get immediate attention because of her height similarity to BG....you know the marketing will be good.

And the men will be offering.....all their superstars gone under inauspicious circumstance, questions about the staff, can't see too much excitement building there.

Assuming women's attendance does not drop another 10% like is has the last two seasons you are possibly/probably right. There will be more butts in the seats at many women's games than men's games. However, the men will sell many more tickets and their methodology of showing both attendance (seats sold) and estimated attendance (fans present) in the box is unlike the "Guy's" games which last season only showed the attendance (seats sold) number in the box score for virtually all of the games. I could find only a couple of exceptions. Therefore the only reported attendance for the women was actually a bogus number. Highly inflated.

If that happens again this coming season it will only be a guess on who has the best attendance. Nothing official. Having season tickets to both I expect there to be more at the men's gamesas is normal..

SoonerNorm · 07-11-2010, 06:56 AM

I don't really know what to expect with regard to our attendance this coming year. But, unless the economy improves, I doubt that attendance will. Many people are limited in the amount of entertainment dollars they are willing to spend right now and they will be choosy how they spend them. We know one thing, people will still spend money for football in Oklahoma while basketball and other sports will probably suffer somewhat.

SoonerSpock · 07-11-2010, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sybarite

Things are what they are, and we shouldn't change them. Right? Of course, the purpose of education is to be able to adapt and change. The idea of Title IX was to change things. The reason for granting women the right to vote was to change things. Life is about changing things.

We no longer demand that the vanquished die in the coliseum after the match. There is even some long time coming movement toward banning bull fighting. The captain of the ruling team rarely has his head chopped off any more, unless he scored an "own goal" in a World Cup match. What people want changes as we learn to appreciate something new.

The change for women's sports has changed only minimally from an interest/attendance perspective. Women's basketball is not much more popular than it was when I grew up in rural Oklahoma in the late 50's/early 60's. Attendance is still very sparce in the metropolitan areas.

In our society demand will determine attendance and media exposure. Too much liberal thinking that they know what is better for others than they know what is good for themselves. The marketplace will determine who gets watched and who gets written about. As it should. Not some know it alls that wants to dictate what is written because they think they know better what should be published. It is called a free press for a reason.

I would like to see more written about the Guys but until the demand is there the exposure will not be there. Having paid attendance fall from almost 10,000/g to slightly more than 7,500/g during seasons when we went to the final four is not indicative of growing demand or interest.

j2d2 · 07-11-2010, 09:03 AM

Chicken and egg: little demand=little coverage or vice versa. "Journalists" (empahsize quotation marks) will very gradually include ore womens' sports beginning with basketball. College networks will also increase interest and viewership. I cant wait for OU's network to get started so I can, I hope, see many more womens' games.

SoonerSpock · 07-11-2010, 09:57 AM

delete

SoonerSpock · 07-11-2010, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j2d2

Chicken and egg: little demand=little coverage or vice versa. "Journalists" (empahsize quotation marks) will very gradually include ore womens' sports beginning with basketball. College networks will also increase interest and viewership. I cant wait for OU's network to get started so I can, I hope, see many more womens' games.

I don't know that I agree that little coverage equals little demand. It will have moderate impact but demand comes first. Always has and always will. Merchandising, on the other hand, can have more of an impact to demand.

No question that the OU network will be significant with regards to exposure for WBB as well as the Olympic sports and soccer. However because these vehicles will be premium outlets the cost will continue to restrict exposure somewhat except to those that are already true Sooner fans and will pay the premium. As a result the network will only minimally increase our fan base.

Dem Coltz · 07-11-2010, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sybarite

Things are what they are, and we shouldn't change them. Right? Of course, the purpose of education is to be able to adapt and change. The idea of Title IX was to change things. The reason for granting women the right to vote was to change things. Life is about changing things.

We no longer demand that the vanquished die in the coliseum after the match. There is even some long time coming movement toward banning bull fighting. The captain of the ruling team rarely has his head chopped off any more, unless he scored an "own goal" in a World Cup match. What people want changes as we learn to appreciate something new.

Um, I'm cool with how things are. If you want to change things by talking on a women's bball message board with other people who are already avid enough fans of OU women's bball that they joined this forum, you might be preaching to a choir. Don't bring up some silly theme of change, like there is some clear injustice going on. Spare me. There is no ubiquitous Man keeping women's sports from exposure to the light of day. People want what they want, and they speak with money. Watching TV, attending games, and buying merchandise. So until more women (or men) who prefer women's sports to men's sports speak with their paychecks nothing's going to change, nor should it.

Maybe you should ask yourself why you need the world to also enjoy what you do. Clearly you need the validation of your interests by others and the masses; since most people don't prefer what you do, you think there must be something wrong with them or that the masses can't get to the product because of a mass media conspiracy. Nobody cares enough to spend time crafting a conspiracy to favor men's sports over women's. Besides men's spots have more athleticism. That's why they don't stream my pickup games on ESPN and no one interviews me, because I am inferior to the NBA players. But wait, maybe you're on to something! Maybe ESPN has a conspiracy against me too? Holy crap I'm dumb.

sybarite · 07-11-2010, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dem Coltz

Um, I'm cool with how things are.

Fortunately, most people aren't, or we would still be in the stone age.

Dem Coltz · 07-11-2010, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sybarite

Fortunately, most people aren't, or we would still be in the stone age.

Your logic is absurd. Way to twist my words, you're mature. All I see is resentment for miles and miles, probably the most pathetic emotion possible. Congrats, you've mastered it. I must be a cave man. My brain hasn't evolved enough for me to realize that preferring to watch a better league of basketball players instead of a worse league of basketball players is idiotic. Or maybe one of us is just a dumb A.

SoonerinNC · 07-11-2010, 10:49 PM

I agree that the coverage of the OU womens basketball team was very weak last year. So many big games not shown on TV. More coverage in previous years probably because of Courtney. That probably also had to do with the drop in attendance.

The poor womens coverage is part of the reason I subscribe to the All-Access package. Also because of softball and baseball.

One thing you can count on for sure is that the TV people will always cater to the big markets and the big bucks. They probably put the quality of play down the list.

I don't agree that the lack of coverage is hurting the womens sports that much. But it certainly is not helping either.

SoonerShamrock · 07-12-2010, 10:55 AM

Here's the way I see it...I'm not renewing my men's basketball tickets next year because I'm tired of the selfishness of the male athletes. Most of them, if they're "elite" players, are in it for themselves and themselves alone. There's no hint of "togetherness" or team. If they think they've got the game to "make it," they're one and done. They don't help OU, their teammates or, actually, themselves with that attitude.

If the NCAA (or the NBA or whoever makes these decisions) decides to change their rules and make a kid either turn pro right out of high school or wait for 4 years (until his HS class graduates from college) before he can, maybe the collegiate game will leave a better taste in my mouth and maybe I'll return.

Until then, all my attention (and attendance) and what $$ I have to spend, will go toward's women's basketball. They may not be as athletic, but they're student/athletes and class personified. Besides, being female myself, I'm proud to see them doing the things they're doing because they're women.

SoonerSpock · 07-12-2010, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerShamrock

Here's the way I see it...I'm not renewing my men's basketball tickets next year because I'm tired of the selfishness of the male athletes. Most of them, if they're "elite" players, are in it for themselves and themselves alone. There's no hint of "togetherness" or team. If they think they've got the game to "make it," they're one and done. They don't help OU, their teammates or, actually, themselves with that attitude.

If the NCAA (or the NBA or whoever makes these decisions) decides to change their rules and make a kid either turn pro right out of high school or wait for 4 years (until his HS class graduates from college) before he can, maybe the collegiate game will leave a better taste in my mouth and maybe I'll return.

Until then, all my attention (and attendance) and what $$ I have to spend, will go toward's women's basketball. They may not be as athletic, but they're student/athletes and class personified. Besides, being female myself, I'm proud to see them doing the things they're doing because they're women.

I think you are taking the appropriate action. If you are dissatisfied with the men's team because of the selfishness they displayed last season the appropriate action to get their attention is don't attend their games.

I am going to give Capel's team the benefit of the doubt this season. Since his arrival they have been a team that does play team basketball, especially in 2008. If you do not approve of what they are selling, don't buy and don't support.

If enough people agree with you their attention will be gotten and corrections will be taken. If few feel as you do things will continue as they are.

It is important to remember that just because we want change does not make change right. The appropriate change which is never bad is what the majority wants. It is when the minority thinks they know what is better for the preponderance than what they want for themselves that we are headed for oligopoly followed soon by anarchy. It is far more appropriate to work to change the view of the majority than to ignore and try to override it.

35TangoTango · 07-13-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dem Coltz

Um, I'm cool with how things are......

Maybe you should ask yourself why you need the world to also enjoy what you do.......

Actually, the increasing popularity of WBB at OU has negative consequences for me, as every minute increase in attendance, or every trophy garnered causes exponential increases in price. It also increases the number of "status" ticket holders who pay big bucks for the tickets they rarely use, thus again driving up the prices and displacing long-time fanatic fans who can't match those bucks. That's why I gave up men's season tickets long ago. The women will get there, too - if it takes longer, that's fine with me.

I think there's more to the past 3 years ticket sales that "the decline of women's basketball". Ticket sales soared when Courtney and Ashley were signed. from 3 years ago to two years ago, there was a slight drop because the team was not accomplishing anything and the win-loss trend was downward. Also men's basketball increased in popularity thus taking away tickets. Last year saw a dramatic drop depite a Final Four appearance, mainly because the marquee players graduated, and little was expected of those returning. When the team was less than impressive early and the most marketable player goes down for the season, we lost those that would pick up tickets as the season went on.

I would say that there's about 5,000 true "rain or shine" fans that come to every game. If you compare that to even 10 years ago, it's hard to say "women's sports is withering on the vine". Beyond the 5,000 we get into the status fans that will fluctuate with the teams fortunes. Back to back Final Fours, a nationally prominent point guard, the return of the most popular player, a stable of exciting new players (although few know about them yet), and men's basketball has lost all status for the time being. All this point to increased attendance for next year. I just hope I can still afford my tickets the year after.

SoonerNorm · 07-13-2010, 07:51 AM

I am probably in the minority here but I think the Thunder has also likely affected attendance to OU games.

MsProudSooner · 07-13-2010, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerNorm

I am probably in the minority here but I think the Thunder has also likely affected attendance to OU games.

The Thunder doesn't draw away those die hard fans. They draw away the fans to follow the current 'big thing' - those who didn't go to mens games until Blake was here, didn't go e to women's games until CP was here - etc.

I think the economy has a bigger effect than a lot of people want to admit.

rocjunkie · 07-13-2010, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerNorm

I am probably in the minority here but I think the Thunder has also likely affected attendance to OU games.

You are probably right and I can't argue your assessment. With entertainment dollars at a premium and most of us pinching pennies and being careful with our money, the Thunder may be taking away from other attendance. There certainly is credence in the fact that ticket prices for the gals has gone up each year that I have attended the past ten years. I have cringed the past three years in the raises that prices have taken. However it is something I enjoy and continue to pony up the bucks and support the Sooners. My biggest gripe parallels with Tango, those corporate tickets that get bought and never are used. Six seats in my row every year are bought and I know only used maybe five times a year.

Sherri put outs a great product, and still pretty reasonable pricing for seats, maybe I am an idiot, but I take the gals over the Thunder any day, but that is my preference too.

IBleedCrimson&Cream · 07-13-2010, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 35TangoTango

I would say that there's about 5,000 true "rain or shine" fans that come to every game. If you compare that to even 10 years ago, it's hard to say "women's sports is withering on the vine". Beyond the 5,000 we get into the status fans that will fluctuate with the teams fortunes. Back to back National Championships, a nationally prominent point guard, the return of the most popular player, a stable of exciting new players (although few know about them yet), and men's basketball has lost all status for the time being. All this point to increased attendance for next year. I just hope I can still afford my tickets the year after.

Don't get ahead of yourself Tango!

But I agree, I think losing Whitney and the struggles in righting the ship hurt attendance in addition to the departure of the Parises, plus the economy and the rise of the Thunder, to a degree. I think what we have next year will lead to a rise in attendance, as long as everyone stays healthy.

As far as the crisis in women's sports coverage, I honestly don't think it exists. Like others have said, coverage follows the money and women's sports doesn't have the draw that men's sports do. It may never. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It might actually be a blessing. If the WNBA had a bigger draw, there would be more money in it and I think we might see what's happening to the men's game with one-and-done or two-and-through. The way that it is, women's college sports is not about the money to be made in the pros after college, its about getting that diploma. I just don't understand why some people feel they need to be so hateful in opposition to women's sports.