Apparently, people are upset because women's college basketball doesn't get as much attention as men's college basketball. Despite my long years as an exceedingly mediocre center--all I was really good at was being tall--I can't say this outrages my feminist heart. But I do wonder why this is so. I don't watch a lot of sports, so I have no idea what the qualitative differences are. Can someone explain why women's basketball is less enjoyable to watch than men's?
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
They're slower, shorter, weaker, less technically talented, and can't dunk.
"We no can dunk, but good fundamentals."
I love women's basketball. Go UCONN!
I can't explain why women's basketball is less enjoyable to watch than men's because, well, I don't think it is. To the contrary, I find the above-the-rim men's game pretty boring, whereas the women's game requires speed, teamwork, playmaking, and (god forbid) defense. I'm still an avid WNBA fan, enough so that I was a bit unnerved to hear someone recently express surprise that the league still existed. On the other hand, my sense throughout the 90s was that women's college basketball was gaining popularity, such that tournament broadcasts increasingly could be found on network television. Is this not so? At this point, the men's game probably requires a wider court and lane, and a 4 m high basket in order to make it more interesting.
The spectator sports that bring more spectator support for women than men; figure skating, gymnastics, synchronized swimming etc. Are those where women enjoy some physical advantages over men and cultural as some were women's games before men were involved.
Typical competitive team sports however... Men's basketball was already established as a marketing brand with it's own stars before the WNBA even came into existence. The same could be said of the majority of women's sports which took a generation to produce world caliber female athletes after Title IX. So off the bat, female athletes are competing for viewers in a saturated media market place with established men's sports leagues; NFL, NBA, NHL etc.
Furthermore, most classical team sports still place a premium on physical strength, speed and power where men still hold a physiological advantage. Thus the world's fastest track stars in all events will be men, the same for weight lifting, fighting etc. I imagine there is a difference for most viewers between fastest, strongest, toughest etc. woman and fastest, toughest, strongest human.
So in relation to college basketball. I want to tread lightly, but in my experience with fans, appreciation of women's leagues in sports that men also have teams in requires a conscious decision to enjoy it because women are playing it and they are capable. Men's basketball is simply viewed as basketball without gender qualifiers, the athletes simply athletes. If you see how rabid college sports fans can get (Look up what happened at UMD when the Terps won.)
That being said I always enjoyed watching women's hockey in University in Canada. Not because of team ethic but the violence. Typically, both teams would have players perpetually in the penalty box.
A full understanding would probably require several thousand words which will undoubtabley be produced by subsequent commentators.
Let the discussion/debate begin
I went to Duke when we had #1 ranked programs in both, and went to games of both. The women's games were simply just not as fun to watch.
Josh is partially correct in the physical attributes (shorter, slower, weaker, can't jump as high) but also there is much less variability between players hieght. Guards can be 5'10" - 6", centers can be 6'2" - 6'7". At the high end, and I watch 6'7" Alison bales play for a few years, the players are generally mobility challenged.
I think the main reason is perception. When I watch good men's basketball, most of what happens appears outside of anything I could do or anything that could happen in a game I am playing. With women's basketball, they are surely better than me or most of my friends, but I know non-varsity players who have beat them 1-on-1. Because of this, I am less inclined to watch more, just as I didn't watch the competitive IM games in college.
Indeed, I figured the WNBA went the way of the NHL years ago.
No dunks (or very very few).
Some people really like car racing but if they were guaranteed no car crashes then I bet a lot less would watch.
A women's D1 college team is about as good as a decent men's high school team. So why would we expect a women's college team to receive more fanfare than a decent men's high school team?
A women's D1 college team is about as good as a decent men's high school team. So why would we expect a women's college team to receive more fanfare than a decent men's high school team?
Strictly speaking, Josh is correct, but the bottom line is that his fourth point is what matters. I've never understood the fascination with dunking, which is the aspect of basketball requiring the least real basketball talent. If a player is tall and/or can jump, he can dunk a basketball, but it requires much more than that to be a good player. Women aren't as fast or strong as men, yes, but they're plenty fast and strong; they aren't as technically skilled as men, but one of the pleasures of following women's basketball has been tracking the improvement in skill, to the point that they display some remarkable talent indeed. I suspect that many of those who think women's basketball isn't interesting haven't seen a game recently--and should do so.
>>The spectator sports that bring more spectator >>support for women than men; figure skating, >>gymnastics, synchronized swimming etc. Are >>those where women enjoy some physical >>advantages over men and cultural as some were >>women's games before men were involved.
The real answer is straightforward, if unfair. In general, men are only interested in womens sports that feature hot women in sexy outfits (hence the popularity of womens tennis, figure skating, etc). There is nothing sexy about a women wearing a baggy, oversized basketball jersey.
Women's basketball tends to feature more teamwork and less individual showboating than the men's game. While that represents a return to the game's fundamentals, as the prior comment by Margaret correctly states, unfortunately it's not necessarily what fans want to see.
As for Josh's comment, that the women are slower and weaker, I'm somewhat undecided as to the results. Consider the fact that (men's) college basketball is arguably more popular than the NBA, even though the players overall are not quite as good or physical. Switching sports, the most popular division in boxing today is the welterweight division, even though the fighters are physically no match for the heavyweights; in fact, the heavyweight division is in a huge slump with little fan interest. Come to think of it, professional tennis allows a direct men vs. women comparison. In terms of TV ratings, attendance and sponsorships the men have only a slight advantage, if any, over the women.
So no, I don't believe physical factors are necessarily the reason why women's basketball is so much less popular than men's basketball. It's that the women play a more fundamentally sound but less crowd-pleasing game.
I'm not much of a basketball fan, but when I do watch it I prefer the women's game. Probably because it's just enough slower that it's easier for me to follow the action.
I'm old enough to remember the old-style women's game, where players couldn't use the whole court and free throws were taken underhanded. Now that was a seriously boring game.
When men watch sports, we imagine ourselves playing- and this is one reason we watch sports- maybe the primary one. We generally don't do this when it is women playing those very same sports. Women's basketball will receive the attention and audience equal to men's when the numbers of female spectators become the equal of male spectators.
I always enjoyed watching women's hockey in University in Canada. Not because of team ethic but the violence. Typically, both teams would have players perpetually in the penalty box.
I used to enjoy women's softball back in my hometown for the same reason (minus the penalty box). Women's softball was a bigger draw than men's in that town; sure, the men had better skills, but the women were so much more in-your-face competitive that their game was more entertaining. Collisions, paybacks, rhubarbs, husbands/boyfriends squabbling in the bleachers, etc., could be expected at every game. I've never seen a women's basketball game played in that style, but I'm sure it would sell.
I see two reasons. First, spectators generally want to watch the best players. It's no great mystery why major league baseball games draw bigger crowds than the minors so why should we be surprised that the NBA draws bigger crowds than the WNBA? There are a few exceptions to that rule (like the popularity of college sports) but only when the weaker players have some other sort of appeal (like school loyalty). The novelty of watching women play basketball isn't enough to bring in viewers.
Second, watching sports is a very social activity. Even if you're watching the game alone, talking about it with your friends later is a big part of the experience. It's not much fine to watch the WNBA when no one else cares about it.
Skullberg's point is very interesting and reflects a perspective opposite of mine. Another reason I dislike the men's game and like the women's is that I can relate to the latter in a way I can't to the former. I guess it is exciting to see people stretch the limits of human ability, such as when watching a world-record marathon run, etc., but I have been a scratch basketball player for years, and the women's game is familiar to me in a way the men's just isn't. In this respect, Yancey Ward is both right and wrong. Men do imagine themselves playing, but I for one can't imagine enjoying playing the top-level men's game. I think David S brings an important historical perspective, and I think carsick's incisive comment about car crashes is very much on the mark. I think dunks are the car crashes of basketball. I think Peter has it exactly right, that the women's game is more fundamentally sound and therefore of more interest to real afficionados, but I can understand other sophisticated fans enjoying the athleticism of the men's game. I'm also glad some posters have mentioned tennis. I also favor women's tennis because it's less boring than men's. The cornerstone of men's tennis is the service ace, which is sort of the "dunk" of tennis, whereas women tennis players actually, you know, hit the ball back and forth and a variety of skills are required to win a match.
I say this no disrespect to women, but women's strength and technical skills are so far behind men, its painful to watch. It isn't even the same game, really.
I don't know if Yancey's theory is right - it doesn't make much sense for football. But I do understand why women's basketball would be percieved as less exciting to watch than men's.
The one I don't understand, though, is golf. I'm not a fan, but I don't see a huge difference between watching either one. And it's not about hitting the ball farther - on TV, you can't tell the difference. (And it's not Tiger, either. If he had never picked up a club, I don't think the gender disparity in terms of attention would be any different.)
Oops...messed up the blockuote...sorry:
There is your generic 'I'm 6'10" tall dunk' and Michael Jordan, Dominique Wilkins, Shaq, Vince Carter, Dr. J dunk.
Further, for whatever reason, I have never seen a women's basketball played with (for lack of a better word) the ferocity of Jordan, Barkley, Moses Malone, Allen Iverson, Kobe, etc. (or team sports in general, like Lawrence Taylor, Walter Payton, Mark Messier, Pedro Martinez...) The closest I have seen was USA Soccer.
And, FWIW, I have never seen a women who can create shots like Allen Iverson, George Gervin, Magic, Isaiah, Bird, Kobe, Manu, etc.
I don't think women's basketball is under covered. What drives me fucking crazy is all the men who insist on attacking women's basketball for no reason. If you don't like it, don't watch it; it's incredibly easy to avoid, if you're inclined. 90% of the reason so many men attack it is because of their own bitterness and anger over their failed-jock dreams. Yeah, you were a big deal in high school. Shut up and get over it.
The real answer is straightforward, if unfair. In general, men are only interested in womens sports that feature hot women in sexy outfits (hence the popularity of womens tennis, figure skating, etc). There is nothing sexy about a women wearing a baggy, oversized basketball jersey.
Nah, I don't believe men (well, straight men, anyway) are much of the audience for figure skating. Certainly none of the male sports fans I know follow figure skating or would pay money to go see a competition.
But never mind the men -- why aren't women much interested in watching women's team sports?
Uniforms are ugly and mannish. Get femine, stylish uniforms. Tennis players have nice outfits. So does volley ball. So do pro cheer leaders. Short shorts and tight bouncy tops.
Get a smaller ball. The big basketball is made for men. Use a ball the size of a vollyball or soccer ball. Easier to pass, easier for a girl to pick up with 1 hand. Adjust the material used in the net so the lighter ball passes through.
Play using the same rules as the men's game.
No dunking.
Part of the reason is that most men's basketball teams can beat most women's teams. (Holding all other factors constant, men's teams are usually taller. Height matters in basketball. But maybe those other factors count, too.)
Women get the most attention when they can compete with the big boys directly (e.g., presidential politics).
Women also get a lot of attention when there's an element of individual celebrity / superstardom. In tennis, you see the individuals, you read their expressions, you hear their grunts. In basketball, the individuals fade away (unless you have an MJ-level talent).
Women's sports are especially popular when they compete in ways men simply can't. Women's gymnastics are quite different from men's. (So is women's Nina Warrior, for what that's worth.)
Women also attract eyeballs when they their goodies are emphasized over their athleticism. (Kournikova was never the best tennis player.)
sol vason, they do use a smaller ball, and I've seen good non-varsity shooters who practice with the women's team look like NBA all-stars in range and accuracy with them.
I'm also not sold on the fundamentally sound issue, I know people say this all the time, but in watching women's college basketball at the highest levels in person, I've never been swayed.
//Nah, I don't believe men (well, straight men, anyway) are much of the audience for figure skating. //
Sure we are. Our wives and girlfriends make us watch with them ;)
Men's basketball is a close substitute for women's basketball for viewers. If there were no men's basketball, everyone would watch women's basketball. But men's basketball exists, and is the same in many ways, and better in others.
Ways men's and women's basketball are the same:
- teamwork
- the emotional rolercoster of in-game momentum
- the skilled shooting
- the love of the game apparent in players
- a well-executed offense
Ways women's basketball is superior to men's:
- no one gets rich doing it, which people seem to like (also applies to men's college vs. men's pro basketball)
- reduced inter-player variation in jumping ability places a premium on other skills, which some people like better.
Ways men's basketball is superior to women's:
- the players are quicker, taller compared with the basket height, better leapers, allowing more spectacular plays.
- at the pro level, the knowledge that these are the best players in the world.
- greater inter-player variation in leaping ability makes things interesting.
In general, men are only interested in womens sports that feature hot women in sexy outfits (hence the popularity of womens tennis, figure skating, etc).
Yeah. (Dangerous territory here.) But my impression is that the audience for figure skating and gymnastics is mostly female. (I could be wrong; somebody knows.) Little girls aspire to be slim, graceful, and glamorous, not large, muscular and sweaty, and when they are grown up, that's still the image they want to see on TV. Others can argue about whether this is cultural or innate.
(And yes, I know, skating and gymnastics are just as physical and difficult as any other sport. But success at the highest levels is about not letting the pain show.)
"I don't think women's basketball is under covered. What drives me fucking crazy is all the men who insist on attacking women's basketball for no reason. If you don't like it, don't watch it; it's incredibly easy to avoid, if you're inclined." -- Freddie
Yes, but folks like the author of the article in question refuse to let it die. I would love to ignore women's basketball if those people would let me.
"When men watch sports, we imagine ourselves playing- and this is one reason we watch sports- maybe the primary one."
Bingo. There is no other explanation for golf on TV (combined with the high disposable income typical of amateur golfers).
Part of the reason is that most men's basketball teams can beat most women's teams ... Women get the most attention when they can compete with the big boys directly
But consider my boxing analogy. By all rights the heavyweights should be the most popular because they're the biggest and strongest. Yet today, smaller guys like Floyd Mayweather and Oscar de la Hoya are far bigger draws than behemoths like Wladimir Klitschko or Sam Peter even though they'd be at a huge disadvantage in face-to-face matchups.
Peter,
The boxing weight class analogy is fascinating. I wonder if the difference is that boxing is an individual sport. People watch welterweight boxing but there is no under 6-foot tall basketball league (except in the Phillipenes, where I think there actually is one).
Why is everyone so sure that the women's game is more "fundamentally sound and team oriented?" Is it because girls are made of sugar and spice? Are 3 point and free throw shooting percentages higher? Is the turnover rate lower?
But never mind the men -- why aren't women much interested in watching women's team sports?
My guess is that Yancey's theory is correct and it works for both genders. Women are drawn to women sports with more feminine attributes and uniforms because they'd rather envision themselves as a sexy Sharapova type than a tomboyish woman in a baggy uniform.
BTW: good call, men don't watch figure skating. Must have been a mental lapse on my part.
The boxing weight class analogy is fascinating. I wonder if the difference is that boxing is an individual sport.
Could be. On the other hand golf is an individual sport too, and the second-tier Nationwide Tour doesn't get much attention.
Peter,
The lighter fighters are more dynamic and more athletic than the heavyweights. When you had better athletes like Ali, Foreman and Tyson they were fun to watch. You now have much less athletic big men, and they are less fun to watch.
In basketball, 7 footers are good, but what people like watch 6'6" - 6'9" guys like Kobe, McGrady, and Mello as well as PGs. Chris Kaman and Big Z don't draw many people.
Well with boxing it's easy. The heavyweights may be the biggest and strongest but they're also slow, lumbering and boring. The welterweights provide the best balance of strength, size and speed to make for an intersting fight. It's been decades since there has been anyone exiting in the heavyweight division. With women's basketball it is simply the level of play. When your local high school boys team plays a faster and more exiting game that the WNBA why would anyone pay to see the women?
Another way of looking at this is to ask, why is a womans sport ever more popular than a mans?
There are only a handful that are.
In the case of gymnastics, men simply can't do what those 14 year old girls do. It hurts my spine to watch them.
In the case of figure skating, grace and elegance are a part of the womens side and there is an eye candy aspect to it that the mens side can't duplicate with its emphasis on power. (And it would creep me out if they tried, Mr. Botano.)
In the case of tennis, there is a definite eye candy aspect to it, but more importantly the game is more enjoyable to watch. The mens side has huge serves and short points. The women have actual rallies and you are able to see the game actually played. Even though there is no question that men would crush women in direct competition, the womens tour is better television.
But in the case of basketball none of this applies. The womens game looks like a slower version of the mens game. I am not awed by the talent or skill of any of the womens players and doubt that most of them could beat me in a one on one game, something I would never think about any of the other sports mentioned. There is no particular eye candy factor either since the outfits and physiques required are not particularly conducive to it. If I am going to watch basketball, I will watch the mens.
I think the weight class comparison to boxing doesn't really work. I for one would not step into the ring with a Barrera or Mayweather for any amount of money. The lighter weight classes are showplaces for greater skill, more boxing less slugging. But that said knock outs do occur, and often. The key to sports viewership is the excellence exhibited. In all the sports that attract large audiences the performers show skill levels that are at the limits of believability. Given physical differences between the sexes there are some sports in which women have yet to demonstrate that type of performance. The sports that do succeed are those that can take your breath away not those where you think "I saw guys better than that in high school."
College sports is something of an exception of course.
Well with boxing it's easy. The heavyweights may be the biggest and strongest but they're also slow, lumbering and boring. The welterweights provide the best balance of strength, size and speed to make for an intersting fight.
Yes, that's a good point.
Another factor that lessens the popularity of the heavyweight division in the United States is that it's dominated by foreigners (this is true to some extent with men's tennis too). The Americans who would've been heavyweight boxers if they'd been born a couple generations ago are playing in the NFL today :)
Cheerleaders. Enthusiastic lack thereof.
Oh, you wanted a serious answer.
Take the above set of comments, scrub for duplication and dump about a third of them. Not the uniform comments. There is a reason that the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue is perceived to be a best seller in both gender demographics. ;)
As someone who grew up in Connecticut and has therefore watched tons of both men's and women's basketball at the highest level (in CT you aren't allowed to vote unless you can name the starting five from each of the seven combined national championship teams), I can say that the answer is simple - not one woman who plays in DIV-I college basketball could start on any DIV-I men's team (and I would guess that less than a handful could even make a team). No one complains that we don't make a big deal about the men's DIV-II playoffs (where probably all of the players are still better than the median D-I women's player). The double standard here is why we care so little about second-rate athletes, not why we care so little about women athletes.
There are so many correct answers above:
Men are better at it-women don't watch sports in equal numbers-people won't substitute inferior for superior product, costs being near equal-women not having full range of court skills, etc.
Why do we even ask questions like this as if the answers are not obvious? Hell, why do women shop more, AND take longer to shop? Why do women watch soap operas more? Why do men not buy make up or hair care products? Why do men start hedge funds are climb mountains at higher rates? Why are their more female elementary school teachers? Why do women volleyball players like to get near naked when men players manage to win more fully clothed? Why do more men drive pick up trucks or wear sports Jerseys? Why are women more likely to dance chest to chest at the club? Why do more men buy Barrons? Why do fewer women post on Megan's blog?
If we come to the conclusion that men and women are biologically and mentally identical, with similar experiences, then these difference questions would truly be perplexing. But since we are not identical, most of the time these exercises are nothing more than trying to find the right politically correct response that ignores the obvious. If you reject all the simpler, more likely answers, then truly, it is all a mystery and quite confounding.
Men like sports a LOT more than women do. A LOT. I mean, so much more, that it's funny. And that's why its been a staple of comedians for years: miss the big game and need to find a replacement manly activity.
Now that may not be the case among the rarified air of the Atlantic blog readership, but it most certainly is so of the milleu of the warehouse worker, of which there are many many more of them.
I'd wager for every HDTV rationalized that "well the dvd playback is so much better when we watch "Lost in Translation"" there are three that are rationalized as thus: "Man! You can SEE THE BLADES of GRASS on the FIELD"
A point I'll make about golf is that the longer distances in the men's game makes the game more exciting. It's not just the longer driving distances either, but the fairway irons as well. Place my ball next to Tiger's off the tee and he still is at a huge advantage club wise because he's hitting a 9-iron into the green and I'm hitting a 3-iron. Second longer distances require more accuracy, which makes that drive/long iron shot that much more impressive.
What I'm really wondering is, how come men's jello wrestling is so much less enjoyable to watch than women's?
Dunking schmunking. If you've ever watched a WNBA game, the level of play is shocking in every way compared to even men's college ball. The passing, ball handling, and shooting are all poor. Most of the players don't seem to be able to use their off hand with any skill. You will almost never see a truly beautiful play. Is this really not obvious to anyone who has ever seem a WNBA game? You may as well ask why we don't televise men's pick-up games.
"But consider my boxing analogy. By all rights the heavyweights should be the most popular because they're the biggest and strongest."
Hisorically these, were the most popular by a wide margin. The current situation is an aboration caused by the decline in overall popularity of boxing and the lack of a dominant American heavyweight. Also, I suspect the athleticism of heavyweight boxers has probably declined as many big athletic guys ar emoving to basketball and football rather than getting hit in the head.
Also, the fact that the lighter weight classes are actually have better boxing skills makes the analogy to women's basketball false.
You should probably start by asking why anybody watches any sport at all. You might also notice that on average men tend to watch sports more than women, and ask why that is.
Re: eye candy comments-
So, if the WNBA was to get rid of what I've heard referred to as "spinnaker outfits" and go back to what (men's) basketball players wore in the 60's, viewership would improve?
I grew up in the 50s as a Boston Celtics fan. Today's NBA basketball is not like that. Woman's bball is. I can't relate to giants with springs in their legs looking down on the ten-foot basket. I can relate to a good pick ... I watched the ABA a lot ...
Years ago, Sports Illustrated (I think) suggested that the basket be raised to twelve feet, and even tried it out. Alas this went nowhere.
In reply to a comment about the WNBA baggy uniforms: Check out the Australian womens bball league.
There are two main reasons:
The first is the 24 second clock. Less time to run slow developing, subtle plays. The second is how much better the defenders are in the pros. Especially among the teams you are most likely to see on TV (Boston, LA, Detroit, San Antonio, etc). Those teams defend with much, much bigger and much much faster players than in college basketball. The defenders are also generally much more physical (without foul calls) than in college. Thus the degree of difficulty in half court scoring in the pros is dramatically higher than in college.
Check it: how many rookies have led the NBA in scoring? (Answer: Elvin Hayes, 1968). If the college players were better shooters / scorers and for some odd reason, more physically mature mature, more practiced pro players some how got worse, wouldn't you expect more rookies to be leading scorers?
bud,
If they played topless, that would certainly get men watching.
Yeah, me too.
I've always followed the NBA and Div I games (out of the corner of my eye, at least) because I have an interest in particular conferences/divisions (NBA NW and Pacific, Div I Big 12, Pac 10) and the rivalries implied thereby. (I'm still cursing the NBA realignment.) My other big reason is that in the men's game you see (pardon the cliche) astounding feats of athletic prowess in the men's game (though more from 1980 on than previously).
Everybody talks about how team-oriented the women's game is, and it's hard to knock that. However, the full-team playbook is on average less entertaining to watch, regardless of the plumbing of the players running the plays. Even the teams that are notable exceptions - the championship teams of the Eighties, the current Spurs roster - were (and are) enjoyable to watch because they always put at least one man on the court who would either make or complete plays, and spectacularly.
No women's game I've watched reaches that level, though the raw ingredients are definitely there. Let's not forget, folks, that not every spectacular play ends with a dunk... How many times did you see MJ use ballhandling to outsmart a triple team, long enough to get an open outside shot? I lost count in 1988.
If you've followed the history of the men's game, you've probably noticed that its popularity has taken a leap every time a marquee player - of whom I would say Wilt was really the first - has taken the court for their team. Thence player and team rivalries. The same is less true in Div I, but still applicable.
The women's game's not there yet. Tennis figured it out almost thirty years ago and has taken it to an art form with the current crop of players. Amateur gymnastics did the same yet sooner. Women's basketball still needs to make its superstars and get them on the court.
Meanwhile, the men's professional game had a fifty year head start. I don't doubt that the women's game can cover the gap pretty quickly, but it'll still take time.
And for those who think that sex appeal is a factor, well, there's plenty of time off-court for these women to be made into sex symbols if they choose to do so. Any woman who can manage to be both a sex symbol and an outstanding player on the court, meanwhile, can be considered to be a miracle... at least until tradition no longer forces women to glow in lieu of sweating.
...Because - with all due respect to football fans - if there's a outwardly sweatier team sport than basketball that's popular in the United States, I don't know what it is.
To add:
When the game gets obsessed with fundamentals, you get things like airtight zone defenses. Let's not forget that the zone defense was illegal in the professional game for more than fifty years, and reintroduced only when there were plenty of players at hand with the footwork to best them.
I think the women's game is still searching for its audience. The WNBA may be faltering due to lack of "superstar" quality players; I'm not sure you can equate Lisa Leslie with Michael Jordan. But more than that, and this gets back to the "no dunking" comment many have made, men's pro basketball has traditionally focused on dominant, physical players who can take over a game on their own. Kobe, Shaq, Jordan, Iverson, Garnett, and other superstars didn't become superstars because they were great team players (though some of them are phenomenal at that too); they got that way because they were able to be unstoppable forces at critical times of the game. LeBron James is criticized because he DOESN'T try to take over the game, he's too team-oriented, he looks to pass to the open man rather than bulling his way to the rim for the dunk. NBA fans respect great point guards like Steve Nash (and earlier, John Stockton), but Nash doesn't put butts in seats. Kobe and Shaq are instant box-office, and it's entirely because of their "dominance." Dominance is not part of the women's game, not yet. And since the current NBA fans are used to (and want to continue) cheering for that dominant, in-your-face dunker, they have a hard time relating to the WNBA and the women's game in general.
With this in mind, I think it's no surprise that women's basketball has had more success (apparently) at the college level than at the pro level. Even at the top D1 schools, there is at least some emphasis on running the half-court offense and playing tough defense to win games. You do sometimes get players like Kevin Durant and Greg Oden (and Michael Beasley at K-State this year) that have that dominating quality and take over the offense from time to time. But there are still long stretches where it takes teamwork to get the job done (and if you don't have that go-to guy, it's all the time), so college fans are used to seeing that style of play and can appreciate it. Since that's part and parcel of the women's game, the transition to being fans of women's college basketball is easier for men's college basketball fans than the transition of men's pro basketball fans to being women's pro fans.
Just as an example, my beloved Kansas Jayhawks with their #1 seed and #5 national poll ranking don't have that one dominant player. Name a top-10 NBA team that doesn't have one or even two.
(Oddly enough, the year KU won (1988) it was with Danny Manning and his backup band.)
Why is AAA baseball less attended than the majors? People want to think they are seeing the best
If women watched women's basketball as much as men watch men's basketball, it would be just as popular. The problem is, women just don't like watching sports as much as men do. The problem with women's sports is it hasn't found a way to create a female audience. You, Megan, would know why as much as anyone.
There are at least two more reasons the men's D-I game is so much more popular than the women's game.
The first is the relative parity. Look at the Duke-Belmont game this week. How many people had ever heard of Belmont before the game. Duke is one of the most successful programs of the last thirty years. There is no way a first round game is that competitive in the women's bracket. That doesn't even include the miracle upsets. It is also easier to build a program that can compete at the highest levels. A good team, one that is a "bubble team", that can recruit the great one and done player, like Texas(Kevin Durant) or Syracuse(Carmelo Anthony), can become a national champion or at least one of the elite teams. Or one can build a team out of players that are going to be around for 4 years. In the womens game a Diana Taurasi, Lisa Leslie, or Shamiqua Holdsclaw will always stay for four years and can become the basis for a long dominant run.
Second, until the late 80's at earliest, the women's game was dominated in large part by schools that are not exactly known as athletic powerhouses. Schools like Old Dominion, LA Tech, Montclair St, were for a long time the best schools. These schools can't exactly compete with the Ohio States, Dukes, UCONNs, and UCLAs for either name recognition nor alumni interest in sports.
While the comments reflect some real differences, the biggest is just history. The women's game is still not that old - how many more middle school girls are now playing the game compared to when the tourney started? Title IX and the sparse coverage in the past was enough to stimulate more girls to go out for sports, and made it more socially normal to be an athlete instead of a cheerleader. But that's still relatively recent. The talent level is rising rapidly in women's bball, which means that the games are more entertaining and competitive earlier and earlier in the season and in the earlier rounds of March madness. This is what leads to the parity phenomenon Jon points out. On my blog I write:
Women's basketball doesn't have the athleticism of men's, particularly the alley-oop dunk. It's a different game.
My favorite women's sport is soccer because it's qualitatively no different than men's. The players are a little slower, but the action is exactly the same. Tennis is similar in this respect, but I'm not much of a tennis fan.
The cornerstone of men's tennis is the service ace, which is sort of the "dunk" of tennis, whereas women tennis players actually, you know, hit the ball back and forth and a variety of skills are required to win a match.
An ATP player who can serve, but can't do anything else (hello, Greg Rusedski), can do well, but isn't going to win many tournaments. Versatility and strategy is no less important in men's tennis than women's. It's just that, at the pace and angle ATP players hit the ball, a player's ability to recover from a positioning error is pretty limited.
Let's take a glance at recent past world number ones: Sampras, Kuerten, Muster, Agassi, Federer, Roddick. Of these six, only Roddick had the best serve in the game at the time he was number one (Sampras's aces-per-game numbers weren't near Goran Ivanisevic's; Sampras's biggest asset was in placing his serve such as to set up a devastating second shot, which is a form of strategic thinking). Two of the listed players had serves that were fairly pathetic compared to their contemporaries (Muster, Agassi). Everyone other than Roddick exceled at getting opponents out of position, which requires thinking more than a hard serve (though the latter helps).
Also, not all the top women play a particularly strategic game. Sharapova and Serena Williams, in particular, simply try to hit crosscourt balls so hard the opponent shanks it (though not Venus, who looks to set up severe-angle volleys).
Well with boxing it's easy. The heavyweights may be the biggest and strongest but they're also slow, lumbering and boring. The welterweights provide the best balance of strength, size and speed to make for an intersting fight.
Seconded. It's also worth noting that the welterweight division is not only the most loaded with talent, but also offers the most parity. Could Andre Berto beat Miguel Cotto in a theoretical matchup? Could Mosley beat Williams? I have no idea.
I'm not much of a sports person so bare that in mind.
Women's basketball being more in-line with fundamentals, and I take it Margaret was making a Futurama reference, could be a possible disadvantage. I don't think basketball was as popular in the days of Paul Arizin or George L. Mikan Jr. as it'd become later. I think Basketball may appeal to some people more than other sports because it is fast and, to an extent, has more colorful personalities. Possibly the WNBA needs a tattooed Buddhist who's dating a pop star to really shake things up. (Half-joking/half-not)
Although possibly a greater problem is sports, even basketball, seem to rely some on a tradition. Figure skating grew rather rapidly in the 1990s, but even going back to the thirties there was some tradition of mothers watching Sonia Henning with their daughters or some such. Women's basketball is as old as men's, but I don't think it had much visibility. To many it's like a new sport and sports fans seem relatively resistant to new sports.
Yancey's deal on relating I think makes since too.
Frankly, for many people, an aversion to women's basketball is grounded in sexism. If I ask someone about soccer or tennis, I'm likely to get a dispassionate reply such as "I don't really follow it." If I mention women's basketball, I get vitriolic responses like "It's not a sport" or "It's terrible."
You can't underestimate the importance of how positive coverage can feed interest, but it's also a catch-22. Sports journalists are only going to cover things that are of interest to significant numbers of readers, so women's basketball tends to get little to no coverage. However, the lack of coverage makes it much harder for the women's game to build a following. Most fans know nothing about the teams or the players. There is very little in the way of a national interest, although there is intense local interest in many places.
The connection between coverage and interest has become a self-fulfilling prophecy in professional sports, other than the NFL. It used to be that the World Series drew boffo ratings no matter who was in it because it was the championship of baseball and it featured the best teams. Now, the leagues and the media that cover them have created a caste system whereby a few teams from large markets (Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, Dodgers) receive the lion's share of the coverage throughout the season while everybody else is largely ignored. When the FOX Saturday Game of the Week chases a cheap ratings boost by nearly always including one of the "marquee" teams, it creates a situation where, when the playoffs end up being between other teams, there is far less interests. Just look at the ratings for the Rockies-Diamondbacks N.L.C.S. last year. If FOX and ESPN had exposed people to these teams more throughout the season, the ratings would have been higher. The highest-rated World Series of all-time were during a period (1982-1993) when the Mets, Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs and Dodgers combined for three appearances (two in the same year, 1986). Royals? Blue Jays? Twins? Padres? People tuned in to see all of these teams in the '80s and '90s. Now they are ratings poison because of the short-sighted way baseball and its media partners market and promote their teams. Consider that when Pittsburgh and Seattle met in the Super Bowl in 2006, 90 million people watched. If Pittsburgh and Seattle met in the World Series, it would be the lowest-rated Series ever. It has nothing to do with the size of the markets, and everything to do with how baseball and its media partners have marginalized most teams.
So what does this have to do with women's basketball? Well, if women's basketball is ever going to get traction with a larger audience, it needs more exposure. It will not become equal in popularity to men's basketball, but it might enjoy a greater niche than it does now. The biggest obstacle to this is the existence of men's basketball. The women's NCAA Tournament is David to the men's tournament's Goliath. The men have a fifty-year head start on the women. I didn't start paying attention to the women's game until the early '90s, at which point I had already been passionately following the men's game for more than a decade. When women's first-round games are on against men's second-round games, I am going to choose the men's games even though I enjoy the women's games and would love to see their popularity grow.
The best thing the NCAA could do to help women's basketball increase its exposure is to move the season to the fall. Start in early September and hold the tournament in December, with the final rounds occurring on the weekends between the final college football regular-season games and the holidays.