|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Dec 1, 2020 18:58:48 GMT -6
This is not the same thing, but I just thought of it. and when ever I think of it, I laugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Dec 2, 2020 8:50:47 GMT -6
There were times when I did not think so. It was rough watching his friends and My friends play and coach the years we were not there. There were tears and lots of explaining but I think in the end he got it and learned a valuable lesson Similarly, I also learned a tough but valuable lesson accompanied by a lot of tears and explaining when I used the be a BSU basketball fan in the 2000's. I'm gonna leave this here for you...  |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 2, 2020 9:21:38 GMT -6
I don't share the hostility to girls sports some here seem to have, What bullshit. The hostility is towards a dishonesty in promoting some womens' athletics efforts beyond what is deserved. Womens' involvement in athletics promotes all the same good mental and physical health that it does in boys, as I saw first hand by coaching my two daughters in a couple sports. What is the "deserved" promotion?
I certainly don't see much coverage of women's sports in the press. College sports does a good job, and local papers promote local girls HS sports. Both IMO deserve coverage. Olympic sports and international soccer notably gets coverage but they are after competing strongly for world championships, and very strong. Pro sports not so much, although golf and tennis get coverage and very small attention to WNBA play.
What would you suggest is out of line?
There is a lot of outright "hostility" against Title IX in college. It is mostly a product of men's football getting so much of the resources in college sports, and that is the main debate there. I know you are a big fan of BSU football...wait a minute.
What is the reason we should spend more on men's college sports? If it is just about what generates revenue, then MOST college sports "deserve" less support.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 2, 2020 9:43:04 GMT -6
I don't share the hostility to girls sports some here seem to have,
The reality is that the super-wonderful world champion women were beaten by a regional U15 boys team. The discussion of equal pay should be between the womens national team and regional U15 boys teams. This result, by the way, is in line with track records of various distances where boys age group records in the 14-15 range typically equal womens world records. Can you explain why women's sports support should be based on level of performance relative to men in track and field. There is no question men are bigger and stronger generally. That's why we create women's competition separately.
It was a practice scrimmage event not an actual match. The description of the scrimmage was to give the girls a light workout on the field before an upcoming match, to give the boys some training, and to promote soccer generally rather than represent a serious match. I do not think anyone seriously believes the 14-15 year old boys had equal skill level, or it had anything to do with track and field results.
I think your characterization above of the women as whining "like a bunch of women" just might be fairly said to show some sexist hostility there...don't let your daughters hear that crap. You might get clocked.
|
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Dec 2, 2020 9:59:09 GMT -6
While you guys are discussing all the things that disgrace the game of football, could you please tackle the issue the Broncos starting a QB who could complete just 1 pass for 13 yards (hey, at least he was a male, right?), or the ACC adjusting it's schedule to give Notre Dame an automatic shot at the league title, or the likely Big Ten changes that will do the same for Ohio State?
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 2, 2020 10:19:23 GMT -6
While you guys are discussing all the things that disgrace the game of football, could you please tackle the issue the Broncos starting a QB who could complete just 1 pass for 13 yards (hey, at least he was a male, right?), or the ACC adjusting it's schedule to give Notre Dame an automatic shot at the league title, or the likely Big Ten changes that will do the same for Ohio State? The B10 which has wanted to have its cake and eat it too in this whole COVID season is in a mess if tOSU misses another game. IU has lost its QB and the other teams are indeed out of the picture for a national title game. I agree there. They want tOSU to win the league and stacking the deck for that result. Worse than the ACC case I think.
The ACC wants that big ticket TV league title game. They are insuring they have one nationally competitive team in their championship by deciding ND doesn't have to risk missing the title game due to COVID exposure the weak before. They can't outright declare the rest of the league competition done to get a second credible team in the game, but in an odd turn of events in FB it appears to me the ACC has a little more cred doing what they are doing. Not much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Dec 2, 2020 10:42:23 GMT -6
What is the "deserved" promotion?
I certainly don't see much coverage of women's sports in the press. College sports does a good job, and local papers promote local girls HS sports. Both IMO deserve coverage. Olympic sports and international soccer notably gets coverage but they are after competing strongly for world championships, and very strong. Pro sports not so much, although golf and tennis get coverage and very small attention to WNBA play.
What would you suggest is out of line?
There is a lot of outright "hostility" against Title IX in college. It is mostly a product of men's football getting so much of the resources in college sports, and that is the main debate there. I know you are a big fan of BSU football...wait a minute.
What is the reason we should spend more on men's college sports? If it is just about what generates revenue, then MOST college sports "deserve" less support.
Women's sports get less coverage and support because there is far less demand. Look at the WNBA. Far less viewership, far less attendance than the NBA, yet the NBA owners sunk billions into the league which can't sustain itself. I'm sure it's a nice tax write-off for them, but nobody want to watch because it is incredibly boring and unentertaining, an inferior product, to put it bluntly. But at least they look woke. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Dec 2, 2020 10:43:56 GMT -6
This is not the same thing, but I just thought of it. and when ever I think of it, I laugh. I know it's fake, but still hilarious. Like when the Colts host Peewee football teams at halftime to play a team of mascots, and Blue totally smokes some kid on his way to the goal line. |
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Dec 2, 2020 11:31:42 GMT -6
What is the "deserved" promotion?
I certainly don't see much coverage of women's sports in the press. College sports does a good job, and local papers promote local girls HS sports. Both IMO deserve coverage. Olympic sports and international soccer notably gets coverage but they are after competing strongly for world championships, and very strong. Pro sports not so much, although golf and tennis get coverage and very small attention to WNBA play.
What would you suggest is out of line?
There is a lot of outright "hostility" against Title IX in college. It is mostly a product of men's football getting so much of the resources in college sports, and that is the main debate there. I know you are a big fan of BSU football...wait a minute.
What is the reason we should spend more on men's college sports? If it is just about what generates revenue, then MOST college sports "deserve" less support.
Women's sports get less coverage and support because there is far less demand. Look at the WNBA. Far less viewership, far less attendance than the NBA, yet the NBA owners sunk billions into the league which can't sustain itself. I'm sure it's a nice tax write-off for them, but nobody want to watch because it is incredibly boring and unentertaining, an inferior product, to put it bluntly. But at least they look woke. This is really the key if more people watched or even cared they would get more coverage. No one is going to cover anything that does produce revenue or get clicks whatever |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Dec 2, 2020 11:44:10 GMT -6
It was a practice scrimmage event not an actual match. The description of the scrimmage was to give the girls a light workout on the field before an upcoming match, to give the boys some training, and to promote soccer generally rather than represent a serious match. I do not think anyone seriously believes the 14-15 year old boys had equal skill level, or it had anything to do with track and field results.
Well, OF COURSE it was a scrimmage, what else would it be? Maybe you are aware of some actual leagues that include official games between women's national teams and U15 boys, but I am not. Nor is this result anomalous. Similarly, the #4 in the world Australian women's national team lost 0-7 to New Castle Jets U16 boys team. Also, the age group track and field records demonstrate that these results should not be unexpected...unless of course you are engaging in some sort of politically based anti-science fantasy about women's capabilities. Another interesting comparison is that you will often see times at your local boys HS regionals track meet that would win the Olympics for women
Part of the silly game that woke nuts like 00mph play is to deny the magnitude (or even reality, in some cases) of gender differences. In some combination, these people are stupid, dishonest, and/or easily influenced by the media....probably varies from case to case. You can be disgusted by their dishonesty, or you can instead choose to have a little fun by drawing them out and then dunking all over them with some easily available facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 2, 2020 11:46:34 GMT -6
What is the "deserved" promotion?
I certainly don't see much coverage of women's sports in the press. College sports does a good job, and local papers promote local girls HS sports. Both IMO deserve coverage. Olympic sports and international soccer notably gets coverage but they are after competing strongly for world championships, and very strong. Pro sports not so much, although golf and tennis get coverage and very small attention to WNBA play.
What would you suggest is out of line? Women's sports get less coverage and support because there is far less demand. Look at the WNBA. Far less viewership, far less attendance than the NBA, yet the NBA owners sunk billions into the league which can't sustain itself. I'm sure it's a nice tax write-off for them, but nobody want to watch because it is incredibly boring and unentertaining, an inferior product, to put it bluntly. But at least they look woke. Billions on the WNBA? Where do you get that? Players make 10's of thousands not 10's of millions ... Nothing to do with woke. It's a low cost business relative to men. Seems about right level of support. Which is where I disputed Sherm. Franchise value in the pros is valued on future revenue, including the monopoly profit from admitting future franchises. Women's teams seem priced right discounted by higher risk as well as lower current revenue. |
|
|
|
Post by bleadingcardwhite on Dec 2, 2020 11:55:56 GMT -6
How a typical travel team is selected:
First Five:
1. Child of Head Coach
2. Child of Assistant Coach #1
3. Child of Assistant Coach #2
4. Child of Team Manager
5. Child of Team Mom
Second Five:
6-10 most likely the best five kids at the tryout.
Last Five:
11. Child of an important contributor (Team Sponsor- Bankroll)
12. Child of Party Dad (Always brings the beer for the overnight trips)
13. Child least contributor (spirit of the team, hard worker, coaches pet, charity case)
14. Child of hottest mom remaining #1
15. Child of hottest mom remaining #2
And that is how a travel team is set.... baseball, basketball, hockey, volleyball... any sport you name it.
The real fight is between the parents vying for spots 1-5....
|
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Dec 2, 2020 12:11:58 GMT -6
You know, just like the WNBA, it's ridiculous that the US women's soccer team would demand play similar to the men.
I mean, is the women's team as popular as the men's?
Well, yeah they might be.
But do they bring in as much revenue as the men?
Well, yeah looks like they probably do.
But are they as accomplished?
Well, they've only won four World Cup titles in 30 years while the men ... well, they were a semifinalist 90 years ago and in the last World Cup they ... oh, yeah, they didn't qualify.
But you know, the men are ... men.
Gee, I don't know. If I'm using the age-old criteria of value for things like the BSU football program vs. the BSU men's basketball program, I think maybe it's time to advocate dumping the US men's soccer team and pumping money into the program that has the better chance to succeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Dec 2, 2020 12:18:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Dec 2, 2020 13:11:25 GMT -6
Billions on the WNBA? Where do you get that? Players make 10's of thousands not 10's of millions ... Nothing to do with woke. It's a low cost business relative to men. Seems about right level of support. Which is where I disputed Sherm. Franchise value in the pros is valued on future revenue, including the monopoly profit from admitting future franchises. Women's teams seem priced right discounted by higher risk as well as lower current revenue. It's been around since 1996. You don't think there has been billions spent on it? Not just salaries, but travel, arena rent, security, practice facilities, jerseys, etc.? It's a low cost business, also low revenue. The only way it has not folded is because the NBA owners keep pumping money into it. It's a joke. |
|
