|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 5, 2021 10:40:22 GMT -6
So, it seems like the Biles saga exceeded everyone's attention span. A few days back she was the #1 story in the Olympics, if not the entire sports world. Then she comes back to win a bronze in the beam and I'm not seeing or hearing anything about it.
By the way, I was only vaguely aware of her before and had a negative impression due to all the hype and skin-color-based talk in the media. But over the course of these games, I have come around to liking her. From what I've seen, she has consistently displayed a classy, humble attitude. That hype was deserved. She was doing things nearly perfectly others would not try. The scoring under rated her performance. She gets a bronze by what for her was a dumbed down routine, for what for her was far from her best and imperfectly performed. Only two athletes who focus on the event could do better than that "weak" Biles performance.
If the media had not made her a big story it would have been malpractice. The theme of this Olympiad of inclusion just distracted from some of the athletes who deserved simply the recognition as the best.
It wasn't a horrible idea to give more credit and coverage to the women who in some past Olympics were not covered at all unless they were really amazing like Biles. Winning Bronze and Silver or just being an athlete in the top 10 in the world with a chance, has always been neglected, almost treated as failure for both men and women. But men got more coverage for being the best US athlete in a sport, and men were covered more often on the human interest, hard work pays off, came form humble beginnings, side of things.
I have no idea why long nails, colored hair and so on is so interesting, or why it defines the athlete, but then I never understood Dennis Rodman either.... There is no doubt the change in coverage is about who the audience is, I don't think it is entirely political correctness. Can't always understand that audience for sports where the Super Bowl halftime show is as big as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Aug 5, 2021 11:59:08 GMT -6
So, it seems like the Biles saga exceeded everyone's attention span. A few days back she was the #1 story in the Olympics, if not the entire sports world. Then she comes back to win a bronze in the beam and I'm not seeing or hearing anything about it.
By the way, I was only vaguely aware of her before and had a negative impression due to all the hype and skin-color-based talk in the media. But over the course of these games, I have come around to liking her. From what I've seen, she has consistently displayed a classy, humble attitude.
It wasn't a horrible idea to give more credit and coverage to the women who in some past Olympics were not covered at all unless they were really amazing like Biles. Winning Bronze and Silver or just being an athlete in the top 10 in the world with a chance, has always been neglected, almost treated as failure for both men and women. But men got more coverage for being the best US athlete in a sport, and men were covered more often on the human interest, hard work pays off, came form humble beginnings, side of things.
A woman winning bronze or silver is not the 3rd or 2nd best athlete in the world....they are not even in the top 1000. The winning female track time in the Olympics are about on par with the winning times at my local IHSAA boys sectional meet.
Likewise the vaunted US women's soccer team lost to some local boys age group team in a scrimmage...something like U15 or U17. I don't imagine the USWNT is one of the 300 best soccer teams in the US.
Women athletes tend to be pampered, whiney and spoiled, and complain constantly about their coverage and pay and such because they are in denial of the basic fact that sports fans are most interested in the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 5, 2021 13:01:07 GMT -6
It wasn't a horrible idea to give more credit and coverage to the women who in some past Olympics were not covered at all unless they were really amazing like Biles. Winning Bronze and Silver or just being an athlete in the top 10 in the world with a chance, has always been neglected, almost treated as failure for both men and women.
A woman winning bronze or silver is not the 3rd or 2nd best athlete in the world....they are not even in the top 1000. The winning female track time in the Olympics are about on par with the winning times at my local IHSAA boys sectional meet.
Likewise the vaunted US women's soccer team lost to some local boys age group team in a scrimmage...something like U15 or U17. I don't imagine the USWNT is one of the 300 best soccer teams in the US.
Women athletes tend to be pampered, whiney and spoiled, and complain constantly about their coverage and pay and such because they are in denial of the basic fact that sports fans are most interested in the best. There are a few questionable statements there.
The last paragraph almost totally false. Yes, SOME women athletes complain about coverage or pay. MOST? Why do they complain? Debatable. But surely it is not the reason you give exactly.
What sports fans want is hardly limited to the "best." Otherwise who would watch much of the massive coverage of sports that is out there.
And what that is worth is surely debatable, and whether women athletes are paid proportionately is not clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Aug 5, 2021 14:51:31 GMT -6
Women are paid vastly more than the quality of their play justifies. I think I would be pretty safe to say that male athletes who are playing at the level of either the USWNT or the WNBA are not making one single cent at their sport. We are talking about guys on somewhat better than average HS teams, or maybe teams at the very lowest levels of college....if that.
In timed sports like track and swimming, it can be very conclusively shown that there are many HS boys who would win the women's Olympic events, and a mediocre male college athlete would be historically dominant. |
|
|
|
Post by chirpchirpcards on Aug 5, 2021 16:13:01 GMT -6
It wasn't a horrible idea to give more credit and coverage to the women who in some past Olympics were not covered at all unless they were really amazing like Biles. Winning Bronze and Silver or just being an athlete in the top 10 in the world with a chance, has always been neglected, almost treated as failure for both men and women. But men got more coverage for being the best US athlete in a sport, and men were covered more often on the human interest, hard work pays off, came form humble beginnings, side of things.
the basic fact that sports fans are most interested in the best.
If sports fans are interested in the best, what the hell are we all doing watching Ball State sports?! |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 5, 2021 16:50:09 GMT -6
Women are paid vastly more than the quality of their play justifies. I think I would be pretty safe to say that male athletes who are playing at the level of either the USWNT or the WNBA are not making one single cent at their sport. We are talking about guys on somewhat better than average HS teams, or maybe teams at the very lowest levels of college....if that.
In timed sports like track and swimming, it can be very conclusively shown that there are many HS boys who would win the women's Olympic events, and a mediocre male college athlete would be historically dominant. Your argument about excellence in absolute terms being the basis for fan interest has a giant flaw. People of course care about excellence but it is hardly the only factor.
Pay and audience appeal is about consumer choice. Contrary to your theory, many rather mediocre efforts in absolute terms have a rabid audience.
Your premise that women at the Olympics have been whiney or complaining about money or coverage, isn't what I am seeing. Ratings show a lot of complaining about other aspects of the coverage.
Women seek higher pay in some of these sports NOT to get equal pay with men, not to claim absolute equality in performance, but because they want a higher percentage of the profit they generate than they are getting. The Women's soccer flap was about that comparison. If they have been able to negotiate fatter contracts they had a point.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Aug 5, 2021 17:34:46 GMT -6
Pretty sure the NBA has to subsidize the WNBA to keep it afloat...not vice versa.
by the way, when I said mediocre male college athletes would dominate women at the highest levels, I DIDN'T mean BSU basketball. BSU basketball would find somehow some way to lose to the ladies.....BUT they would have some kick ass excuses.
|
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Aug 5, 2021 20:37:38 GMT -6
The abbreviation "TLDR" is well suited for many posts on this message board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Aug 6, 2021 5:44:53 GMT -6
Women are paid vastly more than the quality of their play justifies. I think I would be pretty safe to say that male athletes who are playing at the level of either the USWNT or the WNBA are not making one single cent at their sport. We are talking about guys on somewhat better than average HS teams, or maybe teams at the very lowest levels of college....if that.
In timed sports like track and swimming, it can be very conclusively shown that there are many HS boys who would win the women's Olympic events, and a mediocre male college athlete would be historically dominant. Your argument about excellence in absolute terms being the basis for fan interest has a giant flaw. People of course care about excellence but it is hardly the only factor.
Pay and audience appeal is about consumer choice. Contrary to your theory, many rather mediocre efforts in absolute terms have a rabid audience.
Your premise that women at the Olympics have been whiney or complaining about money or coverage, isn't what I am seeing. Ratings show a lot of complaining about other aspects of the coverage.
Women seek higher pay in some of these sports NOT to get equal pay with men, not to claim absolute equality in performance, but because they want a higher percentage of the profit they generate than they are getting. The Women's soccer flap was about that comparison. If they have been able to negotiate fatter contracts they had a point.
They've been complaining in court. Loudly. But they really don't have much of a case, since their union agreed to the terms. Analysis of "pay gap"
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Aug 6, 2021 5:47:45 GMT -6
Pretty sure the NBA has to subsidize the WNBA to keep it afloat...not vice versa. Very true. WNBA is a money suck
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 6, 2021 8:22:42 GMT -6
Women seek higher pay in some of these sports NOT to get equal pay with men, not to claim absolute equality in performance, but because they want a higher percentage of the profit they generate than they are getting. The Women's soccer flap was about that comparison. If they have been able to negotiate fatter contracts they had a point. They've been complaining in court. Loudly. But they really don't have much of a case, since their union agreed to the terms. Analysis of "pay gap"The article points out that the world wide soccer market where men's soccer far outdraws women and the World Cup (for men) provides US Soccer a much bigger men's payout creates a lot of the difference. Women's soccer has generated more interest and more viewers on American TV, but fairly low revenue. Until soccer in the US generates more US network TV money things aren't going to change too much for the women. It's economics. It's contracts. It's world soccer where the money is now.
Women athletes generally in other sports are in similar situation in terms of compensation based so heavily on TV audience. Nobody is arguing women's sports generally draw as much at any level. Except VB in Delaware County maybe. Oh, and in women's gymnastics where this discussion started...
The General's argument about Olympic women athletes complaining, and also his unsupported claim about fan response, is pretty weak. Not much whining, or complaining about that, and not much consumer complaint about women's events. It's an unusual event with most of the sports, men or women, not covered very much except every 4 years. The women's events seem to generate the same interest as men's events generally.
|
|
|
|
Olympics
Aug 6, 2021 20:39:58 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Aug 6, 2021 20:39:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Aug 7, 2021 7:38:55 GMT -6
It's incredible what the Washington Post will print these days....basically anything that espouses a woke viewpoint. This article is a barrel full of fish to shoot at. None of the points made are supported by evidence or numbers. These deals are as retro and revenue-stupid as they are repugnant. The report states that the women’s basketball tournament ranks among ESPN’s highest-rated programs — with viewership comparable to the NBA Finals, college football conference title games, MLB postseason and Grand Slam tennis finals. Championship ratings for the women have risen by 32 percent since 2015, at a time when almost every other major sport has declined. Women’s sports are soaring opportunities in a stale market. An independent media consultant labels the women’s tournament “one of the most valuable U.S. sports media properties” with the potential for utterly explosive growth on multiple platformsSo, you see, an "independent media consultant" (never mind who or what their track record and agenda is) says this so it's obviously gospel. At no point are either ratings our the dollars of the deals mentioned. Emmert has long been on what seems to be an intentional campaign to denigrate women’s basketball as a burden — in 2016 he insisted it lost more money than any other sport. This has had consequences in how the sport was treated and valued. “It’s stigmatizing,” VanDerveer says.You may notice that she doesn't go so far as to say this is not TRUE. Also the article hyperlinked does not actually support the statement made. link From a linked article (that completely undermines the original articles points) Although the NCAA Division I men's basketball championship budget for the 2018-19 season was $28 million -- almost twice as much as the women's budget -- information provided by the NCAA on Friday also shows the men's tournament brought in a total net income of $864.6 million that season. The women's event lost $2.8 million -- the largest loss of any NCAA championship.Those net figures suggest to me that the women's budget is much much too larger, rather than too small. You see a lot of this sort of article in the Wash Post and the NY times. They have fallen a long, long ways. This piece is simply meant to stoke the self-righteousness of its intended woke audience and they know perfectly well this audience is not going to think critically or look deep into the subject. The report says: “The results have been cumulative, not only fostering skepticism and distrust about the sincerity of the NCAA’s commitment to gender equity, but also limiting the growth of women’s basketball and perpetuating a mistaken narrative that women’s basketball is destined to be a ‘money loser’ year after year. Nothing could be further from the truth.”In fact, nothing could be more the truth. If you read the article closely, you see that the whole argument is premised on the expectation that womens basketball is just about, any day now, to miraculously transform from the money loser it has always been to a money maker. And womens basketball should be funded on this expectation, rather than the dreary year-after-year financial reality. Sort of reminds you of BSU football supporters, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 7, 2021 8:51:11 GMT -6
Those net figures suggest to me that the women's budget is much much too larger, rather than too small. I was interested in the number of viewers to watch these games which might be expected by your reckoning to draw something more like a HS sectional game, since sports fans don't want to see "inferior" athletes perform.
I have no idea what the media consultants ideas are for "growth on multiple platforms," but the number of viewers attracted for a tournament where the overall promotion of the sport for TV (especially regular season) is far lower, that is still impressive.
If a women's basketball tournament can lose only a few million and most college FB programs around the country lose that much by themselves I wouldn't start cutting with this event budget. If there is better promotion, the ladies may have a point that their sport is overlooked and neglected a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 7, 2021 9:12:06 GMT -6
They have more medals than men. For the fourth straight Olympiad. This year 55-60% probably.
Would have the 4th highest medal count if counted as a separate nation.
By the General's reckoning none of that is really "excellence."
The rest of the world seems to count it, and American TV viewers want to watch those American athletes prevail and win medals, in almost anything, not necessarily watch the "truly" best Mongolian lift weights...
|
|
