140-52 in a NCAA post season game.

Hard to get a following when you have wipe-outs in post season, or a nationally-ranked team like Frud scoring 4 points in a quarter this year, U'Conn scoring 14 points in the half of a championship game and winning, or innumerable number of examples.


The women's game is developing, but the depth of players or competition level is simply not even close to matching the men's game. Consider that the same match-uo among the men, the top number 1 seed vs. a 16 seed resulted in an upset this year.

I'm a fan of the women's game, but the have some idiot student journalist suggest that the reason men have greater attendance is due to sexism ignores the reality of the differences between play and the fact that the men's collegiate game has developed over 100 years and women's basketball came to age mostly in this century, and needs to catch-up. Even women get this. Ask my wife whether she would rather see a men's or women's game (assuming U'Conn women are not one of the teams) and the answer will always be the men's game.

U'Conn is a great example of what happens when you do things the right way. But there needs to be a greater competition and more consistency in play for people to show greater interest. I think that will come, but the Cal student journalist who obviously knows nothing about sports, needs to wait before shooting her pen off.

Dude. Calm down a bit.

If you're saying that a 16 beating a 1 is a sign of good depth, your argument is weak. A 16 beat a 1 in the women's tourney years ago. Stanford lost, at home, to Harvard in the late 90s. Ask your wife about it - she'll love telling that story again.

And as for the student journalist who needs to wait before writing... relax. She's a student journalist. You're a grownup. Go ahead and argue with her, but don't be an old grump yelling from the porch.

WhatABonanza said:

---

Dude. Calm down a bit.

If you're saying that a 16 beating a 1 is a sign of good depth, your argument is weak. A 16 beat a 1 in the women's tourney years ago. Stanford lost, at home, to Harvard in the late 90s. Ask your wife about it - she'll love telling that story again.

And as for the student journalist who needs to wait before writing... relax. She's a student journalist. You're a grownup. Go ahead and argue with her, but don't be an old grump yelling from the porch.

---

The disparity is absurd. There was a 102-79 game that is reasonable in round one, but someone does not belong there according to the means by which they select. And if it is like the men's, then disparity is too absurd when you get a tournament winner, a play in, or whatever losing by that margin.

Got any Loyola Chicagos, Buffaloes or UMBCs out there?

And calling a gentleman of my generation "dude" and "old grump" in the same post says something about your youth. Either the women's game will grow up, or it won't, but in the meantime chill. It ain't there now.

WhatABonanza said:

---

Dude. Calm down a bit.

If you're saying that a 16 beating a 1 is a sign of good depth, your argument is weak. A 16 beat a 1 in the women's tourney years ago. Stanford lost, at home, to Harvard in the late 90s. Ask your wife about it - she'll love telling that story again.

And as for the student journalist who needs to wait before writing... relax. She's a student journalist. You're a grownup. Go ahead and argue with her, but don't be an old grump yelling from the porch.

---

Actually this dude is not abiding (you may be too young to get the reference). The journalist does more damage to her cause then she or you appreciate.

I knew about the Furd- Harvard game, and the circumstances were markedly different. UVA didn't lose two starters (one arguably their best player) to injury right before the game like Furd. we know a woman who was on that Furd team and she confirms what has been said by both head coaches, which was everyone involved in the game realized Harvard was way better than a 16 seed. Harvard had two future pro players and Allison Feaster (who had a ten year pro career) is the best player ever to come out of the Ivy League. BTW, no other team lower than 13 has won a game in the women's NCAA's. The 14 and 15 seeds have won multiple times on the men's side

Insulting language aside, you really don't address the arguments in my post.

I get the reference.

I chose not to address your entire argument, simply pointing out that the 16-1 upset wasn't a good metric to use. I like women's basketball. I like softball. I like women's soccer. The games are different - for some of us, it doesn't have to be better or worse, they are just different.

I responded to your initial post because I just thought it odd, or angry, to bring up some "idiot student journalist." She has an opinion (and, to be clear, I don't know what piece you're referencing). You have an opinion. And, sure, she may know nothing about sports (again, I don't know the article or journalist) but she may know something about gender stereotypes.

She might be thinking of... say... this.... The US men's national soccer team has DOUBLE the average attendance of the women's national soccer team over the last 20 or so years. You don't have to know much about sports to see that the USWNT is very, very good. So what's that about?

We go to games for all sorts of reasons. For some of us, the level and quality of competition may be the driver. I went to Cal football games for decades... and my reason for doing that had very little to do with quality. Obviously! And I went to Cal men's basketball games for decades - and the quality was a little better. It wasn't until I had daughters that I started watching softball (right about the time of steroids and absurd pay for MLB players) and I flipped a switch - since then, I'd rather watch a good softball game than a good basketball game. It wasn't until I taught women on the Cal basketball team that I went to see them and I thought... this might actually be more interesting. Student athletes who really are student athletes. Who knew?

I didn't go to an athletic factory. I went to Berkeley. And my love of sports and my love of what Berkeley represents leads me to find women's sports a great, entertaining watch.

To your point the women sports are different

I've always said I'd rather watch women VB over men's VB because as a casual fan of VB I like the longer rallys

And I don't think I'm the only one. I noticed that people cheered the most after long rally's at the cal beach VB match I attended yesterday

I don't watch tennis, but the same could be said about that sport too I think

wifeisafurd said:

---

140-52 in a NCAA post season game.

Hard to get a following when you have wipe-outs in post season, or a nationally-ranked team like Frud scoring 4 points in a quarter this year, U'Conn scoring 14 points in the half of a championship game and winning, or innumerable number of examples.


The women's game is developing, but the depth of players or competition level is simply not even close to matching the men's game. Consider that the same match-uo among the men, the top number 1 seed vs. a 16 seed resulted in an upset this year.

I'm a fan of the women's game, but the have some idiot student journalist suggest that the reason men have greater attendance is due to sexism ignores the reality of the differences between play and the fact that the men's collegiate game has developed over 100 years and women's basketball came to age mostly in this century, and needs to catch-up. Even women get this. Ask my wife whether she would rather see a men's or women's game (assuming U'Conn women are not one of the teams) and the answer will always be the men's game.

U'Conn is a great example of what happens when you do things the right way. But there needs to be a greater competition and more consistency in play for people to show greater interest. I think that will come, but the Cal student journalist who obviously knows nothing about sports, needs to wait before shooting her pen off.

---

You could have made this exact point without calling a student journalist an idiot. Not necessary and I'm willing to bet she's not an idiot even if her opinion might be wrong or lacks the perspective that you have gained with age and experience. You're way better than this.

HoopDreams said:

---

To your point the women sports are different

I've always said I'd rather watch women VB over men's VB because as a casual fan of VB I like the longer rallys

And I don't think I'm the only one. I noticed that people cheered the most after long rally's at the cal beach VB match I attended yesterday

I don't watch tennis, but the same could be said about that sport too I think

---

I agree, and the same could be said for women's basketball, its closer to the game most of us played if we didn't play in college. But you also go to see competitive matches, not huge blow-outs. Yes?

blungld said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

140-52 in a NCAA post season game.

Hard to get a following when you have wipe-outs in post season, or a nationally-ranked team like Frud scoring 4 points in a quarter this year, U'Conn scoring 14 points in the half of a championship game and winning, or innumerable number of examples.


The women's game is developing, but the depth of players or competition level is simply not even close to matching the men's game. Consider that the same match-uo among the men, the top number 1 seed vs. a 16 seed resulted in an upset this year.

I'm a fan of the women's game, but the have some idiot student journalist suggest that the reason men have greater attendance is due to sexism ignores the reality of the differences between play and the fact that the men's collegiate game has developed over 100 years and women's basketball came to age mostly in this century, and needs to catch-up. Even women get this. Ask my wife whether she would rather see a men's or women's game (assuming U'Conn women are not one of the teams) and the answer will always be the men's game.

U'Conn is a great example of what happens when you do things the right way. But there needs to be a greater competition and more consistency in play for people to show greater interest. I think that will come, but the Cal student journalist who obviously knows nothing about sports, needs to wait before shooting her pen off.

---

You could have made this exact point without calling a student journalist an idiot. Not necessary and I'm willing to bet she's not an idiot even if her opinion might be wrong or lacks the perspective that you have gained with age and experience. You're way better than this.

---

Fair enough, what she said was idiotic and showed her ignorance of sports. She should have have been more informed on the subject as a journalist writing editorial tribe, and she hurt the arguments for women's sports with her sensationalist claims. That may make her a poor journalist, but it doesn't make her an idiot. I apologize.

We just need to give it time. It will gradually work itself out. In no other sport is there such a gap in talent between the top and bottom players ( and teams ) as in girls/women's basketball. The level of play is gradually evening out. More talent is becoming available every year via year round BB. We can see an inkling of that in the mid major wins in the post season. The thing is that the upper level ( top five/ top ten) still has a talent gap from the other teams. And of course Uconn is in another category. It is true that some 16/15 teams do not really belong in the tournament. Still you have to include conference champions because even if now they are not competitive in time they will be.

wifeisafurd said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

To your point the women sports are different

I've always said I'd rather watch women VB over men's VB because as a casual fan of VB I like the longer rallys

And I don't think I'm the only one. I noticed that people cheered the most after long rally's at the cal beach VB match I attended yesterday

I don't watch tennis, but the same could be said about that sport too I think

---

I agree, and the same could be said for women's basketball, its closer to the game most of us played if we didn't play in college. But you also go to see competitive matches, not huge blow-outs. Yes?

---

yes, I hate huge blowouts. win or lose, you want a competitive game/match

one of the reasons I hate UConn. I don't recall there ever has been a dynasty like it in sports, and it seems none of their games are close

but I think UConn is an outlier.

At least the Pac-12 has been quite competitive, and I watch mostly those games.

There are two things that make it non-competitive.

One is there is a smaller pool of girls who play basketball than boys. So if we had a hundred schools playing women's basketball and men's basketball. Then the men might have 1,000 players who can play and women might have only 600.

Second , to excacerate the problem , men give out 13 scholarships and women give out 15. So 600 players for 1500 spots for the women's teams and a 1,000 players for 1300 spots for the men.

And last, Title IX supposed there was an equal interest in males and females. I don't think there is. Women don't attend women's games. I,m a male and I have season tickets and donate to women's basketball. But I don't see many college age women there at the games.

And I don't think the pool is growing. As Clay says, the good girl athletes are moving to volleyball.

About scoring. You have not seen our rugby scores. Cal 135 Stanford 0; Cal 145 Usc 0, both league matches too.

Of course it is not an apples to apples comparison given the relative support and finances between womens basketball and rugby.

Chabbear said:

---

About scoring. You have not seen our rugby scores. Cal 135 Stanford 0; Cal 145 Usc 0, both league matches too.

Of course it is not an apples to apples comparison given the relative support and finances between womens basketball and rugby.

---

It isn't apples to apples in attendance either. Cal at BYU for a championship rugby draws a crowd, but the reality is women's b-ball has materially more fans in the seats. No one that doesn't have a vested interest is at the Cal Sc rugby match, especially after the first 100 points. Having more serious competition might actually be a mixed blessing for Jack.

wvitbear said:

---

And I don't think the pool is growing. As Clay says, the good girl athletes are moving to volleyball.

---

I'm surprised to hear this. The women's basketball game seems far more athletic that say 10 or 20 years ago. Maybe just better coaching and training?

As some who attends WBB games, I haven't seen the crowds really grow much (at least at the games I attend), and I really think the competition has a lot to do with it. But the guy who said women would rather go to men's games is right. At the women's games there are lot of dad-daughter combos in the stands. Seems even more guys than women and not a lot of couples. In asking my better half, see just says the men have better games and moves on quickly to my unfinished honey-dos. I assume she means there is more scoring in men's games. Maybe she should see more Uconn games. 152 points....

About the USC rugby game, that game was part of a double header. The First game was against University of British Columbia which we won 39-36 and arguably this was an upset win for the Bears. That game was well attended. I stayed for the USC game which helps me deal with all of the football defeats

HoopDreams said:

---

To your point the women sports are different

I've always said I'd rather watch women VB over men's VB because as a casual fan of VB I like the longer rallys

And I don't think I'm the only one. I noticed that people cheered the most after long rally's at the cal beach VB match I attended yesterday

I don't watch tennis, but the same could be said about that sport too I think

---

Women's tennis, soccer, volleyball, ice skating, and softball is better than men's to watch when it involves reasonable teams. Women's BB just does not do it for me with the exception of watching the very top teams in action and those games need to be top vs. top, for the drop off seems to be the Grand Canyon.

I think the quality of women's basketball has improved steadily over the past decade or so, at least at the top levels. But at the same time, I think there is less interest at the youth level, and though again, the quality of play for the top teams is higher, the lower levels aren't as strong. (Note that almost no Bay Area high schools have girls' freshmen teams any more, and some struggle to get JV teams together. Volleyball, on the other hand, draws many more to tryouts.)

And the fact that women, in general, are not as interested in team sports (in terms of being a fan) as men is a fact that has become increasingly clear in the past 20 years. In the mid-'90s, at the birth of the ABA and WNBA, there was a hope that once female sports fans were exposed to elite female athletes playing basketball, they would prefer watching women to men, or at least have the same level of interest. That is clearly not the case, at any level, and I think that more than anything has doomed women's sports to niche status.