spts guy's indictment of WNBA

["Ozersky, Joshua A" <OzerskyJA@corning.com>]

This is pretty good.  Something to keep us occupied.

DOES ANYONE LIKE
THE WNBA???
We know that the league is packaged well, but is anybody actually watching? SG has a few thoughts...(8/25 feature) 

	VOTE	



	
I don't know anybody who likes the WNBA.

Those are pretty strong words, so let's repeat them again in italics:

I don't know anyone who likes the WNBA.

I'm a typical guy in his late-twenties. I love sports. I write about sports. I have a large family and lots of friends, most of whom like sports. Heck, even my girlfriend likes sports. So if you're looking for an honest sports opinion, I'm your guy. Honestly, I have nothing against women playing basketball professionally -- they could play full-court in my living room and I wouldn't care, as long as I wasn't trying to sleep or anything. 

With all of that said, I don't know anybody who likes the WNBA.

I'll repeat it in bold, blue, 14-point Rockwell font:

I don't know anyone who likes the WNBA.

In a related story, the WNBA playoffs started last night. All of the games will be televised on ESPN, NBC and the Lifetime Network, even though the average ratings are ten times worse than "Monday Night Raw" and four times lower than regular season baseball. The USA Today devoted an entire page in Tuesday's sports section to a WNBA playoff preview. Every national magazine and cable network will probably send reporters to cover the pivotal playoff games. Even CNN Headline News' "Sports Ticker" and ESPN2's "Sports Scroll" will roll WNBA scores on the bottom of their screens, probably updated to the latest missed field goal.

I mean... does this make sense to anybody? How did we get here?

***** ***** ***** ***** *****
A quick recap: Three major networks and a major sports monolith (the NBA) spent large wads of cash to ensure that the WNBA would be treated like a major player in today's sports world. The logic? "If it seems like a major sport and it looks like a major sport, maybe people will actually think it's a major sport!" 

Thus, we're subjected to weekend games on NBC and weeknight games on ESPN and Lifetime, as well as a glut of impossible-to-stomach newspaper coverage. It's almost as if everyone feels bad that women's sports were neglected for decades and decades, so they're trying to make for it by going completely overboard -- like a father who abandons his kids for ten years and then shows up on Christmas Day with $5,000 worth of gifts. 

"Sorry about what happened, kids! Open your present... look, it's your own basketball league! I bought it just for you!"

Here's the most maddening thing: Nobody involved with the league seems to have a firm grasp on reality. For instance, ESPN broadcaster Robin Roberts is considered one of the champions of the league, tirelessly promoting it during games by shrieking like an hyena whenever a WNBA player makes a 12-foot jumpshot or throws a successful bounce pass. If she sounds excited, well... it must be exciting, right? Roberts recently defended the decline in WNBA fan interest this year by saying, "The WNBA's holding its own after three years. Attendance is down slightly. That's to be expected as the novelty has worn off. But it took the NBA longer to average 9,000 fans than the WNBA did."

Hmmmm... good point. And if the WNBA had started up in 1946 without any television contracts, like the NBA did, people would have been pouring out to see them play.

(Whoops! I didn't realize our pilot had turned on the "No Sarcasm" sign. Sorry about that...)

Newsflash to Robin: The WNBA will never approach the NBA or any of the other major sports leagues, so stop broaching the subject. Seriously, cut it out. You can put WNBA games on the same networks as NBA games, and you can play the games in the same arenas with the same announcers and the same freaking TV graphics, and you can even make www.wnba.com look exactly like www.nba.com... and it still can't change the fact that women's professional basketball will never be a major sports league.

Why? 

Well, I'm glad you asked. 

***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Here are four reasons why the WNBA will never be bigger than a second-rate sport like Arena League Football:

REASON #1: The quality of play
Casual fans ignore the WNBA because there aren't any "highlight film" plays -- no dunks, no rebound slams, no crossovers, no breathtaking plays, and so on. Hardcore fans ignore it because the quality of play doesn't even compare to a Division III men's college game. And those two groups of fans will NEVER change their mind. Fundamentals don't sell; speed, quickness, jumping and dunking sell. After you strip away TV contracts and the "let's finally give these girls their due" media coverage, there's no meat left on the WNBA bone.

Which reminds me... the biggest misnomer about women's basketball is that "the fundamentals are so sound." Watch an entire game from start to finish, sit through all the turnovers, missed layups and clumsy fouls, and then tell me if you think "the fundamentals are so sound." Telling somebody that they have sound fundamentals is a nice way of saying, "You suck." And yet I digress...

REASON #2: The athletes 
Even the most devout feminist would agree that men are better athletes than women -- we're stronger and faster, we're quicker, we're less fragile (Terry Glenn excluded), we can jump higher, and we have better hand-eye coordination. As Captain Ross said in A Few Good Men, "These are all facts. They are indisputable." 

For an all-female sport to succeed with the mainstream public, it needs the perfect blend of athleticism, femininity, emotion and grace before it can happen. On that scale, men can't compete. That's why Americans responded to the Women's World Cup more than they responded to the Men's World Cup. That's why women's tennis is more fan-friendly than men's tennis. That's why women's figure skating and women's gymnastics are shown endlessly in prime-time during the Winter/Summer Olympics. 

And that's why the WNBA fails so miserably -- every ounce of femininity has apparently been drained from the sport. For example, when you think of Mia and the World Cup gang, a phrase like "The girls next door" jumps to mind. When you think of the WNBA players, you think more along the lines of "The girls next on the Jerry Springer show."

Let me interject one thing here: I love women. Seriously, you'd be hard-pressed to find a guy who enjoys females more than me. I think women are more intuitive then men. They're more loyal. They're more sensitive. They're more attentive to detail. They're definitely more attractive. Athletically, women are just as competitive as men. They also wear their emotions on their collective sleeves, a trait which translates well from a fan-friendly standpoint. Yet the WNBA doesn't seem to accentuate many of those qualities, whereas the Women's World Cup accentuated all of them. 

That's a serious problem. Unless it's addressed somehow, the WNBA is earmarked for 0.5 ratings on the Lifetime Network until the Red Sox win the World Series and we have an apocalypse.

REASON #3: The "gay thing"
(Note: I'm walking on eggshells right now)

Let's be honest: The WNBA relies on the gay/lesbian population as a fairly-sizable chunk of its fan base, whether they admit it or not (although having Rosie O'Donnell as a league spokesman seems to be a signed, sealed confession). This isn't exactly a newsflash here; just check out the fans whenever ESPN's cameras zoom around the stadiums during this week's playoffs. And if that's not enough, check out some of the players. And if that's not enough, ask any of your friends who live in WNBA cities how many times they've seen a "WNBA makes big strides in gay community" article in the newspaper over the past few years.

(And if that's not enough... well, did I mention Rosie O'Donnell is a league spokesman?) 

Astoundingly, the WNBA evolved into the first "alternative sports league" over the past three years; going to WNBA games become a hip thing to do in the gay community, especially in New York City. Here's what an alternative website called "www.altCulture.com" wrote about the league last year:

"The NBA's sales prowess was used not to build up players as trash-talking, nasty-as-they-wanna-be rogues, or even wrestling-like sex symbols, but as hard-working, serious athletes (and working mothers downsized NBA arenas with a mix of American and international talent, the WNBA attracted families, mothers and daughters, and, new for a mass-televised team sport, lesbians. As Out Magazine editor Sarah Pettit told Newsweek, 'Next to the Ellen episode, this is the biggest news in the lesbian community all year.'" 

Well... look how "Ellen" ended up. 

As that sitcom's demise proved, mainstream America can't deal with this stuff yet. It's unfortunate, it's unfair and it's disappointing... but it's true. And since the gay "stigma" has been hanging over the league since it launched in June of '96 -- both with the players and its fans -- it's an insurmountable roadblock. Ask yourself this question: Would NBC ever show a WNBA playoff game on prime-time TV? Gimme a break.

It should be fascinating to see how the major corporations involved -- NBC and ESPN -- deal with this down the road (after the first WNBA TV contract expires). The ratings have been laughably absymal, but if they cut ties down the road, it might seem as if they washed their hands of the league because of the lesbian spectre (the gay community will be all over them). On the flip side, spelling bees, Triple-A baseball games and baton-twirling contest have been out-performing WNBA rating this summer. One recent broadcast of a Sunday WNBA game drew a 0.3 in Boston. 0.3! UPN could create a sitcom called "The Ted Sarandis Show" and it would draw higher ratings than that.

Needless to say, I wouldn't want to be an ESPN executive when that first contract is up for renewal. Talk about the ultimate "no-win" situation...

REASON #4: College hoops
As anyone who ever followed a women's hoops team can tell you, the dynamics and emotions involved are undeniably unique (the HBO show about Pat Summitt's Tennessee team captured it perfectly). The players aren't just close... they're like sisters. A distinct "parent-child" relationship evolves between the coach and his/her players. Defense and rebounding are both pivotal -- especially when nobody ever seems to get easy baskets or fast breaks -- so the players kill themselves putting in extra time and effort. Every loss is a tragedy; every win is a triumph. Honestly, it's something you can only appreciate when you're observing it from close range.

How do I know all this? During college, I became a diehard fan of our women's hoop team at Holy Cross: The coach and I were tight ... I knew many of the players ... my then-girlfriend worked part-time in the coach's office ... I scrimmaged with them a few times (and was summarily humbled) ... I even broadcast the first women's game ever heard on Holy Cross campus radio (the 1991 Patriot League semifinals). The one difference? I KNEW the people on the team. It's the same reason I went to women's lacrosse games and men's rugby games. It was my school; of course I cared. 

Just to blow your mind, here's something I wrote about that women's team in '91, after they beat Maryland at home and lost in Auburn in the Final 16:

"This may have been the last great team that Holy Cross will ever have. Our school is deemphasizing athletics, the scholarships are gone and we moved into the nerdy Patriot League. The great coaching minds on campus -- (football coach Mark) Duffner and (women's hoops coach Billy) Gibbons -- we'll surely be gone soon. Recruiting will center more on SAT averages than scoring averages. And that's fine. Maybe that's the way it should be.

"But someday, years from now, maybe the higher-ups will play the tape of the Maryland game. They would see the intensity of Shields, the brilliance of Walker, and the potential of the underclassmen. They'd see the coach willing his team back from the dead, and they'd see the Hart Center as a madhouse instead of a cemetary. Maybe they'd even long for the old days."

Would that game have meant anything to me if I didn't attend one of the schools involved? Of course not. From what I remember, Maryland shot like 22% and everyone on their team fouled out. But being there, being involved, knowing the people... that's what made it special. And that's why I can understand the vantage point of anyone women's college hoop fan -- they're embracing a unique, emotional, passionate human experience. You don't get that package often enough in sports anymore. 

On the other hand, it's a different ballgame when you're spending $75 a ticket to see the Utah Starzz play the New York Liberty at Madison Square Garden. The Liberty aren't blessed with a built-in student fan base like UConn or Tennessee, so all the emotion from the college game gets sucked out of the stands. And the passion from the college game can't be recreated on the professional level -- not with an unbalanced salary structure, not with players changing teams all the time, not with hardened veterans trying to remain in the league, and certainly not with players competing with other players for playing time (and, potentially, more money).

What's left? Not much. 

Nothing I'm paying for, anyway.

***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Before I printed this column, I wanted to give the WNBA one last chance to change my mind -- just to be fair -- so I watched the first ten minutes of a playoff game last night between Detroit and Charlotte. Some notes I jotted down:

* After ten minutes, Charlotte led the game, 6-4. On the bright side, Detroit was at the plate with two runners on and only one out.

* The real losers were the hometown fans who tried to imitate Duke's fans and stand from the opening tap until Detroit's first score (after which they would then all simultaneously sit down and make that "WOOOOSH!" noise). That was the plan, anyway. Unfortunately, Detroit missed its first six shots... by the time somebody banked home a rebound layup four minutes into the game, the fans basically slumped into their seats, semi-conscious and suicidal. Or maybe that was me, I can't remember.

* Speaking of fans, this was a single-elimination playoff game -- do-or-die -- and yet there were probably 2,000-2,500 fans at the game at the Palace in Auburn Hills, tops. What does that tell you? 

* Charlotte had a player who was so scary-looking that I called my buddy Gus at work and said, "Turn on ESPN... Rick Mahorn signed with the WNBA today." He turned the channel and screamed out "Oh my God! Good Lord!" We then argued for the next ten minutes whether the player in question looked like Rick Mahorn in drag, or just plain Rick Mahorn, without any added spruce-ups. The argument was never really resolved.

(My point is this: For a female professional sport, these aren't the types of casual conversations that fans should be having. It's not the WNBA's fault -- it's nobody's fault -- it's just a simple fact that helps kill the league. Every game feels like a Novotna/Sanchez-Vicario match, multiplied by ten.)

* During thirty minutes of observing reaction shots in the stands, I didn't see one male fan between the ages of 18 to 35. Not a one. Imagine being an ad executive watching on TV, knowing that the 18-to-35 male is THE most important demographic because those are the people most likely to switch products after being coerced by an ad... and yet none of those people are interested in the WNBA?

* The two teams started off the game shooting a sizzling 4-for-34 combined from the field. That wasn't a typo. Have you ever SEEN 30 missed shots in ten minutes? It's like watching a car start skidding next to you on the Mass Pike, only the skid lasts from Framingham to Newton before the car crashes into an unsuspecting toll booth worker.

When you think about it, the odds are almost impossible. 30 out of 34? I mean, did you ever think you'd see something that would make you long for the halycon offensive days of the NBA this summer?

Me neither.

***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Here's some unsolicited advice for the people in charge of the WNBA, four tips that would definitely help the league as we approach the end of the millennium:

1. The league needs to stop trying to position itself like a major player in the sports world. Female athletes have made tremendous strides over the past two decades; it's not a quest for rights anymore, it's a quest for respect. And you can't fight for respect the way you fight for your rights -- you earn respect.

A professional women's basketball league will get there if and when it appeals to all different groups of people, the same way our women's soccer team crossed all boundaries last month. Right now, the WNBA doesn't do that. It doesn't even come close. 

2. Along those same lines, the entire league needs a makeover. Obviously some players aren't salvageable -- like the 7-foot-6 center who played for L.A. last year -- but there's no reason why 95% of the players should look like they just rolled out of Kitty Glitter's Bar & Grill. Personally, I could care less -- I ignore the WNBA because the games are unwatchable -- but the league is turning off large chunks of fans because the majority of players look too masculine. If that offends you, I'm sorry. I'm just expressing the sentiments of, well, pretty much everyone I know.

(Ironically enough, female viewers are more turned off by those things than men. I asked a few female friends what they thought of the WNBA yesterday and every one of them mentioned the bizarre haircuts -- you know, that "Somebody just slimed me with Ghostbusters goo and then Luther Vandross sat on my head" look. Men just get turned off by stuff like that; women get legitimately outraged and bummed out.)

Hey, if you're truly trying to position youself as an "alternative" league, then fine -- just tells us that. But don't expect the general public to embrace a women's sports league where femininity is the exception, not the norm.

3. Along those same lines, the second-biggest misnomer about the WNBA -- with the players being "fundamentally sound" being #1 -- is that the league will succeed because little girls/teenagers finally have their own "NBA." In other words, Sheryl Swoopes can be their Michael Jordan, they can dream about playing in the WNBA some day, and so on. On paper, it makes sense; unfortunately, most young girls would rather watch the best players in the world (NBA and men's college players) than watch an inferior brand of play just because the players involved are women.

Two years ago I asked my teenage cousins -- Katie and Carrie -- whether they would watch the WNBA when it started up. Both of them are budding jocks; in fact, Carrie ended up starting at point guard for her high school as a ninth grader last year. But when I asked them about the WNBA, they were adamant that they wouldn't watch it. Carrie said, "None of our friends will watch it either. It's boring. They can't dunk or jump or anything." And Katie added, "What are we gonna watch it and be like, Whoa, that was a cool bounce pass!"

Surprisingly, the biggest thing they mentioned two years ago -- which I declined to put in my column about the WNBA's debut at the time -- was that my cousins were frightened of the players themselves. If little girls see women's soccer players and say to themselves, "Look at those girls... I want to be just like them some day," then they look at the WNBA players and say to themselves, "Yikes!" And that's the truth. 

4. Finally, the biggest turnoff in sports -- and maybe even in life -- is somebody hyping a mediocre product. For instance, this week I saw a television ad for an action movie starring Skeet Ulrich and Cuba Gooding Jr. which promised to be "this summer's wildest ride!" Gimme a break. Skeet Ulrich and Cuba Gooding Jr? That movie should just premiere on an airplane and save everyone the time and aggravation.

The WNBA announcers are guilty of the same stuff -- they're constantly trying to tell us "What a play!" or "What a look!" or even "What a layup!" It's a joke. For instance, last month I watched the final few minutes of the WNBA All-Star Game while awaiting the first notes of the "Baseball Tonight" music -- "DUH, DA-DA-DA DAH DAH... DAH!" We've all been there. It's 10:25, you're half-asleep, you need some baseball highlights and you're too lazy to flip around anymore, so you just give up and flip to ESPN until "Baseball Tonight" comes on. On this particular night, I was privileged to watch the last ten minutes of the inaugural WNBA All-Star Game, which most certainly won't be re-aired on Classic Sports any time soon. 

With three minutes left, the score was something like 70-58 -- that's in an All-Star Game, mind you -- and the West was shooting a gaudy 33% from the field. After about ten straight back-and-forth possessions of women throwing passes off the scorer's table and the basket supports, the East broke out on a 2-on-1 and somebody threw a no-look pass that led to a lay-up. Of course, the nearly-hysterical Robin Roberts started yelping, "What a pass! What a pass! Ohhhhh... THEY'RE PUTTING ON A SHOW HERE!"

(Quick note to ESPN: Hook electrodes up to Robin and just give her a little jolt of juice whenever she gets carried away. Seriously. I'm speaking on behalf of everyone in the country here.)

Anyway, that "Look at us! We're as good as you!" mentality just won't work in America in the late-90's. Our society is too cynical -- we love making fun of things like Robin Roberts screaming "Ohhhhh... THEY'RE PUTTING ON A SHOW HERE!" And everyone is exhausted by that "Godzilla: the Movie" mentality which is threatening to submarine our entire culture -- these days, the quality of a product doesn't matter as long as the packaging of the product is first-rate. 

With the WNBA, the packaging is first-rate. The league has been marketed impeccably and given every possible chance to succeed. Nobody can argue that point. But it's still a mediocre product and a second-rate league. 

Nobody can argue that point, either.

And that's just one more reason why I don't know anybody who likes the WNBA.