She got us one time in 2018. On another note, Paopao is really playing well for the Atlanta Dream. She may make All-Rookie if she keeps playing this way.
WNBA ratings down 50% since Clark injury
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
So, GS has Amihere and Hall now. Amihere got brought back by them last week.
Nobody is a WNBA fan. Anyone who watches the WNBA is a Clark fan.
TV Ratings For Caitlin Clark's Return Game Say It All
Caitlin Clark's five-game absence from the Indiana Fever's lineup was a tough stretch for the WNBA — which reportedly saw a massive ratings decline as she nursed a quad injury. According to USA Today, league-wide viewership was down 55% during her time away. With nationally televised Fever games ...
sports.yahoo.com
Clark gone. Ratings suck.
Clark back. Ratings great.
I wouldn't say nobody and Basketball fatigue was an excuse I use to give for not watching the WNBA. Just being honest, I was being a chauvinist. I know I am not watching just for Caitlin Clark and don't think most USC Lady Gamecock fans are watching for Caitlin Clark. No, the league will never be one of our major 3-4 sports. However, they have their pockets of fans and it can grow if it is marketed right. As much credit as some give the the NBA for providing charity to the WNBA, they apparently don't assist much in the way of marketing because the sport is poorly marketed. They only promote 2-3 players. There are very few stories on the players. Two teams will be playing that don't include Caitlin Clark or A'ja Wilson and there will be WNBA commercials promoting those two players instead of the players actually playing in the game. ESPN just does a much better job with Women's College Basketball than the WNBA. I wonder what will happen when it sinks in that Clark is still a young, sometimes inconsistent player on a mid-tier team. So, this focus on Clark has no staying power whatsoever unless this team turns it around at some point and starts winning. You can't have losses to expansion teams, Golden State Valkyries, where that team is missing 4 starters but still beats you by double digits.Nobody is a WNBA fan. Anyone who watches the WNBA is a Clark fan.
TV Ratings For Caitlin Clark's Return Game Say It All
Caitlin Clark's five-game absence from the Indiana Fever's lineup was a tough stretch for the WNBA — which reportedly saw a massive ratings decline as she nursed a quad injury. According to USA Today, league-wide viewership was down 55% during her time away. With nationally televised Fever games ...
Clark gone. Ratings suck.
Clark back. Ratings great.
Isn't "Lady Gamecock" technically an impossible thing unless we are embracing transgenderism?
A Lady Gamecock is called a Hen.
Yeah, I had a little hyperbole there. I know there are some genuine WNBA fans.
The main reason...only reason I guess...I don't watch women's basketball is simply that it's less athletic than MBB. I liken it to car racing. For NASCAR fans, would they want to watch car races that take place at highway speeds? Of course not. I know Clark is a phenomenal female athlete and she would make me look like an utter fool on the court (but an average high school girls basketball player would as well!), but as a fan, I just don't care to watch an athletically inferior version of that sport. Of course, I know that's just my own opinion and some out there find the WNBA fascinating, and that's fine. Just to me, everything they do looks awkward, from the running, to shooting, to layups, etc. When a player steals the ball and has a wide open breakaway, you're used to seeing that be a dunk. But the women do this little hop step layup instead. And then when things get choppy, there's nothing as awkward as seeing women fight.
I thought we ditched that adjective. Now we could keep it and add "Gentelmen Gamecock" iif you want.
Everyone has their own personal preferences, I am more into the strategy and the "Why" a team wins. Guess I am more of a hardcore basketball guy. I have even taken a couple trips out to Las Vegas for the NBA Summer League which is full of rookies and players that may or may not make a roster. I have never gotten the differentiation between the College and Professional versions of the game especially in today's NIL times where College sports is just Professional Sports with less talented players. As I said earlier, my failure to watch the WNBA before a couple years ago was just my male hang-ups. As I have watched the WNBA, I see how much talent is there. If you watch players like a Kelsey Plum, I don't see how you can't appreciate her skill level if you really know basketball. Same thing with a Napheesa Collier. Just so many hidden gems that are just not being marketed as they should.
Last edited:
You don’t have to explain yourself 18, you either are into something are you’re not! A good many sports out there I could care less about, I watch a ton of baseball, but I had a hard time watching the yard cocks this year! Lifes short, enjoy what you like, put the rest to the side!
I don't watch much basketball at all, regardless of level of play. Basketball in general has become a ghetto thug sport and I have no interest in that "kulture". Even the women have gone all in on the ghetto thug nature of the sport.
So, what exactly makes it ghetto sir. Actually, many of the players now are children of ex-players that grew up in gated communities. (I struggle to see Steph Curry and Klay Thompson as ghetto, SMH). You don't have to be that way because the people you want to see can't win.
Last edited:
College women's basketball doesn't feel thuggish to me.
And MLB has too much "manufactured" drama to me. I can't stand Fox coverage of the sport (nothing political about it).
I still despise interleague regular season play. That's also a turnoff to me.
Most of the basketball people I know say the sport is too soft now, male or female, and that the scores are too high because the referees won't let you play defense.
I don't watch enough women's college basketball (or any women's college sports) to be able to respond with any knowledge.
MLB is ruined. Interleague play, pitch clock, asinine extra inning rule with runner on 2nd base, designated hitters and the announcers are awful.
Just take heed of your username and go fishing. Sounds like you have gotten old and angry and don't like anything.
Teams brought the pitch clock upon themselves by abusing the time. For decades, this was not an issue. Thanks for bringing up the DH. I don't like it as well. In principle, if you play in the field, you should take your turn at bat as well.
If a team wants to walk a batter, throw four balls. Dumb and false way to shorten a game by "automatically" putting the runner on without throwing a single pitch..
I'm not familiar with the extra inning rule with runner on 2nd base, but it sounds sacrilegious.
While the announcers are not part of the on-field play, nonetheless I find the hyped-up drama off-putting.
The college game is tolerable for me because there's no hyped-up drama from the TV broadcast,
If a game goes to extra innings, the extra innings start with one of the team at bat's runners on 2nd base. This supposedly saves time as it makes scoring easier and helps reduce the number of pitches thrown. This rule only applies in regular season game.
I detest the pitch clock, but it's kind of like the fake injury thing in college football. Taking extra time between pitches was always part of the game, but used to be used strategically, like letting a reliever get warmed up, but it just got out of control and had to be corrected.
Starting extra innings with a runner on 2nd is absurd. Sounds like something from little league. I could maybe grudgingly understand doing it if you get to like 13 or 14 innings with no sign of either team breaking through.
I just realized the NL adopted the DL. Though the vast majority of fans don't know MLB without a DH, I thought it was a neat distinction between the leagues.
They have to tailor these games to the modern fan. Modern fans are not going to sit there and watch a 3 1/2 - 4 hour game. These changes have markedly cut the time down for these games. The modern fan is definitely not going to sit there for 6 hours for an 18 inning game. That is the purpose for the man on second. I stopped watching baseball for all the time reasons that brought on these changes. I still can only get through 2-3 innings at a time now. Game is still too slow for me, but I can see that it's a better product now, at least for me. I don't even have a problem with the DH and definitely not with Interleague play. I think it's cool seeing the Yankees play the Mets during the season or Atlanta going up to Boston. I get tradition, but you don't have to do the same thing the same way every time.
If you're only watching 2 or 3 innings, why would you care at all about what the rules are or who plays who? That is like watching one quarter of a football game and complaining about the injury timeouts making the game last too long.
I guess it's cool seeing Atlanta play three innings in Boston?
On an unrelated note, why do WNBA players arrive pre-game dressed like prostitutes?
...because I was a baseball fan that grew out of it due to all the issues with slow play and time as I described. I grew up playing baseball, loved watching it as a kid, but the TV product just lost me with guys rubbing on their pants leg for 45 seconds and other things that I just found ridiculous. Still try to come back to it periodically and acknowledge that I like a lot of the changes, but still can't get through a whole game. If I try to, it will put me to sleep every time. I am 58, and the slowness of the game bothers me. So, you know with men in the age range that the media targets the most, 35-54, it bothers them. The media is not going to cater to men my age or older. Therefore, I understand the changes even though I am not a hardcore baseball fan.
Last edited:
They are trying to do their version of NBAFits. They see the NBA guys, many times in outlandish outfits, getting attention on social media. You have to remember that most of these players are in their 20s. If you go to a prom in this day and age, you would be shocked by what they deem appropriate.
Into at least the 1950s, a typical game ran no longer than 2½ hours. Why is that? No TV? Would rather the leagues go back and adjust to that time period instead of all these (IMO) ridiculous changes.
TV has really messed up sports overall. Look at what it has done to college football.
Honestly, I think watching a baseball game on tv is the absolute worst way to experience a baseball game. The "action" of a baseball game is too slow for tv. I enjoy watching a game in person and I enjoy listening to a game on the radio while I'm driving or doing something else.
No, it didn't. I guess maybe you could blame ESPN? It was when college games became widely available that the downfall of the sport began. It was awesome to be able to see all, or at least most, of your team's games where you might previously have only seen one or two over the course of a season. Back in the JP Game of the Week days, things were fine. Once money started being thrown around like crazy, it was all downhill from there. Some trace it back to Notre Dame's first contract with NBC in 1991. At some point, TV took full and complete control of the sport.
Exactly, which brings in more commercials! I can hardly watch a golf tournament anymore other than a major, it's gotten ridiculous! The good side is we get to every game of the teams we love without leaving the house, so it's a good trade off!
I suppose it's a good tradeoff, except that the money has eroded everything about the game. If you took all the TV money out of the game, all the ills of the current game like never come to pass, including NIL and transfer portal.
But, yes, commercials. Remember when they said they were changing the clock rules to shorten games by not stopping the clock after 1st downs? And then games ended up being just as long because they only added more commercials? Yeah.