Since when does government public policy dictate what is covered in the media. This is the USA not China.
To clarify, people are interested in public policy and issues about society in general, and women in pro sports will get bonus coverage and interest as a result, independent of the entertainment value provided on the court itself. Nowhere did I say "the government mandates coverage of the WNBA." (P.S. I won't digress into an anti-Rumsfeld and Cheney tirade about government policy dictating press coverage, but I will leave that to your imagination)
There's no use really arguing this point. I think we can all agree its gets the coverage it gets because of three letters: N B A
Point 1: WNBA does NOT receive very much coverage to begin with. Point 2: What little coverage they do receive is very much tied to their big brother, especially on ESPN. Andy
Query: If I post that I agree with this post, will Andy B disagree with it? I guess I'll just up my standing to 94%
Jumping into the fray if I may... This is exactly my biggest problem with ESPN. They show MLS every week on ESPN2, but never do I see a highlight from a match on Sportscenter. Never do I see an interview with Clint Mathis or Landon Donovan (World Cup not included.) I just don't understand it. If you offer a product, wouldn't you want to use your number one venue to promote it? Food for thought... Does ESPN havve the deal with MLS, just so that ABCDISNEY could get the rights to the World Cup? Since losing the Yankees, MSG has paid much more attention to the Metrostars. It has started it's own Metrostars pre-game show, and is featuring almost nightly Metrostars reports during it's SportsDesk broadcast. Not knowing the specifics, I can't speak regarding attendance at Giants Stadium, but from what I've read, viewership of Metrostars games on MSG has gone up. Is this mere coincidence? I'm not so sure.
Great post about the metros on msg. It just shows that any business is about marketing and promotion. I watch MSG sportsdesk all the time and they treat the metros like they do any other major sports team in the area with game previews, analysis, features, etc. As a result, people start following these stories and then are intrigued to watch the game. According to the NY times, since msg started doing this with the metros their matches have now passed the islanders and devils in the ratings. This is even more impressive considering tv viewership is lower in the summer. Thats what makes the overall lack of promotion in the media so frustrating.
Washington also requires purchase of WNBA season tickets with NBA season tickets. (I'm not sure if they do it with everyone, but they definately do it with some.) Therefore, the "profitability" you see is actually from counting money that people paid to see Michael Jordan as Mystics revenue. And don't believe that actual attendance is anything close to announced attendance. I know MLS has occasionally been accussed of using misleading attendance numbers, but the WNBA (specifically Washington) is an absolute joke. I get a chuckle out of seeing the "WNBA Attendance Champion" banners at MCI center.
ESPN does not offer MLS. MLS (SUM) buys time on ESPN. It is not too much different than an infomercial on a local station. You will rarely if ever see the local station promoting a infomercial. SUM bought the rights to the 2002 and 2006 WC. SUM entered an agreement with Disney to show the WC on Disney, if Disney would also clear some space for MLS games. http://www.mlsnet.com/content/01/mls0102wctv.html
Well, baseball has decided to strike. Therefore, there will be room for MLS, WUSA, and WNBA on our radar screens. Would it be so for SportsCenter!
No, they've set a date. They haven't decided to strike, big difference. Room on the radar screen and an inclination to put something on the radar screen are different as well.
I always tell people I wish I had the money to buy a Corvette. I don't want to buy a Corvette, I just wish I had the money.
Oh, sorry. I was just trying to follow along in the great BS tradition of misreading posts and putting words in others mouths. Sorry to hear you had to sell your Corvette. . .
WNBA attendence numbers after the first 8 games: 6,038 Charlotte 6,693 Utah 8,187 LA 9,241 Houston 9,686 Seattle 10,198 Indiana 10,988 NY 14,117 Wash Compare these numbers to the actual attendence given as a season average. Here, you do not have freebees being given. You have less of a fudge factor in terms of actual attendence. In other words, these number better reflect what a team is actually drawing on a semi regular basis. New York, LA, Houston and Washington are all noteworthy, because those are the big four. In all cases, attendence is significantly lower. Of course, the caveat is that it is the playoffs, and most of these games were played on the weekend, which is a good attendence draw for the WNBA. That specifically applies to Seattle and Indy.
You also have (a) for the most part, I'm guessing, season ticket holders not necessarily included. I don't know if the WNBA, with a short postseason, includes playoff games in your season ticket package, I would think that would be pretentious and I'd doubt it, so you don't have that base to start from; and (b) a short period of time to actually sell tickets, especially group tickets, which are key to getting good numbers. Those two factors are the same for playoffs in any league at this level (outside the Big Four), and your suggestion that it shines the Great Big Light of Truth on WNBA Attendance Fudges isn't exactly telling the whole story. And it could be because of the reasons outlined above, couldn't it? I mean, if you're going to fudge, what's to stop you from fudging the same way in the playoffs as you do in the regular season?