Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"It's game-changing" (NWHL)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)

    Originally posted by agfire View Post
    What is the WNBA??
    Originally posted by Russell Jaslow View Post
    I think there are actually three people in the entire world who care...
    This is awfully rich coming from fans of a sport that is about 100x more niche than WBB is.
    Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
    Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
    Twitter: @Salzano14


    Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)

      Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
      This is awfully rich coming from fans of a sport that is about 100x more niche than WBB is.
      I was waiting for this. :-)

      Like CrossCheck alluded to, women's pro team sports can't survive without subsidies. How many pro women's soccer leagues have we've gone through? My knock against the WNBA wasn't just a knock against women's basketball, it was a knock against a sport that only survives because the men subsidize it. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean anyone cares about the sport.

      Individual women's pro sports tend to do pretty good -- tennis, golf, figure skating. But team pro sports just can't get the proper following.
      Russell Jaslow
      [Former] SUNYAC Correspondent
      U.S. College Hockey Online

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)

        Originally posted by Russell Jaslow View Post
        I was waiting for this. :-)

        Like CrossCheck alluded to, women's pro team sports can't survive without subsidies. How many pro women's soccer leagues have we've gone through? My knock against the WNBA wasn't just a knock against women's basketball, it was a knock against a sport that only survives because the men subsidize it. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean anyone cares about the sport.

        Individual women's pro sports tend to do pretty good -- tennis, golf, figure skating. But team pro sports just can't get the proper following.
        I mean you're not wrong!

        Also I've always found it strange that women's individual pro sports do well and the team sports don't. I've never really been able to come up with a strong enough reason to persuade myself why that is.
        Grant Salzano, Boston College '10
        Writer Emeritus, BC Interruption
        Twitter: @Salzano14


        Click here for the BC Interruption Pairwise, KRACH, and GRaNT Calculators

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)

          Originally posted by TonyTheTiger20 View Post
          Also I've always found it strange that women's individual pro sports do well and the team sports don't. I've never really been able to come up with a strong enough reason to persuade myself why that is.
          I have no idea how well the LPGA does, but I can lay out some of the reasons that women's tennis is a success:

          1) For a while, women's tennis was simply a better sport than men's. (I'm talking about singles here; I have no explanation for why the rest of the world doesn't recognize the obvious fact that doubles is a vastly more interesting sport to watch.) Men's tennis has become nothing but huge serves, nifty service returns, and then monotonous baseline rallies if neither of those end the point. It's as if the entire world has nothing but clay surfaces anymore. Unfortunately, the women's game has headed down a similar path the last few years. Requiring everyone to play with 1974 racket technology would lead to an enormous improvement in the game, but they can't do anything in that direction, because the sport is in thrall to the equipment companies.

          2) There have been stretches during which women's tennis has had more compelling rivalries and outcomes than men's. For all that sports fans will tell you that they want wide open fields in which anyone can win, their money strongly suggests that they are lying when they do. They want dominant players/teams. The Williams sisters have provided that, with the icing of controversy and outspokeness. Among the Big 4 that has dominated the men's side since, roughly, the days of ancient Egypt, I like Federer and Murray (Djokovic and Nadel not so much), but between the four of them, there isn't enough displayed personality to fill a thimble. It's been easier to get excited about the women's side of the draws.

          3) Probably most importantly, there has been a long succession of female players who have demanded equal prize money and equal treatment (including having matches featured at center court) at the majors. The most obvious is Billie Jean King, but she was hardly alone. From the dawn of the Open era, and the rise in prize money that went along with it, the women have been unified in their goals. They've been pulling off the same act that the U.S. national hockey team did last spring for 45 years. They've developed the same culture that the MLB players' union has, in which the top players remain committed to the collective goals. Insisting on being as much a part of the spectacle of the major tournaments as the men resulted in the audience becoming as invested in them. Unfortunately, I don't see how to replicate this, because tennis is unique in having all four of its showpiece events every year putting the men and the women together in the event, and not just every four years in the Olympics. It's just a lot harder to pay attention only to the men than it is in, say, hockey.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)

            "Voices grow louder for merger . . ."

            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/s...ef=todayspaper

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by thirdtime's . . . View Post
              "Voices grow louder for merger . . ."

              https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/s...ef=todayspaper
              Clearly one league is the answer to the viable future of professional women's hockey. The top current and former players all agree about that. The problem is the wrong people are in charge of each league. Andress and Rylan both have selfish personal agendas that are in the way of a successful future and merger of both leagues. The players of both leagues need to force the issue on both Andress and Rylan in the same way the US National team forced USA Hockey to listen to them recently. Andress has been viewed as a self-serving dinosaur in girls'/women's hockey in Ontario for years. Rylan shouldn't want to have the same type of reputation on this side of the border but it sounds like she's well on her way to having a very similar negative reputation. Time for both to be removed from power for the betterment of women's hockey at large. The NHL will be much more inclined to give its support once one league is formed, and the NHL's support is going to be needed for the new league (WNHL) to survive and succeed.
              Last edited by shelfit; 11-02-2017, 11:51 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)

                CWHL going for a game-changer of its own:

                https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/s...dayspaper&_r=0

                Comment

                Working...
                X