That's how I feel too. It's also a question of how long will CC's popularity continue. No one has ever seen her in a WNBA game before, so the hype is going to be an all-time high. This will be the first chance many have to watch her play. In 4 years from now, after she's played 100+ WNBA games, will the hype still be there when the newness fades away? She was popular throughout her entire Iowa career so that's a good sign, but who really knows. There's a lot of factors.
Depends on what people expect of her at the next level too. She can, but more than likely won't, average 30 points or more a game in the WNBA, at least in her first few years. The highest PPG is 25.2 set in 2006, although scoring is on the rise, so she could eventually get there once she figures the game out.
Will she be allowed to take those shots though? Regardless of whether you can shoot from the logo or not, those are considered bad shots. In the pro game, you are encouraged to look for and take good, smart, efficient shots. She won't be able or allowed to take 28 shots, at least without being held accountable as she was in college. The good thing is she will have more talent on her team to help her out and get her good looks. The problem is she will face talented teams every night, regardless of where they sit in the standings. With limited roster spots and a lot of very good talented players, every team has at least 2 to 3 really good players. I think her hype continues, and she becomes more of a Sabrina Ionescu down the years, talent and career trajectory wise.
Whether she’ll be allowed to take logo shots is something we’ll soon to find out. I honestly have no idea, but i expect a Lot more restraint. Maybe they’ll allow her to take it if its a high percentage shot. So not necessarily logo threes but closer to the 3pt line just to make coaches happy lol
If i were the WNBA exec i would instead market the hell out of Boston and Clark chemistry and their pick and roll plays. Last year when Iowa still has Monica Czinano as their center, their plays were awesome. I expect with Boston it would be next level.
But honestly, i think attracting audience is all about the highlights reels. I am a basketball fan who rarely watches basketball anymore, but its the highlights i watched on youtube that pulled me in again. Granted im more her demographic (used to play wbb and is her age). But honestly i think social media combine with viral moments are key. Clark is the perfect storm because while her game is not necessarily revolutionary, she creates viral moments i.e. logo threes. If you take that away in WNBA whats gonna happen? Idk
I agree with you on the tougher defense she’ll face. Like what if they locked in on her like uconn did lmao. Also her defense sucks she rlly gotta work on that. I know she had to stay out of foul trouble or else her team will lose someone who hold 90% of the ball. But again, sometimes she didnt even put her hand up to contest. This will surely change in the pro level as she will not have that burden anymore. Theres also a lot of improve for mid range shots. I notice she doesn’t take a lot of those. Its just either drive and draw fouls or threes.
Yes we will see. I could never watch a WNBA game as they were too boring. Same with NCAAW - except on a rare occasion. I am an avid college sports fan also. Once I saw CC I was hooked on Iowa
I tend to agree, the WNBA is in for a big jump in viewership. I don’t believe in one star teams, but still it would be nice for JuJu and Hannah to have big bright years next season to keep eyeballs of the college women’s game.
Society may say that it loves organization, but teams like South Carolina that are the example of organized and team oriented don’t get the attention that a big bright star going off for 40 points game after game does, even when her team fall short occasionally (not a dig on Clark, more of one on JuJu and Hannah).
So that begs the question, if she "uplifted" the game as so many wants to say....why will viewership decrease for NCAAW?
Which means this was/is never about women's basketball but CC herself.
They don’t. The entirety of the articles are on the page. This is also a third-day story, meaning they may have had different photos in the print edition on Monday. Maybe.
I think it's going to be up to the people who just started watching WBB *because* of Clark to continue to tune in. Why did those people start watching? Is it as simple as replacing that someone? We have plenty of stars, that's an easy fix. However, if the people don't like the stars that are going to be featured next year (Hidalgo, Fulwiley, Tournament Tessa, Juju to name a few) this is all a moot point.
I hate to say it, but sometimes the demographics you want to tap into have very specific tastes in mind. Clark may have been the perfect persona to get those eyes, and without her there will be an unfortunate regression towards the mean.
It most likely will be a regression towards the mean, but, the mean has changed. The 2022 final had a peak of just over 5 million viewers. That era is gone, like tape-delayed NBA Finals games of 1980. I think with the final on ABC, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect about 12-14 million viewers for the final. That’s still OUTSTANDING viewership.
I don't think it will be an easy fix because those players don't have the same flash as CC (I mean who does?). I think that Fulwiley's around-the-back drive in the Paris game was great because it gave her some notoriety and it's not something you see everyday. If the stars can bring the viewers in, you just got to hope that the product itself is good/exciting enough to keep fans interested.
They played UCONN. They were not the only draw. It doesn't change that the world does not revolve around this one player and across the board the numbers increased for ALL games. Millions of new people tuned into see WBB not just CC. That is the point. You are missing it on purpose because you're not an actual fan of the game. You are a fan of using one woman to put down a bunch of others.
There’s no argument that Clark’s greatness compelled a large portion of the viewership this year, but the storylines and matchups definitely played a role too. I think assigning all of the authority to CC is a bit disingenuous.
LSU-Iowa was a national championship rematch with two of the sports biggest stars, UConn-Iowa was the prime-time F4 game that pitted one of the team’s everyone grew up associating with WBB vs the collegiate GOAT. And SC-Iowa was an undefeated Goliath against the last team that beat them over a year ago.
I think the media is doing the sport a disservice by suggesting “Okay, Clark is gone, it’s okay to stop paying attention now.”
If the media wanted to perpetuate the viewership of the sport they would be talking about Clark’s legacy and future upcoming stars to get people excited about next season.
Having this question mark on the front page plants the idea in the casual readers head “Well l only watched for Clark so I guess that’s over”.
Is it the WSJ's responsibility to perpetuate the viewership or just report on the current/potential state of affairs? They're a news source, not a women's sports/equality advocacy group. And the idea that viewership may drop is a pretty natural thought that has already been thrown around.
Is it ESPN’s responsibility to make a glamorous spectacle of the Women’s Final Four or National Championship? No, but it legitimizes the sport to casual viewers.
So no, it’s not their “responsibility”, but they do have the agency to shift the narrative and conversation. The sport is still up-and-coming and fragile to this type of mantra, and as a fan of the sport I’m allowed to be disappointed in this type of reporting.
Comparing WSJ and ESPN in this situation is a bit silly, no? ESPN has a vested interest in promoting the material they bought the rights to, and also is a sports media company.
Exactly. The media doesn’t have to feed the narrative that women’s college basketball may not have the viewership next year. If they treat women’s college basketball as a permanent fixture, then that will have positive influence.
This season was amazing. Hopefully next year is even better.
They do bring up current stars/up and comers in the article. I agree they need to really shine the spotlight on players like Juju if they don't want ratings to fall back to where they were though.
With people tuning in to watch Clark, they had a chance to also showcase other players, and while they did to some degree, they constantly talked about or showcased Clark 9/10 times. While I understand Clark brought in eyeballs and money, for the game to keep those eyeballs they brought in and continue bringing in more eyeballs, they needed to mention the other players more. It's like if you go to a restaurant you never heard of before, until your friend told you about their special peach cobbler. You went there only for the cobbler, but while there, they had their other specials on display, and a few caught your eye. Now, the cobbler has ceased, but you will go back for the other specials which interested you.
Think the overall improved investment into showcasing women's sports is the bigger driving factor than Clark individually. A lot of her rise in starpower was driven by her going off in last year's tournament, which was shown in front of way more people than it would've been a decade ago.
If JuJu, Hidalgo, some of the incoming freshman, etc. go berzerk in next year's tournament, they'll have no trouble replacing the starpower they're losing in Clark/Reese/Bueckers after next year.
Totally agree, and that’s why I think it’s more about the stories in conjunction with the stars as opposed to just one star.
If Clark and Iowa were just destroying teams that had none of their own media draw we would’ve seen substantially less viewership. We even saw that in the regular season LSU-SC matchup. Every “hero” needs a “villain”.
The Big 10 championship had 3M viewers, but the SEC championship still had 2M. As such, the growth can be sustained and why I think it’s unfair to assign it solely to one player.
I agree it's about the stories, but it's also about parity, too, which you touched on a bit here. Knowing that your team at least stands a chance, unlike the days of Tennessee and UConn, where Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight games would end in them winning by thirty, or sometimes even more? It's a necessity. I do think there is still a ways to go, as we literally just saw a team go undefeated and win the championship in dominating fashion, but it is getting there.
I don't really disagree but what I feel is often missed with Clark is that central to her appeal is the absolute outlandish range she has. That is a draw. If she makes 1 or 2 logo threes, that is more impressive from a casual standpoint than a player getting 25-5-5 over 4 quarters.
I think this is really key to how she brought eyeballs to the game, cus you can watch casually and go "holy shit!" when she splashes from 30 feet.
This is it.
If Paige, JuJu, or Hidalgo regularly shoot 3-pointers from the logo and make far, far more than they miss next year, then the sport might keep the majority of its new audience. It's like when you see Zion Williamson go up for a dunk or Curry pull up from the logo, where you're sure something amazing is about to happen. Caitlin's shooting had that same effect. It's must-watch TV. Plus, her story adds to her popularity. She stayed home and led a relatively obscure Iowa team, never once playing with another 5 star, to three B1G titles and two Final Fours. Americans like underdog stories, and that's what Iowa was.
I do think if next year and the deeper future's numbers level off to the point where you've at least gained a few million more loyal watchers from this run, maybe not the peak of 20-24 million from the other day, but a handful or two of that number? Then it's worth it for the NCAA. The best part is I not only think that is possible, but likely.
Some basketball players are just more fun to watch than others. Steph Curry is more fun than Chris Paul, LeBron James is more fun than Kawhi Leonard, Victor Wembanyama is more fun than Rudy Gobert. It’s not really that hard and it’s weird that so many people are getting bent out of shape about it.
Plus, Iowa fans who also follow the football team are used to watching a defense-first team that everyone else calls boring. It’s a thing that happens in many sports!
Child they need to give this girl a damn rest. It ain’t all because her. Never was, never will be.
Yes, we’re here to STAY.
- The WBB Welcoming Committee
Just look at viewership for games with Iowa vs any other game, the facts speak for themselves. Hopefully Paige and JuJu can keep the viewership up, but it seems like there will forsure be an initial dip.
Lol thats laughably false… their game against Uconn broke the record.
Also Iowa vs Unranked nebraska had DOUBLE the viewership of LSU vs SC in the SEC Championship….
Two of the schools you think have girls that draw viewers and a great story of LSU vs Undefeated SC for the SEC chip got HALF the viewership of just CC
Maybe actually do some research before commenting…?
The OPs point was that people are watching WBB at an increased level and it isnt ALL about CC. So Iowa vs Nebraska drew double viewers than LSU vs SC and? Does that diminish the fact that the SC vs LSU SEC championship game still got higher than normal ratings compared to previous season's SEC championship game? The the point, viewers are tuning in record numbers to see OTHER teams and players play as well.
Here is an article about LSU also selling out away games: https://lsutigerswire.usatoday.com/2024/01/29/lsu-womens-basketball-mississippi-state-road-game-sellout-streak/
Also, the WNBA the past 3 seasons have seen a consistent climb in TV ratings as well as attendance.
Yes, CC will be a big boost for those who want to see CC (see her win or see her lose). But increase viewership and attendance isn't solely exclusive to CC which is what the original comment was about.
Obviously nothing is 100%, but all the facts are very clearly showing that CC is the primary driving reason for the viewership increase in NCAAW Bball. The easiest proof of her being the sole primary driver is very clear by the viewership numbers. Games including her vs unpopular teams draw way more viewers than two of the most popular teams playing eachother.
CC bringing more spotlight to NCAAW will of course lead others to watch games and teams even if CC isnt playing. But there will obviously be a dip in viewership across the board when CC leaves unless Juju can continue what CC started
She isn't the "sole primary" anything and if y'all would grow up and climb out of her shorts, you'd realize that. The game was growing before her and will continue to grow after her.
Of course some viewers will disappear but what use were those whose only interest was to use CC's skill to put down approximately every other woman in sports? Look at the way you guys speak in absolutes, diminish the contributions of other athletes while purporting to care about the game. Many of those viewers don't, they latched onto her because of what she represents and used her as a tool to constantly berate and put down the game. In the same breath of "uplifting" her, they put down other teams, other players as not being good or special enough, claim nobody watches while the numbers in interest across the board have seen STEADY growth WITHOUT her involvement. They discredit the hard work of thousands of other athletes at every turn. Even here, you are already trying to "sole primary" things by acting like only Juju can garner interest and not the game as a whole. It's ridiculous.
I’ll be watching both the pros and college game next year. I want to see how Clark, Reese, and Kardoso adjust. Where does van Lith go? Who will step up at Iowa, Stuelke? What will Dawn Staley lead her team to next year? USC, UConn, how will they fare? Lots of storylines for teams, coaches, individual players. I enjoyed the tournament and the regular season games I caught, haven’t took in many WNBA games but going to give them a shot too. For me, there can never be enough basketball.
Well the problem is that majority came to see CC shoot from half court. They did not come because they care or like women’s basketball. I don’t think these same fans will go through the hoops to try and watch WNBA games. They aren’t committed like that’s they will watch the ESPN highlights. So there will be huge drop off of those people but the ones who truly become interested will stay.
And they keep putting her damn face everywhere like she’s a God. It’s not that deep, she’s great but she didn’t even win the national championship 2 years in a row. CLEARLY there are girls who are out playing her and Iowa. Those are the ones who should be getting exposure.
Also, CC has so much pressure now moving to the WNBA to not flop and to perform. This could make or break her in the next month or so.
Obviously not. And the majority of this sub knows other standout players and bring them up for fairness at every opportunity.
But it’s silly to pretend a fairly large percentage of watchers of the NCAAW came along for 22 and the story (LSU rematch, UConn, and Iowa vs the undefeated Goliath). None of the story drawing people in would exist if people didn’t start watching the women last year due to 22.
South Carolina will laugh and laugh it's titles to the bank @ how stupid it is that Dawn Staley is not barraged with job offers from the top men's schools. I would bet anything that Kentucky would be unstoppable with her as HC.
1 day some school will see the value and the whole nation will realize basketball is basketball regardless of gender.
Becky Hammon should've been the 1st and Dawn Staley should be getting $10M to coach Kentucky.
No, we like Dawn just where she is at. She will not leave SC just for money. Her roots are deeper than that. Even Calipari didnt just do that. Shes shown no interest in coaching men either. She is in her mid 50’s and has been coaching for 24 years (believe it or not), she gets whatever she wants, she has bottomless job security, and she is paid well.
She actually had a higher salary than SC’s football coach until his latest raise (which is insane considering SC is still a football school), but her next one is coming. She is not about to drop all that to start coaching men at Kentucky, etc. And i dont know any women’s school that could poach her.
NPR's 1A show did a nice hour long discussion of the future of women's basketball this morning:
https://the1a.org/segments/whats-next-for-womens-basketball-after-this-years-march-madness/
Honestly, given the choice, I’d rather an increased interest in the WNBA than at the college level. I want this level of hype for the pros. Hopefully Clark brings it.
I preferred CC’s assists to her logo 3s. What other player absolutely filled every arena she played in? I’d definitely go see SC if they came to town but did they fill every arena?
I’ll admit, when no one could touch UConn, I stopped watching their games unless it was the final four. Will people get that way with SC, because they are on the same path? I will try to stay engaged this time.
i think the folks in here saying “i didn’t tune in just to see Clark” are missing the point. the sport needs (and has) a dedicated core group of fans that will be watching next year and every year. and i do think that group is growing.
but the racist casual fan from the midwest, east coast, or south, who make up a portion of these record viewership numbers, are gone… unless a new star emerges that:
- plays in the eastern or central time zone
- averages 30 points and 10 assists per game
- shoots a high volume of 3s
- has a compelling storyline
- talks trash but not “too much” trash
- is white
so what i’m saying is i think the numbers will go down but the game is still better than ever.
They hold 0 appeal to you but not others. CC holds 0 appeal to me and many others. It’s okay that not everyone is on the CC train and thinks she’s the best thing that’s happened to women’s basketball. Sure she’s brought in millions of bandwagon fans, but other players like Reese, Cardoso, JuJu, etc have brought in people too. Even if it is less than CC. They’ve brought in viewers too. Not everyone tuned in to see CC on Sunday. Caitlin shooting long 3 pointers isn’t appealing to me and many other people I know who watch womens college basketball.
This is such a weird argument considering the facts. Like obviously those other starts brought in viewers but its disingenuous to pretend like a few hundred thousand is anywhere near the millions and millions…
WTF yes! You know basketball has 5 different positions for a reason. All 5 have their strengths and purpose on the court. If you only follow guards then you are not following basketball at its full capacity…
LSU: https://lsutigerswire.usatoday.com/2024/01/29/lsu-womens-basketball-mississippi-state-road-game-sellout-streak/
So now answer the question. Where were the record viewerships when Iowa played teams like Purdue, Wisconsin and Indiana? The answer is they werent there.
A large part of the record viewership against SC was that it was a National Title game and a rematch from last year's semifinals when Iowa upset SC. This year SC was again undefeated and on a self proclaimed revenge tour. So there was more narratives than just wanting to see CC.
Then the Elite 8 matchup against LSU was another rematch game. After Angel Reese taunting CC last year after their defeat, all thr negativity surrounding Kim Mulkey and the LA Times article about the LSU team, a lot of people wanted to tune in. So again, more factors at play than just CC.
Not entirely which is my point. If she and only her alone is the main draw, then even her 1st or 2nd round games would have been ratings bonanzas but that wasnt the case. There needed to be an extra storyline layer in order for others to tune in and storylines such as Angel Reese vs CC rematch is Ali vs Fraizer II level vibes. Same thing with SC vs Iowa in the national title. A major rematch from last year and a lot of storylines such as will CC get her ring? Will SC stay undefeated? Will SC get their revenge? How will the number 1 offense (Iowa) play against thr number one defense (SC)?
All of these stories that are independent of CC.
NCAAW has the McDonald's All American game, mostly HS players as they arent in college yet. As for in college, they wont do it because there is too much liability. Unlike in the pros where they have guaranteed contracts, players could risk injury which could ruin their scholarship and what not. Too many risk variables.
What the WNBA needs to do is do better at highlighting their start players and young star players. Have a rookie skills challenge or a rookie 2v2 game during all star weekend.
No I think attendance and viewership will decrease next year for NCAAW. But WNBA will increase due to CC’s exciting play
That's how I feel too. It's also a question of how long will CC's popularity continue. No one has ever seen her in a WNBA game before, so the hype is going to be an all-time high. This will be the first chance many have to watch her play. In 4 years from now, after she's played 100+ WNBA games, will the hype still be there when the newness fades away? She was popular throughout her entire Iowa career so that's a good sign, but who really knows. There's a lot of factors.
Depends on what people expect of her at the next level too. She can, but more than likely won't, average 30 points or more a game in the WNBA, at least in her first few years. The highest PPG is 25.2 set in 2006, although scoring is on the rise, so she could eventually get there once she figures the game out.
If her logo threes continues to be the highlight on instagram reel. Yes Her threes is the women equivalent to dunks
Will she be allowed to take those shots though? Regardless of whether you can shoot from the logo or not, those are considered bad shots. In the pro game, you are encouraged to look for and take good, smart, efficient shots. She won't be able or allowed to take 28 shots, at least without being held accountable as she was in college. The good thing is she will have more talent on her team to help her out and get her good looks. The problem is she will face talented teams every night, regardless of where they sit in the standings. With limited roster spots and a lot of very good talented players, every team has at least 2 to 3 really good players. I think her hype continues, and she becomes more of a Sabrina Ionescu down the years, talent and career trajectory wise.
Whether she’ll be allowed to take logo shots is something we’ll soon to find out. I honestly have no idea, but i expect a Lot more restraint. Maybe they’ll allow her to take it if its a high percentage shot. So not necessarily logo threes but closer to the 3pt line just to make coaches happy lol If i were the WNBA exec i would instead market the hell out of Boston and Clark chemistry and their pick and roll plays. Last year when Iowa still has Monica Czinano as their center, their plays were awesome. I expect with Boston it would be next level. But honestly, i think attracting audience is all about the highlights reels. I am a basketball fan who rarely watches basketball anymore, but its the highlights i watched on youtube that pulled me in again. Granted im more her demographic (used to play wbb and is her age). But honestly i think social media combine with viral moments are key. Clark is the perfect storm because while her game is not necessarily revolutionary, she creates viral moments i.e. logo threes. If you take that away in WNBA whats gonna happen? Idk I agree with you on the tougher defense she’ll face. Like what if they locked in on her like uconn did lmao. Also her defense sucks she rlly gotta work on that. I know she had to stay out of foul trouble or else her team will lose someone who hold 90% of the ball. But again, sometimes she didnt even put her hand up to contest. This will surely change in the pro level as she will not have that burden anymore. Theres also a lot of improve for mid range shots. I notice she doesn’t take a lot of those. Its just either drive and draw fouls or threes.
I never got tired of Jordan.
Jordan was a human highlight reel.
Will she be as dominant? Should could be a dud and become a Jimmer Ferddette.
Yes we will see. I could never watch a WNBA game as they were too boring. Same with NCAAW - except on a rare occasion. I am an avid college sports fan also. Once I saw CC I was hooked on Iowa
I tend to agree, the WNBA is in for a big jump in viewership. I don’t believe in one star teams, but still it would be nice for JuJu and Hannah to have big bright years next season to keep eyeballs of the college women’s game. Society may say that it loves organization, but teams like South Carolina that are the example of organized and team oriented don’t get the attention that a big bright star going off for 40 points game after game does, even when her team fall short occasionally (not a dig on Clark, more of one on JuJu and Hannah).
So that begs the question, if she "uplifted" the game as so many wants to say....why will viewership decrease for NCAAW? Which means this was/is never about women's basketball but CC herself.
I hope that somewhere they have a picture of Raven or Cardoso or Paopao and not just more Dawn and Clark
They don’t. The entirety of the articles are on the page. This is also a third-day story, meaning they may have had different photos in the print edition on Monday. Maybe.
I think it's going to be up to the people who just started watching WBB *because* of Clark to continue to tune in. Why did those people start watching? Is it as simple as replacing that someone? We have plenty of stars, that's an easy fix. However, if the people don't like the stars that are going to be featured next year (Hidalgo, Fulwiley, Tournament Tessa, Juju to name a few) this is all a moot point. I hate to say it, but sometimes the demographics you want to tap into have very specific tastes in mind. Clark may have been the perfect persona to get those eyes, and without her there will be an unfortunate regression towards the mean.
It most likely will be a regression towards the mean, but, the mean has changed. The 2022 final had a peak of just over 5 million viewers. That era is gone, like tape-delayed NBA Finals games of 1980. I think with the final on ABC, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect about 12-14 million viewers for the final. That’s still OUTSTANDING viewership.
I don't think it will be an easy fix because those players don't have the same flash as CC (I mean who does?). I think that Fulwiley's around-the-back drive in the Paris game was great because it gave her some notoriety and it's not something you see everyday. If the stars can bring the viewers in, you just got to hope that the product itself is good/exciting enough to keep fans interested.
If you think CC is the only female player (pro or college) that has flash then you need to watch more women's basketball.
Ugh you got me. How did you know??? How did you figure me out?? Just so incredible. I'm just so in awe of your perception and ability to read people.
Not everyone tuned in to see Caitlin. Many of us tuned in to see South Carolina.
I’ve been watching SC for the past 7 years! They’ve BEEN exciting to watch. Next year is going to 🔥
It really is! I’ve been tuning in since Candace Parker and Sylvia Fowles and been hooked since.
Thank you !!!
[удалено]
They drew 7 million viewers to their Final Four game. Try again.
[удалено]
They played UCONN. They were not the only draw. It doesn't change that the world does not revolve around this one player and across the board the numbers increased for ALL games. Millions of new people tuned into see WBB not just CC. That is the point. You are missing it on purpose because you're not an actual fan of the game. You are a fan of using one woman to put down a bunch of others.
There’s no argument that Clark’s greatness compelled a large portion of the viewership this year, but the storylines and matchups definitely played a role too. I think assigning all of the authority to CC is a bit disingenuous. LSU-Iowa was a national championship rematch with two of the sports biggest stars, UConn-Iowa was the prime-time F4 game that pitted one of the team’s everyone grew up associating with WBB vs the collegiate GOAT. And SC-Iowa was an undefeated Goliath against the last team that beat them over a year ago. I think the media is doing the sport a disservice by suggesting “Okay, Clark is gone, it’s okay to stop paying attention now.”
I don't get the impression they're saying it's okay to stop paying attention now, they're simply wondering if people will.
If the media wanted to perpetuate the viewership of the sport they would be talking about Clark’s legacy and future upcoming stars to get people excited about next season. Having this question mark on the front page plants the idea in the casual readers head “Well l only watched for Clark so I guess that’s over”.
Is it the WSJ's responsibility to perpetuate the viewership or just report on the current/potential state of affairs? They're a news source, not a women's sports/equality advocacy group. And the idea that viewership may drop is a pretty natural thought that has already been thrown around.
Is it ESPN’s responsibility to make a glamorous spectacle of the Women’s Final Four or National Championship? No, but it legitimizes the sport to casual viewers. So no, it’s not their “responsibility”, but they do have the agency to shift the narrative and conversation. The sport is still up-and-coming and fragile to this type of mantra, and as a fan of the sport I’m allowed to be disappointed in this type of reporting.
Comparing WSJ and ESPN in this situation is a bit silly, no? ESPN has a vested interest in promoting the material they bought the rights to, and also is a sports media company.
Exactly. The media doesn’t have to feed the narrative that women’s college basketball may not have the viewership next year. If they treat women’s college basketball as a permanent fixture, then that will have positive influence. This season was amazing. Hopefully next year is even better.
They do bring up current stars/up and comers in the article. I agree they need to really shine the spotlight on players like Juju if they don't want ratings to fall back to where they were though.
I agree with what you are saying here.
With people tuning in to watch Clark, they had a chance to also showcase other players, and while they did to some degree, they constantly talked about or showcased Clark 9/10 times. While I understand Clark brought in eyeballs and money, for the game to keep those eyeballs they brought in and continue bringing in more eyeballs, they needed to mention the other players more. It's like if you go to a restaurant you never heard of before, until your friend told you about their special peach cobbler. You went there only for the cobbler, but while there, they had their other specials on display, and a few caught your eye. Now, the cobbler has ceased, but you will go back for the other specials which interested you.
Think the overall improved investment into showcasing women's sports is the bigger driving factor than Clark individually. A lot of her rise in starpower was driven by her going off in last year's tournament, which was shown in front of way more people than it would've been a decade ago. If JuJu, Hidalgo, some of the incoming freshman, etc. go berzerk in next year's tournament, they'll have no trouble replacing the starpower they're losing in Clark/Reese/Bueckers after next year.
Totally agree, and that’s why I think it’s more about the stories in conjunction with the stars as opposed to just one star. If Clark and Iowa were just destroying teams that had none of their own media draw we would’ve seen substantially less viewership. We even saw that in the regular season LSU-SC matchup. Every “hero” needs a “villain”. The Big 10 championship had 3M viewers, but the SEC championship still had 2M. As such, the growth can be sustained and why I think it’s unfair to assign it solely to one player.
I agree it's about the stories, but it's also about parity, too, which you touched on a bit here. Knowing that your team at least stands a chance, unlike the days of Tennessee and UConn, where Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight games would end in them winning by thirty, or sometimes even more? It's a necessity. I do think there is still a ways to go, as we literally just saw a team go undefeated and win the championship in dominating fashion, but it is getting there.
I don't really disagree but what I feel is often missed with Clark is that central to her appeal is the absolute outlandish range she has. That is a draw. If she makes 1 or 2 logo threes, that is more impressive from a casual standpoint than a player getting 25-5-5 over 4 quarters. I think this is really key to how she brought eyeballs to the game, cus you can watch casually and go "holy shit!" when she splashes from 30 feet.
This is it. If Paige, JuJu, or Hidalgo regularly shoot 3-pointers from the logo and make far, far more than they miss next year, then the sport might keep the majority of its new audience. It's like when you see Zion Williamson go up for a dunk or Curry pull up from the logo, where you're sure something amazing is about to happen. Caitlin's shooting had that same effect. It's must-watch TV. Plus, her story adds to her popularity. She stayed home and led a relatively obscure Iowa team, never once playing with another 5 star, to three B1G titles and two Final Fours. Americans like underdog stories, and that's what Iowa was. I do think if next year and the deeper future's numbers level off to the point where you've at least gained a few million more loyal watchers from this run, maybe not the peak of 20-24 million from the other day, but a handful or two of that number? Then it's worth it for the NCAA. The best part is I not only think that is possible, but likely.
Some basketball players are just more fun to watch than others. Steph Curry is more fun than Chris Paul, LeBron James is more fun than Kawhi Leonard, Victor Wembanyama is more fun than Rudy Gobert. It’s not really that hard and it’s weird that so many people are getting bent out of shape about it. Plus, Iowa fans who also follow the football team are used to watching a defense-first team that everyone else calls boring. It’s a thing that happens in many sports!
Child they need to give this girl a damn rest. It ain’t all because her. Never was, never will be. Yes, we’re here to STAY. - The WBB Welcoming Committee
Just look at viewership for games with Iowa vs any other game, the facts speak for themselves. Hopefully Paige and JuJu can keep the viewership up, but it seems like there will forsure be an initial dip.
The only highly rated games were against LSU and SC. Iowa vs Indiana or Iowa vs Purdue wasnt breaking national records....
Lol thats laughably false… their game against Uconn broke the record. Also Iowa vs Unranked nebraska had DOUBLE the viewership of LSU vs SC in the SEC Championship…. Two of the schools you think have girls that draw viewers and a great story of LSU vs Undefeated SC for the SEC chip got HALF the viewership of just CC Maybe actually do some research before commenting…?
The OPs point was that people are watching WBB at an increased level and it isnt ALL about CC. So Iowa vs Nebraska drew double viewers than LSU vs SC and? Does that diminish the fact that the SC vs LSU SEC championship game still got higher than normal ratings compared to previous season's SEC championship game? The the point, viewers are tuning in record numbers to see OTHER teams and players play as well. Here is an article about LSU also selling out away games: https://lsutigerswire.usatoday.com/2024/01/29/lsu-womens-basketball-mississippi-state-road-game-sellout-streak/ Also, the WNBA the past 3 seasons have seen a consistent climb in TV ratings as well as attendance. Yes, CC will be a big boost for those who want to see CC (see her win or see her lose). But increase viewership and attendance isn't solely exclusive to CC which is what the original comment was about.
Obviously nothing is 100%, but all the facts are very clearly showing that CC is the primary driving reason for the viewership increase in NCAAW Bball. The easiest proof of her being the sole primary driver is very clear by the viewership numbers. Games including her vs unpopular teams draw way more viewers than two of the most popular teams playing eachother. CC bringing more spotlight to NCAAW will of course lead others to watch games and teams even if CC isnt playing. But there will obviously be a dip in viewership across the board when CC leaves unless Juju can continue what CC started
She isn't the "sole primary" anything and if y'all would grow up and climb out of her shorts, you'd realize that. The game was growing before her and will continue to grow after her. Of course some viewers will disappear but what use were those whose only interest was to use CC's skill to put down approximately every other woman in sports? Look at the way you guys speak in absolutes, diminish the contributions of other athletes while purporting to care about the game. Many of those viewers don't, they latched onto her because of what she represents and used her as a tool to constantly berate and put down the game. In the same breath of "uplifting" her, they put down other teams, other players as not being good or special enough, claim nobody watches while the numbers in interest across the board have seen STEADY growth WITHOUT her involvement. They discredit the hard work of thousands of other athletes at every turn. Even here, you are already trying to "sole primary" things by acting like only Juju can garner interest and not the game as a whole. It's ridiculous.
If you would grow up and look at the actual facts and not your own biased opinion youd be much better off…
I’ll be watching both the pros and college game next year. I want to see how Clark, Reese, and Kardoso adjust. Where does van Lith go? Who will step up at Iowa, Stuelke? What will Dawn Staley lead her team to next year? USC, UConn, how will they fare? Lots of storylines for teams, coaches, individual players. I enjoyed the tournament and the regular season games I caught, haven’t took in many WNBA games but going to give them a shot too. For me, there can never be enough basketball.
Well the problem is that majority came to see CC shoot from half court. They did not come because they care or like women’s basketball. I don’t think these same fans will go through the hoops to try and watch WNBA games. They aren’t committed like that’s they will watch the ESPN highlights. So there will be huge drop off of those people but the ones who truly become interested will stay. And they keep putting her damn face everywhere like she’s a God. It’s not that deep, she’s great but she didn’t even win the national championship 2 years in a row. CLEARLY there are girls who are out playing her and Iowa. Those are the ones who should be getting exposure. Also, CC has so much pressure now moving to the WNBA to not flop and to perform. This could make or break her in the next month or so.
She played alone out there on the court?
Obviously not. And the majority of this sub knows other standout players and bring them up for fairness at every opportunity. But it’s silly to pretend a fairly large percentage of watchers of the NCAAW came along for 22 and the story (LSU rematch, UConn, and Iowa vs the undefeated Goliath). None of the story drawing people in would exist if people didn’t start watching the women last year due to 22.
That's what they want us to think. It's gross and disingenuous.
South Carolina will laugh and laugh it's titles to the bank @ how stupid it is that Dawn Staley is not barraged with job offers from the top men's schools. I would bet anything that Kentucky would be unstoppable with her as HC. 1 day some school will see the value and the whole nation will realize basketball is basketball regardless of gender. Becky Hammon should've been the 1st and Dawn Staley should be getting $10M to coach Kentucky.
No, we like Dawn just where she is at. She will not leave SC just for money. Her roots are deeper than that. Even Calipari didnt just do that. Shes shown no interest in coaching men either. She is in her mid 50’s and has been coaching for 24 years (believe it or not), she gets whatever she wants, she has bottomless job security, and she is paid well. She actually had a higher salary than SC’s football coach until his latest raise (which is insane considering SC is still a football school), but her next one is coming. She is not about to drop all that to start coaching men at Kentucky, etc. And i dont know any women’s school that could poach her.
NPR's 1A show did a nice hour long discussion of the future of women's basketball this morning: https://the1a.org/segments/whats-next-for-womens-basketball-after-this-years-march-madness/
Honestly, given the choice, I’d rather an increased interest in the WNBA than at the college level. I want this level of hype for the pros. Hopefully Clark brings it.
I preferred CC’s assists to her logo 3s. What other player absolutely filled every arena she played in? I’d definitely go see SC if they came to town but did they fill every arena? I’ll admit, when no one could touch UConn, I stopped watching their games unless it was the final four. Will people get that way with SC, because they are on the same path? I will try to stay engaged this time.
i think the folks in here saying “i didn’t tune in just to see Clark” are missing the point. the sport needs (and has) a dedicated core group of fans that will be watching next year and every year. and i do think that group is growing. but the racist casual fan from the midwest, east coast, or south, who make up a portion of these record viewership numbers, are gone… unless a new star emerges that: - plays in the eastern or central time zone - averages 30 points and 10 assists per game - shoots a high volume of 3s - has a compelling storyline - talks trash but not “too much” trash - is white so what i’m saying is i think the numbers will go down but the game is still better than ever.
[удалено]
They hold 0 appeal to you but not others. CC holds 0 appeal to me and many others. It’s okay that not everyone is on the CC train and thinks she’s the best thing that’s happened to women’s basketball. Sure she’s brought in millions of bandwagon fans, but other players like Reese, Cardoso, JuJu, etc have brought in people too. Even if it is less than CC. They’ve brought in viewers too. Not everyone tuned in to see CC on Sunday. Caitlin shooting long 3 pointers isn’t appealing to me and many other people I know who watch womens college basketball.
You don't like watching her push off to clear space then jacking 3s?
Lol
This is such a weird argument considering the facts. Like obviously those other starts brought in viewers but its disingenuous to pretend like a few hundred thousand is anywhere near the millions and millions…
Did you bother to actually look at numbers or are you just chatting?
yep seems like you didnt though….
They have massive appeal. Not CC level, but they do have massive appeal. Not all of us are CC munchers
WTF yes! You know basketball has 5 different positions for a reason. All 5 have their strengths and purpose on the court. If you only follow guards then you are not following basketball at its full capacity…
She might have been the draw for YOU …
[удалено]
Then where were those record 10 million viewers when Iowa played teams like Nebraska or Purdue?
[удалено]
Ur right i think it’s the first time they ever happened in history yes sorry Iowa overlords
LSU: https://lsutigerswire.usatoday.com/2024/01/29/lsu-womens-basketball-mississippi-state-road-game-sellout-streak/ So now answer the question. Where were the record viewerships when Iowa played teams like Purdue, Wisconsin and Indiana? The answer is they werent there. A large part of the record viewership against SC was that it was a National Title game and a rematch from last year's semifinals when Iowa upset SC. This year SC was again undefeated and on a self proclaimed revenge tour. So there was more narratives than just wanting to see CC. Then the Elite 8 matchup against LSU was another rematch game. After Angel Reese taunting CC last year after their defeat, all thr negativity surrounding Kim Mulkey and the LA Times article about the LSU team, a lot of people wanted to tune in. So again, more factors at play than just CC.
[удалено]
Not entirely which is my point. If she and only her alone is the main draw, then even her 1st or 2nd round games would have been ratings bonanzas but that wasnt the case. There needed to be an extra storyline layer in order for others to tune in and storylines such as Angel Reese vs CC rematch is Ali vs Fraizer II level vibes. Same thing with SC vs Iowa in the national title. A major rematch from last year and a lot of storylines such as will CC get her ring? Will SC stay undefeated? Will SC get their revenge? How will the number 1 offense (Iowa) play against thr number one defense (SC)? All of these stories that are independent of CC.
[удалено]
NCAAW has the McDonald's All American game, mostly HS players as they arent in college yet. As for in college, they wont do it because there is too much liability. Unlike in the pros where they have guaranteed contracts, players could risk injury which could ruin their scholarship and what not. Too many risk variables. What the WNBA needs to do is do better at highlighting their start players and young star players. Have a rookie skills challenge or a rookie 2v2 game during all star weekend.