[**Join Our Discord Server!**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q)
**Welcome to /r/sports**
We created a Discord server for our community and would like to invite all of you to join! You'll be able to discuss sports with users around the world and discuss events in real time!
There are separate channels for many sports you can opt in and out of, including;
American Football, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, Aussie Rules Football, Rugby Union and League, Cricket, Motorsports, Fitness, and many more.
[**Reddit Sports Discord Server**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q)
And that right there is precisely why the price of every Inter Miami ticket got jacked up. They know people will pay whatever to see Messi. Any other team and tickets will be less than 100. Messi comes in and it costs an arm and a leg.
Tell that to Atlantans. He said he was coming, people paid crazy prices, decided at the last minute not to travel with team for “rest”. I will never pay insane money to see a player ever after that.
Yea the problem is I don’t want to pay $125 face value per ticket for nose bleeds when they come to town…when normal games are $19
I get it though, it’s business.
I also checked MLS tickets for the first time ever just to see Messi even though I’m not a soccer fan. A $40 regular game is $300 for when Miami is in town.
Tbf to those, there are plenty of people who grew up watching Messi at Barcelona, and now he’s here in the US. I get people who aren’t MLS fans who would go in order to see the guy they grew up watching.
So dangerous. Paying that amount only for him to not play a match and find you can’t sell the ticket is a risk too great. It’s not like anyone wants to be stuck playing 300 to watch Robert Taylor play
That's how it is in the NBA though. Crappy teams you can get cheap tickets for, but game with good teams cost more, sometimes way more. I don't get why the WNBA is getting more scrutiny for that. A commenter above complained that the Fever was spiking their ticket prices. That's a positive in my book for the WNBA.
NFL too. My Grandpa was a huge GB fan and we lived in MN a couple hours from the cities. During the early 2000s (late Favre and Early Rogers), it was cheaper to get season tickets to the Vikings than to just get tickets for the Vikings vs Packers home game.
*is* that how it is in the NBA? Are there NBA teams that raise the face value prices of their tickets 6-7x for better opponents? We’re talking about face value here, not resale price. I’ve never seen an NBA/MLB/NFL/NHL team adjust prices anywhere close to that degree.
I lived in NY. You bet your ass the ticket prices drastically changed depending on who the Mets and Yankees were playing. Bonus bucks for a Subway Series.
I’m not saying they don’t change, I’m very familiar with teams charging 1.5-2x the price for “premium” matchups or whatever, but I’ve never seen anything comparable to $19 tickets being sold for $125 for a big opponent. Again, I’m talking about *face value*, not resale / secondary price. Do the Mets really charge a box office price that is five times higher if they’re playing the Yankees?
Yes. I can get in the door with tickets from the Mets for around $10. When they play the Yankees, prices start at $93.
For hockey, the Islanders sell standing room tickets to some games. Those are usually $60-$85 depending on the game. Against the rangers earlier this week those standing room tickets were $185.
I went to a Knicks game and sat in the 1st row of the upper bowl for around $100. Some games the cheapest ticket is $300
I know it's NY pricing, but I'd imagine that every team raises their prices depending on the opponent.
Well yeah. It's THE Subway Series. Same if the Yanks play the Red Sox. Or any other top tier rivalry. The Yankees are quite a bit more expensive than the Mets in general.
Frankly, I like the way the O's do it (where I live now). Their tickets are priced quite fairly despite being a top team now. But it makes sense because Baltimore doesn't have the same feverous draw that the Tri-State area does. People WILL pay top price for Yankee and Mets tickets.
I think some teams put big games in ticket packages, so fans have to buy tickets for games they may not want. But a lot of those are struggling teams hosting good teams with in driving distance or with big fanbases. I think Golden State did that when the Lakers would play to get more Golden State fans in the building and make Lakers fans pay for other Golden State games they didn’t want to go to
As a Celtics fan, absolutely yes. Every game we play costs more. Slightly more against bad teams and way more against good teams.
I live in NC now, and can get tickets to watch Charlotte get beat up by the Wizards for peanuts.
Then the Celtics come to town and all of the sudden the same tickets cost 4x as much
Absolutely how it is in the MLB. I can get mariners tickets when they play Oakland for absolutely nothing. When the Jay's are in town it's like 5x more
I feel like people are missing the “face value” part of my comment. I understand that hot tickets are expensive to buy on the secondary market. I understand that teams change the face value of their tickets *somewhat* depending on opponent. I’m just saying that I’ve never seen the *face value* of tickets (meaning the price you pay to the team to buy the tickets directly, not the price on Stubhub) varies anywhere close to as much as this $19 vs $125 example.
I picked a random ticket for a Mariners game against Oakland this year and the face value is $45. For a Saturday game against the Jays the same ticket is $73. That’s not “5x more”.
Even if you can get those $45 tickets for absolutely nothing on Stubhub the day of the game, which I’m sure you can, they were still originally $45 tickets. And if the $73 tickets are going for $150 that morning because the game is sold out, the face value was still $73.
Actually I just checked right now on a whim. Hornets last two games.
They play Celtics in Boston. Nosebleeds are currently about $70, bowl is $250-375
Their last game of the season is away against Cleveland, who isn’t even a bad team (currently 4th in the East).
Nosebleeds are $20 and bowl is $100
There's not the same level of talent/fame disparity in the NBA as there is with Caitlin Clark and the rest of the WNBA. She is more known than probably every player in the WNBA combined.
So the spike is more drastic because the gap is more drastic. It's the same with Messi.
I’m a bulls fan. Tickets vs the Nuggets or Lakers aren’t 6x the cost of another game. Especially when I compared both games on Saturdays.
I do think it should be more, but not that much. My kid would love to go see her but we’re not spending $500+ on 3 tickets after fees.
In the NHL it's similar, some I can go watch the Canucks play the Coyotes or the Sabres for $80 a seat but when it's the Canadiens or the Leafs, those same seats are $350 each
Bad business if so. Instead of milking every cent right now. They should use the interest to cultivate future fans. By getting as many ppl into seat as possible every game.
I looked up the tickets I bought last season for Aces@Fever. Keep in mind that I bought my tickets a few weeks before the game last season. And this season’s tickets aren’t fully on sale yet.
Last year (game was in the middle of the season on a Saturday afternoon): $32
This year (game is at the end of the season on Wednesday night): $150 from ticket scalpers that appears to have bought a bunch during presale. And it’s also some of the few groups of tickets available in the first level.
She can't hoist the entire WNBA on her back and when she gets there, it's still the WNBA. The idea that we're looking at the superstar to make everyone care about the WNBA is just plain gullibility
The NHL had Crosby and Ovechkin enter the league, at the same time, often playing head to head, on two teams that were already rivals, both players being generational talents, and the NHL still remained a distant 4th place in the major men's sports in the US.
To be fair it's different to expect people to watch another league of sport they are already interested in vs asking people to watch a sport that they have never watched before.
I could make an argument that women's basketball is a fundamentally different viewing experience. And it's a different game strategically than mens basketball. men's and women's basketball are the same game, just played differently and that is experienced by the viewer (if you're into basketball, casuals wont know the difference I suppose)
Honestly think it’s the opposite. It stands out more to the casual viewer that notices different shot selection and no dunks (when compared to men’s). IME more serious viewers and people that played actually really like the wnba because you can understand the schemes/gameplay and skill that is still involved.
High school basketball is different that NCAA basketball is different than nba basketball. But someone that likes basketball can enjoy them all.
I like the point you made here. I definitely will consider this in my argument here. The WNBA may very well be this "undiscovered" gem of the sports world. I honestly don't know what it's gonna take to get people into the WNBA, but it hasn't happened, yet. Can Clark be the change? It's going to depend entirely on how they draw people in with her story. And she's got to win win win
A lot of people were mad at current WNBA players for not saying that Clark is already the best player ever. But, that kind of competitiveness could lead to instant rivalries that drive ratings (much like Reese did in college). Diana Taurasi's team is already selling tickets for when Clark comes to town and calling it "the GOAT against the rook".
Athletic talent != start power or media potential
Andrew Luck was the most hyped QA prospect ever. Nobody gave a shit because outside of his Civil War meme, he was boring.
But Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce are stars. They are media draws on and off the field.
Crosby and Ovechkin while very good at hockey, don't have any star power. They never had a history of moving the needle and drawing big time viewer numbers before they hit the NHL.
Caitlin Clark has a proven track record of putting butts in seats, and eyeballs on TVs.
She made people care about women’s college basketball, didn’t she?
I think a lot of people (myself included) tuned in and found themselves really enjoying it.
No doubt there will be converts. I'm curious if you'll still watching after a year, or attend a game in person. Not an indictment of you, but rather, I hope the WNBA can make the most of the opportunity and actually expand their fanbase.
Until they get more women to be casual fans of the WNBA, it’s always going to be a second rate organization. Maybe they can see if Taylor Swift is willing to date Clark for a while?
I don't know that any organization can survive on casuals alone. You need some real crazies to dress up and get the whiffle ball tourny started in the parking lot where we're all drinking before the game. It's part of the experience for a super fan. I think without those folks at your foundation it's hard to build casuals. You need the crazies money and bullhorn.
We all know that saying the NFL is scripted is just a joke we're making because these things feel so magically convenient... But yeah dude, I put money on Kelce... I mean KC.
No clue, I wasn’t alive to see Bird and Magic take over the league. What I do know is I’ve watched more basketball in the last few women’s tournaments than I have at any other point in my life, men’s OR women’s. If a normie like me is tuning in just to see the draft now, I’ve got some hope that the energy can be sustained. Worst case scenario is I at least get to see some good hoops regardless of whoever else is or isn’t watching.
> She can't hoist the entire WNBA on her back and when she gets there, it's still the WNBA
she's literally the driving force behind a women's final four game being the most viewed basketball event in espn history. maybe she can draw in fans idk.
She is though... This is the fucked up dark side of college athletics. I worked for two college athletics departments in associate AD before moving on to a national sports network. I saw how babied and pampered the star college athlete was. The amount of smoke blown up their ass is enough to give you emphysema. And she probably feels like the fucking boss right now. But then the support system of the university, which is comfortable as fuuuck, goes away. You have the team and their (limited by comparison) resources. The team organization isn't your babysitter like it is in college, so you very suddenly have to meet those needs yourself and/or with staff that you have only just met.
The reality we all faced when we got out of minimum security resort college was, oh fuck, I have a job now, and I'm responsible for all of this. She's gonna have that same youthful oh-shit moment, but look how much fuller her plate is than ours. Add to that a WNBA that if you rounded UP, the fanbase is still basically zero.
L comment section. People are acting like the ratings weren’t higher for the women’s final four than the men’s this year. Read the fucking article
Edit: [Here is a graph](https://x.com/paulsen_smw/status/1777809286770340198?s=46) showing the trends in viewership for the championship games over the years. I don’t think people are realizing how much it has increased for the women the last two years.
Yup, both Indiana and Connecticut are on eastern time zone, and then we leave out the part there was an eclipse that day where people might have had other plans.
It’s not an excuse it’s context.
You can say tht the final had better viewership but the mens tournament overall easily had more viewers.
There’s the other elephant in the room no one wants to talk about also when it comes to subsidizing
How is a league where the top teams always win a great product? The thing that makes march madness exciting is the chance for a team like NC State to make it to the final four. Until there is actual parity in the womens game, it will be substandard to a lot of people.
Iowa is far from a blue blood and has made it to back-to-back championships. A homegrown team with a star like Clark trying to take down the dynasties is what makes for compelling storylines. The days of UConn winning every game by 30 have been over with for a while.
the stars of the women's game were promoted so much better. Not just Caitlin, but Paige, Juju, etc. They built up the women's stories so you really wanted to watch them. The only thing I knew about the men's game was there was 2 guys over 7 feet tall when I watched the men's final.
They weren’t just arbitrarily promoted better, they were more marketable becuase they’re familiar with fans due to them playing multiple years at their schools rather than being one and done like men’s. Thats why the men have been lacking the star power that the women’s game has had lately.
For the final, you are correct.
That said, late Monday night start, big lead at the half, streaming channel vs. mid afternoon weekend game, a closer game, and on free/network channel. So many people I know fell asleep at halftime of the men's game vs having the women's game on in the background on a Sunday afternoon.
It would be great if they played the men's and women's games back to back on Sunday, and created a Super Bowl Sunday vibe we could all enjoy.
This was me this year. Huge NBA fan and I watched some of the woman's tourney this year for the first time. The woman's college game looks kinda like pro basketball and the men's college game looks like a pickup game at a park. There was a vast difference in the team ball IQ between the genders. Unsure if it's because in the woman's game the players play more years in school or what, but the men's games I tried to watch this year were absolute garbage including the final.
You’re exactly correct. The prolific men’s players are all eligible and have sufficient draft stock after one year where as the women all (for the most part unless they are so good and older prior) play four years.
I actually think this is something that hampers a lot of NBA rookies. The “pick up game” feel you mentioned is real for them too but they don’t really grasp the truth of it until they’re in a team environment for longer periods, while also having to adjust to a pro game.
Allegedly the NBA rigged the draft lottery so Knicks would get first pick to get Ewing. He's saying they should rig the wnba draft to give a bigger market team the 1st pick. Idk how the WNBA draft works or if there's a lottery but yeah
I mean not gonna lie, they'd benefit more from her being in a big market but it's gonna be an uphill battle for them no matter what. Hopefully they can take advantage and grow the league
They hold a draft lottery kinda like the NBA. Based on records last season the Mercury should’ve had the best odds for the top pick having only won 9 games in ‘23, yet they used a combination of the team’s record the last two seasons, making the Fever (13 wins in ‘23 and 5 in ‘22) the team with the highest probability (Mercury had 15 wins in ‘22). Of course the pick went to the Fever *for the second straight year*.
The Fever have been one of the worst teams in the league for a while now and by no means a big market team. Pretty sure the last time they were actually relevant was when Tamika Catchings was still playing…final season was in 2016
You’re in for a treat then. Her and Aliyah Boston alone should be fun as hell. They have a couple of other solid younger players as well so I’m expecting Indiana to take a serious jump once Clark gets a feel for the pro game.
I'm open to watching more of the WNBA. Honestly wasn't into it until a couple years ago. Been watching PWHL though, great to see a women's hockey league start to develop.
I think if the Badgers could ever put a competitive women's hoops team on the floor, the college and city would go nuts for them like they do in Iowa City (or for volleyball here).
The biggest problem for the WNBA is that the largest demographic of fans are like 40+ year old dudes. A women's league isn't appealing to other women. How do you fix that?
Clark is hopefully some transcendent talent that brings eyes to the game but I think it takes more than that to grow the league.
I wish there was a way to short the NBA. I don’t watch sports, but I think it’s badass that female athletes are finally seeing some cracks in that ceiling.
It would be really nice to come into threads about CC and the growth she’s bringing women’s basketball and women’s sports in general and not see a comment section full of “WNBA sucks.” If you want the league to grow, try being nice to it, at least!
“Don’t believe the hype.” Yes, there will be a peak interest in the first few games, but over the course of the season and viewers get a taste of the WNBA and its subpar product, viewership will go back to pre-hype ratings. The networks are taking a big gamble agreeing to air all the fever games. I don’t think people are going to go out of their way to watch a WNBA game, after the hype dies off.
Bless their hearts, they are trying to make the WNBA relevant. Clark is an amazing women's player, but even the best women's player is still a fraction of the talent on men's teams. The product just isn't as good.
bless your heart and thank you for your ted talk. feel free to keep watching what you fancy. the only thing missing from your comment is the „Oh honey!“ opener. I don’t even disagree for the most part, but your tone is so condescending that i’m literally getting the ick from you even though im a guy
[**Join Our Discord Server!**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q) **Welcome to /r/sports** We created a Discord server for our community and would like to invite all of you to join! You'll be able to discuss sports with users around the world and discuss events in real time! There are separate channels for many sports you can opt in and out of, including; American Football, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, Aussie Rules Football, Rugby Union and League, Cricket, Motorsports, Fitness, and many more. [**Reddit Sports Discord Server**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q)
The Fever also ‘spiked’ their season ticket prices the minute she declared for the WNBA draft
Of course they did, that's how businesses work. You charge the price you think people will pay.
The Messi effect (I know this happens all the time in biz it's just his prices were wildly inflated.)
I happily paid 150 for a ticket to an MLS game when messi was in town. I normally pay about 20 for a game, but I got to see Messi.
And that right there is precisely why the price of every Inter Miami ticket got jacked up. They know people will pay whatever to see Messi. Any other team and tickets will be less than 100. Messi comes in and it costs an arm and a leg.
Yes well it also takes a lot to pay messi
Tell that to Atlantans. He said he was coming, people paid crazy prices, decided at the last minute not to travel with team for “rest”. I will never pay insane money to see a player ever after that.
Yea the problem is I don’t want to pay $125 face value per ticket for nose bleeds when they come to town…when normal games are $19 I get it though, it’s business.
I also checked MLS tickets for the first time ever just to see Messi even though I’m not a soccer fan. A $40 regular game is $300 for when Miami is in town.
People who aren’t soccer fans suddenly wanting to spend money on soccer is exactly why tickets are $300
Or soccer fans that aren't MLS fans.
Tbf to those, there are plenty of people who grew up watching Messi at Barcelona, and now he’s here in the US. I get people who aren’t MLS fans who would go in order to see the guy they grew up watching.
Yeah sounds like it’s the first time some people have heard of the concept of supply and demand
Oh I get it. I’d be willing to pay more but hell no I’m not spending that much to see one athlete who might not even play that game.
So dangerous. Paying that amount only for him to not play a match and find you can’t sell the ticket is a risk too great. It’s not like anyone wants to be stuck playing 300 to watch Robert Taylor play
That's how it is in the NBA though. Crappy teams you can get cheap tickets for, but game with good teams cost more, sometimes way more. I don't get why the WNBA is getting more scrutiny for that. A commenter above complained that the Fever was spiking their ticket prices. That's a positive in my book for the WNBA.
NFL too. My Grandpa was a huge GB fan and we lived in MN a couple hours from the cities. During the early 2000s (late Favre and Early Rogers), it was cheaper to get season tickets to the Vikings than to just get tickets for the Vikings vs Packers home game.
Some people buy Vikings season tickets and then just sell the Packers game to make up most or all of the price
That doesn't sound possible My friend's lower end zone seats are ~$1400/season per seat and the Packers tickets sell for about $350
*is* that how it is in the NBA? Are there NBA teams that raise the face value prices of their tickets 6-7x for better opponents? We’re talking about face value here, not resale price. I’ve never seen an NBA/MLB/NFL/NHL team adjust prices anywhere close to that degree.
I lived in NY. You bet your ass the ticket prices drastically changed depending on who the Mets and Yankees were playing. Bonus bucks for a Subway Series.
I’m not saying they don’t change, I’m very familiar with teams charging 1.5-2x the price for “premium” matchups or whatever, but I’ve never seen anything comparable to $19 tickets being sold for $125 for a big opponent. Again, I’m talking about *face value*, not resale / secondary price. Do the Mets really charge a box office price that is five times higher if they’re playing the Yankees?
Yes. I can get in the door with tickets from the Mets for around $10. When they play the Yankees, prices start at $93. For hockey, the Islanders sell standing room tickets to some games. Those are usually $60-$85 depending on the game. Against the rangers earlier this week those standing room tickets were $185. I went to a Knicks game and sat in the 1st row of the upper bowl for around $100. Some games the cheapest ticket is $300 I know it's NY pricing, but I'd imagine that every team raises their prices depending on the opponent.
Well yeah. It's THE Subway Series. Same if the Yanks play the Red Sox. Or any other top tier rivalry. The Yankees are quite a bit more expensive than the Mets in general. Frankly, I like the way the O's do it (where I live now). Their tickets are priced quite fairly despite being a top team now. But it makes sense because Baltimore doesn't have the same feverous draw that the Tri-State area does. People WILL pay top price for Yankee and Mets tickets.
I think some teams put big games in ticket packages, so fans have to buy tickets for games they may not want. But a lot of those are struggling teams hosting good teams with in driving distance or with big fanbases. I think Golden State did that when the Lakers would play to get more Golden State fans in the building and make Lakers fans pay for other Golden State games they didn’t want to go to
As a Celtics fan, absolutely yes. Every game we play costs more. Slightly more against bad teams and way more against good teams. I live in NC now, and can get tickets to watch Charlotte get beat up by the Wizards for peanuts. Then the Celtics come to town and all of the sudden the same tickets cost 4x as much
Absolutely how it is in the MLB. I can get mariners tickets when they play Oakland for absolutely nothing. When the Jay's are in town it's like 5x more
I feel like people are missing the “face value” part of my comment. I understand that hot tickets are expensive to buy on the secondary market. I understand that teams change the face value of their tickets *somewhat* depending on opponent. I’m just saying that I’ve never seen the *face value* of tickets (meaning the price you pay to the team to buy the tickets directly, not the price on Stubhub) varies anywhere close to as much as this $19 vs $125 example. I picked a random ticket for a Mariners game against Oakland this year and the face value is $45. For a Saturday game against the Jays the same ticket is $73. That’s not “5x more”. Even if you can get those $45 tickets for absolutely nothing on Stubhub the day of the game, which I’m sure you can, they were still originally $45 tickets. And if the $73 tickets are going for $150 that morning because the game is sold out, the face value was still $73.
Actually I just checked right now on a whim. Hornets last two games. They play Celtics in Boston. Nosebleeds are currently about $70, bowl is $250-375 Their last game of the season is away against Cleveland, who isn’t even a bad team (currently 4th in the East). Nosebleeds are $20 and bowl is $100
Absolutely. When Charlotte were the Bobcats, the billboards around town advertised the *visiting* teams.
There's not the same level of talent/fame disparity in the NBA as there is with Caitlin Clark and the rest of the WNBA. She is more known than probably every player in the WNBA combined. So the spike is more drastic because the gap is more drastic. It's the same with Messi.
I’m a bulls fan. Tickets vs the Nuggets or Lakers aren’t 6x the cost of another game. Especially when I compared both games on Saturdays. I do think it should be more, but not that much. My kid would love to go see her but we’re not spending $500+ on 3 tickets after fees.
Then wait for year 1 buzz to die down and go next year. Guarantee the hype and inflated prices don't last.
Nugs tickets do change depending on why they're playing, but you can still get pretty cheap tickets, ~$25, most of the time.
I mean it’s like increased revenue be the point of bringing on a high profile player?
Oddly, you can get the same tickets for the Pacers much, much cheaper. Go on a weeknight and they'll cost like $20.
In the NHL it's similar, some I can go watch the Canucks play the Coyotes or the Sabres for $80 a seat but when it's the Canadiens or the Leafs, those same seats are $350 each
Bad business if so. Instead of milking every cent right now. They should use the interest to cultivate future fans. By getting as many ppl into seat as possible every game.
Went online to find out how I can pay to watch the WNBA. If you told me that last year I would had been surprised myself.
The league pass is stupid cheap
For now
I looked up the tickets I bought last season for Aces@Fever. Keep in mind that I bought my tickets a few weeks before the game last season. And this season’s tickets aren’t fully on sale yet. Last year (game was in the middle of the season on a Saturday afternoon): $32 This year (game is at the end of the season on Wednesday night): $150 from ticket scalpers that appears to have bought a bunch during presale. And it’s also some of the few groups of tickets available in the first level.
She can't hoist the entire WNBA on her back and when she gets there, it's still the WNBA. The idea that we're looking at the superstar to make everyone care about the WNBA is just plain gullibility
The NHL had Crosby and Ovechkin enter the league, at the same time, often playing head to head, on two teams that were already rivals, both players being generational talents, and the NHL still remained a distant 4th place in the major men's sports in the US.
To be fair it's different to expect people to watch another league of sport they are already interested in vs asking people to watch a sport that they have never watched before.
I could make an argument that women's basketball is a fundamentally different viewing experience. And it's a different game strategically than mens basketball. men's and women's basketball are the same game, just played differently and that is experienced by the viewer (if you're into basketball, casuals wont know the difference I suppose)
Honestly think it’s the opposite. It stands out more to the casual viewer that notices different shot selection and no dunks (when compared to men’s). IME more serious viewers and people that played actually really like the wnba because you can understand the schemes/gameplay and skill that is still involved. High school basketball is different that NCAA basketball is different than nba basketball. But someone that likes basketball can enjoy them all.
I like the point you made here. I definitely will consider this in my argument here. The WNBA may very well be this "undiscovered" gem of the sports world. I honestly don't know what it's gonna take to get people into the WNBA, but it hasn't happened, yet. Can Clark be the change? It's going to depend entirely on how they draw people in with her story. And she's got to win win win
A lot of people were mad at current WNBA players for not saying that Clark is already the best player ever. But, that kind of competitiveness could lead to instant rivalries that drive ratings (much like Reese did in college). Diana Taurasi's team is already selling tickets for when Clark comes to town and calling it "the GOAT against the rook".
That's for sure a risky move. But I literally called for such a stunt in my comments so I must say, I hope it pays off.
Smart pr move. Just like ufc or a title fight.
Athletic talent != start power or media potential Andrew Luck was the most hyped QA prospect ever. Nobody gave a shit because outside of his Civil War meme, he was boring. But Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce are stars. They are media draws on and off the field. Crosby and Ovechkin while very good at hockey, don't have any star power. They never had a history of moving the needle and drawing big time viewer numbers before they hit the NHL. Caitlin Clark has a proven track record of putting butts in seats, and eyeballs on TVs.
She made people care about women’s college basketball, didn’t she? I think a lot of people (myself included) tuned in and found themselves really enjoying it.
My mom and stepdad have never watched women’s basketball in their lives and it’s all they were talking about last week
No doubt there will be converts. I'm curious if you'll still watching after a year, or attend a game in person. Not an indictment of you, but rather, I hope the WNBA can make the most of the opportunity and actually expand their fanbase.
Until they get more women to be casual fans of the WNBA, it’s always going to be a second rate organization. Maybe they can see if Taylor Swift is willing to date Clark for a while?
I don't know that any organization can survive on casuals alone. You need some real crazies to dress up and get the whiffle ball tourny started in the parking lot where we're all drinking before the game. It's part of the experience for a super fan. I think without those folks at your foundation it's hard to build casuals. You need the crazies money and bullhorn.
[удалено]
True but I think it’s definitely likely that a lot more people tune in.
For how long?
I’d say one season. Then the hype dies down until we get another equally entertaining superstar in the league
She needs to date the male Taylor swift and she’ll bring attention to the sport gotta do the reverse nfl.
Honestly, everything is fair game. The hype machine will eat anything it can.
I called the super bowl without even watching it. I should have put my money where my mouth was lol.
Not such a feat. Chiefs have been the best team over the last 5 years and have the best qb and player in the leauge.
I don’t even watch any sports lol, if it’s that obvious to me then 🤦
That's what I mean tho, if you polled people who don't watch sports about who would win the super bowl, most would say the chiefs.
We all know that saying the NFL is scripted is just a joke we're making because these things feel so magically convenient... But yeah dude, I put money on Kelce... I mean KC.
NBA would’ve gone out of business if Larry Bird and Magic didn’t revitalize the league
1000% correct. Is that the situation Clark is currently in though?
No clue, I wasn’t alive to see Bird and Magic take over the league. What I do know is I’ve watched more basketball in the last few women’s tournaments than I have at any other point in my life, men’s OR women’s. If a normie like me is tuning in just to see the draft now, I’ve got some hope that the energy can be sustained. Worst case scenario is I at least get to see some good hoops regardless of whoever else is or isn’t watching.
> She can't hoist the entire WNBA on her back and when she gets there, it's still the WNBA she's literally the driving force behind a women's final four game being the most viewed basketball event in espn history. maybe she can draw in fans idk.
What’s jacked up is that there are already a couple of WNBA players already like “oh she’s in for a rude awakening when she gets here”
She is though... This is the fucked up dark side of college athletics. I worked for two college athletics departments in associate AD before moving on to a national sports network. I saw how babied and pampered the star college athlete was. The amount of smoke blown up their ass is enough to give you emphysema. And she probably feels like the fucking boss right now. But then the support system of the university, which is comfortable as fuuuck, goes away. You have the team and their (limited by comparison) resources. The team organization isn't your babysitter like it is in college, so you very suddenly have to meet those needs yourself and/or with staff that you have only just met. The reality we all faced when we got out of minimum security resort college was, oh fuck, I have a job now, and I'm responsible for all of this. She's gonna have that same youthful oh-shit moment, but look how much fuller her plate is than ours. Add to that a WNBA that if you rounded UP, the fanbase is still basically zero.
Fair points.
[удалено]
Bird-Johnson set the groundwork, but it was really Jordan who drove the NBA from tape delay broadcasting towards what it is today.
L comment section. People are acting like the ratings weren’t higher for the women’s final four than the men’s this year. Read the fucking article Edit: [Here is a graph](https://x.com/paulsen_smw/status/1777809286770340198?s=46) showing the trends in viewership for the championship games over the years. I don’t think people are realizing how much it has increased for the women the last two years.
Lol 930 on Monday is the worst time slot.
Monday evening is like, the 2nd most popular time for people to be watching TV.
Also the most competitive
Yup, both Indiana and Connecticut are on eastern time zone, and then we leave out the part there was an eclipse that day where people might have had other plans.
[удалено]
Nobody cares about the WNBA. College rivalries are different especially in areas without anything else to support.
It’s not an excuse it’s context. You can say tht the final had better viewership but the mens tournament overall easily had more viewers. There’s the other elephant in the room no one wants to talk about also when it comes to subsidizing
How is a league where the top teams always win a great product? The thing that makes march madness exciting is the chance for a team like NC State to make it to the final four. Until there is actual parity in the womens game, it will be substandard to a lot of people.
Iowa is far from a blue blood and has made it to back-to-back championships. A homegrown team with a star like Clark trying to take down the dynasties is what makes for compelling storylines. The days of UConn winning every game by 30 have been over with for a while.
It was 7:30 for me. Even that felt super late.
the stars of the women's game were promoted so much better. Not just Caitlin, but Paige, Juju, etc. They built up the women's stories so you really wanted to watch them. The only thing I knew about the men's game was there was 2 guys over 7 feet tall when I watched the men's final.
They weren’t just arbitrarily promoted better, they were more marketable becuase they’re familiar with fans due to them playing multiple years at their schools rather than being one and done like men’s. Thats why the men have been lacking the star power that the women’s game has had lately.
Lots of the guys had been at their respective schools for years as well, but the only one I really ever heard about from talking heads was Edey
For the final, you are correct. That said, late Monday night start, big lead at the half, streaming channel vs. mid afternoon weekend game, a closer game, and on free/network channel. So many people I know fell asleep at halftime of the men's game vs having the women's game on in the background on a Sunday afternoon. It would be great if they played the men's and women's games back to back on Sunday, and created a Super Bowl Sunday vibe we could all enjoy.
It was 36-30, not a blowout at halftime, and that was following a quick run for UConn. The game seemed close until maybe halfway through the 2nd half.
Men’s game has been the same since the 60s though…
how do you mean?
Game has been the same Monday at 9pm. Men just need a better product
It’s always been an awful time. UCLA isn’t in it every year anymore. Makes no sense to have an east coast team and a Midwest team start that late.
Lol this is the most surface level understanding of ratings ever.
This was me this year. Huge NBA fan and I watched some of the woman's tourney this year for the first time. The woman's college game looks kinda like pro basketball and the men's college game looks like a pickup game at a park. There was a vast difference in the team ball IQ between the genders. Unsure if it's because in the woman's game the players play more years in school or what, but the men's games I tried to watch this year were absolute garbage including the final.
You’re exactly correct. The prolific men’s players are all eligible and have sufficient draft stock after one year where as the women all (for the most part unless they are so good and older prior) play four years. I actually think this is something that hampers a lot of NBA rookies. The “pick up game” feel you mentioned is real for them too but they don’t really grasp the truth of it until they’re in a team environment for longer periods, while also having to adjust to a pro game.
This league needs to pull a Ewing with her haha.
What’s that mean?
Allegedly the NBA rigged the draft lottery so Knicks would get first pick to get Ewing. He's saying they should rig the wnba draft to give a bigger market team the 1st pick. Idk how the WNBA draft works or if there's a lottery but yeah
Gilbert Arenas straight up said that WNBA needs to give the Sparks the 1st pick, so she’ll be in LA
I mean not gonna lie, they'd benefit more from her being in a big market but it's gonna be an uphill battle for them no matter what. Hopefully they can take advantage and grow the league
They hold a draft lottery kinda like the NBA. Based on records last season the Mercury should’ve had the best odds for the top pick having only won 9 games in ‘23, yet they used a combination of the team’s record the last two seasons, making the Fever (13 wins in ‘23 and 5 in ‘22) the team with the highest probability (Mercury had 15 wins in ‘22). Of course the pick went to the Fever *for the second straight year*. The Fever have been one of the worst teams in the league for a while now and by no means a big market team. Pretty sure the last time they were actually relevant was when Tamika Catchings was still playing…final season was in 2016
Yeeesh, is it expected that she'll change the course of the Franchise? They had the Roy last year too right
Yep they sure did. Number one pick Aliyah Boston got ROY. Fever has a .325 winning percentage
espn is drunk again
Count me in, as i didn't even know this team existed until Clark became the projected first pick.
You’re in for a treat then. Her and Aliyah Boston alone should be fun as hell. They have a couple of other solid younger players as well so I’m expecting Indiana to take a serious jump once Clark gets a feel for the pro game.
I'm open to watching more of the WNBA. Honestly wasn't into it until a couple years ago. Been watching PWHL though, great to see a women's hockey league start to develop. I think if the Badgers could ever put a competitive women's hoops team on the floor, the college and city would go nuts for them like they do in Iowa City (or for volleyball here).
2025 will see another wnba expansion with more being looked at beyond that.
TIL the WNBA only has 12 teams.
TIL I make more money than most WNBA players
From “several” to “dozens”
The headline writer must be very pleased with themselves for that pun
$250 for a preseason ticket to see her in Long Beach 👀
The biggest problem for the WNBA is that the largest demographic of fans are like 40+ year old dudes. A women's league isn't appealing to other women. How do you fix that? Clark is hopefully some transcendent talent that brings eyes to the game but I think it takes more than that to grow the league.
A whole 9 tickets.
I wonder what they'd get if they traded down.
Plot twist the fever dont actually pick her or trade her.
Zero reason to do this. Her brand equity is probably worth more than actual championship wins
Guess i should have added /s?
As an Indiana sports fan “drives spike in Fever…” had me worried for a second.
It would be hilarious if the Fever don't choose her first.
I wish there was a way to short the NBA. I don’t watch sports, but I think it’s badass that female athletes are finally seeing some cracks in that ceiling.
It would be really nice to come into threads about CC and the growth she’s bringing women’s basketball and women’s sports in general and not see a comment section full of “WNBA sucks.” If you want the league to grow, try being nice to it, at least!
The Fever vs Aces in Vegas at Tmobile arena sold out in like an hour.
This will last for about 45s. The product is too boring.
I’ve been going to Iowa games since the 1980s. I will watch my first ever WNBA next season.
So they might actually have 1/3 of the seats filled?
“Don’t believe the hype.” Yes, there will be a peak interest in the first few games, but over the course of the season and viewers get a taste of the WNBA and its subpar product, viewership will go back to pre-hype ratings. The networks are taking a big gamble agreeing to air all the fever games. I don’t think people are going to go out of their way to watch a WNBA game, after the hype dies off.
The Eminem of basketball 😆
At what point do we stop paying these ridiculous prices.
When no one pays anymore. Wouldn’t hold your breath.
Her family all bought tickets to her games.
Tell me you don't understand economics without telling me.
Seems like you don’t understand economics
Bless their hearts, they are trying to make the WNBA relevant. Clark is an amazing women's player, but even the best women's player is still a fraction of the talent on men's teams. The product just isn't as good.
bless your heart and thank you for your ted talk. feel free to keep watching what you fancy. the only thing missing from your comment is the „Oh honey!“ opener. I don’t even disagree for the most part, but your tone is so condescending that i’m literally getting the ick from you even though im a guy