PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

OT: Props to PSUer Ali Krieger for her World Cup game winning kick

I do think there is a line that exists for most people. Take basketball for instance. I love the game, I even get a kick out of watching little kids (relatives, that is… this sounds creepy otherwise) play it (for a few minutes before the cuteness wears off). But I would have no interest in regularly watching any form of the game below top-level men’s high school, and even that’s a stretch. The game is just too slow and lacking in athleticism below that for me to have the patience for it.

I think the women’s game could be a lot more interesting if they made the court smaller, the hoops lower, and the rims smaller. They are nowhere near the size of men’s bball players in most cases and the court just doesn’t seem to fit them correctly. Not to mention they get a ball that’s an inch smaller but shoot on the same rims, something that has always bothered me for some reason.

That’s not me being sexist, the games are played differently and I happen to prefer one style over the other. I’m sure somebody can rationalize it for themselves in the complete opposite way.

[quote=“UncleLar, post:20, topic:2542”]…
Typical sexist remark…[/quote]

Do you happen to subscribe to sports illustrated, by chance? I was really annoyed with the latest issue for this reason. I expected a full article on the women’s soccer quarterfinal, one of the most exciting games in any sport I’ve seen in a while. Instead, the game got relegated to a lead paragraph mention in a Scorecard sermon on Title IX and the global growth of women’s sports. SI (IMHO) could have sparred the sanctimony and put the women where they belonged, on the cover. Too bad the success of women’s soccer is still viewed as a sociopolitical phenomenon instead of an athletic achievement.

[quote="UncleLar, post:20, topic:2542"]... Typical sexist remark...[/quote]

Do you happen to subscribe to sports illustrated, by chance? I was really annoyed with the latest issue for this reason. I expected a full article on the women’s soccer quarterfinal, one of the most exciting games in any sport I’ve seen in a while. Instead, the game got relegated to a lead paragraph mention in a Scorecard sermon on Title IX and the global growth of women’s sports. SI (IMHO) could have sparred the sanctimony and put the women where they belonged, on the cover. Too bad the success of women’s soccer is still viewed as a sociopolitical phenomenon instead of an athletic achievement.

Can the brother get an “Amen”?

Amen

[quote="UncleLar, post:20, topic:2542"]... Typical sexist remark...[/quote]

Do you happen to subscribe to sports illustrated, by chance?

No, I don’t.

... Typical sexist remark...

Do you happen to subscribe to sports illustrated, by chance? I was really annoyed with the latest issue for this reason. I expected a full article on the women’s soccer quarterfinal, one of the most exciting games in any sport I’ve seen in a while. Instead, the game got relegated to a lead paragraph mention in a Scorecard sermon on Title IX and the global growth of women’s sports. SI (IMHO) could have sparred the sanctimony and put the women where they belonged, on the cover. Too bad the success of women’s soccer is still viewed as a sociopolitical phenomenon instead of an athletic achievement.

Is it possible that people just don’t care enough to bother putting resources into covering the sport? Yesterday was the 2nd highest rated women’s sporting event ever on television (the 1999 final on abc on US soil is number 1), and it doesn’t touch the number from last year’s USA/England men’s match, a group play game.

Like it or not, sports is a business. If there were a good way to consistently make money selling women’s sports, somebody would be doing it. If you want to suggest this is some deep rooted cultural problem rather than just an inferior product with a tiny (by comparison) market share, I think you’ll have one hell of a time proving it. Look at the money lost trying to prop up women’s sports the last 10-20 years, from the universities and title ix all the way up to the NBA hemorrhaging money in support of the WNBA.

I think you MIGHT have an argument if women actually cared about women’s sports, but I think even most women would consistently choose men’s anything over women’s everything. There was an article about this I read once but I’m too tired to find it now.

I would say this year’s WWC got way more coverage than anybody could have hoped for, not sure what there is to complain about.

[quote="UncleLar, post:20, topic:2542"]... Typical sexist remark...[/quote]

Do you happen to subscribe to sports illustrated, by chance? I was really annoyed with the latest issue for this reason. I expected a full article on the women’s soccer quarterfinal, one of the most exciting games in any sport I’ve seen in a while. Instead, the game got relegated to a lead paragraph mention in a Scorecard sermon on Title IX and the global growth of women’s sports. SI (IMHO) could have sparred the sanctimony and put the women where they belonged, on the cover. Too bad the success of women’s soccer is still viewed as a sociopolitical phenomenon instead of an athletic achievement.

Is it possible that people just don’t care enough to bother putting resources into covering the sport? Yesterday was the 2nd highest rated women’s sporting event ever on television (the 1999 final on abc on US soil is number 1), and it doesn’t touch the number from last year’s USA/England men’s match, a group play game.

Like it or not, sports is a business. If there were a good way to consistently make money selling women’s sports, somebody would be doing it. If you want to suggest this is some deep rooted cultural problem rather than just an inferior product with a tiny (by comparison) market share, I think you’ll have one hell of a time proving it. Look at the money lost trying to prop up women’s sports the last 10-20 years, from the universities and title ix all the way up to the NBA hemorrhaging money in support of the WNBA.

I think you MIGHT have an argument if women actually cared about women’s sports, but I think even most women would consistently choose men’s anything over women’s everything. There was an article about this I read once but I’m too tired to find it now.

I would say this year’s WWC got way more coverage than anybody could have hoped for, not sure what there is to complain about.

Yesterday’s world cup rating = 8.6
Last year’s world series ratings = 8.4
Yesterday’s British Open rating = 2.3

The game also set a Twitter record for most tweets per second on a single topic at 7196 tps topping the previous record set the day before in the third place game. The two soccer games bumped Osama Bin Laden’s death to third.

Evidently some people care a bit.

There was a time not long go when I prefered to watch women’s tennis over the men. The men’s game had gotten stale and boring… with the racquets as powerful as they are, the men’s game had become just a power contest. The emergence of Federer’s diverse game, and the emergence of Nadal has really diversified the men’s game again and made it much more enjoyable to watch. That, and with the women’s game missing star power at the moment, and I’m watching the men’s game a lot more again.

Other than tennis, I really don’t see where the women’s game is more interesting than the men’s, just because of the athletisism. That said, I really enjoyed the WWC. Jonesy hit the nail on the head, they’re playing for the love of the game and for their country… whenever that exisits (used to be the olympics were 100% that way) I’ll watch, whatever the sport OR gender.

Ratings for any sports events are bolstered overtime action, and Sunday's overtime and penalty kicks added an extra hour of coverage. And given the time zone difference with Germany, Sunday's game landed in a prime Sunday afternoon time slot on the U.S. East Coast.

The wins vs. Brazil and France got 2.3 and 2.2 ratings, respectively.

I’ve watched more women’s soccer in the last 10 years than I have NBA basketball.

[quote="UncleLar, post:20, topic:2542"]... Typical sexist remark...[/quote]

Do you happen to subscribe to sports illustrated, by chance? I was really annoyed with the latest issue for this reason. I expected a full article on the women’s soccer quarterfinal, one of the most exciting games in any sport I’ve seen in a while. Instead, the game got relegated to a lead paragraph mention in a Scorecard sermon on Title IX and the global growth of women’s sports. SI (IMHO) could have sparred the sanctimony and put the women where they belonged, on the cover. Too bad the success of women’s soccer is still viewed as a sociopolitical phenomenon instead of an athletic achievement.

Is it possible that people just don’t care enough to bother putting resources into covering the sport? Yesterday was the 2nd highest rated women’s sporting event ever on television (the 1999 final on abc on US soil is number 1), and it doesn’t touch the number from last year’s USA/England men’s match, a group play game.

Like it or not, sports is a business. If there were a good way to consistently make money selling women’s sports, somebody would be doing it. If you want to suggest this is some deep rooted cultural problem rather than just an inferior product with a tiny (by comparison) market share, I think you’ll have one hell of a time proving it. Look at the money lost trying to prop up women’s sports the last 10-20 years, from the universities and title ix all the way up to the NBA hemorrhaging money in support of the WNBA.

I think you MIGHT have an argument if women actually cared about women’s sports, but I think even most women would consistently choose men’s anything over women’s everything. There was an article about this I read once but I’m too tired to find it now.

I would say this year’s WWC got way more coverage than anybody could have hoped for, not sure what there is to complain about.

Yesterday’s world cup rating = 8.6
Last year’s world series ratings = 8.4
Yesterday’s British Open rating = 2.3

The game also set a Twitter record for most tweets per second on a single topic at 7196 tps topping the previous record set the day before in the third place game. The two soccer games bumped Osama Bin Laden’s death to third.

Evidently some people care a bit.

It definitely captured the nation for a moment, but will anybody give a hoot about women’s soccer for the next 4 years? And even in 4 years if they don’t have dramatic wins and a finals appearance is anybody going to care then? It was just a perfect storm this year, whether or not they can capitalize on it and sustain some interest now is the big question and my money is on “nope”.

Good article below IMO about the events of last Sunday.

Darren Clarke, Japan women illustrate sports’ redemptive powers

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/darren-clarke-japan-women-illustrate-sports-redemptive-powers/2011/07/18/gIQALcTvLI_story.html?wpisrc=emailtoafriend

[quote="Skeeza, post:18, topic:2542"]It needs more than an uptick.

Reality is, women’s sports are at best a JV version of men’s sports. You have to have another reason to follow a women’s team other than watching top notch sports.[/quote]

Typical sexist remark.

Why do you watch any college sports then? Clearly pro athletes are better, so you should watch nothing but them.

I find this comment laughable.

I watch college football because I went to Penn State. Same reason I watch college basketball. The folks I know who did NOT go to college have a much lower veiwership of college football. On a second note, a lot of college players CAN play in the NFL.

Why is it sexist to say that men’s sports have much bigger, stonger, and faster versions of the athletes in women’s sports? Does the PC factor mean that we all have to become blind and ignorant? There is NO DOUBT that the women’s teams are a lesser version than the men’s. That’s WHY there are 2 different teams.

[quote="Skeeza, post:18, topic:2542"]It needs more than an uptick.

Reality is, women’s sports are at best a JV version of men’s sports. You have to have another reason to follow a women’s team other than watching top notch sports.[/quote]

Typical sexist remark.

Why do you watch any college sports then? Clearly pro athletes are better, so you should watch nothing but them.

I find this comment laughable.

I watch college football because I went to Penn State. Same reason I watch college basketball. The folks I know who did NOT go to college have a much lower veiwership of college football. On a second note, a lot of college players CAN play in the NFL.

Why is it sexist to say that men’s sports have much bigger, stonger, and faster versions of the athletes in women’s sports? Does the PC factor mean that we all have to become blind and ignorant? There is NO DOUBT that the women’s teams are a lesser version than the men’s. That’s WHY there are 2 different teams.

The sexism comes when you arbitrarily draw the line at what you will watch between the men and the women with a BS claim that you only watch “top notch” sports. If your criteria were just “top notch” sports, then you would draw your line between college and pro, not between the men and the women.

[quote="Skeeza, post:18, topic:2542"]It needs more than an uptick.

Reality is, women’s sports are at best a JV version of men’s sports. You have to have another reason to follow a women’s team other than watching top notch sports.[/quote]

Typical sexist remark.

Why do you watch any college sports then? Clearly pro athletes are better, so you should watch nothing but them.

I find this comment laughable.

I watch college football because I went to Penn State. Same reason I watch college basketball. The folks I know who did NOT go to college have a much lower veiwership of college football. On a second note, a lot of college players CAN play in the NFL.

Why is it sexist to say that men’s sports have much bigger, stonger, and faster versions of the athletes in women’s sports? Does the PC factor mean that we all have to become blind and ignorant? There is NO DOUBT that the women’s teams are a lesser version than the men’s. That’s WHY there are 2 different teams.

The sexism comes when you arbitrarily draw the line at what you will watch between the men and the women with a BS claim that you only watch “top notch” sports. If your criteria were just “top notch” sports, then you would draw your line between college and pro, not between the men and the women.

Not necessarily. A lot of college men are better than professional women in many sports. If he draws his line directly below top level men’s collegiate athletics, he’s not being illogical to put women’s sports on the other side of that barrier.

I’d take every team that made the men’s bball tournament this past year over the WNBA champs 100/100 times.

[quote="Skeeza, post:18, topic:2542"]It needs more than an uptick.

Reality is, women’s sports are at best a JV version of men’s sports. You have to have another reason to follow a women’s team other than watching top notch sports.[/quote]

Typical sexist remark.

Why do you watch any college sports then? Clearly pro athletes are better, so you should watch nothing but them.

I find this comment laughable.

I watch college football because I went to Penn State. Same reason I watch college basketball. The folks I know who did NOT go to college have a much lower veiwership of college football. On a second note, a lot of college players CAN play in the NFL.

Why is it sexist to say that men’s sports have much bigger, stonger, and faster versions of the athletes in women’s sports? Does the PC factor mean that we all have to become blind and ignorant? There is NO DOUBT that the women’s teams are a lesser version than the men’s. That’s WHY there are 2 different teams.

The sexism comes when you arbitrarily draw the line at what you will watch between the men and the women with a BS claim that you only watch “top notch” sports. If your criteria were just “top notch” sports, then you would draw your line between college and pro, not between the men and the women.

Not necessarily. A lot of college men are better than professional women in many sports. If he draws his line directly below top level men’s collegiate athletics, he’s not being illogical to put women’s sports on the other side of that barrier.

I’d take every team that made the men’s bball tournament this past year over the WNBA champs 100/100 times.

So true, Crafty

I see a small divide between men’s college and men’s pro sports.

I see a HUGE divide between men’s and women’s sports.

That’s not sexist.

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:34, topic:2542”]Not necessarily. A lot of college men are better than professional women in many sports. If he draws his line directly below top level men’s collegiate athletics, he’s not being illogical to put women’s sports on the other side of that barrier.

I’d take every team that made the men’s bball tournament this past year over the WNBA champs 100/100 times.[/quote]

Pro football is better than college football. It his criteria for sports spectating was that he only watches “top notch” sports then the football that he would watch would just be pro football. He wouldn’t watch college football because it wouldn’t be the best. But clearly because he watches college football (and other college sports) then there are some sports that he will watch below the best. So the “top notch” only argument has to go out the door.

Yes he is drawing a line. But the line isn’t between the best and the not quite as good. It’s between men and women, and that’s sexism at its best.

[quote="Craftsy21, post:34, topic:2542"]Not necessarily. A lot of college men are better than professional women in many sports. If he draws his line directly below top level men's collegiate athletics, he's not being illogical to put women's sports on the other side of that barrier.

I’d take every team that made the men’s bball tournament this past year over the WNBA champs 100/100 times.[/quote]

Pro football is better than college football. It his criteria for sports spectating was that he only watches “top notch” sports then the football that he would watch would just be pro football. He wouldn’t watch college football because it wouldn’t be the best. But clearly because he watches college football (and other college sports) then there are some sports that he will watch below the best. So the “top notch” only argument has to go out the door.

Yes he is drawing a line. But the line isn’t between the best and the not quite as good. It’s between men and women, and that’s sexism at its best.

You’re nitpicking to make an accusation, this is silly. Top notch really means ONLY the best league? Not just the best team in the best league? Or the best player on the best team in the best league on his best day? Really, lar? You can’t have it one way and not the other, clearly he could have meant he prefers watching the best athletes and have some arbitrary line in his own mind of where the line is drawn between good enough and not good enough.

It would not be hard (in some kind of blind taste test) to differentiate between men’s and women’s basketball if you could somehow hide the gender of the players on the court. It’s a different game altogether. Women’s pro ball resembles mediocre high school men’s in speed and athleticism. Stop acting like only a sexist could see a clear difference here.

[quote="Craftsy21, post:34, topic:2542"]Not necessarily. A lot of college men are better than professional women in many sports. If he draws his line directly below top level men's collegiate athletics, he's not being illogical to put women's sports on the other side of that barrier.

I’d take every team that made the men’s bball tournament this past year over the WNBA champs 100/100 times.[/quote]

Pro football is better than college football. It his criteria for sports spectating was that he only watches “top notch” sports then the football that he would watch would just be pro football. He wouldn’t watch college football because it wouldn’t be the best. But clearly because he watches college football (and other college sports) then there are some sports that he will watch below the best. So the “top notch” only argument has to go out the door.

Yes he is drawing a line. But the line isn’t between the best and the not quite as good. It’s between men and women, and that’s sexism at its best.

You’re nitpicking to make an accusation, this is silly. Top notch really means ONLY the best league? Not just the best team in the best league? Or the best player on the best team in the best league on his best day? Really, lar? You can’t have it one way and not the other, clearly he could have meant he prefers watching the best athletes and have some arbitrary line in his own mind of where the line is drawn between good enough and not good enough.

It would not be hard (in some kind of blind taste test) to differentiate between men’s and women’s basketball if you could somehow hide the gender of the players on the court. It’s a different game altogether. Women’s pro ball resembles mediocre high school men’s in speed and athleticism. Stop acting like only a sexist could see a clear difference here.

Another example of UncleLiteral steering the conversation down an unintended path. Yeah, literally, top notch means the best. But clearly that’s not what Skeeza meant. Sometimes I think some here like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Let’s go back to beginnings. The purpose of Title IX was to provide young women with the same life lessons and life advantages derived from varsity athletic competition that young men have historically derived. Whether anyone chooses to watch the women compete was not a consideration of the people who devised Title IX, nor should it have been. As is often the case in our entertainment-obsessed culture, we tend to think the fans are the reason we have amateur sports; it’s for the benefit of the people who compete.

I really enjoy watching Penn State WVB. Talented student-athletes competing at a very high level within their sport. I enjoy watching them even though I’m fully aware they couldn’t stay on the court against Penn State’s MVB team.

Thank you EvanCeg…

SI was probably planning on featuring the women’s WC team on their cover this week, hoping that they would take care of business. Now it looks as if Darren Clarke will have that honour…or Alex Rodriguez or Joba Chamberlain or some other overrated Yankee du jour (see Derek Jeter story on last week’s cover).

I’m not going to argue for or against women’s professional sports, but I agree that there is not enough $$$ support for women’s leagues in this country. But that still doesn’t mean that we can’t honor their achievements the right way.

The women’s World Cup team is truly a special case in this country, for outside of the Olympics, it really is the one female team that this whole country can rally around. And for anyone who has ever come into contact with women professional athletes, you can truly become a fan instantly. For they represent your everyday girl down the block for the most part. They are moms, sisters, wives and girlfriends.

I had the pleasure of contributing to a womens soccer book about nine years ago (my has it been that long) where I got to interview many of the sports stars in Portland, Oregon during the 2002 WUSA All-Star game. Among them were both Abby Wambach and Homare Sawa. I knew a little about Abby at the time, as she was the new star on the block to follow in the footsteps of the great Mia Hamm as a budding striker for the US national team. But I did not know all that much about Homare, even though she starred for my local Atlanta Beat club.

There wasn’t one bit of entitlement to any of their personalities during the twenty or so interviews that I did that week. It was a refreshing change to having interviewed current NBA and NFL stars. And what I did notice was a real sense of excitement, even from the greats (Mia, Julie, Brandi, Briana) talking about their achievements in the game and in helping the next generation of soccer stars.

As for Abby, I remember how confident she was in the interview (she went on to score twice in that All-Star game) as she gave you the confidence that she was going to lead her team to victory. For Homare, after apologizing to me about her English not being up to par with the other ladies, she nonetheless gave me a wonderful interview in her best broken English.

I spin forward nine years later and while sitting on my couch watching this most incredible of final games, I found myself not so much feeling bad for Abby and her US team, as I was amazed at the resiliency of the Japanese team, led by the littlest of stars who, nine years ago, sat opposite me and tried her hardest at answering my questions.

Having a sister that competed on the International stage as well, I’m always reminded that athletes and great athletic moments and achievements come in all shapes and sizes and from both men and women. And while the women’s professional game may never find a place on national television or in the mainstream media of this or any other country, the great accomplishments of women (such as this) should never take a backseat to anything that the men accomplish.

I hope that both the US and Japan team members realize that they have just spawned yet another generation of not only great soccer players for their respective nations, but a whole generation of young girls who now believe that they too can accomplish great things in whatever sport they so chose to play, even if it will be in the shadows of their football, basketball or baseball playing brothers.