People love watching the beam
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
Comparing this women's final to a 1st round series is pretty silly. Not only was this women's final an anomaly in terms of typical ratings, the first round of any of the men's major sports isn't going to draw what they draw come conference finals and finals.
I'm not trying to dis the women's final, just being real. It's a silly thing to bring up and compare (by Sports Media Watch).
A more apt comparison would be comparing to the men's NCAA Final from April, which drew an all-time low rating on record of 14.69 million viewers. Conversely, the women's final was the most watched of all time drew 9.92 million viewers.
Instead, they wanna compare it to first round NBA matchups? OK. Well, then make that comparison again if/when there is a game 7 in late May or in June.
As for the "Beam Team" it's nice that this series rated so well, but it should have. I mean, two geographic rivals and fan bases 80 miles apart that never faced each other under these circumstances before, combined with a 16 year absence by one of the most loyal fan bases in all of sports? And the defending champs fielding one of the most popular players in all of sports??
It better have done well, even for a 1st round series.
I'm not trying to dis the women's final, just being real. It's a silly thing to bring up and compare (by Sports Media Watch).
A more apt comparison would be comparing to the men's NCAA Final from April, which drew an all-time low rating on record of 14.69 million viewers. Conversely, the women's final was the most watched of all time drew 9.92 million viewers.
Instead, they wanna compare it to first round NBA matchups? OK. Well, then make that comparison again if/when there is a game 7 in late May or in June.
As for the "Beam Team" it's nice that this series rated so well, but it should have. I mean, two geographic rivals and fan bases 80 miles apart that never faced each other under these circumstances before, combined with a 16 year absence by one of the most loyal fan bases in all of sports? And the defending champs fielding one of the most popular players in all of sports??
It better have done well, even for a 1st round series.
Last edited:
As someone that avidly followed the Monarchs during their tenure in SAC, I'll believe the explosion when I see it.
The WNBA is still being subsidized by the NBA and has never made money since the league began in 1997. They've had to contract teams and still only have 4 more teams currently than what the league started with. It's not progressing, despite the advantage of the internet, social media, TV contracts and other things not available to other start up leagues from decades ago -- such a financial support from another successful league.
Happy to see the women's NCAA semi's and and Final do well, but that doesn't represent the norm.
I kinda see it like Serena Williams and both Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert in tennis. The women's game, on the whole, doesn't and didn't have a huge following, but any time those 3 players were in the mix -- the ratings went up.
That's what happened with Caitlin Clark and Iowa this past March/April. It'll probably happen again next tournament when Clark is a Senior.
I'd be happy to be wrong, but I just don't see overall interest in the women's game building and sustaining beyond a temporary spike in interest due to a once in a generation talent that went viral.
I think props are in order to the NBA for continuing to keep the WNBA afloat the past 26 years to give these young aspiring women an option beyond college or having to play overseas. I know most would like to see them earn more money, but the market isn't dictating it. At least the opportunity is there for those that want to pursue it. The NBA is losing money in order to provide it. And they should be applauded for it.
Hopefully one day soon the league will be able to stand on its own two feet and flourish. I just not so confident that it's going to happen.
They need a few more Caitlin Clark's to come along.
The WNBA is still being subsidized by the NBA and has never made money since the league began in 1997. They've had to contract teams and still only have 4 more teams currently than what the league started with. It's not progressing, despite the advantage of the internet, social media, TV contracts and other things not available to other start up leagues from decades ago -- such a financial support from another successful league.
Happy to see the women's NCAA semi's and and Final do well, but that doesn't represent the norm.
I kinda see it like Serena Williams and both Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert in tennis. The women's game, on the whole, doesn't and didn't have a huge following, but any time those 3 players were in the mix -- the ratings went up.
That's what happened with Caitlin Clark and Iowa this past March/April. It'll probably happen again next tournament when Clark is a Senior.
I'd be happy to be wrong, but I just don't see overall interest in the women's game building and sustaining beyond a temporary spike in interest due to a once in a generation talent that went viral.
I think props are in order to the NBA for continuing to keep the WNBA afloat the past 26 years to give these young aspiring women an option beyond college or having to play overseas. I know most would like to see them earn more money, but the market isn't dictating it. At least the opportunity is there for those that want to pursue it. The NBA is losing money in order to provide it. And they should be applauded for it.
Hopefully one day soon the league will be able to stand on its own two feet and flourish. I just not so confident that it's going to happen.
They need a few more Caitlin Clark's to come along.
Last edited:
Sometimes it takes rivalries, big personalities and big time talent to push a league over the top. Sure the league has had talent for years but Caitlin Clarke is a Steph Curry like player, not sure we have seen that level of shot making in women’s hoops. The LSU girls have a huge social media following and frankly that’s how a lot of young people consume the nba so I think that will help too. You have girls in high school dunking the basketball. If they get any momentum at all you will see marketing efforts ramp up and more tv time. We shall see but basketball is on the rise as a whole so I’m certainly hopeful.
Kings - Jazz (Game 5) 1999
Kings - Lakers (Game 7) 2002
Kings - Warriors (Game 7) 2023
When the Kings are good, the NBA benefits. Take note Silver.
Also, I’d love for the Kings to finally start winning these elimination games. Throw in Kings-TWolves 2004, Kings-Mavs 2003, and Kings-Lakers 2000, and it’s literally never happened in the Sacramento era.
(Kings last won elimination games while in Kansas City in 1981 against both the Blazers and Suns.
Kings actually used to be a coin flip to win an elimination game, going 6-6 as a franchise before moving to Sac. They are now 6-12 in win-or-go-home playoff games.)
Kings - Lakers (Game 7) 2002
Kings - Warriors (Game 7) 2023
When the Kings are good, the NBA benefits. Take note Silver.
Also, I’d love for the Kings to finally start winning these elimination games. Throw in Kings-TWolves 2004, Kings-Mavs 2003, and Kings-Lakers 2000, and it’s literally never happened in the Sacramento era.
(Kings last won elimination games while in Kansas City in 1981 against both the Blazers and Suns.
Kings actually used to be a coin flip to win an elimination game, going 6-6 as a franchise before moving to Sac. They are now 6-12 in win-or-go-home playoff games.)
Last edited:
I’m talking specifically about the mystical “Game 7” where, like the Thunderdome: two teams enter, one team leaves. But because it’s not always a seven-game series (Jazz ‘99 and Lakers ‘00 were both Game 5), I used “elimination game” as an umbrella term. Perhaps “double elimination game” would have been more accurate.
Yes, in a seven game series, games 4, 5, and 6 could be an “elimination game” for one team, but only the last game in a series can be an elimination game for both.
In that regard, the Kings are 0-6 in the Sacramento era.
Yes, in a seven game series, games 4, 5, and 6 could be an “elimination game” for one team, but only the last game in a series can be an elimination game for both.
In that regard, the Kings are 0-6 in the Sacramento era.
Last edited: