NCAA - Men vs. Women

[Schmick's Gloves]

Considering it came from the W. Post he would have complained about an article about how great ice cream is...

Because if it came from wapo the article would say that the greatest ice cream was sweetened with castoreum and if you didn't agree you were phobic and ist and just a horrible white cisgender male whose opinion doesn't matter because white cisgender males have never, in their history, been forced in to work or war they weren't interested in.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[Nimrod]

My only resentment is for the narrative that women deserve the exact same as men ....

I don't think they deserve the exact same things, but in most cases, I don't hear them asking for the exact same thing. I think it's reasonable to ask for dressing rooms and bathrooms at OKC by now, for example. They've earned that, IMO. Sometimes the disparities are embarrassing, like the NCAA basketball tournament situation.

Around where I am, UNC's men play basketball in 20,000-set Dean Smith Arena. The women play in old Carmichael Arena. But they don't complain about it, not that I've heard. Carmichael is fine, good enough for Michael Jordan, but I think both should have he same basic amenities and opportunities.

Finally, that's certainly a fair point about LSU baseball vs. Alabama softball. However, the article was about the CWS vs. WCWS. Based on attendance and TV numbers, it appears the championship events in these sports are more comparable, even if the passion toward individual teams might not be. And I can see that. The WCWS was an event is more like the Kentucky Derby or Wimbledon, or the Masters. Not remotely as big as those events, but meaning that the WCWS brings a heightened interest to its sport that perhaps doesn't yet exist during the rest of the year. I think there are more fans of the sport itself than to particular teams in softball than baseball. ESPN made it that way by investing in the coverage of the WCWS starting some 20 years ago.

 

[Schmick's Gloves]

I guess it is very local. Where I am, the city park and rec softball facilities are just as good as the baseball. Similarly, the HS baseball and softball fields are in the same complex, both are constructed exactly the same except for the dimensions, and both share an indoor practice facility. Some HS softball programs in the region have dedicated indoor facilities so large that younger age groups can play games in them. I'm not saying there aren't inequities and areas that need improvement, but I see more than "scraps". Ultimately, baseball remains larger and is ultimately more of a moneymaker than softball. At DD's HS, there are dozens that try out for two strong softball teams. There are well over a hundred trying out for three baseball teams every year.

That's the same way it is here. The newest public park built in the region is called the Great Park. The Great Park has 5 softball fields and 4 baseball fields along with 3 multi-purpose fields. 1 softball field has a stadium as does 1 baseball field. The baseball facility does have more seating though. The HS facilities are pretty close to equal as well though some of the HS have stadium seats around their baseball fields but these are generally paid for by boosters and former players, softball could do the same. I also see the baseball boosters at local HS teams more involved in setting up concession stands and selling team gear like hats and hoodies that I haven't seen by the softball programs at the local public high schools.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[radness]

Seems more impressive facilities bring players.
Big shiney stadium.
Locker room.
Marketing the players at the field type of things.

People/Fans probably like better facilities too.

Wouldnt be able to gauge costs vs. reveniew of seats sold.
However i do think better player's represents the college better.
It just maybe the schools that dont upgrade facilitties are their own fault of having a lessor sb program.
Simply because it looks neglected, old or run down,
less fancy than other schools.
They may miss out on a few player selections.

 

[MNDad]

My only resentment is for the narrative that women deserve the exact same as men even if that means taking from the men who earn it and giving it to the women who did not.

There is simply more interest in men's sports than there is in women's sports, you can not argue against that fact. Males, by a higher percentage of their population, like sports more than females and will watch men's sports far more often than they will watch women's sports.

Nobody is making the argument that men's sports are any more difficult to play or even better to watch, just watched by more people. Sports dollars are just entertainment dollars. Females have other interests and spend their entertainment dollars on other things. For example, female models make far more money than male models, but you won't see that covered in WaPo.

When the interest and eyeballs are equal between the genders sports, the the pay/amenities are equal as well, take tennis, in the US the women make more than the men do in tennis because the women's game has more interest than the men's. When fastpitch softball has the interest level that baseball has, we will see everything else level out.

In 2019, before the plannedemic lockdowns and house arrests, Alabama lead the nation in home attendance for softball. The tide averaged 2,750 fans per game. LSU lead the nation in home attendance for baseball. The tigers averaged 10,555 fans per game.

It really is that simple, you want more, earn more

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Try reading the article. The whole point was that NCAA softball and baseball have similar fanbases and popularity, but the inequities in their championships still exist.

 

[_MIA_]

Try reading the article. The whole point was that NCAA softball and baseball have similar fanbases and popularity, but the inequities in their championships still exist.

I am now convinced that Mr. Glove is a former poster who was banned as his above narrative is almost verbatim to a similar one made by said banned poster...

 

[sluggers]

The article says that the viewership of the NCAA baseball championship was 1.1 million viewers, while the NCAA softball championship viewership as 1.0 million.

In game attendance during the regular season is a different story. Men's baseball outdraws women's softball by about 4:1:

 

[Schmick's Gloves]

I don't think they deserve the exact same things, but in most cases, I don't hear them asking for the exact same thing. I think it's reasonable to ask for dressing rooms and bathrooms at OKC by now, for example. They've earned that, IMO. Sometimes the disparities are embarrassing, like the NCAA basketball tournament situation.

Around where I am, UNC's men play basketball in 20,000-set Dean Smith Arena. The women play in old Carmichael Arena. But they don't complain about it, not that I've heard. Carmichael is fine, good enough for Michael Jordan, but I think both should have he same basic amenities and opportunities.

Finally, that's certainly a fair point about LSU baseball vs. Alabama softball. However, the article was about the CWS vs. WCWS. Based on attendance and TV numbers, it appears the championship events in these sports are more comparable, even if the passion toward individual teams might not be. And I can see that. The WCWS was an event is more like the Kentucky Derby or Wimbledon, or the Masters. Not remotely as big as those events, but meaning that the WCWS brings a heightened interest to its sport that perhaps doesn't yet exist during the rest of the year. I think there are more fans of the sport itself than to particular teams in softball than baseball. ESPN made it that way by investing in the coverage of the WCWS starting some 20 years ago.

I agree, dressing rooms and bathrooms at the stadium in OKC is more than reasonable. I am not sure that blaming the NCAA for those facilities not being in place at that stadium is reasonable though. The NCAA does not own the facility, it belongs to the ASA Softball Hall of Fame. Now does anyone believe that the Softball Hall of Fame is trying to provide a subpar facility for female softball players? That is certainly a tough argument to make.

Is there a softball stadium ANYWHERE in this country that has the facilities and capacities that the men's stadium in Omaha has? You can not say that they are placing the girls in a substandard venue when they're already in the nicest, largest, nicest venue in the nation for their sport.

I have no doubt that the Softball Hall of Fame will continue to upgrade their facility as the money continues to pour in. However it is not a fair argument to make to say that the Softball Hall of Fame stadium is not as nice as TD Ameritrade stadium because the NCAA is sexist and that's what this wapo article is attempting to say.



As for basketball, the men's tournament generated 917.8 million dollars in ticket sales and the NCAA spend 14 million dollars on the men's basketball tournament's "bubble". The women generated 15.1 million dollars in ticket sales but the NCAA spent 16 million dollars on the women's basketball tournaments "bubble".
The men made the NCAA 903 million dollars while the women cost the NCAA 900k. The NCAA lost money on women's basketball.

In fact the NCAA men's basketball tournament pays for all of the other NCAA championships (softball included) except for 4 other championship tournaments, baseball, men's hockey, men's lacrosse and men's wrestling.

NCAA: $13.5M budget gap between tournaments

The NCAA Division I men's basketball championship budget for the 2018-19 season was $28 million -- almost twice as much as the women's budget. But the men's tournament brought in a total net income of $864.6M while the women's event lost $2.8M.

www.espn.com

So saying the NCAA is sexist when the men's sports are ALREADY paying for all of the other sports is more than a reach

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[Nimrod]

... because the NCAA is sexist and that's what this wapo article is attempting to say.

Good post, although I don't think the Wapo article said the NCAA was sexist. IMO, it just pointed out disparities between the CWS and the WCWS and reported on some softball coaches who aren't happy about it. If coaches are griping, then it's a legit story. Agree w/ you that there could've been more info on the stadiums and how they work, that NCAA doesn't own them, and that NCAA doesn't have as much bargaining power w/ OKC because OKC doesn't have a legit rival to bid against it. It doesn't help that the NCAA chose not to defend itself or comment. It's probably hard to find someone on the record to play devil's advocate on this subject.

 

[Schmick's Gloves]

Try reading the article. The whole point was that NCAA softball and baseball have similar fanbases and popularity, but the inequities in their championships still exist.

I disagree with that, the men sell out a 30,000 seat stadium, the women sell out as well but the stadium has 1/3 as many seats.
The TV ratings were similar though, the men had 2 million viewers per game for their finals, the women had 1.8 million. However, the softball title was between 2 of the most storied programs in the country who were in different regions of the nation while the baseball title was between 2 programs with a combined 3 titles in 70 years and were only 500 miles apart.

If they built a 30,000 seat stadium for women's softball, would they sell it out? Maybe, but who should be on the hook for building that stadium?

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk