An Example not to follow
Fig Jam
Big news out of the WNBA today. Candace Parker can dunk. Of course we already knew this. We knew this when she won a High School dunk contest several years ago. However, Parker recently dunked in a WNBA game, making her the second player ever to accomplish this feat. So, not only is this old news from a Parker perspective, but from a WNBA perspective as well, since Lisa Leslie dunked in a game years ago. But nonetheless, the WNBA PR machine is in full swing touting Parkers dunk to the sporting masses today, as if it will somehow make a difference in the league’s popularity.
Look, the slamdunk is not what is making or breaking the WNBA. The league’s public relations and front office would do well to understand this. So long as the WNBA insists on measuring itself against the NBA, it’s going nowhere. The WNBA seems to be under the misconception that the league has trouble with mainstream sports fans because it is somehow perceived as ‘lesser’ than its male counterpart. Thus, whenever something that routinely happens in a men’s game occurs, it’s cited as proof that the women’s game is on par. Even the latest WNBA commercials feature various players staring at a camera and saying things like “women don’t like contact” as highlights of physical play flash across the screen. Good idea, but it reinforces the concept that the WNBA should be viewed in the same light as the NBA because there is sometimes contact (just like in a mens game! Yay!).
Which brings us back to the dunking thing. The NBA can’t even survive on the slam dunk anymore. When Dwight Howard did his pseudo superman slam during the all star break this year it was huge because it was the first time in 10 years that anyone has paid any attention to the dunk contest. It’s old news. Nique and MJ and Spudd are gone. It took Nate Robinson 350 tries to complete his contest winning dunk last year (or two years ago… who knows).
You wanna impress me WNBA? Get as far away from the NBA as possible. What about the NBA interests you exactly? The corruption? The horrible attempts to resurrect rivalries? The truth is, the NBA is becoming less relevant every day. You don’t want to hitch your wagon to that train. Even the latest NBA finals featuring two cornerstone franchises really only reminded us how awesome the league used to be. Turns out, the Lakers/ Celtics rivalry was really more about Magic and Bird. DJ and Byron. Worthy and Mchale. The Chief and Kareem.
A lot of other womens’ sports leagues have embraced this concept. The LPGA doesn’t follow the PGA tour around. The women’s tennis circuit has blazed it’s own path and even won equity in pay at certain venues (thanks to Venus Williams). Even women’s soccer has capitalized on its opportunities and used its world cup success to distinguish itself. Mia Hamm (I will NEVER call her by her married name) is more of a household name than virtually any Men’s soccer player (most notable US mens player? Landon Donovan probably???). Instead these leagues focus on putting out a product that is appealing. A product that features good rivalries and some form of entertainment that isn’t available anywhere else.
But not the WNBA. They partner with NBA teams, wear the NBA teams colors, play in their arenas, and generally just chase the NBA around trying to catch its scraps. They mimick everything they possibly can about the mens league. Bad move. By doing so, they guarantee that I will watch just as many WNBA games this year as I did NBA games. 0. (In all fairness, I did go to 3 Sonics games, but I got free tickets to those and live 3 blocks from the arena, so you can’t really count those in the bottom line).
oh and by the way… actually playing your sport well may not hurt either. In the game where Parker dunked, the losing team shot 27 percent from the field. That’s pretty sweet.
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Maybe Seattle should just go ahead and excise themselves from the dying carcass that is the NBA. Go ahead, give it to the “world class” OKC. At least until they move to Madrid when the NBA realigns and becomes the World Basketball Association that is David Stern’s dream.
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
The Seattle move is a great example of how the NBA is currently being managed.
1. Smaller economy
2. Smaller city and surrounding area
3. Much more competition in the smaller market (NO, Dallas, Houston, SA)
4. Less industry and growth potential (you can argue with that as soon as you show me a company in OKC on par with starbucks or microsoft or Boeing).
5. Less history (the only reason OKC has ANY history is because NO had to play there for a bit last season. so less than 1 season against 41 seasons. Seems like a good comparison).
From virtually every angle the move is financially ridiculous. But this is the league of the Allan Houston contract.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:10 am
You’re right. The NBA is becoming less relevant. That’s why the finals ratings were the highest they’ve been in 8 years. People should watch something much more exciting like the University of Memphis missing free throws or Major League Baseball.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:04 am
The main reason ratings were so high this year is likely due to the fact that two of the largest cities in the US had their respective teams in the finals. Compare this years ratings with those when NBC carried the Finals, and you’ll see that this years ratings weren’t even close to those of a decade ago. Sure, the ratings are up from last year, but last year was a record low for the Finals. No one wanted to watch Cleveland and San Antonio, two smaller market teams.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:08 am
I agree with Hose - in fact, I agree with anyone who calls Tubby out for being a know-nothing bacon jockey. This year’s finals, even with the league’s horribly contrived attempt to create a rivalry, were terribly boring. Two sequences that were endlessly replayed on their promotional commercials exemplify this:
1) Paul Pierce’s knee “injury”
2) Kobe Bryant’s “steal” at the end of game 5.
And if you read the superb “Sports Northwest” mag you would know that the OKC (can wash my balls) move is part of David Stern’s new plan to appeal to middle America - a proposal from the Republican strategists he hired.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Boston is not that big of a city (less than 1/2 the size of San Antonio).
June 25th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
San Antonio - 368.6 square miles with a population density of 2808.5 per square mile.
Boston - 89.6 square miles with a population density of 12,321 per square mile.
It’s all how it’s drawn up on the map. If you counted as much square milage as SA for Boston’s surrounding area, I bet it would dwarf SA.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
DubC, I think you must have been an expert witness for the PBC. Sure, the population inside city proper is larger in San Antonio (1.3M to ~600K), but the metropolitan areas have to be taken into account. Boston the 10th largest metropolitan area at 4.5M, compared to S.A., the 28th largest at 1.94M. I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure that many Boston fans live outside the city limits.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
NOMAAAAAH!
June 25th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
All you say is true. I merely thought we were having a city limit based discussion.