While hardly an expert, yours truly is a fan of ladies' college hoops, at least at the elite level. OK, I'm a Geno and UConn sappy. So sue me.
But there's been a lot of really good lady teams over the years. Baylor had a brief run when they had the 6 foot 8 freak playing for them. Notre Dame and Stanford are perennial powers, and Texas A&M came out of nowhere a few years ago to win a championship. And of course, there were the legendary Pat Summit's Tennessee teams that constituted a dynasty not long ago. This year South Carolina is front and center.
Once thought of as little more than a bad joke required by Title IX, ladies' college basketball is growing. No, they're not as tall, as muscular, can't run as fast, jump anywhere near as high, or crash the boards like their male counterparts, but some of these girls are really really good. Better yet, they don't share the same obsession with ridiculous tats all over their bodies. Something about that Y chromosome, playing with balls for a living, and ink that is beyond my comprehension.
So yeah, I'm all for ladies' college hoops. These girls work just as hard at their games as the boys and deserve every accolade they get. But then comes....
A problem. They all but disappear when their college careers are over. The outstanding ones go on to play in the WNBA, you say? True enough, but let's consider the reality of what actually happens.
In the WNBA, the max salary for a super-star player is around $100,000. Sure, that beats the heck out of flipping burgers at Mickey D's. Conversely, the MINIMUM salary in the NBA for the last player on the bench that rarely sees playing time is an escalating scale that starts at over $500,000 for a rookie. One of those guys could BUY a fast-food franchise outlet. A big difference. Is it fair? Depends on how one looks at it. I'll get back to that.
Though ladies' college basketball doesn't get nearly the TV air time the men do -- at least they get some. But the WNBA doesn't seem to get any at all. For that matter, many sports fans don't even realize their season is going on until the playoffs start. At that, even their Finals will be relegated to a cable station rather than a major network covering it. While the men are busy slugging out seven game series' on national TV, the ladies play best 2 out of 3 and hope somebody notices.
Mega college stars one day, then poof -- into the ether. Publicly disappeared. Erased. All gone. The best at what they do in the world but with no hope of ever making more than 100 grand.
Actually, whether it's fair or not has nothing to do with it. It's all about business. Even in college, with few exceptions like some of those mentioned above, the ladies don't exactly pack the arenas with fans. At the WNBA level, it's even worse. More times than not, venues that can seat 15,000 will only have a few hundred in attendance -- or less. This doesn't detract from the skill levels of the players, but numbers are numbers.
The TV people aren't about to shell out big bucks for broadcasting rights for games that can't even seem to attract a live crowd, sometimes even with promotional giveaways. And TV doesn't exist without sponsors (commercials). Tax deductible or not, why would a marketing department of a big business want to advertise their wares to a non-existent demographic? That might be a little bit like trying to sell snow blowers in the Congo, or air-conditioning in the Yukon. What would be the point?
Why the vast majority of American sports fans don't find ladies' basketball nearly as interesting as the men's version is a good question. But they don't, and it's not even a close call. Title IX may have leveled the "playing field" somewhat regarding opportunities, scholarships, facilities, and the like, but even its strongest proponents couldn't make throngs of fans go see games they weren't, and evidently still aren't interested in attending. Of course, in today's world and economy, the average John and Jane sports fans can only afford so many entertainment bucks in their budgets. Nevertheless, would they go see a WNBA game even if it was for free? Another good question.
Here's an example of how out-of-whack this has become. Consider one Diana Taurasi. She was a high-school hoops phenom, won multiple NCAA championships while a super-star at UConn, Olympic gold medals, MVP this, and MVP that. Then she was drafted by the Phoenix Mercury of the WNBA. She would go on to win championships there as well.
Now an 11 year veteran of the WNBA, and widely considered one of the best of all-time in the pros, Taurasi made quite a move this last season -- literally. While still under contract to the Mercury, Diana decided to take her talents to -- Russia. She is playing on a team in a league there that most Americans have never heard of, and likely never will. Why?
As an 11 year vet and still very much a terrific player, she remained stuck at around $100,000 in the WNBA. An 11 year vet at the minimum salary in the NBA would make almost $1.5 million. Fifteen times as much, even if he never played.
And that's what the Russian team offered her. $1.5 million. That raises another relevant question. Despite whatever you're making now at your current job -- if you could go to Russia and make 15 times that much for a year -- would you do it?
I know I would, so good for Diana Taurasi. Have a good time and stay out of Putin's way. He can be a right frisky fellow sometimes. See ya when ya get back.
Maybe.
No comments:
Post a Comment