There was a period in the 90s before Federer and Nadal that women’s tennis was just multiple times more entertaining than men’s, and no, not for puerile reasons. The points would go longer, the drama of would they succeed or fail was simply far better, etc.
Billie Jean King at one point was asked about men's vs women's tennis and said something to the effect of "We never said we're better than the men, we said we're more entertaining"
“The only real requirement from me is that the participants care.” Hear, hear. Participants-not-caring is a real problem with the modern “players as brands” NBA, and increasingly in golf too. So hard to watch LIV, TGL, and even the Tour (outside majors) nowadays because it’s not clear if the top players even care week-to-week.
One addendum to your thoughts here. I agree I will enjoy viewing a competitive game (at various skill levels) if I get a sense the athletes care and are putting forth sincere effort. But reflecting on current state of televised games, I feel a little annoyed when the announcers go “over the top” on the ladies’s game praising their athleticism as on par with the men’s. I think I’d enjoy watching the games more if I didn’t feel gas lit constantly to believe the announcers false praise over “my own lying eyes”. Quit trying so hard to convince the viewer the game is equivalent to the men’s game and, instead, sell it to me as what it is and I’ll enjoy it more.
well said, but I think [our] issue with this has more to do with the endless drive to never be satiated with any current level of success. The industry demands "more, more, more." No on in entertainment ever says, "This hits the spot. We can keep it at this pace now."
Secondarily, a point that Ethan seems to disagree with (because he often references the euro step as some great innovation) is basketball is generally more interesting to watch when the players are restricted by how many steps they can take. I don't watch enough women's basketball to really know for sure, but my perception is they don't (can't ?) game the system in the same way.
And this in my opinion gives the ladies' game the feel of watching live chess pieces moving around. No Giannis figures leaving players in his wake and no Harden figures stretching the limits of officiating. And sometimes with high stakes it makes for a pleasant viewing experience.
Ethan nailed it. It would be better for WBB to be straightforward about its game. It’s different and not as good (and sometimes it’s even funny).
And that’s OK. Because they play really hard and have some great skill and grow together as a team over the years. It doesn’t matter if they’d lose to a U15 team or that they practice against club guys. All that matters is if it’s competitive and fun.
Nah. The problem with men’s and women’s college basketball isn’t that they are not as skilled, it’s that the lack of skill leads to a very aesthetically unappealing product, specially on the women’s side.
College Football has less skilled players but that leads to a more open game with more “wow” plays. MMA fights of the night are usually lower on the card because less skilled fighters have more holes and that often leads to more action, etc.. College Basketball isn’t like that.
The rivalries make it more interesting. They are better in college b/c you bring it over from the other sports or your own personal animus or connection.
You always want your college team to win no matter what sport it is or how good the players are.
The big cities have this in other sports but this is the chance for people from KY for instance to have their place validated
Ethan hits on something that has long been an issue with me; the notion that games have to have high stakes in order to watch or find them entertaining. I listen to talking heads diminish marathon regular seasons or exhibitions like CFB bowl games because a win or loss isn't tied to some larger narrative. I listen to this and wonder when did we stop enjoying games for the competition and only for personal entertainment?
As for the women's college game I've argued that while the play itself isn't superior to men, it's a better overall product because the best players normally stay at one school for multiple years. What makes college sports great was the tradition and the fact that you were able to identify with players AND schools year over year. Duke/UNC will always be a rivalry, but it has lost some of it's luster because you're missing a JJ Redick or Tyler Hansbrough.
Bueckers had like 30 tonight and I think Lauren Betts shot like 90% from the field in the first two rounds. Just to name a few good performances out of many in this tournament. The women aren't as good as the men, but it's not like you can't see good basketball watching them either.
I thinks this applies to men's CBB as well. As (what feels like) one of the few people who like both NBA and CBB the basketball snobbery that always comes out this time of year is annoying. Yes, the quality of play isn't nearly as good but the games are much more compelling and meaningful as your average NBA regular season game. I also enjoy the different variety of both play style and players. Every NBA team's shot chart looks exactly the same and it feels like there's really only about 4 or 5 phylums that every NBA player fits into to. I heard Bomani Jones say recently that the NBA was more fun when bad players could make it to the league, and I think we get that in college and the need to scheme around the fact that most players can't create their own shot often makes for a more entertaining, albeit lower quality, product
This is especially true in other sports when you compare the NFL to College Football in the 2000s to early 2010s. College football quality is definitely worse than that of the NFL, but college football had much more variation in the styles of offense and defense, which makes it interesting. Spread offense, air raid offense, old school veer options from the Military academies, there was real innovation and risk in the college ranks while in the NFL every team basically runs the same version of the same offense.
This is a great point and I often wonder why we don't do the same thing with college football as we do with basketball. 90% of the QBs can barely complete of pass over 15 yards and half the defenses look like they couldn't stop a D-3 offense. Yet it's the 2nd most popular sport in the country.
I posted this as a note, but wanted to make sure it was "on the record" in House of Strauss: "Couldn’t agree more. I want to see humans flourishing, even if it’s not at “the highest level.” I’m inspired by candid, authentic goal-oriented humans, regardless of their overall reputation and/or ranking within their chosen endeavor. Thanks, Ethan (as always). It’s a shame most of your peers don’t have your sense of candor, but it’s also what helps you stand out as one of the best sports writers out there!"
Table stakes matter. I'm not talking about prize money and I'm definitely not talking about gambling. I'm talking about pride, and the competitive spirit. it brings out I was taught long ago that you honor your competitor by giving everything you have to bring out the best in them. You dishonor them by going through the motions either because they are beneath you or because god forbid you give it your all and come up short - the most painful kind of loss to absorb and also the most honorabl . Is March Madness the best way to determine a champion on either the Men's or Women's side? No. But it creates table stakes that everyone understands, most importantly the men and women in the arena. I love watching highly skilled athletes do things that are astounding. But watching 1st graders, mid level high school basketball players, and mediocre skill at the college basketball level is incredibly enjoyable, stressful, even, when you as the audience member realize how much the players care, and the crushing pain they feel in losing. The effort given by both sides, even in ultimate futility, is what draws me in, lower talent in the women's game is a given. The Ryder Cup is appointment viewing, even though to the displeasure of some (American) golfers it is unpaid. I will forever remember watching Jim Furyk reading and rereading and plum bobbing a crucial putt at the miracle/massacre at Medinah. I knew right then he would miss the putt and the match. It mattered to him because it mattered to his teammates, and to all of us watching. It wasn't the exhibition of skill that made it worth watching - it was the competition and the real human emotions that it brought out. I can appreciate the absurd skill the OKC Thunder display night in and night out but an ugly rock fight between Arkansas and Texas Tech is so much more enthralling. It's entertainment, and for many of us, it's the raw competitive spirit on display that makes it worth watching, and yes, just maybe, a moment of singular absurd off the charts skill may decide it, but in the absence of that rarity, I'll enjoy mediocre skill and maximum effort every time over higher skill just playing for a paycheck. I know I'm not alone.
You can, in my opinion, take this even a step further. What we crave as a sports-devouring culture is on-the-court/field storylines. A sport devoid of such storylines is dead, or at least rests in a state of moratorium until it is able to latch onto something compelling, aka the NBA over the last however many years. Caitlin Clark being a flame-throwing basketball star was/is a great storyline because it happened on the court. Even the controversies she's been enveloped has taken place within the context of her playing actual basketball - the hard fouls she received, her being left off the Olympic team, etc. Sure, there have been some off the court moments, but for the most part that's just icing on the cake. In contrast, the NBA, which is bigger, faster, stronger, has very little on-the-court storylines. Luka to the Lakers is the last impactful on-the-court story that resonates nationally that I can remember. There are plenty of off-the-court newsworthy items that garner attention from the talking heads - Lebron vs Steven A, for example. But I highly doubt that in a vacuum, that, or any other similar off-the-court story would push the needle in terms of viewership or excitement.
"I don’t need a player to be objectively great across all basketball anymore than I’d need prime Manny Pacquiao to be capable of felling heavyweights."
True. No need to fell heavyweights when prime Pacquiao could nail the three.
Not the main thrust of the piece, but I completely agree on March Madness. It's a terrible way to select a champion - sure, the best can and often do rise to the top, but having single elimination games adds a lot of randomness that makes it more likely a less deserving team will win it all. And there's nothing wrong with that! The reason we love it for its chaos and unpredictability, where Cinderellas make lucky runs and occasionally 4-5 seeds take it all. Making brackets is a great way to play along at home. Pure skill is great, but it's not the only factor that makes sports fun and compelling.
There is a reason that no one watches college basketball in the regular season (because it is awful basketball) and everyone watches March Madness. We are just degenerates even if we don't gamble who love randomness in our lives.
There was a period in the 90s before Federer and Nadal that women’s tennis was just multiple times more entertaining than men’s, and no, not for puerile reasons. The points would go longer, the drama of would they succeed or fail was simply far better, etc.
Billie Jean King at one point was asked about men's vs women's tennis and said something to the effect of "We never said we're better than the men, we said we're more entertaining"
Anyone else’s bookie tell them the story about how Riggs threw that game b/c he had huge gambling debts?
“The only real requirement from me is that the participants care.” Hear, hear. Participants-not-caring is a real problem with the modern “players as brands” NBA, and increasingly in golf too. So hard to watch LIV, TGL, and even the Tour (outside majors) nowadays because it’s not clear if the top players even care week-to-week.
One addendum to your thoughts here. I agree I will enjoy viewing a competitive game (at various skill levels) if I get a sense the athletes care and are putting forth sincere effort. But reflecting on current state of televised games, I feel a little annoyed when the announcers go “over the top” on the ladies’s game praising their athleticism as on par with the men’s. I think I’d enjoy watching the games more if I didn’t feel gas lit constantly to believe the announcers false praise over “my own lying eyes”. Quit trying so hard to convince the viewer the game is equivalent to the men’s game and, instead, sell it to me as what it is and I’ll enjoy it more.
well said, but I think [our] issue with this has more to do with the endless drive to never be satiated with any current level of success. The industry demands "more, more, more." No on in entertainment ever says, "This hits the spot. We can keep it at this pace now."
I agree with the primary point here.
Secondarily, a point that Ethan seems to disagree with (because he often references the euro step as some great innovation) is basketball is generally more interesting to watch when the players are restricted by how many steps they can take. I don't watch enough women's basketball to really know for sure, but my perception is they don't (can't ?) game the system in the same way.
And this in my opinion gives the ladies' game the feel of watching live chess pieces moving around. No Giannis figures leaving players in his wake and no Harden figures stretching the limits of officiating. And sometimes with high stakes it makes for a pleasant viewing experience.
Ethan nailed it. It would be better for WBB to be straightforward about its game. It’s different and not as good (and sometimes it’s even funny).
And that’s OK. Because they play really hard and have some great skill and grow together as a team over the years. It doesn’t matter if they’d lose to a U15 team or that they practice against club guys. All that matters is if it’s competitive and fun.
This is a sincere question, I’m not being argumentative, do you find it an aesthetically pleasing game to watch?
I do.
I love watching first grade basketball
I can't wait for the betting apps to add this... (eye roll)
Nah. The problem with men’s and women’s college basketball isn’t that they are not as skilled, it’s that the lack of skill leads to a very aesthetically unappealing product, specially on the women’s side.
College Football has less skilled players but that leads to a more open game with more “wow” plays. MMA fights of the night are usually lower on the card because less skilled fighters have more holes and that often leads to more action, etc.. College Basketball isn’t like that.
The rivalries make it more interesting. They are better in college b/c you bring it over from the other sports or your own personal animus or connection.
You always want your college team to win no matter what sport it is or how good the players are.
The big cities have this in other sports but this is the chance for people from KY for instance to have their place validated
Ethan hits on something that has long been an issue with me; the notion that games have to have high stakes in order to watch or find them entertaining. I listen to talking heads diminish marathon regular seasons or exhibitions like CFB bowl games because a win or loss isn't tied to some larger narrative. I listen to this and wonder when did we stop enjoying games for the competition and only for personal entertainment?
As for the women's college game I've argued that while the play itself isn't superior to men, it's a better overall product because the best players normally stay at one school for multiple years. What makes college sports great was the tradition and the fact that you were able to identify with players AND schools year over year. Duke/UNC will always be a rivalry, but it has lost some of it's luster because you're missing a JJ Redick or Tyler Hansbrough.
Bueckers had like 30 tonight and I think Lauren Betts shot like 90% from the field in the first two rounds. Just to name a few good performances out of many in this tournament. The women aren't as good as the men, but it's not like you can't see good basketball watching them either.
I thinks this applies to men's CBB as well. As (what feels like) one of the few people who like both NBA and CBB the basketball snobbery that always comes out this time of year is annoying. Yes, the quality of play isn't nearly as good but the games are much more compelling and meaningful as your average NBA regular season game. I also enjoy the different variety of both play style and players. Every NBA team's shot chart looks exactly the same and it feels like there's really only about 4 or 5 phylums that every NBA player fits into to. I heard Bomani Jones say recently that the NBA was more fun when bad players could make it to the league, and I think we get that in college and the need to scheme around the fact that most players can't create their own shot often makes for a more entertaining, albeit lower quality, product
This is especially true in other sports when you compare the NFL to College Football in the 2000s to early 2010s. College football quality is definitely worse than that of the NFL, but college football had much more variation in the styles of offense and defense, which makes it interesting. Spread offense, air raid offense, old school veer options from the Military academies, there was real innovation and risk in the college ranks while in the NFL every team basically runs the same version of the same offense.
This is a great point and I often wonder why we don't do the same thing with college football as we do with basketball. 90% of the QBs can barely complete of pass over 15 yards and half the defenses look like they couldn't stop a D-3 offense. Yet it's the 2nd most popular sport in the country.
I posted this as a note, but wanted to make sure it was "on the record" in House of Strauss: "Couldn’t agree more. I want to see humans flourishing, even if it’s not at “the highest level.” I’m inspired by candid, authentic goal-oriented humans, regardless of their overall reputation and/or ranking within their chosen endeavor. Thanks, Ethan (as always). It’s a shame most of your peers don’t have your sense of candor, but it’s also what helps you stand out as one of the best sports writers out there!"
Table stakes matter. I'm not talking about prize money and I'm definitely not talking about gambling. I'm talking about pride, and the competitive spirit. it brings out I was taught long ago that you honor your competitor by giving everything you have to bring out the best in them. You dishonor them by going through the motions either because they are beneath you or because god forbid you give it your all and come up short - the most painful kind of loss to absorb and also the most honorabl . Is March Madness the best way to determine a champion on either the Men's or Women's side? No. But it creates table stakes that everyone understands, most importantly the men and women in the arena. I love watching highly skilled athletes do things that are astounding. But watching 1st graders, mid level high school basketball players, and mediocre skill at the college basketball level is incredibly enjoyable, stressful, even, when you as the audience member realize how much the players care, and the crushing pain they feel in losing. The effort given by both sides, even in ultimate futility, is what draws me in, lower talent in the women's game is a given. The Ryder Cup is appointment viewing, even though to the displeasure of some (American) golfers it is unpaid. I will forever remember watching Jim Furyk reading and rereading and plum bobbing a crucial putt at the miracle/massacre at Medinah. I knew right then he would miss the putt and the match. It mattered to him because it mattered to his teammates, and to all of us watching. It wasn't the exhibition of skill that made it worth watching - it was the competition and the real human emotions that it brought out. I can appreciate the absurd skill the OKC Thunder display night in and night out but an ugly rock fight between Arkansas and Texas Tech is so much more enthralling. It's entertainment, and for many of us, it's the raw competitive spirit on display that makes it worth watching, and yes, just maybe, a moment of singular absurd off the charts skill may decide it, but in the absence of that rarity, I'll enjoy mediocre skill and maximum effort every time over higher skill just playing for a paycheck. I know I'm not alone.
You can, in my opinion, take this even a step further. What we crave as a sports-devouring culture is on-the-court/field storylines. A sport devoid of such storylines is dead, or at least rests in a state of moratorium until it is able to latch onto something compelling, aka the NBA over the last however many years. Caitlin Clark being a flame-throwing basketball star was/is a great storyline because it happened on the court. Even the controversies she's been enveloped has taken place within the context of her playing actual basketball - the hard fouls she received, her being left off the Olympic team, etc. Sure, there have been some off the court moments, but for the most part that's just icing on the cake. In contrast, the NBA, which is bigger, faster, stronger, has very little on-the-court storylines. Luka to the Lakers is the last impactful on-the-court story that resonates nationally that I can remember. There are plenty of off-the-court newsworthy items that garner attention from the talking heads - Lebron vs Steven A, for example. But I highly doubt that in a vacuum, that, or any other similar off-the-court story would push the needle in terms of viewership or excitement.
"I don’t need a player to be objectively great across all basketball anymore than I’d need prime Manny Pacquiao to be capable of felling heavyweights."
True. No need to fell heavyweights when prime Pacquiao could nail the three.
https://youtu.be/2wXNuBvWzwQ?si=TQ288Omyq42R-VeF&t=10
Not the main thrust of the piece, but I completely agree on March Madness. It's a terrible way to select a champion - sure, the best can and often do rise to the top, but having single elimination games adds a lot of randomness that makes it more likely a less deserving team will win it all. And there's nothing wrong with that! The reason we love it for its chaos and unpredictability, where Cinderellas make lucky runs and occasionally 4-5 seeds take it all. Making brackets is a great way to play along at home. Pure skill is great, but it's not the only factor that makes sports fun and compelling.
There is a reason that no one watches college basketball in the regular season (because it is awful basketball) and everyone watches March Madness. We are just degenerates even if we don't gamble who love randomness in our lives.