"I think his data is he sucks at basketball. Probably short.
#40 | Posted by REDIAL"

Out of all the sports, I do find basketball to be thoroughly the worst of the big sports in the US. In truth, I would be more likely to turn watch a Caitlin Clark WNBA game vs. a NBA game. Non-Caitlin Clark, I have zero interest. And it is not that I dislike women's sports. I will watch women's soccer over NBA any day of the week. It is just that basketball + women (- Caitlin Clark) is a horrible product being forced on a viewing audience.

"@#37 ... Well, their broadcast partner (Youtube TV) forced you to watch the NBA finals if you choose the multicast options (which most people did to watch FOOTBALL AND BASEBALL at the same time) ...

OK, a couple unsubstantiated assertions in there."

If you did multicast on YouTubeTV, you could not shut off the WBNA feed. The fact of the matter is that YouTubeTV is a sponsor of the WNBA and they did this to inflate viewership numbers - and they succeeded. I don't what you expect to 'substantiate' this claim - you have Google. Use it.

"... which most people did to watch FOOTBALL AND BASEBALL at the same time ...
There's that "most people" thing.
#39 | Posted by LampLighter"

Yes, MOST PEOPLE. The combined viewership of NFL and MLB in that same timeslot was more than 10x that of the WNBA (which includes the forced multicast). This is just basic math at this point. You want me to teach you have to do fractions or what?

"I mean, my current view of pro sports is that it is the exploitation of high-school athletes.

It is this view that is ruining sports altogether in the US. This view of 'exploitation' so everyone should be paid (NIL, etc) so you are turning high school and college sports into semi-pro leagues. It is destroying college football as we speak.

"The WNBA has had a very significant increase in viewership and participation in the sport. Wow, a ticker-tape parade in NYC?"

Because of ONE REASON: Caitlin Clark. There is no increase in interest beyond this but to push some narrative, we get all get what we always get from the media: fake + gay. We get Youtube TV faking ratings to push an agenda, and morons like TonyRoma buy right into it. It is an extension of their equity nonsense.

As to the parade - I recommend you go watch the parade for the Chicago Sky from a few years back. A parade where NO ONE showed up. We will have to see how many people show up in NYC for this parade.

"Given that uptick, I have to wonder why the apparent negative views of that success?
#36 | Posted by LampLighter"

I want success to be earned, not media driven fake+gay. That is all the WNBA is at this point outside of Caitlin Clark. Outside of her, it is the same non-athletic tall, lesbians bricking layups and airballing 3-point attempts. I wish they would actually up the skill level to make the games actual interesting. Hell, take the advice from Shaq and lower the rim. You already use a smaller ball - why is lowering the rim so they can actually dunk seen as an attack on women?

"What do you think viewership would have been if 2 major sports weren't on broadcast networks at the same time the W was on ESPN? I think you could safely add another 2+ million to the total and possibly more had the game been on ABC without competition instead of ESPN.
#34 | Posted by tonyroma"

Yeah, exact the EXACT OPPOSITE is true. WNBA has rating BECAUSE OF MLB and SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL. How does that work you may ask? Well, their broadcast partner (Youtube TV) forced you to watch the NBA finals if you choose the multicast options (which most people did to watch FOOTBALL AND BASEBALL at the same time). So, this inflated the WNBA and was not real viewers. So, you take away the forced multicast and you are probably at a rating numbers in line with the 2023 finals - which is basically in line with whatever crap ESPN wants to broadcast in that timeslot whether it be WNBA or the Steele Lumberjack challenge.

"Wanna doubt the popularity of the W? Without Caitlin Clark the W Finals Game 5 - going against Sunday Night Football did this:"

Why do you insist on trying to lie? You post PEAK numbers and to try to get people to compare that to AVERAGE numbers which are used in the industry.

So, let's look at the ACTUAL numbers:

Sunday Night Football: 17.6-27.1M viewers
WNBA Finals: 2.15M viewers

So, WNBA Finals ranked on par with a Simpson Season 36 and was outdrawn by 6x by the NFL pre-game show.

"WWE annual revenue is $1.3 billion
#22 | Posted by tonyroma"

That was in 2022. WWE just signed a deal with Netflix to carry Monday Night Raw for the next 10 years at $500M per year.

The entire WNBA generates about $200M per year. Even with the new TV deal, the WNBA is still peanuts compared to the WWE. So, tell me again about how much advertisers want those WNBA eyeballs.

For the record, up until Caitlin Clark joined the WNBA, the viewership was mainly male. I believe even now the NBA has less than 50% of the viewers as females. Shockingly, not even women wanted to watch non-athletic, tall, lesbians miss layups and shoot 3pt airballs.

"What a moron like you fails to recognize is that both the NBA and WNBA aren't just USA-based properties, they're global!"

The NBA has been global for 2 decades since Yao Ming. This is nothing new and will not stop the long term trend of audience decreasing. NBA finals viewership has fallen by 40-50% over the last decade. That is a dying league.

"And the W draws more female viewers in the most prized demographic than any other sport on television."

Is this a joke? The NBA televised games averaged under 700,000 viewers last year even with the Caitlin Clark effect. The NFL averages 10-20M per game and nearly half their audience is female. Are you bad at math of something?

"As I stated, some of the W's games on the same platforms as the NBA outdrew the senior league in viewership. And the women's NCAA basketball championship outdrew the men's championship game. What does that tell you?"

It tells me that basketball at both the pro and college level is dying and there is unprecedented demand to watch CAITLIN CLARK. Let's see where their ratings are this year. In 2022, the Women's championship game drew 4.5M people - last year was an anomaly and not the new normal.

"You woefully underestimate the value the W delivers that men's sports do not for the most prized demographic of all in marketing.
#22 | Posted by tonyroma"

Vs. the dying NBA, yes, the WNBA is holding its own for games featuring Caitlin Clark, they are murked whenever it is any other team. And vs. NFL or college football, they are simply not in the same league.

"CC games have gotten higher ratings than NBA games on the same platforms (ESPN/ABC/NBA TV), so except that the W plays fewer games than the NBA, it's absurd to think that its rights are only worth 3% compared to the NBA's.
#15 | Posted by tonyroma"

It is when you take into account that the only team/player people actually want to see is Caitlin Clark. Maybe the Fever should negotiate vs. the rest of the league for a higher % payout on the gate when they play Indiana and do their own TV deal.

Now, I don't like the NBA and it is actually a dying league, but their 2024 finals drew ~6M people a game (and this was down from 11M in 2023) vs. the WNBA at 1.1ish - and the playoffs is the only time worth watching the NBA.

Further, with 12 teams and 40 games, vs. the NBA's 30 teams and 82 games, the NBA offers 5x more games per year. So, 5x the number of games and 5-10x the viewership in the peak season and the NBA's TV rights should be worth 25-50x more than the WNBA TV rights. Further, if Caitlin Clark gets injured of pregnant, it is likely that the WNBA falls off the face of the earth again.

Also for comparison, WWE Monday Night Raw draws about 1.5M viewers despite being on USA Network and USA Network only pays $25M/year for the broadcast rights. So, I would argue that the WNBA is way overpaid now and the league losses only solidify that.

"You need to believe it.
#76 | Posted by lfthndthrds"

Correct, I have learned now that many of these posters have no interest in a factual discussion.

"#32 | Posted by Hans"

Just so we are both clear, I think you have become just as deranged as legallydead and rein. As such, I WILL NEVER click on any link you post. I would advise others to avoid your links and interacting with you in general as well. It is clear you are going through some mental episode and I have no desire to shame you for it or worsen your condition by feeding into it.

"#27 | Posted by Sycophant"

From your own link, which you obviously did not read:

"AtlasIntel was 2020s most accurate pollster
Average error of polls in final 21 days before the 2020 general election, for pollsters that conducted at least 10 polls"

As for accuracy, AtlasIntel's error as 2.2% with a GOP bias of 1% (meaning they missed some in both directions).

Meanwhile, the NYT/Sienna College had an error 5.5% with a Dem bias of 5.5%.

So, everything your wrote, despite you believing it was all the Gospel truth, was WRONG. Worse, it is shown to be wrong in the link YOU CHOSE to prove your argument.

"No need to discuss Rasmussen and Traflagar but the Atlas Polling is funny.
They had a pretty poor outcome for accurately calling close races.
#24 | Posted by Sycophant"

Again, why is it that everything you liberals claim to be the Gospel wrong?

Atlas were statistically the most accurate polls for 2020

"According to these same wrong betting books, Trump was supposed to run away with it in 2020.
#1 | Posted by a_monson "

What the hell are you talking about? I have to ask as it is 100% incorrect based on the actual history.

"There was a similar consensus in the run up to the 2020 election that Trump would lose " but the degree of confidence displayed by the markets and the models diverged markedly. To illustrate, Sporting Index, the spread betting company, announced it thought Joe Biden would win with between 305 and 311 electoral votes as the polls opened on election day, with Trump trailing on 227 to 233 electoral votes."

"No longer will the wealthy owners take advantage of their workers.
#1 | Posted by LampLighter"

What are you talking about? The WNBA lost $40M last year.

"@#69 ... No, it is the fact that you copied and pasted the exact comment in question into your own reply moron. ...
What else yer got?
#70 | Posted by LampLighter"

Nothing else is needed. My point is proven.

"The word "this" does that?
#67 | Posted by LampLighter"

No, it is the fact that you copied and pasted the exact comment in question into your own reply moron. Again, I have a hard time believing you are this stupid.

If you want to talk politics or other issues, please do so.

I am not here to teach you basic logic and reading comprehension so any further discussion on that will not be replied to.

"@#64 ... This comment was not even addressed to you. ...
Which comment is "this" comment?
#65 | Posted by LampLighter"

Well, let's see. This clearly links back to my comment #64. In my comment #64, I link to your comment #62. In that comment, you wrote:

"@#59 ... That twink Clownshack has poverty abs. ...
Welcome back to the thread.
I do note, your current alias seems to have abandoned its prior comments., and now went to ad hominem attacks.
Good to know.
thx.
#62 | Posted by LampLighter "

So, given this, what was the comment in reference? Was it:
a.) your comment #62
b.) comment #63
c.) or some other comment?

I really have a hard time believing your are this stupid so I am thinking this is troll or an act as I mentioned above. In that case, bravo!

"You are really tough behind a computer screen. I'm impressed.
#58 | Posted by Alexandrite"

Trying to act tough by calling someone out for 'acting tough' on the internet is peak beta-cuck. Let me guess your favorite sexual position. Is it sitting in the corner watching your wife get railed by her boyfriend?

"I do note, your current alias seems to have abandoned its prior comments., and now went to ad hominem attacks.
#62 | Posted by LampLighter"

This comment was not even addressed to you. Are you using this as an example similar to Trump/Central Park 5 by you being selectively outraged by a person making a comment about someone else and you inserting yourself into the discussion thinking the comment was about you? If so. Bravo! You finally get it.

"Clownshack with the fat shame. That's pretty good. Here's the thing - he can brag about his 6-pack but I have a keg! Come on!
#55 | Posted by BellRinger"

That twink Clownshack has poverty abs. It is not the same thing.

"Using 'Women' as an insult is misogynism
#56 | Posted by Corky"

I am using it as a biological marker - the same way pollsters do. They show that there is a huge gender gap (meaning people with a vagina or believe that they have one) that tend to be unmarried whores vote for Kamala while men vote for Trump.

"#54 | Posted by Corky"

You are sad to have your life story thrown back into your face? Sorry Corky. Women like you is the only reason why Kamala is competitive this election.

"I'm afraid that the CRFB has rejected your application for employment as an economics expert.
#15 | Posted by Corky"

I don't doubt that. The can't have people working there that can do actual math.

"#39 | Posted by YAV"

Yes, good idea. With you being so obviously limited intellectually, it is probably best if you do not use your limited resources on me.

"Donald Trump Can't Keep His Mouth Shut. It's Getting Him in Trouble. (2023)
www.motherjones.com
#38 | Posted by LampLighter"

This case will be tossed just like the nonsense 'inflating assets' case will be tossed. I don't know if you are following, but the DA finished her appeal remarks by asking the judge not to sanction them in that case - so, we all know how this is going to end.