TSN: WHKY - 200+ Players Boycott NA Professional Hockey

[Husko]

If it didn't work for most people then people would tune in to watch lesser leagues and those lesser leagues would have just as high ratings as the NHL.

The Pan Am games ratings would be as high as the Olympics.

It is exactly that argument that works for most people. That is why lower league ratings never beat higher league ratings and why womens tennis, golf, hockey never beat mens.

People tune in to see the best. It will always be that way and ratings dictate it so from Boxing to golf to hockey the lower the league the less people watch.

I am not sure how you can even debate that otherwise. As it pertains to women if there was a women's sport that a woman could outperform a man it would beat the men in ratings and attendance because people would be more interested in seeing the best. When it comes down to it, it is not about sexism it is about human performance.

That is why women's hockey will never be on the same level as men's.

If it is not that why, if peak perfomance doesn't draw out more people like you are stating then please name a sport where lower level athletes get a higher attendance and ratings then higher level leagues? It doesn't happen. If it ever does happen it is an anomaly where people have a love or a connection with that team.

Or, you know, maybe systemic sexism has just created barriers to entry for people watching women's sports? Not having a network TV deal, an advertising budget, or major media coverage?

And, FWIW, women's Tennis has had better ratings than men's in the past.

U.S. Open women’s final scores higher TV ratings than men's final

Was Serena Williams better than Djokovic? No, just the bigger star. Which pretty much blows up your entire theory.

 

[jc17]

If it didn't work for most people then people would tune in to watch lesser leagues and those lesser leagues would have just as high ratings as the NHL.

The Pan Am games ratings would be as high as the Olympics.

It is exactly that argument that works for most people. That is why lower league ratings never beat higher league ratings and why womens tennis, golf, hockey never beat mens.

People tune in to see the best. It will always be that way and ratings dictate it so from Boxing to golf to hockey the lower the league the less people watch.

I am not sure how you can even debate that otherwise. As it pertains to women if there was a women's sport that a woman could outperform a man it would beat the men in ratings and attendance because people would be more interested in seeing the best. When it comes down to it, it is not about sexism it is about human performance.

That is why women's hockey will never be on the same level as men's.

If it is not that why, if peak perfomance doesn't draw out more people like you are stating then please name a sport where lower level athletes get a higher attendance and ratings then higher level leagues? It doesn't happen. If it ever does happen it is an anomaly where people have a love or a connection with that team.

I think the last sentence sums it up.

Many people do prefer college sports ( football and basketball) to the pros, despite the lower skill level. And I think you are 100% correct that its from a love people have for particular teams or rivalries and whatever else. Developing that relationship takes time. The NFL wasn't a popular league to begin with. It think some women's sports could have a more passionate following if there is time to develop that relationship. Same reason most people have a favorite team. If everyone just liked watching the best, everyone would tune into the New England, Golden State, Yankee games. Some poeple do, but most people have a team with an emotional attachment.

Also, the Olympics is a spectacle. People are told its a big event, storylines are generated, its so hyped. Yes people want to see the world's best, but I don't think people are tuning into the olympics over the pan-am games because they can actually see a higher quality shot-put or something

 

[Jim Bob]

Or, you know, maybe systemic sexism has just created barriers to entry for people watching women's sports? Not having a network TV deal, an advertising budget, or major media coverage?

And, FWIW, women's Tennis has had better ratings than men's in the past.

U.S. Open women’s final scores higher TV ratings than men's final

Was Serena Williams better than Djokovic? No, just the bigger star. Which pretty much blows up your entire theory.

Just because women in certain sports (tennis, figure skating, gymnastics, volleyball, etc.) pull more attention than the men doesn't mean that it will happen in other sports.

Just like a theory that would say that men pull more attention in basketball, hockey, golf, track & field, etc. that they will pull attention in every sport.

The question that needs to be asked is why do women pull more attention in the sports that they do and can those things be transferred over to hockey?

It's not just about throwing enough money at the game. Anyone who thinks that it is a huge sexist conspiracy that is keeping pro women's leagues down isn't looking at the issue in a way that will progress things forward.

Pro sports are an entertainment industry and the market never lies. For leagues to be successful, they need to grab people's attention. And in the day and age of the internet and social media, the gatekeepers are gone.

But, it's easy to point blame at others than to put in work to solve the problem.

That is why I respect what Paul Rabil is doing with the Premier Lacrosse League. He didn't feel that pro outdoor lacrosse was doing enough for players. So, he started his own league.

I believe that the women that pulled out of NA pro hockey for the 2019-20 season need to look at what Paul is doing and try and see if they can pull something like that off.

 

[Husko]

Just because women in certain sports (tennis, figure skating, gymnastics, volleyball, etc.) pull more attention than the men doesn't mean that it will happen in other sports.

Just like a theory that would say that men pull more attention in basketball, hockey, golf, track & field, etc. that they will pull attention in every sport.

The question that needs to be asked is why do women pull more attention in the sports that they do and can those things be transferred over to hockey?

It's not just about throwing enough money at the game. Anyone who thinks that it is a huge sexist conspiracy that is keeping pro women's leagues down isn't looking at the issue in a way that will progress things forward.

Pro sports are an entertainment industry and the market never lies. For leagues to be successful, they need to grab people's attention. And in the day and age of the internet and social media, the gatekeepers are gone.

But, it's easy to point blame at others than to put in work to solve the problem.

That is why I respect what Paul Rabil is doing with the Premier Lacrosse League. He didn't feel that pro outdoor lacrosse was doing enough for players. So, he started his own league.

I believe that the women that pulled out of NA pro hockey for the 2019-20 season need to look at what Paul is doing and try and see if they can pull something like that off.

Sexist conspiracy? No. Years of systemic sexism whereby generations of Americans have been conditioned not to watch women's sports and to a point where they can't name more than 5 female athletes? Yes. I don't know what the fix is. I'm sure it has to do with marketing, branding, etc. and I have no knowledge of those fields whatsoever. What I do know is saying that people won't watch women's sports because it's not "peak performance" is just wrong.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

Or, you know, maybe systemic sexism has just created barriers to entry for people watching women's sports? Not having a network TV deal, an advertising budget, or major media coverage?

And, FWIW, women's Tennis has had better ratings than men's in the past.

U.S. Open women’s final scores higher TV ratings than men's final

Was Serena Williams better than Djokovic? No, just the bigger star. Which pretty much blows up your entire theory.

That is ridiculous. Systemic sexism. If women were better than men at hockey people would watch.

Playing the victim card is weak.

Wow, you used a Tennis event from 6 years ago out of the 15 odd sports and say 100,000 other events during those 6 years around the world to blow up an argument. You are completely right. Its not the exception to the rule. If you even read the article you would see that the Men's final was competing against Monday night football with a ratings of 10.1 which blew away tennis.

At least you didn't claim racism too.

Sports Media Watch also reported that the last six U.S. Open men’s finals played on Sunday from 2002-2007 ranged from 3.3 to 7.9 rating, while the six Monday finals from 2008-2013 were in the range of 2.2 to 2.8.


EDIT : People like you is why there is the term fake news. Nice manipulation. You understand the bolded right. You seem to ignore that part to your argument. Did you read the whole article or just the headline?

 

[CatsforReinhart]

Sexist conspiracy? No. Years of systemic sexism whereby generations of Americans have been conditioned not to watch women's sports and to a point where they can't name more than 5 female athletes? Yes. I don't know what the fix is. I'm sure it has to do with marketing, branding, etc. and I have no knowledge of those fields whatsoever. What I do know is saying that people won't watch women's sports because it's not "peak performance" is just wrong.

Wow where to even start with this.

So before you spew nonsense can you please provide some factual evidence to back up your claim that
A) Women have been brainwashed to not watch women sports or sports in general
B) Men have been conditioned by society to turn of women's sports
C) Where sponsors and TV have not given women sports money and opportunity

If you are going to make such a claim about wild conspiracy theories at least give some evidence so it doesn't look bad.

Who conditioned you to turn off women's sports?

Its like you are saying it doesn't matter if we want to watch women we should be forced to because we watch men play. Maybe we should put women in lingerie and let them chase a football so guys will tune in but that would seem sexist too.

Also no one is stopping women from watching sports. Perhaps you should point your finger at them too or is this a man problem?

 

[Husko]

If it didn't work for most people then people would tune in to watch lesser leagues and those lesser leagues would have just as high ratings as the NHL.

The Pan Am games ratings would be as high as the Olympics.

It is exactly that argument that works for most people. That is why lower league ratings never beat higher league ratings and why womens tennis, golf, hockey never beat mens.

People tune in to see the best. It will always be that way and ratings dictate it so from Boxing to golf to hockey the lower the league the less people watch.

I am not sure how you can even debate that otherwise. As it pertains to women if there was a women's sport that a woman could outperform a man it would beat the men in ratings and attendance because people would be more interested in seeing the best. When it comes down to it, it is not about sexism it is about human performance.

That is why women's hockey will never be on the same level as men's.

If it is not that why, if peak perfomance doesn't draw out more people like you are stating then please name a sport where lower level athletes get a higher attendance and ratings then higher level leagues? It doesn't happen. If it ever does happen it is an anomaly where people have a love or a connection with that team.

Or, you know, maybe systemic sexism has just created barriers to entry for people watching women's sports? Not having a network TV deal, an advertising budget, or major media coverage?

And, FWIW, women's Tennis has had better ratings than men's in the past.

U.S. Open women’s final scores higher TV ratings than men's final

Was Serena Williams better than Djokovic? No, just the bigger star. Which pretty much blows up your entire theory.

That is ridiculous. Systemic sexism. If women were better than men at hockey people would watch.

Playing the victim card is weak.

Wow, you used a Tennis event from 6 years ago out of the 15 odd sports and say 100,000 other events during those 6 years around the world to blow up an argument. You are completely right. Its not the exception to the rule. If you even read the article you would see that the Men's final was competing against Monday night football with a ratings of 10.1 which blew away tennis.

At least you didn't claim racism too.

Sports Media Watch also reported that the last six U.S. Open men’s finals played on Sunday from 2002-2007 ranged from 3.3 to 7.9 rating, while the six Monday finals from 2008-2013 were in the range of 2.2 to 2.8.


EDIT : People like you is why there is the term fake news. Nice manipulation. You understand the bolded right. You seem to ignore that part to your argument. Did you read the whole article or just the headline?

 

[Husko]

Also, since you insist on being obtuse:

US Open ratings increase with big numbers during chaotic women's final (2018)

In all, the women's final attracted 3,101,000 viewers, while the men's final between Novak Djokovic and Juan Martin del Potro drew in 2,065,000 viewers.

 

[Husko]

Oh hey look, 6/10 US Open finals from 2007-2016 the women drew more viewers for their finals match that the men. BUT THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE MEN ARE SUPERIOR ATHLETES

Record-Low Ratings For U.S. Open Finals

 

[CatsforReinhart]

Sports Media Watch also reported that the last six U.S. Open men’s finals played on Sunday from 2002-2007 ranged from 3.3 to 7.9 rating, while the six Monday finals from 2008-2013 were in the range of 2.2 to 2.8.

On Monday night, the Philadelphia Eagles' victory over the Washington Redskins on ESPN earned a 10.1 rating.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

Oh hey look, 6/10 US Open finals from 2007-2016 the women drew more viewers for their finals match that the men. BUT THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE MEN ARE SUPERIOR ATHLETES

Record-Low Ratings For U.S. Open Finals

So you are going to keep going down this route even though the variables have changed from one year to the next for your hypothesis.

Cool....


Mens Football got 2.5 times ratings over women's tennis. So yes, people are watching men.

Maybe there was a women's cricket match somewhere in the last 10 years that beat the mens. Wow do I feel stupid.

You probably can't grasp that two men's sports are competing against each other so Tennis ratings are lower do to Monday Night football but keep pushing your theory.

 

[Husko]

So you are going to keep going down this route even though the variables have changed from one year to the next for your hypothesis.

Cool....


Mens Football got 2.5 times ratings over women's tennis. So yes, people are watching men.

Maybe there was a women's cricket match somewhere in the last 10 years that beat the mens. Wow do I feel stupid.

You probably can't grasp that two men's sports are competing against each other so Tennis ratings are lower do to Monday Night football but keep pushing your theory.

You do realize that the US open ordinarily airs from 5:00-8:00 while Monday Night Football kicks off at 8:15... right? And you also realize there is football on Sunday (day and night) too, right?

 

[CatsforReinhart]

You do realize that the US open ordinarily airs from 5:00-8:00 while Monday Night Football kicks off at 8:15... right? And you also realize there is football on Sunday (day and night) too, right?

You do realize in order to compare two events that all other variables must be equal.

You also haven't posted how we men have all been brainwashed not to watch women sports.

You seem to think women are victims of men's sexism but don't back this up with any evidence.

The highest rated mens tennis match blows away the hghest rated women's tennis match.

The highest rated mens Tennis match got over 16 million viewers.

The TV ratings you post are for one individual channel and not total viewers.

Also your post about ratings is only for ESPN and not the world.

 

[Aladyyn]

If you need to ask for "evidence" that sexism exist, I would suggest that you go outside and open your eyes.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

If you need to ask for "evidence" that sexism exist, I would suggest that you go outside and open your eyes.

That is not the same thing. The poster said systemic racism that forces men not to watch women's sports. Please don't change the statement.

 

[Aladyyn]

That is not the same thing. The poster said systemic racism that forces men not to watch women's sports. Please don't change the statement.

Your posts in this thread are all the evidence you need then.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

I think the last sentence sums it up.

Many people do prefer college sports ( football and basketball) to the pros, despite the lower skill level. And I think you are 100% correct that its from a love people have for particular teams or rivalries and whatever else. Developing that relationship takes time. The NFL wasn't a popular league to begin with. It think some women's sports could have a more passionate following if there is time to develop that relationship. Same reason most people have a favorite team. If everyone just liked watching the best, everyone would tune into the New England, Golden State, Yankee games. Some poeple do, but most people have a team with an emotional attachment.

Also, the Olympics is a spectacle. People are told its a big event, storylines are generated, its so hyped. Yes people want to see the world's best, but I don't think people are tuning into the olympics over the pan-am games because they can actually see a higher quality shot-put or something

Its very difficult to separate a single team as opposed to a complete sport. In Europe one ice hockey team can get 9000 fans while a team in the same league draws 3000 fans. It has to be looked at from a product point of view. Same as the NHL, if you want to look at a team like Florida or Carolina where the arena is half empty and then compare that to a college hockey game that might draw more fans you can easily defeat that statement.

When considering a situation all things must be equal in order to evaluate a the situation properly.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

Your posts in this thread are all the evidence you need then.

Thats not systemic. I am not sure what you know what systemic is.

Also I speak openly because I am not sexist and I do not cower to the mob. The only way to improve something is by facing the truth and dealing with it.

Calling me sexist is just a way someone who has no answers tries to win an argument.

 

[Aladyyn]

Thats not systemic. I am not sure what you know what systemic is.

Also I speak openly because I am not sexist and I do not cower to the mob. The only way to improve something is by facing the truth and dealing with it.

Calling me sexist is just a way someone who has no answers tries to win an argument.

You are part of the mob.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

You are part of the mob.

Personal attacks is another way to try and win and argument when they have no clue and no answers.

 

[Aladyyn]

Its very difficult to separate a single team as opposed to a complete sport. In Europe one ice hockey team can get 9000 fans while a team in the same league draws 3000 fans. It has to be looked at from a product point of view. Same as the NHL, if you want to look at a team like Florida or Carolina where the arena is half empty and then compare that to a college hockey game that might draw more fans you can easily defeat that statement.

When considering a situation all things must be equal in order to evaluate a the situation properly.

Alright, so we give women's sports the same resources and promotion as men's sports and then we can start talking? Good idea. I'm all for it.

 

[Husko]

You do realize in order to compare two events that all other variables must be equal.

You also haven't posted how we men have all been brainwashed not to watch women sports.

You seem to think women are victims of men's sexism but don't back this up with any evidence.

The highest rated mens tennis match blows away the hghest rated women's tennis match.

Ok, I'm going to give you one response, and then that's it. I can't spend all day engaging in your male men, Trumpian, inability to understand nuance and systemic factors rhetoric anymore.

No one has been brainwashed.

Throughout the history of television, women's sports has seldom been put on TV in a way that competes with the way men are. Women's sports has never gotten the same publicity, advertising, marketing, or coverage in general. We, the people, the broadcast consumers, don't know most women athletes. There are not a lot of women athlete stars. This is because of systemic issues, such the fact that no one is interested in women's sports therefore no one wants to watch women's sports therefore women's sports don't get put on TV therefore no one knows about women's sports therefore no one is interested... you see how it can be cyclical? That's called a systemic issue. The problem isn't that the CEO's of major broadcast companies are sexist (who knows, maybe they are? statistically some probably are), the problem is that there's a system in place creating barriers to entry.

You say that it's because people only want to watch the best, and men's sports are the best (men are bigger, stronger, faster, etc.).

I say people don't watch women's sports because people watch what they know. They want to see players they know. Teams they know. Stars, storylines, etc. And what Tennis shows us, is that when people do know the star (Serena Williams, a Tiger Woods level star in the Tennis world) and they're given equal TV exposure (US open men's and women's are shown on TV), viewers tune in. Serena isn't better than the best men. They would beat her head to head. But she is a bigger star. And that is why she can outdraw men in TV ratings.

Now what does this tennis example tell us about other women's sports? To me, it allegorically informs us that if there were female athletes that were well know, people were interested in, team storylines people knew, etc., they might just watch. Now is it worth it financially for someone to put in the resources to get there? I don't know. But it's possible and it's nuanced, that's my point. A lot more nuanced than just saying no one will watch women because they're not the best. You can go crawl into your hole and espouse that theory if you want, or you can't respond to me with another nonsensical post that isn't based on reason, but it's just not supported. But you do you, I'm done engaging.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

Ok, I'm going to give you one response, and then that's it. I can't spend all day engaging in your male men, Trumpian, inability to understand nuance and systemic factors rhetoric anymore.

No one has been brainwashed.

Throughout the history of television, women's sports has seldom been put on TV in a way that competes with the way men are. Women's sports has never gotten the same publicity, advertising, marketing, or coverage in general. We, the people, the broadcast consumers, don't know most women athletes. There are not a lot of women athlete stars. This is because of systemic issues, such the fact that no one is interested in women's sports therefore no one wants to watch women's sports therefore women's sports don't get put on TV therefore no one knows about women's sports therefore no one is interested... you see how it can be cyclical? That's called a systemic issue. The problem isn't that the CEO's of major broadcast companies are sexist (who knows, maybe they are? statistically some probably are), the problem is that there's a system in place creating barriers to entry.

You say that it's because people only want to watch the best, and men's sports are the best (men are bigger, stronger, faster, etc.).

I say people don't watch women's sports because people watch what they know. They want to see players they know. Teams they know. Stars, storylines, etc. And what Tennis shows us, is that when people do know the star (Serena Williams, a Tiger Woods level star in the Tennis world) and they're given equal TV exposure (US open men's and women's are shown on TV), viewers tune in. Serena isn't better than the best men. They would beat her head to head. But she is a bigger star. And that is why she can outdraw men in TV ratings.

Now what does this tennis example tell us about other women's sports? To me, it allegorically informs us that if there were female athletes that were well know, people were interested in, team storylines people knew, etc., they might just watch. Now is it worth it financially for someone to put in the resources to get there? I don't know. But it's possible and it's nuanced, that's my point. A lot more nuanced than just saying no one will watch women because they're not the best. You can go crawl into your hole and espouse that theory if you want, or you can't respond to me with another nonsensical post that isn't based on reason, but it's just not supported. But you do you, I'm done engaging.

There we have it. The truth comes out. I am suppose to be a trump fan and that is why you attack me.

I don't care one bit about Trump. I am not American.

The funny thing is I knew you would do that. Keep playing that victim card. Keep labeling people and putting people in categories. Its worked so well. That two party system in America that is meant to divide and attack each other works so well.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

Alright, so we give women's sports the same resources and promotion as men's sports and then we can start talking? Good idea. I'm all for it.

Why even have men's and women's sports?

Why not just put them all in the same league and let them compete together?

 

[Buffaloed]

Thread closed. It has drifted off topic and become political
Please use the one on the Business of Hockey Board
Women's hockey players demanding "living wage" so they can play at highest level professionally