MN Daily Op-Ed: Norwood Teague and Title IX

[AO54]

What's your point? How is that the fault of title IX? He's not adding soccer because it doesn't make any money. If we added men's soccer and women's lacrosse, men's soccer still wouldn't make any money, which is why he's not doing it. If it did make money he'd do it tomorrow. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

Title IX is a copout. The author isn't correct about much, but he/she is correct about that.

Men's Soccer could make $15 Million a year, and you still can't add it without reducing other male scholarships or adding female scholarships. Title IX is a major factor in these decisions.

 

[mplsbadger]

Since the reason to have all these non-revenue sports is to provide opportunity why are many of these rosters filled with non MN students. If we are providing 'opportunity' the majority of those 'opportunities' provided by the U of MN should go to MN students. There should be a designated percentage of the scholarships that are required to go instate students.

The revenue sports need to recruit nationally to succeed. They are in a revenue producing business...the other sports are not.

Why does the University of MN have a rowing team? Is that even a sport in MN outside of the U? Women's lacrosse would seem to be more representative of MN. Seems to be much more popular and a growing sport in MN.

I couldn't agree more. I'm normally not in favor of legislative meddling in the U's affairs but I would love to see them pass a resolution encouraging the U to only sponsor sports recognized by the MSHSL.

It's sad to say, but I also wonder if the U made a mistake pouring more money into baseball. A shocking fact I learned this week - Indiana is the first Big Ten team to go to the CWS in 30 years. The last time a team went before was Michigan in 1984. Jim Abbot was their ace and I was in the 9th grade. I turn 44 next week. I hate that we can't compete in baseball, but after 30 years I think the writing is on the wall. Especially when you consider that we have a venerated coach, a bunch of Big Ten titles and a state next door with no D1 baseball. Still not a sniff of the CWS in 35 years. Depressing.

 

[Deleted_User]

The way you succeed with girls is to support them in sports at young ages. I coached girls fast pitch softball sor first and second grade girls this spring. 22 kids showed up. As a district, we know that to compete well by high school, we needed to get girls to master pitching at an earlier age, so we hold clinics in winter, play the game in developmental programs in spring and travel in summer. Parents practiced with the girls away from team practice. The solution to the U's problem starts at the elementary level with volunteer coaches, associations, and deliberate practice to achieve levels of excellence where the kids enjoy playing the game. The level of support at the family level was amazing and fun to see.

 

[Section2]

That's the attitude we like. If you have that opinion, then just make it so student athletes get paid and be done with it. We have to quit pretending that collegiate athletics is amateur athletics. If it is, then great, let's have equal participation (which not one school with football has). If it isn't, then let's start paying the athletes. Football skews everything, and the U of MN has NEVER been in compliance with Title IX. They made moves in the right direction which has saved them from lawsuits. Title IX has many problems, most of which has had to do with Universities either dropping minor men sports (Wrestling being the huge example) (and which was NEVER the intent of the law) or dropping athletics all together (see NYU). I don't think it is wrong to ask schools receiving federal funding to share equally. That said, I know it will never happen.

I think it is wrong for the Feds to take money from a state and then give it back to them with strings attached.

 

[Section2]

The way you succeed with girls is to support them in sports at young ages. I coached girls fast pitch softball sor first and second grade girls this spring. 22 kids showed up. As a district, we know that to compete well by high school, we needed to get girls to master pitching at an earlier age, so we hold clinics in winter, play the game in developmental programs in spring and travel in summer. Parents practiced with the girls away from team practice. The solution to the U's problem starts at the elementary level with volunteer coaches, associations, and deliberate practice to achieve levels of excellence where the kids enjoy playing the game. The level of support at the family level was amazing and fun to see.

How is this "the U's problem"?

 

[Gopherprof]

Men's Soccer could make $15 Million a year, and you still can't add it without reducing other male scholarships or adding female scholarships. Title IX is a major factor in these decisions.

You are totally missing the point and I can't tell if you're just being disagreeable on purpose or if you really don't get it.

If Men's Soccer made $15 million a year they would bend over backwards to add it, no matter how many women's programs it took. It doesn't, which is why they don't. The "problem" isn't Title IX in this scenario, it's that they don't want to add another sport that doesn't make any profit, men's or women's. For proof of this, consider that they also aren't adding women's lacrosse, even though that would help them in regards to Title IX.

Why Teague doesn't just say that and instead seems to blame Title IX isn't totally above criticism, even though the OP makes a really awful argument.

 

[AO54]

You are totally missing the point and I can't tell if you're just being disagreeable on purpose or if you really don't get it.

If Men's Soccer made $15 million a year they would bend over backwards to add it, no matter how many women's programs it took. It doesn't, which is why they don't. The "problem" isn't Title IX in this scenario, it's that they don't want to add another sport that doesn't make any profit, men's or women's. For proof of this, consider that they also aren't adding women's lacrosse, even though that would help them in regards to Title IX.

Why Teague doesn't just say that and instead seems to blame Title IX isn't totally above criticism, even though the OP makes a really awful argument.

How is the problem not the "bend over backwards to meet title IX" part? If we're being more realistic about the profitability and value of men's soccer or lacrosse, the margins are much closer meaning the bending over backwards part is a much bigger deal.

 

[Gopherprof]

If we're being more realistic about the profitability and value of men's soccer or lacrosse, the margins are much closer.

I'm not even sure this is true, but assuming that it is, so what? Most universities have two programs that make money. In the case of Minnesota we thankfully have three. Everything else is geared towards something else, usually communal pride, gender equality, competitive spirit, whatever. The value you place on that is largely subjective but the point is that none of them are self-sustaining, so all of them require revenue streams from something else. Some may be less of a drain than others, but I hardly think that's the great big deal you're making it out to be.

Frankly, as I've already said, I would much prefer we cut a lot of sports that are mostly dead weight for universities so that they stop borrowing from the general fund and charging students fees to be propped up. Sponsor what you can self-sustain as an athletic department and get rid of everything else, particularly the sports you aren't competitive in, and that can't be sustained by local talent. Why we have a tennis team that gives scholarships to European players is beyond me.

 

[station19]

AO54..........3
Gopherprof.. 0

 

[Killjoy]

AO54..........3
Gopherprof.. 0

I assume since you just awarded three points to AO54 that your new moniker is station16. It took parski a lot longer to change your moniker to that.

 

[station19]

I assume since you just awarded three points to AO54 that your new moniker is station16. It took parski a lot longer to change your moniker to that.

I'm thinking of changing my moniker/username. Something Parski wouldn't be able to hijack so easily. I realize I would lose my post count but I recently went back and counted them all. There was only about 7,000. They must include all the deleted ones in the total count.

Too bad, they were all Parski compliments too.

 

[Killjoy]

I'm thinking of changing my moniker/username. Something Parski wouldn't be able to hijack so easily. I realize I would lose my post count but I recently went back and counted them all. There was only about 7,000. They must include all the deleted ones in the total count.

Too bad, they were all Parski compliments too.

Thanks for all the laughs you have given me but I don't think there where 7,000 of them.

 

[4four4]

Just another reason why somebody needs to start up a MJFL or MJBBL.

 

[mplsbadger]

Why Teague doesn't just say that and instead seems to blame Title IX isn't totally above criticism, even though the OP makes a really awful argument.

Totally agree with the above. I think the article was mostly off base, but pinning this on Title IX is a copout. It is akin to Glen Mason naming all the barriers to recruiting to Minnesota. It may be part of the story but I don't want to hear it. If NT really wanted to add La Crosse he could grow a pair and cut golf, gymnastics, and tennis. Leave the girls out of it.

 

[AO54]

Totally agree with the above. I think the article was mostly off base, but pinning this on Title IX is a copout. It is akin to Glen Mason naming all the barriers to recruiting to Minnesota. It may be part of the story but I don't want to hear it. If NT really wanted to add La Crosse he could grow a pair and cut golf, gymnastics, and tennis. Leave the girls out of it.

You said it best with "I don't want to hear it". You'd prefer that men and women were equal. We're inherently unequal. Even when you compare Men's and Women's golf, one team is going to have a different level of support measured by alumni donations, etc. It may be the women that has the more popular program, but making the assumption that it should be 50/50 is just ignorant wishful thinking and harmful to one gender.

I hope Norwood doesn't add La Crosse, he might be tempted to add Eau Claire as well, and that'd get us far too close to Madison.

 

[Deleted_User]

How is this "the U's problem"?

You are a stickler to stay strictly on point. Nothing wrong with that. But, it limits how you navigate creative ideas. If you want more revenue in women's sports, you need to develop the culture of participation very early in girls sports. My little team of kids had fans in the seats. I sent an email to the parents and said this wasn't a drop off sport. It was a family event and requested that parents show up to encourage the kids. At first it was the moms. Then I sent the email to the dads asking that they play catch with the girls to get them to throw longer lever throws for distance. The very next week all the dads were in the stands and the girls had unequivocally better and longer throws. I know several of the dads who now want to get involved in coaching the girls.

Where Teague comes into play and where mens sports come into play is when we train up a culture that people become involved and fans of a sport, enough so that they want to pay a ticket to see. If we get more fans to go to women's games and they become more self sufficient or even profitable, then more sports can be played. Teague can not possibly solve this problem. It is more organic to culture than to marketing or success on the field. If I can influence 22 families to watch first and second grade girls to practices, and not just games, then it is possible to develop a wider appreciation for women's sports.

Once again Section 2, you amaze me with your pointed and "critical" questions.

 

[mplsbadger]

Not sure why this is on the football board. In any event, I'm out.

 

[matt]

I'm thinking of changing my moniker/username. Something Parski wouldn't be able to hijack so easily.

May I recommend Parski2?

 

[CoMn]

I'm not even sure this is true, but assuming that it is, so what? Most universities have two programs that make money. In the case of Minnesota we thankfully have three. Everything else is geared towards something else, usually communal pride, gender equality, competitive spirit, whatever. The value you place on that is largely subjective but the point is that none of them are self-sustaining, so all of them require revenue streams from something else. Some may be less of a drain than others, but I hardly think that's the great big deal you're making it out to be.

Frankly, as I've already said, I would much prefer we cut a lot of sports that are mostly dead weight for universities so that they stop borrowing from the general fund and charging students fees to be propped up. Sponsor what you can self-sustain as an athletic department and get rid of everything else, particularly the sports you aren't competitive in, and that can't be sustained by local talent. Why we have a tennis team that gives scholarships to European players is beyond me.

As a person in the industry I have to say most schools would be much, much better off getting rid of varsity level sports (club and intramurals expand). They are entertainment and little else. We significantly lower admissions standards for athletes while turning away far more academically qualified people. Despite men getting most of the athletic budget money, schools are more and more becoming places where women are achieving more. Our question should be why are our universities (and high schools) falling so short with our boys and young men. In the past men received far more of the degrees, but it has steadily eroded...here's 2009, but it has worsened since then. As the vast majority of athletes can't do anything professionally with their sports skills when they graduate, are we serving them or using them for our entertainment?

In 2009, 57.2% of Bachelor Degrees, 60.4% of Masters Degrees, and 52.3% of Doctoral Degrees awarded in the US were awarded to women. In 1972 (when title ix passed) 44% of the bachelor degrees went to women, 41% of the masters and only 16% of the doctoral ones.

The trend continues to show a gradual role-reversal, where in a higher and higher percent of households, the woman is the breadwinner. What does this have to do with Title ix? Title ix enabled women to see themselves as equals with men. It enabled women for the first time to access the same opportunities. And they ran with it as the above statistics show.

We are first an foremost an educational institution. If title ix enabled women see themselves as equals and go forth in the world and achieve so much as a group for the first time in history, can't we say it was a success. Shouldn't our question not be about adding a sport that will be a drain for money, but instead, what type of thing do young men need to get back to parity with women in education? Shouldn't our fees go to educating and developing young minds? My question is why do we have any non-profitable men's sports? Can't we just have basketball, hockey and football....a cluster of women's sports that satisfies title ix and be done with it? Think about the practice field, the basketball practice facility...wouldn't all these be possible if the U didn't fund all those useless sports?

I love watching college sports and with the exception of women's basketball, find men's sports more entertaining. It's not that I hate them...it's that they have strayed too far from their original purpose and I have to agree with the Gopher Prof.

 

[Gopherprof]

As a person in the industry I have to say most schools would be much, much better off getting rid of varsity level sports (club and intramurals expand). They are entertainment and little else. We significantly lower admissions standards for athletes while turning away far more academically qualified people. Despite men getting most of the athletic budget money, schools are more and more becoming places where women are achieving more. Our question should be why are our universities (and high schools) falling so short with our boys and young men. In the past men received far more of the degrees, but it has steadily eroded...here's 2009, but it has worsened since then. As the vast majority of athletes can't do anything professionally with their sports skills when they graduate, are we serving them or using them for our entertainment?

In 2009, 57.2% of Bachelor Degrees, 60.4% of Masters Degrees, and 52.3% of Doctoral Degrees awarded in the US were awarded to women. In 1972 (when title ix passed) 44% of the bachelor degrees went to women, 41% of the masters and only 16% of the doctoral ones.

The trend continues to show a gradual role-reversal, where in a higher and higher percent of households, the woman is the breadwinner. What does this have to do with Title ix? Title ix enabled women to see themselves as equals with men. It enabled women for the first time to access the same opportunities. And they ran with it as the above statistics show.

We are first an foremost an educational institution. If title ix enabled women see themselves as equals and go forth in the world and achieve so much as a group for the first time in history, can't we say it was a success. Shouldn't our question not be about adding a sport that will be a drain for money, but instead, what type of thing do young men need to get back to parity with women in education? Shouldn't our fees go to educating and developing young minds? My question is why do we have any non-profitable men's sports? Can't we just have basketball, hockey and football....a cluster of women's sports that satisfies title ix and be done with it? Think about the practice field, the basketball practice facility...wouldn't all these be possible if the U didn't fund all those useless sports?

I love watching college sports and with the exception of women's basketball, find men's sports more entertaining. It's not that I hate them...it's that they have strayed too far from their original purpose and I have to agree with the Gopher Prof.

*nods head*

 

[AO54]

As a person in the industry I have to say most schools would be much, much better off getting rid of varsity level sports (club and intramurals expand). They are entertainment and little else.

I assume you're being critical of the spending from the general fund (which I will address later), but that just sounds silly when you say "entertainment and little else". You may not be learning chemistry or programming on the field, but you certainly do a lot of learning. I'd be willing to bet that the varsity sport that demands higher discipline and responsibility would result in better achievement by the student-athletes than if those same student athletes were in club sports. You might be right that some of those students wouldn't qualify and probably wouldn't go to college at all without a scholarship. That doesn't seem to solve our problem of low achievement either.

The trend continues to show a gradual role-reversal, where in a higher and higher percent of households, the woman is the breadwinner. What does this have to do with Title ix? Title ix enabled women to see themselves as equals with men. It enabled women for the first time to access the same opportunities.

The role reversal was happening before title IX. Would girls suddenly cease to play sports if they weren't subsidized by football? We've had an example on this very topic about a parent of a young softball player who isn't receiving a subsidy to encourage his daughter to play softball. It doesn't seem like he's banking on a scholarship to consider his time well spent.

Shouldn't our fees go to educating and developing young minds? My question is why do we have any non-profitable men's sports? Can't we just have basketball, hockey and football....a cluster of women's sports that satisfies title ix and be done with it? Think about the practice field, the basketball practice facility...wouldn't all these be possible if the U didn't fund all those useless sports?

Division 1 requires 14 sports. I don't know what the Big Ten requires but Purdue fields the fewest teams at 18. The U will have an annual operating budget of $3.4 billion in 2014. This is up from $2.1 billion in 2004. The athletic department receives about $3 Million from the general fund. I don't see any evidence that the U has cut education to pay this $3 Million to fund volleyball and golf.

 

[CoMn]

I assume you're being critical of the spending from the general fund (which I will address later), but that just sounds silly when you say "entertainment and little else". You may not be learning chemistry or programming on the field, but you certainly do a lot of learning. I'd be willing to bet that the varsity sport that demands higher discipline and responsibility would result in better achievement by the student-athletes than if those same student athletes were in club sports. You might be right that some of those students wouldn't qualify and probably wouldn't go to college at all without a scholarship. That doesn't seem to solve our problem of low achievement either.


The role reversal was changing before title IX. Would girls suddenly cease to play sports if they weren't subsidized by football? We've had an example on this very topic about a parent of a young softball player who isn't receiving a subsidy to encourage his daughter to play softball. It doesn't seem like he's banking on a scholarship to consider his time well spent.


Division 1 requires 14 sports. I don't know what the Big Ten requires but Purdue fields the fewest teams at 18. The U will have an annual operating budget of $3.4 billion in 2014. This is up from $2.1 billion in 2004. The athletic department receives about $3 Million from the general fund. I don't see any evidence that the U has cut education to pay this $3 Million to fund volleyball and golf.

Having coached camps with D-1 athletes I would argue that sports no longer teaches the values it once did. In order to become a d-1 athlete your family gives up Thanksgiving, summers, Christmas holidays to focus on your tournaments. Having a family centered on the athlete produces narcissism. If it taught all the wonderful things people say it does, wouldn't our pro athletes be the best role models we would produce. Instead they are all too often just the opposite...spoiled, used to getting their own way etc. How many schools have protected their athletes from being held accountable for unacceptable and sometimes illegal actions. While you point out the requirements of being d1...it is not the university specifically I pick on but d1 and d2 sports nationwide. I also challenge that sports develops strong character. If it did, our athletes would be more successful off the field than other groups.

Would boys cease to play football if they weren't subsidized? Very few schools have allowed forensic accountants examine the true cost of football programs. If they are so profitable, why are there so few when compared to say basketball programs?

Anyway, although entertaining, college sports does little for the athletes (just hang out with folks my age...the college football jocks can't move like those of us who didn't abuse our bodies...).

If sports demands so much discipline, why do pro athletes screw up so much? Wouldn't they be the most disciplined? I would argue majoring in applied math requires a lot more discipline which is why you don't hear about those darn math majors getting arrested...

 

[station19]

Having coached camps with D-1 athletes I would argue that sports no longer teaches the values it once did. In order to become a d-1 athlete your family gives up Thanksgiving, summers, Christmas holidays to focus on your tournaments. Having a family centered on the athlete produces narcissism. If it taught all the wonderful things people say it does, wouldn't our pro athletes be the best role models we would produce. Instead they are all too often just the opposite...spoiled, used to getting their own way etc. How many schools have protected their athletes from being held accountable for unacceptable and sometimes illegal actions. While you point out the requirements of being d1...it is not the university specifically I pick on but d1 and d2 sports nationwide. I also challenge that sports develops strong character. If it did, our athletes would be more successful off the field than other groups.

Would boys cease to play football if they weren't subsidized? Very few schools have allowed forensic accountants examine the true cost of football programs. If they are so profitable, why are there so few when compared to say basketball programs?

Anyway, although entertaining, college sports does little for the athletes (just hang out with folks my age...the college football jocks can't move like those of us who didn't abuse our bodies...).

If sports demands so much discipline, why do pro athletes screw up so much? Wouldn't they be the most disciplined? I would argue majoring in applied math requires a lot more discipline which is why you don't hear about those darn math majors getting arrested...

You make a lot of very good points. As some people like to debate; do sports build character or do they reveal character?

There are a lot issues surrounding the integrity of big time college sports. One of the very biggest is the one and done rule in BB. Most of them aren't even real students. I realize this is an NBA rule not NCAA. Having said that, there has to be some ways to bring back integrity to actual amateur college sports. Could they be held more accountable for transgressions? Suspension for a handful of games for screw-ups, not just per semester or nothing?

I don't have the answers but I'm not ready to give up on college sports. If many of these big time athletes that were not really students and were then not really part of college sports; would the college game really suffer? As long as the playing field was level of course.

I'd much prefer to see college sports make an effort to be more amateur than sell out and become professional/semi-pro.

 

[CoMn]

You make a lot of very good points. As some people like to debate; do sports build character or do they reveal character?

There are a lot issues surrounding the integrity of big time college sports. One of the very biggest is the one and done rule in BB. Most of them aren't even real students. I realize this is an NBA rule not NCAA. Having said that, there has to be some ways to bring back integrity to actual amateur college sports. Could they be held more accountable for transgressions? Suspension for a handful of games for screw-ups, not just per semester or nothing?

I don't have the answers but I'm not ready to give up on college sports. If many of these big time athletes that were not really students and were then not really part of college sports; would the college game really suffer? As long as the playing field was level of course.

I'd much prefer to see college sports make an effort to be more amateur than sell out and become professional/semi-pro.

Interesting...never thought about reveal or build character. I think about how baseball has the minors...players are paid...you don't have corruption...people pay to watch...the major league team subsidizes it...We really should have the minor leagues for all the sports that turn professional that way certain teams wouldn't have to pretend they aren't paying their players. And the schools use these kids...then people say let's pay them...who pays them..the other students...who have student loans galore already. The problems aren't unique to the University...they are systemic and as a lover of sports, it saddens me how far we have drifted away from what was so great about them. That being said...I am soooo looking forward to watching games this year. I'm probably part of the problem...

 

[Section2]

You are a stickler to stay strictly on point. Nothing wrong with that. But, it limits how you navigate creative ideas. If you want more revenue in women's sports, you need to develop the culture of participation very early in girls sports. My little team of kids had fans in the seats. I sent an email to the parents and said this wasn't a drop off sport. It was a family event and requested that parents show up to encourage the kids. At first it was the moms. Then I sent the email to the dads asking that they play catch with the girls to get them to throw longer lever throws for distance. The very next week all the dads were in the stands and the girls had unequivocally better and longer throws. I know several of the dads who now want to get involved in coaching the girls.

Where Teague comes into play and where mens sports come into play is when we train up a culture that people become involved and fans of a sport, enough so that they want to pay a ticket to see. If we get more fans to go to women's games and they become more self sufficient or even profitable, then more sports can be played. Teague can not possibly solve this problem. It is more organic to culture than to marketing or success on the field. If I can influence 22 families to watch first and second grade girls to practices, and not just games, then it is possible to develop a wider appreciation for women's sports.

Once again Section 2, you amaze me with your pointed and "critical" questions.

Oh, now I think you are really reading far too much into a simple question. I simply didn't understand your point and asked you to clarify, which you did.

IMO people like to watch the best. Women's figure skating and gymnastics does well. Women's tennis does well. Neither may be as good as men, but they are great in their own right. Women's bball is a joke, they still use a smaller ball!

Anyway, it seems to me, To achieve equality, you have to get people to ignore their natural desire to watch the best. Sure some people like the novelty of lower tier sports, but to make money? Entertainment has to be great.

 

[Gopherprof]

The problems aren't unique to the University...they are systemic and as a lover of sports, it saddens me how far we have drifted away from what was so great about them. That being said...I am soooo looking forward to watching games this year. I'm probably part of the problem...

*Nods sadly*

 

[CoMn]

Oh, now I think you are really reading far too much into a simple question. I simply didn't understand your point and asked you to clarify, which you did.

IMO people like to watch the best. Women's figure skating and gymnastics does well. Women's tennis does well. Neither may be as good as men, but they are great in their own right. Women's bball is a joke, they still use a smaller ball!

John Wooden thought women's basketball was purer basketball than men's. Men can palm the ball...dunk...etc. The women can't...they need to work as a team. It is often more fun to watch women play basketball than men because it is a coaches game...strategy etc..not just athleticism. But most folks just like to watch the dunking etc. for them the men's game is better and the women's is worse. But for coaches and folks who study the sport, I challenge your though that the women's game is a joke. For many of us, the men's game tends toward the joke as the men have outgrown the ball size and height of the basket, rendering teamwork far less important and therefore the game far less interesting.

 

[station19]

Oh, now I think you are really reading far too much into a simple question. I simply didn't understand your point and asked you to clarify, which you did.

IMO people like to watch the best. Women's figure skating and gymnastics does well. Women's tennis does well. Neither may be as good as men, but they are great in their own right. Women's bball is a joke, they still use a smaller ball!

Anyway, it seems to me, To achieve equality, you have to get people to ignore their natural desire to watch the best. Sure some people like the novelty of lower tier sports, but to make money? Entertainment has to be great.

And those fools who said winning is all that matters. Who'd of figured.

 

[Section2]

John Wooden thought women's basketball was purer basketball than men's. Men can palm the ball...dunk...etc. The women can't...they need to work as a team. It is often more fun to watch women play basketball than men because it is a coaches game...strategy etc..not just athleticism. But most folks just like to watch the dunking etc. for them the men's game is better and the women's is worse. But for coaches and folks who study the sport, I challenge your though that the women's game is a joke. For many of us, the men's game tends toward the joke as the men have outgrown the ball size and height of the basket, rendering teamwork far less important and therefore the game far less interesting.

I think it's a joke that they use a smaller ball. They should use a smaller hoop too then. I think the fact that high school boys could beat Wnba all stars makes it kind of a joke too.
I think it's fine if you think men's bball uses no strategy or teamwork, but its a strong minority opinion. It's not "many of us" it's "a few of us". Anyway, I was just sharing my opinion of why there are so few women's hoop fans. I could be wrong.

 

[station19]

I think it's a joke that they use a smaller ball. They should use a smaller hoop too then. I think the fact that high school boys could beat Wnba all stars makes it kind of a joke too.
I think it's fine if you think men's bball uses no strategy or teamwork, but its a strong minority opinion. It's not "many of us" it's "a few of us". Anyway, I was just sharing my opinion of why there are so few women's hoop fans. I could be wrong.

The smaller ball for women is one of the best sports decisions of all time.