hoo boy.....I have a feeling that line about needing attractive female athletes is going to bite him in the ass. Well maybe not...still an awful lot of people who don't know who he is or care about him. That should work in his favor

Yeah, James' audience knows to expect that sort of thing from him and I don't think his comment was so outlandish as to generate anything too crazy in response.

He's right in a limited sense. Attractive people are more fun to look at than unattractive people. There is a reason Michael Jordan, Derek Jeter and David Beckham (among others) draw/drew eyeballs to the TV screens they were on that was beyond just their athletic ability.

Yeah, and that's why the Super Bowl is the most popular sporting event.

I'm not going to fillet him for being "politically correct"- I'm going to fillet him because that was one of the stupidest series of paragraphs I've ever read. Still love the Abstracts, but sheesh.

Helton is pretty borderline IMO. He had 4-5 great seasons, and then a few more above average ones. He doesn't really have a great peak or career argument. I guess he's similar to Cepeda, but I thought his election was questionable.

What would make women’s sports work would be to create a sport based around gymnastics in which the best athletes were small and exceedingly quick.

I've got it. H-O-R-S-E for gymnastics. (Well, choose a better word. B-I-, nah.)

If I do a Full Lubec with Half Gitchegoomee, you have to repeat it. I suppose you need judges to declare the Lubec Full and the Gitchegoomee Half, but that beats choosing a number between 9.5 and 10.0, when you can't possibly give more than a 9.75 to the first contestant.

What would make women’s sports work would be to create a sport based around gymnastics in which the best athletes were small and exceedingly quick.

The Jack Rusell Open?

"sports are built on organic appeal...women's sports needs attractive athletes"

If you say so, Bill.

I think Diana Taurasi is attractive. I'm still not watching the WNBA.

"Hey, Rebecca Lobo, why the long face?"

To succeed as a mainstream cross-over sport, women's sports need to fill a niche that men's sports do not cover. Women's soccer is probably the most successful women's spectator sport, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that men's soccer is not a huge spectator sport...but that is changing. Figure skating and gymnastics are also quite popular, where the men's equivalent is not popular, but both are really pretty much Olympic sports.

So I think a successful women's sport is volleyball. And you have no shortage of attractive athletes there.

Historically, attractive women athletes have certainly been massively more popular than unattractive ones. I guess the controversy in the statement is whether women's sports *need* mainstream popularity (and thus attractive participants).

The summer thing is obvious - the arenas have a hell of a lot more open dates than they do in the winter, during the NBA and NHL seasons.

The summer thing is obvious - the arenas have a hell of a lot more open dates than they do in the winter, during the NBA and NHL seasons.

Perhaps they should be playing in smaller venues until they build up the fan base? I believe that today's NBA venues are larger than they were 30 years, but most cities also have smaller venues that would probably also be cheaper to rent.

Historically, attractive women athletes have certainly been massively more popular than unattractive ones. I guess the controversy in the statement is whether women's sports *need* mainstream popularity (and thus attractive participants).

The problem is the absurd lengths to which people will go in order to pretend attractiveness-as-necessary-for-me-to-take-that-woman-seriously is "just one of those things" and not really a problem, and to the extent it is a problem, the solution is more hot chicks. I mean, James' idea for making women's sports more popular is to invent some new sport that they can do while being all pretty and stuff.

And the attractive premise doesn't even hold all that well. Is James really sure that WNBA players are substantially less attractive than NBA players? Is James really asserting that a significant portion of the MLB audience is watching baseball because Player X is so tall and muscular and handsome? And somehow women's tennis has remained popluar despite several years of tall muscular Serena Williams dominating the tour.

"sports are built on organic appeal...women's sports needs attractive athletes"

Are we sure he meant to type "organic"?? Hi-yo!!!

But seriously, naturally James goes more into detail in the article than he does in my truncated quote (and naturally, even that is just a "mailbag.") And I most likely truncated it badly at that, insofar as what he says right after the part about the athletes needing to be attractive probably should have been included.

Being physically attractive is PART of what makes sports work. Men who are tall and strong are perceived as attractive men. Women who are unnaturally tall and muscular are not generally listed at the top of the fantasy date list.

So I guess he's heavily implying that basketball was not the best possible test run in attempting to create a big-time women's sport.

Bill actually years ago published an idea for a "gymnastics sport"; the article (behind the paywall) is here. To seriously oversimplify, it's kind of like vertical tag football without a ball.

Perhaps they should be playing in smaller venues until they build up the fan base? I believe that today's NBA venues are larger than they were 30 years, but most cities also have smaller venues that would probably also be cheaper to rent.

I think one of the reasons behind the founding of the WNBA was indeed for summer NBA arena filler. One of the indoor men's lacrosse leagues seems to fill this function for the NHL, as well.

So I think a successful women's sport is beach volleyball. And you have no shortage of attractive athletes there.

FTFY.

Womens' tennis is pretty popular. (*) But in general womens sports aren't bigger because nobody (relatively speaking) wants to watch womens sports.

Nailing down the precise reason may be complicated, but a lower caliber of competition is a major factor. Of course, that can't be the only factor because a lot of people invest themselves in watching the silly college sports - mens NCAA football and basketball.

(*) Speaking of which, I took over Billie Jean King's court at central park a couple weeks ago. She was of course very good with the racket - doesn't move much but handles the racket well although she was just hitting and not playing a real game. I commented to her that it was a pleasure to watch her play, and she responded "likewise." (Well, that wasn't actually her response, but I know she was thinking it.)

And the attractive premise doesn't even hold all that well. Is James really sure that WNBA players are substantially less attractive than NBA players? Is James really asserting that a significant portion of the MLB audience is watching baseball because Player X is so tall and muscular and handsome? And somehow women's tennis has remained popluar despite several years of tall muscular Serena Williams dominating the tour.

No, he's not saying anything about *men* needing to be attractive for their sports to be popular. People watch the NBA, MLB etc. because they enjoy watching those sports at the highest levels. Women don't play those sports at the highest levels.

As for women's tennis, (a) many people think it's more enjoyable to watch than men's tennis because the rallies are longer, and (b) Serena Williams is attractive and has a compelling backstory and a strong personality.

She was of course very good with the racket - doesn't move much but handles the racket well although she was just hitting and not playing a real game.

She's a lot older than I remembered. Probably aren't too many 68-year-olds who could cover that much ground, especially given the pounding her knees have taken over the years.

Womens' tennis is pretty popular. (*)

I also don't think it's a coincidence that there are a lot of very attractive women's tennis players.

But women's tennis is also more fun to watch men's tennis anymore, because men's tennis so often consists of:

150 MPH serve
(ace)

or

150 MPH serve
(140 MPH return for point)

As for women's tennis, (a) many people think it's more enjoyable to watch than men's tennis because the rallies are longer,

Agree.

men's tennis so often consists of:

150 MPH serve
(ace)

or

150 MPH serve
(140 MPH return for point)

Tennis needs to have a Deadening of the Rackets.

Women's basketball was supposed to be more entertaining because there were fewer dunks - more shooting, more passing.
Has anybody watched enough to say, one way or the other?

Fouls in basketball has been a topic for discussion lately. James was imprecise, but the consensus is that players need to be able to foul _more_ -- that is, players being sent to the bench (or not playing defense) because of foul trouble. You counter that by placing restrictions on team fouls.

Women's basketball was supposed to be more entertaining because there were fewer dunks - more shooting, more passing.
Has anybody watched enough to say, one way or the other?

Obligatory.

I think that women's COLLEGE hoops are more watched than the WNBA is that people watch to root for their schools. I also noticed that older men (as in 70+ in age) watch women's hoops because it's closer to the game that THEY played in school than the hyper-athletic men's game played now.

I also noticed that older men (as in 70+ in age) watch women's hoops because it's closer to the game that THEY played in school than the hyper-athletic men's game played now.

My grandfather (who's pushing 90) likes to watch women's basketball because they never iso and never drive to the hoop. He loves passes and jump shots.

No, he's not saying anything about *men* needing to be attractive for their sports to be popular.

Yes he is. In the actual article he explicitly states it:

Well. . .at some risk of being filleted by the media for saying things that are true but nonetheless politically incorrect. ... .women's sports needs attractive athletes. Being physically attractive is PART of what makes sports work. Men who are tall and strong are perceived as attractive men. Women who are unnaturally tall and muscular are not generally listed at the top of the fantasy date list.

That's his entire first paragraph; the elipses are in the original. James' solution is to invent Petite Ball, where we can have all those "super cute" (James' words) gymnast-type athletes, but hopefully ones that are not "so young [that James] sort of feel[s] like a pervert" (again, James' words) watching them perform.

People watch the NBA, MLB etc. because they enjoy watching those sports at the highest levels. Women don't play those sports at the highest levels.

Ok, but a lot of people watch NCAA basketball and football, which is not the highest level of those sports. Likewise, very few people in America watch professional lacrosse, or professional skiing, even at the highest possible world-class levels. Maybe the answer is more complicated. There's always the tautological "people are interested in what they're interested in," of course, but I've never heard anyone seriously suggest sexier hockey players as a way to make more people interested in the NHL, for instance.

My gut instinct tells me that there's just not that much room for a sport to grow beyond a certain popularity threshold at this point in time.

Its not women's sports leagues -- its new sports leagues period. Am I forgetting a breakthrough new sports league in the last, oh, 25 years?

As a warning to all here, be careful in your comments, lest you end up getting the Shooty treatment in a Salon article like this.

Associated BTF comment thread here.

Ok, but a lot of people watch NCAA basketball and football, which is not the highest level of those sports

NCAA basketball and football are among the highest levels of those sports, yes. If women could play as well as Division I teams in those sports, people would watch. As it is they're more comparable to Division III schools.

OpenSalon, to be fair. OpenSalon is self-published. A few articles get highlighted on the main page, though.

Its not women's sports leagues -- its new sports leagues period. Am I forgetting a breakthrough new sports league in the last, oh, 25 years?

Does MMA count as a "sports league"? That's the closest I can think of.

NASCAR also seems to have grown a lot in the last 25 years, but I don't know enough about it to speak confidently.

College basketball was also more popular than the NBA up until what, the late 80s? College football to this day is a lot more popular in some parts of the country than the NFL. It's not like we have this long history of the pro game being more popular than the college version.

As for the WNBA in particular I think you guys are completely forgetting or perhaps ignoring the lesbian demographic. I can't say I go to a lot of WNBA games (okay, I go to none) but gay friends I know love to go to them along with their lesbian friends. I think that eschewing men's basketball in favor of women's also gets you hipster cred.

Is James really asserting that a significant portion of the MLB audience is watching baseball because Player X is so tall and muscular and handsome?

Exhibit A is one of the most beloved commenters at this very site, whom I myself still get the pleasure of reading when I am perusing the Newsblog without having logged in.

Its not women's sports leagues -- its new sports leagues period. Am I forgetting a breakthrough new sports league in the last, oh, 25 years?

MLS didn't exist 25 years ago and now they have a viable sports league and TV contract with a major network. And it's not like they stepped in and took over for some other soccer league that was getting a lot of TV time before them.

For the record, artistic gymnastics hasn't used the "out of 10.0" thing since 2006. Every routine has a starting difficulty score, based on the elements presented in the routine (there are pretty complex requirements for each routine and vault is slightly different [and simpler, actually], so I won't go into what exactly they are) and then an execution score, based on how the gymnast performed (specific types of errors earn specific deductions from the initial base value, which is the same for all gymnasts) and the two scores are added together. It's a lot more objective/transparent than the old system and a lot easier to follow (I think). So something like #5 really doesn't exist any more.

EDIT: this is the FIG, though. Lower levels of gymnastics still use the 10.0 thing, mostly because it's really difficult to do the "elements-value" thing at lower levels of skill, nor make errors as objective as at the elite level

The X Games (and so forth) should also be mentioned as a reasonably successful sport which has arisen in the last 25 years.

I'm not trying to make excuses for my argument -- just explore the discussion:

MMA got to step into a void left by Boxing.
I think NASCAR is the biggest success story, but it also went from being an established regional sport to a national sport. Even when it was regional, it had marquee events like the Daytona 500.
Maybe its my anti-soccer bias, but I still see MLS being on the cusp of success, but not quite there yet.

I'd think both factors are at work -- its hard to be a new sports league _and_ its hard to be a women's sports league. If MLS makes it, I could see a women's soccer league being able to survive too. I'd say women's baseball or softball as well, but I'm not sure men's baseball would make it as a new league, if it didn't already exist.

The UFC is less than 25 years old, and it's got a contract with FOX.

Am I forgetting a breakthrough new sports league in the last, oh, 25 years?

Arena Football League had a run, and it is still technically around, although not nearly as successful. But at its peak they had games on NBC, didn't they?

If MLS makes it, I could see a women's soccer league being able to survive too.

Right now, it's been mismanagement, low turnout, and high salaries that have prevented women's soccer from surviving. The WPS shut down partially because of the Dan Borislow mess (mismanagement. And legal stuff), partially because they couldn't fill stadiums (and they play in college arenas! Here, Western New York are the possible exception, which says more about Rochester, famous as the home of Abby Wambach, than women's soccer, I'm afraid. So, low turnout) and partially because the top stars in women's soccer just demand salaries beyond the scope of the league, with the possible exception of the Flash (Marta, for example, was signed by the Sol three years ago, for $1.5 million. The Sol collapsed [after winning the regular season and losing in the final], she moved to FC Gold Pride [still on the same contract], who collapsed after winning the championship, then moved to Western New York, who won the championship before the WPS collapsed this spring. It's not really a coincidence that either a) all of her teams were better than everyone and b) they all [with the exception of the Flash] collapsed). It says something that the new women's leagues currently in operation (W-League and WPSL Elite) are dominated by the teams with a few US/foreign nationals (Seattle Sounders Women, Pali Blues, Boston, NY Fury, the new WNY Flash), but don't have ANY/very few (the Sounders are the exception here, but their costs are partially covered by the MLS club and they're in Seattle, so they actually sell tickets. Besides, they have Solo, Alex Morgan, and Sydney Leroux) superstars, so they have lower costs and can afford fewer fans. The level of the sport is lower, though.

We don't really have anything like the Frauen-Bundesliga (Frankfurt, Duisburg, and Turbine Potsdam, among others, are all excellent, superstar-playing teams), Damallsvenskan (it's actually really good. And competitive) or other European leagues (women's Olympique Lyonnais might be the greatest team on the Earth) here, sadly.

and then tried to push everything else up to that level with Hype. It didn’t work; sports are built on organic appeal…

Vince McMahon says "hello."

Does anyone have an opinion on James' theory that the third bullet that killed Kennedy was actually accidentally fired by Secret Service agent George Hickey in the commotion after Oswald's first two shots?

at some risk of being filleted by the media for saying things that are true but nonetheless politically incorrect. ... .women’s sports needs attractive athletes… What would make women’s sports work would be to create a sport based around gymnastics in which the best athletes were small and exceedingly quick. This COULD be done, but you have to get away from the Olympic model where people perform “routines” and some jackass holds up a number to declare whether you have done well or not…

Wasn't this tried with the lingerie bowl? I also think there is some sort of lingerie league.

A lot of people apparently haven't watched men's tennis lately. Outside of a few players, the game is mostly dominated by mid-to-long rallies with pretty impressive athleticism. The only offense-first player out of the top 4 is Federer, who I don't think anyone would say is boring to watch play. Women's tennis has too many breaks of serve for me.

There are several women's tennis players that I find extremely attractive, even a couple of very good ones... but you'd still have to force me to watch tennis.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with James on this...

Wasn't this tried with the lingerie bowl? I also think there is some sort of lingerie league.

There is a lingerie league and I believe there's even a similarly themed hockey/floor hockey league in the offing.

This is why I tend to disagree with Bill on the 2nd part of his answer.

I think he's spot on with the first part of his answer, though... the WNBA seemed to essentially saying "We're going to be a huge thing whether you like it or not, so you might as well like it". That just isn't going to work. If they had started smaller, and had, indeed, let it grow organically, then I think it would have been more successful. Especially now, with the internet suddenly becoming a viable broadcast alternative, with cable television becoming INCREASINGLY segmented and niche-based -- you have those organic mixings ready to go.

We don't really have anything like the Frauen-Bundesliga (Frankfurt, Duisburg, and Turbine Potsdam, among others, are all excellent, superstar-playing teams), Damallsvenskan (it's actually really good. And competitive) or other European leagues (women's Olympique Lyonnais might be the greatest team on the Earth) here, sadly.

Aren't these mostly funded by the parent teams? I also thought they were closer to semi-pro than what the WPS and WUSA were trying to do. Edit: but not as low on the semi-pro scale as W-league and WPSL-Elite; I did not mean to imply that.

Wasn't this tried with the lingerie bowl?

Yes, but that's less for sports fans than it is a peepshow for horny dudes who don't know how to use the Internet.

There used to be plenty of women's sports, but those sports aren't popular in the U.S. anymore. Tennis and track and field are the two biggies, and nobody watches those sports anymore even when men are playing.

I think James' contention, that women's sports need attractive athletes, was a bit off. Not every athlete in those sports need to be attractive, but every sport needs marketable faces, and attractive faces are what we're drawn to. (For example, plenty of people are going to want to watch Lolo Jones run this summer.)

Does anyone have an opinion on James' theory that the third bullet that killed Kennedy was actually accidentally fired by Secret Service agent George Hickey in the commotion after Oswald's first two shots?

My opinion on this is that James is a hell of a baseball writer.

Aren't these mostly funded by the parent teams?

Depends on the team. For the majority of the teams, yeah, but some of the more successful ones make their own money (I'm thinking of Potsdam explicitly here, though I think this is true for some of Damallsvenskan teams).

I also thought they were closer to semi-pro than what the WPS and WUSA were trying to do. Edit: but not as low on the semi-pro scale as W-league and WPSL-Elite; I did not mean to imply that.

I don't think this is true. Salaries (at least for the top teams. These *are* bigger [EDIT: i.e. they have more teams] leagues than the WPS ever was) are higher in the Frauen-Bundesliga and Damallsvenskan than here and they've had a lot more success at recruiting the top players globally (it says something that, when the WPS collapsed, Marta went to Tyreso in Sweden [though her salary was mostly paid by sponsors - the kind of sponsors that, after their initial years, the WPS and WUSA struggled to get]). Many European leagues are a lot closer to semi-pro (WSL in England, for example), but the Frauen-Bundesliga, Damallsvenskan, and Division 1 Feminine are fully professional, afaik (the former two a lot closer to the quality of the WPS, though. France is basically Lyon, Juvisy, and a lot of randoms). The current US set-up (W-League/WPSL Elite) is semi-pro, though.