Poll: NIT men or NCAA women?

We don't, and I'm OK with that. The women's program here hasn't been anything to brag about in the past (guess I'm admitting to no longer being in Montana here), and the men's roundup gets cut a lot in favor of local. I don't like it personally b/c I'm a fan, but I'd run a hella lot of hockey if I had my way too.

My issue on this thread, for the record, was somebody's obvious ignorance of the women's game. If you're gonna insult it, at least get the facts right.

And HH, I'd follow whichever team draws better if you can only do one. I think it's a better service to your readers (even if my feminist self gets pissy about it).

 

While some might argue attendance figures say the men's NIT trumps the women's NCAAs, I would argue that attendance figures don't speak to the relevance of each tournament. Quite simply, it's more important to know who the best team in the nation is in a given sport than to know who won the consolation bracket in another sport.

 

The NIT is a joke compared to its significance in the early 1970s when only one team from each conference made the NCAA tournament. Nothing more than a glorified consolation event. The NCAA women's tournament is determining a national championship, so this comparison isn't even close.

 

Point noted, but tell me how your paper covered (or how you wanted them covered) the following events, and mind you, none of these went up against the so-called consolation bracket of another sport.
Men's soccer? Women's soccer? Wrestling?
Those were events played to find out the best in the nation. And they were some of the most compelling events, but did anyone notice? Did your paper? And while there is strong support is some areas for all those sports, the local appeal is higher for a sub.-500 football or men's basketball team.

 

FWIW, from a TV station....

Our GM handed down the edict this year:

Men's NIT = No travel.
Women's NCAA = Yes travel.

Now, you could say we're TV, and WTF do we know? But on the other hand, all we care about are ratings and money.... So we do know something about ratings and money.

 

It would be foolish for me to argue with the realities of where you are, luggie. The women's game obviously has some draw there, or you wouldn't be doing that, I'm sure.

In fact, a good bit of this might be egocentrical, a byproduct of where I've lived and worked for a quarrter-century. Because I'm pretty sure my area cares next to nothing about NCAA women's basketball. Then again, major-college baseball and major-college hockey, which have some pockets of interest, registers nary a blip here, either. It's what comes from being in an area which is 1 1/2 hours away from the nearest "major."

 

I would do the same thing as the GM if we had local teams.
But if I had neither and was just using highlights, I would tend to think viewer interest would be next to nothing for either but with the men's NIT.

 

Another thing that might be considered. I think with women's basketball, a portion of readers really like to know what's going on with the team without actually investing the time to attend or watch the games. Thus, a one minute highlight package on the nightly news about the local team is appreciated along with a nice photo or two of the team winning. But as far as in depth coverage of recruiting, injuries, strategies, etc? I never found much interest in that the way the men's team or football has interest. When I covered one of the major women's programs, I got plenty of calls, emails and people stopping me at events to talk about how "happy they were for those girls" but it became clear in my talks with people that they didn't actually watch the game. They just liked knowing how the team was doing.

 

Let me get something straight…

There is a significant minority of people here that think a consolation basketball tournament is more important than a national championship.

Interesting.

Ignore women’s sport and you are ignoring 50 per cent of your potential audience. That’s just stupid.

 

Goodness grief, some of you pantywaists try to dance around the subject because you don't want to sound un-PC (some of you even admit to this), but here's the simple fact: Women's basketball (or any women's sport, for that matter) is irrelevant. There, I said it. Fire away.

While flipping through the channels the other day, I saw a women's NCAA game on ESPN. In a large arena (NC State's, I believe) there had to be about 50 people in the stands. FIFTY PEOPLE!!! In a place that must seat at least 10,000!!! What a colossal waste of money!!! The cameras were trying to be PC and not show any of the empty seats behind the respective benches, but on timeouts or on free throws, you couldn't miss it: oceans of empty seats.

Meanwhile, Syracuse set an NIT record for attendance in its home game the other night. But let's keep pretending women's basketball and its ridiculous allotment of 15 scholarships actually matters. Please.

 

Just because women PLAY a sport, doesn't mean they watch it. I think that just about everywhere but maybe UConn and Tennessee, there are more women in the arena at men's games than the entire crowed at a women's game.

 

Shottie, slapster and McNuggets make good points.

And I hate to say it, but when/if you cover women seems to really depend on if the team is winning (during the regular season) or has the potential to advance. It's one of those sports that lends itself to bandwagon jumping.