(03-01-2024 05:21 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 03:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 03:18 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I guess I'm old school (age 61) but my three favorite team sports are basketball, football and baseball (in that order and college/pro for all three). Hockey is exciting in person but I never attend Preds game here in Nashville and I rarely watch the sport on TV. Soccer is a rather big deal in Nashville but I have minimal interest. Lipscomb's men's soccer program is quite strong, however.

My fourth favorite team sport has become, during the past few years, volleyball, as it's perfectly suited for television. I watch some women's college volleyball. The young ladies are skilled and lovely (oh, my goodness; I'm sounding like schmolik).

Volleyball is different than college soccer. Except for the very top teams, women's college soccer is just bad. They have some defensive skills, but not the ball handling skills. So it is really, really boring to watch. Several of my son's elementary school Y league teammates had better ball handling skills.

I've never enjoyed what little women's college soccer I've watched on TV over the years. As you say, and I agree, it seems so inferior (I realize that sounds disrespectful toward the ladies).

But women's college volleyball. Wow. The young women are extremely quick, agile and explosive. It's impressive.

Of the sports that both men and women play, those for which I enjoy watching women as much as (if not more than) men are volleyball, diving, gymnastics, billiards, tennis, table tennis and lacrosse.

I've also grown to appreciate women's college basketball more so than I would have anticipated, say, 20 years ago.

In the 80s, Kim Mulkey was the only women's player who really understood the game. Most of them played it like spectators. I enjoyed watching her. She was the Pete Rose, the "Charley Hustle" of women's basketball. But most weren't very good.

(03-01-2024 07:18 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 11:17 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 11:08 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Title IX has turned the US into the new East Germany of Women's sports. While Men win fewer and fewer medals, women win more. Why? Because the pool of women being trained in college is far larger than men in sports other than football.

But as for US Soccer, women peaked probably a decade back. The European and South American clubs have build up their women's development from next to nothing to well ahead of the US. Just as China initially held the lead, then relinquished it to the US then faded into oblivion, the same pattern is beginning to repeat for US Women's soccer. In a decade it ill be as far behind the Europeans and South Americans as the men.

Though I understand the sentiment, I don't agree with it. The US women will be a power for a long time. If you look at the countries that are good at women's soccer, they tend to be Western European and Nordic, former British countries (US, Canada, and Australia), and the Asian giants (South Korea, Japan, and China). Brazil is the only Latin American country that is regularly good. It seems to me that the places where women's lives are best are the countries that are good at women's soccer.

The US doesn't have a pro league strong enough with enough money to keep and develop players. The Europeans do with their junior programs (women really are one of those) which churns out superior players and offers superior pay and competition. The US simply cannot compete. College scholarships have given US women a head start, but the rest of the dynamics are against them, and continuation in club rather than changing teams/coaches to something schools see as a backwater non-revenue sport is by nature and in the long run much inferior to the European model.

The decline of US women is already underway. It's irreversible.

Please provide links to support this ridiculous assertion about the US womens' pro league. I found some links that you might find enlightening:

People also ask
What is the best women's pro soccer league?
The NWSL is widely considered to be the most competitive women's soccer league in the world in terms of parity.Sep 15, 2023

https://sportsbrief.com/football/52160-w...gue-world/ - says NWSL is the best league and also highest-paying league in the world

https://femmefutbol.com/womens-football-leagues/

https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/2023/12...lls-remain - article is more about changes in the WSL's governance structure, but they cite the NWSL as their model.

Culvin highlighted the importance of independent governance by citing the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL), the top-tier women’s league in the United States that is owned by the clubs.

NWSL is among the top leagues in global women’s football and almost all US national team players ply their trade there. The league is also commercially lucrative – according to data by Sportico, NWSL teams will collectively generate $112m in revenue during the 2023 regular season. The WSL generated revenues of 32 million pounds ($40.2m) in 2021-22.

“If you look at the NWSL … it has the opportunity to grow year on year. I think, in England, having the independence and the ability to strategically prioritise the growth of the women’s league is something that hasn’t been done before. It’s important and I’m incredibly excited,” Culvin said.

The WSL now believes it can become the first billion-pound ($1.24bn) women’s football league in the world within a decade.

It looks to me like the NWSL is on top, but other National leagues, lead by the WSL in England, are working to overtake us. Could they catch us and even surpass us? Maybe. But this isn't men's soccer, our best female athletes aren't all playing football or basketball from a young age instead of soccer.

edit:

And another thing. How could any issues with women's soccer in the US be "irreversible"? Our issues with the men aren't irreversible, we just don't have the same everyday fan enthusiasm for it as they do in other countries, but for the women we have as much fan enthusiasm as any country in the world and are able to capitalize on our huge population/money advantage over other Western Democracies that are also enthusiastic about it.

You could say that we should adopt more of a European-style club system for our women, but to claim that Spain, England, etc etc have some sort of irreversible advantage over us is ridiculous on the face of it.

^

On that last point, plenty of girls are playing basketball as opposed to soccer. It's the second most popular sport in the world and possibly the most popular girl's sport to play in the US (I'll have to find some numbers to back that up. Still, there's very little girls'/women's football aside from flag, though Houston used to have a women's football team).

Women's sports in the US is going through an unprecedented growth phase. Even compared to the late 90s with the Women's World Cup and the launch of the WNBA, there hasn't been anything quite like what we're experiencing now.

Where soccer is concerned, that growth is largely confined to the pro game, with the NWSL getting a TV deal that pays out more per year than the Mountain West and even inspiring a rival professional league. That kind of money could spell problems for college soccer as the NWSL and USL Super League start signing teenagers to pro deals. Riley Jackson turned down a spot at Duke to sign with the Carolina Courage at 17 years old last summer; Trinity Rodman enrolled for a semester but never played a minute at Washington State and is the NWSL's highest-paid player at 21. Losing elite talent before it ever takes the field will hurt women's college soccer, and it will continue to lag behind hoops, volleyball (which, IMO, is the next big thing), and softball in terms of growth and audience demand/reach. As schools look to prioritize specific sports, that creates some really strong headwinds for the sport.

I DO think there is good, athletic soccer being played in D1, and international players who are national team caliber for other countries helps offset losses, but it's hardly widespread beyond the power conferences and 4-5 good mid-major leagues.

(03-01-2024 08:18 PM)C2__ Wrote:  ^

On that last point, plenty of girls are playing basketball as opposed to soccer. It's the second most popular sport in the world and possibly the most popular girl's sport to play in the US (I'll have to find some numbers to back that up. Still, there's very little girls'/women's football aside from flag, though Houston used to have a women's football team).

In California, below are the high school participation rates for girls as of 2023:
1. Soccer – 45,544
2. Volleyball – 45,390
3. Track & Field – 40,434
4. Softball – 29,483
5. Basketball – 29,007
6. Swimming & Diving – 21,941
7. Tennis – 21,124
8. Cross Country – 18,577
9. Competitive Cheer – 13,119
10. Water Polo – 12,821

I asked my sister, who lives in the Houston area and recently retired from teaching in Houston after 35 years of service. She said she thought the girl's participation ranking in Houston was probably soccer, softball, basketball, volleyball, track & field, swimming. Somewhat similar to California.

(03-01-2024 09:28 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 08:18 PM)C2__ Wrote:  ^

On that last point, plenty of girls are playing basketball as opposed to soccer. It's the second most popular sport in the world and possibly the most popular girl's sport to play in the US (I'll have to find some numbers to back that up. Still, there's very little girls'/women's football aside from flag, though Houston used to have a women's football team).

In California, below are the high school participation rates for girls as of 2023:
1. Soccer – 45,544
2. Volleyball – 45,390
3. Track & Field – 40,434
4. Softball – 29,483
5. Basketball – 29,007
6. Swimming & Diving – 21,941
7. Tennis – 21,124
8. Cross Country – 18,577
9. Competitive Cheer – 13,119
10. Water Polo – 12,821

I asked my sister, who lives in the Houston area and recently retired from teaching in Houston after 35 years of service. She said she thought the girl's participation ranking in Houston was probably soccer, softball, basketball, volleyball, track & field, swimming. Somewhat similar to California.

Don't think there is much water polo in Texas! But there is girl's flag football and wrestling.

(03-01-2024 09:28 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 08:18 PM)C2__ Wrote:  ^

On that last point, plenty of girls are playing basketball as opposed to soccer. It's the second most popular sport in the world and possibly the most popular girl's sport to play in the US (I'll have to find some numbers to back that up. Still, there's very little girls'/women's football aside from flag, though Houston used to have a women's football team).

In California, below are the high school participation rates for girls as of 2023:
1. Soccer – 45,544
2. Volleyball – 45,390
3. Track & Field – 40,434
4. Softball – 29,483
5. Basketball – 29,007
6. Swimming & Diving – 21,941
7. Tennis – 21,124
8. Cross Country – 18,577
9. Competitive Cheer – 13,119
10. Water Polo – 12,821

I asked my sister, who lives in the Houston area and recently retired from teaching in Houston after 35 years of service. She said she thought the girl's participation ranking in Houston was probably soccer, softball, basketball, volleyball, track & field, swimming. Somewhat similar to California.

Good numbers but remember, a soccer and softball team is bigger than a basketball team. Track usually too (though not all may run at meets). Not saying that most girls aren't more interested in those sports just saying basketball's roster is a little more limited and more girls may be interested than there can be spots to be filled. Of those listed ahead of basketball, probably only volleyball is the one for certain that has more interest.

(03-01-2024 09:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  Don't think there is much water polo in Texas! But there is girl's flag football and wrestling.

My high school in Galveston County had water polo. It's out there. The one sport that generally can't fill teams is hockey. We had a shared team with a rival in our school district when I was in high school 2 decades ago.

There's generally an age gap in soccer fans vs non-soccer fans to the point where before bill & bullet said their ages, I was pretty sure I could guess which side of the line they fell on based on their age.

The US went from 2 million TVs in homes in the early 1950s to cable making sports a massive media business during in the 1990s. And The US men made the World Cup zero times between 1950 and 1989. Aside from a couple experiments, we just weren't exposed to it.

So in the 1990s, sports fans were outright hostile to soccer on TV. A small percentage of fans got into it because of the 1994 World Cup being in the US. But MLS just wasn't big time enough to create a big fan base without the USMNT really exposing the masses to soccer. And with how bad the US did in 1998, and 2002 (where we did well but) being on at 4 am, soccer's growth really stagnated.

Soccer fandom was like a secret underground club if you're an American that's about 38-45 or older.

But if you're younger than 40, then you "grew up" with the 2006-2014 World Cups, the Women winning World Cups, MLS being on ESPN/Fox/etc, EPL being available. It's just another sport to Millennials and younger, no different than basketball or hockey.


And women's sports are in the same boat, but about 10 years behind: Outright hostility to the WNBA being on TV at first. But in Year 27 of the WNBA, and with ESPN and FOX realizing that their conference deals include WBB, so it saves them money to put Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12 WOMEN on TV instead of adding an additional conference (or in ESPN's case, cutting someone else = savings).


I think the main reasons women's soccer hasn't had a ton of popularity growth is simply the season it's on. During the MLB and MLS playoffs, start of NFL and college football, start of world club soccer, NBA and NHL. Whereas college SOFTBALL has seen a steady rise in popularity, because after March Madness, it's competition is MLS, MLB, the end of NBA, NHL.

If the professional game fully matures in the US, college soccer for both men and women will eventually become an afterthought. The professional teams' academies will develop talent for their own use, or to be sold to other clubs.

Clubs in a viable professional ecosystem outside MLS/NWSL (like the USL) can make more selling players to other clubs than they do from gameday and media revenues.

(03-02-2024 01:08 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  There's generally an age gap in soccer fans vs non-soccer fans to the point where before bill & bullet said their ages, I was pretty sure I could guess which side of the line they fell on based on their age.

The US went from 2 million TVs in homes in the early 1950s to cable making sports a massive media business during in the 1990s. And The US men made the World Cup zero times between 1950 and 1989. Aside from a couple experiments, we just weren't exposed to it.

So in the 1990s, sports fans were outright hostile to soccer on TV. A small percentage of fans got into it because of the 1994 World Cup being in the US. But MLS just wasn't big time enough to create a big fan base without the USMNT really exposing the masses to soccer. And with how bad the US did in 1998, and 2002 (where we did well but) being on at 4 am, soccer's growth really stagnated.

Soccer fandom was like a secret underground club if you're an American that's about 38-45 or older.

But if you're younger than 40, then you "grew up" with the 2006-2014 World Cups, the Women winning World Cups, MLS being on ESPN/Fox/etc, EPL being available. It's just another sport to Millennials and younger, no different than basketball or hockey.


And women's sports are in the same boat, but about 10 years behind: Outright hostility to the WNBA being on TV at first. But in Year 27 of the WNBA, and with ESPN and FOX realizing that their conference deals include WBB, so it saves them money to put Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12 WOMEN on TV instead of adding an additional conference (or in ESPN's case, cutting someone else = savings).


I think the main reasons women's soccer hasn't had a ton of popularity growth is simply the season it's on. During the MLB and MLS playoffs, start of NFL and college football, start of world club soccer, NBA and NHL. Whereas college SOFTBALL has seen a steady rise in popularity, because after March Madness, it's competition is MLS, MLB, the end of NBA, NHL.

Millennials grew up with Gen X parents who had more than one television in the house. That definitely helped ESPN and Fox warm up to televising women's sports. Suddenly it was no longer a case of if-this-is-on-nobody's-watching-that. And today everyone in the house has their own personal television screen.

We're seeing MSL franchises take innovative new approaches. I've been watching with interest the approach David Beckham and friends are taking with Inter Miami. The want the franchise to act as a community hub for the sport at every level, offering teams and training for male and female athletes and for community groups at every level. The idea is to make the stadium the hub of an athletic park and keep the site busy all week. (Shrewdly, Inter Miami owners have also taken note of every mistake the MLB Marlins have ever made. They do everything exactly the opposite way.)

(03-01-2024 09:26 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  Women's sports in the US is going through an unprecedented growth phase. Even compared to the late 90s with the Women's World Cup and the launch of the WNBA, there hasn't been anything quite like what we're experiencing now.

Where soccer is concerned, that growth is largely confined to the pro game, with the NWSL getting a TV deal that pays out more per year than the Mountain West and even inspiring a rival professional league. That kind of money could spell problems for college soccer as the NWSL and USL Super League start signing teenagers to pro deals. Riley Jackson turned down a spot at Duke to sign with the Carolina Courage at 17 years old last summer; Trinity Rodman enrolled for a semester but never played a minute at Washington State and is the NWSL's highest-paid player at 21. Losing elite talent before it ever takes the field will hurt women's college soccer, and it will continue to lag behind hoops, volleyball (which, IMO, is the next big thing), and softball in terms of growth and audience demand/reach. As schools look to prioritize specific sports, that creates some really strong headwinds for the sport.

I DO think there is good, athletic soccer being played in D1, and international players who are national team caliber for other countries helps offset losses, but it's hardly widespread beyond the power conferences and 4-5 good mid-major leagues.

Really? There was massive growth in the 70s/80s. My impression is that participation has levelled off. Boys and girls are less active.

(03-03-2024 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 09:26 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  Women's sports in the US is going through an unprecedented growth phase. Even compared to the late 90s with the Women's World Cup and the launch of the WNBA, there hasn't been anything quite like what we're experiencing now.

Where soccer is concerned, that growth is largely confined to the pro game, with the NWSL getting a TV deal that pays out more per year than the Mountain West and even inspiring a rival professional league. That kind of money could spell problems for college soccer as the NWSL and USL Super League start signing teenagers to pro deals. Riley Jackson turned down a spot at Duke to sign with the Carolina Courage at 17 years old last summer; Trinity Rodman enrolled for a semester but never played a minute at Washington State and is the NWSL's highest-paid player at 21. Losing elite talent before it ever takes the field will hurt women's college soccer, and it will continue to lag behind hoops, volleyball (which, IMO, is the next big thing), and softball in terms of growth and audience demand/reach. As schools look to prioritize specific sports, that creates some really strong headwinds for the sport.

I DO think there is good, athletic soccer being played in D1, and international players who are national team caliber for other countries helps offset losses, but it's hardly widespread beyond the power conferences and 4-5 good mid-major leagues.

Really? There was massive growth in the 70s/80s. My impression is that participation has levelled off. Boys and girls are less active.

One in three girls in the US is a soccer player. It's the second-most popular sport for girls after basketball.

The professional sport has enjoyed a big boost from the successes of the national team since 1999.

FIFA 2023
https://www.fifa.com/womens-football/new...vey-report

ESPN 2023
https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/3...ifa-report

SBJ 2022
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Jo...occer.aspx

Soccer Blade 2023 (looks at grassroots level)
https://soccerblade.com/promote-womens-soccer/

(03-03-2024 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 09:26 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  Women's sports in the US is going through an unprecedented growth phase. Even compared to the late 90s with the Women's World Cup and the launch of the WNBA, there hasn't been anything quite like what we're experiencing now.

Where soccer is concerned, that growth is largely confined to the pro game, ...

Really? There was massive growth in the 70s/80s. My impression is that participation has levelled off. Boys and girls are less active.

Given the level that participation reached, mathematically, participation couldn't grow at the same percentage rates of growth of he 70s/80s.

But if a disproportionate share of the viewership of women's soccer & WBB are those who were participating in women's soccer and WBB in the 90's and Teens, that gives a slice of the Demo that advertisers can reach that they cannot reach as economically with a lot of other sports. So the collapse of people sitting though ads on TV other than sports and big event programming (the Oscars etc.) may boost the ad market for women's soccer and WBB among advertisers who cannot afford to buy into big even programming that happens to have a "female in the Demo" viewership tilt.

(03-01-2024 07:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 05:21 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 03:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 03:18 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I guess I'm old school (age 61) but my three favorite team sports are basketball, football and baseball (in that order and college/pro for all three). Hockey is exciting in person but I never attend Preds game here in Nashville and I rarely watch the sport on TV. Soccer is a rather big deal in Nashville but I have minimal interest. Lipscomb's men's soccer program is quite strong, however.

My fourth favorite team sport has become, during the past few years, volleyball, as it's perfectly suited for television. I watch some women's college volleyball. The young ladies are skilled and lovely (oh, my goodness; I'm sounding like schmolik).

Volleyball is different than college soccer. Except for the very top teams, women's college soccer is just bad. They have some defensive skills, but not the ball handling skills. So it is really, really boring to watch. Several of my son's elementary school Y league teammates had better ball handling skills.

I've never enjoyed what little women's college soccer I've watched on TV over the years. As you say, and I agree, it seems so inferior (I realize that sounds disrespectful toward the ladies).

But women's college volleyball. Wow. The young women are extremely quick, agile and explosive. It's impressive.

Of the sports that both men and women play, those for which I enjoy watching women as much as (if not more than) men are volleyball, diving, gymnastics, billiards, tennis, table tennis and lacrosse.

I've also grown to appreciate women's college basketball more so than I would have anticipated, say, 20 years ago.

In the 80s, Kim Mulkey was the only women's player who really understood the game. Most of them played it like spectators. I enjoyed watching her. She was the Pete Rose, the "Charley Hustle" of women's basketball. But most weren't very good.

I wouldn't go that far, as I recall watching some MTSU women's hoops from 1981 to 1985 when I was a student. True, it was nothing like the game now. But there were a decent number of players and coaches back then.

I do recall when girl's high school basketball was six on six (three offensive and three defensive). I believe that ended in Tennessee after the 1979-80 season.

I just remembered that the US women's team is hiring Emma Hayes, probably the best women's coach in the world today. You can't afford someone like that for a National team unless you're outspending everybody. Our women's soccer team will be fine, though it's not certain that women's (and men's) college soccer will be "fine" when/if our Pro soccer leagues for the men and women adopt a European Club model with youth Academies.

(03-11-2024 12:31 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I just remembered that the US women's team is hiring Emma Hayes, probably the best women's coach in the world today. You can't afford someone like that for a National team unless you're outspending everybody. Our women's soccer team will be fine, though it's not certain that women's (and men's) college soccer will be "fine" when/if our Pro soccer leagues for the men and women adopt a European Club model with youth Academies.

If A&M is paying you to play baseball in the Spring, why can't you play short-season minor league baseball in the summer?

Or maybe the Houston Astros assign you to their College Station Aggies Intercollegiate A club. You attend A&M full time in the fall, and part time in the Spring and Summer. If you show promise and are assigned to Corpus Christi (AA) or Sugar Land (AAA), and your education is slowed somewhat, perhaps taking an online class or two.

(03-11-2024 01:26 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 12:31 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I just remembered that the US women's team is hiring Emma Hayes, probably the best women's coach in the world today. You can't afford someone like that for a National team unless you're outspending everybody. Our women's soccer team will be fine, though it's not certain that women's (and men's) college soccer will be "fine" when/if our Pro soccer leagues for the men and women adopt a European Club model with youth Academies.

If A&M is paying you to play baseball in the Spring, why can't you play short-season minor league baseball in the summer?

Or maybe the Houston Astros assign you to their College Station Aggies Intercollegiate A club. You attend A&M full time in the fall, and part time in the Spring and Summer. If you show promise and are assigned to Corpus Christi (AA) or Sugar Land (AAA), and your education is slowed somewhat, perhaps taking an online class or two.

The NCAA is looking into making CHL players eligible for NCAA hockey. The CHL has a contract with the NHL that allows these players to play up to 8 NHL games before the NHL teams have to sign them or send them back to the CHL.

This is probably the most direct real-world comparison to your question, so it will be interesting how that is worked out if CHL players no longer lose NCAA eligibility.

(03-11-2024 12:01 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 01:26 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 12:31 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I just remembered that the US women's team is hiring Emma Hayes, probably the best women's coach in the world today. You can't afford someone like that for a National team unless you're outspending everybody. Our women's soccer team will be fine, though it's not certain that women's (and men's) college soccer will be "fine" when/if our Pro soccer leagues for the men and women adopt a European Club model with youth Academies.

If A&M is paying you to play baseball in the Spring, why can't you play short-season minor league baseball in the summer?

Or maybe the Houston Astros assign you to their College Station Aggies Intercollegiate A club. You attend A&M full time in the fall, and part time in the Spring and Summer. If you show promise and are assigned to Corpus Christi (AA) or Sugar Land (AAA), and your education is slowed somewhat, perhaps taking an online class or two.

The NCAA is looking into making CHL players eligible for NCAA hockey. The CHL has a contract with the NHL that allows these players to play up to 8 NHL games before the NHL teams have to sign them or send them back to the CHL.

This is probably the most direct real-world comparison to your question, so it will be interesting how that is worked out if CHL players no longer lose NCAA eligibility.

Well, one thing I'll say is that the US women are proving that you don't need a youth academy system to be the best. Sure, it gives Barcelona and Man United a big advantage, but for the national team it might be just as good to let kids play in hs and college before going pro.