A Review of Media Attention to the Melee & Perceptions of Female Athletes

If there was any doubt about whether female athletes faced double standards, the reactions to Tuesday night’s scuffle should be convincing evidence of the challenges they must overcome.

That is not to say that the incident will have an adverse effect on the WNBA’s popularity (though I don’t think it is positive effect either). In fact, I think we can conclude is that it’s not the fight itself that says anything particularly insightful about female athletes, except that female athletes can show a lack of judgment too (“It was just a couple of people being stupid," as Rebecca Lobo put it).

Instead, I think the incident makes the double standards female athletes face obvious for those who try to deny their existence. And in admitting their existence, I think it’s reasonable to say that those double standards distort people’s ideas about women’s basketball and shape what’s acceptable to say about it publicly.

The WNBA provides a meaningful lens through which to understand mainstream perceptions of women because it is one of many growing spaces that challenges traditional notions of what constitutes “womanhood”. What makes the commentary on the fight particularly interesting is how various people in the media deal with the intersection of gender, race, and sexuality in the WNBA (even in choosing to ignore them).

Those additional stereotypes that female athletes face are one major way that makes this scuffle different from the 2004 or 2006 brawls in the NBA -– like it or not, women have much less room for error than their male counterparts. Tuesday night’s fight was a much different phenomenon with different implications.

A look at some of the commentary from the past week may help us answer some important questions for women’s sports: how exactly do double standards influence perceptions of women’s sports ? Is any publicity really good publicity for women’s sports?

If this is gender equity, why do we laugh when women fight?

Some commentators believed that the scuffle might help the WNBA because it shows the intensity, passion, and toughness that mainstream society assumes women lack. From Harvey Araton of the New York Times:

A sports culture that historically has preferred its female athletic icons ponytailed or pixie-framed (our Olympic gymnasts will soon be tumbling their way across television screens, into American hearts) could stand a little reconditioning on the appeal of strong, aggressive women, who not only can dunk but can dish it out.

From this perspective, a fight is a good thing because it shows that female athletes are as capable of the average nonsense that men are capable of. And in doing what the men do, some believe a fight may encourage a gender neutral approach to women’s sports. From Ray Ratto, via the Wall Street Journal blog:

It was the stuff of stuff-happens, and to get one’s Under Armour in a bunch over it is exactly the wrong overreaction. But it was also a gender-neutral nostalgia-fest, a more ground-bound Lakers-Pistons battle from the late ’80s when the Lakers were winding down and the Pistons were trying to overthrow the established order.

However, the other day I posted the following quote from columnist Tom Haddock regarding the scuffle’s implications for gender equity:

There is a disparity between the way men's and women's sports are perceived. Clearly, they are viewed differently. We laugh when women fight. We are outraged when men fight. Until that changes, men and women in sports will always be different.

And I think Jemele Hill of ESPN.com nicely elaborated on this point:

It's interesting how differently we look at boorish behavior when gender is involved. The reaction to women fighting is usually a mixture of astonishment and fascination. Sure, some of it is because it plays into juvenile male fantasies… We treat girl fights like a novelty, when they shouldn't be seen as such. News flash to those still using sticks to create fire: Female athletes are just as competitive as men and when some are pushed to the edge, they'll exhibit the same lack of control.

If we agree with Haddock and Hill then any increased attention to women’s basketball over the remainder of the season could be attributed to a “novelty effect”, which will naturally end at some point. The notion of aggressive, rugged women throwing down on the court will be “cool” to watch for a while, but won’t sustain an audience if it’s treated as nothing more than a spectacle. Again from Harvey Araton of the New York Times:

Wednesday night, I happened to catch the last 20 minutes of a cable news show (I won’t say which one, except that it was mostly fair-and-balanced Obama bashing), which signed off with the Sparks-Shock fisticuffs — without commentary, context or even an identification of the combatants.

Chick fight on court, no details at 11.

Ultimately, all this fight shows about gender equity is that we’re not yet there for female athletes and that WNBA players will likely continue to face negative perceptions as long as they play ball. From Jeff Jacobs of the Hartford Courant:

If this is gender equity, give me a little gender inequity where the women have held the high ground on athletic anger management.

There is a line between Billie Jean King and Don King. There is a line between Title IX and Title Asinine.

And these two WNBA teams crossed it.

After we laugh about women fighting, we assume they're "acting like men"

What I think the discussions on gender illustrates is that we’re still constantly comparing female athletes to men and when that happens, it’s difficult for women to establish legitimacy, even if they’re doing the “same” things. From Marie Hardin of the Sports Media & Society blog:

It's also these kinds of assessments of women's sports -- judging them by male standards -- that feed the tremendous struggles of female athletes for legitimacy.

And of course, when women do what the men do, surely they are trying to be like men… From Gregg Doyel of Sportsline.com:

It was one thing back in the day when Cynthia Cooper mimicked the men and overdosed on that ridiculous "raise the roof" sign to the point that Amy Winehouse thought maybe Cooper needed an intervention. But it's something else entirely -- something so unnecessarily male -- for WNBA players to throw down, as they did Tuesday night in Auburn Hills, Mich.

And if the women are acting like men, people will inevitably call into question their sexuality…because of course, women who fight, must be lesbians too… From SOHH.com:

There’ll you’ll see what looks like Mahorn pushing Lisa Leslie (Deuce Bigalow style: “Now, that’s a big, bi**h!”) down to the ground. One of Lesbian’s, er Leslie’s, teammates then slaps Mahorn in the back seconds later (around the :51 mark).

We shouldn’t have to detail the personal lives of the participants involved to show how inaccurate this comment is. That’s beside the point. The fact is, women who play sports are not only seen as unladylike but also homosexual.

And without conducting a large scale study about why people don’t watch the WNBA, it’s safe to say that “concerns” about women’s sexuality might be enough to create a stigma about women’s sports that keeps people from watching. I can’t prove it, but at this point, I don't think it's fair to dismiss it either.

“Angry-black-female-phobia”

We also cannot forget that society is not particularly fond of the “angry black woman”…and of course, that would be any black woman who dares assert herself publicly (see Michelle Obama at Feministing.com). The fact that the participants in this fight were primarily black women (Katie Smith was on the court but to my knowledge, not a primary participant) constitutes nothing but “gender trouble” – black women “complicating” an already complex discussion of womanhood. From the Womanist Musings blog:

Black women count only when the talk turns to sacrifice. The black male cannot speak on behalf of the black female because even though we share the same race it effects us differently. Yes the black male is constructed as a violent criminal rapist, but it is our bodies that are violated.

Returning to the notion of a novelty effect, in a way, this is not a novel situation at all in terms of mainstream perceptions of black women – this only perpetuates a long held notion that black women are a monolithic group of angry people and therefore, a group to fear. From the 1369 lightbulbs blog:

This, to me, speaks to a deeper problem - how readily America pigeonholes that which it cannot readily understand, or seems at all foreign. And America surely has not figured out the Angry Black Female. Jemele's aside, public reactions to this fight have ranged from sanctimoniously horrified to sexually condescending ("Cat fight!"). Obviously this is not how the WNBA would like to project itself, let alone market itself - but it may have been a necessary evil to expose, once again, the very attitudes that hold back women's sports in this country. We love to compartmentalize women into roles that were set for them generations ago, and sometimes we even have their help in doing so.

Racist attitudes affect the men’s game as well as the women’s game. So I am surprised when people remark that there is no reason to worry about the scuffle because it a) is a common occurrence in men’s sports and b) never causes a problem for men.

Aside from statement “a” being historically inaccurate (it’s happened less than once a year in the last decade in men’s professional basketball…which is hardly "often" considering each of the 30 teams play 82 games), I don’t think the NBA would agree with statement “b”. And a large reason it causes a problem for men could be attributed to racism. From TrueHoop:

The league has had grave PR trouble at various times in the past (mostly because there's some racist seeming notion on the part of ticket-buying fans that when basketball players do things that other athletes also do, like fight, or party, they're in dire need of taming). When that trouble gets serious enough, it really hurts the bottom line, and nowhere does it say that leagues like the NBA will never have real financial trouble. With some bad decisions, it can happen. Ask the NHL.

One of the bigger NBA PR problems of recent years was fighting (oddly, a feature in hockey, but whatever) which used to happen quite often. So the league took some serious -- even draconian -- steps to prevent it. One of those anti-mayhem rules was that no NBA player should ever leave the bench during an altercation, and if they do, they are instantly suspended, with, essentially, no questions asked.

The black athlete has always been seen as a problem for professional sports even as they are so often also cast as heroes, generally heroes that have “beat the odds” to succeed. So yes, black athletes face double standards male or female. To say that a fight among black athletes is positive for the perception sport, is to ignore the fact that men’s professional basketball has always struggled with constructing a public image with black players. From the Daily Fortune blog:

Professional basketball has continuously worked on perfecting its public image, one that requires using many black americans faces and bodies, for decades. After the drug and alcohol abuse situations in the NBA during the late seventies into the late eighties, the NBA has enforced strict laws that however have unevenly vilified black players as destroying the game… So when WNBA players emphasize their hard work and love for the game, perhaps its in fear of being vilified as greedy black male athletes…except the fact that the average salary for a WNBA player is somewhere between 60,000-80,000 dollars.

Even if you don’t agree that black WNBA players are consciously fighting against being vilified as greedy black athletes, the fact remains that black athletes are a tough sell for mainstream U.S. society because of long-standing racial stereotypes. A nationally televised scuffle is just more reason to vilify these black athletes despite their best attempts to separate themselves from their male counterparts.

It’s been a long, long time, comin’…

Again, I think this incident demonstrates more about perceptions of female athletes than the implications for the popularity of women’s basketball. I believe that the WNBA’s core fan base is likely less concerned with the gender, race, and sexuality of the players, perhaps to the point of being color/gender/sexuality-blind (which can be dangerous, but is an entirely separate conversation). However it would seem that the casual fan is quite concerned with the identity of the WNBA’s players, if the commentary around the web is any indicator.

The underlying theme to me is this – our society, our world, still struggles with the notion of femininity. What’s disturbing about some of these accounts (and many others I didn’t post here) are that I didn’t find them at “AverageLunkheadMale.blogspot.com” – many of these are national media outlets. The fact is that most of us know what to say to be politically correct, but on the whole we simultaneously condemn women who step outside of the mold.

And isn’t it odd that in a season that began with the league providing makeup and fashion tips for rookies (read more at smartlikeme.wordpress.com) to ensure that they presented themselves as “women first”, we now have a fight that calls into question their womanhood? It seems like overall we’re got our priorities wrong with regard to what is important for female athletes and this is just a very public example of that. From Jeff Jacobs at the Hartford Courant again:

What should be celebrated is toughness. What shouldn't be celebrated is a loss of composure. This isn't a matter of X and Y chromosomes. This is about the ABCs of athletic play. Toughness is taking a hit and getting back up. Idiocy is throwing a punch, getting in a brawl.

It seems like some people have confused a hyper-masculine display of strength with passion and toughness and for inexplicably applied it to women’s basketball. And that does nothing to help a sport that already struggles with the notion that these women are “unladylike”.

It’s a beautiful thing to say that basketball is basketball and that athletes are athletes, but the fact is the majority of our society simply doesn’t agree. And it’s hard to conclude that these factors have no bearing on ratings, even when there is a fight that garners attention for the wrong reasons. From Barry Horn of the Dallas News:

Of course, that didn't translate to an overflowing eyeball convention for Thursday night's follow-up between the Shock and Houston Comets on ESPN2. That game featured the Bill Veeck-like return of 50-year-old Hall of Famer Nancy Lieberman, who made a cameo on-court appearance for the depleted Shock.

Average major-market rating for the season's first 11 games on ESPN2: 0.23.

Average major-market rating for the first post-brawl game on ESPN2: 0.25.

I think this is a chance to put things in perspective. The biggest benefit of this scuffle to the WNBA would be a sustained increase in media attention. I think the blogosphere is helping greatly with that, but the major media outlets would have to do more than focus on a fight. Regardless of whether you think people are dumb, the media is a major factor in shaping people’s opinions about the world, even when something is omitted.

Part of the burden of increasing media attention does of course lie with the WNBA and I think the web can play a major part in that, as Helen from Women’s Hoops points out often (so often that I can’t even keep up). And of course, there’s already been plenty written about the “Expect Great” ads.

But the other part of that burden rests with the “journalists” that perpetuate blatantly homophobic, racist, and sexist ideas about the WNBA in the public sphere. And that responsibility seems to lie with editors and producers.

If all people see of the WNBA this year is a circus act with women fighting, I don’t see how the league will increase its popularity, though it might just stagnate. And it really can’t afford stagnation at this point in its development.

Relevant Links:

Like it or not, melee lifts WNBA's exposure
http://www.connpost.com/sports/ci_9990335

Why The WNBA Brawl Could Be Good For The League
http://jezebel.com/5029067/why-the-wnba-brawl-could-be-good-for-the-league

Taking it seriously.
http://meganwegan.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/taking-it-seriously/

Blog Hound: Fight During Tuesday's Game Good Or Bad For WNBA?
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sbd.preview&articleID=122691

Hey, WNBA, don't run away from this fight (…and an idea for a new ad campaign)
http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/KBQB_blog/2008/07/hey_wnba_dont_run_away_from_th.html


Continue reading...

Melee Update: Suspension Announcements a Relief For Sparks, Nolan

Well, I wrote earlier that losing Candace Parker or Deanna Nolan for an extended period of time would be the most harmful outcome of Tuesday night’s fight.

We now have the announcement and Parker got one game and Nolan got nothing. Essentially Plenette Pierson was given most of the responsibility for the fight, receiving a four game suspension.

I have to say I thought the league was rather lenient on Parker and Nolan – it’s hard to argue that Parker was not as responsible as Pierson for the fight. I suppose Nolan was trying to help by tackling Parker…but that should count as participating in a physical altercation.

But guess what – it will be good for the game. Why? Losing Nolan and Parker for any extended amount of time could have a major effect on the standings. And I’m sure that’s not lost on the league.

According to the Boxscores, Nolan and Parker are the most important players from each team. So to revisit the Boxscore losses, here’s what it breaks down to:

Pierson: 4 games, 2.14
Braxton: 1 game, 1.39
Humphrey: 1 game, 1.26
Powell: 1 game (upon return from injury): .52
Sam: 1 game, .57
Bobbitt: 2 games, .56
Page: 2 games, .16
Leslie: 1 game, 3.09
Milton-Jones: 1 game, 2.07
Parker: 1 game, 4.10

Cheryl Ford (ACL injury): 9 games, 2.51

So what’s the fallout?

Well, the suspensions are staggered – Sam serves her suspension on July 27, separate from Braxton and Humphrey, so that should not be a major loss for Detroit. However, losing Braxton, Ford, Humphrey, and Pierson tonight against Houston could be devastating – they give up the second least opponents’ rebounds and have the best rebounding differential in the league. But in terms of Boxscores, that’s 45% of their win production lost against a Houston team looking to improve their standing in the playoffs. If the Shock can gut out a win, it should make for good entertainment and perhaps even help ratings over the next few games.

Long-term, losing Pierson and Ford over an additional three games (28% of win production) will hurt, perhaps costing them 1 potential win. But again, the intangible factor of having floor leaders Nolan and Katie Smith still on the court should not be overlooked. It’s a relatively small loss for a deep team.

As for the Sparks, the long-term implications are even less. They will be without Bobbitt, Leslie, Milton-Jones and Parker tonight and that’s still 70% of their production. I find it highly unlikely that they can win tonight’s game against a hungry Sun team.

Bobbitt will miss a second game along with Muriel Page and though that only amounts to .72% of the team’s production, I think the loss of Bobbitt’s energy could be huge against New York. Bobbitt’s score is a little skewed because she wasn’t playing much early in the season. So I would imagine that she’s responsible for at least 1 full game this season. But it’s likely not enough to cause a loss either. It will be interesting to see if Temeka Johnson comes back.

The verdict…?

At this point, I think it’s unclear exactly what type of damage this might do to the league. One way to look at is that there could be fan fallout as described by Helen at Women’s Hoops. If fans think the league was too lenient AND continue to see poorly officiated games, the league could have a longer-term problem on their hands.

Another way to look at it is that the game itself is not going to be adversely affected due to light suspensions. Longer suspensions for Milton-Jones, Parker, or Nolan could have been devastating. But now the league might have a perfect storm – controversy, increased attention for a few games before the Olympics, and players on the court hungry to redeem themselves.

If indeed the Shock and Sparks make it to the finals, it will be interesting to see how much media attention they get. And in the end, that’s what it comes down to – the type of media attention. The media has a heavy influence on people’s desires, like it or not, and if the sports media frames WNBA games as something to watch, more people will watch.

Transition Points:

I also thought it was important to make sure that these suspensions were consistent with NBA suspensions. Well, they were – suspensions are consistently flawed and criticized after they are handed out, NBA or WNBA.

After the 1998 Miami Heat-New York Knicks melee in which coach Jeff Van Gundy was caught hanging from Alonzo Mourning’s leg trying to stop a fight, David Stern “lectured” coaches Van Gundy and Pat Riley about their responsibility for keeping games under control. Some even blamed their trash talking for the events escalating in the way they did. Sound familiar? Does the tension between Michael Cooper and Bill Laimbeer exacerbate the on-court tensions in any way? What responsibility do coaches (and the media that hypes up tensions) have for keeping things under control?

This was not included in the WNBA’s press release, but I think that the referees of Tuesday night’s melee should be subject to some disciplinary action as well. It is their responsibility to maintain control of a game and at some point the league has make it clear to the refs (and some upset fans) that they won’t tolerate refs letting games get out of control. What is the appropriate disciplinary action to take against the refs?

Continue reading...

The Cost of Shock-Sparks Melee: Which Team Loses More From WNBA Suspensions?

After having a little more time to think about Tuesday night’s fight, it seems that the biggest cost to the WNBA after the fight might be the damage done to the playoff race after suspensions are dealt out.

The WNBA’s image might take a hit, but really the league’s brand is so weak in the mainstream consciousness that they don’t really have to worry about “re-inventing anything”. In addition, the WNBA seems heavily reliant on its core fans for attendance and television ratings, and it’s hard to believe those fans will suddenly abandon their teams as a result of this incident alone. It might damage potential growth…but “potential” growth is immeasurable anyway so any claims about loss growth would be speculation anyway.

But with stars like Candace Parker, Lisa Leslie, and Deanna Nolan all involved in this fight, the Shock and Sparks will likely be playing shorthanded and without key contributors. When you consider that the teams are only five and two games out of the playoffs, respectively, any drop off in performance could lead to a trip to the lottery.

So the forthcoming announcement about who is suspended and for how long could do more damage to the league than the fight might do to the league’s image.

So how can we evaluate the impact of the suspensions in terms of wins and losses down the stretch?

What if we could actually measure a player’s contributions to her team’s wins?

Well, the Arbitrarian blog has done exactly that by creating a metric called “Boxscores”. There are actually many other metrics available to estimate a player’s contribution to wins – Win Score/Wins Produced, Win Shares, Win Val, etc. But I’m using Boxscores for a very practical reason: David Sparks has provided us with up to date numbers for the WNBA. That counts for a lot considering the relative dearth of statistics available for the WNBA.

So in the spirit of “arbitrarianism”, I thought it would be interesting to make a Boxscore analysis of the potential impact of the suspensions on the Shock and Sparks.
Suspensions

Thanks to a few Rebkell posters, I think we have an initial sense of who will receive suspensions. Although I don’t know how long each person will be suspended at this time, we can at least take a look at the potential effect on tonight’s games.

What we do know for certain is that Shock forward Cheryl Ford will be out for the season with an ACL injury, which is by far the most unfortunate outcome of this whole ordeal. But here are players likely to be suspended:

Sparks: Bobbitt, Leslie, Milton-Jones, Page, Parker
Shock: Braxton, Humphrey, Pierson, Powell, Nolan

Players who left the bench get an automatic one game suspension, so that will affect Page, Bobbitt, Braxton, and Powell. Leslie’s involvement in the whole thing is a matter of interpretation – from some angles it looks like she threw a punch (which is an automatic suspension), from others she looks to just be falling backwards.

Humphrey was also up off the bench and stepped onto the court, although someone pulled her back to the bench. If the rules of leaving the bench are enforced as they have been in the NBA – which they should be – Humphrey is subject to the one game suspension as well.

So by these estimations, each team will lose the same number of players due to suspension. But the Sparks will likely lose 4/5 of their starting lineup and Detroit will lose four significant contributors. So for tonight's games, it looks like both teams have little chance to win.

But once the announcement is actually made, it might be interesting to use the Boxscores metric to make a more accurate assessment of the potential long-term impact of the suspensions.

Not all players are created equal...

From what I see in the video, Bobbitt, Leslie, Milton-Jones, Nolan, Parker, and Pierson could receive multiple game suspensions. Bobbitt is another tricky one – she definitely raised a fist to punch someone, but I did not see who she was going after. Again, it’s up to the league’s interpretation.

But here’s a brief description of how Boxscores work (for more, click here):

…the final steps in BoxScores calculation are extremely simple: merely find each player’s percent contribution to his team’s total sum of valuable contributions from all players, and multiply this by team wins:

BoxScores = (val / team val) * team wins

We are left with an estimate of individual player value that combines individual contributions and team success, and allocates the most credit to those players who did the most to win the most.

Boxscores first caught my eye because Sparks created a great graphic that illustrates each player’s value to their team. This graphic is a week old, but still interesting to look at.

So here’s a list of the players likely to be suspended (plus Ford) and their Boxscores (highest to lowest):

Parker 4.10
Leslie 3.09
Nolan 2.88
Ford 2.51
Pierson 2.14
Milton-Jones 2.07
Braxton 1.39
Humphrey 1.26
Bobbitt .56
Powell (inactive) .52
Page .16

The Boxscores of the individual players on a given team should add up to the team’s total wins (or something reasonably close). The best way to look at Boxscores is as a season cumulative statistic, but we’ll make due with almost ¾ of a season of data.

So let’s take the upcoming games tonight and look at the lost contribution for each team:

Sparks 9.98/14 (71%)
Shock: 10.7/16 (66%)

So tonight’s games will definitely be a test of character for both teams – I would expect both to lose with each missing most of their rotation. But what of the games after that? Might they be able to rebound and stay in the playoff race?

Implications for the Playoff Race

Detroit might be at a much larger disadvantage in terms of total lost contribution. They will definitely lose 15% of their win production in Ford for the rest of the season. They will probably lose another 13% for an extended period of time in Pierson. But it’s Nolan who will definitely be the biggest loss, contributing to 18% and intangible leadership – she definitely stands to be suspended for tackling Parker, but it’s hard to tell exactly how much time she will miss.

However, Detroit is five games ahead of the fifth place Mystics in the Eastern Conference with nine games left. Their Pythagorean projection would project them to go 6-3 over that period. If they don’t lose anyone but Ford and Pierson for an extended period of time, it’s conceivable that they could only lose 2 games off their expected win total, meaning they go 4-5 over that stretch (looking at their schedule, it’s feasible). So unless the Mystics or Sky win the rest of their games this season, it’s unlikely that we’ll see Detroit fall out of the playoffs.

Conversely, an extended absence from the Sparks players who threw punches (at least Parker and Milton-Jones) would almost certainly keep them from the playoffs – that’s 44% of their production gone. If Leslie and Bobbitt are also lost for more than 1 game, they can definitely look forward to scouting for the lottery.

Furthermore, the Sparks are only 3 games from last in the Western Conference. Their Pythagorean projection would have them going 6-4 over their next 10 games. Considering they should definitely lose Parker and Milton-Jones for extended time, they could lose 3-4 wins and go 2-8 over that period. Ending the season .500 could tank their playoff hopes with Houston surging and Phoenix always dangerous.

So given their situation and the potential severity of their losses, it’s the Sparks who lose the most in this situation. The Shock will probably end up making the playoffs and that’s all they need – a shot. But it almost seems unfair that the Sparks end up in the lottery again after just acquiring Parker in this year’s lottery.

Caveats

A few caveats with this analysis – although it is interesting, it doesn’t account for changes in coaching strategy or the ability of replacement players to replace the lost productivity. However, I think it’s safe to assume that if you’re losing 60%-70% of your team’s production, you’re not going to find a replacement for that.

Second, you can never account for intangibles statistically. Losing team leaders like Leslie, Nolan, or Parker is as bad as losing their “production”.

This formula is also based on NBA data and it is quite likely that assists are more valuable in the WNBA. It also doesn’t take defense into account, though Sparks justifies that in his description.

Obviously, the best application of Boxscores is in determining MVP, Rookie of the Year, or Sixth Woman of the Year candidates. But I will get to that sometime during the Olympic break when there is some WNBA down time.

Transition Points:

One interesting application of the Boxscores is to look at a team’s relative balance. It would appear from the graphic and from the numbers above that LA is heavily dependent on three players whereas Detroit gets a much more balanced contribution from about 7 players (including Hornbuckle or Humphrey). That should certainly help them through these suspensions.

While Ryan Pretzer points out that this melee is best compared to the lesser melees in the NBA that come and go…

Mahorn’s involvement notwithstanding, comparisons were inevitable to the Pistons-Pacers brawl of 2004 because they occurred in the same building. To make any such a comparison is a gross simplification. The Ron Artest-induced melee was an unprecedented, dark moment for U.S. professional basketball because fans were involved. Lesser melees occasionally happen in the NBA. When they do, the spectacle is showcased on ESPN, suspensions are doled out, and the league goes on about its business. The same should happen here. The WNBA values competitiveness above all else, and emulates its big brother in a myriad of ways. The less flattering side of that emulation reared its head Tuesday.

…columnist Tom Haddock reminds us of the difference in how we perceive men’s and women’s sports. That disparity could lead to a differential effect on the league’s image:

But that's part of the bigger problem. There is a disparity between the way men's and women's sports are perceived. Clearly, they are viewed differently. We laugh when women fight. We are outraged when men fight. Until that changes, men and women in sports will always be different.

I’m still not sure I even believe this, but here’s one way to keep television ratings high: bring back Nancy Lieberman. It's a low-risk gimmick given the number of players missing...and I'm sure it would help boost ratings a little...

Semantics are important in the way we present incidents like this. There has been some discussion about whether calling it a “melee” is too extreme. However, this incident seems to be the dictionary definition of a melee. In case you’re as obsessive as I am:

Melee: Confused, hand-to-hand fighting in a pitched battle..

Brawl: a noisy quarrel, squabble, or fight.

Fight: To attempt to harm or gain power over an adversary by blows or with weapons.



Continue reading...

Fighting Is Not the Type Of Attention the WNBA Needs

It’s normally difficult to find any quality post-game analysis about WNBA games, but last night’s fight between the Shock and Sparks managed to get attention from all the major sports websites, NBA message boards, and even local news media outlets.

With such wide-ranging attention to the ugly incident, it may come as no surprise that the reactions are equally diverse. And the reactions that come over the next few days in our 24 hour news cycle will be both intriguing and potentially devastating for the WNBA.

Really, this shouldn’t be news at all – it has nothing to with basketball. It becomes news because we live in a society that has an endless appetite for the sensational…and this has become the daily special. So by now there’s probably not much original thought to be presented about the incident, but there are three things in particular that struck me as I sifted through the many reactions.

First, it’s unfortunate that the “spirited” nature of the game is overshadowing an otherwise exciting game (and season) of basketball. Second, no sport recovers well from major controversy and the WNBA cannot afford a hit in attendance or ratings. Third, many of the reactions – especially those of male non-WNBA fans – strike me as unnecessarily sexist and homophobic and sadly that should be expected by now.

I’m sure the third point will be covered in depth by any number of cultural critics who will use this as an opportunity to explore dynamics of gender, race, and sexuality with more sophistication than I can at this point. But I think the first two points are worth addressing, if only on a basic level.

The timing of this event could not have been any worse.

The league was just coming off a historic moment with the Liberty Outdoor Classic and what I believe was one of the all-time best weekends of WNBA basketball. It’s right before the Olympics and four Olympians were playing in this game and at least three played a prominent role in the fight. But the most devastating thing is its long-term impact on two of the WNBA’s best teams. From writer and New York Liberty fan Justine Larbalestier:

And now several players are going to be out for a bunch of games. Plenette Pierson, Candace Parker and Delisha Milton-Jones for sure and most likely Muriel Page and Deanna Nolan as well. Not to mention Cheryl Ford getting injured trying to keep Pierson from attacking more LA players.

I hate this crap. This is not why I follow the WNBA…The New York Liberty plays the LA Sparks on Friday. It’s not going to be as good a game without Parker and Milton-Jones.

The loss of major players on championship contenders is not positive for the WNBA by any stretch of the imagination. Especially given how tight the standings are this year. And you have to feel especially sad for Ford -- she has fought so hard all season and had to leave the court in a wheelchair.

And though I am normally loathe to blame the officials for the outcome of a basketball game, it is their responsibility to maintain control of a game. Sometimes there are a series of hidden events that precipitate an event like this, but in this case most of the warning signs happened in plain sight. From Dave’s Journal:

Mahorn pushing Leslie was a lot like the beer hitting Artest at the Pistons-Pacers brawl - it turned an ugly fight into something memorably bad. I mostly blame the officials, who had let a very intense game get out of hand. There had been a couple incidents earlier in the game, mostly involving Parker and Cheryl Ford, and the refs just ignored everything. There was no excuse for not doing anything when Parker and Ford had to be separated with eight seconds to go. At the very least, both players should have been given technical fouls. Instead, they were allowed to keep yelling at each other, and it was only a few seconds later that the fight started.

Whatever Rick Mahorn’s intentions were, he didn’t help an already bad situation…and that is not good for anyone involved in this situation either.

What happens when the league resumes after the Olympics and players are still serving suspensions? Any momentum gained from the Olympics would be essentially lost, even if the event is magically forgotten.

Professional sports don’t rebound well from controversy

This is obviously a pessimistic perspective I’m presenting here…but history gives us plenty of reason for pessimism. And the fact that the fight occurred in the same venue as the NBA’s infamous November 2004 brawl has not been lost on anyone. And the comparisons foretell a bleak future for the WNBA.

Of course, the Olympic break could be a convenient time to mull over the appropriate response to get past this. And I suppose you could argue that since the WNBA does not have a well-established "brand" in the mainstream, the attention from this incident could lead to increased viewership and attendance. That was my initial response to the fight because after all, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”, right? From LSU Sports Place:

All-in-all, this is probably a good thing for the WNBA. As silly as it sounds, this will generate interest in the league and build a rivalry that people will be able to relate to and come playoff time if these two squads are playing against one another, the WNBA can actually score decent ratings.

However, no matter what type of damage control strategy the WNBA chooses, this will likely have a devastating effect on the league.

Unfortunately, history tells us bad publicity is bad for sports ratings. The MLB, NHL, and NBA all suffered in ratings and attendance after their respective labor battles. Baseball suffered during the height of the steroids scandal. And most relevant, NBA viewership suffered after two brawls of its own – a second fight between the Knicks and Nuggets occurred that thankfully did not involve fans. On the bright side, NBA attendance hit a record high after it's Pacers-Pistons brawl.

But it took a full 82 game season for the NBA to recover ratings-wise from its brawl (and a not so exciting Detroit-San Antonio finals series). Of course, we also have to keep in mind that NBA ratings had been sagging since the 1999 lockout and Michael Jordan’s retirement so it’s difficult to disentangle those factors. However, it would not be surprising if the rate of decline was significantly different after the fight.

But it’s not just ratings that suffer -- it’s also endorsements and marketing opportunities. Northwest Airlines pulled Carmelo Anthony off magazine covers after his fight with the Knicks. And he lost other potential endorsement deals after his off court participation in the infamous “Stop Snitchin’” DVD.

It may seem like I’m blowing minor problems out of proportion, but the NBA has a bit more latitude with which to deal with challenges like these because it's a well established entity. Carmelo Anthony losing marketability is offset by Lebron James, Chris Paul, Dwayne Wade, and Greg Oden -- all highly marketable individuals. If it impacted the NBA and players involved, we have to assume an impact on the WNBA.

But really, can the WNBA afford to lose endorsements? Or the even bigger question, can the WNBA afford a decrease in (“savior”) Candace Parker’s marketability? Given all the challenges the WNBA already faces – including the double standards female athletes face – it cannot afford to lose popularity due to non-basketball distractions.

What to do next…?

I don’t think there are any easy solutions to this problem. I wouldn’t expect Donna Orender nor any other human being to rescue the league from this debacle.

The optimistic perspective is that the WNBA will remain stable because the existing fan base is small but dedicated and will rally around the league instead of abandoning it. But to me, that will only occur if the media starts giving the same amount of coverage to actual basketball as they give to the aftermath of the fight. Unlikely.

The best the WNBA can do in the short term is issue stiff but fair suspensions within the next 48 hours. I also think that some disciplinary action has to be taken against the referees and the league will have to look at overall officiating of the league over the break. It wouldn’t surprise me to see a lot more quick whistles and quick technicals… *sigh* And those Expect Great commercials that have already been mocked ad nauseam? They might as well discontinue those right now...

Beyond that what can they do?

Two contenders are likely going to lose ground in the standings, if not fall out of the playoffs altogether in a season that was being lauded for its parity. The lasting image of Cheryl Ford leaving the fight in a wheelchair is inconsistent with the league’s image as a family game. The participation of Olympians means that the issue will linger even during the break. Complaints about WNBA officiating are long-standing. In other words, there's no need to pinpoint individuals to assign blame to -- everybody loses in this situation and it will be a collective effort to sustain interest in the league.

It is a very, very disappointing situation for the WNBA and the worst part is that it will completely overshadow an otherwise great season of basketball.

Continue reading...