My favorite quote in the Bloomberg piece, ""I thought I was one in a million being pretty and athletic," says Tiffani Hardin, a junior at the University of Central Florida" - first of all, what exactly is she trying to say about girls that ARE athletic? They're not pretty? Yikes! Second, when did it become OK for sport to discriminate based upon aesthetics? That's one of the beauties of sport. You can be whatever color, size or gender you want. As long as you can play, nobody cares. LFL goes against that core value, and teaches the wrong things to society.

Saturday, December 4, 2010 at 11:51am EST

The LFL's aesthetic is a perverted one. Sport does in fact have an aesthetic, but it is one where form and function blend together naturally and beautifully. But as the piece says, the LFL is "little more than [scarcely] athletic Playboy bunnies running around for the benefit of male consumption."

Saturday, December 4, 2010 at 3:58pm EST

It saddens and sickens me that people prefer the LFL to the IWFL. I absolutely agree that it's all about sex, not sport, even if the athletes don't want to believe that. It's perverted (who GOES to those games?), sexualized (a garter? really?) and, even though it's a cliche, truly stomps over the accomplishments of women in sports. To think that this is the one women's sport that is growing and succeeding severely tests what is left of my faith in humanity.

Not trying to be dramatic...but I think all former female athletes can admit that they like wearing uniforms, not lingerie and would still like to receive recognition despite that.

Monday, December 6, 2010 at 1:03pm EST

Dear RealRoundBall,First, to claim that I assert that my opinions on the LFL are more correct is inaccurate. If you go to the "About My Blog" on my website I explicitly state "I write [from] a different perspective (not necessarily one that you agree with)" (http://nicolemlavoi.com/about-this-blog/) and I would never state my opinion is "correct". Second, to argue that most women aren't willing to pay or watch women's pro sport is to assert that ONLY women are responsible for the success of women's sport. If this were true, then the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL would ONLY succeed off the pocketbooks of men. Research shows that women comprise up to 40% of the fans of men's pro sports. (see the stats here http://nicolemlavoi.com/2009/04/15/are-women-sport-fans/). We actually agree in that someone needs to figure out how to effectively market and promote women's sport to BOTH MEN AND WOMEN and get them as you say, "to spend money to watch women's professional sports." Lastly, Title IX was passed in 1972 so it hasn't quite yet been "forty-plus years of pro women's athletic propaganda" Along that same argument, we have had MANY more years of men's athletic propaganda and considerably more resources devoted to the promotion of men's sports, so it no mystery why men's pro sports are so much ahead of women's pro sports. -NML

Monday, December 6, 2010 at 2:45pm EST

"While I would agree that the LFL athletes don't represent the pinnacle of women's athletic achievement I've watched enough women's sports to know that they are every bit as athletic as most women out there in organized sports."

What rubbish. I don't have anything against the women in the LFL. They can do as they wish. I'll even admit that many of them are indeed "athletic," especially when compared with the general population. But these women are not, on average, nearly the type of superb, often world-class athlete you find in the NFL, WNBA, or most other real professional sports leagues. Further, they are not representative of the athletes, the linewomen, the fullbacks, the linebackers, you'd expect to find in a competitive (American-style) football league where winning games is the primary objective.

To point out that, from a sports perspective, the LFL is more farce than sport is completely within bounds--not to mention just plain true--and can be done without any unwarranted disrespect for its women.

Monday, December 6, 2010 at 4:19pm EST

Dear Realroundball - I agree that it is extremely important to figure out why the world is more interested in watching men's sports than women's sports. And I agree that we as a global society have the capability of voting with our wallets by supporting women's sports in order to increase their success.

However, to state that an economic business model that makes money is simply good business and should be commended is short-sighted and based in ignorance. Respect for others (read as solid business values) should be taken into consideration. Slavery made for a good economic business model and turned an incredible profit for the plantation owners. Did that make it right? Were blacks simply "living out their entire working lives without ever getting even a basic understanding of how the economy works and being conditioned that if they complain long and loud enough and get backed up by civil rights ambulance chasing attorneys they can browbeat society into submission"?

Am I comparing the LFL players to slaves? Certainly not! But there are times when a business decision - regardless of it's economic success - is simply wrong. The LFL is such a case. Society should educate ourselves as to the sponsors that pay to promote this business venture and vote with our wallets. Like you infer, the power of the almighty dollar speaks louder than any words.
-iompo

Monday, December 6, 2010 at 5:04pm EST

RealRoundball: Relax? I'm excitable for posting a brief reply disagreeing with you, yet you're not with your 450 word mini-essays? Strange.

But moving on. What you said, specifically, was that "they are every bit as athletic as most women out there in organized sports." I'm sorry, but besides being wrong, that is a slight--intended or not--of female athletes generally.

To repeat what I said, the LFL is more farce than sport. Might there be athleticism involved? Of course. Might the LFL admit, or at least not deny, that it's mere entertainment with little in the way of meaningful competition? Perhaps. But farce it mostly is nonetheless.

Monday, December 6, 2010 at 9:18pm EST

RealRoundball - First, to your discussion about economics... you're right, women do need to open up their purses (or wallets) and buy tickets for themselves and their daughters. I have no problem pointing a finger there. But the problem is not that women's sports isn't popular.

If you look very closely, women's sports actually has grown in popularity from a viewer standpoint on the local level. As the level of competition grows every year, high school gyms are packed across the country for girls championships. These girls are hometown heros. The passion for female athletes is there because the local media is community-driven and sends real reporters to cover ALL athletes, regardless of gender.

On the national level, the media does close to nothing to generate awareness for women's professional sports. Senior people in the national media (especially in sports) make deliberate, knowledgeable decisions about who and what to cover, and unfortunately, women's professional sports comes up short as the result of those decisions, I'm confident that we're going to see some changes there in the coming years as more women move into senior roles, and as what we determine "mass media" continues to diversify. I look forward to the day we can solve this problem and bring the community-driven local media passion to a national level.

Last, your discussion about MMA makes very little sense. If you do a little bit deeper digging, you'll notice that many professional FEMALE MMA competitors actually come from wrestling programs as well. If they hadn't been given the opportunity to compete on a wrestling team, they never would have the opportunity to fight. And that is just one of the many positive affects of increased opportunity in sport for women. It is unfortunate that athletic directors make budget decisions to give higher priority to some men's sports over others (like football or basketball).

Oh, and by the way, Roller Derby has an incredibly large following. Talk about creating an audience! I've been trying to get tickets to the NYC team and it's been sold out every time. This has nothing to do with what they wear, and everything to do with the performance. You should check it out sometime. I'm happy to go with you.

Monday, December 6, 2010 at 9:36pm EST

RealRoundball: Actually, it's 460 this time. Thus you might work on not double-posting while you're at it.

Now, do you want to have a rational discussion, or are you on here simply to show us your lame attempts at ridicule?

Monday, December 6, 2010 at 10:44pm EST

Leave the troll alone. If you don't poke him, he'll go back under his bridge and leave the rest of us to a rational discussion. (Okay, so I took a shot at him too, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong...!)

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 at 12:22am EST

So we have our answer: it's the latter.

Z: I'm thinking you have the right idea.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 at 10:32am EST

the lack of marketing argument grows old. i work in marketing and have a grad degee in it. the trolls who try to keep women's sports down get even more tiresome, but beneath their muck, they do have a point.

you can't force someone to like a product. it's called marketing myopia and has been an established fact in academic studies since the 60's.

i want women's sports to succeed (i have a daughter) but i simply don't have an interest in watching. and it's not because i don't respect the athletes or the level of competition, it's simply because it doesn't appeal to my tastes.

No level of marketing is going to convince me that i don't want to watch basketball played above the rim, hockey games featuring speeed and fist fights, football games with 350 monsters and freaks who can run 4.4, or baseball games with 95mph pitches and 400 foot homeruns.

i can't apologize for liking what i like. and the notion that i would suddenly enjoy watching women's sports - layup basketball, non-fighting hockey, football played in underwear (agree the LFL is a complete joke), or "baseball" with underhand pitching and facemasks on the infielders - if only sportscenter would give it more marketing exposure, is insulting to me as a consumer.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 at 10:27pm EST

the lack of marketing argument grows old. i work in marketing and have a grad degee in it. the trolls who try to keep women's sports down get even more tiresome, but beneath their muck, they do have a point.

you can't force someone to like a product. it's called marketing myopia and has been an established fact in academic studies since the 60's.

i want women's sports to succeed (i have a daughter) but i simply don't have an interest in watching. and it's not because i don't respect the athletes or the level of competition, it's simply because it doesn't appeal to my tastes.

No level of marketing is going to convince me that i don't want to watch basketball played above the rim, hockey games featuring speeed and fist fights, football games with 350 monsters and freaks who can run 4.4, or baseball games with 95mph pitches and 400 foot homeruns.

i can't apologize for liking what i like. and the notion that i would suddenly enjoy watching women's sports - layup basketball, non-fighting hockey, football played in underwear (agree the LFL is a complete joke), or "baseball" with underhand pitching and facemasks on the infielders - if only sportscenter would give it more marketing exposure, is insulting to me as a consumer.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 at 10:30pm EST

mcjack: Yes, somewhere beneath the trolls' filthy prattle there is a point, one not easily dismissed. But because trolls' diatribes, on all manner of subjects, are mere Internet cliché--change a few words here and there and you find the same scurrility repeated countless times on forums, YouTube, Facebook--the sense hidden in the nonsense is missed. It also doesn't help that nuance seems entirely lost on so-called trolls; meaningful debate with them is rightly seen by others as impossible.

Nonetheless your observations are correct. I've said many times before, here and elsewhere, that women's professional sports cannot be made successful by fiat, or by treating them as a "cause." With very few exceptions, the professional sports fan is interested in watching the best class of athletes compete. Anything less than that and he or she typically feels cheated. Thus, narrow the performance gap and women's professional sports find more success in the marketplace. That gap is closing, I believe, but requires time to narrow enough.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 at 12:11pm EST

Thanks to everyone for weighing in on the LFL. I'm glad it got some dialogue sparked, albeit some that hasn't been productive or respectful. Similar to the Vonn SI cover blog which engendered much discussion, what was most interesting is how both discussions reinforced to me that some people have lost the ability to have a respectful civic dialogue. Stating an opinion is "personal theory" but when you have facts and scientific evidence to back up your opinion, it adds to the discussion in meaningful ways. We are all entitled to our opinions, but to have a good debate some facts have to be involved. To read about my thoughts following the Vonn blog on our collective lack of civic skills go here http://nicolemlavoi.com/2010/02/08/vonn-cover-uncovers-unexpected/ -nml

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 at 2:43pm EST