- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So back to this Women's soccer vs Men's soccer debate
Posted on 5/26/16 at 2:37 pm to tigerfan88
Posted on 5/26/16 at 2:37 pm to tigerfan88
quote:
Well you said the tournaments are equal and they aren't.
I asked the question about how they are not equal. I wasn't understanding the point being made.
quote:
hey should be paid more and featured more on platforms like ESPN. Perhaps you did not mean to support in that argument,
Heck no!!
quote:
USWNT are the best supported women's national team in almost every way
Success, albeit in a watered down field, acknowledged.
quote:
the men do not share any of those same advantages.
Very little success
quote:
Is ULL winning the Sun Belt and New Orleans bowl a better accomplishment than LSU going 10-2 and losing in the SEC title game?
I hear you. Good point.
quote:
If LSU put all their resources into 5 sports
quote:
f we're furthering this analogy, LSU would've only started any real semblance of a football team in about 1980,
Also good points.
I suppose I am more frustrated by the lack of progression. As a country with a huge population and more money than the rest of the western hemisphere combined, it still makes no sense that we struggle with Jamaica and Honduras. Especially with the huge number of kids who have been playing soccer here for the last 25 years.
Perhaps I'm just a frontrunner. The USMT reminds me of the Falcons and I'm disgusted with them too.
1
Posted on 5/26/16 at 3:05 pm to Tigertown in ATL
Another item not considered - the women collectively bargained their own deal, which purposely included a less "pay" for themselves in exchange for health care coverage (not necessary provided by their leagues, unlike the men) - which includes I believe coverage if they are away from the national team due to giving birth, etc.
In essense, they reduced the potential pay to those players playing every game to guanratee themselves other benfits that members of the squad can take advantage of. Some of those were benefits that the men don't need (for a variety of reasons).
They likely do deserve to get paid more, but it shouldn't be based upon their highest ever grossing revenue year - it should be based upon the previous 4-5 year cycble and the growth acheived.
It also should have NOTHING to do with what the men get paid, except for as a fairly generic proportional formula of overall revenue vs. overall benefit (pay, insurance, etc.)
In essense, they reduced the potential pay to those players playing every game to guanratee themselves other benfits that members of the squad can take advantage of. Some of those were benefits that the men don't need (for a variety of reasons).
They likely do deserve to get paid more, but it shouldn't be based upon their highest ever grossing revenue year - it should be based upon the previous 4-5 year cycble and the growth acheived.
It also should have NOTHING to do with what the men get paid, except for as a fairly generic proportional formula of overall revenue vs. overall benefit (pay, insurance, etc.)
Posted on 5/27/16 at 8:44 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
b/c the level of competition is much higher and spread out in the mens game.
Probably has more to do with how we distribute our athletes. Men's soccer is behind football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and even NASCAR in popularity. The first three sports on the list take the best athletes. Soccer is a sport for teenage girls.
The rest of the world is the opposite. In most countries men's soccer is THE sport and the women's game is an afterthought. They might have cricket or rugby, and basketball is a world game, but the other sports are second fiddle and there's usually only one other sport.
Posted on 5/28/16 at 4:07 pm to Bluefin
An academy team maybe. But a rec or even premier team of 15 year olds would not wreck shite over the top women's teams.
I've played Corec with one national team player and several top 10 level college women and they were very very technical and super fit. They could more than hold their own.
Last night I got free tickets to wnba game so I took my son. I wasn't expecting much and seeing the teams warm up my expectations decreased. Then the game tipped off and these women went crazy. They were amazingly quick and athletic. I was Very very surprised.
I've played Corec with one national team player and several top 10 level college women and they were very very technical and super fit. They could more than hold their own.
Last night I got free tickets to wnba game so I took my son. I wasn't expecting much and seeing the teams warm up my expectations decreased. Then the game tipped off and these women went crazy. They were amazingly quick and athletic. I was Very very surprised.
Posted on 5/28/16 at 8:09 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Probably has more to do with how we distribute our athletes. Men's soccer is behind football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and even NASCAR in popularity. The first three sports on the list take the best athletes. Soccer is a sport for teenage girls.
The rest of the world is the opposite. In most countries men's soccer is THE sport and the women's game is an afterthought. They might have cricket or rugby, and basketball is a world game, but the other sports are second fiddle and there's usually only one other sport.
There's quite a bit here I disagree with, but I'll make my response short. We dominate women's soccer for the same reason we dominate most sports except for men's soccer: We're one of the few who actually takes it seriously.
Posted on 5/28/16 at 8:48 pm to UHTiger
quote:
I've played Corec with one national team player
Awesome. Which one?
Posted on 5/28/16 at 8:50 pm to UHTiger
quote:Pics?
I've played Corec with one national team player and several top 10 level college women and they were very very technical and super fit.
Posted on 5/29/16 at 2:39 pm to pvilleguru
Lol. That was back before smart phones existed. I'd have had to have an actual camera and by now I've moved so many times I've probably lost any pics from those days. Very very early 90's
Posted on 5/29/16 at 2:55 pm to UHTiger
quote:
An academy team maybe. But a rec or even premier team of 15 year olds would not wreck shite over the top women's teams.
I've played Corec with one national team player and several top 10 level college women and they were very very technical and super fit. They could more than hold their own.
For sure, at age 15 the boys have barely started to develop the physical dominance that makes the comparisons such a joke. It would have to be a u-15 national team, or at least a regional all-star team or high level academy team.
That being said, by the time 17-18 rolls around for these guys I think the pool of teams that are equal or above to even elite women's national teams is much broader. I would be willing to bet some of the Jesuit or St. Paul's teams of recent years could beat the USWNT.
Posted on 5/30/16 at 2:15 am to StraightCashHomey21
When i was with the Dynamo Academy, our under 14s used to beat the Dash in Dash preseason friendlies anywhere from 4 to 8 to nothing.
This post was edited on 5/30/16 at 2:15 am
Posted on 5/30/16 at 10:22 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
You have one of the last 8 sides from the WC getting smashed by U-15 boys in a country where men's football is not that good.
To be fair, the United States is arguably the best women's soccer league by a wide margin, and our U-16 boys, in a country where our best male athletes play other sports, routinely smash the USWNT out in the Carson, California training facility. The athletic separation when males enter puberty is pretty staggering, even if the technical skill is lacking.
Posted on 5/30/16 at 10:25 am to ohiovol
quote:
There's quite a bit here I disagree with, but I'll make my response short. We dominate women's soccer for the same reason we dominate most sports except for men's soccer: We're one of the few who actually takes it seriously.
Title IX creates a pretty spectacular culture for women's sports. The allure of a scholarship generates legitimate investment and development from a young age. I genuinely wish we could figure out a way to field full scholarship men's teams in the SEC.
Posted on 5/30/16 at 11:30 am to StraightCashHomey21
True, but this does bring to mind something a foreigner told me.
"I don't understand college football. You just said that every NFL team, even the worst, would destroy the national champion, so why does anyone want to watch inferior football?"
"I don't understand college football. You just said that every NFL team, even the worst, would destroy the national champion, so why does anyone want to watch inferior football?"
Posted on 5/30/16 at 11:41 am to Lordofwrath88
Ehhh. It's like watching championship and the EPL. Yeah the quality isn't the same, but in some ways the drop off only makes the sport more enjoyable compared to the polished perfection of the higher league. Plus the more localized rooting interest of a college allows for better rivalries and more connections in a lot of instances. I mean there's 8 NFL teams in the entire SEC/Big 12 footprint, and that's counting Carolina/Jacksonville which barely are, compared to 24 college teams. Yet you still have an incredible array of talent and players who are better than 99% of anyone else who ever played.
The championship has players and teams who do well the very next year in the epl. College football has players who have huge impacts the very next year in the NFL.
The championship has players and teams who do well the very next year in the epl. College football has players who have huge impacts the very next year in the NFL.
Posted on 5/30/16 at 1:27 pm to tigerfan88
If the NFL teams are say, the top 5 or 6 of the big spenders in the Prem, what would be the best college football team? Championship? League One?
Posted on 5/30/16 at 1:31 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
The allure of a scholarship generates legitimate investment and development from a young age. I genuinely wish we could figure out a way to field full scholarship men's teams in the SEC.
Easy. Just ditch another nonrevenue men's sport or add one more women's team.
Wouldn't help the USMNT though. American boys want to be Drew Brees or LBJ or Mike Trout. Until they want to be Donovan Landon, we won't be a serious contender in men's soccer.
This post was edited on 5/30/16 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 5/30/16 at 1:37 pm to Bestbank Tiger
Women's lacrosse is a real easy and cheap sport to add..... so is equestrian believe it or not (athletes own their own horses and the rosters are huge). It would all depend if the SEC could do for the sport what it's done with softball lately. Make people care. Tap into college rivalries, make star players and get them into the MLS.
Oh, the Big 12 is another good money conference that needs to get in on the act.
Oh, the Big 12 is another good money conference that needs to get in on the act.
Posted on 5/30/16 at 1:42 pm to Lordofwrath88
It's hard to say bc they're such different sports. A much worse team is rarely if ever going to win and an American football game. Just lining up and running the ball, at a certain point it becomes a game of pure physical dominance.
It's much easier for a much worse team in soccer to win a one off game or keep it close if they're disciplined and have a lot of luck. So while the Browns would destroy bama every time, even the big spending epl teams don't destroy League 1 or even League 2 sides every time they play. I would say the talent gap between low tier NFL teams and high level college football teams is the difference between the top of the epl and league one. But I'm really just guessing
It's much easier for a much worse team in soccer to win a one off game or keep it close if they're disciplined and have a lot of luck. So while the Browns would destroy bama every time, even the big spending epl teams don't destroy League 1 or even League 2 sides every time they play. I would say the talent gap between low tier NFL teams and high level college football teams is the difference between the top of the epl and league one. But I'm really just guessing
Posted on 5/30/16 at 2:08 pm to Stewie Griffin
quote:
I'm fine with paying them more than they get now. If they want a sliding scale based on revenue, that's fair. They'll do well in Olympic and WWC years, but suffer in the other years.
They alredy get a great share of revenues.
LINK
quote:
For the past eight years, the U.S. Soccer Federation says there has never been a year when the player compensation to team game revenue ratio was greater for the U.S. men's national team than the women's national team. In fact, the USWNT is paid more per dollar of event revenue generated than the men's national team, says the USSF, which provided the figures below. (Note: This ratio excludes USWNT NWSL salaries, which are paid by the U.S. Soccer Federation.) A year-by-year look comparing the percent of team event revenue to player compensation for both the U.S. men's and women's national teams:
quote:
In 2015, 14 of the 24 women's players earned more than $300,000 in salary plus benefits, and no one earned less than $249,000, according to federation numbers, adding that the top male player earned just more than $178,000 in salary in 2015.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News