We here at GOOD Sports have spent December focusing on women’s sports, largely as a counter to the disproportionate amount of coverage men’s sports receives. It’s not difficult to understand how the inequity became reality, but it can be frustrating to see how slowly that reality is changing, if at all. Of course, when it comes to experiencing women playing sports at a high level in front of a passionate fan base and with extensive media coverage, maybe I’m spoiled. After all, I’m from Storrs, Connecticut.
In my home state, there’s something called Huskymania. It describes the fervor around UConn basketball, for which the state’s sports fans are arguably more passionate than they are about any other team. Sure, the Yankees and Red Sox, the Pats and Giants, the Celtics—they all receive plenty of love, but it pales in comparison to the attention and media coverage given to Husky hoops. The program is Connecticut’s own—even more so since the NHL’s Hartford Whalers left the state nearly 20 years ago.
Over the past 17 years, the UConn men’s team has been one of the most successful in college basketball, winning four national championships during that span. And that doesn’t even compare to what the women’s team has done.
Eleven NCAA titles in that same timeframe. A current win streak of 87 games. Past win streaks of 90 and 70 games. Five No. 1 WNBA draft picks, and the top three picks in the 2016 draft.
This is one of the most successful programs—with some of women’s basketball’s biggest stars—in women’s sports history.
I grew up about a mile from Gampel Pavilion (and before that, the Field House), the on-campus home of University of Connecticut basketball. The men’s team won the second-tier National Invitation Tournament in 1988, and two years later—when Gampel opened—they won the Big East and reached the NCAA Tournament Elite 8 on a spectacular last-second shot before falling a buzzer-beater short of reaching the Final Four. The fan and media frenzy (the press contingent following UConn was nicknamed “The Horde”) crescendoed, and Connecticut’s Huskymania was born.
The women’s team, meanwhile, was also finding more and more success, winning some conference titles and making a surprise run to the Final Four in 1991. And while interest and attendance was growing, in the early days of Gampel, my high school friends and I still could get tickets at the door and sit a row or two behind the basket. The women’s games were enjoyable, but not necessarily a “big deal.” Still, all women’s games not on standard cable could be watched on Connecticut Public Television, allowing further growth of fan base.
It didn’t match the men’s program’s popularity, but that was about to change.
In 1995, UConn started an annual game with Tennessee, which sold out in advance. The biggest powerhouse in women’s basketball, led by legendary coach Pat Summitt, visiting the undefeated, upstart Huskies. The game aired on ESPN. The Associated Press delayed its weekly poll to determine which team should be No. 1., and UConn won, becoming the nation’s top-ranked team—not losing the rest of the season and claiming its first title with another victory over Tennessee, no less.
Regularly from then on, the crowds were big—and discernibly higher-pitched than the men’s crowds. There was a large fan base overlap between the two teams, though they weren’t exactly the same group. The women’s games also featured a bit less caustic fan rancor—as one commonly hears at men’s sporting events—toward opposing players. Until UConn-Tennessee, 1999 edition, that is.
The game was televised on CBS. Tickets were being scalped for $200. UConn’s Svetlana Abrosimova and Tennessee’s Semeka Randall tangled for a loose ball, with Randall allegedly sneaking in a cheap shot (though the reality is unclear). Abrosimova was furious, as were the fans, who mercilessly booed Randall for the rest of the game.
And more sports fans were exposed to the intensity at the top levels of women’s basketball.
The following year’s matchup became the first women’s basketball game to be televised live in prime time (ESPN). And fans kept showing up and tuning in.
Fast forward to last season, and Division I women’s basketball attendance was 8,286,356, marking the highest total in the 35 years of NCAA women’s basketball. Sure, there are concerns about UConn’s dominance impacting ratings, as well as whether it’s good for the sport. But fans are attending games in record numbers. Women’s basketball is holding its own.
In 2004 and again in 2014, both the Connecticut men’s and women’s teams won national championships, marking the only two times that has ever been done by the same school in the same year. And UConn, which begins each season with a scrimmage involving both teams playing a co-ed game, honored the men and women with a joint rally/parade. The 2004 celebration brought in 300,000 people, while the 2014 edition drew 200,000 to downtown Hartford. When the men—but not the women—won the championship in 2011, the parade crowd was about 40,000.
This isn’t to say the programs themselves are perfect. The men have run afoul of NCAA regulations on a couple of occasions, and women’s coach Geno Auriemma’s recruiting tactics have come into question now and then. But these types of issues are common—for better or worse—in college basketball, and that’s not even the point.
It’s that within this market, in this sport, the men’s and women’s teams are viewed on equal footing. Other schools have top-notch, championship-caliber teams that draw crowds and ratings in both sports as well, including Notre Dame, Maryland, and Louisville, just to name a few.
The U.S. Women’s soccer team is viewed the same way—at least by fans. They are fighting for that to be reflected in paychecks, marketing, and support, as well. You can market the hell out of a bad product and probably see some bump, but it’s not sustainable. But when all the ingredients are there—a great team, a fan base, marketing, media exposure—there’s no reason the fans won’t follow. Which creates more media interest, which bolsters fan interest, and so on and so forth.
ESPN networks were set to broadcast 66 NCAA women’s basketball games this year (more if you include their conference affiliate networks), plus the conference tournaments, and the entire NCAA tournament. Of course, that pales in comparison to the hundreds of men’s games ESPN televises, but once upon a time the fledgling network partnered with the fledgling Big East conference to televise men’s games, and the relationship grew from there and greatly benefited both.
Now ESPN and men’s college basketball are big business with die-hard fan bases.
In other words, for many women’s sports, there’s a long way to go. But this kind of growth has been achieved before. And with the UConns and Notre Dames and Baylors and Tennessees leading the way, it can be done again.
A young girl plays with a magnifying glass during a fiel tripCanva
A young girl feeds a cow Canva
Reddit commentReddit | u/AmbitiousPirate5159 
Young students get on the bus for a field tripCanva
Traffic sign.Image via 
Family shopping and single man ironing.Image via 
Multicultural young people having fun with a mobile phone.Image via 
Looking at a complicated market.Image via 
Ultrasound of human baby.Image via 
IVF animated process.Image via 
A couple speaks with a fertility professional.Image via 
Why do some folks use social media but don't engage?
Psychologist says people who never comment on social media share these 5 positive traits
For over 20 years, social media has developed into a staple in many people’s day-to-day lives. Whether it’s to keep in communication with friends and family, following the thoughts of celebrities, or watching cat videos while sipping your morning coffee, there seem to be two types of social media users: commenters and lurkers.
The term “lurker” sounds equally mysterious and insidious, with some social media users writing them off as non-participants at best or voyeurs at worst. However, mindfulness expert Lachlan Brown believes these non-commenters have some very psychologically positive and healthy traits. Let’s take a look at how each one of these traits could be beneficial and see how fruitful lurking might be even though it can drive content creators crazy.
1. Cautious about vulnerability
Consciously or not, making a post online or commenting on one puts you and your words out there. It’s a statement that everyone can see, even if it’s as simple as clicking “like.” Doing so opens yourself up to judgment, with all the good, bad, and potential misinterpretation that comes with it. Non-commenters would rather not open themselves up to that.
These silent users are connected to a concept of self-protection by simply not engaging. By just scrolling past posts or just reading/watching them without commentary, they’re preventing themselves from any downsides of sharing an opinion such as rejection, misunderstanding, or embarrassment. They also have more control on how much of themselves they’re willing to reveal to the general public, and tend to be more open face-to-face or during one-on-one/one-on-few private chats or DMs. This can be seen as a healthy boundary and prevents unnecessary exposure.
Considering many comment sections, especially involving political topics, are meant to stir negative emotional responses to increase engagement, being extra mindful about where, when, and what you comment might not be a bad idea. They might not even take the engagement bait at all. Or if they see a friend of theirs post something vulnerable, they feel more motivated to engage with them personally one-on-one rather than use social media to publicly check in on them.
2. Analytical and reflective mindset
How many times have you gone onto Reddit, YouTube, or any other site and just skimmed past comments that are just different versions of “yes, and,” “no, but,” or “yes, but”? Or the ever insightful, formerly popular comment “First!” in a thread? These silent browsers lean against adding to such noise unless they have some valid and thoughtful contribution (if they bother to comment period).
These non-posters are likely wired on reflective thinking rather than their initial intuition. Not to say that all those who comment aren’t thoughtful, but many tend to react quickly and comment based on their initial feelings rather than absorbing the information, thinking it over, researching or testing their belief, and then posting it. For "lurkers," it could by their very nature to just do all of that and not post it at all, or share their thoughts and findings privately with a friend. All in all, it’s a preference of substance over speed.
3. High sense of self-awareness
Carried over from the first two listed traits, these silent social media users incorporate their concern over their vulnerability and their reflective mindset into digital self-awareness. They know what triggers responses out of them and what causes them to engage in impulsive behavior. It could be that they have engaged with a troll in the past and felt foolish. Or that they just felt sad after a post or got into an unnecessary argument that impacted them offline. By knowing themselves and seeing what’s being discussed, they choose to weigh their words carefully or just not participate at all. It’s a form of self-preservation through restraint.
4. Prefer to observe rather than perform
Some folks treat social media as information, entertainment, or a mix of both, and commenting can feel like they’re yelling at the TV, clapping alone in a movie theater when the credits roll, or yelling “That’s not true!” to a news anchor that will never hear them. But contrary to that, social media is a place where those yells, claps, and accusations can be seen and get a response. By its design, social media is considered by experts and the media as performative, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. Taking all of the previously mentioned traits into account, one can see why they would prefer to “observe the play” rather than get up on the stage of Facebook or X.
On top of that, these non-commenters could be using social media differently than those who choose to fully engage with it. Using this type of navigation, there may be nothing for them to comment about. Some commenters are even vying for this for their mental health. There are articles about how to better curate your social media feeds and manipulate algorithms to create a better social media experience to avoid unnecessary conflict or mentally tiring debate.
If you go on a blocking spree on all of your accounts and just follow the posters that boost you, it could turn your social media into a nice part of your routine as you mainly engage with others face-to-face or privately. In terms of commenting, if your curated Instagram is just following cute dogs and all you have to offer for a comment is “cute dog,” you might just enjoy the picture and then move on with your day rather than join in the noise. These non-commenters aren’t in the show and they’re fine with it.
5. Less motivated by social validation
The last trait that Brown showcases is that social media users who browse without posting tend to be independent from external validation, at least online. Social media is built to grow through feedback loops such as awarding likes, shares, and reposts of your content along with notifications letting you know that a new person follows you or wants to connect. This can lead many people to connect their activity on social media with their sense of self worth, especially with adolescents who are still figuring out their place in the world and have still-developing brains.
Engaging in social media via likes, shares, comments, and posts rewards our brains by having them release dopamine, which makes us feel good and can easily become addictive. For whatever reason, non-commenters don’t rely on social media as a means to gauge their social capital or self worth. This doesn’t make them better than those who do. While some non-commenters could have healthier ways to boost their self worth or release dopamine into their systems, many get that validation from equally unhealthy sources offline. That said, many non-commenters’ silence could be a display of independence and self confidence.
Whether you frequently comment online or don’t, it’s good to understand why you do or don’t. Analyzing your habits can help you determine whether your online engagement is healthy, or needs to be tweaked. With that information, you can then create a healthy social media experience that works for you.