Speaker 1: Welcome to Good Game with Sarah Spain, where Kim Maulky
Speaker 1: accidentally added us to LSU's team slack and now we
Speaker 1: know their war game plan for the Sweet sixteen. Prayer Hands,
Speaker 1: Prayer Hands, arm Flex American Flag Basketball. It's Thursday, March
Speaker 1: twenty seventh, and on today's show, we'll be talking to
Speaker 1: USA Today's Sports columnist Nancy Armour about everything from being
Speaker 1: a quote unquote national disgrace and her March madness takes,
Speaker 1: to Lindsay Vaughn's return to skiing and the philosophy that
Speaker 1: drives Nancy as a journalist. Plus one sport makes an
Speaker 1: unfortunate return to the past, and another offers a glimpse
Speaker 1: of the future. It's all coming up right after this
Speaker 1: welcome back slices. Here's what you need to know today.
Speaker 1: Let's start with the NWSL where our coming soon FC
Speaker 1: jerseys are already out of style. The Boston expansion team's
Speaker 1: new and much anticipated name was finally unveiled on Wednesday,
Speaker 1: the Boston Legacy Football Club Boston Legacy FC. The change
Speaker 1: comes five months after public outcry about the original name
Speaker 1: Boston Nation FC and the too many Balls marketing campaign
Speaker 1: that accompanied it. In a statement, the club's controlling owner,
Speaker 1: Jennifer Epstein said of the new name, quote, we aim
Speaker 1: for our values to reflect a city that breathes competition, passion,
Speaker 1: and pride, and to pay tribute to those who paved
Speaker 1: the way before us, including the game changers who helped
Speaker 1: build previous women's professional teams in Boston. End quote. The
Speaker 1: club plans to unveil its crest and full branding this summer.
Speaker 1: My opinion, Legacy's kind of underwhelming. It doesn't feel specific
Speaker 1: to Boston or the area really at all. But I
Speaker 1: kind of do like the idea of fans yelling let's
Speaker 1: go Legs. I don't know, just has like a nice
Speaker 1: rig to it. And I assume that the name has
Speaker 1: to do with creating a legacy for pro women's soccer
Speaker 1: in the town, or maybe a bit of a hat
Speaker 1: tip to the legacy that began with the Boston Breakers.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Legacy is a nice sentiment, and in
Speaker 1: the end, we know the name is usually the biggest
Speaker 1: thing when it's announced, and then isn't all that important
Speaker 1: once the games begin. So I guess I'll just say
Speaker 1: Legacy better than Boss Nation, not offensive at all, which
Speaker 1: is a great start, and I guess let's get to
Speaker 1: the soccer, because I can't imagine a team more ready
Speaker 1: to get on the field and have actual games to
Speaker 1: talk about than the Boston Folks to the PWHL. You
Speaker 1: may recall that in yesterday's interview with hockey writer Hailey
Speaker 1: Salve and she said that pretty much every PWHL team
Speaker 1: was still in the running for this year's Walter Cup, except,
Speaker 1: of course, for the sixth place New York Sirens. Well,
Speaker 1: the Sirens' ears must have been ringing because on Tuesday
Speaker 1: night they were losing three nothing to the Ottawa Charge
Speaker 1: midway through the second period, but scored six, yes, six
Speaker 1: unanswered goals in the third to win it six to three.
Speaker 1: What those six goals broke the PWHL record for most
Speaker 1: goals in a single period by a full two goals.
Speaker 1: The previous record was four. So I guess what they're
Speaker 1: saying is, don't count us out just yet. To track
Speaker 1: and field. On Tuesday, World Athletics president seb Co announced
Speaker 1: that the organization is planning to reintroduce gender verification testing
Speaker 1: in order to maintain quote the integrity of the competition
Speaker 1: end quote. If the new policy is implemented, competitors in
Speaker 1: the women's category will be required to do a chromosome
Speaker 1: test using a dry blood spot sample or a cheek swab,
Speaker 1: and any athlete with a Y chromosome will be barred
Speaker 1: from competing unless they can show that they are quote
Speaker 1: completely insensitive to androgens end quote. Now it's worth noting
Speaker 1: that World Athletics already has a near blanket ban on
Speaker 1: transgender women competing in the women's category, so this new
Speaker 1: policy is especially targeted at cisgender women with differences of
Speaker 1: sexual development AKADSDS. Gender verification tests aren't new in women's sports.
Speaker 1: In fact, policies like the one World Athletics plans to
Speaker 1: reintroduce were the norm until the nineteen nineties, when they
Speaker 1: were abandoned after decades of athletes complaining about their invasiveness
Speaker 1: and scientific research showing their flaws and drawbacks. Now, if
Speaker 1: you haven't heard it already, listen to the podcast Tested.
Speaker 1: It's a six part series on the history of sex
Speaker 1: testing in sports that will offer a lot of context
Speaker 1: and facts about this decision from World Athletics. We spoke
Speaker 1: with the quarter of the Tested series, Rose Evelyth, last
Speaker 1: summer on this show they wrote on Blue Sky of
Speaker 1: the return to this chromosome based policy. Quote, World Athletics
Speaker 1: is going back to mandatory sex testing for all women.
Speaker 1: This is something that was done for years but abandoned
Speaker 1: in the nineteen nineties because it was invasive, discriminatory, and
Speaker 1: also useless. They continued, quote, some estimates suggest that one
Speaker 1: in five hundred women would test positive for a Y
Speaker 1: chromosome end quote. We'll link to both the Tested series
Speaker 1: and our interview with Rose in the show notes. Tavibs
Speaker 1: in Love Pro Volleyball. The two top teams in the
Speaker 1: league meet tonight, with number one Atlanta traveling to number
Speaker 1: two Houston. We're in the final two weeks of the
Speaker 1: regular season, and while all six teams will qualify for
Speaker 1: the playoffs, Atlanta and Houston have been so good this
Speaker 1: season that this could be an early preview of what
Speaker 1: to expect in the finals. That match tips at eight
Speaker 1: pm Eastern tonight. Will link to the full Love schedule
Speaker 1: in the show notes. We got to take a quick break.
Speaker 1: When we come back. It's Nancy Armor joining us now.
Speaker 1: She's been a sports columnist for USA Today since twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1: Previously spent twenty years with the Associated Press and has
Speaker 1: covered every Olympics since nineteen ninety six. She grew up
Speaker 1: a Packers fan and went to Marquette University in Milwaukee,
Speaker 1: but smartly came south to the greatest city in the world, Chicago,
Speaker 1: and she's never left. Meghan Kelly called her a goddamn
Speaker 1: national disgrace. It's Nancy Armor, Hi, Nancy.
Speaker 2: Hello, Sarah, how are you.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty good, real quick on that. Megan Kelly thing
Speaker 1: as someone who has myself faced the wrath of the
Speaker 1: right wing news programs, and also very disappointing when you
Speaker 1: learn about it, because someone's like, my dad saw you
Speaker 1: on Fox News and you're like, oh, that's too bad
Speaker 1: for you. How did you react or feel when Meghan
Speaker 1: Kelly and Greg Guttfeld and others sort of sicked their
Speaker 1: viewers on you for the column that you wrote about
Speaker 1: Don Staley and her support of transparticipation in sport.
Speaker 2: I mean, I consider it a badge of honor. You know,
Speaker 2: if I'm pissing them off, I must be doing something right.
Speaker 2: That's kind of how I look at it. But yeah,
Speaker 2: it is always weird that when somebody tells me that
Speaker 2: or oh, I was watching Fox News and I'm like,
Speaker 2: oh god, no, please, right, yeah, I And I mean
Speaker 2: you know this, you get it all the time. I'm
Speaker 2: still caring. You know, there are days that it depends
Speaker 2: upon how much coffee I've had or whatever, but I
Speaker 2: mostly just don't care because I and this is going
Speaker 2: to sound arrogant, and I don't mean it too, but
Speaker 2: I know that I am on the right side of
Speaker 2: history and issues like that, and it shocks me and
Speaker 2: enrages me that we haven't caught up to the rights
Speaker 2: of that right side of history yet, but I know
Speaker 2: we eventually will. So I am perfectly okay with taking
Speaker 2: up my positions on that. And if you know, the
Speaker 2: Megan Kelly's of the world don't like it, I don't
Speaker 2: much care.
Speaker 1: I actually completely agree, And when I ended up in
Speaker 1: that sort of like washing machine of garbage, I felt
Speaker 1: very strongly about my opinion in my perspective. But also
Speaker 1: it still sucks when you have like thousands or hundreds
Speaker 1: of people in your men cheese being terrible. So I'm
Speaker 1: sorry for that and also agree with you. You're on
Speaker 1: the right side of things, and it is a bit
Speaker 1: of a badge of honor. I want to talk about
Speaker 1: this women's NCAA basketball tournament. But first you just got
Speaker 1: back or you still are there covering downhill skiing. Yes,
Speaker 1: very big weekend for a big name. You got to
Speaker 1: see forty year old Lindsay Vaughn take silver in the
Speaker 1: Super G at the World Cup Finals in Sun Valley,
Speaker 1: just four months after coming out of retirement. There were
Speaker 1: a lot of emotions from her, can you take us there?
Speaker 1: And what you saw on herd?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so she was and all the skiers were a
Speaker 2: little bit disappointed because the downhill on Saturday was canceled.
Speaker 2: They had gotten roughly six inches of snow here in
Speaker 2: sun Valley overnight and then winds kicked up, and you
Speaker 2: know anything about downhill skiing, you don't want to be
Speaker 2: having people going sixty seventy eighty miles an hour and
Speaker 2: going over jumps when there's like a gust of wind blowing.
Speaker 2: That would not be safe for anybody. So Lindsay's last
Speaker 2: race was the Super G on Sunday and she started
Speaker 2: low in the order, which if it's better to be
Speaker 2: starting the higher up, those are tending to be the
Speaker 2: you know where the track is the best, you know
Speaker 2: before it gets broken down, And she just crushed it.
Speaker 2: She she had that fine line of being super aggressive
Speaker 2: but just being on the very edge of being out
Speaker 2: of control, but she wasn't out of control. And when
Speaker 2: she crossed the finish line, like when people, you know,
Speaker 2: because the stands are the fans are watching on the
Speaker 2: big screens, and the roar that went up when she
Speaker 2: crossed the finish line was just like, I'm getting goosebumps
Speaker 2: now thinking about it. Yeah, and she was so thrilled.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, it's a she's forty years old,
Speaker 2: oldest woman by a long time to win a World
Speaker 2: Cup medal, World Cup Finals well yeah, Wold Cup medal
Speaker 2: and World Cup Finals medal. It was her first podium
Speaker 2: appearance since in a World Cup since twenty eighteen World
Speaker 2: Championships twenty nineteen. And she's also been dealing with you know,
Speaker 2: she was retired for five years, and she's been dealing
Speaker 2: with some people who when she came back, were saying,
Speaker 2: why are you doing this, you know, questioning hermotives, saying, oh,
Speaker 2: there's no way you can do this. So there was,
Speaker 2: as she said, there was relief. It wasn't that she
Speaker 2: ever doubted herself, but it was really satisfactory. To be
Speaker 2: able to shot the people who did doubt her up.
Speaker 1: You wrote a great column about it's not just about Lindsay,
Speaker 1: but every other female athlete that we don't even know
Speaker 1: what they can do and how long they can do
Speaker 1: it for. And the science is behind and the resources
Speaker 1: are behind. But as we are helping fuel and serve
Speaker 1: and heal female athletes later in life, they are getting
Speaker 1: more opportunities to prove that our limitations were probably artificial
Speaker 1: for a while. And she's just the latest example. It's
Speaker 1: a great story. Everyone to check it out. Also, you
Speaker 1: wrote about an up and comer that we should keep
Speaker 1: an eye on Lauren Masuga, someone we should know ahead
Speaker 1: of next year's Olympics.
Speaker 2: Probably, yes, very much so. She and her sisters. Lauren
Speaker 2: is she's hilarious personally, but she is a really good skier.
Speaker 2: She's just twenty two. She won the Super G in
Speaker 2: Saint Anton earlier this year. She made a downhill podium
Speaker 2: in the World Cup. She made the Super G podium
Speaker 2: at the World Championships. She's really become a factor And
Speaker 2: as of right now, there's there's one more race on Thursday,
Speaker 2: but as of right now, she is the top American
Speaker 2: woman in the down in the overall standings, which is
Speaker 2: you know, we haven't seen that the last couple of years.
Speaker 2: It's always, you know, it was either Mikayla Shiffern or
Speaker 2: it was Lindsay Vaughn. And now we've got somebody new.
Speaker 1: And because of missing a bunch of events because of
Speaker 1: the injury and whatnot. But still, yeah, all that being said, yeah,
Speaker 1: something to keep an eye on for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And she's got a great story.
Speaker 3: She is.
Speaker 2: She's got two sisters. One sister is a mogul skier,
Speaker 2: one sister is a ski jumper, and each one of
Speaker 2: them is on their national team. So you could have
Speaker 2: three sisters at the Olympics next year. It's it's crazy. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's a wonderful story.
Speaker 1: All right, let's talk coops because you're joining us. About
Speaker 1: a year after Caitlin Clark and the Clark angel Reese
Speaker 1: rivalry helped women's basketball break countless viewing records and breakthrough
Speaker 1: onto the big debate shows, which sort of changed where
Speaker 1: it sits in the sports landscape, you wrote about how
Speaker 1: the enthusiasm hasn't left the college game just because Caitlin
Speaker 1: has What are we seeing? One year later in terms
Speaker 1: of some of the numbers and also excitement.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well we've seen you know, big ratings. Again, it
Speaker 2: used to be like I remember last year, in the
Speaker 2: year before, when a women's basketball game would get a
Speaker 2: million viewers, it was like, oh my god, that's you know,
Speaker 2: that's just huge. You know, this year there were a
Speaker 2: ton of them.
Speaker 1: At least half a dozen, you said, by yeah, just
Speaker 1: in the regular season.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know, we've seen it more in conference championships.
Speaker 2: In the tournaments. Clark might have been the gateway for
Speaker 2: some people to come in, but once they got here,
Speaker 2: they realized like, oh, there are great other players, you know,
Speaker 2: whether it's ju Ju, whether it's Paige, whether it's malaysa
Speaker 2: full Wiley, Like, you know, people realize that this that
Speaker 2: the game is actually really darn good. And so I
Speaker 2: think we've seen that carry over in the regular season,
Speaker 2: and corporate sponsors and people with money have realized that, oh,
Speaker 2: you know, there's I don't want to say that there's
Speaker 2: necessarily that men's sports has hit a ceiling, but there's
Speaker 2: a lot less room for growth than there is in
Speaker 2: the women's game. And people who know a lot about
Speaker 2: sponsorships and advertising half recognize that that, hey, if we
Speaker 2: want to make some money, this is a real growth
Speaker 2: opportunity for us, And so they're putting money into women's sports,
Speaker 2: which is terrific to see.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I want to get to some of the spots
Speaker 1: that we're seeing and what we can expect during the
Speaker 1: rest of this tournament. But you've now introduced yet another
Speaker 1: term for Kaitlin Clark. You said she might be a doorway,
Speaker 1: a gateway, So I'm going to go gateway drug, gateway
Speaker 1: drug to start, just like snorting all of women's college
Speaker 1: basketball and other sports. I usually call her the match
Speaker 1: for the bonfire. It was already built, but then you
Speaker 1: needed that little match to really set it a blaze.
Speaker 1: But I'm going I like gateway drug. Like gateway drug.
Speaker 1: That's good. Let's talk about that. You mentioned the average
Speaker 1: price for a thirty second spot in the story that
Speaker 1: you wrote for this year's women's NCAA Championship game has
Speaker 1: more than doubled from last spring, going for about four
Speaker 1: hundred and forty thousand dollars, according to Sports Business Journal.
Speaker 1: So how important is it for the business and the
Speaker 1: sponsorship side to sort of lead the way so that
Speaker 1: they can convince late adopters in front offices, media outlets,
Speaker 1: or otherwise that women's sports is a massive economic opportunity.
Speaker 2: It's huge, and I think when we have the sponsors,
Speaker 2: or when you have the people with the money at stake,
Speaker 2: when they've invested, when they have gotten involved, there is
Speaker 2: no going back. Because we saw in the late nineties
Speaker 2: early two thousands, we saw big numbers, whether it was
Speaker 2: the WNBA or whether it was a college game, and
Speaker 2: then there was a backslide. And we can discuss all
Speaker 2: of the reasons why, but when you have these people
Speaker 2: who are investing, they're not going to let this backslide
Speaker 2: because they have too much money invested. Now there's too
Speaker 2: much riding on this. So I think it's huge that
Speaker 2: you know, the game itself has gotten better, We've seen
Speaker 2: that in the tournament itself, especially at the upper levels,
Speaker 2: but the fact that there's you know, we're seeing commercials
Speaker 2: with page and juju. This is mainstream. And so now
Speaker 2: that there is a foothold in mainstream conversations or that
Speaker 2: that women's sports are part of the mainstream sports culture,
Speaker 2: it's really hard to say, Okay, we're going to go
Speaker 2: back to where we were five and seven years ago.
Speaker 2: It's you know that that ship thankfully has sailed, and
Speaker 2: it's just you know, are we going to see the
Speaker 2: rocket fuel growth that we have the last couple of years.
Speaker 2: Probably not, But are we going to see steady and
Speaker 2: sustain growth. Absolutely?
Speaker 1: Yeah. We do need to not expect every year to
Speaker 1: be able to say and we broke another record, and
Speaker 1: we broke it down the record because eventually I need
Speaker 1: to just be sustained in positive growth. But it can
Speaker 1: go backwards, and if it does, it's usually because of intention.
Speaker 1: What we often do is act like it's a natural
Speaker 1: response to the product, but usually someone with a big
Speaker 1: amount of power is the one impacting that backslide. And
Speaker 1: I know I talked to you for an article you
Speaker 1: wrote a couple months ago, and as we were talking,
Speaker 1: you were getting ready to talk to Mark Shapiro, who
Speaker 1: was in programming, uh in charge of programming for ESPN.
Speaker 1: When they buried the WNBA and ESPN two, it was
Speaker 1: averaging over a million and a half plus households on
Speaker 1: you know, each of its first three seasons before that move.
Speaker 1: What did you tell you about that? Because I think
Speaker 1: that's worth talking about too, is are we is there
Speaker 1: potential for that to happen again, if someone in charge
Speaker 1: decides that they want to bury it.
Speaker 2: I'll take the second part first. I don't think so,
Speaker 2: because I think we have seen enough. I think there
Speaker 2: is there are enough data points, there's enough demand now
Speaker 2: from viewers and from from from people to realize that, hey,
Speaker 2: this is worthwhile programming. This is going to get ratings
Speaker 2: as long as we've promoted, as long as we give it,
Speaker 2: you know, put it in the right spots. It is,
Speaker 2: it is worthy.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: Shapiro, I think has I don't necessarily want to say
Speaker 2: he's come to see the error of his ways, but
Speaker 2: he says that he was brought in to fix ESPN's
Speaker 2: ratings and he didn't want to air anything that was
Speaker 2: going to be a potential drag on the ratings, which
Speaker 2: that's chicken or the egg. You know, where were you
Speaker 2: putting women's basketball. You were putting it on ESPN two.
Speaker 2: You were putting it at weird times, like you know,
Speaker 2: of course you weren't going to draw as well when
Speaker 2: you're doing that. If you had given it the time slots,
Speaker 2: if you had given it the promotion that NBC had
Speaker 2: those first few seasons, I think it would have been
Speaker 2: a different story. Now, does he not like women's basketball?
Speaker 2: He says, no, that you know that he's a big fan. Yeah,
Speaker 2: he's actually an iowagrad. So he's a huge Caitlin Clark fan.
Speaker 1: He you know.
Speaker 2: He says it was all about ratings. I am am
Speaker 2: not wanting to have a drag on ESPN ratings.
Speaker 1: And quality of play, he said, I remember, Yeah, the
Speaker 1: quality of play wasn't ready for ESPN, which is interesting
Speaker 1: for a network that will air Little League World Series
Speaker 1: and other things. And also I think when you go
Speaker 1: back and watch, yes, absolutely, the talent has improved. When
Speaker 1: you go back and watch like Tisha Pennicero and Cheryl
Speaker 1: Swoops and these players from the early years, there was
Speaker 1: a ton of talent. There's just not that well produced
Speaker 1: as far as like game production and and game entertainment opportunities,
Speaker 1: and it just didn't look as high value when you
Speaker 1: were watching it. But the play wasn't the problem.
Speaker 2: No, I agree with that. And if the play had
Speaker 2: been the problem, then you could say, well, then why
Speaker 2: was NBC getting the ratings that they were. So it's
Speaker 2: you know, any excuse, and I'll use the word excuse,
Speaker 2: any excuse that you can give for doing it. There
Speaker 2: is a very easy rebuttal for it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So this is the first time ever that women's
Speaker 1: teams that advance in the tournament will earn their schools
Speaker 1: and conference money quote unquote units. We've talked about these
Speaker 1: on the show before, but can you talk about how
Speaker 1: that change, even with a much smaller pool of money
Speaker 1: than the men's side, will affect the future of women's
Speaker 1: programs and investments across the space.
Speaker 2: Yeah. First of all, can we just talk about the
Speaker 2: fact it is twenty freaking twenty five and women are
Speaker 2: finally getting paid for me in the tournament?
Speaker 1: I agreed, But also at this point, when I say
Speaker 1: it's twenty twenty five, it's actually like all bets are off, like,
Speaker 1: well that it used to be like this is the
Speaker 1: year whatever, so we should be No, at this point,
Speaker 1: it's like what the is going on pretty much all
Speaker 1: the time in twenty twenty five. But agreed that it
Speaker 1: should not have taken this long.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, that's true. You know, this is this is monumental.
Speaker 2: The basic explanation or why units are important. Schools that
Speaker 2: make the tournament, they earn money for their conferences. The
Speaker 2: money goes to the conference. The conference then doles it
Speaker 2: out to the schools. It's very similar to what what
Speaker 2: they do with the with football and the bol you
Speaker 2: know the Bowls series that there's a there's a pot
Speaker 2: and then it goes out to the different conferences and
Speaker 2: trickles down to the schools. That money is significant because
Speaker 2: that's what you put back into your program. That is
Speaker 2: what you can use to improve facilities. That is what
Speaker 2: you you can use to go to the tournament in
Speaker 2: the Bahamas or a tournament why where you are going
Speaker 2: to get better competition in the non conference season. That
Speaker 2: is money that you can spend to upgrade your coaching staff,
Speaker 2: or add a dedicated nutritionist, or expand your coach at
Speaker 2: your pool of assistance, all of these things which are
Speaker 2: these are building blocks. So you know, you do that,
Speaker 2: your team gets better. You know, that means that you
Speaker 2: win more games, which means you get more money, which
Speaker 2: means you can do this. It's it's the it's the
Speaker 2: foundation that men's teams have always had and that is
Speaker 2: part of the reason that they've had the growth that
Speaker 2: they've had. You know, it's the same thing as we've
Speaker 2: seen with any other women's sports, like with soccer, if
Speaker 2: you don't put money into your product, you can't expect
Speaker 2: that you're going to get the best product, as you know,
Speaker 2: the best result, right, So this is to me, this
Speaker 2: is huge. Again, it's not the same pool of money
Speaker 2: as the men are getting. It's it's not any We're close,
Speaker 2: but it's a start, and it's I think we are
Speaker 2: going to see the dividends fairly quickly.
Speaker 1: Do you think there's to be an impact from Juju
Speaker 1: Watkins's injury on interest in this year's Sweet Sixteen and
Speaker 1: going forward? I know it's heartbreaking.
Speaker 2: I'm so. I mean, I'm sad for her because she's
Speaker 2: such an amazing player, but yeah, I'm sad for the
Speaker 2: tournament and I'm sad for women's basketball because Juju is
Speaker 2: she might not be quite at Caitlin Clark's level, but
Speaker 2: she is darn close. I mean, I can't tell you
Speaker 2: the number of guys, especially teenage boys that I talked
Speaker 2: to who loved Juju. They just think that they love
Speaker 2: the way she they love her game. They just they
Speaker 2: they're mesmerized by her. So yeah, it is a bummer.
Speaker 2: It's I don't know how much the tournament is going
Speaker 2: to take a hit because the committee was stupid and
Speaker 2: put USC in Yukon in the Elite eight. So it's
Speaker 2: not like we're you know, and I don't know that.
Speaker 2: I don't know a whole lot of people can be
Speaker 2: Ukon at this point, So I don't know that USC
Speaker 2: would have gotten to the final four anyway with Juju.
Speaker 1: But we do lose out on that matchup, which was
Speaker 1: was going to be a ratings bonanza and so much fun.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, you know, the and this is I hate to
Speaker 2: say this, but we will be talking about Juju the
Speaker 2: rest of the tournament with the what ifs, you know,
Speaker 2: if USC loses two K state, which I don't see
Speaker 2: that happening either, but you know, what would it what
Speaker 2: would have happened if Judu had been here. So she'll
Speaker 2: still be in the conversations, but it's not going to
Speaker 2: be nearly the rock would have been.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I might actually cry if she's sitting
Speaker 1: on the bench with a gentleman god knee brace watching
Speaker 1: her team, I think I might actually cry.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I'm going to be in Spokane, so like
Speaker 2: if you see somebody leaping at court side, that would
Speaker 2: be me.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, we'll be sort of take a screen grab
Speaker 1: and then circle you and post it everywhere. Nancy, you've
Speaker 1: been writing about sports for decades. I wonder how you've
Speaker 1: seen the folks in charge of the places at which
Speaker 1: you've worked changed their approach to women's sports coverage.
Speaker 2: Well, I think we're covering it now, first of all,
Speaker 2: And I have been very fortunate in that I have
Speaker 2: almost always had a female sports etter, like my boss
Speaker 2: is almost Yeah, that's unusual. It's super unusual, and I
Speaker 2: didn't realize like how good I had it. I started
Speaker 2: with the AP and the sports editor for a long
Speaker 2: time was Terry Taylor, and so there was never any
Speaker 2: you know, any kind of oh, you can't do this,
Speaker 2: because the person running our entire department was a woman.
Speaker 2: So there was never any kind of that, you know,
Speaker 2: some of the crap that my colleagues got at their places.
Speaker 2: And then when I moved to USA Today, Mary Byrne
Speaker 2: was my first editor, and Roxanna Scott is our editor now. Actually,
Speaker 2: our entire leadership team is female in USA Today Sports,
Speaker 2: which is tremendous. So you know, from that perspective, that
Speaker 2: hasn't changed for me. But I think the emphasis and
Speaker 2: the recognition that we need to cover women's sports, not
Speaker 2: just not because we should, but because they are sports
Speaker 2: and we need to cover them and use that word,
Speaker 2: that connective tissue. We need to write about the transactions,
Speaker 2: We need to write about the fact that, you know,
Speaker 2: Cody McMahon went into the transfer portal today as opposed
Speaker 2: to just doing you know, great features, which there's a
Speaker 2: place for those, but we need to treat on the sport. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: So I think that's where I've seen the biggest change.
Speaker 1: You know, you mentioned earlier, Caitlin being this gateway and
Speaker 1: changing the way that people see the larger sports world
Speaker 1: as women's sports and particularly women's basketball as a part
Speaker 1: of sports. And I feel like I've been during my
Speaker 1: time at ESPN, I had this view of radio, podcasts, television, writing,
Speaker 1: even producing, and at each turn I would see how
Speaker 1: different decision makers and gatekeepers scanned the news for what
Speaker 1: would go in that show, What do we want to
Speaker 1: talk about on Around the Horn, what do we want
Speaker 1: to talk about on my nightly national radio show, my podcast,
Speaker 1: everything else? And I feel like Caitlin was the gateway
Speaker 1: drug where they had to start scanning for Caitlin news,
Speaker 1: which meant NCAA Basketball News, which then meant WNBA News,
Speaker 1: which now has sort of opened the door ajar for
Speaker 1: maybe NWSL and other things too, because instead of just
Speaker 1: saying what's happening in the four major men's pro sports,
Speaker 1: they now think what's happening in this larger group of things.
Speaker 1: People are interested in it and demanding. I think we
Speaker 1: silo sports on this show, women's sports for a reason
Speaker 1: and for a purpose. But I hope eventually everyone will
Speaker 1: just talk about sports. What do you think is still
Speaker 1: getting in the way of us being able to just
Speaker 1: say sports and everyone knows that that could be women's,
Speaker 1: men's whatever's the news of the day.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's just time. I hope that it's
Speaker 2: just time that, you know, we're seeing people when they
Speaker 2: talk about the NCAA tournament, we're talking about the whole thing.
Speaker 2: You know, we could be talking about pagebackers, we could
Speaker 2: be talking about Cooper Flag.
Speaker 1: I think it's just and just Cooper Flag because that
Speaker 1: is the only name of a men's college basketball player I.
Speaker 2: Know, Okay, good one, same, the only one.
Speaker 1: I don't know a single other name.
Speaker 2: And you know what, there were plenty of people who
Speaker 2: before the tournament started felt that exact same or thought
Speaker 2: that exact same thing, like Cooper Flag, Yes, got that one.
Speaker 2: The rest of them, man, I don't know. So yeah,
Speaker 2: I think it's just you know, stars help, big names help.
Speaker 2: And so the fact that we have had this gift
Speaker 2: with going from Caitlin Clark then to Pagebackers, to Juju,
Speaker 2: to Hannah Hidalgo and Olivia Miles. You know, we've we've
Speaker 2: had this line of stars and then you know in
Speaker 2: the w n b A You've got Fee, You've got Stewie,
Speaker 2: You've got you know, Angel, you have all of the people.
Speaker 2: And I think that as you know, as that pool
Speaker 2: of stars, as they get more recognized in the in
Speaker 2: like the public domain, whether that's through commercials or appearances places,
Speaker 2: I think that that's going to tear down whatever boundaries
Speaker 2: continue to exist, at least I hope.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, I agree. The last decade has seen a
Speaker 1: pretty drastic shift in standards and expectations when it comes
Speaker 1: to the behavior of the leader of our country and
Speaker 1: other politicians of the media. And I wonder, you know,
Speaker 1: you write a lot about the intersection of sports and
Speaker 1: social issues. Have you seen or felt a difference in
Speaker 1: how you're writing has been assigned, edited, or received, depending
Speaker 1: on who's at the helm.
Speaker 2: No, And that is one thing that I have been
Speaker 2: very fortunate. I've never been told to write something, and
Speaker 2: just as importantly, I've never been told not to write something. Now,
Speaker 2: if I am writing, especially these days, something about the
Speaker 2: president and you know, him turning his little interview during
Speaker 2: the National Football Championship game into a campaign spot, do
Speaker 2: my editors take a closer look at it? Does it
Speaker 2: get maybe a second or third read? Of course, But
Speaker 2: you know, I'm okay with that. But no one is saying, oh,
Speaker 2: you can't write that, or we just had somebody write that,
Speaker 2: so you can't write that. I mean, there's there is
Speaker 2: none of that. There is a you know, yeah, if
Speaker 2: you want to take on tough issues, if you want
Speaker 2: to take on tough topics, go for it. Just we'll
Speaker 2: just make sure that you know every I is dotted
Speaker 2: in there, every T is crossed.
Speaker 1: We recently have this hockey writer from the Athletic Kaylee Salviannon.
Speaker 1: She's one of the few like major women Talkeey writers,
Speaker 1: and we talked about how she has to be thoughtful
Speaker 1: about her coverage because her impact is outsized as one
Speaker 1: of the few go to voices in the space, And
Speaker 1: I wonder how you think your role has a columnist
Speaker 1: on women's sports has changed as the women's sports space
Speaker 1: has changed. How much do you have to be aware
Speaker 1: of how what you say, or your reporting or your
Speaker 1: journalism is impacted by the space in which it lives.
Speaker 2: I don't know how much I think about that because
Speaker 2: I never really want to think about the potential impact,
Speaker 2: because I don't want to make myself pull back or
Speaker 2: you know, think twice about saying something for fear of
Speaker 2: either pissing somebody off or you know it. Obviously, if
Speaker 2: I'm going to be causing harm, that's a completely different story.
Speaker 2: But I don't want to. I'm not going to. I'm
Speaker 2: not going to not take a tough stance because I
Speaker 2: worry that it might damage the women's game or you know,
Speaker 2: a women's sport or a female athlete. And to me,
Speaker 2: that's hopefully aside of the growth of the game that
Speaker 2: I write the same way about women's athletes, women's teams,
Speaker 2: women's leagues as I do and have written about men,
Speaker 2: and I think we should. I think that's the way
Speaker 2: that we should be handling it. So I tend not
Speaker 2: to think about those types of things. Again, like if
Speaker 2: it's the potential to do harm, that is a completely
Speaker 2: different conversation.
Speaker 1: But just right, I think that's where we're kind of
Speaker 1: in a sticky spot right now, because agreed, yes, we
Speaker 1: need to get past the cheerleader phase and be able
Speaker 1: to be honest and critical because that's a space that
Speaker 1: sports needs. And also, to your point, if there is
Speaker 1: harm caused because of an misunderstanding about the space or
Speaker 1: the nuance that's required to work in it, it is
Speaker 1: different than men's sports, where, for instance, the safety of
Speaker 1: women athletes, they have less money for security, or there's
Speaker 1: more intersectional issues around race, gender identity, sexuality in the
Speaker 1: way in space, So if you're not aware of those
Speaker 1: when you're asking questions or setting up interviews, you might
Speaker 1: potentially cause harm to your point, So yeah, it's like this,
Speaker 1: just the more people have been in the space and
Speaker 1: know it, the better usually because usually they're coming to
Speaker 1: it with an understanding. Versus if you parachute in for
Speaker 1: your one story and you don't know how it works,
Speaker 1: it can be sometimes insulting to the athletes. I know.
Speaker 1: Sue Bird has talked about how our interviews are sometimes
Speaker 1: just the same four pop points off our Wikipedia, and
Speaker 1: she can just tell immediately, oh good, thank you for reading.
Speaker 1: And here comes the question about something wacky in there
Speaker 1: that everybody thinks they're the only one to ask me about. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's complicated. I mean, you know, we've had other journalists
Speaker 1: in here that I think their approach of everything should
Speaker 1: be the same as the men's game can be harmful,
Speaker 1: and so it's it's how do I make sure I'm
Speaker 1: being fair and critical without making a space that's already
Speaker 1: subject to so much toxicity even more poisoned.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I I do this. I've done this
Speaker 2: since the beginning of my career in sports. Is I
Speaker 2: kind of go into it assuming that I don't know
Speaker 2: much because like, for example, I never played football, and
Speaker 2: so when I started covering Notre Dame, which was my
Speaker 2: first like full time beat, there were a lot of
Speaker 2: things obviously that I didn't know. So I asked a
Speaker 2: lot of questions and things that never made it into print.
Speaker 2: If they weren't questions from an interview perspective, they were
Speaker 2: a hey, help me understand this, or what am I
Speaker 2: not seeing? Or how should I be looking at that?
Speaker 2: And I've kind of you. I've kind of carried that
Speaker 2: forward with the rest throughout the rest of my career.
Speaker 2: So especially because I do cover a lot of different things,
Speaker 2: so I might not be necessarily parachuting in, but I'm
Speaker 2: not in that space day to day, so I make
Speaker 2: sure to ask people like, Hey, what do you know
Speaker 2: about this person? Or what should I know when I'm
Speaker 2: covering this or about this? Or I didn't know about that?
Speaker 2: Can you explain that to me? So I'm in addition
Speaker 2: to being a sports junkie, I'm just like an information jockie.
Speaker 2: I want to know all of the things. So I've
Speaker 2: always kind of operated that way, and I think that's
Speaker 2: a really I think that's an important thing with covering
Speaker 2: women's sports, because you're right, you can do there is
Speaker 2: the potential for harm unintentionally, right, but you need to
Speaker 2: be aware of that.
Speaker 1: So of course, part of that is just being willing
Speaker 1: to learn and evolve. And I when I was starting
Speaker 1: in the business, I would hear someone say that they
Speaker 1: had twenty years experience, and I would be jealous. I'd
Speaker 1: be like, oh my gosh, they're insight, They're acclaim all
Speaker 1: the things they've done and now that I have about
Speaker 1: twenty years experience, I realize that immediately signals to people
Speaker 1: that I'm of a certain age. Right, oh, twenty years Okay,
Speaker 1: Well you have reached thirty years experience, and I wonder
Speaker 1: if you check in with yourself to be sure you're
Speaker 1: evolving with the times, applying the knowledge you've gained, while
Speaker 1: still staying open to what it is you don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, you have to, because it's you know, avolve
Speaker 2: or by basically whether it is using technology or keeping
Speaker 2: up with what is currents in popular culture, all of
Speaker 2: those things. It part of it is you don't want
Speaker 2: to look like a dinosaur. But also you need to
Speaker 2: meet the people that you're covering where they live. And
Speaker 2: in sports, we're mostly covering people who are in their
Speaker 2: teams or twenties or thirties, some forties, but most people
Speaker 2: who are much younger, and you need to have an
Speaker 2: understanding of who they are, the challenges that they're facing,
Speaker 2: what is important to them, what things they might you know,
Speaker 2: think are important that maybe my generation doesn't. You have
Speaker 2: to at least have an awareness of all that I think,
Speaker 2: and not to say that you know it makes you
Speaker 2: buddies with them or anything like that, because that's not
Speaker 2: a thing anyway, or that's not what you should be
Speaker 2: going for anyway, but to have an understanding so that
Speaker 2: you can you can go in with a base knowledge
Speaker 2: and someone have a respect for where these these people
Speaker 2: might be coming from at this age or where they
Speaker 2: are in their life.
Speaker 1: I completely agree that connection that comes from at least
Speaker 1: trying to get on their level. In some way. I
Speaker 1: do struggle because I don't want to spend even more
Speaker 1: time on social media. I don't want to be on
Speaker 1: TikTok all day so that I can know what trend
Speaker 1: they're doing, but I do. I'm like, I want to
Speaker 1: know why they're doing that, so I don't say something
Speaker 1: dumb around these younger athletes, but also like I have
Speaker 1: shit to do. I don't have time to pay attention
Speaker 1: to that. You know, your bio at USA Today reads
Speaker 1: in part I definitely know I don't have all the answers,
Speaker 1: but I'm always looking for more of them, And that
Speaker 1: seems to me at the heart of most great journalists,
Speaker 1: both curiosity and a desire to learn more, but a
Speaker 1: desire to learn, evolve and get answers, even if you
Speaker 1: know they might change. So I wonder about questions and answers.
Speaker 1: If you can think of a question you've changed your
Speaker 1: answer to as a result of research or time or experience.
Speaker 2: A question that I answered differently now because you can
Speaker 2: see the impact is why why does it matter that,
Speaker 2: particularly in women's sports, that so many of the coaches
Speaker 2: are male? What is what's the reasoning for that? And
Speaker 2: I think originally I would have I looked at it
Speaker 2: as you want to have a coach who can relate
Speaker 2: to their athletes. And obviously, and you know, not to
Speaker 2: say that that's goingted to be the case for everybody,
Speaker 2: but a female coach is probably going to be able
Speaker 2: to relate to female athletes a little bit better because
Speaker 2: they have experienced some of the same things. But I
Speaker 2: think now I look at it more of you know,
Speaker 2: like when Muffatt MacGraw went off on her you know
Speaker 2: thing about not hiring male coaches at the Final Four
Speaker 2: a few years ago. It really made me made me
Speaker 2: think about it and look at if we are not
Speaker 2: in we meaning like the coaching people, If if the
Speaker 2: younger generation, if the next generation is not being trained,
Speaker 2: is not being you know, put in place to succeed
Speaker 2: that that has a detrimental effect in a number of
Speaker 2: different areas. You know, Mikayla Schiffrin two years ago said specifically,
Speaker 2: I am hiring a woman coach, a female coach, because
Speaker 2: we need to have more women coaches in skiing, and
Speaker 2: hopefully this will, you know, inspire other people to hire
Speaker 2: women coaches or inspire other women to get into coaching.
Speaker 2: And so I think the way that I look at
Speaker 2: the importance of having women coaches in women's sports has
Speaker 2: has changed or has expanded from what I would have
Speaker 2: initially thought.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree. I think also I used to push
Speaker 1: back on statements like muffets about over corrections sometimes because
Speaker 1: I would think it was about fairness, and fairness would
Speaker 1: be whoever the best person for the job is, and
Speaker 1: you can't even decide in advance by gender, because then
Speaker 1: that's not the way we want them. To look at
Speaker 1: it in reverse, when you're looking at women for predominantly
Speaker 1: male jobs, or even something like you know Ruth bay
Speaker 1: Ginsburg saying like how many women on the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: is enough? And she's like all of them?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: There were there were these things that felt extreme to me,
Speaker 1: And I think there's a joke that you know, everybody
Speaker 1: gets more conservative as they get older, except for progressive
Speaker 1: women who just become more and more radicalized. And I'm
Speaker 1: I'm definitely like living that because now I'm at the
Speaker 1: point where, like all of this overcorrect until we die,
Speaker 1: because at this point it's not working to be fair
Speaker 1: and equal when we know that one half of not
Speaker 1: one half of the population, not all men hashtag, but
Speaker 1: that there is a massive part of the population that
Speaker 1: would push back on anything that changes the status quo.
Speaker 1: And it is as much an agenda to want things
Speaker 1: to say the same as it is an agenda to
Speaker 1: want them to change. But we get demonized for desiring
Speaker 1: change way more than people get demonized for wanting them
Speaker 1: to stay the same. And so at this point we
Speaker 1: do kind of have to just start over correcting like
Speaker 1: mad in order to try to get to a space
Speaker 1: not only where there's a better equality of representation, but
Speaker 1: to your point where young people growing up see it,
Speaker 1: and then it becomes the norm without needing to overcorrect,
Speaker 1: because it's established as something that is more all Right,
Speaker 1: I just went on a rant. Sorry, I've been thinking
Speaker 1: about that lately.
Speaker 2: No, I totally agree with you, and I think there's
Speaker 2: so much power. Like I went to Kansas City last
Speaker 2: year for the first game in the current stadium, which
Speaker 2: again twenty twenty four, and it's the first time we
Speaker 2: have a purpose built stadium for women's sports, Like that's
Speaker 2: just absurd. But the current had a player who I
Speaker 2: think she was sixteen at the time or had maybe
Speaker 2: just turned seventeen. It was her first NWSL game and
Speaker 2: she will never know a time in her career where
Speaker 2: there was not at least one stadium built specifically for
Speaker 2: a women's team, and that that might not sound like
Speaker 2: a huge deal, but it is. Like and when we
Speaker 2: were talking before about not being able to backslide, things
Speaker 2: like that matter. There are stakes in the ground. There
Speaker 2: is concrete that has been over that you cannot you know,
Speaker 2: you can't just knock that down, or you can, but
Speaker 2: it's gonna be freaking expensive, right, And that's how you
Speaker 2: get changed when you have things like that. And I
Speaker 2: think it's yeah, so if we don't over correct it,
Speaker 2: if we don't make this an emphasis, we're never ever
Speaker 2: going to get permanent change, or we might get it
Speaker 2: for a year or two and then it could backside.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I'm right there with.
Speaker 1: You all right, we write it. Don We write it.
Speaker 1: Don Nancy, Thank you so much for the time, Thank
Speaker 1: you for joining, for you're inside, thanks for continuing to
Speaker 1: write great stuff. We'll keep reading it. We got to
Speaker 1: take another break when we return. A moment that didn't
Speaker 1: take long to earn a spot in the Good Game
Speaker 1: Hall of Fame. Welcome back, now slices. When it comes
Speaker 1: to sports, every hall of fame has different rules. Almost
Speaker 1: all of them required that an athlete be retired in
Speaker 1: order to be eligible for induction, while some require a
Speaker 1: waiting period of ye three years or more. But here
Speaker 1: a Good Game we make our own rules, which means
Speaker 1: we're allowed to induct a player whose Hall of Fame
Speaker 1: worthy moment happened just a few days ago. That brings
Speaker 1: us to the latest edition of the Good Game Hall
Speaker 1: of Fame. Yes, the Good Game Hall of Fame, where
Speaker 1: we celebrate women's sports lore, the kind of legendary stories
Speaker 1: we should all know by heart, just like we know
Speaker 1: about Babe Ruth's called Shot, Bill Buckner's Air, and Merkles
Speaker 1: Boner Google it your pervs. We've got some catching up
Speaker 1: to do in women's sports, though, so grab another plaque
Speaker 1: and find a good place on the wall. Today we've
Speaker 1: got another inductdee. Last weekend's NCAA Hockey Championship featured the
Speaker 1: Wisconsin Badgers and Ohio State Buckeyes, and it came down
Speaker 1: to the wire, featuring one of the most chaotic endings
Speaker 1: we've seen in a long time. Trailing three to two
Speaker 1: with under two minutes left, the Badger's got two lucky breaks,
Speaker 1: first when Ohio State got hit with the penalty for
Speaker 1: too many players on the ice, and then with just
Speaker 1: eighteen seconds left, when an Ohio State defender covered the
Speaker 1: puck in the crease and Wisconsin was given a choice
Speaker 1: to assess Ohio State with another minor penalty or take
Speaker 1: a penalty shot. That choice was easy. Legendary Wisconsin coach
Speaker 1: Mark Johnson told the ref they'd take the penalty shot,
Speaker 1: and then he turned to his players, asking who wants
Speaker 1: it now. It's worth noting here that Johnson knows a
Speaker 1: little something about pressure himself. He was a member of
Speaker 1: the nineteen to eighty US Olympic men's team that won
Speaker 1: gold and defeated the Soviet Union. He scored two goals
Speaker 1: in that game that earned the title of Miracle on
Speaker 1: Ice a performance that helped him earn induction into just
Speaker 1: about every hockey Hall of Fame. But let's get back
Speaker 1: to the present. So Johnson posed the question and down
Speaker 1: on the ice in front of him, Kirsten Simms hand
Speaker 1: shot up. That was that. The twenty year old from Plymouth, Michigan,
Speaker 1: skated confidently to the center of the ice, and her
Speaker 1: penalty shot was a butte the definition of a dangle.
Speaker 1: With the game tied three to three and headed to overtime,
Speaker 1: and he guesses who scored the game winner just two
Speaker 1: forty nine into sudden death overtime, yep Sims again asked
Speaker 1: about the hand raised. In the postgame presser, Sims, like
Speaker 1: a true hockey player, credited her teammates with the decision
Speaker 1: take a listen. I mean, I can't really say it
Speaker 1: was like initially my choice. I had everyone on the
Speaker 1: bench screaming sim Simms, you do it, you do it.
Speaker 1: So I was like, you know what, whatever, I was like,
Speaker 1: coach is gonna need to see my hand go up
Speaker 1: for me to actually go so and what about our coach?
Speaker 1: Would Mark Johnson of Miracle on ice Fame have raised
Speaker 1: his hand in that moment?
Speaker 3: I was asking several people after. I don't know if
Speaker 3: I wanted, if I was playing, I would take the shot,
Speaker 3: just because again, it's like nothing. You got to be
Speaker 3: as free as you can be right in that moment.
Speaker 3: You can't be thinking about anything other than I'm going
Speaker 3: to score.
Speaker 1: Talk about pressure. Welcome to the Good Game Hall of Fame,
Speaker 1: Kirsten Simms. We'll find a nice spot for that plaque.
Speaker 1: By the way, we love that you're listening. But you
Speaker 1: know we want you to get in the game every
Speaker 1: day too. And this one's easy. If you bought some merch,
Speaker 1: send us a photo. We've already gotten a handful of
Speaker 1: people sending us pictures wearing their T shirts and sweatshirts
Speaker 1: from Breaking Tea, but if you got one, we want
Speaker 1: to see it. It makes us so happy every time
Speaker 1: we get sent one. And if you haven't yet, obviously
Speaker 1: go to Breakingtea dot com slash Spain and get you
Speaker 1: a good gay merch rocket, take a photo, set it
Speaker 1: to us, and don't forget to subscribe, rate and review.
Speaker 1: It's easy. Watch Boss Nation. Sorry. Boston Legacy FC once
Speaker 1: again using men's sports to hype their new women's team,
Speaker 1: rating five out of five. Eye rolls review. Now listen,
Speaker 1: the Boston folks have taken more than enough of a
Speaker 1: beating for their slip ups during this ramp up to
Speaker 1: an active team. Need a reminder the name, the too
Speaker 1: many Balls campaign, the long delay before this rebrand, the
Speaker 1: ongoing issues with their stadium plans, not mentioning the Boston
Speaker 1: Fleet or any other women's sports teams past or present
Speaker 1: in that infamous intro video that featured every men's pro
Speaker 1: team in Beantown, and also, weirdly, Tom Brady reacting to
Speaker 1: a goat balls reference. So I hate to pile on,
Speaker 1: but after one post on Instagram announcing the new name,
Speaker 1: the next post, a shared post with the team's supporters group,
Speaker 1: read can't wait to support the home team. Everyone loves
Speaker 1: a good comeback story, right with a screenshot of the
Speaker 1: old name Boss Nation aligned next to the Super Bowl
Speaker 1: score from twenty seventeen from the third quarter when the
Speaker 1: New England Patriots were down against the Atlanta Falcons twenty
Speaker 1: eight to three. Below that, the new name Boston Legacy,
Speaker 1: next to an aligned with the final score of that
Speaker 1: Super Bowl, the Patriots winning thirty four to twenty eight,
Speaker 1: a legendary comeback win. I get it. Sports law in
Speaker 1: any town is just sort of a universal language that
Speaker 1: everybody speaks, and that comeback win was one of the
Speaker 1: most legendary games in sports history. And they're poking fun
Speaker 1: at their own terrible start, which I like. But when
Speaker 1: so many of the complaints about your initial rollout involved
Speaker 1: centering men's teams in the video, centering the idea of
Speaker 1: men with the too many balls garbage, and not including
Speaker 1: women's teams, then what brainiac thought rolling out Yet another
Speaker 1: reference to men's sports was the move here. Yes, it
Speaker 1: was a post that originated from the supporters group, but
Speaker 1: the comments make it clear that many supporters still don't
Speaker 1: like the constant references to men's teams. Now listen it.
Speaker 1: They want to post this in a month or two. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: it's funny, but for the official admin account to make
Speaker 1: this their second post after the name change announcement, it
Speaker 1: just holds too much weight in my opinion. Also, is
Speaker 1: the comeback really complete if you're already fumbling the rollout
Speaker 1: of the new name with the same mistakes that you
Speaker 1: made the first time and clearly heard from a bunch
Speaker 1: of fans that they didn't like. Side note, the team
Speaker 1: also posted a quote from a Wall Street Journal story
Speaker 1: about the rebrand and the new name, titled she hit
Speaker 1: the Button and all Hell Broke loose. How the sports
Speaker 1: team everyone hated came back but then almost immediately deleted
Speaker 1: that from their Instagram. Curious. Anyway, We're rooting for you, Boston.
Speaker 1: Just maybe hold back on the whole team everyone hated
Speaker 1: coming back until you actually come back. Let's just finish
Speaker 1: this rollout of the new name and try not to
Speaker 1: step in anything else, and then I'll celebrate. Now it's
Speaker 1: your jurn y'all right, thanks for listening, See you tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Good game, Nancy, Good Game, Kirsten Simms h World Athletics.
Speaker 1: Good Game with Sarah Spain is an iHeart women's sports
Speaker 1: production in partnership with Deep Blue Sports and Entertainment. You
Speaker 1: can find us on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. Production by Wonder Media Network,
Speaker 1: our producers are Alex Azzie and Misha Jones. Our executive
Speaker 1: producers are Christina Everett, Jesse Katz, Jenny Kaplan, and Emily Rudder.
Speaker 1: Our editors are Emily Rutterer, Britney Martinez, and Grace Lynch.
Speaker 1: Our associate producer is Lucy Jones and I'm Your Host
Speaker 1: Sarah Spain.