TBayXXXVII

"My" numbers aren't off. If "those" numbers are off, you only have you take that up with the NBA.

Yup

The NBA, like baseball, is all about the playoffs because of the length of the season. Same with hockey. NFL only has 17 games (18 weeks), plus 90% of the games that week are on the same day at roughly the same time, that's why they get great weekly ratings. Also, I noted the whole playoffs too, not just the finals. As mentioned as well, people aren't watching WNBA games, they're watching Caitlan Clark games. Her games got as high as a 1.7 rating, the average is 1.0. That means the non-Clark games are getting about 1.0 less than Clark. Take her out of the picture and nobody is watching.

LOL The NBA playoffs got a 6.7 rating, the finals got the highest rating in 6 years. WNBA ratings are 100% driven by Clark.

The WNBA will NEVER be independently profitable. Ever.

They need to stop making Clark out to be the white devil and promote the heII out of her and protect her. The league should tell their players to STFU about race... man hating also. The WNBA's biggest demographic is white men. Why? Because they're buying tickets for their daughters. Women and minorities aren't going or watching as much. Trashing the majority and pandering to the minority is only going to hurt their popularity. Why not just be truthful?

They need to hit as many major markets they can to capitalize on Clark's popularity. It's hard to get people interested in your sport, league, or teams if there's no team in your area. Get into more major markets to get more eyes on the product. They need to entice more girls to play.

I think this is a good idea. People thought UConn's dynasty was bad for women's basketball, but what it was, was the catalyst. People starting taking notice in women's basketball because they wanted to see if these girls were really this great. They were, and it inspired more girls to play and spread the talent more across the country. It's no longer the UConn Women's basketball league and 200 other schools vying for 2nd place, it's gotten to the point where men's college basketball was in 50's with about 20 good schools and people starting to take notice. They need to continue this trend. Yes, the only reason why viewership is up, is because of Clark. But, it brings viewers. Viewers mean interest and translates to more girls playing. The more girls that play, the better the product gets. The WNBA just needs to make sure they don't destroy the goose that lays the golden eggs.

I don't believe that this is what he's doing. He is voting for the candidate he likes over the rest, but he'd much rather have his 3rd choice if it means defeating the one he doesn't like, instead of his second. I'm ok with a ranking system for primaries, but not for general elections.

Considering the target, I'm guessing this is someone with a personal axe to grind and nothing to do with political agendas.

On topic... I'll take Henry until Henry gives me a reason not to. I'm willing bet on him.

I agree with you. If you're going back to the poor neighborhood to run a business, that's ignorance. If you're going back to help lift it up, charging money is something you never considered in the first place because you know they can't afford it. The expectation would be on Smith to give not just his time and presence, but his money. Otherwise, don't go back and pretend to care.

What it is, is a short term aid that will have very little to no positive impact. The people who take advantage of these, incentives and encouragements, were already more health conscious than others to begin with. The few people who sit back and think about changes they should make in their lives will start to take advantage of things like this. Though, the vast majority will fall back to their old ways and the only outcome will be that a few rich people will get richer. What you're saying is a good idea, is something that addresses the results, but not the root of the problem. Again, I don't have a problem with this. The problem I have is that it doesn't address the root of the problem and this will only end up being a waste of money. It's not because of their lack of trying, it's because our country is full of lazy, glutinous slobs who think they're entitled to things and we have politicians, media outlets, and big corporations pushing that mindset. RFK's plan to remove chemicals from foods, is a great idea and should be implemented. It's not complex. This alone will have a substantially bigger positive gain than anything else. Telling people to not be fat and that it's not acceptable, is not complex. Telling people on government assistance that their tax payer funded bank accounts can't be used to buy junk food is not complex. All of those things don't cost money. It costs people a reality check. These are all initiatives that make people healthier and it doesn't cost money. None of them are complex. Over time, people will become healthier. It will get to a point where Healthcare will be mainly for catastrophic incidents and not and every day living. No, none of these things are complex. Complex is putting a band-aid on a major wound and paying for more band-aid's over and over again.

I'm speaking in terms of generalities. You can incentivize anything you want, none of it will work because (as my last paragraph notes), too many people promote universal healthcare (which means no money out of their pocket to see a doctor), to allow them to keep living crappy lives (which makes taxes go up - then they complain about taxes... because how else is universal healthcare getting paid for). Too many people promote that being fat is good (body positivity). That again, incentivizes people to stay unhealthy. A financial incentive won't trump emotional acceptance. They'll still lead unhealthy lives. People who promote the idea of medication, again, promotes the idea of "don't worry about it, they have pills to help you" (big pharma). Politicians and lobbyists do that. They don't care about people, just themselves. They know that the healthy people are still going to make healthy decisions. This initiative won't move the needle. Politicians need to promote NO healthcare, only out-of-pocket expenses. That's a person you should listen to and trust.

The point is, those incentives aren't better, they're worse, and make things worse. Instead of pandering to that, politicians across the board should be promoting healthier lifestyles and personal accountability. They should all be promoting RFK's agenda to get chemicals out of food. The only people who promote universal healthcare, promote "body positivity", promote big pharma, have only 1 person in mind, themselves. They are the enemy of the people.