Few believe more bad girls is a good idea

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column about whether or not women’s sports would gain followers if there were more bad girls in the mix. In this reality-TV culture where bad seems to equal good, would people pay more attention if female athletes were edgier, brasher?

Thanks to everyone who wrote in with an opinion. I got a lot of very thoughtful responses. Here’s a sampling:

Tom says:I would never suggest we need more Ron Artest and Terrell Owens types. Athletes are at their best when they can compete at the top of their sport and conduct themselves as role models. But whether (bad girls) would be good for business? Here is where your questions get really complex. But I#146;m not confident bad girls would provide the same fan interest as bad boys seem to.Bonnie says:My youngest daughter is 12 and learned to play sports with her older brother and his buddies, and it shows. She is not the biggest player on her team, but she will take on anyone. I have had irate parents come up to me and complain about my daughter#146;s play, but it does make sixth grade girls basketball/softball/soccer more enjoyable to watch. I think there is a place in women#146;s athletics for aggressive play. The aggressive players are out there. It#146;s only a matter of time before one of them makes the pros.Perry says:The reason I watch women#146;s basketball, both NCAA and WNBA, is because of the purity of the game. It is simply a better brand of basketball because it is the game itself that is the star, not individual players or obnoxious behavior. I think if the WNBA were to promote a more aggressive style with players who were known for their brashness and edginess, it would ultimately detract from what is the essence of the women#146;s game #8212; the purity of the play as it is now. I appreciate your concern for the lack of a really strong fan base, but for those who truly enjoy the game, I think women#146;s basketball is the better game. I would hate to see it overshadowed by obnoxious behavior by individual players.Lew says:If you are for the best in American culture, then resistance to the barbarians is imperative. Most women#146;s sports offer the alternative.Larry says:How disappointing. Your normally level-headed, intelligent and often thought-provoking column took the low road Saturday, with your cheap shot at Ron Artest. I#146;m not now, nor ever will be an Artest apologist for the silly behaviors and comments which have characterized his career. But to call the man a #147;crazy dude#148;; when he has confessed to a lifetime of mental health issues, and in his own unconventional way, dedicated himself to helping others with the same affliction, is mean-spirited and in my opinion, just plain lazy, sensationalized journalism. In addition, lumping him with Rodman, a man merely dedicated to be being a clown and a showman, and who is more #147;crazy#148; like a fox than just plain bonkers, is unfair to both.P.S. The premise of your article (the need for bad girls) was a fabulous one. Sadly, I lost my appetite for it halfway through.Mark (a women#146;s basketball coach) says:Definitely disagree that women need bad role models. We are never going to get males to watch women#146;s basketball even if we had a Rodman-type player. Just look at some of the (Internet postings) made about the WNBA. And who cares if they don#146;t switch over? Women#146;s basketball is as pure as basketball is going to get. All the typical basketball fan wants to see is spectacular dunks, just watch the highlights on ESPN. Women#146;s basketball has a niche market; let#146;s just leave it as it is.Erin (a blogger for womeninsportinternational.blogspot.com) says:Men#146;s professional sport leagues, such as the NFL, are not taking bad behavior lightly and are trying their hardest to stamp it out. So why should women#146;s sports go in the opposite direction?Ÿ Patricia Babcock McGraw, who covers the WNBA for the Daily Herald, also provides color commentary for Chicago Sky broadcasts.