Lately, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about women’s sports. Particularly in the wake of Rob Neyer’s criticism of a Japanese industrial club for employing a girl with a knuckleball. The ailing economy will probably be the last blow to the WNBA, which has survived off the teet of the NBA for years despite being economically unsustainable. Asides from that, the only professional sport that women have become household names in is tennis, where most women can actually make a decent living.

The NCAA, unlike the NBA, has tons of money to spend because they have created a business model where the players are essentially slaves and basketball and football pay for everything. Therefore, they can afford to pester their corporate minions about pushing women’s basketball on TV, and since ESPN is a total slave to the NCAA (and oh yeah, UConn being great helps too) they’ll bend over backwards for them. On Sunday night, ESPN relegated the first game of the MLB season to ESPN2 so that they could bring us the women’s Final Four. I understand Title IX. I understand that women should get the opportunity to play sports. I just don’t understand why, despite years and years of empirical evidence, networks are still trying to get us to watch it.

This is about watching the best game possible. Throughout the history of sports, the league that draws the best players has always gotten more attention, more hype, and more money. This hasn’t changed, and no amount of advertising or niche marketing is going to make it change. Most sports also can get away with supporting an under-20 league or college league drawing fans too, as these guys might not be the best players in the world right away, but may one day carry their sports professionally. After that, you reach the point of sports saturation…independent league teams, small town leagues…it’s still sports but the illusion that you’re watching the best of the best is gone.

Am I saying that all women are inferior at sports? Not at all. If I were a general manager, I’d be trying to find a woman who can play with the boys. Not only would you be breaking an important social barrier, but you’d be drawing a ton of attention to your team, a ton of marketing opportunities, and therefore, probably a lot of money. The biggest story of the entire NCAA women’s bracket was Oklahoma center Courtney Paris saying she’d repay her scholarship if they didn’t win a championship; that’s right, a human interest story. Now obviously, Courtney Paris is not going to break in with Duke tomorrow (Greg Paulus would hate that you found someone more feminine than him), but say you’re an NCAA coach in the Sun Belt, or the SWAC, or any of the other one-league bids. What’s the harm in taking a chance on giving a scholarship to the top women’s players? Worst case, she proves she doesn’t physically belong and you can put her back on the woman’s team. Best case? Well, not only do you make headlines, but all of the sudden, every talented girl in America wants to follow in that tradition. You’d have your pick of the lot.

For that matter, why not teach Cat Osterman to throw overhand and throw her in A ball and see what sticks? Yeah, a bunch of traditionalists will come out and say “publicity stunt!” but the potential risk/reward is so great that it’s hard to see what the problem would be. That’s the way I want to see female athletes. Not thrust into our faces just because they’re women, but trumpeted on their own merits as being outstanding players. If they truly belong with the best, then I’ll be more than happy to watch them.