{"id":1008057,"date":"2026-08-18T06:06:37","date_gmt":"2026-08-18T06:06:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/1008057\/"},"modified":"2026-08-18T06:06:37","modified_gmt":"2026-08-18T06:06:37","slug":"where-ric-buchers-wnba-criticism-hit-and-missed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/1008057\/","title":{"rendered":"Where Ric Bucher’s WNBA Criticism Hit And Missed"},"content":{"rendered":"

The WNBA is gaining attention for all the wrong reasons, especially as of late. However, despite those issues, the league continues to bring in more viewership, revenue, attendance and intrigue. This past weekend, Ric Bucher<\/a> added another layer<\/a> to the WNBA\u2019s attention-grabbing news cycle. The former ESPN NBA analyst raised a question that many people have asked privately within their own circles of friends: Why are all the color analysts and studio hosts on national WNBA broadcasts women?<\/p>\n

Unfortunately for Bucher, his question is nothing new. It\u2019s the same question people have been asking about women in the NFL, MLB and nearly every other major sport for generations. But Bucher\u2019s context for asking the question is where the real debate and questions lie.<\/p>\n

As much as people love a good headline, this isn\u2019t a debate about men versus women on WNBA broadcasts. It\u2019s a conversation more about how networks approach controversial topics surrounding the games and leagues themselves.<\/p>\n

If you look at the totality of Bucher\u2019s words<\/a>, his argument wasn\u2019t centered around that the WNBA doesn\u2019t include men. His argument was that the women in the roles they currently hold are too protective of the league itself.<\/p>\n

\u201cIs the WNBA not worthy of being discussed and dissected by a variety of voices and perspectives in the same way the NBA is? There are some smart basketball-savvy women, both in the studio and the broadcast booth, but I don\u2019t hear a whole lot of differing opinion or debate. It all comes off as safe and monotone and cookie cutter, especially when it comes to controversial topics,\u201d said Bucher.<\/p>\n

So, is Bucher\u2019s argument that if you put a man in that role, the outcome would be different?<\/p>\n

\u201cAll of it feels like a girls\u2019 club. The media protecting the league from real scrutiny or critique. I\u2019ll ask again: What are they afraid of,\u201d noted Bucher.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s where I think the conversation goes off track.<\/p>\n

You Have One Job<\/strong><\/p>\n

Networks and leagues are more intertwined than ever before. Some networks even have ownership stakes held by the leagues whose games they broadcast. Having the rights to air games is of monumental importance for any national network looking to draw an audience.<\/p>\n

The programming surrounding those game broadcasts is just as important.<\/p>\n

Most pregame and postgame shows are not designed to address every controversial topic within a sport. There are outliers, like Inside the NBA, that tend to cut loose on anything surrounding the league. But a greater amount of programming serves a specific purpose.<\/p>\n

Pregame coverage builds interest and hype. Halftime and postgame shows are designed to address headlines and provide short bite-sized amounts of commentary. That doesn\u2019t mean those programs shouldn\u2019t have difficult conversations. It means the expectations placed on the talent are different from those placed on a columnist, reporter, sports radio talent or independent creator.<\/p>\n

Bucher has the absolute right to be critical of the tone and level of critique shared following DiJonai Carrington\u2019s hard foul on Sophie Cunningham. But is the issue that women said what they said.<\/p>\n

Was the foul brought up at halftime and postgame? Yes. Was it addressed? Absolutely. That\u2019s the job. You can like it or dislike it. That\u2019s not a man-versus-woman issue. That\u2019s where Bucher missed poorly.<\/p>\n

But Bucher\u2019s criticism also raises a larger question about sports television. He described ESPN\u2019s coverage as safe, cookie cutter and monotone. Would he say the same about any NFL pregame and postgame? How about any network that covers MLB games? Couldn\u2019t you also say the same about networks that broadcast NHL contests?<\/p>\n

Couldn\u2019t the same criticism apply to almost every major professional sport? The WNBA doesn\u2019t need to manufacture diversity in the analyst chair. It needs to develop the deepest possible talent pool and give the best broadcasters opportunities. If that pool becomes more diverse naturally, that\u2019s a good thing.<\/p>\n

The analyst\u2019s job is to help the audience understand the game. Former players can provide insight into what happens between the lines in a way that a traditional reporter or columnist may not. That\u2019s why networks value former athletes in these roles.<\/p>\n

A Worthy Conversation<\/strong><\/p>\n

The question isn\u2019t whether a man would have handled the Carrington-Cunningham situation differently than a woman. Maybe he would have. Maybe he wouldn\u2019t. The better question is whether the person sitting in that chair has the freedom to be critical, regardless of gender, without worrying about how the league or network will react.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s the conversation we should be having across the board for every sport.<\/p>\n

WNBA coverage doesn\u2019t need to become more diverse simply for the sake of having more diverse voices. It needs to become more diverse in the depth of the conversations it is willing to have. There should be room for praise, criticism, disagreement and uncomfortable questions without automatically turning those discussions into an attack on the league. No matter if it\u2019s a woman or a man.<\/p>\n

The best analyst isn\u2019t the person who protects the product, nor is it the person who criticizes everything surrounding it. It\u2019s the person who understands the game well enough to explain it, challenge it and, when necessary, call it out. But freedom in the role is required to balance the approach. <\/p>\n

That has nothing to do with whether the analyst is a man or a woman.<\/p>\n

It has everything to do with whether the network is willing to let the conversation go beyond the boundaries of what its league partner may want to hear.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s the question Ric Bucher should be asking.<\/p>\n

Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries.\u00a0Sign up<\/a>\u00a0for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.<\/p>\n

\"John<\/p>\n

John Mamola is Barrett Media\u2019s sports editor and daily sports columnist. He brings over two decades of experience (Chicago, Tampa\/St Petersburg) in the broadcast industry with expertise in brand management, sales, promotions, producing, imaging, hosting, talent coaching, talent development, web development, social media strategy and design, video production, creative writing, partnership building, communication\/networking with a long track record of growth and success. He is a five-time recognized top 20 program director in a major market via Barrett Medi\u2019s Top 20 series and has been honored internally multiple times as station\/brand of the year (Tampa, FL) and employee of the month (Tampa, FL) by iHeartMedia. Connect with John by email at John@BarrettMedia.com.<\/p>\n