"They're actually offended by images of sex," Kane said. Females across the board are drawn to images of athletic competence. So are men, in the 35 to 55 age range, who think of their daughters. "They don't see," Kane said, "how a passive, sexualized pose is celebrating an athletic body. How do bare breasts increase respect for and interest in women sports?"

Of course there was a segment of the Tucker Center's focus groups that was into the hot shots -- males between 18-34. But those younger men openly told Kane they're just looking. Sure they've clicked on Anna Kournikova's endless online shots. And no, those pictures never compelled them to go watch her play. Turns out, that's the demographic most likely to dismiss women's athleticism, too, especially when it came to team sports such as basketball.

The craziest thing about all of this is that Kane's on-going study isn't the only proof that this whole "sex sells" thing doesn't work.

The Davie-Brown Index is a constantly-updated bible for brand marketers. It evaluates celebrities' appeal and relevance, and their influence on consumer buying behavior, by getting 1.5 million Americans to appraise famous people on eight different attributes. Female athletes are part of the 1,000-celebrity pool and guess what? This week, Michelle Kwan's ranked highest among them. Then comes Mary Lou Retton, Peggy Fleming, Chris Evert and then ... Kournikova. But the trust people have in the Russian starlet who never won a singles tournament is 10 points less than the trust they show in, say, Pat Summitt -- who's 22 spots below Kournikova on the overall DBI list. Dot Richardson is oodles more "appealing" than Kournikova -- or Maria Sharapova.

But here's the most telling thing on the index: there's not one active female athlete in the top 10. The top 15 has only three -- Sasha Cohen (11), Sharapova (12) and Michelle Wie (15). The most powerful female athlete endorsers are women who no longer play sports. What can that mean but that the active ones aren't positioning themselves the right way?

It's a given that attractiveness matters with women. Why did every story about the Democratic presidential debate include a bit about Hillary Clinton's outfit? Why did Donald Trump think the most biting insult he could give Rosie O'Donnell was to call her ugly? Why did I actually care how the mug shot at the top of this column looked?

But since when is attractiveness incompatible with competence? Maybe women's sports do need a little bit of sex appeal to get people to pay attention. But they also need athletes who transcend that sex appeal. We need women who not only make you look, but make you watch, too.