Would you like a WNBA team in Boston or Massachusetts for that matter?

[nickagneta]

Just a thought on the whole NBA and WNBA relationship.

What private enterprises decide to do with their money regarding the subsidizing of other possibly sister affiliations, are up to them. If the NBA feels the need to assist the WNBA at this point in the league's history, I think that's great. If they didn't, I would think it's great. It is their money after all.

Personally I think it could be a brilliant move on Stern's part. He may have marketing reports telling him that he will attract a larger audience by promoting and sustaining a league that women(especially the 16-30 year old demographic) feel they can relate to. Once they are fans of the WNBA the cross over to the NBA would be natural.

With the majority of people in the world being women, and women being becoming more athletic and having more disposable income than in earlier generations, business wise the smartest way to expand the NBA besides growing it into other countries is to grow it into the sex that has been in the overwhleming minority in regards to the fan base.

I could be completely wrong but knowing extremely little about marketing, product promotion, and business, it makes some sense.

[ACF]

Considering the fact there
is 6 (S-I-X) years between
dunks, I really don't know.

[jimmyt]

i can honestly say that i would never attend, or even think about attending a wnba game in boston. Its a joke. Womens sports just dont do it for me. Its not sexism, its just the facts. Not really that entertaining. Id rather watch a pickup game of complete strangers then watch the wnba

[guava_wrench]

Someone is out of touch with reality in this discussion, and I don't think it's me.

I remember WNBA players leaving for Europe because the money is much better abroad. While the WNBA has a 100k max salary for a year, women abroad have earned more:

http://www.basketball-overseas.com/archives/2007/01/27/korean-womens-basketball-salaries/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Jackson

What is even more telling is women's college basketball, where there are 3 coaches making more than $1 million a year individually! Clearly a market exists. The women's final 4 is always sold out.

The NBA has two reasonable business goals with the WNBA - marketing their brand name and establishing themselves as a leader in a potential new market. An annual subsidy of $12 million is not a big deal for the league considering the potential profit and the not so clearly quantifiable extra exposure they get through the WNBA.

Speculation is part of growing a business. Basketball continues to grow in popularity internationally and among women, and Stern is trying to make sure the NBA is positioned to profit from every possible market.

[guava_wrench]

I would like a WNBA team in Boston so that we could participate on all star Saturday when they have the shooting event with the legend, the nba player, and the wnba player.

[Schupac]

You have a solid point.  I would like to clarify, though, that I Think the WNBA is quite different from any sort of title IX scholastic situation.  If a young boy and a young girl both go to school, it is only fair that they both have a chance to participate in the same activities.  If it is public school, those tax dollars are not split by gender.  If it is private school, you pay the same tuition for your daughter.

However, the WNBA doesn't fall into that category.  These are not public funds.  If the NBA wants to subsidize the WNBA for some socially concious reason, that is their choice.  However, when we have cities like Seatlle having their team pulled from them for not being economically viable, it is almost criminal to pull profits from the league to support the WNBA.  And it sure sucks for fans of Seattle, or even for fans of the many profitable teams who are just a little bit less profitable because they are dragging the WNBA behind them.

I find these two paragraphs very odd. I'm very judgmental about public funds - after all, it's our money; but I'm not very comfortable questioning how individuals or private enterprises chose to spend their money, as long as they're not hurting anybody. Even if the NBA isn't supporting the WNBA for altruistic reasons, I can't see what's remotely criminal about that. It's probably a marketing gimmick. Perhaps it's not working and they are losing money. But it's their call and their money. It's not like the NBA franchises are being forced to subsidize the WNBA.

On topic, I don't really care, as you can imagine - and I'll always root for my friend Ticha, the best pass-first female point-guard ever and the Monarchs. But I'm all in favor if this means a new team in NE (not in Boston or MA)- Maine Attraction, as proposed by someone in the CB. D-League, WNBA, I don't care, just name that team. I'd buy a jersey immediately.

Also, of course any WNBA player would be destroyed in the NBA - like every WTA player would be destroyed in a ATP tournament. That doesn't mean that the games aren't funny or worth watching, if you like basketball. I see regularly games far worse than WNBS ones, just for the pleasure of watching the game. It's different, surely; but it's still enjoyable.

I think my word choice misled you a bit.  The "almost criminal" thing was an exageration... it's a common saying for me, but I'm guessing not everyone has heard it.  In this context, it just means it is foolish.

Everyone who is saying the public has no right to tell the NBA how to spend its funds - of course we don't.  But we do have a right to discuss it.  Hence a public forum, like this one.  I'm not here drafting a legal document to send to the NBA... we're all here discussing.  Please keep that in mind.

I don't think the WNBA makes sense, business wise.  I think the NBA has kept it around for a few reasons, some of which I'm sure we don't know.  But I'd expect they are something similar to this:

1)  In the rare chance the market takes off, the NBA will dominate it.
2)  They've invested plenty of money into it, and it isn't *so* very unprofitable that they need to cut their losses.
3)  Awww... the NBA cares!  It's a PR thing.

Now, it is entirely possible the league will get "in the black" and start making profit.  But that still doesn't have to make it a good idea.  Think about what would happen if all the time and resources devoted to building up this league had been spent on another, more readily profitable venture?

Ok, so that's how I feel about it on the business side.



Personally?  It just aggravates me.  Their ad campaign aggravates me.  Rather than push the sport on its own merits, I'm supposed to watch it because Candace Parker gets on TV and tries to shame me into it?  I think not.  I wouldn't watch the WNBA for the same reason I don't watch the NBDL - there is simply a better product available.

[nickagneta]

You have a solid point.  I would like to clarify, though, that I Think the WNBA is quite different from any sort of title IX scholastic situation.  If a young boy and a young girl both go to school, it is only fair that they both have a chance to participate in the same activities.  If it is public school, those tax dollars are not split by gender.  If it is private school, you pay the same tuition for your daughter.

However, the WNBA doesn't fall into that category.  These are not public funds.  If the NBA wants to subsidize the WNBA for some socially concious reason, that is their choice.  However, when we have cities like Seatlle having their team pulled from them for not being economically viable, it is almost criminal to pull profits from the league to support the WNBA.  And it sure sucks for fans of Seattle, or even for fans of the many profitable teams who are just a little bit less profitable because they are dragging the WNBA behind them.

I find these two paragraphs very odd. I'm very judgmental about public funds - after all, it's our money; but I'm not very comfortable questioning how individuals or private enterprises chose to spend their money, as long as they're not hurting anybody. Even if the NBA isn't supporting the WNBA for altruistic reasons, I can't see what's remotely criminal about that. It's probably a marketing gimmick. Perhaps it's not working and they are losing money. But it's their call and their money. It's not like the NBA franchises are being forced to subsidize the WNBA.

On topic, I don't really care, as you can imagine - and I'll always root for my friend Ticha, the best pass-first female point-guard ever and the Monarchs. But I'm all in favor if this means a new team in NE (not in Boston or MA)- Maine Attraction, as proposed by someone in the CB. D-League, WNBA, I don't care, just name that team. I'd buy a jersey immediately.

Also, of course any WNBA player would be destroyed in the NBA - like every WTA player would be destroyed in a ATP tournament. That doesn't mean that the games aren't funny or worth watching, if you like basketball. I see regularly games far worse than WNBS ones, just for the pleasure of watching the game. It's different, surely; but it's still enjoyable.

I think my word choice misled you a bit.  The "almost criminal" thing was an exageration... it's a common saying for me, but I'm guessing not everyone has heard it.  In this context, it just means it is foolish.

Everyone who is saying the public has no right to tell the NBA how to spend its funds - of course we don't.  But we do have a right to discuss it.  Hence a public forum, like this one.  I'm not here drafting a legal document to send to the NBA... we're all here discussing.  Please keep that in mind.

I don't think the WNBA makes sense, business wise.  I think the NBA has kept it around for a few reasons, some of which I'm sure we don't know.  But I'd expect they are something similar to this:

1)  In the rare chance the market takes off, the NBA will dominate it.
2)  They've invested plenty of money into it, and it isn't *so* very unprofitable that they need to cut their losses.
3)  Awww... the NBA cares!  It's a PR thing.

Now, it is entirely possible the league will get "in the black" and start making profit.  But that still doesn't have to make it a good idea.  Think about what would happen if all the time and resources devoted to building up this league had been spent on another, more readily profitable venture?

Ok, so that's how I feel about it on the business side.



Personally?  It just aggravates me.  Their ad campaign aggravates me.  Rather than push the sport on its own merits, I'm supposed to watch it because Candace Parker gets on TV and tries to shame me into it?  I think not.  I wouldn't watch the WNBA for the same reason I don't watch the NBDL - there is simply a better product available.

If you don't watch the games and don't attend the games, then why do you care so much whether they exist or not? I am sure there are either hockey, soccer(football), basketball, and or tennis professional leagues around this planet that struggle to make money? Do you have a problem with any of them existing, ahem, businesswise? What about professional jai-alai? That professional league has been struggling to make it in the states for years and years. Do you object to their existance, ahem, businesswise?

If their commercials aggravate you, turn the channel, take that time to get another cold one out of the fridge, go the bathroom. Do whatever you want, but if it bothers you don't watch it. That's what the remote control is for.

Are you 100% sure it's just the aggravating commercials, that you don't have to watch, and the non profitable state of the business side of the league that is bothering you so much. I think a major portion of people could care less whether a sports league, no matter how big or small or whereever they are located, is making money or not. My guess is it is somewhere around 99.9999999999999999999% of people worldwide.

So why does it bother you? Or is there some other reason?

[DinoRadjaLives]

I just can't see the excitment in womens basketball. Candace Parker slammed it the other day it was major news, the sad part is kids on my high school team were dunking it the same way, as in not to exciting. I am not disrespting womens basketball at all, I have tons of respect for all women athlete, but when it comes to making money and selling tickets, not gonna be a big draw in beantown.

PS - I would love to see an Arena footbal team at Agganis Arena or even the Garden.

[nickagneta]

I have nothing against women's basketball other than I find the game about as exciting as high school basketball except in high school basketball there are fans in the audience that are extremely emotionally invested in the game. Which makes it very appealing.

I hope though that the league grows and that in another 60 years the woman basketball player is at or above the level of men's Division 1 basketball player is now. It would make for some great alternative summertime basketball watching.

Let's remember where men's basketball was athletically 60 years ago. All white men, no dunking, two handed set shots, no 24 second shot clock or three point line, players shooting free throws underhanded, and let's not go there with the uni's.

Take the best WNBA team today throw them into a Delorean bus, jack that sucker up to 88 miles an hour, and I wonder just how well Red Auerbach's Washington Capitols scoring 81 PPG and giving up 79 PPG and shooting 32% would do against that WNBA team.

Get used to the idea of WNBA basketball. It is here to stay. Maybe having a franchise in Boston that will be the elite franchise of the WNBA 50 years from now wouldn't be such a horrible thing afterall.

I mean you might just be sitting there watching a WNBA championship game with your granddaughter some day and she might be asking you if you ever got to watch the "Dunking Dame" Candace Parker live. What are you going to tell her. Sorry sweetheart woman's basketball was boring then and I just might have been a bit of a sexist when it came to my sports watching practices.

My guess is you'll lie and tell her you did but mostly only on that ancient show called Sportscenter that used to be on that old relic of a thing called television.

[Curley]

Yes, bring the WNBA!  My theory has always been that the people in attendance get paid to go to the games like extras in a Movie Shoot.  Figuring the high cost of living in the Boston area my estimate is each game attended you would get $100 bucks.  It would be torture but who can't use some extra cash in the pocket during the summer time? 

[Schupac]

You have a solid point.  I would like to clarify, though, that I Think the WNBA is quite different from any sort of title IX scholastic situation.  If a young boy and a young girl both go to school, it is only fair that they both have a chance to participate in the same activities.  If it is public school, those tax dollars are not split by gender.  If it is private school, you pay the same tuition for your daughter.

However, the WNBA doesn't fall into that category.  These are not public funds.  If the NBA wants to subsidize the WNBA for some socially concious reason, that is their choice.  However, when we have cities like Seatlle having their team pulled from them for not being economically viable, it is almost criminal to pull profits from the league to support the WNBA.  And it sure sucks for fans of Seattle, or even for fans of the many profitable teams who are just a little bit less profitable because they are dragging the WNBA behind them.

I find these two paragraphs very odd. I'm very judgmental about public funds - after all, it's our money; but I'm not very comfortable questioning how individuals or private enterprises chose to spend their money, as long as they're not hurting anybody. Even if the NBA isn't supporting the WNBA for altruistic reasons, I can't see what's remotely criminal about that. It's probably a marketing gimmick. Perhaps it's not working and they are losing money. But it's their call and their money. It's not like the NBA franchises are being forced to subsidize the WNBA.

On topic, I don't really care, as you can imagine - and I'll always root for my friend Ticha, the best pass-first female point-guard ever and the Monarchs. But I'm all in favor if this means a new team in NE (not in Boston or MA)- Maine Attraction, as proposed by someone in the CB. D-League, WNBA, I don't care, just name that team. I'd buy a jersey immediately.

Also, of course any WNBA player would be destroyed in the NBA - like every WTA player would be destroyed in a ATP tournament. That doesn't mean that the games aren't funny or worth watching, if you like basketball. I see regularly games far worse than WNBS ones, just for the pleasure of watching the game. It's different, surely; but it's still enjoyable.

I think my word choice misled you a bit.  The "almost criminal" thing was an exageration... it's a common saying for me, but I'm guessing not everyone has heard it.  In this context, it just means it is foolish.

Everyone who is saying the public has no right to tell the NBA how to spend its funds - of course we don't.  But we do have a right to discuss it.  Hence a public forum, like this one.  I'm not here drafting a legal document to send to the NBA... we're all here discussing.  Please keep that in mind.

I don't think the WNBA makes sense, business wise.  I think the NBA has kept it around for a few reasons, some of which I'm sure we don't know.  But I'd expect they are something similar to this:

1)  In the rare chance the market takes off, the NBA will dominate it.
2)  They've invested plenty of money into it, and it isn't *so* very unprofitable that they need to cut their losses.
3)  Awww... the NBA cares!  It's a PR thing.

Now, it is entirely possible the league will get "in the black" and start making profit.  But that still doesn't have to make it a good idea.  Think about what would happen if all the time and resources devoted to building up this league had been spent on another, more readily profitable venture?

Ok, so that's how I feel about it on the business side.



Personally?  It just aggravates me.  Their ad campaign aggravates me.  Rather than push the sport on its own merits, I'm supposed to watch it because Candace Parker gets on TV and tries to shame me into it?  I think not.  I wouldn't watch the WNBA for the same reason I don't watch the NBDL - there is simply a better product available.

If you don't watch the games and don't attend the games, then why do you care so much whether they exist or not? I am sure there are either hockey, soccer(football), basketball, and or tennis professional leagues around this planet that struggle to make money? Do you have a problem with any of them existing, ahem, businesswise? What about professional jai-alai? That professional league has been struggling to make it in the states for years and years. Do you object to their existance, ahem, businesswise?

If their commercials aggravate you, turn the channel, take that time to get another cold one out of the fridge, go the bathroom. Do whatever you want, but if it bothers you don't watch it. That's what the remote control is for.

Are you 100% sure it's just the aggravating commercials, that you don't have to watch, and the non profitable state of the business side of the league that is bothering you so much. I think a major portion of people could care less whether a sports league, no matter how big or small or whereever they are located, is making money or not. My guess is it is somewhere around 99.9999999999999999999% of people worldwide.

So why does it bother you? Or is there some other reason?

Mind the psychoanalysis ;-)


Why don't I care about Jai-Alai not being ahem business practical?  Because this thread isn't about Jai-Alai.  It's about the WNBA.  I don't know anything about Jai-Alai.

I know I can get up during a commercial and go do something else... but that doesn't mean I can't be annoyed by what I do see.  If someone wants to stand outside of your house holding up a sign with offensive comments on it, should I just say you don't have to look out your window?  That's not a reason.

The bottom line is, I don't want to watch the WNBA.  I also don't want to watch Hockey, MLS, cricket, arena football, etc.  That has nothing to do with gender.  What aggravates me about the WNBA is, like I said, their ad-campaign, the fact that they advertise duringNBA games (not just during the commercials), and the fact that it is a financial drain on my favorite pro sport.

More than anything else, tt's almost like I'm SUPPOSED to support the WNBA, just because it is a women's league.  That's what gets on my nerves.

[Schupac]

You have a solid point.  I would like to clarify, though, that I Think the WNBA is quite different from any sort of title IX scholastic situation.  If a young boy and a young girl both go to school, it is only fair that they both have a chance to participate in the same activities.  If it is public school, those tax dollars are not split by gender.  If it is private school, you pay the same tuition for your daughter.

However, the WNBA doesn't fall into that category.  These are not public funds.  If the NBA wants to subsidize the WNBA for some socially concious reason, that is their choice.  However, when we have cities like Seatlle having their team pulled from them for not being economically viable, it is almost criminal to pull profits from the league to support the WNBA.  And it sure sucks for fans of Seattle, or even for fans of the many profitable teams who are just a little bit less profitable because they are dragging the WNBA behind them.

I find these two paragraphs very odd. I'm very judgmental about public funds - after all, it's our money; but I'm not very comfortable questioning how individuals or private enterprises chose to spend their money, as long as they're not hurting anybody. Even if the NBA isn't supporting the WNBA for altruistic reasons, I can't see what's remotely criminal about that. It's probably a marketing gimmick. Perhaps it's not working and they are losing money. But it's their call and their money. It's not like the NBA franchises are being forced to subsidize the WNBA.

On topic, I don't really care, as you can imagine - and I'll always root for my friend Ticha, the best pass-first female point-guard ever and the Monarchs. But I'm all in favor if this means a new team in NE (not in Boston or MA)- Maine Attraction, as proposed by someone in the CB. D-League, WNBA, I don't care, just name that team. I'd buy a jersey immediately.

Also, of course any WNBA player would be destroyed in the NBA - like every WTA player would be destroyed in a ATP tournament. That doesn't mean that the games aren't funny or worth watching, if you like basketball. I see regularly games far worse than WNBS ones, just for the pleasure of watching the game. It's different, surely; but it's still enjoyable.

I think my word choice misled you a bit.  The "almost criminal" thing was an exageration... it's a common saying for me, but I'm guessing not everyone has heard it.  In this context, it just means it is foolish.

Everyone who is saying the public has no right to tell the NBA how to spend its funds - of course we don't.  But we do have a right to discuss it.  Hence a public forum, like this one.  I'm not here drafting a legal document to send to the NBA... we're all here discussing.  Please keep that in mind.

I don't think the WNBA makes sense, business wise.  I think the NBA has kept it around for a few reasons, some of which I'm sure we don't know.  But I'd expect they are something similar to this:

1)  In the rare chance the market takes off, the NBA will dominate it.
2)  They've invested plenty of money into it, and it isn't *so* very unprofitable that they need to cut their losses.
3)  Awww... the NBA cares!  It's a PR thing.

Now, it is entirely possible the league will get "in the black" and start making profit.  But that still doesn't have to make it a good idea.  Think about what would happen if all the time and resources devoted to building up this league had been spent on another, more readily profitable venture?

Ok, so that's how I feel about it on the business side.



Personally?  It just aggravates me.  Their ad campaign aggravates me.  Rather than push the sport on its own merits, I'm supposed to watch it because Candace Parker gets on TV and tries to shame me into it?  I think not.  I wouldn't watch the WNBA for the same reason I don't watch the NBDL - there is simply a better product available.

If you don't watch the games and don't attend the games, then why do you care so much whether they exist or not? I am sure there are either hockey, soccer(football), basketball, and or tennis professional leagues around this planet that struggle to make money? Do you have a problem with any of them existing, ahem, businesswise? What about professional jai-alai? That professional league has been struggling to make it in the states for years and years. Do you object to their existance, ahem, businesswise?

If their commercials aggravate you, turn the channel, take that time to get another cold one out of the fridge, go the bathroom. Do whatever you want, but if it bothers you don't watch it. That's what the remote control is for.

Are you 100% sure it's just the aggravating commercials, that you don't have to watch, and the non profitable state of the business side of the league that is bothering you so much. I think a major portion of people could care less whether a sports league, no matter how big or small or whereever they are located, is making money or not. My guess is it is somewhere around 99.9999999999999999999% of people worldwide.

So why does it bother you? Or is there some other reason?

Mind the psychoanalysis ;-)


Why don't I care about Jai-Alai not being ahem business practical?  Because this thread isn't about Jai-Alai.  It's about the WNBA.  I don't know anything about Jai-Alai.

I know I can get up during a commercial and go do something else... but that doesn't mean I can't be annoyed by what I do see.  If someone wants to stand outside of your house holding up a sign with offensive comments on it, should I just say you don't have to look out your window?  That's not a reason.  No, the WNBA isn't offensive to me, but the idea is the same.  Just because you don't HAVE to see it doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on it.

The bottom line is, I don't want to watch the WNBA.  I also don't want to watch Hockey, MLS, cricket, arena football, etc.  That has nothing to do with gender.  What aggravates me about the WNBA is, like I said, their ad-campaign, the fact that they advertise duringNBA games (not just during the commercials), and the fact that it is a financial drain on my favorite pro sport.

More than anything else, tt's almost like I'm SUPPOSED to support the WNBA, just because it is a women's league.  That's what gets on my nerves.

[LarBrd33]

the WNBA will never be popular that popular.  It'll be popular on a level of a minor league hockey team or something.  I was talking to some of my friends in Seattle about the WNBA and how it's the only team out here to have won a championship in the last 30 years.  The fact is, it was heart enough getting fans to attend a SuperSonics game let alone some women's league. 

Four thoughts on this boring topic (I'm too disinterested to read the thread so I apologize if any of this has been said already):

#1 - Candace Parker is a shorter, weaker, slower, less athletic version of a poor man's Dan Dickau. (which is ironic, because she's actually 4 inches taller than Dan Dickau... but I still stand by my statement if you assume that a "poor man's Dan Dickau" is actually 6'5... think about it) 
#2 - They had some 7'2 beastwoman in that league for several years and she never dunked.   Not once.  The 2nd tallest player in the history of that league is 6'8 and this beastwoman never successfully dunked in that league.  Wow...

#3 - I don't care what anyone says... Britney Griner (the 6'8 high school girl dunker who is expected to revolutionize the women's game) is not a female.  I'm serious.  That's a boy.  It has to be a boy.  Listen to him talk.  Either its a boy, a woman with both bits or someone has been tapping into some male hormones.  Talk to me in a few years when he goes through puberty and starts having facial stubble.   That whole thing is going to end uglier than the Danny Almonte fiasco.   In fact... I was about 85% sure that Britney Griner was actually Gerald Green until I heard about his recent signing with the Mavs (Btw... if Britney Griner suddenly goes "missing", you now know why).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO-iH1UniSc

#4 - A lot of people say Reggie MIller's sister had the talent to play in the NBA.  We hear stories about how she abused Reggie on the court when he was younger.  But I just assume that was the time in Reggie's life when he was wearing Forrest Gump-esque leg braces and weighed 12 pounds.

Nobody cares about the WNBA

[iowa plowboy]

There's a variety of people in here essentially saying "I hope someday it thrives".   But virtually none of them would go to a game.  I don't blame them.  The excitement of the WNBA game ranks somewhere between watching paint dry and that hideously boring "sport" of NASCAR.  

Sad part is, the game is terribly unexciting but well played.  If the league that keeps the WNBA afloat had half of the basketball skills shown in the WNBA, the NBA game would be twice as exciting to watch.   Combine the sound fundamentals of the WNBA with the athletism of the NBA and we'd have a product to shatter the one we have now.

A lot of solid, interesting theories to explain why the WNBA exists have been posted in this forum.  

[Roy Hobbs]

Sad part is, the game is terribly unexciting but well played.  If the league that keeps the WNBA afloat had half of the basketball skills shown in the WNBA, the NBA game would be twice as exciting to watch.   Combine the sound fundamentals of the WNBA with the athletism of the NBA and we'd have a product to shatter the one we have now. 

That's the common stereotype, but I'm not sure that it holds up.

In terms of fundamentals, players in the NBA shot 45.7% from the field and 36.2% from three last season.  WNBA players shot 42.0% and 34.8%, respectively.  Every team in the WNBA shot worse than the NBA league average.  The men averaged 99.9 points per game, the ladies averaged 76.6 points per game. 

The women -- slightly -- outshot the men from the free throw line, 77.5% vs. 75.5%.  However, that's the only statistical evidence I can find for the women being better at anything fundamentally.

EDIT: The women had a lot more turnovers, too.  Right around 16.5, as compared to 14.0 for the guys.