WNBA restructuring to ensure strong future by Tim Whitmire (AP) Not a lot of new material, but an interesting read.
Pro Teams struggle even with a Boom in Participation - L.A. Times i got this from the Buffalo News, but it's from the L.A. Times and not mr. jones -jim
Huh. You mean there's not a strong correllation between the number of people who play a sport or who will watch a sport during a major championship and the number of people who will attend or watch it on television when you start up a league? That's odd. How are Cammi Granato and the WNHL doing this year? I would imagine as far as the WNBA is concerned, now we're going to see exactly what the market decides. Big Brother has cut off Little Sister's free room and board and she has to go out and earn a living on her own. I think there's a market for the product, but I not sure that in the future WNBA players won't be longing for the days when they made as much as $55,000. I read that the NBA teams in New York, Detroit, Indiana and Sacramento have decided to take on full ownership of their existing WNBA teams (the Spurs will own the transplanted Utah team, and the Hornets' new owner is taking over the Sting). That's six teams whose ownership isn't apparently in question. With Orlando and Miami apparently gone, that leaves Cleveland, Seattle (I believe they're trying to unload them), Portland, Houston, Washington, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Minnesota up in the air. I believe I read recently that the T-wolves were going to take over the Lynx, so that would be seven. I would imagine off the top of my head that Houston, LA and Washington will stay around (purely a guess, with their successful histories), so that would be ten. Let's say they can get something going in Hartford on short notice and one of the other bubble teams comes through. That would give them 12 teams for 2003, and they've admitted they may have fewer than 16 teams for next season and then go back up for 2004.
What!? Participation levels in a sport and the success of that sport's #1 domestic league aren't directly related?! This will come as a shock to soccer fans I'm sure!
You mean, the NWHL. It's doing fine in the country that won the gold medal. Canada, that is. They have had a pro league for about four, five years. It's kind of a low-budget operation (like box lacrosse) and it won't go away. Cammi plays for the Vancouver Griffins. But the enthusiasm for pro women's puck is not here in the US, it's up in Canada. And it is already on TSN, I think.
As always, we tend to take a true feature of sports marketing, and push it way too far. Because the difference in staying power of this women's basketball league and the last one is precisely related to the fact that so many girls play and played. And since the girls basketball boom started long after the boys soccer boom, the cohort of women who once played is still tiny and young. I'm not pushing any WNBA - sport of the 2000's theory. But we have to remember that participation IS the most important factor in attendance at MLS games, as proven by MLS marketing surveys. It's just a more complex relationship than Kenn's caricatures pretend.
Well, I can't speak for NY or LA, but I'm sure that Houston can be considered as rock-solid as any team can be. Les Alexander, for all of his faults has supported the Comets as well as any owner in the league. With a brand new arena opening next year and summer dates to fill, he'd be nuts to do anything else.
I don't have any first-hand, close-to-the-situation information or anything, but I suspect Cleveland will be okay, at least for a couple more years. With the AHL's Barons on the endangered species list and Cavaliers attendance frequently in the 7-9K range, I'd have to think Gund Arena management would do whatever it takes to keep dates booked and revenue coming in. The other option for the Rockers is the Cleveland State University Convocation Center, which seats ~13,000, is no more than two miles from the Gund, and would likely be considerably cheaper, rent-wise. The interesting thing would be to see if the Rockers or MISL's Force would get the first crack at prime dates. I'd think it'd probably be the Force, since they've been there for ten years and already have a lease in place, but I've been wrong before.
Can someone give me some information on this league? How many teams? Length of season? A web address would be great, too. Thanks!
Right now, the WNBA is at 14 teams. Orlando and Miami both folded. (sidebar...this is the second Miami team to bite the dust in two years...and the Heat, Marlins and Panthers are all at the bottom of their leagues in respective attendence. Considering the fact that all three teams are sub-500 teams, one could still reasonably argue that Miami beats Atlanta for the worst pro sports city in America...but I digress) Portland is going to join them on the dustheap! When Portland goes, look for the WNBA to do one of two things... 1) Add Hartford, or 2) Fold Seattle It is possible for Portland to stick around for another year... but the number of teatering teams is large... Portland, Seattle, Cleveland, Minnesota, Detriot Charlotte and Phoenix (half the league...) The only safe bets right now are Washington, Houston, LA, New York, and San Antonio (formerly Utah).
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/wnba/fire/2002-12-30-fire-sale_x.htm And Portland has officially folded... Leaving the WNBA with 13 teams... Now the question remains, will Seattle also fold, or will they add Hartford. Even if they add Hartford to go to 14, you can be sure that they will move closer to 10 in the coming years, rather than move toward 16. Seattle, Detriot Cleveland, and Minnesota are the most teetering.. Charlotte will be safe for a while, because the new owner will want to use that team as a springboard for his new NBA team. If you look at the league, you have 6 teams that are relatively safe... Washington, Houston, LA, New York, San Antonio and Charlotte. You have four others that woud be in good shape for now... Indy, Sacremento, a new team in Hartford, and possibly Phoenix (although Phoenix, like Charlotte, looks to be a dead team walking... The WNBA is in very bad shape. They have only 5 or 6 viable franchises. Like the WUSA, time does not appear to be on the WNBA side...
I think we can all stop talking/thinking about Paul Allen investing in MLS any time soon. If he pulled out of the WNBA because he couldn't make money in his second year, he certainly doesn't have the cajones to invest in MLS, methinks.
That's not entirely true. The article said that they couldn't see the team making a profit in any of the models they ran. It all comes down to whether or not Paul Allen's folks come up with a model that shows a profitable MLS side in either Seattle or Portland. Doesn't it? Given the events with the Portland Fire, though, I would say that landing Paul Allen as an investor would be a huge positive sign for the league. Not landing him just retains the status quo.
From what I read, Cleveland and Minnesota are fine. From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune on December 9: From the Cleveland Plain Dealer on November 30: God, Val Ackerman is getting the canned "even though (insert NBA team here) won't be continuing on in the WNBA, we thank them for getting us to this point. The league is fine. Many cities are interested in the WNBA" speech down pat, isn't she? Time is running out to get Hartford in and have it be successful in 2003. Former UConn stars can only get you so far. If the WNBA goes under, USA, what on Earth will you talk about?
I read that article to mean that in every model they ran, the team would lose money this year. Its somewhat vague, but I'm pretty sure that's what it meant. The point is that Paul Allen isn't really interested in investing in a sports venture unless he is virtually assured of making money pronto.
Not so fast, bucko. http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...web/vortex/display?slug=storm20&date=20021220 "Donovan said the commitment of the Basketball Club of Seattle, which owns the Sonics and the Storm, was a major reason why she accepted the position. Charlotte didn't have an owner and was operated by the league last season. " Somehow, I don't think Donovan would leave a franchise that's stayed in town while the NBA counterpart skipped town unless she thought the future was bright in Seattle. What I'm interested in here is the dog that isn't barking. How many problems does the NBA have that is causing it to chuck the WNBA out into the lifeboat? Sure, they signed a lucrative TV contract with Disney/ABC/ESPN -- but they had to agree to televise twice the number of games in return. And while the Fire may be gone, the Blazers have completely lost the city's love. And I'm wondering how pervasive this trend is across the NBA. Since I don't care about the NBA and therefore don't analyze its attendance and ratings, I'll have to ask kenntomasch to step in and provide some of his fabled illumination.
Only partly. I'm just wondering how much the NBA's recent bumps in the road have to do with this decision, that's all.
Well, attendance is fairly strong and steady despite sky-is-falling reports to the contrary this time two years ago. Despite the economy and posturing about reductions in television rights fees, they got a modest bump in their new contract, though they had to go mostly cable to get it done (and the thing with the AOL Sports channel wasn't handled very well, but it's not like there's a dearth of NBA games on television as it is). The first games on ABC did good numbers (how could they avoid it, with the matchups they had and the timeslots), but will likely settle back into the NBA's accustomed range. They've got labor peace. They've moved some franchises around, but I only know of a few that are rumored to be on the block or in trouble. So I don't know what the deal is. But it appears as though if an NBA organization is going to lose $3 million or so, they'd much rather lose it by giving it to Jon Koncak or some such stiff than lose it by running a WNBA team. Which seems to me to be kinda hard to justify, but it's their money.
From todays Boston Globe http://boston.com/dailyglobe2/001/sports/Connecticut_could_get_a_WNBA_team+.shtml "Civic Center general manager Marty Brooks, though, said he hasn't heard anything about a team coming to Hartford. ''I don't know what to make of it,'' Brooks said yesterday. ''It's been woefully quiet. I've not had conversations with the WNBA or potential buyers in weeks.''
The rumor I'm hearing is that the Storm are trying to get out of Key Arena. A new arena in Everett (which I believe holds 8,500) seems like the ideal target for the Storm. A smaller arena is a wise decision, but Everett (or second choice Tacoma)? Location? Well, it's women's pro basketball, relatively uncharted territory. Time to learn some more. Portland has Memorial Coliseum, perfectly sized for the Fire, right next door to the Rose Garden. I think there's a broader political agenda at work here, and it regards the future of the Rose Quarter. I'm watching the Western Hockey League Winterhawks very closely- there are rumors swirling about their finances. Portland State basketball games used to be played at the Garden and the Coliseum, but low crowds and rent mostly pushed them away. It's rather well known that Allen wants to see the Coliseum replaced with a people-drawing retail complex (or something that draws people to the area) to shore up economic activity in the Quarter. It may come to the point where Allen actually decides he needs an NHL team, and perhaps is lessening the debt load to perhaps go after that (the baseball proponents in town seem to think that he would bring in NHL to try to head off the possibility of the Expos coming to Portland, but I don't see the sense in that). It's not like the Fire were drawing poorly compared to the rest of the league... Seattle was drawing maybe 60% of the crowd the Fire were pulling. Miami wasn't that bad, either- though free tickets for kids a couple times a year may have skewed those numbers. This whole situation is, well, weird.