The "Playboy" episode gave the fish hacks plenty to write about. It also got Heather M. more than 15 minutes of fame. There was another funny WUSA story, at least locally in San Jose: The SJ Mercury News mentioned one day in August 2002 that it observed the SJ C-Rays equipment manager doing the team's laundry at a coin-operated laundromat near Santa Clara University. He was observed with a handful of quarters and 3 bottles of Shout liquid detergent. My first thought: whatever happened to ERA Plus, the Procter and Gamble brand which used WUSA in 2001 for its pre-launch marketing campaign?
Re: The Unanswered Question. In Boston, renovations at Nickerson Field cost $3-5M before the first ball was kicked. Also, Boston placed temporary stands behind one goal in the first season. The stands cost more to rent for the year than they could have earned had every seat been sold for every game. (Which they weren't. Maybe that's why Joe Cummings didn't win Exec of the Year in the inaugural season. ) The stands were gone before season 2. I know that there were rehab projects in San Diego (Torero) and Carolina (before SAS Park). I was thoroughly impressed with the huge catered food spread in the Power press box when I went to LI in the first year. I doubt that continued.
Re: Re: The Unanswered Question. Work was also done on Bobby Dodd and Herndon. That's cuz you ate way too damn much.
Re: The Unanswered Question. (note to Nat, WUSA had no expense in the construction of SAS Stadium, they did however shell out for the new SafePlay field in Villanova) The original CEO, Barbara Allen commuted back and forth between Denver and New York. Speaking of which, the league burned a lot of cash being based in Manhattan the first season. To be fair, some of the expense could not have been avoided. It does cost money to start a league. I don't think the original plan really realized just how much the start up costs were. That's why I think any restart has to occur in 2005 at the latest. If they can go with a one year blip, they can probably save on many of the startup costs. --- Beau, "the WUSA" is a double edged sword. I think keeping the name alive next year, then having a league in 2005 would be fine. If they're not going to play until 2006 or later, they need to come up with something else, as I think "the WUSA" will become a poisoned (NASL anyone?) name.
I never quite understood why they needed to 'create' a league in the first place. There was already the W-League in the USL. Before WUSA some players played in it. Why they just didn't take the top 10 or so W-League teams and make that the D-1 women's league. At one time, there was even a W-League2. Seems that they could have built something nice out of it. Wouldn't have had any real start up costs as league infrastructure was already in place. I kinda wondered about the same thing with the A-League and MLS.
Yup. WUSA rented extra stands and a jumbotron for the UNC venue in 2001. Note that Carolina couldn't come close to a sellout when Mia was in town twice in May 2001. The first season at Carolina was a complete disaster.
Re: Re: The Unanswered Question. And WUSA did so AFTER Comcast had put its 12.5% share of WUSA, including operating rights to the Philly franchise, up for sale in May 2001. I still don't understand why WUSA didn't move the Philly franchise after the 2001 season. Having a franchise in Philly no longer made any sense by then because Comcast had bailed. My only guess is that WUSA management still wanted to project an image of stability. WUSA management of course was fooling itself because WUSA's financial condition and reputation was known to everyone and his brother and sister up and down Madison Avenue and Wilshire Blvd.
Well the jumbotron doesn't count, it was unnecessary. I forgot about those stands, but yep, they did put those in. Pretty much. Of their first 7 home games, 3 were at noon on Saturdays in June and 3 were at 3pm on Sunday's in July. Ever been outside in North Carolina at 4pm in July? The Raleigh-Durham "Triangle" contains two of the most successful minor league baseball teams (Durham Bulls, Carolina Mudcats), and the Courage/WUSA absolutely ignored many of the hard earned lessons of those organizations. The Bulls used to do 1pm Sunday games. About 10 years ago. Nobody showed, it was just not viable.
The W-League average attendance was well under 1,000. This was (is) a non-professional league. Otherwise, the college and high school kids would give up NCAA eligibility. There were a myriad other reasons that were discussed back in 2000. I think that some animosity between the USL management and USSoccer played into the MLS decision.
Re: Re: The Unanswered Question. The name "WUSA" is already poisoned. WUSA stands for mismanagement. WUSA stands for out-of-control spending. WUSA stands for arrogance. WUSA stands for overpromise and underdeliver. WUSA stands for managers who are bad liars. WUSA stands for managers with "Peter Pan" syndrome. The entire WUSA leadership needs to be flushed out of the system before another league has any chance of getting investors and sponsors. That includes the arrogant leadership of the "players association", namely Foudy and Brandi, and to a lesser extent Mia. I would be surprised to see another attempt at a women's pro soccer league before the year 2011. By that time, a new generation of players will be involved in the industry.
The league sent (prior to the 2003 season kicking off) Playboy glamour shots of some of it's players like Mitts, Mia, Fair and whoever else. Then Playboy did a poll...I can't remember if it was just on WUSA players or included other women atheletes.
IN addition, WUSA stands for: - Rigid, Dogmatic Reality Tunnels that label anyone, especially male, who dare to question the tenents of said tunnel, as misogynist, fascist, vijay-singhian, bobby-riggsian, chauvanist pigs. Regardless of how enlightened, advanced, or cultured said individual may actually be. And regardless of any altruism or Design Science Emphemeralization that may exist in said individual's Prime Directives. - Title IX as a Business Model, when in fact, it's a Government Charity. (Yes, I stole that from this morning's Times article). - Arrogance non pareil. -bs
Re: Re: Re: The Unanswered Question. I completely disagree. I think you're being to myopic. To most of the fans and potential audience "WUSA" has no negative conotation. To the insiders "like us" we're saavy enough to understand that it's mismanagement, and not the name. If however the league takes more than a year off then even the general public will perceive it as a "failed" league.
San Jose also rented a Jumbotron for its first season. The idea was abandoned as "too expensive" for season 2.
If Brushes Sand falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does he make a sound? Must be flood season. The trolls have emerged from under the bridge. Back on topic -- I think it might be more important to keep the TEAM names than the LEAGUE name. The Dallas Sidekicks have been in more leagues than I care to count, but people keep showing up. I think people would show up to a Washington Freedom game in 2005 regardless of the league's name. Of course, keeping a handful of recognizable players (the Littles, Grubb, Stoecker, Mullinix and that Mia woman) would help as well. Granted, if they play some "WUSA All-Star" games in 2004 and restart in 2005, there's little need to find a new name.
So much has changed over the past eight years, but we can always count on Oliver to distort things for us. Talk about a name that's poisoned. (In deference to Andy, I'll stop with the history recap there.) "Couldn't come close to a sellout" implies to me that they sold, say, two-thirds of available tickets of fell short by several thousand. Not so. The first Courage game, which I attended, drew 6,143. That was quite close to capacity, even with some extra seats. (Fetzer is smack in the middle of campus; they can't just throw up a 20,000-seat grandstand.) The first Mia game drew 6,012. The second drew 5,864. (No, scheduling the three biggest games of the year right off the bat wasn't exactly a great decision, though they did come close with a 5,758 crowd later in the year.) I won't defend the way the league went through money in Year 1, and I doubt anyone could. But let's not get carried away in our grave-dancing.
Some find joy in wusa demise, more than likely because their prediction of its failure was true. I don't believe we've seen the end of female soccer at the pro level....... some day it'll return..... the past 3 years will have provide many of us fond memories.... it's the good of wusa which counts.... the joy of the game... who cares about the business side...or the incompetence of it....
If you perceive anything i've written in this thread as a troll, you're almost as flat and dogmatic as those in this thread with whom i've crossed swords. I just spent an hour on the phone with Mead, and when he gets power back (he's in RTP, where the hurricane hit a couple hours ago), I'm sure he'll come back to this thread, and while I will defer to his request for me to back off, i also challenge anyone who wishes, to ask him if he thinks i'm a troll, or if he thinks anything i've written herein is "untrue" or "sexist". Several of you should also know that he has far more willpower to resist his desire to rail against the more dogmatic denizens on this thread, a trait we do not share. =bs
Let's see:sponsors, sponsor's share-holders investers, investor's share-holders, the board of directors, the employees, the players, the fans to some degree... yep I think that covers it.