First, let me make it known that I enjoy women's basketball. I believe in Title IX, and I'm a fan of the college game. I also believe that women, like men, can cut it as professional hoopsters, and that they deserve to play in a world-class league without having to leave the United States. All that said, though, I'm no fan of the WNBA.
Why?
It's bad business—and, more importantly, it's bad basketball.
After ten years of trying, David Stern and the other league executives should have learned that you can't force a professional sport on Americans. (Major League Soccer, anyone?) When the time is right and the people are ready, they'll tell you themselves.
Before then, you're only wasting your time.
I remember the first WNBA game. It was a Saturday afternoon in June 1997, and the New York Liberty played the Los Angeles Sparks on network television. I was in a hotel room in Detroit, preparing for a family wedding and looking forward to what I hoped would be the beginning of something big.
My gut reaction to what I saw:
All that hype, and this is what you give us?
And it's been downhill ever since.
I went to DePaul University, so I know what it's like to cheer for and rub elbows with talented female basketball players. The women's game, done right, is just as exciting as—and even more fundamentally-sound than—the men's game.
But it's not identical to the men's game, and it cannot be played, coached, or marketed as such. The WNBA has never grasped this fact—and that's why the WNBA will die if it doesn't change, no matter how much money and patience it gets from its parent league.
Look at the country's most successful women's college basketball programs: Tennessee, North Carolina, UConn, and LSU. They thrive because their players aren't treated as men with ponytails. Instead, their teams have developed their own distinct identities, fan bases, and styles of play.
Today, the biggest problem facing the WNBA is the extent to which each franchise is joined at the hip (or more exactly the pocket) with the NBA team in its home city. This past week, for example, the Charlotte Sting ceased operations less than a month after the league had gained ownership rights from the same group that operates the Bobcats.
Here in Chicago, Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf refused to get involved with the WNBA for the league's first eight seasons, leaving the country's third-largest market without a franchise. When a private ownership group was finally assembled to launch the Sky in 2005, the team was resigned to playing its home games at the University of Illinois' Chicago Pavilion, a cramped, dingy arena that certainly doesn't qualify as what anyone would call "fan friendly." Thus far, Chicagoans have stayed away in droves.
(By comparison, the local professional softball team, the Bandits, enjoys robust fan support. It doesn't hurt that they play at a beautiful park on the Benedictine University campus in suburban Lisle...or that they have great players.)
Chicago has had its share of professional women's basketball teams over the years, most notably the Condors and the Hustle. Without exception, those squads have ultimately ended up six feet under the hardwood—and the Sky are more than likely to join them if things don't change in the very near future.
The same, unfortunately, can be said of the WNBA as a whole. Two of the league's original franchises are already gone (the Sting and the Cleveland Rockers), and a number of others are struggling. In the end, they'll need more than a few long-shot money balls at the NBA's All-Star Weekend if they want to survive.
Before then, you're only wasting your time.
I remember the first WNBA game. It was a Saturday afternoon in June 1997, and the New York Liberty played the Los Angeles Sparks on network television. I was in a hotel room in Detroit, preparing for a family wedding and looking forward to what I hoped would be the beginning of something big.
My gut reaction to what I saw:
All that hype, and this is what you give us?
And it's been downhill ever since.
I went to DePaul University, so I know what it's like to cheer for and rub elbows with talented female basketball players. The women's game, done right, is just as exciting as—and even more fundamentally-sound than—the men's game.
But it's not identical to the men's game, and it cannot be played, coached, or marketed as such. The WNBA has never grasped this fact—and that's why the WNBA will die if it doesn't change, no matter how much money and patience it gets from its parent league.
Look at the country's most successful women's college basketball programs: Tennessee, North Carolina, UConn, and LSU. They thrive because their players aren't treated as men with ponytails. Instead, their teams have developed their own distinct identities, fan bases, and styles of play.
Today, the biggest problem facing the WNBA is the extent to which each franchise is joined at the hip (or more exactly the pocket) with the NBA team in its home city. This past week, for example, the Charlotte Sting ceased operations less than a month after the league had gained ownership rights from the same group that operates the Bobcats.
Here in Chicago, Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf refused to get involved with the WNBA for the league's first eight seasons, leaving the country's third-largest market without a franchise. When a private ownership group was finally assembled to launch the Sky in 2005, the team was resigned to playing its home games at the University of Illinois' Chicago Pavilion, a cramped, dingy arena that certainly doesn't qualify as what anyone would call "fan friendly." Thus far, Chicagoans have stayed away in droves.
(By comparison, the local professional softball team, the Bandits, enjoys robust fan support. It doesn't hurt that they play at a beautiful park on the Benedictine University campus in suburban Lisle...or that they have great players.)
Chicago has had its share of professional women's basketball teams over the years, most notably the Condors and the Hustle. Without exception, those squads have ultimately ended up six feet under the hardwood—and the Sky are more than likely to join them if things don't change in the very near future.
The same, unfortunately, can be said of the WNBA as a whole. Two of the league's original franchises are already gone (the Sting and the Cleveland Rockers), and a number of others are struggling. In the end, they'll need more than a few long-shot money balls at the NBA's All-Star Weekend if they want to survive.
Here's hoping Commissioner Stern and Co. get their act together before it's too late.
comments (8) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 year ago
... I just don't want to watch them player. Unless Stern can invent a machine that makes women taller, faster, stronger, and more outrageously vocal, then he can't do anything to save the league.
about 1 year ago
so what's stern supposed to do, exactly? all criticism and no solution here--sounds like a liberal to me. plus, you're a woman's bball fan, so i'm going to go ahead and assume you're a lesbian...not that there's anything wrong with that, you godless hell-bound unconstructive liberal you.
about 1 year ago
The WNBA imo is great, they play hard and are getting better every year. There are teams who are struggling, but there are NBA teams who are doing just the same. I'm a "straight" male fan of the WNBA, I'm not a fan because I have daughters (because I don't), I just love the game and most of it's players.
about 1 year ago
so WHAT can Mr. Stern do about it???? I'm A Ct Sun fan.. Last I checked.. no NBA team here.. Although, the owners DO have deep pockets... WHAT can be done? you have no specific suggestions
about 1 year ago
Dear Charles,
I read your article and kept waiting for the punch line as to "What David Stern can do about it?" Like a launched half court buzzer beater heave, you came up way short. You wrote a good article but did not come close to your own title of it. I am sorry that you had to read "Red State Randy's " reply about being a liberal. For the record, I am a liberal. I am a democrat and yes, I am a lesbian. And, I am a huge fan of all of womens (and mens) basketball.
The problem with the WNBA and David Stern is lack of money for the players and coaches. If you pay them, fans will come.
about 1 year ago
Think back to a couple of years ago when the WNBA games were broadcast regularly by ESPN, some networks (ABC and NBC) so much so Oxygen wanted in and began weekly games. There was so much interest that the country was talking and watching. Now ESPN treats us like a step-child and Oxygen has dropped out with scant coverage on the major networks. Doesn't everyone know that keeping the sport in the public eye builds fan bases ultimately gets them to buy tickets. I live in the rural midwest and I even have to fight to get scores on the ESPN tag line. My question is What dummy negotiated the TV contracts for the WNBA? Whoever is was is directly responsible for the waning interest in the league.
about 1 year ago
You might check out the WNBA franchises which have been successful-- financially, in attendance, and on the court-- such as Connecticut, Sacramento, and Detroit, then ask how the rest of the league can emulate them. Some teams with committed, smart owners are doing fine-- and the lost money, as David Stern has said, is no more than a rounding error for the NBA.
6 months ago
I am disapointed by all of the openly gay masculine women?
write a new comment