View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
Posted: 10/16/07 11:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
[quote="Orange][Krush"]Can we all let Atlanta at least get through one season before everyone freaks out about poor attendence/support? I'm not sure that support is a variable that you can easily determine.
Didn't you just say this:
Orlanda and Miami are both in Florida and Floridians have shown that they aren't consistent fans of any pro sports. People in Florida would rather go to the beach. I remember opening night of the NBA last year in Miami. The seats weren't full until midway through the first quarter and most of the fans left early. And we've already heard about the Florida Marlins and their attendence problems. Summer leagues(or most leagues, really) definitely will not work in Florida unless someone rich comes along and can afford to take hits financially.
Orange][Krush wrote: |
For instance, Minnesota has had great crowds collegiately. The Barn is one of the toughest places to play, yet the Minnesota Lynx(located in the same town) struggle to get into the upper level of attendence in the league.
Another example. Look at New Mexico. They have HUGE numbers for women's basketball. Explain to me how that makes sense. It's hard to, right?
Sometimes support is unexplainable. Let's at least give them a season before we start freaking out. |
Those aren't unexplainable. They are fans of a UNIVERSITY, not the sport itself. Also, what competition does New Mexico have? No pro sports.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
Posted: 10/16/07 11:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
MNfan22 wrote: |
I don't see anyone 'freaking out'. I see fans expressing concerns re the business of the league that they've grown to love. In the last 3 yrs we've gone thourgh expansion, contraction and expansion and along the way rules seem to get bent and/or changed with each event.
This league is far from stable. So the question is valid, how long is this dude willing to take a lose ? My hope is that he's making a loooong-term commitment to this win or lose. Even then there are no guarantees. |
Exactly. Six teams have either contracted or relocated. And this franchise seems to be built on corporate money in the hope the fans will eventually come. What happens if they don't? Seems more like a short term move to save face when/if another team contracts or relocates next year.
|
|
thatGAgirl
Joined: 02 Aug 2005 Posts: 4825 Location: The Peach State
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 7:29 am ::: |
Reply |
|
CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
And how many franchises need to fold or be relocated (Portland, Orlando, Utah, Cleveland, Charlotte, and Miami) before we figure out that maybe expansion isn't a good idea until the other franchises are viable and there is at least an interest among the public? |
Thank you, Cam. This is exactly the reason why I am against expansion right now PERIOD, not just expansion to Atlanta. (more eloquently stated of course )
Stay small, let the talent and the competitiveness of the league continue to grow. Let's try to right the ship at the franchises we already have. I just feel like if we grow the product, interest in the league will increase. I just don't think continuing to put mediocre teams on the court will help us any.
BUT, for purely selfish reasons I am happy today and as I said before I will do my part in trying to help this franchise succeed. Bring on the ATLiens!
_________________ "You can play as hard as you want, but if you're stupid it doesn't matter"
- Diana Taurasi
|
|
gopherfan
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 Posts: 2434 Location: Central Minnesota
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 8:38 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ZuG102 wrote: |
A large number of college fans are only go to games to root for their school, not women's basketball, while most of the fans at W games are fans of women's basketball. The U of M has great attendance and the Lynx draw poorly. UCLA has horrible attendance, but the Sparks have had decent numbers show up. |
If that was the case then why are there less students in the student section then there is in the rest of the stands. Yes, you have alumni but I think there are more women basketball fans and boosters there then just supporters. I didn't go to the U but I'm a women gopher basketball fan. |
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 9:05 am ::: |
Reply |
|
gopherfan wrote: |
ZuG102 wrote: |
A large number of college fans are only go to games to root for their school, not women's basketball, while most of the fans at W games are fans of women's basketball. The U of M has great attendance and the Lynx draw poorly. UCLA has horrible attendance, but the Sparks have had decent numbers show up. |
If that was the case then why are there less students in the student section then there is in the rest of the stands. Yes, you have alumni but I think there are more women basketball fans and boosters there then just supporters. I didn't go to the U but I'm a women gopher basketball fan. |
You seem to be assuming that college fans are college students. They are fans of the university/college not of the sport.
|
|
luvDhoops
Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 8229
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 9:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm going to hope for the best on this one. The South has never really been a basketball region. I think any bball league here will struggle UNLESS they are very successful in the win column.
On another note, there is a pretty good size LGBT community here, a group known to support the W pretty well. There are a lot of families and African-American males (another group imo who support women's hoops decently) so who knows how it will go. Not expecting great, but maybe 4-5K a night?
|
|
CB
Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 11089
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 10:02 am ::: |
Reply |
|
CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
CB wrote: |
Brooke Smith? She went to Stanford, West Coast. |
My point wasn't what school she went to, but someone who was highly regarded as a talent among the pundits...and isn't on a roster.
CB wrote: |
As far as I am concerned, little girls in all parts of the country should be able to see women of the WNBA and have a team to cheer for and realize it might be them one day. If this guy is taking this community investment on, I assume he is smart enough to have aggresive marketing for his team.
I just think it's kind of nuts to think this might be bad for the league. It's not to anyone personal, I just think this is a very good thing.
He is a non-NBA owner, some of whom, Leslie Alexander of Houston included, just decided to drop their teams, when it is pocket change for them.
The Hawks don't draw but they still have a team. If Atlanta averages about as much as other WNBA teams, then that's a good draw IMO.
If there is an owner willingly owning the team, it's good. If it folds for lack of attendance years down the road, it still was worth the try IMO. I don't know why, I think it is going to work!
edit to fix the quotes...again. |
Donna is putting an expansion team in a bad sports two with little support for women's basketball. The owner knows the team won't make money. The owner knows attendance will likely be bad. How long are you going to pump money into an investment that very likely won't make money? The only way for this to make money is to rely on corporate sponsors, and eventually they will dry up unless there are butts in the seats.
Phoenix has aggressive marketing and an owner with millions. That doesn't mean the team makes money. You keep talking about non-NBA owners, but the people in LA, Chicago, and Houston need to turn a profit (though Chicago seems to be in the best position) otherwise they might be relocating too.
Yes, he has money. Yes, he sounds committed. All good...for now. The question is how many years of losses does he want to sustain? And how many franchises need to fold or be relocated (Portland, Orlando, Utah, Cleveland, Charlotte, and Miami) before we figure out that maybe expansion isn't a good idea until the other franchises are viable and there is at least an interest among the public? And while those other franchises had different reasons, it doesn't change the fact they were folded or relocated...something corporate investors will take note of.
And color me concerned when some on this board treat the WNBA as Title IX instead of a business. |
The paragraph you called a crock of sh*t was about the SEC and ACC. You chose a player you know I like and was unsuccessful in making a team to use as an example. No biggie.
So some of you don't want Donna to bring in an expansion team when a qualified owner is willing because in the future it might fail, while saying the whole league may fail at anytime. Sounds like we are getting back to the Chicken Little scenario.
If other teams fold, it would be nice to have new teams popping up with interested owners. JMO.
_________________ "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
|
|
Ballwinner
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 Posts: 656 Location: Indianapolis
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 10:03 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Website is up www.wnba.com/atlanta
_________________ There are good ships, and there are wood ships, the ships that sail the sea. But the most important ships for a viable WNBA future are ownerships, and that will always be.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
|
HotForHammon
Joined: 04 Jul 2007 Posts: 5008 Location: Hammonite Nation
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 10:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Anyone want to take a guess who the head coach will be or who will at least be in the running?
|
|
CB
Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 11089
Back to top |
|
gopherfan
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 Posts: 2434 Location: Central Minnesota
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 12:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
gopherfan wrote: |
ZuG102 wrote: |
A large number of college fans are only go to games to root for their school, not women's basketball, while most of the fans at W games are fans of women's basketball. The U of M has great attendance and the Lynx draw poorly. UCLA has horrible attendance, but the Sparks have had decent numbers show up. |
If that was the case then why are there less students in the student section then there is in the rest of the stands. Yes, you have alumni but I think there are more women basketball fans and boosters there then just supporters. I didn't go to the U but I'm a women gopher basketball fan. |
You seem to be assuming that college fans are college students. They are fans of the university/college not of the sport. |
No, there are plenty of fans that are half my age (no offense) I just saying I think there is more boosters and actually fans then just supporters. I'm not saying the supporters are a bad thing I just think you would see less collage football or men sport fan at a women's basketball game. I could see it for volleyball but not basketball. |
|
Wurst.com
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 Posts: 114 Location: New York, N.Y.
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 12:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Quote: |
"Atlanta marks the 20th team to have a WNBA franchise. 30 percent of those franchises have disbanded or relocated. I am glad you like teams to keep popping up. Some of us would actually prefer the existing franchises be viable first." |
A comparison to NBA franchise history... 44 NBA franchises in history. 27 have folded or relocated.
Boston Celtics (1946-present)
Chicago Stags (1946-1950)
Cleveland Rebels (1946)
Detroit Falcons (1946)
New York Knickerbockers (1946-present)
Philadelphia Warriors (1946-1962)
San Francisco Warriors (1962-1971)
Golden State Warriors (1971-present)
Pittsburgh Ironmen (1946)
Providence Steamrollers (1946-1950)
St. Louis Bombers (1946-1950)
Toronto Huskies (1946)
Washington Capitals (1946-1951)
Baltimore Bullets (1947-1955)
Fort Wayne Zollner Pistons (1948-1949)
Fort Wayne Pistons (1950-1957)
Detroit Pistons (1957-present)
Indianapolis Jets (1948)
Indianapolis Olympians (1949-1953)
Minneapolis Lakers (1948-1960)
Los Angeles Lakers (1961-present)
Rochester Royals (1948-1957)
Cincinnati Royals (1957-1971)
Kansas City-Omaha Kings (1971-1975)
Kansas City Kings (1975-1985)
Sacramento Kings (1985-present)
Anderson Duffey Packers (1949)
Sheboygan Redskins (1949)
Syracuse Nationals (1949-1963)
Philadelphia 76ers (1963-present)
Tri-Cities Blackhawks (1949-1951)
Milwaukee Hawks (1951-1955)
St. Louis Hawks (1955-1968)
Atlanta Hawks (1968-present)
Waterloo Hawks (1949)
Denver Nuggets (1949)
Chicago Packers (1961-1962)
Chicago Zephyrs (1962-1963)
Baltimore Bullets (1963-1973)
Capital Bullets (1973-1974)
Washington Bullets (1974-1997)
Washington Wizards (1997-present)
Chicago Bulls (1966-present)
San Diego Rockets (1967-1971)
Houston Rockets (1971-present)
Seattle SuperSonics (1967-present)
Milwaukee Bucks (1968-present)
Phoenix Suns (1968-present)
Buffalo Braves (1970-1978)
San Diego Clippers (1978-1984)
Los Angeles Clippers (1984-present)
Cleveland Cavaliers (1970-present)
Portland Trailblazers (1970-present)
New Orleans Jazz (1974-1979)
Utah Jazz (1979-present)
Denver Nuggets (1976-present)
Indiana Pacers (1976-present)
New York Nets (1976-1977)
New Jersey Nets (1977-present)
San Antonio Spurs (1976-present)
Dallas Mavericks (1980-present)
Charlotte Hornets (1988-2002)
New Orleans Hornets (2002-present)
Miami Heat (1988-present)
Minnesota Timberwolves (1989-present)
Orlando Magic (1989-present)
Toronto Raptors (1995-present)
Vancouver Grizzlies (1995-2001)
Memphis Grizzlies (2001-present)
Charlotte Bobcats (2004-present)
_________________ Don't hate the message, just the messenger.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 12:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Wurst.com wrote: |
A comparison to NBA franchise history... 44 NBA franchises in history. 27 have folded or relocated. |
And how many in the last 25 years, other than Charlotte (which was going to get a new team anyway, as part of the deal) and Vancouver?
And are you seriously counting the Wizards' name change? The math is a little shaky there...
You also seem to gloss over the fact that certain cities that have folded teams also currently have NBA teams.
Last edited by CamrnCrz1974 on 10/17/07 12:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
BCBG25
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 20112 Location: Sampa
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 12:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
Wurst.com wrote: |
A comparison to NBA franchise history... 44 NBA franchises in history. 27 have folded or relocated. |
And how many in the last 25 years, other than Charlotte (which was going to get a new team anyway, as part of the deal) and Vancouver?
And are you seriously counting the Wizards' name change?
You also seem to gloss over the fact that certain cities that have folded teams also currently have NBA teams. |
Sorry Cam, but you're talking about a mature, somewhat stable period in the NBA vs the WNBA's early years. You'd have to look at the NBA's first 11 seasons to make that comparison.
_________________ Kings of the World!
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 12:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
BCBG25 wrote: |
Sorry Cam, but you're talking about a mature, somewhat stable period in the NBA vs the WNBA's early years. You'd have to look at the NBA's first 11 seasons to make that comparison. |
I didn't do the comparison in the first place, in part because it is a bit silly. The sports marketplace is not the same as it was when the NBA started. Eventually, Donna and the league will have to produce. They can discuss potential all they want, but the fact remains the interest is not nearly the same as for the NBA and the WNBA teams have much shorter leases. The corporate sponsors are great now, but what happens if paid season ticket sales don't improve?
Last edited by CamrnCrz1974 on 10/17/07 12:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Str8_Butta
Joined: 24 Nov 2004 Posts: 7646
Back to top |
|
BCBG25
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 20112 Location: Sampa
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 1:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
BCBG25 wrote: |
Sorry Cam, but you're talking about a mature, somewhat stable period in the NBA vs the WNBA's early years. You'd have to look at the NBA's first 11 seasons to make that comparison. |
I didn't do the comparison in the first place, in part because it is a bit silly. The sports marketplace is not the same as it was when the NBA started. |
What is silly is to compare a established, multi-billion, global enterprise to a start-up league in fewer markets and with less funding. You cannot compare THAT. But when you're talking about what both leagues had to go through in their early years, regardless of the economics, it is the same struggles, getting butts in the seats. While in the mid-40's, post war era there were less resources, you also didn't have the same competition in terms of entertainment options.
The variables are countless, but if were able to normalize data, we'd find the same patterns.
_________________ Kings of the World!
|
|
p_d_swanson
Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 9713
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 1:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
And are you seriously counting the Wizards' name change? The math is a little shaky there... |
He's not; the indents didn't show up in the original format. But of the 11 franchises from the NBA's inaugural 1946-47 season, only three -- Boston, New York, Philadelphia -- made it as far as Year 6:
Code: |
Boston Celtics (1946-present)
Chicago Stags (1946-1950)
Cleveland Rebels (1946)
Detroit Falcons (1946)
New York Knickerbockers (1946-present)
Philadelphia Warriors (1946-1962)
San Francisco Warriors (1962-1971)
Golden State Warriors (1971-present)
Pittsburgh Ironmen (1946)
Providence Steamrollers (1946-1950)
St. Louis Bombers (1946-1950)
Toronto Huskies (1946)
Washington Capitals (1946-1951)
Baltimore Bullets (1947-1955)
Fort Wayne Zollner Pistons (1948-1949)
Fort Wayne Pistons (1950-1957)
Detroit Pistons (1957-present)
Indianapolis Jets (1948)
Indianapolis Olympians (1949-1953)
Minneapolis Lakers (1948-1960)
Los Angeles Lakers (1961-present)
Rochester Royals (1948-1957)
Cincinnati Royals (1957-1971)
Kansas City-Omaha Kings (1971-1975)
Kansas City Kings (1975-1985)
Sacramento Kings (1985-present)
Anderson Duffey Packers (1949)
Sheboygan Redskins (1949)
Syracuse Nationals (1949-1963)
Philadelphia 76ers (1963-present)
Tri-Cities Blackhawks (1949-1951)
Milwaukee Hawks (1951-1955)
St. Louis Hawks (1955-1968)
Atlanta Hawks (1968-present)
Waterloo Hawks (1949)
Denver Nuggets (1949)
Chicago Packers (1961-1962)
Chicago Zephyrs (1962-1963)
Baltimore Bullets (1963-1973)
Capital Bullets (1973-1974)
Washington Bullets (1974-1997)
Washington Wizards (1997-present)
Chicago Bulls (1966-present)
San Diego Rockets (1967-1971)
Houston Rockets (1971-present)
Seattle SuperSonics (1967-present)
Milwaukee Bucks (1968-present)
Phoenix Suns (1968-present)
Buffalo Braves (1970-1978)
San Diego Clippers (1978-1984)
Los Angeles Clippers (1984-present)
Cleveland Cavaliers (1970-present)
Portland Trailblazers (1970-present)
New Orleans Jazz (1974-1979)
Utah Jazz (1979-present)
Denver Nuggets (1976-present)
Indiana Pacers (1976-present)
New York Nets (1976-1977)
New Jersey Nets (1977-present)
San Antonio Spurs (1976-present)
Dallas Mavericks (1980-present)
Charlotte Hornets (1988-2002)
New Orleans Hornets (2002-present)
Miami Heat (1988-present)
Minnesota Timberwolves (1989-present)
Orlando Magic (1989-present)
Toronto Raptors (1995-present)
Vancouver Grizzlies (1995-2001)
Memphis Grizzlies (2001-present)
Charlotte Bobcats (2004-present) |
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 1:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
BCBG25 wrote: |
What is silly is to compare a established, multi-billion, global enterprise to a start-up league in fewer markets and with less funding. You cannot compare THAT. But when you're talking about what both leagues had to go through in their early years, regardless of the economics, it is the same struggles, getting butts in the seats. While in the mid-40's, post war era there were less resources, you also didn't have the same competition in terms of entertainment options.
The variables are countless, but if were able to normalize data, we'd find the same patterns. |
I don't think you find the same pattern about society's views on women, much less women as athletes.
And the competition makes it that much harder now...
If the league wants to hang its hat on the NBA, that is great...considering how it is simultaneously trying to distance itself from the NBA with private ownership. And, I didn't make the comparison...Mr. Wurst did.
|
|
BCBG25
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 20112 Location: Sampa
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 1:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I understand your point about society's views on women, that's why the WNBA wasn't possible in the mid-40's. There were other social factors, such as racism which didn't allow for the number of black athletes we see in the NBA today, the foreigners weren't there, etc, each period/league had its own roadblocks.
I'm just saying that in regards to your question about how many teams folded/relocated in the NBA in the past 25 years, which were fantastic in terms of revenue and exposure for the NBA brand, that's not fair to ask because of the differences in both leagues in terms of level of maturity and market penetration. That's all.
I guess you and I can agree that this wasn't the best moment for expansion, but we differ on why we didn't want it. Whereas you're concerned with economic/image factors, my biggest concern is that this is the #1 priority on Donna O's agenda instead of the CBA negotiations, which is the backbone for everything the league plans on doing from now on. We could do without expansion, but not without getting a new CBA done in a swift manner. Either that or she keeps her agenda very private.
_________________ Kings of the World!
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 1:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
BCBG25 wrote: |
I guess you and I can agree that this wasn't the best moment for expansion, but we differ on why we didn't want it. Whereas you're concerned with economic/image factors, my biggest concern is that this is the #1 priority on Donna O's agenda instead of the CBA negotiations, which is the backbone for everything the league plans on doing from now on. We could do without expansion, but not without getting a new CBA done in a swift manner. Either that or she keeps her agenda very private. |
Actually, it makes me wonder if she actually demanded $10 million for the franchise, got some money to redistribute to players, and is filling in greater salaries with that money and corporate dollars. Call it creative accounting, but that is about the only thing that makes sense right now. Why putting an expansion team in a poor sports town seems to rate over solving the CBA issues is beyond me.
|
|
p_d_swanson
Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 9713
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 1:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
BCBG25 wrote: |
I understand your point about society's views on women, that's why the WNBA wasn't possible in the mid-40's. There were other social factors, such as racism which didn't allow for the number of black athletes we see in the NBA today, the foreigners weren't there, etc, each period/league had its own roadblocks. |
In fact, the league didn't integrate until 1950, three-and-a-half years after baseball...
|
|
kojthiabkuv
Joined: 23 Jun 2006 Posts: 1860
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 1:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
wow.. smart move donna.
hopefully this won't be a flop.
|
|
BCBG25
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 20112 Location: Sampa
Back to top |
Posted: 10/17/07 1:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
Why putting an expansion team in a poor sports town seems to rate over solving the CBA issues is beyond me. |
THAT is what I've been harping on since earlier this year. Of course we don't have all the information, but we saw what happened the last time the CBA was renegotiated. I think MLB got a new deal done before the current one expired to avoid going through that again last year. Why the league is avoiding/postponing the talks is beyond me...
_________________ Kings of the World!
|
|
|
|