| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11149
Back to top |
 Posted: 09/09/17 10:36 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
*ESPN is not going to shift a WNBA game to conflict with higher rated football or baseball games ... their obligation is to generate income, not help the WNBA any more than they already do ($2 million a team is pretty sweet).
*Cutting the fouls simply means that stars will play fewer minutes, and no one wants that. It also increases the importance of a bad call, and if a key player gets two bad calls, then the game has changed significantly. The six fouls gives teams and players a little more leeway to adjust to a questionable call.
*It is ridiculous that eight of 12 teams make the playoffs, but since no one watches or pays much attention to the first round games -- and none of those four teams is likely to win a title -- it's pretty harmless, I guess. It just looks bad.
I'd prefer a six-team playoff, or even four (with best-of-seven series, maybe), but that's not how pro sports work in the 21st century.
*On a different note, as usual I'm against expansion because it will dilute the quality of the product. The 2017 draft produced how many potential elite players? And people are talking about someone like Diamond DeShields as a top-three pick next year? The talent pool is way too shallow to add another team, and with participation going down at the youth level, it's unlikely that pool will get any deeper.
San Francisco presumably gets a team in 2020, absorbing the 12th worst franchise (in terms of value and revenue), which for me is a lot better than adding another team and hoping none of the others fold (an owner could easily get tired of losing money every year in a business where the franchise has zero value).
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24356
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/09/17 10:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ESPN often uses the games to fill specific holes in their schedule. Like the second round games that are coming up - they don't have the rights to 1pm or 4pm NFL games, so they can throw on WNBA games they don't care about (and that, relatively speaking, no one is going to watch anyway) directly against them. And they don't really care where the games are being held, so long as they fill the right holes.
It's the old vicious circle. To advance the league, draw more fans and get themselves taken more seriously, the WNBA needs ESPN to give a shit about things like consistent timeslots and presenting the league in the best light. But until you have more fans and draw better ratings, ESPN aren't going to care. |
|
scrappy
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 1880
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/09/17 3:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| 3 days in a row during playoff where no game is being played. something's wrong with it, don't you think?
_________________
She's blonde, she can block. She is 6 foot five, she can deny. Though she is tall, she definitely can score. ya'al think she is quite nice, but on the court she can put up a fight.
|
|
scrappy
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 1880
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/09/17 3:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
It's the old vicious circle. To advance the league, draw more fans and get themselves taken more seriously, the WNBA needs ESPN to give a shit about things like consistent timeslots and presenting the league in the best light. But until you have more fans and draw better ratings, ESPN aren't going to care. |
that's up to the wnba on their marketing philosophy and strategy. what they are doing now is they are limiting their expansion/growth.
_________________
She's blonde, she can block. She is 6 foot five, she can deny. Though she is tall, she definitely can score. ya'al think she is quite nice, but on the court she can put up a fight.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9627
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/09/17 4:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
It's the old vicious circle. To advance the league, draw more fans and get themselves taken more seriously, the WNBA needs ESPN to give a shit about things like consistent timeslots and presenting the league in the best light. But until you have more fans and draw better ratings, ESPN aren't going to care. |
NBA TV (run by a different organization) carries way fewer games than it could. It will show re-runs of years or decades old NBA games, re-runs of NBA free agent discussion, etc. instead of a live WNBA game. Adam Silver was griping about coverage a year or two ago, but failed to mention his own network as he should have.
Last edited by tfan on 09/09/17 4:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3318
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/09/17 4:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
That's because Turner doesn't give a damn about women's basketbal, they're only doing it because it was negotiated into their deal with the NBA. If they could not broadcast WNBA games, and still get the rights to the NBA, they would.
Part of me would like to see the WNBA emancipate, if only so that they can negotiate their own TV deal; at least, that way, they would know that the networks carrying their games are doing so because they actually want to broadcast WNBA games.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/09/17 9:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| On a different note, as usual I'm against expansion because it will dilute the quality of the product |
And that's still ridiculous. We had 18 teams between the WNBA and ABL in 1998 without anyone saying the talent was too diluted. Almost 50 players played in the WNBA in 2016 but didn't in 2017. If the league expanded to 13 or 14 teams the talent dilution would be undetectable.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11149
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/10/17 6:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| On a different note, as usual I'm against expansion because it will dilute the quality of the product |
And that's still ridiculous. We had 18 teams between the WNBA and ABL in 1998 without anyone saying the talent was too diluted. Almost 50 players played in the WNBA in 2016 but didn't in 2017. If the league expanded to 13 or 14 teams the talent dilution would be undetectable. |
Of course I disagree -- but the 18 teams in 1997 and 1998 were not very good. It was very ugly, and I saw both leagues.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
hangtyme24
Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 2443
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/10/17 6:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| After today's games I'm in favor of top 6 teams making the playoffs. Teams 3-6 play best of three first round and top 2 teams get a bye into semi-finals. Keep semi-finals and finals at best of five.
_________________
HERE 2 STAY!
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9627
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/10/17 6:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| On a different note, as usual I'm against expansion because it will dilute the quality of the product |
And that's still ridiculous. We had 18 teams between the WNBA and ABL in 1998 without anyone saying the talent was too diluted. Almost 50 players played in the WNBA in 2016 but didn't in 2017. If the league expanded to 13 or 14 teams the talent dilution would be undetectable. |
Of course I disagree -- but the 18 teams in 1997 and 1998 were not very good. It was very ugly, and I saw both leagues. |
If the athletic ability of the players was paramount for WBB fans, I don't think there would be any - they'd all watch men. Given that they are starting out with a premise of watching players that aren't as athletic as they could watch, most fans may not have the same sweet spot as you with regard to the minimum talent the players must have, or with regard to how much the worst players can differ from the best.
|
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 12537
Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/10/17 6:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Tbh the only fans disagreeing with one and done so far are Libs Fans based off their biased opinions of there teams luck so far. My wings lost to DC in a conspiracy but were not blaming the format we could have given a better effort too.
_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/10/17 8:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| On a different note, as usual I'm against expansion because it will dilute the quality of the product |
And that's still ridiculous. We had 18 teams between the WNBA and ABL in 1998 without anyone saying the talent was too diluted. Almost 50 players played in the WNBA in 2016 but didn't in 2017. If the league expanded to 13 or 14 teams the talent dilution would be undetectable. |
Of course I disagree -- but the 18 teams in 1997 and 1998 were not very good. It was very ugly, and I saw both leagues. |
If the athletic ability of the players was paramount for WBB fans, I don't think there would be any - they'd all watch men. Given that they are starting out with a premise of watching players that aren't as athletic as they could watch, most fans may not have the same sweet spot as you with regard to the minimum talent the players must have, or with regard to how much the worst players can differ from the best. |
I don't think anyone here is discussing "athletic ability". The concern is the dilution of the talent pool. Fans of the WNBA want to watch good basketball. And the women are fully capable of playing as good or as bad of basketball as the men are. Now, if you dilute the talent level too far, there will be much more bad basketball than good, and that is what we want to avoid. Whether or not expansion would bring us to that level or not, I have no idea and will leave it up to others to debate.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9627
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/10/17 11:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| On a different note, as usual I'm against expansion because it will dilute the quality of the product |
And that's still ridiculous. We had 18 teams between the WNBA and ABL in 1998 without anyone saying the talent was too diluted. Almost 50 players played in the WNBA in 2016 but didn't in 2017. If the league expanded to 13 or 14 teams the talent dilution would be undetectable. |
Of course I disagree -- but the 18 teams in 1997 and 1998 were not very good. It was very ugly, and I saw both leagues. |
If the athletic ability of the players was paramount for WBB fans, I don't think there would be any - they'd all watch men. Given that they are starting out with a premise of watching players that aren't as athletic as they could watch, most fans may not have the same sweet spot as you with regard to the minimum talent the players must have, or with regard to how much the worst players can differ from the best. |
I don't think anyone here is discussing "athletic ability". The concern is the dilution of the talent pool. Fans of the WNBA want to watch good basketball. And the women are fully capable of playing as good or as bad of basketball as the men are. Now, if you dilute the talent level too far, there will be much more bad basketball than good, and that is what we want to avoid. Whether or not expansion would bring us to that level or not, I have no idea and will leave it up to others to debate. |
How are you defining talent?
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/10/17 11:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| On a different note, as usual I'm against expansion because it will dilute the quality of the product |
And that's still ridiculous. We had 18 teams between the WNBA and ABL in 1998 without anyone saying the talent was too diluted. Almost 50 players played in the WNBA in 2016 but didn't in 2017. If the league expanded to 13 or 14 teams the talent dilution would be undetectable. |
Of course I disagree -- but the 18 teams in 1997 and 1998 were not very good. It was very ugly, and I saw both leagues. |
If the athletic ability of the players was paramount for WBB fans, I don't think there would be any - they'd all watch men. Given that they are starting out with a premise of watching players that aren't as athletic as they could watch, most fans may not have the same sweet spot as you with regard to the minimum talent the players must have, or with regard to how much the worst players can differ from the best. |
I don't think anyone here is discussing "athletic ability". The concern is the dilution of the talent pool. Fans of the WNBA want to watch good basketball. And the women are fully capable of playing as good or as bad of basketball as the men are. Now, if you dilute the talent level too far, there will be much more bad basketball than good, and that is what we want to avoid. Whether or not expansion would bring us to that level or not, I have no idea and will leave it up to others to debate. |
How are you defining talent? |
The ability to play basketball at an elite level. Along with all the skills it requires. Shooting, defending, passing, rebounding, basketball IQ, ability to run plays and set screens...etc, etc.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9627
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/11/17 2:02 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| On a different note, as usual I'm against expansion because it will dilute the quality of the product |
And that's still ridiculous. We had 18 teams between the WNBA and ABL in 1998 without anyone saying the talent was too diluted. Almost 50 players played in the WNBA in 2016 but didn't in 2017. If the league expanded to 13 or 14 teams the talent dilution would be undetectable. |
Of course I disagree -- but the 18 teams in 1997 and 1998 were not very good. It was very ugly, and I saw both leagues. |
If the athletic ability of the players was paramount for WBB fans, I don't think there would be any - they'd all watch men. Given that they are starting out with a premise of watching players that aren't as athletic as they could watch, most fans may not have the same sweet spot as you with regard to the minimum talent the players must have, or with regard to how much the worst players can differ from the best. |
I don't think anyone here is discussing "athletic ability". The concern is the dilution of the talent pool. Fans of the WNBA want to watch good basketball. And the women are fully capable of playing as good or as bad of basketball as the men are. Now, if you dilute the talent level too far, there will be much more bad basketball than good, and that is what we want to avoid. Whether or not expansion would bring us to that level or not, I have no idea and will leave it up to others to debate. |
How are you defining talent? |
The ability to play basketball at an elite level. Along with all the skills it requires. Shooting, defending, passing, rebounding, basketball IQ, ability to run plays and set screens...etc, etc. |
It is hard to separate skill and athleticism when the skill is part of an athletic endeavor. And because of defense, it all starts with athleticism. Nothing matters without that. Otherwise, Laurie Koehn would have been a star. Same with Sidney Spencer, Shanna Zolman, Rachel Banham etc. Plenty of players have been cut out of the league who can shoot, know defensive techniques, passing techniques, and rebounding techniques, have good basketball IQ, can set screens and can run plays. They aren't in the league because they aren't quick enough and/or long enough for their position to be able to successfully demonstrate their skill in doing those things due to players who are quicker and/or longer.
It was suggested this year that most of the players cut off WNBA rosters were low skill but highly athletic (and thus an expanded league would get stocked with low skill players). I went and looked at the players who had been cut and, while I didn't know many of them, of the ones I knew, it seemed that a majority of them were the opposite - sufficient skill but not enough athleticism for the league. I made a list of them, but it didn't get a response. And one thing that just occurred to me - the people cut out of the league now would be the deep bench of an expanded league - not key players. The new starters/rotation players would come from the existing players.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24356
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/11/17 6:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
As I've said many times before, if you were starting from scratch and re-drafting teams, I don't think adding 12 or 24 players to the existing 144(ish) dilutes the quality much at all. There are enough star and good players to support the extra teams, and I think we as viewers would adapt to any new level of quality pretty quickly.
But of course, that's not what happens. You end up making your new team(s) with mediocre-to-terrible players, and they generally suck for years, killing any excitement or momentum built in the new city. That's why owners only ever really want expansion teams as a last resort when they're desperate for a team. They'd all much rather take over a team that's relocating (even though those teams usually aren't great, because if they were they'd be drawing more fans in the previous city and be less likely to move).
We still haven't really worked out a good way to expand that the existing owners will agree with, but won't make the new teams suck. |
|
Aladyyn
Joined: 23 Jul 2017
Posts: 1560
Location: Czech Republic
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/11/17 8:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| On a different note, as usual I'm against expansion because it will dilute the quality of the product |
And that's still ridiculous. We had 18 teams between the WNBA and ABL in 1998 without anyone saying the talent was too diluted. Almost 50 players played in the WNBA in 2016 but didn't in 2017. If the league expanded to 13 or 14 teams the talent dilution would be undetectable. |
Of course I disagree -- but the 18 teams in 1997 and 1998 were not very good. It was very ugly, and I saw both leagues. |
The talent pool is much deeper now. Like I said, there are nearly 50 players who played in 2016 but didn't this year, that wasn't available in 1998. Also, kids have grown up thinking about the W and working to make their games pro ready. That didn't happen before the W started.
Let's leave out the retirees (Cash, Catchings, Taylor, Appel, T Wright, Harding, McCarville) and the sitting stars (McCoughtry, C Ogwumike, Bonner) who played last year. There's no question that between these players...
Abby Bishop
Alex Harden
Ally Malott
Ana Dabovic
Ann Wauters
Anna Cruz
Astou Ndour
Avery Warley
Betnijah Laney
Blake Dietrick
Brene Moseley
Carla Cortijo
Clarissa dos Santos
Devereaux Peters
Eugeniya Belyakova
Frida Eldebrink
Jamie Weisner
Jamierra Faulkner
Jelena Dubljevic
Jenna O'Hea
Kelly Faris
Kelsey Bone
LaToya Pringle
Maggie Lucas
Markeisha Gatling
Marta Xargay
Mistie Bass
Monica Wright
Nirra Fields
Reshanda Gray
Ruth Hamblin
Shoni Schimmel
Sonja Petrovic
Tiffany Bias
Vicki Baugh
Whitney Knight
Zoi Dimitrakou
...plus the bench players that could be taken in an expansion draft, plus a high draft pick, you could easily put together a team at least as good as the Fever are going to be next season.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21929
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/11/17 8:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| More to the point, I think that more teams --> increased opportunities for young players --> more of them turning into good players.
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11149
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/11/17 10:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Luuuc wrote: |
| More to the point, I think that more teams --> increased opportunities for young players --> more of them turning into good players. |
That's something that's brought up regularly ... so how many WNBA players have improved significantly as pros when given the opportunity?
Allie Quigley is certainly one, and Yvonne Turner's journey is another.
But as was mentioned in the Liberty thread, to win you need stars, and pilight's list included no stars, and even those players who have improved did not become Kristi Toliver-type players.
The stars, who shape the game, are almost always evident early in their college careers, if not before, and teams need to stars to win and draw fans. There are plenty of mediocre players to go around, but mediocre play is not what the league needs to improve on its present position.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63779
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/11/17 11:00 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
As I've said many times before, if you were starting from scratch and re-drafting teams, I don't think adding 12 or 24 players to the existing 144(ish) dilutes the quality much at all. There are enough star and good players to support the extra teams, and I think we as viewers would adapt to any new level of quality pretty quickly.
But of course, that's not what happens. You end up making your new team(s) with mediocre-to-terrible players, and they generally suck for years, killing any excitement or momentum built in the new city. That's why owners only ever really want expansion teams as a last resort when they're desperate for a team. They'd all much rather take over a team that's relocating (even though those teams usually aren't great, because if they were they'd be drawing more fans in the previous city and be less likely to move).
We still haven't really worked out a good way to expand that the existing owners will agree with, but won't make the new teams suck. |
The most obvious is protecting only 5 in expansion draft. A lot of times that sixth player is deserving of a starting position.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63779
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/11/17 11:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
...plus the bench players that could be taken in an expansion draft, plus a high draft pick, you could easily put together a team at least as good as the Fever are going to be next season. |
Eh, you tossed in a few foreign players in attempt to spice it up, but otherwise a pretty uninspiring list. A lot of question mark players that you don't have the answers for. Bone? Wright?
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
scrappy
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 1880
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/11/17 4:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| On a different note, as usual I'm against expansion because it will dilute the quality of the product |
And that's still ridiculous. We had 18 teams between the WNBA and ABL in 1998 without anyone saying the talent was too diluted. Almost 50 players played in the WNBA in 2016 but didn't in 2017. If the league expanded to 13 or 14 teams the talent dilution would be undetectable. |
Of course I disagree -- but the 18 teams in 1997 and 1998 were not very good. It was very ugly, and I saw both leagues. |
The talent pool is much deeper now. Like I said, there are nearly 50 players who played in 2016 but didn't this year, that wasn't available in 1998. Also, kids have grown up thinking about the W and working to make their games pro ready. That didn't happen before the W started.
Let's leave out the retirees (Cash, Catchings, Taylor, Appel, T Wright, Harding, McCarville) and the sitting stars (McCoughtry, C Ogwumike, Bonner) who played last year. There's no question that between these players...
Abby Bishop
Alex Harden
Ally Malott
Ana Dabovic
Ann Wauters
Anna Cruz
Astou Ndour
Avery Warley
Betnijah Laney
Blake Dietrick
Brene Moseley
Carla Cortijo
Clarissa dos Santos
Devereaux Peters
Eugeniya Belyakova
Frida Eldebrink
Jamie Weisner
Jamierra Faulkner
Jelena Dubljevic
Jenna O'Hea
Kelly Faris
Kelsey Bone
LaToya Pringle
Maggie Lucas
Markeisha Gatling
Marta Xargay
Mistie Bass
Monica Wright
Nirra Fields
Reshanda Gray
Ruth Hamblin
Shoni Schimmel
Sonja Petrovic
Tiffany Bias
Vicki Baugh
Whitney Knight
Zoi Dimitrakou
...plus the bench players that could be taken in an expansion draft, plus a high draft pick, you could easily put together a team at least as good as the Fever are going to be next season. |
shimmel is out of the league?! holly cow, what have i been missing?
many of the above of the players not playing are not only due to skills. some have to do with the league's salary cap/structure. minimum salary for veterans kills veterans' jobs.
i have always said mandating high-above-market minimum wage kills jobs. but those here in seattle wouldn't believe me when they demand the $15/hr minimum pay.
_________________
She's blonde, she can block. She is 6 foot five, she can deny. Though she is tall, she definitely can score. ya'al think she is quite nice, but on the court she can put up a fight.
|
|
bullsky
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 20310
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/12/17 12:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Personally, I'm excited about the new uniforms next year! Can't wait to see what the new Nike one's look like.
_________________
"Don't do something until you get it right, do it until you can't do it wrong."
- Geno Auriemma
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/12/17 1:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
But of course, that's not what happens. You end up making your new team(s) with mediocre-to-terrible players, and they generally suck for years, killing any excitement or momentum built in the new city. That's why owners only ever really want expansion teams as a last resort when they're desperate for a team. They'd all much rather take over a team that's relocating (even though those teams usually aren't great, because if they were they'd be drawing more fans in the previous city and be less likely to move).
We still haven't really worked out a good way to expand that the existing owners will agree with, but won't make the new teams suck. |
If they also got the #1 pick, depending on the year, that would help spice things up a bit.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
|
|
