RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Commissioner Year-End Review: 2022
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Which of the following best describes how you feel about the Commish's overall performance thus far?
I approve of the job she's done thus far
43%
 43%  [ 18 ]
I think she's been so-so at best, but I also think she needs more time in the job to improve/succeed
34%
 34%  [ 14 ]
I don't have strong feelings either way; I don't really care if she stays or goes
17%
 17%  [ 7 ]
I strongly disapprove of the job the Commissioner has done; The league needs a new one ASAP
4%
 4%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 41

Author Message
Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/16/22 7:36 pm    ::: Commissioner Year-End Review: 2022 Reply Reply with quote

This poll was inspired by a recent opinion piece put out today about Engelbert titled, Opinion: Cathy Engelbert is holding the WNBA back. (Thanks to toad455 for posting it elsewhere.) I highly recommend reading it.

So what say you? How do you feel about the Commissioner and/or the direction the league is going in these days?

You can take just this year into account when answering, or you can take the whole of her tenure into account when answering. Dealer's choice.

Also let me know if this was the best way/best format to ask both how one feels about the Commish and if one feels like she deserves to keep her job or not.

The poll will last until the New Year, since it's a year-end review. Probably should've been conducted at the conclusion of the Finals, but oh wellz.


Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/17/22 2:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I went with the second option, though it’s very easy to envision her messing up her plans for the future, considering how messy things already sort of seem to be under her watch…

…but perhaps begrudgingly, I still think she needs to be the one to see them through.

These next couple seasons will be everything.


readyAIMfire53



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7354
Location: Durham, NC


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/17/22 11:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

IMHO, Engelbert has done an excellent job in getting this league on better financial footing and I applaud her for setting high standards that any potential ownership group must meet. Further, I think she handled the BG situation better than I could have imagined anyone could. I heartily approve of how the league is finally embracing same gender relationships/marriages as well as non binary athletes.



_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.

~rAf
johnjohnW



Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1828



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/17/22 11:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It is baffling to me that anyone could have any major issues with her tenure. She's the best leader this league has ever had by a mile. I think borders actually made some great progress but Englebert has done a fantastic job of maximizing potential and building the brand.

For the one person who voted she needs to go. Why?


Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/19/22 1:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

johnjohnW wrote:
It is baffling to me that anyone could have any major issues with her tenure.


With the latest League Pass issue combined with the All-Star Weekend fiasco(s), it’s very easy to see why fans would feel mistreated by her own actions and believe that she doesn’t really take the fan experience into account when approaching/making her business decisions. (I think we can all agree that she did not do the fans any justice at ASW.) That’s honestly what I believe at this point. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Though that opinion is subject to change if she makes changes in the future that I feel address that.

The League Pass app absolutely needs to be gotten back on track. Many agreed its usability went down in the 2022 iteration of it – you’d think it could at least be reverted back to how it was.

Although, especially as it relates to the whole ‘blackouts in all the wrong places’ thing, I think(?) it’s been reported that Engelbert’s trying to work with a streaming service to either house or even run League Pass, so hopefully that would at least alleviate any domestic blackout problems. (Good luck to folks who are based overseas like Richyyy. 🥴)


Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/19/22 1:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I wonder if it’d ever be possible to have both a Commissioner and a President of a league – not even necessarily this league. Forget about the two-different-executive-salaries part of it if money wasn’t a dealbreaker – it could be a really interesting way for the sake of functionality. Basically one would be a booksmart leader (Commish) to handle most of the behind-the-scenes business stuff. The other would be more of a streetsmart mouthpiece (Prez or even a Press Secretary-type Spokesperson) who can take the pulse of the league – players, media, and fans alike – and know not only how to navigate the public relations of it when needed, but also how to relay it/convey it to the higher-ups of the League (such as the Commish) in a way that makes the higher-ups calibrate their decision-making & overall conduct.

Commissioners in general aren’t well-liked. Maybe some of that is earned on an individual basis, but also maybe there shouldn’t be so many responsibilities and perhaps so much power given to one individual. Idk.


johnjohnW



Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1828



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/19/22 12:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The complaints in that article and mentioned here are very short sighted for the overall running of the league.

I wish the league would just nix LP all together. My thoughts on blackouts and LP are well documented but I think the proliferation of games across multiple platforms if far better for the league than catering to the die-hards who kevttch that they can't get the entirety of the league schedule for $14 a month. We were spoiled by LP in the past but those days are gone. Tech issues can be fixed but we need to move past the idea of LP. There is a new TV deal coming soon and I think what Cathy has done by getting games on a variety of platforms is very smart and will result in a better overall deal when the ESPN contract is up. Securing the best deal possible is what will help this league and provide a pathway to even better salaries for the players, not an app that probably generates very little revenue or new fans.

The All Star weekend had some mistakes made. I'm not sure what went into that and definitely seems like an unforced error. However, this is also a fanbases that has been spoiled with engagement and player access. What do you think the NBA all star weekend is like? I imagine it is a heck of a lot more exclusive and not about the "fans" either. That isn't to say the league can't do both but we have a long history in this fanbases of complaining the league isn't growing/more popular while also adamantly refusing to put our money where our mouths are. You want a top flight league? Say goodbye to the league pass of yore where you got every live game for $14. Be prepared to pay more for tickets, be prepared for all star weekend to become more exclusive and more expensive.

I get why long term fans are frustrated but it's a selfish and myopic point of view. You want your cake and eat it too but that's not how progress is going to work.


johnjohnW



Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1828



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/19/22 1:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Now, as for why I think she's done a fantastic job...

I will give credit that Lisa Borders started the upward trajectory of the league with some of the branding initiatives but Englebert's tenure has brought it to a new level. She turned the Bubble into an event and managed to actually capitalize off the opportunity the Bubble presented. She turned a challenge into an accomplishment. The league has appeared a lot more stable under her watch as she did an excellent job of finding ownership groups for teams that needed new ones. Under her tenure, player salaries doubled and she has cosigned pretty much all social activism causes championed by the players.

Most importantly, she oversaw the new uniform design that gave us jerseys you would actually want to wear in public.

I have a lot of faith that she will successfully oversee expansion, the new TV deal and a subsequent CBA.

But yeah let's fire her because LP is an archaic means of streaming and fans didn't get to hobnob with Sylvia Fowles in Chicago.


Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/19/22 4:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Now what if I had just responded to all that with, "I ain't reading all that"? 🙃 And just another reminder that I voted for the second option and not the fourth one, so I'm not someone who wants to see her fired.


For the record, I like the LP idea of moving it to a streaming/tv service. It'll be much more expensive, but I assume it would come with an increase in broadcast quality and fewer blackout technicalities, so it would deserve to be more expensive. Plus, it's an easily recognizable concept for the average sports fan to literally buy into.

Now as it relates to ASW: How many were upset by ASW regardless of if they attended or not vs. How many fans does the league actually have? which may be its own gray-area can of worms. The point is, growing leagues with small fanbases can't afford to spurn their current fans – unless they think they can grow without (some of) them. Maybe this applies to Engelbert & the W. But overall, that's a luxury the big men's leagues have – they don't have to care a whole lot about the fan experience when their fanbase is already big enough to where they don't really have to worry about losing a significant amount of them. Their ASWs can be catered to their business partners & other investors with the fans coming second – the fans will want to be there no matter what. And all that said, they already have the money to even be able to invest in the whole scope of the fan experience, which is maybe a 'chicken and the egg' type of thing.

Anyway, I don't think caring about the fan experience, particularly not just as you see it for yourself but how you see it working out for all the fans, is selfish or myopic. I also think Engelbert making a business decision that happens to increase the fan experience does not necessarily mean she has the fan experience in mind when making said decision, but I can see why someone would disagree with that.

As for Borders, I honestly don't remember much of what she did as President/what historic things got done under her watch. Anyone is welcome to refresh my memory. Engelbert does have the leg up on her in that category imo.

Engelbert's Wubble season went very well. That was never a question, at least to me. The new jerseys and the concept of it were great, but I wouldn't call them the most important when the $75M capital raise is right there. That said, we still don't really know/can't identify how those funds are being used in totality; we didn't really see this significant boom happen to the league in some way/shape/form once that was announced. Maybe that reveal is yet to come.

The salaries increase was a step forward. But now Prioritization is the talk of the town. I'm for it overall like I've probably said before, because I think overall it's necessary for the League to put itself first. But, I acknowledge it's a risky move to make the players choose, unless the domestic salaries begin to be competitive with the top ones overseas. I can see why it'd be labeled as reckless by... the fans – and the media – and why it'd make Engelbert unpopular.

Maybe the better description of that second option would be "TBD." I just don't want to discount anything that's happened under her watch, good and bad. (I am a natural pessimist who never wants to get too high on anyone, fwiw – which is maybe worth quite a bit within the confines of this discussion.) Considering this league's checkered history with growth, I'm skeptical she can actually get it done, but she of all leaders the W has had certainly could.


sithinfiltrator



Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 254
Location: Seattle, WA


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/20/22 9:26 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I have been super happy with Cathy. She is putting the W on better financial grounds, which will allow the W to increase player salaries and get them home in the offseason. We are growing the viewership on TV. I also feel that the players have higher visibility than they have ever had. I know that the players get a lot of credit for this as they should, but I think that Cathy has leveraged them better than any other Commish. My casual friends never used to ask me about the W, even though they all knew I have been a season ticket holder for the Storm for 20 years. Now they all ask me about the W with real interest.

Is Cathy perfect? Nope. But she is better than we have ever had before and I feel good knowing that she is getting the business fundamentals of the W in order so that it can have a long and bright future.



_________________
Lisa Stevens
Storm STH
johnjohnW



Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1828



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/20/22 10:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stormeo wrote:
Now what if I had just responded to all that with, "I ain't reading all that"? 🙃 And just another reminder that I voted for the second option and not the fourth one, so I'm not someone who wants to see her fired.


To be fair, I was aiming my vitriol more at that article than your poll or your selection. It's fine to criticize leadership where it's due but the premise that she is "holding the league back" purported by that article is contrarian click bait nonsense. Is that the same site that did an expose about some potential owner who has a republican family member and tried to do a woke hit piece on that person just for having a family member that doesn't align with left politics?

As for LP and streaming. I think what we are ultimately going to get is similar to the NHL package with games on ESPN+. I know people criticize ESPN but honestly, losing that deal would be bad for the promotion of the league. ESPN promotes the content they have. They rarely talked about hockey until they got the package and now that they no longer have nascar, they rarely talk about it. If the WNBA left ESPN, their coverage would evaporate and they barely talk about the W as is.


StevenHW



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 10979
Location: Sacramento, California


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/20/22 11:08 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Another site called "Beyond The W" asked a similar question regarding Commssioner Englebert's job performance during her tenure so far, although there's no polling question...

https://beyondthew.com/why-is-cathy-engelbert-taking-such-a-pedestrian-approach-to-growing-wnba/



_________________
"The more I see of the moneyed classes, the more I understand the guillotine." -- George Bernard Shaw
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9543



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/20/22 5:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

StevenHW wrote:
Another site called "Beyond The W" asked a similar question regarding Commssioner Englebert's job performance during her tenure so far, although there's no polling question...

https://beyondthew.com/why-is-cathy-engelbert-taking-such-a-pedestrian-approach-to-growing-wnba/



"Instead, Engelbert revealed that expansion would indeed be delayed until at least 2025 "

I thought they had two serious potential owners in Oakland? Even if the Oakland group doesn't have adequate funding, the Warriors do.


johnjohnW



Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1828



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/20/22 6:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
StevenHW wrote:
Another site called "Beyond The W" asked a similar question regarding Commssioner Englebert's job performance during her tenure so far, although there's no polling question...

https://beyondthew.com/why-is-cathy-engelbert-taking-such-a-pedestrian-approach-to-growing-wnba/



"Instead, Engelbert revealed that expansion would indeed be delayed until at least 2025 "

I thought they had two serious potential owners in Oakland? Even if the Oakland group doesn't have adequate funding, the Warriors do.


Have the Warriors submitted a bid? Maybe they aren't. We don't know the viability of any groups because we have no confirmed bids, just good will "we want a W team" remarks. The Oakland group has been very vocal about their strategy but we haven't heard much since the agreement in principle with Alameda County for leasing the arena and Beard coming on board.

We all want expansion but do you really think Englebert is rejecting viable offers? It's more likely that they haven't found a viable ownership group.


Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/22 6:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

johnjohnW wrote:
To be fair, I was aiming my vitriol more at that article than your poll or your selection.

Fair enough. I read "complaints in that article and mentioned here" and assumed the 'mentioned here' part was me since it was just me saying stuff at that point. Laughing

Even if I don't necessarily agree with people, I've made a more conscious effort in recent times to rationalize/validate why some feel the way they feel. Ultimately, opinions may be short-sighted and not well informed, but they're still gonna matter – especially if they're the loudest in a room. Dismissing them entirely so long as they aren't utterly exhausting seems a bit foolish in & of itself.

Even if I happened to think some of the 30 voters of this poll can eat shit, all their voices do matter. If you're in line to submit your opinion, stay in line! Stop the violence and just count the votes! Mr. Green


Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/22 6:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Actually, this recent interview with Megdal made me see the Commish in a newer, better light for sure. Highly recommend watching it regardless of how one feels about her. (whatta surprise, toad455 is once again the reason why I saw this lol)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/daI6hW9Wadw" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9543



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/25/22 12:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

johnjohnW wrote:
tfan wrote:
StevenHW wrote:
Another site called "Beyond The W" asked a similar question regarding Commssioner Englebert's job performance during her tenure so far, although there's no polling question...

https://beyondthew.com/why-is-cathy-engelbert-taking-such-a-pedestrian-approach-to-growing-wnba/



"Instead, Engelbert revealed that expansion would indeed be delayed until at least 2025 "

I thought they had two serious potential owners in Oakland? Even if the Oakland group doesn't have adequate funding, the Warriors do.


Have the Warriors submitted a bid? Maybe they aren't. We don't know the viability of any groups because we have no confirmed bids, just good will "we want a W team" remarks. The Oakland group has been very vocal about their strategy but we haven't heard much since the agreement in principle with Alameda County for leasing the arena and Beard coming on board.

We all want expansion but do you really think Englebert is rejecting viable offers? It's more likely that they haven't found a viable ownership group.


I wasn't suggesting Englebert or the owners (who might not want another team until league-wide deals were increased to reflect another market) were blocking expansion. But I was under the impression that there were serious suitors so wanted to know what was going on. I thought that, at a minimum, there were two solid competing groups in the SF Bay Area. But it does look like those two potential owners are not at the "bid" stage.

Went back looking for articles on a Bay Area team and this one I think gave me the wrong impression as it now appears incorrectly titled "What to know about the two bids to bring the WNBA to the Bay Area". I notice that they only quote a guy who used to work for the Warriors and is now an adviser to them, not any Warriors personnel. And the Oakland effort doesn't state they have the money for a WNBA team and are ready to go.

It claims the Warriors have twice bid on having a team. Once was when the Sparks owner had to give up the team in 2014. I don't know what the second time would have been. I suspect that at this point the Warriors don't really want a team (one of their owners had previously claimed they would get one as soon as their new arena was finished - but that took place in September 2019) but would compete with Oakland if that group gets the money to do it just to be the only pro basketball organization in the area.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/article/WNBA-Bay-Area-expansion-17383391.php

Then there is this article that makes it sound like the Oakland city council doesn't understand how pro sports work.

Quote:
In July 2021, the Oakland Coliseum Authority, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, and Oakland City Council voted unanimously to launch a WNBA team here.


https://oaklandside.org/2022/09/21/oakland-wants-a-wnba-team/


Hawkeye



Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 760
Location: Houston, TX


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/25/22 1:21 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

My only real complaint would be forcing players to choose between WNBA only and playing overseas. This is short-sighted as players need to make the most money they can while they can. The player will know if their body can take playing year-round, and when they can't perform in both then they won't. Forcing players to choose, especially new players who aren't making much in WNBA but can see millions overseas, you run the risk of a talent drain from the league. I haven't heard anything about this choice of play going away--if it did, then I missed it.

So wishing we had the Comets back. Les Alexander got the divorce and sold to the wrong furniture guy and that was it. There is plenty of money to be made from a Comets team in Houston---area population pushing 7 million, the market, fans and money are there---just have to have a little smarts about it.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/25/22 7:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hawkeye wrote:
My only real complaint would be forcing players to choose between WNBA only and playing overseas


They're not forcing players to do that. They're making the players show up on time. Prioritization isn't really aimed at the players. It's aimed at the overseas leagues and their bloated schedules. Taking 212 days to play 22 games, like the French league did last season, is ridiculous.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
johnjohnW



Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1828



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/25/22 8:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
I wasn't suggesting Englebert or the owners (who might not want another team until league-wide deals were increased to reflect another market) were blocking expansion. But I was under the impression that there were serious suitors so wanted to know what was going on. I thought that, at a minimum, there were two solid competing groups in the SF Bay Area. But it does look like those two potential owners are not at the "bid" stage.

Went back looking for articles on a Bay Area team and this one I think gave me the wrong impression as it now appears incorrectly titled "What to know about the two bids to bring the WNBA to the Bay Area". I notice that they only quote a guy who used to work for the Warriors and is now an adviser to them, not any Warriors personnel. And the Oakland effort doesn't state they have the money for a WNBA team and are ready to go.

It claims the Warriors have twice bid on having a team. Once was when the Sparks owner had to give up the team in 2014. I don't know what the second time would have been. I suspect that at this point the Warriors don't really want a team (one of their owners had previously claimed they would get one as soon as their new arena was finished - but that took place in September 2019) but would compete with Oakland if that group gets the money to do it just to be the only pro basketball organization in the area.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/article/WNBA-Bay-Area-expansion-17383391.php

Then there is this article that makes it sound like the Oakland city council doesn't understand how pro sports work.

Quote:
In July 2021, the Oakland Coliseum Authority, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, and Oakland City Council voted unanimously to launch a WNBA team here.


https://oaklandside.org/2022/09/21/oakland-wants-a-wnba-team/


We've seen a lot of municipalities do this and I think it's honestly just exploiting the league for good will. They know saying "we want a team" has zero power and zero risk for them. They can flaunt their progressive bonafides and nothing actually happens. I'm glad there are localities who are supportive should they get a team but I often wonder how some of these governments would act if they actually got a team in their area. What kind of support would they really provide once a team is actually there and not just a theoretical pipedream they can trot out.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/25/22 11:54 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The two Bay Area candidates:

AASEG, which is "fronted" by Alana Beard, who as far as I can tell has not been to the Bay Area since AASEG made its announcement, is primarily interested in getting an NFL expansion team into Oakland. The WNBA aspect is virtue signaling.

The Warriors, as far as I can tell, don't want an expansion team (if they want anything). They want a relocation, and since Atlanta and Indiana seem set, there aren't any candidates.

If Joe Lacob has enough bookings to keep the Chase Center humming, he has no need for a WNBA franchise. And supposedly, he's also in talks to buy the A's.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 4200



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/25/22 12:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
The two Bay Area candidates:

AASEG, which is "fronted" by Alana Beard, who as far as I can tell has not been to the Bay Area since AASEG made its announcement, is primarily interested in getting an NFL expansion team into Oakland. The WNBA aspect is virtue signaling.

The Warriors, as far as I can tell, don't want an expansion team (if they want anything). They want a relocation, and since Atlanta and Indiana seem set, there aren't any candidates.

If Joe Lacob has enough bookings to keep the Chase Center humming, he has no need for a WNBA franchise. And supposedly, he's also in talks to buy the A's.


Doesn't Beard still live in the Bay Area? I was under the impression that she had been since deciding on her post-playing career. AASEG also recently announced that they wanted an NWSL team, which seems significantly less likely than a WNBA team at this stage and frankly does not make me think that they are really serious about any of this stuff.

My understanding on the Warriors continues to be that not all of the ownership wants a team. If it was up to Lacob solely, then they would be in the front of the line. My suspicion is that if Oakland gets to serious bid stage, they will jump in and grab a team to block them.

Also, when USA Basketball aired ads during the Final Four of women's volleyball, I immediately thought of you.
johnjohnW



Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1828



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/25/22 12:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

awhom111 wrote:
ClayK wrote:
The two Bay Area candidates:

AASEG, which is "fronted" by Alana Beard, who as far as I can tell has not been to the Bay Area since AASEG made its announcement, is primarily interested in getting an NFL expansion team into Oakland. The WNBA aspect is virtue signaling.

The Warriors, as far as I can tell, don't want an expansion team (if they want anything). They want a relocation, and since Atlanta and Indiana seem set, there aren't any candidates.

If Joe Lacob has enough bookings to keep the Chase Center humming, he has no need for a WNBA franchise. And supposedly, he's also in talks to buy the A's.


Doesn't Beard still live in the Bay Area? I was under the impression that she had been since deciding on her post-playing career. AASEG also recently announced that they wanted an NWSL team, which seems significantly less likely than a WNBA team at this stage and frankly does not make me think that they are really serious about any of this stuff.

My understanding on the Warriors continues to be that not all of the ownership wants a team. If it was up to Lacob solely, then they would be in the front of the line. My suspicion is that if Oakland gets to serious bid stage, they will jump in and grab a team to block them.

Also, when USA Basketball aired ads during the Final Four of women's volleyball, I immediately thought of you.


Which would be such a bad look. I'd like to know how legitimate the AASEG is financially. We've seen that an ownership group like this can work (Seattle) but it doesn't seem like they've ever gotten past the press release phase. I didn't know they were interested in getting an NFL expansion. I think that's a pretty big pipe dream at this point. Good luck to them on that.

I'd also argue that neither Oracle nor the Warriors arenas would be a good arena for aW team. Far too cavernous. Hopefully these are the things Englebert is vetting and very likely the reason we aren't closer to expansion.

Cathy has been focused on stabilizing the current teams as best that some of them can be. She's assisted in finding stable ownerships for teams that were in danger and rebuilding the league attendance post Covid. I think it would be a huge mistake to award an expansion team on a shaky foundation. It would just further destabilize the league. I'd rather have no expansion than I'll convinced expansion.


Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24326
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/25/22 12:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The huge impending issue for the WNBA is the next TV deal. Whether they expand or not - and where - likely will be, and should be, decided by whether it would enhance the WNBA's negotiating position for that TV deal. The reason there are teams in Chicago and Atlanta is basically that ESPN wanted teams there. So if a team in Oakland, or Phillly, or Toronto, or whatever specific market, would significantly boost that deal, you actively pursue an ownership group and push to get it done. That would also help the existing ownership groups agree to add teams if they believe it adds more money than splitting the pie into extra pieces would take away.

But if they've decided it's not going to improve that TV deal, maybe they're hoping to wait until after it's done, and then use it as proof of the health of the league as a prospect to attract owners they'd want (likely with a much higher buy-in price at that stage).



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
Hawkeye



Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 760
Location: Houston, TX


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/25/22 6:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Hawkeye wrote:
My only real complaint would be forcing players to choose between WNBA only and playing overseas


They're not forcing players to do that. They're making the players show up on time. Prioritization isn't really aimed at the players. It's aimed at the overseas leagues and their bloated schedules. Taking 212 days to play 22 games, like the French league did last season, is ridiculous.


Ah. I see....the narrative is incorrect then because my understanding is the only way I've heard it framed.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin