Can WBB teams catch up to UConn or S Carolina in a changing era?

[WiseWillie]

Two things really leapt out at me in this story: 1) tampering and 2) consequences for the W.

In a thread on Cori Close’s interview a few weeks ago, she mentioned that players and their parents are constantly being urged to consider transferring by agents, not so much by rival coaches — though this may be a distinction without a difference. Coaches could be sanctioned for this behavior, but can agents? Contracts may be coming soon, and maybe they’ll change this dynamic. And with them we may also see strikes. Unions and contracts may eliminate the need for a portal. The union and its attorneys would probably manage all such things on an ad hoc basis.

As for the W, it’s a business, which means it has to respond to situations like this or perish. It is by no means clear that the economics of the league can afford to match the economics of what college has become. One aspect of the game that may change is a growing focus on marketability of its product. We may not like the idea of regulating it, but the league may have to consider adjusting how refs control the game so as to make it less of a brawlers league. It also can’t afford to allow its most marketable players be unavailable do to hard fouls that produce injuries. It may also start tinkering with limiting tattoos and similar aesthetic elements. It has a product to sell and whether we like it or not, to expand its market it has to appeal to broader tastes. We can complain that the MNBA doesn’t think about regulating how players look. But the economics of that league is expansive enough not to require it.

As a college professor I can’t help but see unionization of students as a threat to the classroom.

It's definitely a new era in college ball. You are correct that contracts, unions and all that goes seems the direction this is going at some point in the not-too-distant future. Change seems inevitable as $ has taken over and have to wonder if that could be behind some of the great, name coaches leaving the game.

Regarding ithe W's marketability and the actual marketing by the W, looking at it from afar I would have to give them no more than a "D-". They have failed to not incorporate the "latest and greatest" newbies like Paige, Caitlin and Angel and weaving them into the fabric of the W certainly to the disappointment of all the talented professionals who have played and are playing. I think they were completely unprepared for the reaction caused by CC but also failed at the start to get on the wave of popularity and use it to market the W effectively. As I say this, there will be those who point to the increase in attendance at games. Great. But did the W create that through marketing or was it the beneficiary of the CC Effect? I think we all know the answer to that. How many years can the W survive, however, if it is a business continually losing money? (Annual revenue in 2024 of $160M resulting in a loss of $50M and with projections to lose $40M this year). One hopes it can right the ship and stay afloat because it has a product that better marketing certainly could change.

 

[Blue Ghost]

All you have to look at is Texas Tech in Women's Softball. Paid over a million a year for Canady. They also tampered early and have all-americans transferring in from other major programs (UCLA, Florida, etc.. They are trying to buy a championship with their Matador Club.

 

[Skeets]

I’m always dubious of university accounting, having seen it from the inside for decades. Concepts like profit or loss don’t operate there as they do elsewhere. A mix of endowment revenue, annual fundraising, state subsidies and tuition revenue is part of every calculation of whether a school or a program is in the red or the black. It is not simply a question of expenditure given the unpredictability of three of these elements.

I agree 100% Mr. Dog. The books are not exactly GAP. Too much nonsense and moving pieces to say one way or another. For example: 1 state agency (UConn) paying $50K to another state agency (Peoples Bank) for every game played there. Decreed by the state of CT, I suspect to prop Hartford up. Plus, I have no clue how the financials, such as they are, could be broken out by sport.

 

[cancontent]

Two things really leapt out at me in this story: 1) tampering and 2) consequences for the W.

In a thread on Cori Close’s interview a few weeks ago, she mentioned that players and their parents are constantly being urged to consider transferring by agents, not so much by rival coaches — though this may be a distinction without a difference. Coaches could be sanctioned for this behavior, but can agents? Contracts may be coming soon, and maybe they’ll change this dynamic. And with them we may also see strikes. Unions and contracts may eliminate the need for a portal. The union and its attorneys would probably manage all such things on an ad hoc basis.

As for the W, it’s a business, which means it has to respond to situations like this or perish. It is by no means clear that the economics of the league can afford to match the economics of what college has become. One aspect of the game that may change is a growing focus on marketability of its product. We may not like the idea of regulating it, but the league may have to consider adjusting how refs control the game so as to make it less of a brawlers league. It also can’t afford to allow its most marketable players be unavailable do to hard fouls that produce injuries. It may also start tinkering with limiting tattoos and similar aesthetic elements. It has a product to sell and whether we like it or not, to expand its market it has to appeal to broader tastes. We can complain that the MNBA doesn’t think about regulating how players look. But the economics of that league is expansive enough not to require it.

As a college professor I can’t help but see unionization of students as a threat to the classroom.

1). This is supposed to happen with the emphasis on "freedom of movement" this season. Time will tell, however at this point, the physicality hasn't changed much.

2). The tattoo conversation always intrigues me as I don't understand the overall fuss. Is it generational, cultural, etc.? Even in corporate environments, I don't see them being hidden at the workplace anymore like it used to be. Nor do I see it limited to certain age groups as I know many people much older than myself still adding pieces to what they already have. I don't see how limiting tattoos will enhance marketability when they're a lot more common in today's society.

 

[Bone Dog]

The tattoo conversation always intrigues me as I don't understand the overall fuss. Is it generational, cultural, etc.? Even in corporate environments, I don't see them being hidden at the workplace anymore like it used to be. Nor do I see it limited to certain age groups as I know many people much older than myself still adding pieces to what they already have. I don't see how limiting tattoos will enhance marketability when they're a lot more common in today's society.

Personally, I’m indifferent to personal choices like tattoos. To each her own. But this represents a limiting condition to the breadth of appeal of the league. And it’s unfair that this impinges on women’s freedom more than on men’s. Now I haven’t been tracking this, so it’s possible that the tattoo culture in the W is already receding.

By the way, I’m dubious that tattoos are freely displayed in corporate offices. Are folks displaying full sleeves or are we talking face tattoos?

 

[cancontent]

It's definitely a new era in college ball. You are correct that contracts, unions and all that goes seems the direction this is going at some point in the not-too-distant future. Change seems inevitable as $ has taken over and have to wonder if that could be behind some of the great, name coaches leaving the game.

Regarding ithe W's marketability and the actual marketing by the W, looking at it from afar I would have to give them no more than a "D-". They have failed to not incorporate the "latest and greatest" newbies like Paige, Caitlin and Angel and weaving them into the fabric of the W certainly to the disappointment of all the talented professionals who have played and are playing. I think they were completely unprepared for the reaction caused by CC but also failed at the start to get on the wave of popularity and use it to market the W effectively. As I say this, there will be those who point to the increase in attendance at games. Great. But did the W create that through marketing or was it the beneficiary of the CC Effect? I think we all know the answer to that. How many years can the W survive, however, if it is a business continually losing money? (Annual revenue in 2024 of $160M resulting in a loss of $50M and with projections to lose $40M this year). One hopes it can right the ship and stay afloat because it has a product that better marketing certainly could change.

The WNBA's marketing has been perplexing, especially under the current commissioner's run. When you compare what Unrivaled and Athletes Unlimited have done, you'd think they'd take some pages out of their book and leverage it to their advantage.

The numbers behind the profitability of the WNBA will always get some skepticism from me because of the limited information that is available. Per this BNN article at the start of the season, it's noted that not a lot of data is provided to verify what is reported
The ownership structure between the NBA and WNBA owners muddies the waters as well. Then there's the new TV deal will kick in more money. Will this help stem some of those losses that have been experienced in the past? Who knows?

Stars elevate WNBA, owners unsure of profitability

Even with the exponential surge in popularity of the league and women’s basketball in the past three years, questions remain about the league’s profitability. Revenue is increased, and a semi-lucrative television deal is a year from fruition.

www.bnnbloomberg.ca

 

[cancontent]

Personally, I’m indifferent to personal choices like tattoos. To each her own. But this represents a limiting condition to the breadth of appeal of the league. And it’s unfair that this impinges on women’s freedom more than on men’s. Now I haven’t been tracking this, so it’s possible that the tattoo culture in the W is already receding.

By the way, I’m dubious that tattoos are freely displayed in corporate offices. Are folks displaying full sleeves or are we talking face tattoos?

1a). Maybe from your vantage point. This hasn't been the impression from those I talk to about the WNBA who are casual or new fans.

1b). As to receding, that's hard to gauge as tattoos and where they're placed depends on the person. For all we know, they all could have tattoos but their locations aren't visible to everyone.

2). I've seen full sleeves and neck work at my organization, which has offices nationally and internationally. Not on faces just yet, but who knows?

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Recruiting the superstar did not distort her team. What distorted the team was her failure to make the superstar play as part of the team. The result was not a team at all but rather JuJu and four acolytes. The question is; was she pressured into playing that way (85-95%) or did she actually believe it was the best way to play? (5-15%) Either way, her standing as a coach diminished greatly in my eyes.

Not sure in what way So Cal with JuJu could be viewed as a failure.

 

[Bone Dog]

I've seen full sleeves and neck work at my organization, which has offices nationally and internationally. Not on faces just yet, but who knows?

Interesting. I assumed you meant white collar office jobs. I’m not all that familiar with corporate culture anymore. I was assuming that people in those offices (not working remotely) would not be able to display full sleeves. Perhaps they’re wearing short sleeves? Or it’s on casual fridays?

 

[cancontent]

Interesting. I assumed you meant white collar office jobs. I’m not all that familiar with corporate culture anymore. I was assuming that people in those offices (not working remotely) would not be able to display full sleeves. Perhaps they’re wearing short sleeves? Or it’s on casual fridays?

Short sleeves, yes. Casual Fridays, no. Provided you're in business casual attire, people don't get the side eye for doing so.

I get your point about the double standard, however this is something women have faced for centuries and things eventually change. From skirts to shorts, processed hair to natural, or keeping relationships private to being openly public. Unfortunately, it's a story as old as time but the league continues to persevere.

 

[BRS24]

Are we still talking about UConn and South Carolina ?

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Are we still talking about UConn and South Carolina ?

Yes, and while we are at it, to the extent possible and it should be 100% possible, can we keep "the W" of the Board? Of course the draft is one thing, but league play, who hit who, was it intentional, etc etc etc should stay elsewhere. Lord knows there are very many places on the internet to vent on it. I know of late I have strayed in there, but it is about as volatile as politics.

 

[CTBballfan243]

Scum sucking bottom dweller, until you need one, right? My son is an attorney for the state of New York and I am very proud of him. His job is to investigate bad lawyers, and guess what? He has found that they are not all bad. Just sayin.

A good friend of mine, upon graduating from law school, said "The only bad thing about graduating from law school is that you have to be a lawyer". It could be worse, he could be a politician. LOL

 

[visitingcock]

Yes, and while we are at it, to the extent possible and it should be 100% possible, can we keep "the W" of the Board? Of course the draft is one thing, but league play, who hit who, was it intentional, etc etc etc should stay elsewhere. Lord knows there are very many places on the internet to vent on it. I know of late I have strayed in there, but it is about as volatile as politics.

Yeah. There is a wnba thread on the General board.

 

[Rowdy831]

Any program is as good as it's leader and when Geno retires UConn will have a legacy for sure but in a lot of ways will be starting over. The real question is are there any good young coaches who can recruit like Dawn and coach like Geno? To be honest I think South Carolina has underachieved over the past ten years on the court when you consider the level of talent they have had over that time. UConn on the other hand has been right there every year even though the level of talent was not at UConn levels and when they did have the talent they had too many injuries.

Teams like USC and UCLA this past year proved that you have to have more than good players to win a championship. In fact I would say Texas or Tennessee might reach that level before either of the west coast teams.

But to me the thing that is going to be interesting is how the freedom of movement of the players will impact the overall popularity of the game. The teams that build from recruiting will always have the best teams but likely won't have the best individual players. If money becomes a factor then teams in the big conferences will have an advantage that will be hard to compete with.

 

[boontonbomber]

Recruiting the superstar did not distort her team. What distorted the team was her failure to make the superstar play as part of the team. The result was not a team at all but rather JuJu and four acolytes. The question is; was she pressured into playing that way (85-95%) or did she actually believe it was the best way to play? (5-15%) Either way, her standing as a coach diminished greatly in my eyes.

Big Ten coach of the year, one of the acolytes is one of the best rookies in the WNBA.