Proof the WNBA is not viable...

Nevermind the forced subsidy of the "fundamental game," the failure of this original WNBA team is proof beyond mere watching that the WNBA sucks.

sportsillustrated.cnn.com...

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) -- The WNBA's Charlotte Sting folded Wednesday, three weeks after the Bobcats gave up control of the team.

The WNBA was unsuccessful in finding a buyer for the Sting, one of the original eight franchises.

"It was driven by economics, certainly not philosophy," said Greg Economou, the Bobcats' chief marketing officer. "We believe in the women's game. If it could work here we'd be all for it. The situation we're in is trying to build the Bobcats' brand. It was difficult to absorb losing as much money as we were on the Sting side to continue."

Memo to David Stern: Stop insulting the sports world; women's basketball is not a sport... It's barely a curiosity. Heck, if it wasn't for forcing it on the networks and it's bold marketing there wouldn't be anyone familiar with this joke of a league.

Go the route of "Old Yeller" and put this dog down.

It's hard to reply to this thread without coming off as a little sexist, but I agree that women's basketball is not suited to be played at a professional level. As far as I'm concerned not only is it bo-ring to watch layup drills, but the sport itself lacked sexiness. Most women's sports thrive on the looks of their athletes. When I watch women's tennis I don't watch Maria Sharapova because of her talent, I watch her run around in short skirts. When I watch women's golf I don't watch Natalie Gulbis because of her talent, I watch because she plays in short miniskirts. That's what a man wants to see. Whether it's sexist or not is neither here nor there, it's just reality.

Peace

For you to put on your politically correct cap Dr.

There's no doubt that the WNBA could have gone the route of say... Professional beach volleyball... No, that won't do... Those women are competitive athletes and the hawtness to boot. The WNBA would be "teh h0r0r" with that kind of "exposure."

I think the possibility of a WNBA is a reasonable one. However, at this point in time, it is not a viable league. Lack of teams, exposure, etc., have all contributed to a future that holds nothing but failure. When you have teams that are folding, it says a lot about the league.

I scratch my head some days of the CFL. It is the longest running professional sports league in history. It dates as far back as 1861. However with only a few teams in the league, not to mention at one time we had two teams named the Roughriders, it is tough to take it too serious. 3 Down Football

Aside from the Doctors post, I don't consider it to be an act of sexism, to say that the WNBA is not a viable league. It's not viable because it is a women's league, it is because of the economics and the fundamental make up of the league.

I am fairly certain that it is against the rules to dunk in the league. I mean, C'mon. Half of the people who watch basketball are watching to see an amazing dunk. Look at how the NBA markets itself. Does it market itself off of defensive specialists like Ben Wallace? No. Lebron, Kobe, Vince, etc., all guys who are putting down ridiculous dunks.


[edit on 4-1-2007 by chissler]

Is that it's bad basketball... It's not about fundamentals, it's about skill, speed, and athleticism. Any reasonably good boys high school team would run rough shod over the best WNBA team. The same could not be said for volleyball (the example I previously used), any high school level team would be annihilated by an average group of professional women. The WNBA is a piss poor product, and only exists because of the the NBA subsidies and the leverage that they have over the networks... ESPN has to hold their collective noses just mentioning the WNBA on Sportcenter, much less having to broadcast an actual debacle... Errr... Game.

Maybe I am sexist, but I find WNBA boring too. The WNBA surely lacks the sex appeal Women's volleyball and tennis have. More importantly, WNBA games look like high school games, rather than contests involving elite professional athletes.

Any of the women in the WNBA can beat me in a 1 on 1 game, but it does not appear that way. When one watches sports, you want to see athletes do things you could not do. Nobody here can dunk or run the floor like Dwayne Wade or Kobe Bryant. Yet most of us can do the lay ups and close range jump shots you see in the WNBA.

Off-topic, but it relates to the female gender.

Female hockey is exploded over the last 10 years or so. It has managed it's way into the Olympics, and is honestly something I look forward to. The level of hockey is not quite to what the NHL is, but it is at a very high level. There is no body contact, I believe their should be, but it is still a very physical game.

Does anyone think that women could carry a professional hockey league?

I ask because, it is apparent that the WNBA is not playing at a level we would expect from professionals. Could they at another sport, or should they be restricted to an amateur level?

It would need some serious ground work, but I honestly believe the women of the world could handle a professional hockey league.

I have not watched much hockey recently, men's or women's but I would like to comment about something you said about women's hockey. You said that women's hockey was not only entertaining, but involved no contact. Perhaps women's hockey is entertaining because it lacks contact. This may make the woman's game less about bone crunching checks and fist fights, and more about speed, grace, and precision on the ice.

Women's sports that do well often do well because their is a level of feminine athleticism that their male counterparts do not have. For example male gymnastics is about strenghth, whilce women's gymnastics is more about grace. Both male and female figure skating are about prancing around like a princess, but it seems more natural when women do it. Perhaps female hockey, or any sport for that matter, can differentiate itself by being more about feminine athleticism and less about being a second rate attempt to mimic their male counterparts.

Well, I said it lacked body contact by the rule book, but I believe the women's game itself to be very physical. A quick criticism of the women's sport is the lack of physicality, but anyone who actually watched a game or two could quickly see the level these women play at.

I would say the women's nationals team would play at or around a University level. Which is a very elite level of hockey.

Sorry for the off-topic'ness of these last two posts.

Something can be very physical and athletic without involving contact. Marathon runners do not give eachother cuts and bruises, but what they do is surely physical and athletic.

Back to the original post, I say you've got faulty logic. Although there is currently a "professional" basketball team in Carolina, this is the area that most recently lost an NBA team due to lack of support from the fan base.

Is it really surprising, then, that the Bobcats are focusing more on maintaining their own integrity, and not carrying along the Sting? (which, as the name implies, were created to compliment the former occupant of that particular NBA territory, the Hornets)

Undoubtedly, the WNBA is not as popular as the NBA. It likely never will be. But, there are some fans out there. Viable? That would depend on your definition of the word, which can be debated until the Cats go folding home...