WNBA on the rise

[Déjà Bru]

Excitement popped into my head when I read this headline:


It is from The Athletic, so I will reproduce it here in my usual fashion:

WNBA announces record expansion to Cleveland, Detroit and Philadelphia

By Ben Pickman

NEW YORK — The WNBA has granted expansion teams to Cleveland, Detroit and Philadelphia, growing to a league-record 18 franchises. Cleveland will begin play in 2028, Detroit in 2029 and Philadelphia in 2030.

WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert has expressed for more than a year a desire to expand the league to at least 16 teams, saying there are “10 to 12 cities that are very viable.” The Golden State Valkyries began their inaugural season this year, and Toronto and Portland are launching teams in 2026. The league previously peaked in 2002 at 16 teams, including former franchises in Detroit and Cleveland.

“This historic expansion is a powerful reflection of our league’s extraordinary momentum, the depth of talent across the game, and the surging demand for investment in women’s professional basketball,” Engelbert said in a statement Monday.

A league source told The Athletic that the teams paid a historic $250 million in expansion fees. The expansion decisions are subject to WNBA and NBA Boards of Governors approval.

“Today’s expansion news reinforces what players, fans, and countless metrics have already proven: the WNBA is thriving and a great investment,” the Women’s National Basketball Player’s Association said in a statement. “As the league grows, it’s essential we secure a CBA (collective bargaining agreement) that ensures players fully share in the success they drive.”

Cleveland’s team will be led by Dan Gilbert, owner of the NBA’s Cleveland Cavaliers, and Rock Entertainment Group. The franchise will play at Rocket Arena, where the Cavs play downtown.

The Cleveland Rockers played in the league from the WNBA’s inaugural 1997 season until 2003. It folded under then-owner Gordon Gund, who also previously owned the Cavaliers. Cleveland ranked 10th out of 14 teams in WNBA attendance during its final season in 2003, and did not turn a profit in any of its seven seasons, Gund said at the time. But much has changed around the league.

“We’re confident that this team will honor our city’s women’s sports heritage, reinvigorate our WNBA fan base and help cultivate the next generation of women’s basketball enthusiasts and athletes,” Gilbert said in a statement.

The WNBA is returning to Detroit, too. Tom Gores, owner of the NBA’s Detroit Pistons, is leading the group for the city’s expansion franchise. NBA Hall of Famers Grant Hill and Chris Webber, as well as Lions owner Sheila Ford Hamp and quarterback Jared Goff, are also part of the ownership group. The new WNBA team will play at Little Caesars Arena, the home of the Pistons, and will construct a dedicated WNBA practice facility.

Detroit’s original team existed from the league’s second season in 1998 until 2009. The Shock won three WNBA titles (2003, 2006 and 2008) and eventually relocated to Tulsa, Okla., after the 2009 season.

“Today marks the long-hoped-for return of the WNBA to a city with deep basketball roots and a championship tradition,” Gores said in a statement. “Detroit played a key role in the league’s early growth, and we’re proud to reignite that legacy as the WNBA ascends to new heights. Our plans will bring new energy, investment and infrastructure to our city and the WNBA, and additional resources to our community.”

Philadelphia will be a new market for the WNBA, though it did once have an ABL team. The ownership group behind the Philadelphia 76ers, Harris Blitzer Sports and Entertainment, will lead the team. In January, the Sixers announced their goal to bring a team to the city, and the franchise plans to compete in a new building that will potentially be completed by 2030.

“Philadelphia is one of the most storied basketball cities in the world, and our region is home to some of the best women’s players and coaches to ever grace the hardwood,” said Josh Harris, co-founder of Harris Blitzer Sports and Entertainment. “It’s only right that this city gets the WNBA team it deserves, and we’re humbled to help usher in a new era of Philadelphia basketball.”

The WNBA is currently in a period of significant growth, not just after expanding this season for the first time since 2008, but also in setting records in key metrics like television ratings, merchandise sales and attendance.

All three expansion teams were part of a group of more than 10 cities that submitted expansion bids by the January deadline. Groups from Nashville, Kansas City, Houston and Charlotte were among the bidding cities that did not receive teams.

News of the three-team expansion comes amid a turbulent period for one of the league’s other incoming expansion teams. Last week, Portland WNBA announced it was parting ways with its initial team president Inky Son, and that Clare Hamill, a longtime Nike executive, would immediately assume the role as its interim president. Portland has not yet unveiled its name and branding, though that announcement is expected to come July 15.

So is the WNBA on the rise? Surely. I, for one, will be seeking opportunities for viewing WNBA games and not just as part of my "anti-Balkanization of sports viewing" campaign. The level of play quality is there, the professionalism is there, the confidence is there, the momentum is there, the excitement is there, so the interest is there as well.

[Cobra Mgr]

Aren't we supposed to believe the WNBA is bleeding ca$h?

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Aren't we supposed to believe the WNBA is bleeding ca$h?

I can't see how that can be the case — in general — with the amount of publicity the league and its players have been receiving recently and with the rapid expansion of the league.

In the first case, sure, the public is fickle and momentary interest in certain players may not be translated into fannies in seats. But doesn't it seem like there is a chain of these new faces now? Caitlin Clark, Angel Reese, Rickea Jackson, Paige Bueckers, one after another getting the red carpet treatment.

In the second case, the league just went from 12 to 13 teams with the addition this season of the Golden State Valkyries. (What a cool team name. They don't have a mascot yet, or at least as of last month, so you may still be able to apply for the job.) Next year, there are already franchises in Toronto and Portland scheduled to make their debut. And now three more expansions are announced (although what takes three, four, and five years to get it done is a bit troubling).

Sure, the article mentions that the league peaked at 16 teams back in 2002 and that makes you think the league underwent a severe contraction after that but in reality it never has had less than 12 franchises — a stable number for 14 seasons — since then. Also, look at some of the big names and moneybags who are driving this new expansion. Heck, the league turned down other groups from Nashville, Kansas City, Houston and Charlotte.

I think this one phrase sums it up, "much has changed around the league."

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I can't see how that can be the case — in general — with the amount of publicity the league and its players have been receiving recently and with the rapid expansion of the league.................

You might want to get your sarcasm meter re-calibrated.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

You might want to get your sarcasm meter re-calibrated.

Heh, okay. Use this, maybe:

Anyway, I will add something else, at risk of being pounced upon, tarred and feathered. What will guarantee the success of the WNBA will be masculine interest. There, I said it.

Because I don't envision women — in general — going to games in buddy groups, drinking a lot of beer, and buying team merchandise. Maybe they do so in conjunction with their boyfriends and husbands, but not on their own.

Nor do I envision women sinking into their oversized recliners*, said beer in hand, and tuning into the WNBA game. On their own, that is. And in general, remember. But the more men who become interested in the WNBA, the better it will be for the league.

*Non-sequitur: I went shopping for a new recliner at La-Z-Boy yesterday, the first time I have been in the market for the better part of a couple of decades. I was struck by the increased width of most recliners; we all know the reason for that. For somebody who is not that wide, it's not as comfortable because the arm rests are positioned so that when you place your elbows and forearms on them, they put pressure on your collarbones and shoulder blades. Fortunately, I found one that was more my size.

But, I swear to Jehovah, they had one model on display that topped them all. This thing was tremendous! It looked like Henry VIII's throne. My wife said I looked like a little boy when I sat in it. (I am six foot tall.) I wish I had taken a picture; it looked like the Roman model here but that image doesn't do justice to the behemoth that swallowed me. (I had difficulty getting out of it, to be honest.)

[monkeyman576]

I find basketball the most boring of the 5 major sports to watch on TV. The WNBA doubly so. That said women’s sports is undoubtedly a growing market.

[pilight]

Stupid people have been predicting the death of the W for decades and have consistently been wrong.

[LD84]

Why is there a rule of 'no politics' and people post wildy political articles from sources with an agenda, and then the mods are 'deeply concerned' and go away to conference with other mods?


Why not levy an actual punishment on the racist POS that have done it least a half dozen times?



But anyways...
The WNBA is far from dead. Ultra rich people are not paying ever escalating expansion fees for teams in places like Cleveland and Detroit for a league that is dying.

Toronto's expansion fee was something like three times what was paid for Golden States.

Cleveland's and Detroit's are like five times the expansion fee.

The Golden State ownership group got a bargain. Cleveland and Detroit are great.
But I would much rather own a franchise in the Bay Area of California at 20% of the startup cost.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by LD84

Why is there a rule of 'no politics' and people post wildy political articles from sources with an agenda, and then the mods are 'deeply concerned' and go away to conference with other mods?


Why not levy an actual punishment on the racist POS that have done it least a half dozen times?

Without passing judgment on this one way or the other, I will commend the moderators for a good job of keeping politics out of these forums. I come here to escape that nastiness, among other reasons, and if it ever comes back, I will be so far gone and so fast, my forum name will change all by itself to something like Déjà Flew or Déjà Bye-bye.

[LD84]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Without passing judgment on this one way or the other, I will commend the moderators for a good job of keeping politics out of these forums. I come here to escape that nastiness, among other reasons, and if it ever comes back, I will be so far gone and so fast, my forum name will change all by itself to something like Déjà Flew or Déjà Bye-bye.

I hope not either. But certain individuals do like to try and push their agendas by outright starting a new thread or taking over another thread.
And it either gets locked or moved. Which is fine.

But when it happens over and over and over. Maybe a suspension or ban is in order?

But anyways, I am not a mod. I will let the matter drop as to not disrupt this thread.

[Antonin]

I'm happy to hear that the WNBA is returning to The Land! We have been watching the league a lot in recent years, though strangely enough, my wife is less of a fan than I am. Still, I look forward to having another team to cheer for.

And perhaps the games will be more affordable to attend than Cavs games. We can't afford more than a couple of Cavs games a season, and this past season we didn't attend any.

It's interesting that Cavs owner Dan Gilbert, a Detroit guy, is backing the Cleveland WNBA team and not the Detroit one. I know he has major business interests in Detroit. I'm guessing he will "leverage" parts of the existing Cavs organization to boost the WNBA team.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by LD84

I hope not either. But certain individuals do like to try and push their agendas by outright starting a new thread or taking over another thread.
And it either gets locked or moved. Which is fine.

But when it happens over and over and over. Maybe a suspension or ban is in order?

But anyways, I am not a mod. I will let the matter drop as to not disrupt this thread.

1) If the user in question has been responsible for a large number of thread closures, you're keeping a much better tally on that than I am. Have they sometimes been problematic in the past? Yes, but it's not like they're in the top tier of problematic posters either.

2) I don't think posting links to right-wing sites on its own should warrant a warning. I mean, how many of us from time to time land on a website we've never visited before and have no idea what its political leaning is. And if we decide we'd like to share the link should we investigate this before we do? I think that's asking a bit much.

3) Even if one does knowingly post links to well-known right-wing sites, does that also in itself warrant a warning? We can infer whatever we want about people based on the links they post, but even if they are what we might think they are, if they're not doing anything overtly racist, what grounds do we really have to ban them? I think it's entirely possible to be a fan of a right-wing news site and not be a racist. Some people say it's important to them that they get their news from a wide array of sources so they don't echo chamber themselves. And while I don't bother to do that, I think good on them. Should we ban posting links to X? I'd personally like to see them go away, but I also think it wouldn't be right to do that. And what about the people who are convinced everyone is racist, it's just a matter of how much. Should everyone be banned?

4) The article itself didn't have anything clearly racist in it. I read it three times and another moderator made the point as well. The worst part about it I noticed was it quoted an X tweet that had the word "antiwhiteism" in it. Now yes, it sounds like that site might cater to racists and the whole angry mob that like to claim "the black WNBA is out to get Caitlin Clark" when in reality white opponents hate her too as evidenced by the recent eye-poking of her. But I like to think we should judge things on what they clearly are and not on what we just imagine they probably are. I think it's important to keep an open mind and give people the benefit of the doubt. If they clearly prove to us that they're what we're hoping they're not, then so be it, but until that time I think we should presume the best of everyone.

5) I think this is just another, "I'm bored, how should I entertain myself? Oh, let's claim for the millionth time that the mods do a **** job. That'll do!" Whatever floats your boat, but it's getting old.

If the OP would like me to separate this tangent out of their thread, let me know.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Antonin

We have been watching the league a lot in recent years, though strangely enough, my wife is less of a fan than I am.

Heh, see my comments above where I said "What will guarantee the success of the WNBA will be masculine interest" and for which I have not been tarred and feathered yet. It's the post with the over-sized recliner in it; when we went back to the store to finalize the order, we both sat in that model, comfortably. It's like a reclining love seat!

Originally Posted by kq76

Oh, let's claim for the millionth time that the mods do a **** job. That'll do!" Whatever floats your boat, but it's getting old.

Nah. The people who count here know that we have it pretty good thanks to your efforts.

Originally Posted by kq76

If the OP would like me to separate this tangent out of their thread, let me know.

Nah. Thanks anyway, but at the same time, let's move on. I probably should have used a generic WNBA thread title and avoided reference to the other one but it's done now. What I would like to do is to use this one for further WNBA news, with me recognized as catalyst and muse!

[Jordan]

Sophia Cunningham getting buried for questioning the expansion teams locations. I'll repeat what is a common refrain I'm seeing/hearing. She plays in Indiana and is from Missouri, what does she know?

Detroit was pretty successful in a previous incarnation in the WNBA too.

Their are only so many places that are viable also, does she think other places having two teams are better or something?

All in all, quite a silly thing to say

[Cobra Mgr]

I'm not one to tell people to run things in their own house. If anything consistently happens not to my liking, then it is up to me to leave. And I think I have proven my belief in that when I self-exiled for about 3 years from this forum. That is why I merely suggested the thread be moved.

I would like to comment on the following if I may.

Originally Posted by kq76

2) I don't think posting links to right-wing sites on its own should warrant a warning. I mean, how many of us from time to time land on a website we've never visited before and have no idea what its political leaning is. And if we decide we'd like to share the link should we investigate this before we do? I think that's asking a bit much.

I agree. I hate both the right & the left. Problem is no news source now isn't guilty of being off center. And people are so polarized that anything a person says that a conservative disagrees with is "woke", and anything that a liberal doesn't agree w/is fascism. So I don't blame mods for being hesitant to go down that road because it is a game you can't win.

3) Even if one does knowingly post links to well-known right-wing sites, does that also in itself warrant a warning? We can infer whatever we want about people based on the links they post, but even if they are what we might think they are, if they're not doing anything overtly racist, what grounds do we really have to ban them? I think it's entirely possible to be a fan of a right-wing news site and not be a racist. Some people say it's important to them that they get their news from a wide array of sources so they don't echo chamber themselves. And while I don't bother to do that, I think good on them. Should we ban posting links to X? I'd personally like to see them go away, but I also think it wouldn't be right to do that. And what about the people who are convinced everyone is racist, it's just a matter of how much. Should everyone be banned?..........

Understood. Again, no one wants to play a game they can't win.

And accidents do happen. I went back & looked @ the rules and saw there were 2 I had unknowingly broken myself. Full confession

I did highlight the above though because I think it is important in maintaining order. In the post in question, the OP mentioned he knew the website itself would ruffle feathers. Now that's not an accident. That is proof he thought about it beforehand, saw the likelihood, and did it anyway.

Now you guys have heard me say before "your tolerance of bad behavior is measured by your willingness to punish bad behavior". This person knew the rules & said "who cares?" That was blatant disrespect to the guidelines for this forum.

So going forward, how much respect do you think he, and others, are going to give the rules of this forum if no form of discipline is given? How much further is he going to push the line? How fair will mods appear to be if they let this slide, but choose to bring down the hammer in the future?

This guy knew that link did not belong on this side of the forum. And that is why I pointed it out.

.........4) The article itself didn't have anything clearly racist in it. I read it three times and another moderator made the point as well. The worst part about it I noticed was it quoted an X tweet that had the word "antiwhiteism" in it. Now yes, it sounds like that site might cater to racists and the whole angry mob that like to claim "the black WNBA is out to get Caitlin Clark" when in reality white opponents hate her too as evidenced by the recent eye-poking of her. But I like to think we should judge things on what they clearly are and not on what we just imagine they probably are. I think it's important to keep an open mind and give people the benefit of the doubt. If they clearly prove to us that they're what we're hoping they're not, then so be it, but until that time I think we should presume the best of everyone.

This is why racism still prevails. I'm not saying you & the mods are personally tolerant of racism. But you have made it virtually impossible to police racism. Because what you have done is set a parameter where any racist action could be excused.

The fact is no one can present "tangible" evidence that the motivations of a person is due to bigotry. Three bosses vote on which of 2 candidates to hire. All 3 choose the same one. One does so because of skin color, the other because it is a relative, the third because they went to the same school. How do you know which one did it because of prejudice? Unless the 1st comes right out and says "I want so-n-so because I hate_______" each action looks the same to the eye. It is only by the amount of circumstancial repeated evidence can it be reasonably revealed.

So yeah, I knew what I was going to get when I clicked that link. Cause the poster basically told me beforehand what I was going to get. And one look at that article told me what I already knew coming in. If anyone, including the OP, still didn't believe that was a white supremacist site, then they are like a guy repeatedly sniffing an expired carton of milk to see if it went bad. At this point, they are no longer investigating. They just love the smell.

But as I opened up, I'm not trying to tell anybody what to do. This is your house. Thank you for allowing me to pull up a chair on the porch. I never said lock the thread. I never said he shouldn't post from that site at all (though I wish he wouldn't). I merely pointed out, according to this forum's guidelines, this section wasn't the place for it.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Jordan

Sophia Cunningham getting buried for questioning the expansion teams locations. I'll repeat what is a common refrain I'm seeing/hearing. She plays in Indiana and is from Missouri, what does she know?

Detroit was pretty successful in a previous incarnation in the WNBA too.

Their are only so many places that are viable also, does she think other places having two teams are better or something?

All in all, quite a silly thing to say

I thought it was a joke when I read it. Maybe if I heard it n context I'd feel differently. But I thought it was really benign.

To me, it is another example of the polarization of this planet. She was made a hero by the pro-Caitlyn disciples for getting a hard foul on someone who had the "audacity" to get physical w/Clark. & now the anti-Caitlyn cult has made her public enemy #2.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Jordan

Sophia Cunningham getting buried for questioning the expansion teams locations. I'll repeat what is a common refrain I'm seeing/hearing. She plays in Indiana and is from Missouri, what does she know?

Detroit was pretty successful in a previous incarnation in the WNBA too.

Their are only so many places that are viable also, does she think other places having two teams are better or something?

All in all, quite a silly thing to say

I had to look this up; apparently what Sophia Cunningham says is not exactly "front page" news. Here is one account:

WNBA star rips Detroit expansion: 'Don't know how excited people are ... going to Detroit'

"I also think that you want to listen to your players, too," said Cunningham . . . "Where do they want to play? Where are they going to get excited to play?" Then she uttered this: "I don't know how excited people are to be going to Detroit or Cincinnati".

Wrong city, Sophia. You meant "Cleveland". Anything else to buttress your opinion? After all, you play for INDIANAPOLIS which doesn't strike many as all that exciting, either.

Meanwhile, you have given the Detroit and Cleveland teams extra incentive to whup a$$ when they face the Fever in the future. And by the way, your team is part of the WNBA and the league may not appreciate your flapping your gums.

These days, there are a million sports reporting outlets. People who have no business talking at all have microphones and cameras shoved in their faces all the time. The result is often blurted baloney.

This story belongs in my "Dumbest thing that I read about recently" thread.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by kq76

3) Even if one does knowingly post links to well-known right-wing sites, does that also in itself warrant a warning?

If the rule is to be "no politics" then posting links to any site that's primarily political should merit a warning.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by pilight

If the rule is to be "no politics" then posting links to any site that's primarily political should merit a warning.

Don't take this badly but I have to say it: Can we drop the subjects of misguided posters, racist blogs, and derelict forum moderators? This thread is supposed to be about the WNBA. I am truly sorry that I brought up that other thread. Now let's let it die.

And while I am feeling feisty, here is this: Before anybody comes out with "Cunningham has a right to say anything she darn well pleases", well, of course.

My point is, why insult and antagonize people just to have something to say on Yahoo Sports X? Why say the first thing that comes into your head without thinking? Why be a buzz killer and trash the facilitator, if not the source, of your bread and butter? The deal is done and many folks are excited so what is the sense of blabbing and putting a damper on things?

Now you, reader, can go ahead and say "She can say what she wants and if people are offended, it's their problem" if you want. I don't bother debating that point of view.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Don't take this badly but I have to say it: Can we drop the subjects of misguided posters, racist blogs, and derelict forum moderators? This thread is supposed to be about the WNBA. I am truly sorry that I brought up that other thread. Now let's let it die.

kq76, I am the OP of this thread. If there is any more discussion of these topics, I ask that you close it. I will wait a certain interval, then open a new thread that hopefully will stick to the subject of the WNBA. Thank you.