Official Chicago Sky Thread - Sky WNBA CHAMPS!!!

[HMFFL]

Congratulations! Your front office did exactly what they needed to do to win. They probably could have done slightly more but the team caught fire at the right time.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[dougthonus]

I think I concur that it is great to see the Sky win the championship, but I have to get some thoughts off my chest. I have not read much in this thread (full disclosure).

I am going to take a real bad position here and it's not that I want to be antagonistic or misogynistic, but here's my question. How long do they plan to keep this league going? They have tried to find a variety of ways to make the WNBA interesting and profitable, but it seems none of it has worked. Female audiences do not even tune in who you would think would be its biggest supporters considering it is one of the few female professional leagues that exists.

Systemically, the WNBA is an afterthought to the majority of the sports public. It appears to me that most people view it as something think should exist, but have no interest in supporting because, well, it's not as interesting as other sports (almost 100% male). This is not a slight on the women who play the game. They work hard. They play hard, but after almost 25 years, the league is a loser. Without the NBA, the league does not exist. Seen another way, the NBA generates 3x the revenue in one week of play than the WNBA generates in its entirety.

The WNBA is losing about 10M per year based on a google search. It's hard to figure out how accurate that is, because it seems like the revenue projection numbers are really old and people just keep carrying forward in new articles because they can't find better ones. That said, since it's the only number we have, let's go with it. Relative to the amount invested that is peanuts and compared to the people doing the investing it is peanuts. At 10M a year loss, it likely means at least 1-2 of the franchises run at a profit.

Either way, as a financial institution, the league may not keep going indefinitely, but it isn't in some massive financial peril here. It has extremely wealthy investors that can afford these losses more or less indefinitely.

Also, there are many leagues that have attempted to take off and keep going despite low returns/small results initially. There was a time when there were probably a dozen companies in the MMA field that were all trying to make it big and eventually MMA turned into a real sport worth billions.

The WNBA probably won't do that, but it isn't insane to think it might become bigger over time either.

The Sky winning the championship has a similar feel to the Wolves winning championships in the old IHL days. Cool, but ultimately forgettable. Let's be honest here. How many posters here really have an emotional connection to the team, league, and players to the same level as the Chicago Bulls. Think about why that is and what makes it so different and lastly, do you think that it will ever change?

In the sense that the league isn't that popular, it will not stamp a permanent notch in Chicago's psyche. Probably a huge amount of people didn't know it happened anyway. The league just isn't that big. Same with any minor chicago sports team winning like if the Chicago fire (I don't even thihnk they're called that anymore or even know if they still exist) won a title. I might think "neat" but then not remember. The WNBA resonates a bit more for me than that, but not tons more.

Do I think it will ever change? If I had to guess, I'd say no. However, that's different from saying I think it can never change. I think it absolutely could. The odds are stacked against any small business turning into something worth 60B or so like the NBA though. It doesn't mean they should all give up and stop trying. As a comparison, the WNBA makes 6x the revenue of the Arena Football League in its last year, but I never thought "man I can't believe the gall of these Arena Football people trying to run a league", I was a little sad when Arena football ended.

I'm not trying to shame you into watching the WNBA or to care about it or to choose your priorities, but it's such a weird take to be like "the people who own and fund this business should just give up, no one will ever watch women's basketball".

[Betta Bulleavit]

I think I concur that it is great to see the Sky win the championship, but I have to get some thoughts off my chest. I have not read much in this thread (full disclosure).

I am going to take a real bad position here and it's not that I want to be antagonistic or misogynistic, but here's my question. How long do they plan to keep this league going? They have tried to find a variety of ways to make the WNBA interesting and profitable, but it seems none of it has worked. Female audiences do not even tune in who you would think would be its biggest supporters considering it is one of the few female professional leagues that exists.

Systemically, the WNBA is an afterthought to the majority of the sports public. It appears to me that most people view it as something think should exist, but have no interest in supporting because, well, it's not as interesting as other sports (almost 100% male). This is not a slight on the women who play the game. They work hard. They play hard, but after almost 25 years, the league is a loser. Without the NBA, the league does not exist. Seen another way, the NBA generates 3x the revenue in one week of play than the WNBA generates in its entirety.

The WNBA is losing about 10M per year based on a google search. It's hard to figure out how accurate that is, because it seems like the revenue projection numbers are really old and people just keep carrying forward in new articles because they can't find better ones. That said, since it's the only number we have, let's go with it. Relative to the amount invested that is peanuts and compared to the people doing the investing it is peanuts. At 10M a year loss, it likely means at least 1-2 of the franchises run at a profit.

Either way, as a financial institution, the league may not keep going indefinitely, but it isn't in some massive financial peril here. It has extremely wealthy investors that can afford these losses more or less indefinitely.

Also, there are many leagues that have attempted to take off and keep going despite low returns/small results initially. There was a time when there were probably a dozen companies in the MMA field that were all trying to make it big and eventually MMA turned into a real sport worth billions.

The WNBA probably won't do that, but it isn't insane to think it might become bigger over time either.

The Sky winning the championship has a similar feel to the Wolves winning championships in the old IHL days. Cool, but ultimately forgettable. Let's be honest here. How many posters here really have an emotional connection to the team, league, and players to the same level as the Chicago Bulls. Think about why that is and what makes it so different and lastly, do you think that it will ever change?

In the sense that the league isn't that popular, it will not stamp a permanent notch in Chicago's psyche. Probably a huge amount of people didn't know it happened anyway. The league just isn't that big. Same with any minor chicago sports team winning like if the Chicago fire (I don't even thihnk they're called that anymore or even know if they still exist) won a title. I might think "neat" but then not remember. The WNBA resonates a bit more for me than that, but not tons more.

Do I think it will ever change? If I had to guess, I'd say no. However, that's different from saying I think it can never change. I think it absolutely could. The odds are stacked against any small business turning into something worth 60B or so like the NBA though. It doesn't mean they should all give up and stop trying. As a comparison, the WNBA makes 6x the revenue of the Arena Football League in its last year, but I never thought "man I can't believe the gall of these Arena Football people trying to run a league", I was a little sad when Arena football ended.

I'm not trying to shame you into watching the WNBA or to care about it or to choose your priorities, but it's such a weird take to be like "the people who own and fund this business should just give up, no one will ever watch women's basketball".

Great points Doug.

I just wanted to call out a couple of trends that I noticed this season that I found very promising.

The first is that the WNBA seems to be doing better at creating certain narratives. Whether you love or hate narratives, they generate attention. Whether it’s up-playing the story of Parker going back home to win a title to Taurasi being this villain. These are stories that pull people in. It’s no wonder that viewership this season skyrocketed. This leads me to my next point…

The WNBA is starting to find constructive (sustainable) ways to bring the game into people’s living rooms. Whether it’s NBATV, ESPN, ABC or even video games. It seems like the league might be starting to create a bit of a footprint. To me, the next big step will be covering the happenings across the league during the off-season so that they can continue to develop those evil (but attractive) narratives. This is where they need to start engaging more with the media.

[dougthonus]

Great points Doug.

I just wanted to call out a couple of trends that I noticed this season that I found very promising.

The first is that the WNBA seems to be doing better at creating certain narratives. Whether you love or hate narratives, they generate attention. Whether it’s up-playing the story of Parker going back home to win a title to Taurasi being this villain. These are stories that pull people in. It’s no wonder that viewership this season skyrocketed. This leads me to my next point…

The WNBA is starting to find constructive (sustainable) ways to bring the game into people’s living rooms. Whether it’s NBATV, ESPN, ABC or even video games. It seems like the league might be starting to create a bit of a footprint. To me, the next big step will be covering the happenings across the league during the off-season so that they can continue to develop those evil (but attractive) narratives. This is where they need to start engaging more with the media.

My guess is that the WNBA will have players engage all the time with the media and that the players, generally trying to promote and grow the league would do the same. The challenge of course is that for the media to cover this and report on it, there has to be enough interest to make the reporting worthwhile and interesting.

For awhile I had considered trying to do a Sky blog / podcast under assumptions that access would be available and the limited niche would make it easy to stand out. I didn't ultimately think I had enough time or interest though.

[mack2354]

I think I concur that it is great to see the Sky win the championship, but I have to get some thoughts off my chest. I have not read much in this thread (full disclosure).

I am going to take a real bad position here and it's not that I want to be antagonistic or misogynistic, but here's my question. How long do they plan to keep this league going? They have tried to find a variety of ways to make the WNBA interesting and profitable, but it seems none of it has worked. Female audiences do not even tune in who you would think would be its biggest supporters considering it is one of the few female professional leagues that exists.

Systemically, the WNBA is an afterthought to the majority of the sports public. It appears to me that most people view it as something think should exist, but have no interest in supporting because, well, it's not as interesting as other sports (almost 100% male). This is not a slight on the women who play the game. They work hard. They play hard, but after almost 25 years, the league is a loser. Without the NBA, the league does not exist. Seen another way, the NBA generates 3x the revenue in one week of play than the WNBA generates in its entirety.

The WNBA is losing about 10M per year based on a google search. It's hard to figure out how accurate that is, because it seems like the revenue projection numbers are really old and people just keep carrying forward in new articles because they can't find better ones. That said, since it's the only number we have, let's go with it. Relative to the amount invested that is peanuts and compared to the people doing the investing it is peanuts. At 10M a year loss, it likely means at least 1-2 of the franchises run at a profit.

Either way, as a financial institution, the league may not keep going indefinitely, but it isn't in some massive financial peril here. It has extremely wealthy investors that can afford these losses more or less indefinitely.

Also, there are many leagues that have attempted to take off and keep going despite low returns/small results initially. There was a time when there were probably a dozen companies in the MMA field that were all trying to make it big and eventually MMA turned into a real sport worth billions.

The WNBA probably won't do that, but it isn't insane to think it might become bigger over time either.

The Sky winning the championship has a similar feel to the Wolves winning championships in the old IHL days. Cool, but ultimately forgettable. Let's be honest here. How many posters here really have an emotional connection to the team, league, and players to the same level as the Chicago Bulls. Think about why that is and what makes it so different and lastly, do you think that it will ever change?

In the sense that the league isn't that popular, it will not stamp a permanent notch in Chicago's psyche. Probably a huge amount of people didn't know it happened anyway. The league just isn't that big. Same with any minor chicago sports team winning like if the Chicago fire (I don't even thihnk they're called that anymore or even know if they still exist) won a title. I might think "neat" but then not remember. The WNBA resonates a bit more for me than that, but not tons more.

Do I think it will ever change? If I had to guess, I'd say no. However, that's different from saying I think it can never change. I think it absolutely could. The odds are stacked against any small business turning into something worth 60B or so like the NBA though. It doesn't mean they should all give up and stop trying. As a comparison, the WNBA makes 6x the revenue of the Arena Football League in its last year, but I never thought "man I can't believe the gall of these Arena Football people trying to run a league", I was a little sad when Arena football ended.

I'm not trying to shame you into watching the WNBA or to care about it or to choose your priorities, but it's such a weird take to be like "the people who own and fund this business should just give up, no one will ever watch women's basketball".

The WNBA is welfare. I know the term "welfare" gets looked at negatively by some people but I don't mean it as a bad thing. There are tons of little girls who love playing basketball. Having a professional women's basketball league gives them entertainment, role models and possibly a dream to aspire to. The interest/fan base may be small and operate in the red but the money they are costing the NBA annually is miniscule compared to the money they are bringing in from the NBA. The league earns huge brownie points socially in the women's right department by existing as well. The positives that come with having the WNBA outweighs the negatives of the money lost.

Ironically, the only way I see the WNBA ever ending is......women's rights. The insistence of some WNBA players to continue to make a stink about not being paid the same as NBA players or not receiving the same level of perks may end them. If the feminist ever get loud enough in the national/global media for not paying their players the same as NBA players then they'd force the NBA's hand. If their options are to pay Candace Parker $40 million like LeBron James or shutdown the WNBA then they'll end the league. They aren't willing to lose that level of money paying the women higher salaries and they don't have to because the press isn't bad enough. The "equal pay for equal work" crowd is actually their only threat.

[WookieOnRitalin]

I think I concur that it is great to see the Sky win the championship, but I have to get some thoughts off my chest. I have not read much in this thread (full disclosure).

I am going to take a real bad position here and it's not that I want to be antagonistic or misogynistic, but here's my question. How long do they plan to keep this league going? They have tried to find a variety of ways to make the WNBA interesting and profitable, but it seems none of it has worked. Female audiences do not even tune in who you would think would be its biggest supporters considering it is one of the few female professional leagues that exists.

Systemically, the WNBA is an afterthought to the majority of the sports public. It appears to me that most people view it as something think should exist, but have no interest in supporting because, well, it's not as interesting as other sports (almost 100% male). This is not a slight on the women who play the game. They work hard. They play hard, but after almost 25 years, the league is a loser. Without the NBA, the league does not exist. Seen another way, the NBA generates 3x the revenue in one week of play than the WNBA generates in its entirety.

The WNBA is losing about 10M per year based on a google search. It's hard to figure out how accurate that is, because it seems like the revenue projection numbers are really old and people just keep carrying forward in new articles because they can't find better ones. That said, since it's the only number we have, let's go with it. Relative to the amount invested that is peanuts and compared to the people doing the investing it is peanuts. At 10M a year loss, it likely means at least 1-2 of the franchises run at a profit.

Either way, as a financial institution, the league may not keep going indefinitely, but it isn't in some massive financial peril here. It has extremely wealthy investors that can afford these losses more or less indefinitely.

Also, there are many leagues that have attempted to take off and keep going despite low returns/small results initially. There was a time when there were probably a dozen companies in the MMA field that were all trying to make it big and eventually MMA turned into a real sport worth billions.

The WNBA probably won't do that, but it isn't insane to think it might become bigger over time either.

The Sky winning the championship has a similar feel to the Wolves winning championships in the old IHL days. Cool, but ultimately forgettable. Let's be honest here. How many posters here really have an emotional connection to the team, league, and players to the same level as the Chicago Bulls. Think about why that is and what makes it so different and lastly, do you think that it will ever change?

In the sense that the league isn't that popular, it will not stamp a permanent notch in Chicago's psyche. Probably a huge amount of people didn't know it happened anyway. The league just isn't that big. Same with any minor chicago sports team winning like if the Chicago fire (I don't even thihnk they're called that anymore or even know if they still exist) won a title. I might think "neat" but then not remember. The WNBA resonates a bit more for me than that, but not tons more.

Do I think it will ever change? If I had to guess, I'd say no. However, that's different from saying I think it can never change. I think it absolutely could. The odds are stacked against any small business turning into something worth 60B or so like the NBA though. It doesn't mean they should all give up and stop trying. As a comparison, the WNBA makes 6x the revenue of the Arena Football League in its last year, but I never thought "man I can't believe the gall of these Arena Football people trying to run a league", I was a little sad when Arena football ended.

I'm not trying to shame you into watching the WNBA or to care about it or to choose your priorities, but it's such a weird take to be like "the people who own and fund this business should just give up, no one will ever watch women's basketball".

These are fair points and I agree that they should not just give up when I am certain they are making progress, but at what point does the level of prominence of the league reach a wider audience? I just do not see it for a variety of reasons, but mainly due to the fact the women's game is just not that engaging to watch. It's like watching lower forms of semi pro football just to watch football or having a veggie burger. You're always hoping it is like the real deal, but it ends up seeming like a watered down version. Perhaps an appreciation for the women's game will grow with more people. My prediction is that it won't.

Women's team sports tends to lack a certain level of collective interests in the US and abroad. Individual female athletes in individual sports tend to rise to a higher level of prominence and collective interests because in those specific sports they have the unique ability to display their individual talent (tennis, gymnastics, weightlifting, swimming, CrossFit come to mind). I would honestly say they are more recognizable.

One of the difficult challenges that female athletes face (team wise) seems to be that they want to be rated on their talent and not by their image, physique, aesthetic (which is a position I support). However, when you play a team sport (especially one men also perform), you are AUTOMATICALLY compared to the talent and performance of your male counterparts in that sport where men will always have a significant advantage in displaying their higher level of ability in comparison to their female counterparts.

So on some level, while one athlete may be a good athlete in her sport, the reality is that she would struggle to play in the G-League by comparison. One of the challenges facing women today in general is the desire for equal consideration, but this also means rating them equally against their male counterparts. In most professions this is not as big of an issue as men and women can have the same level of high performance, but in certain professions (say sports) this is ultimately not the case as men have a superior advantage.

One strategy that I think could be effective is for women to develop a sport modality that is unique to them and not to their male counterparts. Creating a different sports league emphasizing their individual athletic talents. What this would look like I have no idea, but I will say that I think that could be an opportunity to set themselves apart.

I am not sure if more marketing and exposure is going to help the sport out either.

[dougthonus]

The WNBA is welfare. I know the term "welfare" gets looked at negatively by some people but I don't mean it as a bad thing. There are tons of little girls who love playing basketball. Having a professional women's basketball league gives them entertainment, role models and possibly a dream to aspire to. The interest/fan base may be small and operate in the red but the money they are costing the NBA annually is miniscule compared to the money they are bringing in from the NBA. The league earns huge brownie points socially in the women's right department by existing as well. The positives that come with having the WNBA outweighs the negatives of the money lost.

I don't think that is true though, there are real investors that are hoping to get real returns out of this. It is something that hasn't made money, but as I noted, many, many sports leagues have started with the intent of making money that weren't successful ultimately. It doesn't mean they don't want to make money.

Assuming people pouring money into this are doing it with the expectation of no return would be a mistake IMO.

Ironically, the only way I see the WNBA ever ending is......women's rights. The insistence of some WNBA players to continue to make a stink about not being paid the same as NBA players or not receiving the same level of perks may end them. If the feminist ever get loud enough in the national/global media for not paying their players the same as NBA players then they'd force the NBA's hand. If their options are to pay Candace Parker $40 million like LeBron James or shutdown the WNBA then they'll end the league. They aren't willing to lose that level of money paying the women higher salaries and they don't have to because the press isn't bad enough. The "equal pay for equal work" crowd is actually their only threat.

It is interesting because they wanted the pay to be equal relative to percentage of revenue rather than equal on a raw amount. That's way more reasonable than expecting equal pay in terms of total dollars. That said, it ignores the fact that there are high levels of fixed costs, and really a CBA should be set up to try to make everyone money. The owners of WNBA teams aren't going to pay out 50% in terms of league revenues if they're already losing money at 20% of league revenues.

At some point, the WNBA may collapse though because they just don't pay enough to keep women in the game. Outside of the very elite women in the game, the lesser players are at a point where they could potentially make more in the corporate world than playing in the WNBA, so getting that talent pool will be more difficult. That said, the league still probably can't afford to do more.

[dougthonus]

These are fair points and I agree that they should not just give up when I am certain they are making progress, but at what point does the level of prominence of the league reach a wider audience? I just do not see it for a variety of reasons, but mainly due to the fact the women's game is just not that engaging to watch. It's like watching lower forms of semi pro football just to watch football or having a veggie burger. You're always hoping it is like the real deal, but it ends up seeming like a watered down version. Perhaps an appreciation for the women's game will grow with more people. My prediction is that it won't.

You could say the same about college basketball, yet it is a massive industry. College basketball is a much lower level version of basketball or the little league world series which gets play on ESPN despite not even being remotely the highest level of baseball for that age group (as it's lesser players than the AAU teams), or women's soccer in the world cup is big in the US. The best talent doesn't necessarily mean it will have collective interest.

Women's team sports tends to lack a certain level of collective interests in the US and abroad. Individual female athletes in individual sports tend to rise to a higher level of prominence and collective interests because in those specific sports they have the unique ability to display their individual talent (tennis, gymnastics, weightlifting, swimming, CrossFit come to mind). I would honestly say they are more recognizable.

One of the difficult challenges that female athletes face (team wise) seems to be that they want to be rated on their talent and not by their image, physique, aesthetic (which is a position I support). However, when you play a team sport (especially one men also perform), you are AUTOMATICALLY compared to the talent and performance of your male counterparts in that sport where men will always have a significant advantage in displaying their higher level of ability in comparison to their female counterparts.

So on some level, while one athlete may be a good athlete in her sport, the reality is that she would struggle to play in the G-League by comparison. One of the challenges facing women today in general is the desire for equal consideration, but this also means rating them equally against their male counterparts. In most professions this is not as big of an issue as men and women can have the same level of high performance, but in certain professions (say sports) this is ultimately not the case as men have a superior advantage.

One strategy that I think could be effective is for women to develop a sport modality that is unique to them and not to their male counterparts. Creating a different sports league emphasizing their individual athletic talents. What this would look like I have no idea, but I will say that I think that could be an opportunity to set themselves apart.

I am not sure if more marketing and exposure is going to help the sport out either.

There are certainly lots of challenges trying to grow a sport, and a women's team sport seems to be a particular challenge. As pro-leagues, as you note, there isn't a lot of commercial success there long term. It's really the USWNST and that's about it that comes to mind. As you noted, there is success in other sports, but they're largely more individually based (gymnastics, mma, tennis, golf, etc...).

[mj234eva]

So so happy for them!

[PlayerUp]

WNBA could be profitable if they would change things to make it appealing for people to actually tune in and watch. When McGrady suggested lowering the hoop to 9 feet so people could see more woman dunk, the WNBA player on the show was offended.

Unfortunately what they are producing now draws next to no interest so they'll continue remaining at a loss for decades to come until eventually the NBA ends the WNBA. There is a way to completely change the WNBA so it could be instantly profitable but they'll never go that direction because of all the movements these days.

[TheSuzerain]

Sky are in shambles. Parker, Quigly, VanDersloot all gone.

Time to tank for Caitlyn Clark.

[Hangtime84]

Sky are in shambles. Parker, Quigly, VanDersloot all gone.

Time to tank for Caitlyn Clark.

i hope it woks

[Dominator83]

They've gone the way of the Blackhawks

[Michael Jackson]

Something had to have happened during that playoff run last year right? The whole team is gutted. Looks like Wrigley is just following Vandersloot (which I understand and she is no spring chicken either) but man that is a massive gutting of a team.

[umfan83]

Something had to have happened during that playoff run last year right? The whole team is gutted. Looks like Wrigley is just following Vandersloot (which I understand and she is no spring chicken either) but man that is a massive gutting of a team.

I think it all has to do with Parker deciding to leave. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. Vandersloot and Quigley are both in their mid-30s and likely wanted to avoid a rebuild and decided to start fresh (though Quigley is apparently taking a year off). It seemed like they were approaching last year as a last dance sort of thing.

[Michael Jackson]

Something had to have happened during that playoff run last year right? The whole team is gutted. Looks like Wrigley is just following Vandersloot (which I understand and she is no spring chicken either) but man that is a massive gutting of a team.

I think it all has to do with Parker deciding to leave. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. Vandersloot and Quigley are both in their mid-30s and likely wanted to avoid a rebuild and decided to start fresh (though Quigley is apparently taking a year off). It seemed like they were approaching last year as a last dance sort of thing.

Quigley likely just didn't want to play in Chicago while her wife was playing somewhere else, and she still had a contract so that is why she is taking the year off. once again, totally understand.

[TheSuzerain]

Something had to have happened during that playoff run last year right? The whole team is gutted. Looks like Wrigley is just following Vandersloot (which I understand and she is no spring chicken either) but man that is a massive gutting of a team.

I think it all has to do with Parker deciding to leave. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. Vandersloot and Quigley are both in their mid-30s and likely wanted to avoid a rebuild and decided to start fresh (though Quigley is apparently taking a year off). It seemed like they were approaching last year as a last dance sort of thing.

Quigley likely just didn't want to play in Chicago while her wife was playing somewhere else, and she still had a contract so that is why she is taking the year off. once again, totally understand.

Should trade Quigley imo

[Michael Jackson]

I think it all has to do with Parker deciding to leave. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. Vandersloot and Quigley are both in their mid-30s and likely wanted to avoid a rebuild and decided to start fresh (though Quigley is apparently taking a year off). It seemed like they were approaching last year as a last dance sort of thing.

Quigley likely just didn't want to play in Chicago while her wife was playing somewhere else, and she still had a contract so that is why she is taking the year off. once again, totally understand.

Should trade Quigley imo

I would assume it has to be to where ver Vandersloot choses to go or she will just sit...

[Andi Obst]

It's Kah's team now. Probably not a good one, but I think they made some nice signings in the last 2 days.

Ironically, it looks like another Chicago basketball team that's going to take a lot of midrange shots.

[TheSuzerain]

Bump

Perhaps even more mismanaged than the Bulls in recent years. But they finally started their rebuild.

Now have #3 pick which could mean Bueckers. Risk she stays in college to avoid Sky.

That Mabrey trade is just brutal though. She's not even good.