|
|
Post by dryside on Apr 1, 2021 7:34:03 GMT -8
You can read it if you like. I won't paste it here just give a quick overview of what it says. Two of the highest profile womens college players { Catlin Clark, Paige Bueckers } ask..why not us ? In regards to being able to have the option of a one and done scenario. Currently that is not an option for women. The latest CBA for the WNBA runs through 2027. You can bet that will be revisited at some point between now and then. Geno Auriemma says the womens programs have grown in popularity because currently there is not that option for women and that as such the players and the programs have developed their brand name as a result. He admits it is only fair that women should have the same option as the men,but is also glad it remains as is for the foreseeable future. Just another layer to the complex situation that college sports has become.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Apr 1, 2021 8:02:15 GMT -8
Why take away one of the reasons why some of us follow women’s basketball over the men. I would actually want all programs to be three and done as a minimum.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Apr 1, 2021 8:02:42 GMT -8
Given that the average WNBA player makes less than 2X that of an average salary with a bachelors degree, it’s probably not a bad idea to encourage getting through school, but the rule should be changed regardless. I assume the alternative is to play pro elsewhere instead to circumvent? (Didn’t read the article)
|
|
|
|
Post by rmancarl on Apr 1, 2021 9:36:12 GMT -8
It used to be that you could get a player and expect them to be around a few years. Now, with early entry into the NBA, or the WNBA if they go that route, and with easier transfer rules, it's not as much fun to follow college basketball. You lands someone (Sasha as an example) and expect they are going to be a star in your program, and then Boom! they are gone.
It has to be tougher on coaches with so much movement and uncertainty.
|
|
|
|
Post by gnawitall on Apr 1, 2021 9:42:24 GMT -8
Why take away one of the reasons why some of us follow women’s basketball over the men. I would actually want all programs to be three and done as a minimum. I love the baseball model! Seems like a no brainer but I realize there are good arguments for different sports etc... |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Apr 1, 2021 9:54:55 GMT -8
It's a tricky situation. You shouldn't play college basketball if you don't want to actually go to college. There needs to be a more robust minor league system for that to be a reality though...somewhere for people to play between high school and the pros, and I don't know that there's a profitable way to do that....would people go watch the Salem Sharks women's basketball team, full of good high school players that aren't good enough yet to play in the WNBA? Maybe....I mean, people went to Volcanoes games.
It's definitely not great for college basketball that players move on after one year. It's hard to build up any sort of fandom when you have to relearn everyone on the team every year. It's why coaches become synonymous with a program - I don't know the names of a single guy on the Duke Blue Devils or North Carolina Tar Heels or Michigan State Spartans, but I know K, Roy, and Izzo.
Not sure what the solution is, but this "wwe're gonna make the girls stay in school just because" doesn't fly anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2021 9:57:25 GMT -8
On the basis of the following, looks like Paige Bueckers could make MORE than the average salary for someone having a bachelor's degree if she plays in Europe. Thickhead assumes that she would be allowed to play there. And as one of the top and high profile players around, she might collect a top salary that is twice as much. After all, she holds the promise of being even better than Taurasi in time.
Many WNBA players travel to Europe in the off-season to play in international women's basketball because of the much higher salaries. According to ESPN affiliate website Ballin Europe, a player with no WNBA experience can earn between $6,000 and $7,000 a month while playing in the top leagues in countries like Spain and Italy. A player with WNBA experience can earn an average of $13,000 a month while playing in the same tier league. Elite players, like Phoenix Mercury guard Diana Taurasi, earned annual salaries in the hundreds of thousands of dollars while playing aboard.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Apr 1, 2021 10:09:30 GMT -8
I stopped watching pro sports when free agency took over many years ago. I watch the Beav's because they play good team ball and I like to watch the players develop as players and a team. If it became the pro stuff where they were bouncing around from school to school, or one and done sort of stuff then I'd stop being a fan. I understand that the players want their freedom to choose to do whatever, but I get to choose whether to watch any more, and I wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Apr 1, 2021 10:41:39 GMT -8
would people go watch the Salem Sharks women's basketball team, full of good high school players that aren't good enough yet to play in the WNBA? I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. The WNBA is a money losing venture. The foreign women's leagues seem to make money. I guess women's basketball is more popular overseas? That said, we're only talking a tiny fraction of players that could jump to the WNBA 1 or 2 years out of HS. They can already quit and go play overseas, but there's really no reason they shouldn't have the option. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Apr 1, 2021 12:54:55 GMT -8
The foreign women's leagues seem to make money. I guess women's basketball is more popular overseas?
The foreign leagues don't make any money either. There isn't a lot of data on-line, but here's an example that I found. In the top French league, season tickets (21 games) cost ~$300. Median attendance was about 1700, with the top team averaging about twice that. So a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that ticket sales amount to about a $500k/team.
The rest of the calculation is just a guess, but revenues from TV, licensing, and such are surely pretty minimal. Until very recently, MLS still got over half of its revenues from ticket sales, and I have a hard time imagining that an even smaller league like this is any better at selling sponsorships. There are no luxury suites to sell. All told, it would appear that revenues are somewhere on the order of a million dollars per year per team.
Subtract travel, training expenses, marketing and player salaries, and it's obviously very hard to imagine any profit. And the French league is reputed to be the most businesslike of the women's leagues in Europe.
Interestingly enough, I did find one women's league that is doing very, very well. Australian Women's Cricket! Average attendance > 14,000/game, all-star class players make ~ $200k/yr, and are growing fast. Australian Women's Australian Rules Football does alright as well - with better attendance than the WNBA.
|
|
|
|
Post by 411500 on Apr 1, 2021 13:05:01 GMT -8
This is overly simplified, so I hope it triggers someone to respond with more info.
My understanding is that many European teams are corporate owned (for example, Volkswagen) and they do not operate on a classic for-profit model.
In Eastern Europe (Russia, Ukraine,) some teams are owned by Oligarchs for reasons that border on "hobby."
Hopefully, someone with more current info can add to this....
Several of my former players spent time playing ball in Europe and this is a ball park summary of some of what they have told me...Admittedly, it is dated.
GO BEAVS!!
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Apr 1, 2021 14:29:58 GMT -8
It's a melange.
For the most part, the Euro leagues evolved from the club sports programs. Imagine if there had never been MLB, NBA, NFL or NCAA, and the AAU, American Legion baseball and Pop Warner football had been allowed to grow into their place. Many of these clubs are simply the "A" team for an otherwise ordinary after-school sports program. Some are sponsored directly by the city, more are sponsored by a leading corporation, and some by wealthy individuals. There's no one universal model - neither for the leagues or for the clubs. But only a few of these clubs and leagues are run purely as a for-profit business.
(That Australian cricket league is a huge exception. It's a purely for-profit enterprise. This rankles some: the British association won't let their top players play there simply because it isn't tied to the established cricket cartel. If you thought the NCAA had a monopoly on athlete exploitation, guess again.)
|
|
