steamboat_charlie

Not trying to be rude, but I don't think you understand the landscape. The WNBA's last TV deal was for $60MM. Their next TV deal which will be negotiated after the 24/25 NBA season is expected to be in the hundreds of millions. Average viewership for their games has more than doubled over the past three seasons. This was all before the phenomenon that was NCAA women's basketball this season. Live sport TV rights are a premium commodity as it's been proven to be basically the only form of reliable appointment-viewing content still available, and there is major competition between networks, cable, and the various streaming platforms to secure these rights. Beyond standard forms of revenue, WNBA owners can expect to receive significant auxiliary revenue in the form of expansion fees over the next 5 to 10 years. The NBA, so far, has been careful not to overexpand and dilute their equity at what they view as low prices. Their most recent additions paid ~$50mm in expansion fees. Now--why would these very smart, very successful investors pony up such a price on a money losing venture? Could it be that the value of an asset isn't strictly tied to current operating results? All you have to do is look to another fledgling league (MLS) to see the trajectory these fees could have. In 2007 an MLS expansion would cost you $10MM. In 2012, $50MM. In 2015, $100MM. In 2019, $150MM. 2022, $325MM. Last year, $500MM. I can keep going, but if you still don't understand I don't really see the point.

I already outlined why they actually do have leverage (despite operating at a loss) in my prior response to you. Near bottom of page one of this thread.

Bit of a chicken and egg scenario with Greco. Most Americans don’t really care about it, and we’re also terrible at it. I’d be fine if I went the rest of my life never witnessing another Greco match. In fact, most of the Greco I’ve had to watch in recent years has been specifically against my will, being interspersed with content that I am actually interested in consuming.

The NBA founded the WNBA, initially owning 100% of the league. Today NBA owners collectively own about half of the league's equity. It's an investment, not a charity.

Who knows. The older I get the harder it is to even understand what kids are talking about. I imagine they're thinking something like "did you peep that 'gelo post? sneaky low key fire, no glaze but he's rizzed up from the tizz up"

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. The WNBA has been operating at a loss, but not radically so. It wouldn't even require that dramatic of an uptick in attendance and viewership for them to operate in the black. People invest in currently unprofitable businesses all the time, and the income statement is just one way to value an enterprise. If the WNBA opens up for expansion they can expect to receive significant expansion fees as people are looking to get in now in what they view as a sport with serious growth potential. Similar to MLS, expansion fees would be split between WNBA equity holders. What I'm getting at is that even if the operation is losing money on paper, the league and its owners are holding an appreciating asset, with serious potential for outsized capital gains via expansion fees. They did a capital raise a year or two ago valuing the whole league near $1 billion. Point being, the players do have some leverage. Not only based on the financial realities of the league, but also based on public pressure that they'll be able to leverage through the media. Whether you agree with it or not, it's a lever they can pull that will put real pressure on the NBA & owners. Negotiations in the past have always had the specter of potential league closure as a looming possibility. There is a zero percent chance the NBA is going to shut down the WNBA now, just when their years of investment in a losing business is finally poised to take off.

I don't think this can be based on how much you're paying the athletes to show up. Nobody is really in a place to monetize a one-nighter like this, and at present there's not much to monetize to begin with. There were 8 NCAA champs competing last year. It's not like they can't get quality wrestlers. Given that the stakes are inherently lower, they need to find a way to create more intriguing matchups and build some sort of narrative for the event.

WNBA has a players' association and collectively bargains with the league. If the league is able to retain even a fraction of the viewership that Clark and other women generated this year, the players will finally have a leg to stand on in those negotiations when they go back to the table in 2025 or 2026. I'm not a huge fan of the game but it's awesome to witness a transformational movement in real time. Hopefully they can capitalize on the momentum, the business booms, and the women get paid.

I like where your head is at. The all-star meet definitely needs some work. Not sure I have the answers, but a couple of thoughts/questions: 1) It gets lost in the calendar. Most fans are still just getting plugged into their own teams in November. They've had maybe 1 home dual meet by this point, a couple of tune ups, maybe an open tourney. Maybe there is a better time to hold it. Is week of Christmas with a healthy weight allowance crazy? Later in the year during dual season? 2) Tacking onto your point about an MMA-style card--the matchups and weights should be fluid. Maybe we get some cross-weight matchups (has this ever happened? I can't recall). Wouldn't champs be more likely to toe the line in an exhibition that truly won't matter later in the year--like a Starocci/Keckeisen match. Or Mesenbrink 165 vs. O'Toole 174.

If he ever finds his way back onto a college mat, there is so much potential for him to do the funniest things possible at any point. Get DQ'd in the national finals--possible. Double bird split salute in Ames--possible. Pose and flex in Cael's face after winning in BJC--possible. Get in a fight with Terry Brands during a match--possible. These are just a few of the things currently being robbed from us by (admittedly, wise), administrators. Let's hope somebody is ready to make a bad decision.

Hey I'm all for it. I didn't suggest he was going to do something actually bad.

Why stop at Starocci and Keckeisen? This collage should’ve included every returning champ from Figueroa - Kerkvliet. I did enjoy the “this Ferrari is normal” narrative, though. Soon he too will be posting in hieroglyphics and executing the double bird split (possibly the greatest move I’ve ever seen, for the record).

Cael & Co. keeping Starocci's personality more or less under wraps for the better part of 5 years is nothing short of remarkable. Reminiscent of Mike Tomlin with Antonio Brown. Impressive stuff.

David Taylor looks out for David Taylor. Been that way forever.

Good observation. I think my reservations are mostly around the fact that we just haven't seen him do it.

My suspicion was that this will be much closer to 50/50. It's hard to look at that bracket and pick a single name other than Lee. However, a lot can go wrong for Spencer. Plenty of the guys in the bracket are capable of beating him if he's not 100%, and if I had to place a wager for even money I would put it on the field. Feels like 57kg in the USA has had a knack for not going chalk in recent years.

I wouldn't exactly call it panic, but I do think it's a very real consideration for a lot of teams. I don't know what should have been done with Jamison and Spratley. I do know that Minnesota would be better off with them in their lineup next year, and likely would've been better off with them in the lineup this year as well. These are tricky situations, but coaches need to find a way to navigate it. Each individual is different. Communication is key, and in a lot of cases, so is money. The cheapest way to get new business is to retain the clients you already have. Recruiting is the same way. Losing promising talent before they step on the mat for you will put you in a worse spot than if you'd never had them committed in the first place.

Who cares? If he wrestles 184 a matchup with Keck would be fun. If he doesn't wrestle at all PSU's lineup is still solidified as a massive title favorite.

Lesser resourced programs need to be very careful about how they're using redshirts. In the NIL era, it's increasingly likely you're developing that recruit for someone else. IMO guys are more likely to stay once they've already started competing--obviously each individual situation is different, but generally speaking if you can get them on the mat and prove to them they can have success at your program, that's going to be a more secure situation. We already saw this play out last year with guys like Mesenbrink, Jamison and Spratley, to name a few. This topic perhaps deserves its own thread.

@Hammerlock3 Perhaps might make sense to recreate the poll as "Lee vs. The Field."

More responsibility + pay bump. Cost of living in NJ isn't radically different than VA. Housing cost is the main differentiator, perhaps Princeton will also help him out in that regard to bridge the gap.

Re: McKenna that makes complete sense. Smart kid. Gilman is weird but I think he could be interested in coaching. Despite his quirks he does have a fairly cerebral approach to the sport.

Hhahahaa oh my. Freudian slip there I suppose. I meant to say "showers him with praise," and somehow ended up with that.

There are still rules?

I mean, this is classic athlete speak. He sees Dake as the likely rep and a potential rival for the podium so he does mental gymnastics to downplay his accomplishments because it makes him feel good about his chances. He's trained with Burroughs, is friendly with him, and likely won't have to wrestle him, so he showers him with praise.