Definitely only San Fran officially announced today then? It would be weird to announce another team from the Chase center? How long would it take to get Portland approved by the BoG?
I just don't see two teams coming in. Existing teams would not only lose more players, they would also lose more of the TV and sponsorship revenue (two teams would cut that income by 14.3%; one team by 7.6%.
Whatever scheduling issues might exist can be dealt with. Teams want to keep their players, and keep their money.
It's partly made up for by their share of the expansion fee...
The Golden State Warriors have committed a record $50 million to bring a WNBA expansion team to the Bay Area, according to someone familiar with the terms.
I wonder if the Warriors owning a team might push one or two more NBA franchises from owning a WNBA team? Still want LeBron to bring back the Cleveland Rockers when he retires. Do the Kings still want to bring back the Monarchs?
EAST Connecticut New York Philadelphia Washington Charlotte
CENTRAL Indiana Chicago Toronto Atlanta Cleveland
MIDWEST Minnesota Dallas Las Vegas Phoenix Denver
PACIFIC Seattle Portland Golden State Sacramento Los Angeles
The 40 game schedule is fine for 13 teams but tricky for 14 if the conferences are split 7/7.
With 13 you play everybody three times then four of your conference mates a fourth time. The seven team conference plays 22 conference games while the six team conference plays 19.
With 14 you play everybody three times but at least one team in each conference would have to play a non-conference team a fourth time. The fairest thing would be to have everybody's four game opponent be from the opposite conference, but that leads to more travel complaints. Nobody wants an extra cross-country flight.
for a 14-team, 40-game schedule, it might be worth just going back to more conference-oriented scheduling until expansion happens again. play your 6 conference foes four times (24). play two teams from the other conference three times (6), and the remaining five teams twice (10). it would make for messy tiebreaker scenarios come playoff time, but oh well.
with so many actual west-coast teams in such a western conference, it would legitimately feel like cutting down on travel – something the players would surely appreciate. the only team that may have a problem with that setup is Dallas, although they've sort of been not so far from all the other teams while not being very close to any of them either. (Seattle has related to the latter for a while now though...)
fwiw, the above Toronto article also mentioned the $50M expansion fee that made the rounds on social media shortly after the press conference in which Engelbert declined to explicitly say what the fee [for Golden State] was when asked about it.
that apparently was one of the multiple sticking points for Toronto expansion. another we've heard is that Engelbert wanted a team to permanently play in Scotiabank but MLSE was hesitant to commit to that. finally, this article points to maybe an internal power struggle within the ownership group that at least needs to play itself out first. so, perhaps it just isn't meant to be with this group at this time...
...which is especially unfortunate considering that MLSE owns a vast majority of Toronto's pro sports. so looks like it's up to maybe the Toronto Blue Jays' owners, Drake (lmfao nah), or someone coming out of nowhere. anywho, we press on.
First, of course, I was wrong again. Two expansion teams in the same year just doesn't make sense to me, given the relatively shallow talent pool and draft resources. Not to mention the money for the teams.
But two more teams does help with TV contracts and sponsorships, which trump any concerns about the quality of the product.
That said, this kind of announcement puts the league at a disadvantage in negotiating terms. There clearly have been issues finding ownership groups willing to pony up $20 million or $50 million or however much it is, so unless two or more have recently appeared, the next deal might be more skewed to the new team than the Warriors' deal.
On the other hand, to make that statement, the WNBA owners must be confident that a 14th franchise is just a few details away.
First, of course, I was wrong again. Two expansion teams in the same year just doesn't make sense to me, given the relatively shallow talent pool and draft resources. Not to mention the money for the teams.
But two more teams does help with TV contracts and sponsorships, which trump any concerns about the quality of the product.
That said, this kind of announcement puts the league at a disadvantage in negotiating terms. There clearly have been issues finding ownership groups willing to pony up $20 million or $50 million or however much it is, so unless two or more have recently appeared, the next deal might be more skewed to the new team than the Warriors' deal.
On the other hand, to make that statement, the WNBA owners must be confident that a 14th franchise is just a few details away.
Based on what's going around with Portland is that they could get announced as early as the end of October. There will be 14 teams by 2025. Toronto was all but guaranteed to be #14. MLSE literally pulled out last week due to them bleeding money this year. If a new group can get on board with Toronto, they be #15. And all Denver needs is to find a suitable arena to play in. Megdal seems to know something about the Philadelphia bid because he seems to think they'll be getting in down the line.
adding 2 in one instance would be such a big win. there then wouldn’t need to be such an appetite to expand further (not saying it isn’t needed, just that the pressure to do so would decrease), in which those two and the entirety of the league itself could get acclimated. perhaps roster expansion then shifts to the forefront, especially as the current CBA would likely be opted out of between the '25 & '26 seasons, basically running right into that timeline of feeling out the 14-team landscape.
could be that Engelbert played this to perfection – but only if we see Portland announced in time for 2025.