Defending the WNBA

By John DeCosta Sports Central Columnist

A few weeks ago, ESPN.com Page2 columnist Stacey Pressman gave her not-so-flattering perspective on how the WNBA is essentially a vastly inferior brand of basketball when compared to the NBA. While I admittedly respect and enjoy Ms. Pressman's work, and she certainly makes a worthy argument, I fervidly disagree with her opinion. Allow me to tell an anecdote to illustrate my point.

After carelessly consuming another oversized meal from the Cheesecake Factory in downtown Baltimore, my parents attempted to coerce me, with promises of expensive desserts, into spending even more time with them. Recognizing that their trips to visit me from the far regions of South Jersey were infrequent, and my weakness for cheesecake, I bended to their wishes, despite my damp clothes resulting from yet another Baltimore rainstorm.

I entered their hotel building, and it appeared as old as the 1920s advertisement claimed it to be, although I have much difficulty identifying any decade's style that existed before my birth.

Unfortunately, the only entertainment one could partake in at that hour was watching TV, or spending time at the bar with even more people twice my age. Automatically, as though programmed at birth, I put on ESPN, where a WNBA game was in the midst of the second-half. Remembering the Pressman article from a few days previous, I thought that I would take a more critical look at how the game was played, as opposed to just a passing interest in prior years.

The Storm were defeating the Sparks, and their lead began to grow. Sandy Brondello was hitting jump-shots with the same ease as I found the ESPN channel, and Sue Bird was leading the break with the precision of any point guard one would see in the NBA. And there was a sub-competition between Lisa Leslie and Kamila Vodichkova, reminiscent of epic wars instigated by Anthony Mason or Charles Oakley in the '90s.

The Storm took an 18-point advantage, only to permit a furious comeback by the Sparks. But the Storm were able to hold on, with Sue Bird coming off two fundamentally perfect screens to bury mid-range jump-shots. In spite of my damp clothes and weary state, I enjoyed the game, maybe even more than the cheesecake. But there was an element, or elements, missing from the satisfaction I receive from NBA games.

You must be thinking it's all the dunks, right? Wrong. The suspensions for substance use and flagrant fouls? Wrong again. What's missing is the history. The NBA has been around long enough to name their "50 Greatest of All-Time," and it surely was not as popular or entertaining, well, at least as popular, through the course of its history.

In fact, wasn't this league on the verge of going the way of the Dodo or the XFL before the Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, and David Stern era? If it wasn't for the Lakers/Celtics rivalry, the salary cap, and the marketing skills of David Stern, this league might not exist, or at least be viewed by even less fans than this past year's finals.

And what about the advertising factor, the length of the season, and the number of teams? I will not even go into the details surrounding the countless shoe and beverage endorsements, trading cards, etc., while the WNBA has but a few TV spots and is considered an afterthought on SportsCenter. Then they play a shorter season, with a shorter playoffs, and are featured in only 14 cities. How are we supposed to get excited about watching the games if people have to do research to find out player names, as I did in order to write this article?

In the Pressman article, she mentioned that women's college teams are popular because "their fan base is made up of school loyalists, not basketball purists." This may be true to a certain degree, but has she watched the men's college game recently? With the most-talented college players entering the NBA draft early, it's just not the caliber used to be. Without the fan-base it has developed in years, and the absurd number of office pools for March Madness, would the college game be as popular?

But the main point the article attempts to make is that women have physical limitations that make the game less entertaining. Yes, you do not see the dunks or some of the outrageous layups, but is that what really draws the basketball purists? Does that mean that people would rather see super-athletes like Ricky Davis or Darius Miles instead of the non-flashy players of John Stockton, Reggie Miller, or Tim Duncan?

For me, the highlight of this year's playoffs was when Steve Kerr entered Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals and almost single-handedly led the Spurs to victory. Personally, as a 5-10 male whose game and shot-selection would draw criticism even from Antoine Walker, I enjoy watching players that I can emulate. Of course, like everyone else, I enjoy the occasional Vince Carter leaping over the defender for a dunk, but I can only do that over my dog on my seven-foot basement hoop.

To make the comparison between the NBA and WNBA is unfair at this time. The NBA is an established league, with soon to be 30 teams, excessive publicity, and rivalries. This didn't happen overnight, as they had to overcome the challenge of the ABA, strikes, and the antics of Dennis Rodman. Their rules have changed and evolved, and I'm still not certain if they believe the three-point line is where it should be. The WNBA is still in its inchoate stages, so to make the comparison now between the leagues is not only unfair, but inaccurate.

It is a different brand of basketball. It is one with lower salaries, smaller egos, and based more on the fundamentals of the game. It is a league that should actually serve as a model to the NBA in many ways, and to true basketball fans, it will always be entertaining.

Article courtesy of Sports Central.