Aaron Bollwinkel interviews Substack writer and longtime analyst Bob Bellotti about his recent findings regarding the ways in which the WNBA’s parity is affected based on expansion, and what that will likely mean for the league as it embarks on its most aggressive period of growth yet.
Great conversation! Curious if you talked to Bob at all about why he thinks parity is good or should be the goal? (Seems like he went in with that assumption). I know there’s another view that dynasties are what drive popularity in sports (e.g, the Cavs-Warriors matchups vs the recent 7 champions in 7 seasons)
That’s a fair question and I should have asked. I was functioning under the presumption that all leagues strive to have parity for the sake of competitive balance. But you’re right, that doesn’t necessarily make for the most engagement/excitement from a fan standpoint.
There is plenty of fan interest (good for business) to go around whether the league has many teams vying for playoff spots or whether there are one or two dominant squads (Minnesota this season) and a few bottom-feeders (Chicago, Connecticut, Dallas). Both of these can be true; every year there are top teams as well as a battle for those final playoff spots. It is also worth mentioning: will the league expand the number of playoff spots as it grows? This further increases excitement. Eighteen teams (by 2030) with only eight playoff teams seems unlikely.
They probably will expand the playoffs a bit, but I hope not too much. Letting a 15-25 team (ATL last season) into the playoffs already is a bit too lax to me
Good question, Chris. I think parity is generally better for the league because it creates more teams vying for playoff positions, which generates more excitement and fan interest.
The highest level of parity in the W according to my calculation was 2009 when six of 13 teams finished within two games of .500. Phoenix had that season's best record, winning 68% of their games, which is tied for the 48th-best record in history. The weakest team, Sacramento, won 35% of their games. That said, the teams with the two best records, Phoenix and Indiana, met in the finals but five of seven series went the distance.
Great conversation! Curious if you talked to Bob at all about why he thinks parity is good or should be the goal? (Seems like he went in with that assumption). I know there’s another view that dynasties are what drive popularity in sports (e.g, the Cavs-Warriors matchups vs the recent 7 champions in 7 seasons)
That’s a fair question and I should have asked. I was functioning under the presumption that all leagues strive to have parity for the sake of competitive balance. But you’re right, that doesn’t necessarily make for the most engagement/excitement from a fan standpoint.
Fair enough, just curious. I don't disagree and I know Bob has thought about this more than me!
There is plenty of fan interest (good for business) to go around whether the league has many teams vying for playoff spots or whether there are one or two dominant squads (Minnesota this season) and a few bottom-feeders (Chicago, Connecticut, Dallas). Both of these can be true; every year there are top teams as well as a battle for those final playoff spots. It is also worth mentioning: will the league expand the number of playoff spots as it grows? This further increases excitement. Eighteen teams (by 2030) with only eight playoff teams seems unlikely.
Agreed - there are always interesting storylines!
They probably will expand the playoffs a bit, but I hope not too much. Letting a 15-25 team (ATL last season) into the playoffs already is a bit too lax to me
Good question, Chris. I think parity is generally better for the league because it creates more teams vying for playoff positions, which generates more excitement and fan interest.
The highest level of parity in the W according to my calculation was 2009 when six of 13 teams finished within two games of .500. Phoenix had that season's best record, winning 68% of their games, which is tied for the 48th-best record in history. The weakest team, Sacramento, won 35% of their games. That said, the teams with the two best records, Phoenix and Indiana, met in the finals but five of seven series went the distance.