WNBA Rules Changes for 2006

Just a few quick comments on yesterday’s announcement of some rules changes in the WNBA.

The WNBA front office has made known for the past couple of seasons that they wished that the scoring of games would increase–the perception being that the closer games came to NBA scores, the more respect the women’s game could have. It’s for this reason that I frequently argued for four 12-minute quarters. Yes, the increased minutes would mandate increases in pay during the next upcoming CBA, but 48-minute games tend to have a higher impact on increasing scores than do 40-minute games. I understand that television considerations would make a 48-minute game a tougher sell (2 1/2 hours vs 2 hours of broadcast time), but it would be nice to know if they seriously considered this option.

In concert with this, I also argued for not shortening the shot clock from 30-seconds. I’ve watched with interest many international tournaments (World Championships, Olympics, etc.) since FIBA instituted the 24-second clock, and concluded that, yes, it did speed up the game. But what was more important was that it did not improve the game. Instead, it made things more rushed. Instead of crafting a play, it was now run, quick set, and shoot. Yes, it’s more like men’s b-ball, but I do not contend that’s a good thing. I happen to like TEAM basketball, not this one-on-one/two-on-two mockery of basketball that a too-short shot clock necessitates.

I also bemoaned any thought of dropping jump balls [that reads funny], but as long as they are retained for the run of play (e.g. held balls) I think the WNBA found a good compromise.

Overall, I guess I’m a little disappointed that the WNBA made changes that I don’t think will actually improve the game. In fact, I think they will erode the women’s game into more of the marquee-scorer game the NBA has devolved into.