In the subscription-only section of Full Court, Bob Corwin reviews the 2005 WNBA season, including on-court performance, team and league finances, and the food in each team's media room.

Overall, he's surprisingly pessimistic: "NBA owners are businessmen first, do-gooders second. If it can’t be shown to them why they should continue to have patience for a second decade with operations that lose money in six or seven figures, the WNBA may have a shorter life span than most would think."

And yet, as he points out, "For all but Connecticut and now Chicago, the gains and losses are truly meaningless when placed in the context of NBA mega millions. If the individual ownership of each franchise likes the concept of this league or is a loyal follower of David Stern, the team stays." Connecticut, moreover, looks like a clear success.

WNBA owners are businesspeople in the sense that they all have lots of money, but how many entered the business of sports with the primary goal of turning a profit? Some NBA owners have proven willing to take what sports economist Dan Rosenbaum calls "huge losses with the luxury tax," losses much higher than what WNBA teams cost.

Yes, those owners would like to change the system, but that's not the point: the point is that, as Kevin Pelton put it, "there's a value to winning, over and above the revenue it brings."

The WNBA doesn't need to turn a profit anytime soon in order to stick around: it just needs owners who want to stay in the game.