Clay says the WNBA should stop expanding because the Chicago Sky is so bad. Some Board Junkies disagree.

Yes, the Sky is bad (are bad?)-- just as first-year expansion teams are in all sports.

Yes, the level of play in a league with 16 (or 20) teams will be below the level of play in a league with 12 (or 10)-- though given how bad some established teams have been recently, you could argue that the real limiting factor isn't the level of talent available so much as the number of competent coaching staffs.

The (considerable) marketing advantages of more teams in major markets (Donna's stated reason for seeking expansion) may be serious indeed: Val Ackerman was a lawyer, but Donna comes from marketing and TV-- she knows whereof she speaks.

The strongest case for expansion plans, though, is the simplest: the worst thing for the league would be more teams folding, and expansion is insurance against contraction.

The W has more committed owners than it once did, but there are still several whose NBA-centred owners think about them only on alternate Thursdays. There's also the scary prospect of the Sonics moving: what would become of the Storm?

If Donna Orender plans an expansion team for Kansas City in 2008, and some NBA owner decides to get out of the WNBA business after the summer of '07, the relevant team can simply move to KC: no expansion, no contraction.

But if Orender wants to wait on expansion until she's ultra-sure the talent pool merits it, and the same NBA owner throws in the towel, then we'll have another dispersal draft. I'd rather see stagnant offensive play from bad new teams every two years, forever, than have to endure another one of those.