Via Taoduck: Slate's Josh Levin files a weirdly ambivalent reaction to the end of the Shock and the start of the Tulsa WNBA.

Levin thinks the W should act more like the old ABL, and more like the rebooted Women's Pro Soccer league; ignore male NBA fans in favor of women who already like the women's game; and try to "maximize a single revenue stream: ticket sales," rather than spending its energy on TV deals and corporate sponsorships. Would that work?

More important, what does "work" mean? If there are ten to twelve owners willing to stay in the league and lose six, or low-seven, figures a year on their team, then isn't the WNBA "working" now?

If, at some point, there aren't ten to twelve such owners in the current model, would there be ten to twelve (enough for a league) in a slightly cheaper, more "grassroots" environment? (WPS has a salary cap of $32K per player per year; Diana Taurasi made $49K in 2008; no W player makes over $89K.) And if one goal of the league is to create a national presence for pro women's hoops-- so that coverage on ESPN2 is part of the point-- wouldn't a shift to a more localist, less NBA-dependent model move that goal farther away?