But it would be a start, wouldn't it? I mean, none of the other stuff matters if you bleed out, does it? The W-League and WPSL are subsistence farming. They're like airline food - they'll keep you alive, but you're not all that excited about it, and there had better be something way better in the terminal when you deplane. A new league - should it begin, as some believe, at a lower level and grow gradually - would likely have to sell the "we're growing something here" aspect as its relevance (whatever your definition of "relevance" is - we're talking about a women's sports league here, there's a ceiling to its relevance). Improvement over time. That's all I can give you right now. Am I 100% sure the start-small-and-grow approach will work? Nope. Nobody is. But I am 1000% convinced if you just throw money at another women's D1 league and say "NOW we're serious," it won't work. It'll bleed out. There is a market for this. It's not nearly large enough or lucrative enough to have the kind of league some of you seem to expect/demand/anticipate. Oh, I'm sorry. You said "WPS was a big step up." And I said, basically, "And it didn't work." You seem to be misunderstanding my point, which is "Whatever good you think WPS did, it didn't work. So none of the other stuff matters." You want to bumper sticker stuff, I can do it, too. Very, very simple point: it didn't work. Therefore, you did something wrong. It's great that you (apparently) did some things right. Fabulous. Just not enough of them. Obviously. That's like saying you looked really, really good right before you slit your wrists. It sounds like, to many of you, it's not going to be worthy unless it's D1, standalone, give-it-one-more-shot-with-feeling, right out of the gates for a third time. It's going to take time, that's the major thing. Stability. You start with x number of teams and in year two, you keep all those teams and if you add a couple, great. But you can't lose any from year one to year two, because then you're back to the "here we go again" bit. Every year that you survive and remain stable and don't have franchises fold or shift, you add another layer of relevancy. It's not much from year one to year two, but by year five, the impact is greater. By the same token, if you have the same sequence where teams fold, new teams come in, teams fold mid-season, it detracts from your relevance. People see you as fly-by-night. WoSo 3.0 is not going to be easy. You can learn a lot from 1.0 and 2.0. Hopefully the first lesson is that all you'll do chasing first-year relevance is burn through a ton of money.