The day before the WNBA draft last month, I went to MOMA, the Museum of Modern Art, in Manhattan. Going in, you know you're going to be smirking sometimes. It can't be helped. The point of the visit, though, certainly was not for that. Making fun of modern art is an old, pedestrian joke; heck, they did it on a "Gilligan's Island" episode.
Admittedly, when I walked past things that registered to me as "Pile of Junk on the Floor" or "Stuff Glued to a Board" or "Random Lines Drawn on a Piece of Paper" or the famous "Big Blue Square," I admit I thought of my general rule, "If I could do it, it can't be art."
The seeds of that philosophy were planted early: In first grade, I drew "profiles" of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and presented the "work" to my teacher. "Oh, you made some sheep!" she said.
Still, I kept an open mind throughout MOMA, and to that end it helped greatly to be alone and not have anyone with whom to trade wisecracks. Although, you hear plenty of that just eavesdropping on other museum visitors: "I don't care what they say, that IS just a bunch of light bulbs." And I had to laugh a little while viewing the earnest college girl
explaining the subtleties of cubism to her parents, both of whom appeared to be thinking, "I don't know what she's talking about, but at least she's going to class."
Then I got to this exhibit that was a painting of a bunch of large polka dots of varying colors. The description said the artist painted lots of these polka-dot collections. Why, I wondered. What does one polka-dot pattern mean any different than another one?
So I said, "OK, look at it a little longer." And, I admit, if you stared at it for a while, it started to appear a bit three-dimensional because of which colors stood out and which seemed to fade.
And that, I've decided, is this year's analogy for the start of the WNBA season. You look at the various rosters and wonder how many of the teams Los Angeles is a clear exception are supposed to distinguish themselves from each other. This, again, is especially true in the Eastern Conference.
You'll likely recall that the East was separated top to bottom by three games' difference in 2004, and every team at some point seemed as if it had a chance to win the conference title. Parity is great, of course, but it makes it hard for the overall WNBA fans to know where to focus their attention.
And the start of the season isn't necessarily going to tell us a whole lot. Not for a little while. The usual late arrivals from overseas leagues and late cuts means several teams won't even really begin to find their identities until they've played some real games.
How teams come together at the pro level can be a nebulous process. Franchises have the salary cap to deal with. They don't have a great deal of time in the preseason to see how everyone works together. As mentioned, some players they barely see at all until it's time for the real tipoff.
So they retain players based their history and/or a very short evaluation time, how much they "cost" and by relying on "instinct." Connecticut coach Mike Thibault said that as camp goes on, players tend to more or less "cut themselves" in other words, their play makes it obvious if they are fitting in well enough to be one of the chosen 11. But even so, he and other WNBA coaches admit there can be some mistakes made in the very last cuts, which can come down to trying to decide between some players whose prospects of contributing to the team's success are virtually identical.
New WNBA president Donna Orender is very aware of the problem of late arrivals, and it appears to be something she'll try to confront more than just say, "Yes, it's an issue we're concerned about." Trying to better coordinate schedules with overseas leagues is a big challenge, but it might be more likely that will happen than the next collective bargaining agreement will result in salaries so substantially higher that very few players will need/want to go overseas.
But even if you take out the late-arrival issue, the development of players can be so hard to predict. If you watch the WNBA transactions daily during training camps, you're bound to get a few surprises. Like, "Wait a minute, I was sure she would make the team," or "Why is she still on the team? Did she get a lot better over the winter?"
College success doesn't necessarily translate to WNBA success. Not everyone adjusts to the pro-sports lifestyle. Some people who were 100 percent committed during college lose their passion to play at that level as different career opportunities and other things enter their lives.
On the flip side, there are players who didn't seem completely invested in college and, if you knew them, you figured they'd be doing anything but still playing basketball years later. But, sure enough, they are.
Because there are just 13 WNBA teams, the talent level on each is very high. The results, then, tend to be based on how well the good players play together. And other factors clearly are involved, too. Injuries and schedules, obviously. Sometimes the travel demands and the order in which teams play their most crucial opponents can make the difference in whether they win enough to make the playoffs.
And finally ... well, it's just like those polka dots. It's hard to say exactly why a few in this whole wall of them stood out, but they did. The same thing happens in pro leagues like the WNBA, especially where the talent hasn't been watered down by expansion and where the salary cap keeps anyone from flat-out buying a title. The best still end up separating themselves from the "other" best.
Mechelle Voepel of the Kansas City Star is a regular contributor to ESPN.com. She can be reached at mvoepel@kcstar.com.