SFCALBear72 said:

---

Well, Geno got some good news this morning. Sarah Strong, a 6'2 F/W out of North Carolina and the #1 recruit in the Class of 2024 (and lone remaining uncommitted recruit) announced her commitment to UConn this morning over Duke and UNC.

---

Geno has a very good recruiting class, with Strong, the number 4 player in guard Allie Ziebel (have to wonder If she had waited longer if she would be going to nearby Iowa) and the top rated player in Nor-CA five star guard Megan Chelie from Archbishop Mitty.

Iowa will have to wait to 2025 for top rated CA player and guard Addi Deal, who committed after the Uconn game. Don't feel that sorry for Iowa, they have a top 40 big and some high 4 star players coming in 2024.

Strange that Sabrina really didn't provide staying power for Oregon, which has recruited poorly and fallen on harsh times since she brought the Ducks to a final 4 appearance in 2019 and what would have been a likely first seed in the NCAA canceled 2020 season.

Not of any particular relevance to ACC bound Cal, but Lindsey Gottlieb may have the best recuriting class in 2024.

Rebound margin and blocks are the stats that stand out, and watching the game it looked worse

This was my concern going into game, but thought there was hope when Caitlin went crazy is first quarter

bear2034 said:

---

---

Clark is the green dot?

with the first pick…

Caitlin Clark, guard, University of Iowa. pic.twitter.com/8gUOkK15tF

— Indiana Fever (@IndianaFever) April 15, 2024

The GOAT.

Might be a little early on that one ...

Even if she replicates her offensive numbers in the WNBA -- which is certainly unlikely this year but possible down the road -- she's a dismal defender. I fully expect her to be very good, an all-star and an Olympian.

But better than Diana Taurasi, say? Asking a lot.

Caitlin Clark second in poll of NBA players' favorite athletes



https://mol.im/a/13336895

*Jealous WNBA players 'taint gonna like this one bit (the ones predicting her tough adjustment to the pros….they are the ones that will have to adjust to having their breakfast, lunch and dinner eaten by her on the court)

I hear the Association is roughing up Caitlin a little bit. This must be good for their ratings.

ClayK said:

---

Might be a little early on that one ...

Even if she replicates her offensive numbers in the WNBA -- which is certainly unlikely this year but possible down the road -- she's a dismal defender. I fully expect her to be very good, an all-star and an Olympian.

But better than Diana Taurasi, say? Asking a lot.

---

A happy day for you: several reports that Clark has, in fact, been left off the Olympics team.

Shameless self-promotion -- article on WNBA lottery picks so far ...

https://newsbreakapp.onelink.me/2115408369?pid=mp_1371923&msource=mp_1371923&docid=0tkFokIR&af_dp=newsbreak%3A%2F%2Fopendoc%3Fdocid%3D0tkFokIR&af_web_dp=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsbreak.com%2Faf-landing%3Fdocid%3D0tkFokIR

CalWSportsFan said:

---

It's actually better for Clark. There are many Olympics in her future. She can focus on the W, get some rest and pay her "dues." It's all good and the US has an incredibly talented, experienced roster.

---

My interest in her being on the team had less to do with her and a lot more to do with the opportunity for Women's basketball to "ride the wave" as it were.
USA Today's Christine Brennan says it a lot better than I could ever:

You can love Caitlin Clark. You can hate Caitlin Clark. You can love her Iowa roots. You can hate her Iowa roots. You can like her because she's white, or dislike her because she's white. Same goes for being straight. You can love the media's fascination with her, or hate it. You can love the historic TV ratings and sell-out crowds, or hate them. You can love her interviews, or hate them.

But there's one thing that we all know to be true:
With Caitlin Clark on the 2024 U.S. Olympic women's basketball team, players who have been largely ignored by the sports media at every Summer Olympic Games that I've covered, which is every one since 1984, would have finally received the spotlight they deserve from a national and global audience.

Going into the Games, with national sensation Clark on the roster, I think the top storylines for the Americans in Paris (and quite a few international reporters) would have been these: 1. Simone Biles, 2. Katie Ledecky 3. Caitlin Clark.

Maybe you add an athlete or team or two here or there, U.S. women's soccer, U.S. men's basketball, take your pick, but that's the general idea. With Clark continuing to set records for TV ratings and attendance in her first eye-popping month in the WNBA as she did in NCAA basketball, it would have been inevitable: she would catapult U.S. women's basketball to a place it so richly has deserved but has never attained coverage from broadcasters and news organizations not just in the U.S. but around the world, headlines every day, and most important, vastly increased respect from a still male-dominated international sports media that has for decades focused almost exclusively on the U.S. men's basketball team rather than the women, who are so good they haven't lost since 1992.

But following Clark would have meant following much more than Clark. She would have introduced all those Olympic viewers and readers many of whom are not big sports fans and have never watched a women's Olympic basketball game to the entire U.S. team.

You've never watched Breanna Stewart on one of her two previous Olympic teams? You would have been watching her this summer because America's interest and even obsession with Clark would have brought you there. Same goes for Brittney Griner, assuming she's healthy.
But Clark isn't coming to Paris, unless someone withdraws or is injured. Clark won't be there to bring the casual sports fan who fell in love with her at Iowa and now knows the difference between ION and Prime to finally and rightfully watch Diana Taurasi and Jackie Young at the Olympics.

She won't be there, so all those fans won't be there, because they're never there. And one could only have imagined the global appeal of Clark once writers and reporters from around the world dropped in and watched a few logo 3s fall from the sky and a few hundred more autographs be recorded for posterity. Perhaps little girls in Europe and Africa would have been just as entranced as girls in America are. That's not happening anymore, and it's all on USA Basketball, whose mission statement fascinatingly includes "promoting, growing and elevating the game at all levels." (Seems to be Caitlin Clark's job description these days.)

mbBear said:

---

CalWSportsFan said:

---

It's actually better for Clark. There are many Olympics in her future. She can focus on the W, get some rest and pay her "dues." It's all good and the US has an incredibly talented, experienced roster.

---

My interest in her being on the team had less to do with her and a lot more to do with the opportunity for Women's basketball to "ride the wave" as it were.
USA Today's Christine Brennan says it a lot better than I could ever:

You can love Caitlin Clark. You can hate Caitlin Clark. You can love her Iowa roots. You can hate her Iowa roots. You can like her because she's white, or dislike her because she's white. Same goes for being straight. You can love the media's fascination with her, or hate it. You can love the historic TV ratings and sell-out crowds, or hate them. You can love her interviews, or hate them.

But there's one thing that we all know to be true:
With Caitlin Clark on the 2024 U.S. Olympic women's basketball team, players who have been largely ignored by the sports media at every Summer Olympic Games that I've covered, which is every one since 1984, would have finally received the spotlight they deserve from a national and global audience.

Going into the Games, with national sensation Clark on the roster, I think the top storylines for the Americans in Paris (and quite a few international reporters) would have been these: 1. Simone Biles, 2. Katie Ledecky 3. Caitlin Clark.

Maybe you add an athlete or team or two here or there, U.S. women's soccer, U.S. men's basketball, take your pick, but that's the general idea. With Clark continuing to set records for TV ratings and attendance in her first eye-popping month in the WNBA as she did in NCAA basketball, it would have been inevitable: she would catapult U.S. women's basketball to a place it so richly has deserved but has never attained coverage from broadcasters and news organizations not just in the U.S. but around the world, headlines every day, and most important, vastly increased respect from a still male-dominated international sports media that has for decades focused almost exclusively on the U.S. men's basketball team rather than the women, who are so good they haven't lost since 1992.

But following Clark would have meant following much more than Clark. She would have introduced all those Olympic viewers and readers many of whom are not big sports fans and have never watched a women's Olympic basketball game to the entire U.S. team.

You've never watched Breanna Stewart on one of her two previous Olympic teams? You would have been watching her this summer because America's interest and even obsession with Clark would have brought you there. Same goes for Brittney Griner, assuming she's healthy.
But Clark isn't coming to Paris, unless someone withdraws or is injured. Clark won't be there to bring the casual sports fan who fell in love with her at Iowa and now knows the difference between ION and Prime to finally and rightfully watch Diana Taurasi and Jackie Young at the Olympics.

She won't be there, so all those fans won't be there, because they're never there. And one could only have imagined the global appeal of Clark once writers and reporters from around the world dropped in and watched a few logo 3s fall from the sky and a few hundred more autographs be recorded for posterity. Perhaps little girls in Europe and Africa would have been just as entranced as girls in America are. That's not happening anymore, and it's all on USA Basketball, whose mission statement fascinatingly includes "promoting, growing and elevating the game at all levels." (Seems to be Caitlin Clark's job description these days.)

---

agree.

I've followed women's basketball more than most, and I've never watched a WNBA game before, and paid zero attention to WNBA scores, news or players (except a few such as Brittney Grinner). I didn't even know MVP Aja Wilson until I heard she this year when people were saying that Clark wasn't better than Wilson (which I agree). The only other names I've heard were former Pac12 players from Stanford, Oregon (Sabrina), Plum and the Cal players.

Caitlin Clark is a generational player. She's brought so many new eyes to college WBB and the WNBA that it's ridiculous. She's selling out arenas everywhere she plays, and the TV ratings are 2-3X, including the WNBA draft.

Everyone who is anyone in basketball has commented about her, and now the WNBA got charter flights because of her. ESPN radio added a WNBA talk show.

Tiger Woods did this for golf.

Reminds me when I first saw Steph Curry beat the Big Dogs in the NCAA tournament. That's when I started watching the Warriors and the NBA for the first time.

How many people would have watched Clark get garbage time?

She would have been the worst player on the team.

ClayK said:

---

How many people would have watched Clark get garbage time?

She would have been the worst player on the team.

---

Not what is being talked about. Profile and awareness here. Insert hype if you will.
A comp: Dream Team... Larry Bird was half of what he was because of chronic injury. Magic Johnson was way past his prime, though , a good player. The hype was about them on the court together, not stats, performance, or how they ranked relative to other players.

mbBear said:

---

ClayK said:

---

How many people would have watched Clark get garbage time?

She would have been the worst player on the team.

---

Not what is being talked about. Profile and awareness here. Insert hype if you will.
A comp: Dream Team... Larry Bird was half of what he was because of chronic injury. Magic Johnson was way past his prime, though , a good player. The hype was about them on the court together, not stats, performance, or how they ranked relative to other players.

---

A better comp from the Dream Team: Christian Laettner, the recent collegian and lightning rod of controversy who filled the 12th slot. He was the Caitlin Clark of his time, and die-hard college basketball fans didn't seem to mind that he was going to play the fewest minutes, if any. We DID watch him get garbage time, and we were fine with it, because it was a "nice to just be nominated" occasion. Even he would tell you he was the worst player on that team, essentially getting a few months' headstart on his rookie duty to carry the bags of the veterans.

If USA Basketball is arguing that the Olympics are bigger than Caitlin Clark, then they are framing the issue incorrectly. The selectors should be asking themselves if the Olympics WITH Caitlin Clark would be bigger than the Olympics WITHOUT her. It's an easy answer, but one that would have made their decision to exclude her tougher.

Still, I'm okay with Clark waiting and trying out for the next cycle of international competition and the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. She's probably fine with it too.

brevity said:

---

mbBear said:

---

ClayK said:

---

How many people would have watched Clark get garbage time?

She would have been the worst player on the team.

---

Not what is being talked about. Profile and awareness here. Insert hype if you will.
A comp: Dream Team... Larry Bird was half of what he was because of chronic injury. Magic Johnson was way past his prime, though , a good player. The hype was about them on the court together, not stats, performance, or how they ranked relative to other players.

---

A better comp from the Dream Team: Christian Laettner, the recent collegian and lightning rod of controversy who filled the 12th slot. He was the Caitlin Clark of his time, and die-hard college basketball fans didn't seem to mind that he was going to play the fewest minutes, if any. We DID watch him get garbage time, and we were fine with it, because it was a "nice to just be nominated" occasion. Even he would tell you he was the worst player on that team, essentially getting a few months' headstart on his rookie duty to carry the bags of the veterans.

If USA Basketball is arguing that the Olympics are bigger than Caitlin Clark, then they are framing the issue incorrectly. The selectors should be asking themselves if the Olympics WITH Caitlin Clark would be bigger than the Olympics WITHOUT her. It's an easy answer, but one that would have made their decision to exclude her tougher.

Still, I'm okay with Clark waiting and trying out for the next cycle of international competition and the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. She's probably fine with it too.

---

Christian Laettner was a good college player. He didn't change the sport... MAYBE gave the Final 4 a higher profile... though, that honor really goes to Bird/Magic. Laettner raised up Duke basketball more than anything. The only person from college basketball to compare to Clark in terms of "game impact" at that time was the guy who went two picks before Laettner in the Draft, Shaq.
By any metric, Caitlin Clark has changed women's basketball. This is a historic moment in time, with a chance for the Olympic hoop committee to be doing more than wondering if the women are going to win by 30 or 40.... Again, Brennan (above) says it better than I am.
It's not just another Olympics year... what has happened in Women's basketball this year are attendance and TV numbers some of us thought we would never see in our lifetime. There was a decision not to play upon that momentum and see what global impact there might be. Maybe it's there in 2028 with Clark leading the way... sure, let's go with that.

ClayK said:

---

How many people would have watched Clark get garbage time?

She would have been the worst player on the team.

---

She is better than Taurasi, assuming she plays within the team system. We've never seen her get to play without having to carry a major load for her team. She may excel at being a role player.

The people want Caitlin Clark.
Give the people what they want.

Patience will pay dividends in the end…

brevity said:

---

A better comp from the Dream Team: Christian Laettner, the recent collegian and lightning rod of controversy who filled the 12th slot. He was the Caitlin Clark of his time, and die-hard college basketball fans didn't seem to mind that he was going to play the fewest minutes, if any. We DID watch him get garbage time, and we were fine with it, because it was a "nice to just be nominated" occasion. Even he would tell you he was the worst player on that team, essentially getting a few months' headstart on his rookie duty to carry the bags of the veterans.

---

mbBear said:

---

Christian Laettner was a good college player. He didn't change the sport... MAYBE gave the Final 4 a higher profile... though, that honor really goes to Bird/Magic. Laettner raised up Duke basketball more than anything. The only person from college basketball to compare to Clark in terms of "game impact" at that time was the guy who went two picks before Laettner in the Draft, Shaq.

---

Maybe it isn't an either/or proposition. If you wanted to argue that Caitlin Clark is kind of like 1992's (present) Christian Laettner and (potential) Shaquille O'Neal put together, I could go along with that.

I was around back then -- call it a fifth row seat, maybe -- and Shaq was an incredible pro prospect who happened to play college basketball for 3 years. He didn't really change the game until after he declared for the NBA Draft: first with the collectible industry (specifically basketball rookie cards), then with endorsements (which were big in the NBA at the time, but for veterans rather than rookies), and then with the league itself.

So Shaq became a pop culture phenomenon that kind of just incubated at LSU. He was on some pretty good teams, especially his freshman year, when Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf (then named Chris Jackson) and Stanley Roberts were his teammates. Duke and LSU had a home-and-home series during his sophomore and junior years, and while Duke won both games, the 1992 game in Baton Rouge was a very big deal at a time when most of SEC basketball was not.

A lot of that had to do with Laettner. He actually was a pop culture phenomenon in college, and as you said, he certainly did elevate Duke basketball, becoming maybe the only Duke player to ever temporarily replace Coach K as the face of the program. But on a national level, both inside and outside the boundaries of college basketball, he was a lead singer on a team of rock stars with a road schedule that was more like a concert tour. I imagine the Iowa women were a little bit like that the past two seasons: Gabbie Marshall in the role of Bobby Hurley, Hannah Stuelke as Grant Hill, Kate Martin as Brian Davis, Sydney Affolter as Thomas Hill... I don't know, it kind of works.

Laettner set a few records in his 4-year career, but I don't know if he ever changed college basketball in the literal on-the-court sense. Instead, he was a human milestone in the rise of sports hate, and how fans react and interact with sports. There have been characters and villains in sports before, but not in that marketable, clean-cut choirboy package.

I have to go outside of sports to describe it properly. Like Howard Stern, some people loved him, but most people loved to hate him, and they were all paying attention. I'm also reminded of what Harvey Dent said: "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." I think Laettner went full Two-Face his senior year, after winning the first title, and embraced the transformation.