ClayK said:
How many people would have watched Clark get garbage time?
She would have been the worst player on the team.
What a terrible comment about Caitlin Clark. You couldn't just keep it to yourself.....
GGV
Caitlin Clark
29,027 Views |
242 Replies |
Last: 11 days ago by CalWSportsFan
What a terrible comment about Caitlin Clark. You couldn't just keep it to yourself.....
brevity said: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.
I'm not looking for an individual comp ..I brought up Bird and Magic because they were put on the team for reputation, not how they ranked relative to other active players.
With all due respect, this is about a historical point in time (Brennan's key point), not how she compares to anyone.
In terms of Olympics basketball specifically, the moment is on par I guess with pros being allowed.
Agreed. And, having watched adolescent stars enthrall basketball and tennis fans/media, I'm happy when experienced athletes are accorded the respect they deserve. Taurasi has been a star for 25 years--she has also evolved into a team player with a complete portfolio; the 3-pointers didn't fall today, but everything else was working fine: https://www.wnba.com/game/1022400063/PHO-vs-DAL/boxscorestu said:
I enjoy watching talented players but to me basketball is a team game and I'd rather see a team win by playing together than by feeding their star. But something about American culture seems to demand a star.
(I just noticed: D.T. turns 42 on Tuesday. I envy her physical conditioning.)
"Don't get distracted, myself. Don't get distracted." Self-talk from a young relative
I have no problem with the Olympic selections from a talent standpoint. But women's basketball is at a point now where the most important thing for the future is to draw in (and keep) some additional new fans. The interest of many new fans in Clark is a reality.
annarborbear said:
I have no problem with the Olympic selections from a talent standpoint. But women's basketball is at a point now where the most important thing for the future is to draw in (and keep) some additional new fans. The interest of many new fans in Clark is a reality.
So to derail this a little... but to make it Cal centered: it will be amusing if Jaylen Brown is the Finals MVP and not on the Olympic team...
this old fool gives up, darnit, so who's this D.T. lady?Quote:
> (I just noticed: D.T. turns 42 on Tuesday. I envy her physical conditioning.)
First, I think a lot of people would have watched Clark playing limited minutes.Ashfield63 said:ClayK said:
How many people would have watched Clark get garbage time?
She would have been the worst player on the team.
What a terrible comment about Caitlin Clark. You couldn't just keep it to yourself.....
Second, it may sound harsh but to me it means Clark might be the 12th best player in the nation.
smh said:this old fool gives up, darnit, so who's D.T. ?Quote:
> (I just noticed: D.T. turns 42 on Tuesday. I envy her physical conditioning.)
Diana Taurasi, the player I was discussing.
"Don't get distracted, myself. Don't get distracted." Self-talk from a young relative
d'oh.. thanks
Good grief, this is the Olympics, not a high school popularity contest; are The People going to boycott women's basketball because their girl doesn't go to Paris? I hope their enthusiasm isn't that shallow.bear2034 said:
The people want Caitlin Clark.
Give the people what they want.
There are several other players who would be better choices than Clark: Arike Ogunbowale, Kayla McBride, and Kaleah Copper come to mind. And it's ridiculous that a brilliant vet like DeWanna Bonner, who can shoot from anywhere on the floor, hasn't yet been an Olympian. All four of them are deeply talented and far more experienced than Clark. She'll presumably play in the WNBA and overseas for at least another decade; the league's growing fame will survive her not going to the Olympics this one year. She can dazzle L.A. in 2028.
P.S. Almost forgot Nneka Ogwumike among the non-Olympians; also ridiculous that she wasn't chosen.
"Don't get distracted, myself. Don't get distracted." Self-talk from a young relative
Last time I checked, this thread is called "Caitlin Clark." Shouldn't everyone be entitled to state their opinion?Ashfield63 said:ClayK said:
How many people would have watched Clark get garbage time?
She would have been the worst player on the team.
What a terrible comment about Caitlin Clark. You couldn't just keep it to yourself.....
And in addition I will add a comment. Caitlin Clark was one of the greatest college basketball players of all time, but there have been many before her who have entered the WNBA without so much attention. No disrespect to Caitlin herself, but I find the amount of discussion attributed to her tiresome and overdone. I'm giving this opinion because the title of this thread is "Caitlin Clark."
Please read the Christine Brennan article I posted above.BearBint said:Good grief, this is the Olympics, not a high school popularity contest; are The People going to boycott women's basketball because their girl doesn't go to Paris? I hope their enthusiasm isn't that shallow.bear2034 said:
The people want Caitlin Clark.
Give the people what they want.
There are several other players who would be better choices than Clark: Arike Ogunbowale, Kayla McBride, and Kaleah Copper come to mind. And it's ridiculous that a brilliant vet like DeWanna Bonner, who can shoot from anywhere on the floor, hasn't yet been an Olympian. All four of them are deeply talented and far more experienced than Clark. She'll presumably play in the WNBA and overseas for at least another decade; the league's growing fame will survive her not going to the Olympics this one year. She can dazzle L.A. in 2028.
This is way beyond a "popularity contest," and more about being at a very significant time and place in history. It was never about "boycotting"....but would some little girl watch the Games who never has, or would Women's basketball get "talked about" (use that term in the broadest sense) in more places?
It's over, it's fine...the team got selected how it always has(since pros were allowed), and Women's Hoop will take it's place in the pecking order at the Olympics...
I've never watched a single WBB Olympics game, due to no interest and minimal coverage
If CC was playing I'm sure there would be more coverage and I might watch parts of some games if they were at reasonable hours
But I think they made the right decision to leave her off
If CC was playing I'm sure there would be more coverage and I might watch parts of some games if they were at reasonable hours
But I think they made the right decision to leave her off
mbBear said:Please read the Christine Brennan article I posted above.BearBint said:Good grief, this is the Olympics, not a high school popularity contest; are The People going to boycott women's basketball because their girl doesn't go to Paris? I hope their enthusiasm isn't that shallow.bear2034 said:
The people want Caitlin Clark.
Give the people what they want.
There are several other players who would be better choices than Clark: Arike Ogunbowale, Kayla McBride, and Kaleah Copper come to mind. And it's ridiculous that a brilliant vet like DeWanna Bonner, who can shoot from anywhere on the floor, hasn't yet been an Olympian. All four of them are deeply talented and far more experienced than Clark. She'll presumably play in the WNBA and overseas for at least another decade; the league's growing fame will survive her not going to the Olympics this one year. She can dazzle L.A. in 2028.
This is way beyond a "popularity contest," and more about we are at a very significant time and place in history.
It's over, it's fine...the team got selected how it always has, and Women's Hoop will take it's place in the pecking order at the Olympics...
The level of interest shown in ratings (or whatever metric you want to use) I think would translate into many feeling just as you do...I will probably watch a little bit, but certainly not going to change my sleep habits to see a game. I certainly will adjust for Daniel Lasco and swimming but that should be at a reasonable time anyway.HoopDreams said:
I've never watched a single WBB Olympics game, due to no interest and minimal coverage
If CC was playing I'm sure there would be more coverage and I might watch parts of some games if they were at reasonable hours
But I think they made the right decision to leave her offmbBear said:Please read the Christine Brennan article I posted above.BearBint said:Good grief, this is the Olympics, not a high school popularity contest; are The People going to boycott women's basketball because their girl doesn't go to Paris? I hope their enthusiasm isn't that shallow.bear2034 said:
The people want Caitlin Clark.
Give the people what they want.
There are several other players who would be better choices than Clark: Arike Ogunbowale, Kayla McBride, and Kaleah Copper come to mind. And it's ridiculous that a brilliant vet like DeWanna Bonner, who can shoot from anywhere on the floor, hasn't yet been an Olympian. All four of them are deeply talented and far more experienced than Clark. She'll presumably play in the WNBA and overseas for at least another decade; the league's growing fame will survive her not going to the Olympics this one year. She can dazzle L.A. in 2028.
This is way beyond a "popularity contest," and more about we are at a very significant time and place in history.
It's over, it's fine...the team got selected how it always has, and Women's Hoop will take it's place in the pecking order at the Olympics...
I'm over it...it's done, had discussions with daughter, a 10X bigger women's hoop fan/expert than I am, who sides with the "good she was left off" side of this. My biggest hope is it won't matter much in the end.
It is kind of ironic that Taurasi herself was picked for an Olympic team right out of college and before she had proven herself in the WNBA.
FWIW, the men's team all are experienced NBA players. Some of them, like James and Durant, seem old enough to qualify for social security. Nothing even close to a rookie or college players made the team.
wifeisafurd said:
FWIW, the men's team all are experienced NBA players. Some of them, like James and Durant, seem old enough to qualify for social security. Nothing even close to a rookie or college players made the team.
ANT made it at 22. Haliburton at 24. Tatum and Adebayo at 26. The women's team has nobody under 26 years old. On top of that, practically all the good women players in the world are American. In men's basketball, it is split pretty evenly with international players
Doncic 25, SGA 25, and Wembanyana 20 would have all likely made it had they been American. Wembanyana is the only generational rookie (like Caitlin) and he isn't eligible for team USA.
smh said:this old fool gives up, darnit, so who's this D.T. lady?Quote:
> (I just noticed: D.T. turns 42 on Tuesday. I envy her physical conditioning.)
Diana Taurasi, UCONN standout player...now plays for the WNBA team, The Phoenix Mercury....
She is a fabulous player and speaks her mind!
GGV
I care about the continued growth and popularity of women's sports. Missed opportunity to have the most recognizable name in women's basketball on the Olympic team.
CalFanatic said:
I care about the continued growth and popularity of women's sports. Missed opportunity to have the most recognizable name in women's basketball on the Olympic team.
She is a better player than Taurasi at this point in her career.
The problem is that the other players are envious of her, and having such a hated player on the team, who they feel hasn't earned her stripes, would cause dissension. If the players could mentally grow up a bit, Caitlin Clark would benefit the Olympic Team. The only knock on Caitlin right now are her turnovers, SOME of which is caused by not being in sync with her teammates who do often fumble good passes. She is doing a great job even with the crazy amount of defensive attention and extra hazing she is getting because the women just don't like her. One of the biggest criticisms is her lack of scoring efficiency. She is shooting better than Taurasi and 3 other players who made the roster. Remove the turnovers and she beats Taurasi in every stat.
It's the Olympics and not a WNBA All-Star contest.BearBint said:Good grief, this is the Olympics, not a high school popularity contest.bear2034 said:
The people want Caitlin Clark.
Give the people what they want.
Caitlin Clark is greatest women's amateur player of all time, and for many, the face of the WNBA.
Another point of view: https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/caitlin-clarks-new-reality
"Don't get distracted, myself. Don't get distracted." Self-talk from a young relative
incredibly dumb thing her coach said about her being left off the Olympic team:
Caitlin on not being selected:
Her coach on her not being selected:
Her not making the Olympic team is probably the best thing for her mental health. It's amazing she is holding up as well as she has been
Caitlin on not being selected:
This video = media masterclass on handling tough situations.
— Bonnie Bernstein (@BonnieBernstein) June 10, 2024
Not just about what Caitlin Clark *says* about Olympic team + how she’ll use the free time,…
Observe her facial expressions and voice inflection that back it all up.
Bravo. Bookmark this.
h/t @chloepeterson67 pic.twitter.com/LB777QHI3g
Her coach on her not being selected:
Christie Sides on Caitlin Clark not making the Olympic team:
— Chloe Peterson (@chloepeterson67) June 9, 2024
Clark told Sides “hey coach, they woke a monster” when telling her she didn’t make it. pic.twitter.com/02UwvuEiVj
Her not making the Olympic team is probably the best thing for her mental health. It's amazing she is holding up as well as she has been
Caitlin Clark is a very good basketball player. She had a glorious run in college.
She is not as good as 11 of the players on the USA team, and not as good as three or four who didn't make it.
Diana Taurasi's contributions to the women's game have been immense, and she has more experience in the very different international game than anyone else. That said, I don't think she should have been on the team -- Napheesa Collier deserves that spot, and there are others who are better than Taurasi.
If you don't follow the WNBA closely, none of this is immediately apparent, nor is the huge gap between the college game and the W.
If you haven't paid attention to the Olympics in the past, the American women will blow away their opponents in pool play, except for maybe one game when they don't shoot threes well and turn the ball over. They should roll to the gold as they are vastly superior to every other team.
Which means that the games are not particularly compelling, and opponents' only hope to slow the game down, muck it up and make it as ugly as possible.
So Clark brings some eyeballs -- what do those eyeballs see? Her on the bench, the USA up 20 in the third quarter, lots of fouls and boring basketball. This is not necessarily the exposure the women's game needs ... presumably the medal games will get more viewers than in the past, but will that translate to more fans at Cal games or Wake Forest games? Will that sell tickets for the Atlanta Dream or Valkyries?
Growing the game means putting an attractive product on the floor. Growing the game means getting female students to come to women's college basketball games. Growing the game means reversing the shift to volleyball.
Caitlin Clark on or off the Olympic team is simply not that big a deal.
She is not as good as 11 of the players on the USA team, and not as good as three or four who didn't make it.
Diana Taurasi's contributions to the women's game have been immense, and she has more experience in the very different international game than anyone else. That said, I don't think she should have been on the team -- Napheesa Collier deserves that spot, and there are others who are better than Taurasi.
If you don't follow the WNBA closely, none of this is immediately apparent, nor is the huge gap between the college game and the W.
If you haven't paid attention to the Olympics in the past, the American women will blow away their opponents in pool play, except for maybe one game when they don't shoot threes well and turn the ball over. They should roll to the gold as they are vastly superior to every other team.
Which means that the games are not particularly compelling, and opponents' only hope to slow the game down, muck it up and make it as ugly as possible.
So Clark brings some eyeballs -- what do those eyeballs see? Her on the bench, the USA up 20 in the third quarter, lots of fouls and boring basketball. This is not necessarily the exposure the women's game needs ... presumably the medal games will get more viewers than in the past, but will that translate to more fans at Cal games or Wake Forest games? Will that sell tickets for the Atlanta Dream or Valkyries?
Growing the game means putting an attractive product on the floor. Growing the game means getting female students to come to women's college basketball games. Growing the game means reversing the shift to volleyball.
Caitlin Clark on or off the Olympic team is simply not that big a deal.
ClayK said:
Caitlin Clark is a very good basketball player. She had a glorious run in college.
She is not as good as 11 of the players on the USA team, and not as good as three or four who didn't make it.
Diana Taurasi's contributions to the women's game have been immense, and she has more experience in the very different international game than anyone else. That said, I don't think she should have been on the team -- Napheesa Collier deserves that spot, and there are others who are better than Taurasi.
If you don't follow the WNBA closely, none of this is immediately apparent, nor is the huge gap between the college game and the W.
If you haven't paid attention to the Olympics in the past, the American women will blow away their opponents in pool play, except for maybe one game when they don't shoot threes well and turn the ball over. They should roll to the gold as they are vastly superior to every other team.
Which means that the games are not particularly compelling, and opponents' only hope to slow the game down, muck it up and make it as ugly as possible.
So Clark brings some eyeballs -- what do those eyeballs see? Her on the bench, the USA up 20 in the third quarter, lots of fouls and boring basketball. This is not necessarily the exposure the women's game needs ... presumably the medal games will get more viewers than in the past, but will that translate to more fans at Cal games or Wake Forest games? Will that sell tickets for the Atlanta Dream or Valkyries?
Growing the game means putting an attractive product on the floor. Growing the game means getting female students to come to women's college basketball games. Growing the game means reversing the shift to volleyball.
Caitlin Clark on or off the Olympic team is simply not that big a deal.
Napheesa Collier is already in the team. What is the point of mentioning her here? I agree she is better than Clark. Almost all of those selected are.
"Growing the game means putting an attractive product on the floor" et. al. could have been said 15 or 20 years ago. Please tell me off the top of your head how many minutes all of the Dream Team players played...and oh yes, I am going to be so excited to see 42 year old Diana Taurasi, because hey, she is for sure among the top 12 players in the WNBA???ClayK said:
Caitlin Clark is a very good basketball player. She had a glorious run in college.
She is not as good as 11 of the players on the USA team, and not as good as three or four who didn't make it.
Diana Taurasi's contributions to the women's game have been immense, and she has more experience in the very different international game than anyone else. That said, I don't think she should have been on the team -- Napheesa Collier deserves that spot, and there are others who are better than Taurasi.
If you don't follow the WNBA closely, none of this is immediately apparent, nor is the huge gap between the college game and the W.
If you haven't paid attention to the Olympics in the past, the American women will blow away their opponents in pool play, except for maybe one game when they don't shoot threes well and turn the ball over. They should roll to the gold as they are vastly superior to every other team.
Which means that the games are not particularly compelling, and opponents' only hope to slow the game down, muck it up and make it as ugly as possible.
So Clark brings some eyeballs -- what do those eyeballs see? Her on the bench, the USA up 20 in the third quarter, lots of fouls and boring basketball. This is not necessarily the exposure the women's game needs ... presumably the medal games will get more viewers than in the past, but will that translate to more fans at Cal games or Wake Forest games? Will that sell tickets for the Atlanta Dream or Valkyries?
Growing the game means putting an attractive product on the floor. Growing the game means getting female students to come to women's college basketball games. Growing the game means reversing the shift to volleyball.
Caitlin Clark on or off the Olympic team is simply not that big a deal.
"Female students" to come to "women's college basketball games" as about as archaic of thinking as there is; please tell me which college campus has great women's attendance because the female base has been activated, that the Greek system is connected. Even if you want to go "old school," the research 30-40 years ago showed that women are connected to sports through those that they have a connection with, like husbands and sons, not because other women are participating. yes, I sat in on focus groups and saw numbers...but I believe we are even way past that, that even those studies are obsolete. And though the NFL is it's own beast animal, the female demographics are numbers that anyone in sports would drool over.
You are around the game, and if you don't see this past year as a moment in history, then there is nothing more to be said. If the ratings, attendance figures and branding awareness that has happened in the last year doesn't register with you, if you aren't surprised, shocked and amazed, then nothing I am going to post (more importantly, what someone like Christine Brennan wrote) is going to matter. This was a very specific opportunity on the international stage. Two months from now, we can all sit back and say, it was a great Olympics for the Women's hoop team, just like we always do, or will anyone be talking about that? As an aside, I do think there is enough momentum and pre Olympic discussion to provide an uptick in the ratings....but again, more people have watched women's basketball domestically over the last year than ever before, so again, this was about international growth.
I am happy for Caitlin honestly, because again, the timing from college to the WNBA is as dumb as there is in professional sports, and she will benefit from the break without question. And she will be involved with her sponsors, because they too grow the game...unless you don't believe Nike and Jordan were significant to the NBA. But please point out that this isn't new, that women's hoops and sponsorship have done just fine.
The international growth opportunity has been missed, and as some above have said, maybe it won't matter in 4 years, that other French little girls will seek out autographs from an older Caitlin Clark, and hopefully the Spanish papers will find significant storylines to write about, and brand the women's game even further...
Lighten up folks, Taurasi can sit out until the next one. She should be a healthy 46 years old by then.
I listen to a lot of sports radio while driving dedicated to College sports and NBA sports on XM radio
I heard them talk about the WNBA about as often as I hear them talk about hockey
Yet last year Caitlin OFTEN came up in their lead segment… and star ESPN personalities talk about her constantly
Today on NBA Live show they talked about the decision to leave her off the Olympics and both were appalled by the decision
They pointed out that for 20 years nobody cared about the WNBA or WBB Olympics and this was a huge lost opportunity to engage new fans, including people who don't even watch basketball
Perhaps the most disappointed are the NBC folks who show the Olympics and have recently featured more personality showcases to keep non-sports fans engaged
It's marketing 101 folks
I heard them talk about the WNBA about as often as I hear them talk about hockey
Yet last year Caitlin OFTEN came up in their lead segment… and star ESPN personalities talk about her constantly
Today on NBA Live show they talked about the decision to leave her off the Olympics and both were appalled by the decision
They pointed out that for 20 years nobody cared about the WNBA or WBB Olympics and this was a huge lost opportunity to engage new fans, including people who don't even watch basketball
Perhaps the most disappointed are the NBC folks who show the Olympics and have recently featured more personality showcases to keep non-sports fans engaged
It's marketing 101 folks
Today from ESPN.com
"USA Basketball said experience was a major reason Caitlin Clark was not on the U.S. women's Olympic roster that was officially revealed Tuesday.
The selection committee didn't believe the talented Clark had enough high-level reps to be a member of the group headed to the Paris Games. The team includes seven players from the group that won gold in Tokyo -- the seventh straight for the Americans."
USA Basketball cites inexperience for Caitlin Clark omission from Olympics - ESPN
"USA Basketball said experience was a major reason Caitlin Clark was not on the U.S. women's Olympic roster that was officially revealed Tuesday.
The selection committee didn't believe the talented Clark had enough high-level reps to be a member of the group headed to the Paris Games. The team includes seven players from the group that won gold in Tokyo -- the seventh straight for the Americans."
USA Basketball cites inexperience for Caitlin Clark omission from Olympics - ESPN
4 years from now Clark makes the team w/o any controversy if she stays uninjured. She has a high ceiling.oski003 said:ClayK said:
Caitlin Clark is a very good basketball player. She had a glorious run in college.
She is not as good as 11 of the players on the USA team, and not as good as three or four who didn't make it.
Diana Taurasi's contributions to the women's game have been immense, and she has more experience in the very different international game than anyone else. That said, I don't think she should have been on the team -- Napheesa Collier deserves that spot, and there are others who are better than Taurasi.
If you don't follow the WNBA closely, none of this is immediately apparent, nor is the huge gap between the college game and the W.
If you haven't paid attention to the Olympics in the past, the American women will blow away their opponents in pool play, except for maybe one game when they don't shoot threes well and turn the ball over. They should roll to the gold as they are vastly superior to every other team.
Which means that the games are not particularly compelling, and opponents' only hope to slow the game down, muck it up and make it as ugly as possible.
So Clark brings some eyeballs -- what do those eyeballs see? Her on the bench, the USA up 20 in the third quarter, lots of fouls and boring basketball. This is not necessarily the exposure the women's game needs ... presumably the medal games will get more viewers than in the past, but will that translate to more fans at Cal games or Wake Forest games? Will that sell tickets for the Atlanta Dream or Valkyries?
Growing the game means putting an attractive product on the floor. Growing the game means getting female students to come to women's college basketball games. Growing the game means reversing the shift to volleyball.
Caitlin Clark on or off the Olympic team is simply not that big a deal.
Napheesa Collier is already in the team. What is the point of mentioning her here? I agree she is better than Clark. Almost all of those selected are.
Wow--I've read about the Great Man theory of history, and now there appears to be a Great Athlete theory of sports history. Well, we'll see; it is difficult to predict these things. I can imagine Paige Bueckers of UConn creating the same furor as Clark next year when she is drafted, presumably by the Washington Mystics. (There have certainly been complaints on the long-time WBB fan boards about the cameras lurking over her: "Look, look! Paige is happy that her teammate scored!") Like Clark, she is a very talented guard; tall and slender, plus blond and cute as hell.
A'ja Wilson (6'4" and pretty gorgeous), who played a stellar rookie year with the Las Vegas Aces, hasn't had nearly this attention from the media or new fans, no matter that she and Breanna Stewart might be the best players in the world. (It's true that she was drafted in 2018, and Covid interfered with a lot of playing and viewing habits.) And perhaps, in the long run, Wilson is fortunate she missed the media craziness. Her legacy is already assured: https://www.wnba.com/player/1628932/aja-wilson
A'ja Wilson (6'4" and pretty gorgeous), who played a stellar rookie year with the Las Vegas Aces, hasn't had nearly this attention from the media or new fans, no matter that she and Breanna Stewart might be the best players in the world. (It's true that she was drafted in 2018, and Covid interfered with a lot of playing and viewing habits.) And perhaps, in the long run, Wilson is fortunate she missed the media craziness. Her legacy is already assured: https://www.wnba.com/player/1628932/aja-wilson
"Don't get distracted, myself. Don't get distracted." Self-talk from a young relative
HoopDreams said:
I listen to a lot of sports radio while driving dedicated to College sports and dedicated NBA sports on XM radio
I heard them talk about the WNBA about as often as I hear them talk about hockey
Yet the last year Caitlin OFTEN comes up in their lead segment… and star ESPN personalities talk about her constantly
Today on NBA Live show they talked about the decision to leave her off the Olympics and both were applaud by the decision
They pointed out that for 20 years nobody cared about the WNBA or WBB Olympics and this was a huge lost opportunity to engage new fans, including people who don't even watch basketball
Perhaps the most disappointed are the NBC folks who show the Olympics and have recently featured more personalities showcases to keep non-sports fans engaged
Its marketing 101 folks
To rub it in a little...Caitlin Clark majored in Marketing!!
GGV
BearBint said:
Wow--I've read about the Great Man theory of history, and now there appears to be a Great Athlete theory of sports history. Well, we'll see; it is difficult to predict these things. I can imagine Paige Bueckers of UConn creating the same furor as Clark next year when she is drafted, presumably by the Washington Mystics. (There have certainly been complaints on the long-time WBB fan boards about the cameras lurking over her: "Look, look! Paige is happy that her teammate scored!") Like Clark, she is a very talented guard; tall and slender, plus blond and cute as hell.
A'ja Wilson (6'4" and pretty gorgeous), who played a stellar rookie year with the Las Vegas Aces, hasn't had nearly this attention from the media or new fans, no matter that she and Breanna Stewart might be the best players in the world. (It's true that she was drafted in 2018, and Covid interfered with a lot of playing and viewing habits.) And perhaps, in the long run, Wilson is fortunate she missed the media craziness. Her legacy is already assured: https://www.wnba.com/player/1628932/aja-wilson
I think the best part of what happened this year is the anticipation of the "next great one" but the new crop of women's Hoop fans. It doesn't matter if Bueckers is as good as Clark exactly, but the potential is there for those to at least want to see the best of the best. I think that's also true of the women's Final Four-we checked it out last year, and it was cool, so....
I'd known about Paige Bueckers from being a mega-recruit that went to super-team UConn but never saw her play until they played Iowa in the NCAA last year
I was surprised how passive she was compared to Clark
There have been and will be other great players, but I still think Clark has a Curry-like impact that is generational for WBB
Like Curry, it's not just her insane shooting but also her passing
However Curry was a defensive liability and had a lot of turnovers early in his career. Ditto for Clark now.
I was surprised how passive she was compared to Clark
There have been and will be other great players, but I still think Clark has a Curry-like impact that is generational for WBB
Like Curry, it's not just her insane shooting but also her passing
However Curry was a defensive liability and had a lot of turnovers early in his career. Ditto for Clark now.
mbBear said:BearBint said:
Wow--I've read about the Great Man theory of history, and now there appears to be a Great Athlete theory of sports history. Well, we'll see; it is difficult to predict these things. I can imagine Paige Bueckers of UConn creating the same furor as Clark next year when she is drafted, presumably by the Washington Mystics. (There have certainly been complaints on the long-time WBB fan boards about the cameras lurking over her: "Look, look! Paige is happy that her teammate scored!") Like Clark, she is a very talented guard; tall and slender, plus blond and cute as hell.
A'ja Wilson (6'4" and pretty gorgeous), who played a stellar rookie year with the Las Vegas Aces, hasn't had nearly this attention from the media or new fans, no matter that she and Breanna Stewart might be the best players in the world. (It's true that she was drafted in 2018, and Covid interfered with a lot of playing and viewing habits.) And perhaps, in the long run, Wilson is fortunate she missed the media craziness. Her legacy is already assured: https://www.wnba.com/player/1628932/aja-wilson
I think the best part of what happened this year is the anticipation of the "next great one" but the new crop of women's Hoop fans. It doesn't matter if Bueckers is as good as Clark exactly, but the potential is there for those to at least want to see the best of the best. I think that's also true of the women's Final Four-we checked it out last year, and it was cool, so....
I don't have any reason to doubt your analysis. But I think the general fan won't even look that close...it's the fact that they will look at all, that people care and will monitor who the best woman is on the college landscape.HoopDreams said:
I'd known about Paige Bueckers from being a mega-recruit that went to super-team UConn but never saw her play until they played Iowa in the NCAA last year
I was surprised how passive she was compared to Clark
There have been and will be other great players, but I still think Clark has a Curry-like impact that is generational for WBB
Like Curry, it's not just her insane shooting but also her passing
However Curry was a defensive liability and had a lot of turnovers early in his career. Ditto for Clark now.mbBear said:BearBint said:
Wow--I've read about the Great Man theory of history, and now there appears to be a Great Athlete theory of sports history. Well, we'll see; it is difficult to predict these things. I can imagine Paige Bueckers of UConn creating the same furor as Clark next year when she is drafted, presumably by the Washington Mystics. (There have certainly been complaints on the long-time WBB fan boards about the cameras lurking over her: "Look, look! Paige is happy that her teammate scored!") Like Clark, she is a very talented guard; tall and slender, plus blond and cute as hell.
A'ja Wilson (6'4" and pretty gorgeous), who played a stellar rookie year with the Las Vegas Aces, hasn't had nearly this attention from the media or new fans, no matter that she and Breanna Stewart might be the best players in the world. (It's true that she was drafted in 2018, and Covid interfered with a lot of playing and viewing habits.) And perhaps, in the long run, Wilson is fortunate she missed the media craziness. Her legacy is already assured: https://www.wnba.com/player/1628932/aja-wilson
I think the best part of what happened this year is the anticipation of the "next great one" but the new crop of women's Hoop fans. It doesn't matter if Bueckers is as good as Clark exactly, but the potential is there for those to at least want to see the best of the best. I think that's also true of the women's Final Four-we checked it out last year, and it was cool, so....
The Clark Olympics debate is over. But what remains is this point and time in sports history, specifically relevant to women's sports and women's basketball.
Featured Stories
See All
Washington Safety Tristan Dunn Signs With Cal
by Jim McGill
Bears Raise the Bar in Decisive 89-63 Win Over Temple
by Jim McGill