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
ClayK said:
How many people would have watched Clark get garbage time?
She would have been the worst player on the team.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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.)
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.
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.....
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.
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...
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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
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
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.
"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.
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.
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
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
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....