Caitlin Clark

#226
#226
Not putting Clark on the Olympic team is the single dumbest move women's basketball could have possibly made. She does not have to play well or at all. millions of extra fans will watch and buy her jerseys. those extra people buying her merch and showing up to games directly helps all the women in USA and WNBA basketball. Those people that show up to see Clark at road games, there is a high chance some of them come back after to see the home team. She is the hottest thing selling and guess what NOTHING ELSE the WNBA or women basketball has tried has worked for marketing or getting folks engaged in 25 years. They have a layup on a 2 foot rim in front of them and are passing it up. Because like Bill Burr said they prefer tearing each other down.

Trust me if LeBron's rookie year was an Olympic year and he didn't make the team someone on the team would have gave up their spot for him happily. A star even. Marketing is the single most important part of the entertainment business. Your product does not even have to be good if you market it well its gonna sell. Mcdonalds has been in business over 80 years and their product has been crap at least 40 of em. They want to get paid more then they gotta sell more. they have the golden goose of marketing in their hands and they don't even cut it open to get at the eggs... they want to just flush it down the toilet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBVols, sami, orangebloodgmc and 5 others
#228
#228
pimo1 said:
Not putting Clark on the Olympic team is the single dumbest move women's basketball could have possibly made. She does not have to play well or at all. millions of extra fans will watch and buy her jerseys. those extra people buying her merch and showing up to games directly helps all the women in USA and WNBA basketball.
Click to expand...
Yes .... and to be putting 42 year old Diana Taurasi on the Olympic team for the 6th time, is rather ridiculous.

The selection committee (or whatever they call themselves), should have an interest in building towards the future of USA Olympic Women's basketball and looking to usher the best young talent into international competition, and giving those young players a taste of the international game at the highest level, while they wouldn't be expected to carry a heavy workload for the team.

Instead, the people making these selections appear to be more interested in helping middle-aged, former UConn players stockpile gold medals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc, Alto1, GroverCleveland and 4 others
#230
#230
GameTime said:
I so agree with you guys....The girl would have put millions of eyes on the games that would not have watched before....Add that good looking Cameron Brink girl and you get a few more million eyes watching.
Click to expand...
People watching because they’re horny doesn’t really help anyone. Brink is on the 3v3 team anyway
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#232
#232
n_huffhines said:
Man, people were so weird about that (and still are). BUD stock is already higher than it was before that right-wing cancel culture meltdown. It only took 6 months to bounce back.

Team USA probably isn't going to be hurt at all by this, except for maybe jersey sales? It's not like they get some huge financial reward for including CC. NBC doesn't cut them a bigger check. So maybe they are similar in that it's lots of teeth gnashing over something that didn't end up hurting them much.
Click to expand...
Hadn't thought about merch sales. That makes CC's absence from the Olympic team's roster a much more dumb move
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alto1, S.C. OrangeMan and GroverCleveland
#234
#234
  • Like
Reactions: Lawrence Wright, SpookyAction and NashVol11
#235
#235
n_huffhines said:
I actually agree with the team not including her. They want to win. That is their goal. Even if CC is a top 12 player, she probably doesn't play much, so nobody watches, and the media and fans all just talk about who is on the bench instead of who is playing.

It's the Tebow thing (and Kaepernick). You might be good enough to make the team but we don't want the circus.

Caitlin Clark is growing the game one way or another and it will be her turn in 4 years, and it will all be fine.
Click to expand...
Having Caitlin Clark on the team wouldn't be a circus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alto1 and GroverCleveland
#236
#236
05_never_again said:
Well yeah, because they are still locked into a non-lucrative TV deal. That's how sports leagues make most of their money these days.

If they can maintain a higher level of popularity, when the TV rights come up for negotiation, they'll be able to get more then.
Click to expand...
Who is going to compete with Disney/ABC/ESPN for the rights to WNBA games? To land a lucrative deal, you can't just have one bidder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alto1
#238
#238
NashVol11 said:
Come on. A Chicago Sky-Indiana Fever afternoon game became a circus because she was involved
Click to expand...
That's ridiculous. Nobody watched that game on television. There was controversy in the aftermath because of a cheap shot against her. Not enough people pay attention to women's basketball for it to ever be described as a "circus."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alto1
#239
#239
NashVol11 said:
People watching because they’re horny doesn’t really help anyone. Brink is on the 3v3 team anyway
Click to expand...
Actually you are quite wrong. 1 it ups ratings which creates leverage. 2 some of those horny creeps are gonna stick around and become horny fans. Creeps buy merch too. In fact they buy more merch.

Professional sports is a BUSINESS. If the want to make money they are gonna have to make smart business choices. If they want it to be about the game then keep on. How many of you had any idea USA women's team has only lost like 1 game in the Olympics since 96 and won 7 golds? They have routinely beat everyone they have played by 20-30 points for 28 years. it makes the fact they couldn't find a spot on a 12 person roster for the Golden Goose even more insane. Imagine if the dream team had told Micheal Jordan we don't need you we aren't gonna leave Isiah Thomas off because you hate him? Imagine if the NBA hasn't had the foresight to hype the hell out of the Celtics and Lakers and televise all their games ignoring others the second Magic and Bird hit the league.

I honestly think they cant be this dumb. they did have the sense to leave themselves a way out by making Clark the first alternate. Now its about someone having the foresight to say ya know what give her my spot or a 'convenient' injury to happen to someone. I personally cannot imagine the people running women basketball (WNBA, USA) are this dumb. I think they are gauging response and biding their time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc, Alto1 and BowlBrother85
#240
#240
I could see how these two girls would be bad for drawing an audience...Not!
GettyImages-2151189116.jpg
 
#241
#241
BowlBrother85 said:
Who is going to compete with Disney/ABC/ESPN for the rights to WNBA games? To land a lucrative deal, you can't just have one bidder.
Click to expand...
Depends on how popular it becomes. There isn't any shortage of broadcasters who would be interested in it if they thought the price was right.
 
#242
#242
05_never_again said:
Well yeah, because they are still locked into a non-lucrative TV deal. That's how sports leagues make most of their money these days.

If they can maintain a higher level of popularity, when the TV rights come up for negotiation, they'll be able to get more then.
Click to expand...

They are in a TV deal completely tied to the NBA's TV deal, so the NBA can decide to recognize $300m in revenue for WNBA or $50m. It's up to their discretion and they can decide exactly how profitable they want the WNBA books to show. It's the same thing with the new TV contract so you can't trust anything that they report like this for the next decade at least
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolNExile
#245
#245
pimo1 said:
Actually you are quite wrong. 1 it ups ratings which creates leverage. 2 some of those horny creeps are gonna stick around and become horny fans. Creeps buy merch too. In fact they buy more merch.

Professional sports is a BUSINESS. If the want to make money they are gonna have to make smart business choices. If they want it to be about the game then keep on. How many of you had any idea USA women's team has only lost like 1 game in the Olympics since 96 and won 7 golds? They have routinely beat everyone they have played by 20-30 points for 28 years. it makes the fact they couldn't find a spot on a 12 person roster for the Golden Goose even more insane. Imagine if the dream team had told Micheal Jordan we don't need you we aren't gonna leave Isiah Thomas off because you hate him? Imagine if the NBA hasn't had the foresight to hype the hell out of the Celtics and Lakers and televise all their games ignoring others the second Magic and Bird hit the league.

I honestly think they cant be this dumb. they did have the sense to leave themselves a way out by making Clark the first alternate. Now its about someone having the foresight to say ya know what give her my spot or a 'convenient' injury to happen to someone. I personally cannot imagine the people running women basketball (WNBA, USA) are this dumb. I think they are gauging response and biding their time.
Click to expand...
They are not dumb, but .....

1) They do have a very clear UConn bias.

USA Women's Basketball publicly stated that Pat Summitt was not eligible to be selected as the Olympic Head Coach in 2000, because she had already coached the team once before, in 1984. However, this did not stop them from allowing Geno Auriemma to coach the Olympic team twice, and in back-to-back Olympiads in 2012 and 2016. Nell Fortner was named the 2000 USA Olympic Women's Basketball Team Head Coach, instead. She has not had a bad coaching career by any means, but should she have been the Olympic Coach in 2000? I think that's debatable at best.

Also, a lack of experience was cited by USA Basketball recently as a reason for keeping Caitlin Clark off the 2024 roster, but both Diana Taurasi and Breanna Stewart were named to an Olympic team when they were WNBA rookies in 2004 and 2016 ..... Hmmmm. What was different about those two players? Where they played in college, perhaps?

Finally, would a player as good as Candace Parker was in 2016, have been left off the Olympic roster (that Geno Auriemma coached) if she was a former UConn player? I tend to doubt that, don't you?

and .....

2) They do not value having any diversity of talent from one Olympiad to the next.

There is no "spreading the wealth around," and giving different players a chance to represent their country in the Olympics. This is true, even though the United States has the deepest pool of women's basketball talent in the world to fill an Olympic roster with. The selection committee does not have to keep bringing back the same players for multiple Olympiads in a row in order to win the Gold Medal .... but that is exactly what they do.

and ....

3) They do not prioritize youth, and the development of the best young American talent in the international game.

Unless, of course, the best young American talent is fresh out of UConn .... but that was covered in line item #1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc, GroverCleveland, Voltopia and 1 other person
#246
#246
BowlBrother85 said:
They are not dumb, but .....

1) They do have a very clear UConn bias.

USA Women's Basketball publicly stated that Pat Summitt was not eligible to be selected as the Olympic Head Coach in 2000, because she had already coached the team once before, in 1984. However, this did not stop them from allowing Geno Auriemma to coach the Olympic team twice, and in back-to-back Olympiads in 2012 and 2016. Nell Fortner was named the 2000 USA Olympic Women's Basketball Team Head Coach, instead. She has not had a bad coaching career by any means, but should she have been the Olympic Coach in 2000? I think that's debatable at best.

Also, a lack of experience was cited by USA Basketball recently as a reason for keeping Caitlin Clark off the 2024 roster, but both Diana Taurasi and Breanna Stewart were named to an Olympic team when they were WNBA rookies in 2004 and 2016 ..... Hmmmm. What was different about those two players? Where they played in college, perhaps?

Finally, would a player as good as Candace Parker was in 2016, have been left off the Olympic roster (that Geno Auriemma coached) if she was a former UConn player? I tend to doubt that, don't you?

and .....

2) They do not value having any diversity of talent from one Olympiad to the next.

There is no "spreading the wealth around," and giving different players a chance to represent their country in the Olympics. This is true, even though the United States has the deepest pool of women's basketball talent in the world to fill an Olympic roster with. The selection committee does not have to keep bringing back the same players for multiple Olympiads in a row in order to win the Gold Medal .... but that is exactly what they do.

and ....

3) They do not prioritize youth, and the development of the best young American talent in the international game.

Unless, of course, the best young American talent is fresh out of UConn .... but that was covered in line item #1.
Click to expand...
I think the UCONN bias is overstated sometimes the same could have been said about UT bias in the 90's. UCONN has been the unquestionable dominant team in women's college basketball since the 2000's. Most top women talent went there comparatively so saying there is a bias is kinda silly its not like these are bad players. They have 3 players in the team which seems like a realistic amount. DT making it is something people can argue but she is kinda the active GOAT of the WNBA. Who are you rostering over Breana Stewart and Napheesa Collier? Both of them will be hands down starters.

From a basketball perspective and purely winning the whole thing its hard to argue rostering Clark over almost anyone there except for DT and Griner and even then its a huge stretch. but reality is this should not be a basketball decision because they could leave 4-5 players home and still win without a single close game. The last 2-3 spots on that roster are just there for the ride and the real rotation will be 7-8 players barring injuries.
 
#247
#247
pimo1 said:
I think the UCONN bias is overstated sometimes the same could have been said about UT bias in the 90's. UCONN has been the unquestionable dominant team in women's college basketball since the 2000's. Most top women talent went there comparatively so saying there is a bias is kinda silly its not like these are bad players. They have 3 players in the team which seems like a realistic amount. DT making it is something people can argue but she is kinda the active GOAT of the WNBA. Who are you rostering over Breana Stewart and Napheesa Collier? Both of them will be hands down starters.

From a basketball perspective and purely winning the whole thing its hard to argue rostering Clark over almost anyone there except for DT and Griner and even then its a huge stretch. but reality is this should not be a basketball decision because they could leave 4-5 players home and still win without a single close game. The last 2-3 spots on that roster are just there for the ride and the real rotation will be 7-8 players barring injuries.
Click to expand...
I'm pointing out the inconsistency of logic employed by USA Basketball. There is no denying it.

They said Pat Summitt wasn't eligible to coach the team a 2nd time .... but Geno Auriemma did.

They said that Caitlin Clark was kept off the 2024 Olympic roster because of her inexperience .... but she is no less experienced than Diana Taurasi was in 2004 or Breanna Stewart was in 2016.

These are double standards. There is a clear UConn bias on the part of USA Women's Basketball. It is not silly or overstated at all. There is no way that Candace Parker would have been kept off the Olympic Team in 2016, had she been a former UConn player.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc, Pennheel, Danl and 2 others
#248
#248
  • Like
Reactions: CBVols, orangebloodgmc, Pennheel and 2 others
#249
#249
pimo1 said:
Who are you rostering over Breana Stewart and Napheesa Collier? Both of them will be hands down starters.
Click to expand...
I never even mentioned Collier's name ..... so why did you?

As far as Stewart is concerned, I obviously wasn't talking about THIS year's team .... I was talking about her being on the team in 2016, and the inconsistency of the USA Basketball's explanation for excluding Caitlin Clark this year .... She was just as inexperienced then, as Clark is now. There appears to be a double standard, which favors UConn players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Danl, S.C. OrangeMan and pimo1
#250
#250
Nothing is more stupid than putting Taurasi on the team for a SIXTH time. Our women have dominated the Olympic tournament for a long , long time,
so why USA Basketball thinks it needs to put Taurasi on the team yet again when there are many talented players who would love to participate in one Olympics is incomprehensible. Utterly absurd. I'm surprised they didn't bring 40-some year-old Sue Bird out of retirement so should could participate for a 6th time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc, BowlBrother85 and S.C. OrangeMan
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top