News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #50 on: June 22, 2024, 02:21:38 PM »
The Caitlin Clark issue is an interesting one. 

She's certainly crazy popular and IMO the greatest college player ever, man or woman. But the pros are struggling with it as the vast majority of them are literally playing for their livelihood with $100k per year salaries as opposed to Caitlin who made millions in college on NIL and recently signed a $28 million deal with Nike.  Jealousy is a bitch.

That being said, I have no issue with her being left off the Olympic team, if we're basing it on current skill right now as opposed to potential.


Having Caitlan Clark in the WNBA will help enrich every player in the league in the form of salaries, endorsements and pension benefits going forward. Not selecting her for the Olympic team is one of the most foolhardy decisions in recent memory for a variety of reasons and if her peers don’t recognize that shame on them.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2024, 02:26:43 PM by Tim Martin »

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #51 on: June 22, 2024, 02:26:23 PM »
The Caitlin Clark issue is an interesting one. 

She's certainly crazy popular and IMO the greatest college player ever, man or woman. But the pros are struggling with it as the vast majority of them are literally playing for their livelihood with $100k per year salaries as opposed to Caitlin who made millions in college on NIL and recently signed a $28 million deal with Nike.  Jealousy is a bitch.

That being said, I have no issue with her being left off the Olympic team, if we're basing it on current skill right now as opposed to potential.


Having Caitlan Clark in the WNBA will help enrich every player in the league in the form of salaries, endorsements and pension benefits going forward. Not selecting her for the Olympic team is one of the most foolhardy decisions in recent memory for a variety of reasons.


I get that, the players are being short sided on that one. I suspect its more "rookie initiation" stuff going on and by next year they'll quit picking on her.

As for the Olympics, it was not the WNBA who decided, but I stand by my statement on current skills.  Look at her stats this year vs others in the league. I for one am happy to see it wasn't purely a popularity contest.

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #52 on: June 22, 2024, 02:33:55 PM »
The Caitlin Clark issue is an interesting one. 

She's certainly crazy popular and IMO the greatest college player ever, man or woman. But the pros are struggling with it as the vast majority of them are literally playing for their livelihood with $100k per year salaries as opposed to Caitlin who made millions in college on NIL and recently signed a $28 million deal with Nike.  Jealousy is a bitch.

That being said, I have no issue with her being left off the Olympic team, if we're basing it on current skill right now as opposed to potential.


Having Caitlan Clark in the WNBA will help enrich every player in the league in the form of salaries, endorsements and pension benefits going forward. Not selecting her for the Olympic team is one of the most foolhardy decisions in recent memory for a variety of reasons.


I get that, the players are being short sided on that one. I suspect its more "rookie initiation" stuff going on and by next year they'll quit picking on her.

As for the Olympics, it was not the WNBA who decided, but I stand by my statement on current skills.  Look at her stats this year vs others in the league. I for one am happy to see it wasn't purely a popularity contest.


I didn’t say that the WNBA had discretion as far as Olympic picks but I’m sure there is a back channel between the USOC and the WNBA.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #53 on: June 22, 2024, 02:44:49 PM »

The Caitlin Clark issue is an interesting one. 

She's certainly crazy popular and IMO the greatest college player ever, man or woman. But the pros are struggling with it as the vast majority of them are literally playing for their livelihood with $100k per year salaries as opposed to Caitlin who made millions in college on NIL and recently signed a $28 million deal with Nike.  Jealousy is a bitch.

That being said, I have no issue with her being left off the Olympic team, if we're basing it on current skill right now as opposed to potential.



Having Caitlan Clark in the WNBA will help enrich every player in the league in the form of salaries, endorsements and pension benefits going forward. Not selecting her for the Olympic team is one of the most foolhardy decisions in recent memory for a variety of reasons.



I get that, the players are being short sided on that one. I suspect its more "rookie initiation" stuff going on and by next year they'll quit picking on her.

As for the Olympics, it was not the WNBA who decided, but I stand by my statement on current skills.  Look at her stats this year vs others in the league. I for one am happy to see it wasn't purely a popularity contest.



I didn’t say that the WNBA had discretion as far as Olympic picks but I’m sure there is a back channel between the USOC and the WNBA.

Fair enough, valid point.

P.S.  In case you haven't seen her stats, I don't see anything here that suggests she was a clear omission.

114th - Dead last in turnovers per game, almost twice as many as the next closest person - 5.6 T/Os PG
16th in PPG
33rd in FG%
22nd in 3PM %
24th in Steals Per Game
21st in Rebounds Per game
6th in Free Throw made %
4th In APG, but with that many turnovers, she's a liability at PG.


And as a defender, she's average at best.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2024, 02:47:01 PM by Kalen Braley »

Chris Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #54 on: June 22, 2024, 07:14:30 PM »
The Caitlin Clark issue is an interesting one. 
Jealousy is a bitch.
That being said, I have no issue with her being left off the Olympic team, if we're basing it on current skill right now as opposed to potential.
If "right now" were a consideration Bryson would be on the USA Olympic Golf roster. 

The WNBA is a failing business that has only ever lost money. 

The only reason it (the WNBA) remains an ongoing concern is the NBA, and the WNBA team owners, have chosen to absorb said losses and subsidize the "business"...why is anyone's guess?  :D

 Caitlin is laying the Golden Eggs...

...her absence on the Olympic roster is clearly indicative of how dysfunctional and myopic "USA Basketball" is  ;D .
« Last Edit: June 22, 2024, 07:16:20 PM by Chris Hughes »

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #55 on: June 22, 2024, 07:49:10 PM »
The roster is limited to 12 players. Who do you leave off?   


Women's basketball is watchable...The NBA is a huge bore.
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #56 on: June 22, 2024, 07:49:43 PM »

The Caitlin Clark issue is an interesting one. 

She's certainly crazy popular and IMO the greatest college player ever, man or woman. But the pros are struggling with it as the vast majority of them are literally playing for their livelihood with $100k per year salaries as opposed to Caitlin who made millions in college on NIL and recently signed a $28 million deal with Nike.  Jealousy is a bitch.

That being said, I have no issue with her being left off the Olympic team, if we're basing it on current skill right now as opposed to potential.



Having Caitlan Clark in the WNBA will help enrich every player in the league in the form of salaries, endorsements and pension benefits going forward. Not selecting her for the Olympic team is one of the most foolhardy decisions in recent memory for a variety of reasons.



I get that, the players are being short sided on that one. I suspect its more "rookie initiation" stuff going on and by next year they'll quit picking on her.

As for the Olympics, it was not the WNBA who decided, but I stand by my statement on current skills.  Look at her stats this year vs others in the league. I for one am happy to see it wasn't purely a popularity contest.



I didn’t say that the WNBA had discretion as far as Olympic picks but I’m sure there is a back channel between the USOC and the WNBA.

Fair enough, valid point.

P.S.  In case you haven't seen her stats, I don't see anything here that suggests she was a clear omission.

114th - Dead last in turnovers per game, almost twice as many as the next closest person - 5.6 T/Os PG
16th in PPG
33rd in FG%
22nd in 3PM %
24th in Steals Per Game
21st in Rebounds Per game
6th in Free Throw made %
4th In APG, but with that many turnovers, she's a liability at PG.


And as a defender, she's average at best.


She is the only reason that anyone is taking about the WNBA. Her team is averaging almost 17,000 per game. Take a look at the rest of the league. No one goes…..league average is 9000 with Indiana included. Last season the average was 6000.


The other players should be kissing her butt not taking cheap shots at her.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2024, 07:53:46 PM by Rob Marshall »
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Stewart Abramson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #57 on: June 22, 2024, 09:20:56 PM »


She's certainly crazy popular and IMO the greatest college player ever, man or woman.



She is the only reason that anyone is taking about the WNBA. Her team is averaging almost 17,000 per game. Take a look at the rest of the league. No one goes…..league average is 9000 with Indiana included. Last season the average was 6000.




Clark is obviously talented and is putting a lot of new fannies in the seats of WNBA arenas. However, she is not nearly the greatest college basketball player ever or the only reason people are talking about the WNBA. I've been a womens' hoops fan (college and WNBA) for many years and attend games. The hype over Clark is reminiscent of when Tiger came onto the PGA Tour, but Clark is not a generational talent in the way that Tiger was. There have been  numerous golfers that have been proclaimed to be the next Tiger but haven't delivered on their initial hype/promise. Clark will be very good, but not a Tiger like figure. She is a prolific scorer and good passer, but does not have a total game to be a generational player. IMO, her WNBA career will not come close to Maya Moore, Lisa Leslie Tamika Catchings, Diana Taurasi, Breanna Stewart, Sheryl Swoopes and numerous others, except perhaps in points scored.  As far as her College career, everyone focuses on her scoring record. You can score a lot when you are your team's main threat. You don't have to go back very far to find someone who was a better college player.  I'd take Breanna Stewart's college career over Clark's any day. Stewart did (and still does) it all. She's an amazing defender, a leader in blocks and steals and great scorer from anywhere on the court, with lots of assists. She was the MVP of the NCCA payoffs all four years of her college career, leading UConn to the national championship all four years, and is now a WNBA superstar.


Women's sports general are not nearly as popular as their men's counterparts, but the WNBA has had a solid core of fans for awhile (at least as compared to other women's sports). There are five teams  (NY, LA, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Seattle) that average 10,000 + attendance. That's comparable to, and perhaps exceeds, a couple MLB teams.  Vegas has sold out every game this season and had to find a larger arena for some games. Of course part of that is the Clark effect, but it's mostly that they've won two consecutive championships. Their attendance was about 10K/game last year as that was the capacity of their arena.


It's hard to explain why Clark has caught the media's eye to the extent it has. I think it's just "the right time". Kelsey Plum broke the all time scoring record in 2017 (now broken by Clark) and had an extremely similar college career to Clark. She, like Clark, is white and was taken first overall in the WNBA draft, yet Plum didn't generate nearly this amount of hype. Neither did Stewart. I can't explain it.


PS to Kalen - Do you really think that Clark's college career was better than Kareem (Lou)?

Mike Schott

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #58 on: June 22, 2024, 09:28:08 PM »
Michael,
Unless you are driving an electric car, you are supporting the Saudi’s. We do business with them every day. You don’t have to like it but that’s the reality of it. My initial reaction to LIV was the same as yours. I won’t watch it. Could care less about it. The 9/11 ties are sickening and I didn’t know anyone who perished.


The US currently produces about 13 million barrels of oil/day which Saudi Arabia does about 9. It's been 7 years since SA outproduced the US. I don't watch LIV because it's too hard to find and I'm a traditionalist in how I watch the game. If it was interesting and on a major network, I'd probably watch. Its been said in this thread but nearly every country we do business with is heavily stained in one way or another. If we really wanted to limit bad business parties we'd place an embargo on China.

Chris Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #59 on: June 23, 2024, 12:09:50 AM »

The roster is limited to 12 players.
Who do you leave off?   



Griner.

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #60 on: June 23, 2024, 01:44:00 AM »
“IMO, her WNBA career will not come close to Maya Moore, Lisa Leslie Tamika Catchings, Diana Taurasi, Breanna Stewart, Sheryl Swoopes and numerous others, except perhaps in points scored.  “


Who?

BTW, up until this year the league lost $10 million a year…….
« Last Edit: June 23, 2024, 01:51:26 AM by Rob Marshall »
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Doug Spets

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #61 on: June 23, 2024, 08:41:33 AM »
Just what I was looking for as I logged on this morning. A discussion of women’s basketball.  This has to do with golf course architecture how??

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #62 on: June 23, 2024, 10:44:11 AM »
“IMO, her WNBA career will not come close to Maya Moore, Lisa Leslie Tamika Catchings, Diana Taurasi, Breanna Stewart, Sheryl Swoopes and numerous others, except perhaps in points scored.  “


Who?


LOL Rob why are you participating in a (completely unhinged) basketball conversation?


There are thousands of topics on this site. Almost all of them are closer to on-topic than this one. I've never seen any evidence that you have anything intelligent to add to a golf course architecture discussion either, but if you don't know who Lisa Leslie is, then you certainly can't contribute anything worthwhile to a conversation about basketball. My personal thought is that you'd have a better chance of offering a worthwhile thought in literally any other thread than the 0% chance you have in this one.


Then again, this whole thread is inane so I guess knock yourself out. It's actually pretty impressive that out of all the posts on page 3 here, yours stood out as the dumbest.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #63 on: June 23, 2024, 12:20:33 PM »
My point Jason, is that Clark has brought more attention to women’s basketball than anyone. The proof is in the numbers. Attendance and viewership. Instead of a thank you she gets attacked. Thank you for your kind words.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2024, 07:07:30 PM by Rob Marshall »
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #64 on: June 23, 2024, 05:19:31 PM »
For decades Sports Illustrated barely said a peep about women's sports.  But they were always quick to say no one watches women's sports and no one cares about women's sports.  It's a big catch 22....If men's golf wasn't on TV every week, and if there was no channel dedicated to golf, nobody would follow it. 


The BEST thing NBC ever did was commit to bringing every Premier League match to American TV....It is possibly the #1 reason for the growth of the game in the USA.
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Chris Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A
« Reply #65 on: June 23, 2024, 11:21:33 PM »
My point Jason, is that Clark has brought more attention to women’s basketball than anyone. The proof is in the numbers. Attendance and viewership. Instead of a thank you she gets attacked. Thank you for your kind words.

Nailed it.   8)

Chris Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: U-S-A New
« Reply #66 on: June 23, 2024, 11:21:54 PM »
For decades Sports Illustrated barely said a peep about women's sports.  But they were always quick to say no one watches women's sports and no one cares about women's sports.  [Did Sports Illustrated really say this?  When?  Where?]  3  It's a big catch 22....If men's golf wasn't on TV every week, and if there was no channel dedicated to golf, nobody would follow it.  [That's nonsense.  I still have old copies of Golfweek and Golf World from which I tracked every tour in the world, from the mini-tours on up!]


The BEST thing NBC ever did was commit to bringing every Premier League match to American TV....It is possibly the #1 reason for the growth of the game in the USA. [More nonsense.  How much has soccer "grown" since NBC started televising Premier League games?]]

Lock who up?
« Last Edit: June 23, 2024, 11:45:06 PM by Chris Hughes »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back