Caitlin Clark Rejects Kid’s Shot
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,871 ✭✭✭✭✭
https://youtu.be/no3vw-tW6qk?si=JY1qg8i4KSRFeu4FThis discussion has been closed.
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,871 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
No trophy for him!!!
Hahaha
I'll likely never be a WNBA fan. But I've become a Caitlin fan. 😊
Yup. The players in that league have treated her awful. It would be ironic if they drove her out of the league and then the league folded.
Keep getting endorsements Caitlin and have the last laugh. Success is the best remedy.
The kid should have kicked her in the shins first, then shot the basketball. 😆
Still surprised the olympic committee for the league didn't put her on the Olympic team. Probably about as dumb a decision they could have made for the fledgling league.
The committee leader said they don't put players based on popularity or for promoting the league and it is a basketball decision only....and then they put a player on who has been hurt since last year and is questionable to even participate and cannot practice(which goes agains the committee's 'cohesiveness' mindset).
I have never ever watched an entire WNBA game and probably will never watch one, but I have become a Clark fan. She has had to put up with things most other players will never have to.
She is almost becoming a modern-day Jackie Robinson.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
She has a little Rocky Balboa in her too. Gets knocked down and gets back up. She has shown toughness and talked about the flagrant fouls she has been receiving. She is handling it in stride and said she is used to it because she played with her brothers and such.
I love the Rocky comparison.
"Its not how hard you can hit, it is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward."
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
"Fledgling"?
Someone hasn't been paying attention. The WNBA has seen increasing ratings (yes, before Ms. Clark arrived) and record attendance, and just because you have not been paying attention to the league, does not mean it is not incredibly healthy. Expansion happening (Golden State and then Toronto).
The Olympic Committee has an obligation to put the best team together, and sorry, but Ms. Clark has not shown the level of play needed to be the best. She has already said that it will add fuel to the fire to improve and I suspect she will be there in 2028.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Be very careful what you type in any reply, or this thread may quickly go off of the rails.
Or use the T word. Rhymes with bugs. 😆
Fledgling. Still needs to be subsidized by the NBA to survive.
Dumb move not putting her on the Olympic team. She is worthy enough even in her short time in the WMBA. The WNBA players should be praising her for bringing attention to their league and not going out of their way to cause physical harm to her and then cheering their teammates when doing so. Where is your outrage at that?
I agree that it was not a good marketing move to leave her off the Olympic team. Whether or not she is part of the best product I don't know. I think that from a NBA perspective she has work to do on her game, but internationally, I think her game would fit great as it is, right now.
But leaving her off... That's gotta be a lot of money being left on the table not having her in the stars and stripes. I don't know how her stats stack up against others, but I saw she was averaging almost 17 points a game, which is over 20% of her team's points and enough to place her in 15th in scoring in the 2024 season so far and 2nd in assists I believe. So there's probably a case to be made, especially in international play, for her inclusion from a skill-perspective alone, but the draw of her name, even if she's warming the bench... That's got me scratching my head.
The USA womens team hasnt lost an Olympic game since 1992 or a tournament game since 2006. The 4 best USA teams would be the 4 best in the Olympics, the rest of the world doesnt put really any resources into womens basketball. Theres no way someone can actually argue that she would be harming the team with her play. She did skip the trials but thats because she wasnt going to skip the final 4.
Its really impressive how womens basketball has been begging for attention for years and now that theyre getting it are upset who its coming from. Every objection measure of merch sales, ratings, attendance, etc shows a massive boost with Clarke vs without.
Also swatting that kids shot is just funny.
Missouri 14 OSU 3
Wrong. While when the WNBA first started it was subsidized by the league, that is no longer the case.
It is NOT a dumb move. She's not good enough (yet) to be on the Olympic team. You don't even know the league, yet feel compelled to suggest she's good enough to be on the Olympic team?
Sorry, but I will trust the selection committee which has put together SEVEN consecutive gold medals. They don't need the distraction of every shmuck asking 'Why isn't Clark playing more? Why did she sit out that game?"
Just because YOU haven't been paying attention to the league since Clark arrived doesn't mean nobody has.
The women's olympic basketball league is the most impressive in olympic history. Not only do they win - they dominate. They don't want or need the distraction of Clark. She's just 22 - the next youngest player on the team is 26. She doesn't have the skill nor resume to be part of the most dominant olympic team in history.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
The team doesn't need her, they definitely don't need the distraction she would bring.
"money being left off the table"? Are you aware the women's team has won SEVEN straight gold medals? There's no money being left off the table - she's not good enough yet to represent Team USA.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
I think the money being referenced has to do with all of the things that come with markedly increased viewership.
The very last thing I intend to do on this planet, is watch the Olympics women's basketball.
However i would watch some of it if Caitlin was on the team.
Can you provide a source for that claim? I believe the subsidy has fallen from 50% to 20%, but I can’t find anyone claiming the WNBA is not partially funded by the NBA.
Every source I can find on the internet states that the WNBA still receives $12 million annually from the NBA.
Half the teams are owned by NBA owners as well
Missouri 14 OSU 3
Here’s an interesting article on the league’s finances:
https://frontofficesports.com/wnba-balance-sheet-boom-season/
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/16/1245150287/what-happened-at-wnba-draft-and-what-the-future-of-the-sport-could-hold#:~:text=When the WNBA first started,got an increase in salary.
"When the WNBA first started, every WNBA team was subsidized by a NBA team. That is no longer the case. The private interest in owning a team in the WNBA is at an all-time high, and that speaks to the growth. They signed a new collective bargaining agreement a couple years ago where they got an increase in salary."
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
"The NBA receives about 40% of WNBA revenue, and outside investors—the WNBA raised $75 million from Nike, NBA owners, the NBA itself, and others in 2022—get roughly 20%, leaving the teams and players of the WNBA with about 40% of its own revenue,"
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Fledgling league.
Dumb move.
Yeah there is lots of direct and indirect subsidy still. Both for the salaries and the venue management. The $12MM figure sounds right from when I last looked it up. I also remember reading that this is affecting the salary structure currently and is being imposed by the NBA. Similar to when the NBA itself was subsidized in thr mid 20th century.
The growth of the WNBA has certainly been accelerated by the help of the NBA and it’s very likely they will be an independent league someday.
I’m not sure if the NBA is helping or hurting by forcing media deals to include both but I have to think it’s helping. To suggest there is no subsidy however is not accurate as far as I’m concerned.
And that video is a classic.
As for the “money on the table” @PaulMaul is right as to what I was saying. It would be hard to argue that Clark is not marketable, or at least seen as marketable given the endorsements she has already received. It seems like an easy lift to more dollars to have her on the olympic team.
When you look at the mission statements of US National Teams you probably won’t find anything that says. “To win a gold medal”. But you’ll find stuff about increasing participation or bring attention globally. That’s why I think this is a dumb decision and a huge miss. I’m not trying to take anything away from the rest of the team. I’m sure there will be a lot of eyes on the game. I’m just saying that the timing seemed pretty perfect to bring Clark to the world stage. And controlling her minutes in game situations. I think they could easily manage this back-firing. Anyways. I could be wrong. Don’t care.
Olympics advertising is not based on an individual sport, therefore, the potential ratings boon, regardless of size, would have no impact on the amount of advertising dollars being brought in.
There's no world in which bringing Clark to Paris would (a) make the team better or (b) worth the distraction having her on the team would inflict.
This entire discussion is moot: she's not on the team.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Sensible post.
I can’t speak to the exact word parsing Jemele Hill is engaging in with that quote. But, while the NBA subsidy was intended to end in 2002, in actuality it didn’t:
“ In 2003, former NBA commissioner David Stern authorized a $12 million subsidy to the WNBA which just celebrated its five years of existence. Three years later, it was reported that the WNBA gets a $12 million yearly allowance from the NBA.”
https://medium.com/@yannickondoa/behind-the-figures-1-why-wnba-players-are-not-paid-as-much-as-nba-players-51c1574a6d7#:~:text=In 2003, former NBA commissioner,WNBA struggles at the moment
Also worth noting that when a WNBA team is owned by an NBA team owner, an absorbed loss for the WNBA team is a de facto subsidy.
I heard the perfect analogy for Clark on the Olympic team: the Patriots sign Tim Tebow as a backup QB/TE, but there was so much media scrutiny and so many questions being fired at Bill Belichick that he just outright released him - the minimal benefit of having him on the roster was more than offset by the hassle of dealing with the off-the-field issues.
Clark on the Olympic team would be the exact same situation - minimal (if any) benefit to the team, MASSIVE off-the-court distraction.
The league is incredibly strong and growing and this move is the right move.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Horrible analogy in every way.
Growing stronger from the bottom of the pit yes, but still in the pit.
Horrible how? Explain how this analogy is not valid.
Still in the pit? Ok, pal
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
https://sports.yahoo.com/wnba-attendance-skyrocketing-not-caitlin-220655172.html
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/10/wnba-reports-record-viewership-highest-game-attendance-years-caitlin-clark.html
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Sterns on record in 2018 about WNBA losses. The Washington Post says the league is expecting a 50 million dollar loss this year with the changes of charter flights and such. The NBA controls the WNBA tv rights too and is selling it as a package deal, they will determine how much the WNBA gets from it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/06/11/wnba-tv-deal-nba/
Missouri 14 OSU 3
Comparing Tebow's level of following in his sport to Clark's is completely opposite. Clark is the number one most popular female basketball player in the world. Tebow at that point, well not even close to the top in his sport, lol.
Tebow offered no benefit to be on that team. He didn't even play on any team soon after. LOL.
They missed a golden opportunity to sell their product on the world stage and even more so in our country where Clark is probably the only player many could name who plays in the WNBA.
Clark's inclusion could have brought more eyes to other players on the team too and helped them get bigger followings just by having more eyes watching.
Make no mistake, more eyes would be watching those game with Clark on it than with her not on it...and that really is the bottom line.
And if the team is so good as you say, then that type of 'distraction' wouldn't stop them from winning the gold...it would just mean more people would be watching them winning the gold
.
They messed up.
Look what the 1992 dream team did to the world of basketball. Changed it forever and you are seeing all these foreign players in the NBA now.
Yes, still in the pit for WNBA. Not talent wise...but fandom and money wise.
@Mistlin
In short, It is bigger than just winning the gold dude. Like you said, they will win the gold with or without her. Fact is, more would be watching with her than without.
They missed a golden opportunity to use their golden goose to expand their brand in this country and in the world by bringing more eyes and fans to their product.
They dropped the ball.
@Mistlin
She shouldn't just be on the team. She should be the starting point guard and getting the most minutes.
They dropped the ball. Missed a golden opporunty to bring more eyes to the product. There would be far more eyes on that product with her playing than without...and they would win the gold either way.
So win the gold with 11 people watching or win it with a million. Easy choice.
1948:
You know nothing about the sport, yet feel compelled to weigh in. Typical.
Here are the average viewership numbers for the last four women’s basketball gold-medal games:
2021 (Tokyo): 7.9 million viewers (which includes out-of-home measurement, a change Nielsen made in 2020);
2016 (Rio): 8.1 million viewers;
2012 (London): 10.2 million viewers;
2008 (Beijing): 5.9 million viewers.
The 'easy choice' was leaving a 22-year-old with little experience and substandard statistics off the most dominant team in Olympic history. The sport is thriving (and has been for years) despite your utter ignorance of it.
They didn't 'drop the ball' - that would be anyone suggesting Clark should be on this team. Just because YOU have never paid attention to the sport before doesn't mean MILLIONS of real fans haven't.
As far as your ridiculous notion about the 1992 team was constructed to bring more eyes to the sport - you could not be more wrong. It was a direct result of the disastrous 1988 bronze medal showing and the USA was desperate to get gold. Any fantasy you have that it was constructed to spread the game is hilariously naive. If you honestly believe that is the case, I have a bridge to sell you.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
They dropped the ball.
1992 Dream team built to win...but the result was greater, it brought the game to the global level like never before because of the key players who were on the team and the stature/ability/following they had built...again, bigger than the gold. It also propelled the NBA even higher.
Nobody new is going to tune in to watch Griner or the injured current point guard, but many new people would to watch Clark.
They may even lose viewers.
The fledgling woman's league should have taken notes of what happened in 1992. They didn't and did not take advantage of the golden goose. 11 viewers will be watching without her or a million with her. Easy choice. If you don't like those actual numbers, then X without her and Y with her, with Y being far greater.
They messed up.
"2021 (Tokyo): 7.9 million viewers (which includes out-of-home measurement, a change Nielsen made in 2020);
2016 (Rio): 8.1 million viewers;
2012 (London): 10.2 million viewers;
2008 (Beijing): 5.9 million viewers."
So what! With Caitlin on the team, those numbers, not debatable, would have been higher. Likely much higher, and we all know it...except for a few. LOL
"I'm excited for the girls that are on the team," Clark told reporters Sunday. "I know it's the most competitive team in the world and I know it could have gone either way -- me being on the team or me not being on the team. I'm going to be rooting them on to win gold. I was a kid that grew up watching the Olympics, so it will be fun to watch them.
"Honestly, no disappointment. It just gives me something to work for; it's a dream. Hopefully one day I can be there. I think it's just a little more motivation. You remember that. Hopefully when four years comes back around, I can be there."
These were CC's comments in regards to the snub, I guess that if she's ok with it then I don't see a reason for anyone else to be complaining about it.
Team USA will go on to win again and Clark will be a headliner for the the following Olympic games four years from now.
Eric
Erikthredd’s MJ Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/publishedset/395035
Erikthredd’s Nike Air Jordan Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/basketball/key-card-sets/nike-poster-cards-michael-jordan-1985-1992/alltimeset/408486
Four years from now, I'd like to see Caitlin snub the Olympic committee - that would be funny.
She isn't going to come out and complain or cry in protest of the dumb decision. To her credit she took it in stride and is continuing with her job.
Doesn't mean they didn't mess up.
They missed a golden opportunity to expand the popularity of their fledgling game.
They also missed an opportunity to make her an even bigger superstar. The game needs superstars.
I would find it funny too if she said no on the next Olympics and then retired with a nice nest egg after getting beat up in the league...then the league minimum never really goes up for any of the players.
They missed a golden opportunity where all the stars were aligning. Those stars won't stay aligned forever. Four years will be too late.
I saw two links to articles which are supposed to support the thesis that Clark is irrelevant to viewership. The first thing I notice which causes me to question the validity is that both links have Clark's name in the headline. That's the Hook! The article that is there to support that it's not all her is using her name alone to grab eyeballs.
https://sports.yahoo.com/wnba-attendance-skyrocketing-not-caitlin-220655172.html
This article goes on to state that it's not all Clark, but it's basically because of Clark.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/10/wnba-reports-record-viewership-highest-game-attendance-years-caitlin-clark.html
This article also attributed it to the "powerful rookie class" and then goes on to name Clark specifically.
So what it seems like the pundits out there are saying is that it's not all Clark. It's mostly Clark. But there's other players and it's hard to estimate their contributions.
So there's 12 players on the roster, and I can accept the argument that, right now, Clark might not be the 12th best player in the league, and she might be on the outside looking in, based on statistical measure, at her position, compared to the others they would take. But that's not really what the discussion here was about.
The argument that I am hearing is between.
A. Clark being on the USWNT would bring more eyes, attention, and dollars to the team and the sport in general.
B. Clark is not qualified to be on the team from a skill perspective.
Those can both be true, but I think, from looking at a comparison of the guards selected vs. Clark's stats... Clark would not seem undeserving. I thought I would never watch another WNBA game... but I have to admit, I have tuned in for a couple games just to see Clark play. We're talking about the WNBA here. Clark has brought attention to the game. Chelsea Gray was added to the team over Clark and she hasn't played this year and there's no timetable for when she returns. Her career averages in PPG are behind Clark's 2024 so far on a bad team.
So the statistics are not substandard. Clark is in the mix. The experience thing is interesting because that should impact anyone who hasn't played in the Olympics or World Championships.
Clark being on the Olympic team would have no bearing on the advertising dollars brought in. Those advertising packages were bought long before the decision to include or not include Clark was an issue. Suggesting that having her on the team would somehow magically increase ad spending ignores how Olympic advertising is done.
Clark being on the Olympic team would have no effect on the WNBA viewership generally. If you're a Clark fan or want to see her play, you aren't suddenly going to not because she's not on the Olympic team. As I noted earlier, the Women's Olympic Basketball team sees tremendous ratings already - excellence is always in demand.
The idea that a player who has paid their dues in the league and spent multiple years so a rookie with a handful of games under her belt should get the spot is ludicrous on its face. She has a dozen or so games played - she's just not ready yet.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
Say that again in five years when the players in the WNBA are still complaining about being underpaid.
Missed opportunity to to benefit/promote the WNBA and women's basketball.
The stars were aligned. Only the blind cannot see it.
"excellence is always in demand" - yea, a US women's basketball team beating up on 5' nothing, painfully slow players, from some small country with an unpronounceable name, that nobody can find on a map. 😆
You literally said previously:
"The very last thing I intend to do on this planet, is watch the Olympics women's basketball."
By your own admission, you have not watched a minute of Women's Olympic Basketball, and yet feel compelled to comment on the state of the sport (again, not a shock given your posting history).
If you are unable to pronounce countries like 'Brazil', ' France' 'Spain', nor where to find them on a map, that says a lot more about YOU and your ignorance than it does the state of women's basketball.
Keep going, though!
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
I wonder if you had this same take when the 1992 Men's Olympic Basketball team was actually doing this? Or do you save this 'insight' for women's sports?
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary