"How efen dumb can that selection group be to cut probably the best and most popular wbb player in the entire world from our team?" ... said Barstool Sports founder and el presidente, Dave Portnoy! "I'd rather watch paint dry!"

asu66 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 12:23 pm

"How efen dumb can that selection group be to cut probably the best and most popular wbb player in the entire world from our team?" ... said Barstool Sports founder and el presidente, Dave Portnoy!

I'm a huge Clark fan but can't say she right now is the best wbb player. I've got no problem with her not on the squad. She'll likely be there next time. At this point, people need to let her play and not focus on every little thing she does or doesn't do.

hapapp wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 12:27 pm

asu66 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 12:23 pm

"How efen dumb can that selection group be to cut probably the best and most popular wbb player in the entire world from our team?" ... said Barstool Sports founder and el presidente, Dave Portnoy!

I'm a huge Clark fan but can't say she right now is the best wbb player. I've got no problem with her not on the squad. She'll likely be there next time. At this point, people need to let her play and not focus on every little thing she does or doesn't do.

Agreed. It is a talent contest and not a popularity contest. The Mothership network promotes her to be the most popular, however she is currently not talented enough at her position at this time. I think a few more years in WNBA will make a difference if she continues to work. In college, Clark maybe faced one or maybe two potential WNBA players a game... probably none in many cases. Clark is seeing them every night now. She is doing fine as a rookie and should hopefully evolve into an elite WNBA player.
IMHO, it was the correct call to leave her off the team.

Would it be better for the women’s game if she was the 12th person on the team and got limited playing time or not on the team?

There are people that would complain if she didn’t get playing time and those in that group would be wrong as well.

A sport that has the most momentum it has ever had should capitalize on it, missed opportunity.

BambooRdApp wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 12:41 pm

hapapp wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 12:27 pm

asu66 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 12:23 pm

"How efen dumb can that selection group be to cut probably the best and most popular wbb player in the entire world from our team?" ... said Barstool Sports founder and el presidente, Dave Portnoy!

I'm a huge Clark fan but can't say she right now is the best wbb player. I've got no problem with her not on the squad. She'll likely be there next time. At this point, people need to let her play and not focus on every little thing she does or doesn't do.

Agreed. It is a talent contest and not a popularity contest. The Mothership network promotes her to be the most popular, however she is currently not talented enough at her position at this time. I think a few more years in WNBA will make a difference if she continues to work. In college, Clark maybe faced one or maybe two potential WNBA players a game... probably none in many cases. Clark is seeing them every night now. She is doing fine as a rookie and should hopefully evolve into an elite WNBA player.
IMHO, it was the correct call to leave her off the team.

“Fine” is a bit of an understatement. Faster player in the history of the NBA to reach 200 points and 50 assists. I’ll agree she isn’t one of the top 12 players in the WNBA of course.

I have no problem with Clark not being on the team if you look at the roster. It's not like she's being replaced by scrubs at her position.

That said, leaving her off is stupid for Women's basketball. It's finally getting the notoriety it deserves of solid, fun, fundamentally sound basketball (without the acrobatic dunks) largely due to Clark's play style. I get it's not a popularity contest and they are trying to win. But, at some point, when the name is making the waves it is and is benefiting the industry, it should hold more weight than it did.

I do agree it's probably smart for the overall success for Team USA basketball though.

I have no problem with her being left off. So far she hasn't demonstrated a consistent star-quality of play that would earn her a spot. Besides she's a rookie and the others on the squad have more or less earned the right to be on the US team. CC has only earned a starting spot on the Fever's team. Give her a couple years to acclimate to the pro game which is more suited to international play and then put her on the next team.

As for popularity of her and the game, the Olympics are not a popularity contest; the gold medal main goal.

Saint3333 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 1:23 pm

BambooRdApp wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 12:41 pm

hapapp wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 12:27 pm

asu66 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 12:23 pm

"How efen dumb can that selection group be to cut probably the best and most popular wbb player in the entire world from our team?" ... said Barstool Sports founder and el presidente, Dave Portnoy!

I'm a huge Clark fan but can't say she right now is the best wbb player. I've got no problem with her not on the squad. She'll likely be there next time. At this point, people need to let her play and not focus on every little thing she does or doesn't do.

Agreed. It is a talent contest and not a popularity contest. The Mothership network promotes her to be the most popular, however she is currently not talented enough at her position at this time. I think a few more years in WNBA will make a difference if she continues to work. In college, Clark maybe faced one or maybe two potential WNBA players a game... probably none in many cases. Clark is seeing them every night now. She is doing fine as a rookie and should hopefully evolve into an elite WNBA player.
IMHO, it was the correct call to leave her off the team.

“Fine” is a bit of an understatement. Faster player in the history of the NBA to reach 200 points and 50 assists. I’ll agree she isn’t one of the top 12 players in the WNBA of course.

Everyone has an opinion. She is currently a defensive liability and was a turnover machine early on. Time will tell if she will be great. For now, she is a fine player

Is she one of the top 12 (or whatever number they take) American players in the WNBA? I can’t claim to know. I see the argument about capitalizing on momentum, but there is also an argument to be made about maintaining a standard.

Saint3333 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 1:21 pm

A sport that has the most momentum it has ever had should capitalize on it, missed opportunity.

This my biggest gripe. The way the other players treat her and the fact the WNBA as a whole are blowing the cash cow that Clarke has brought. Hell, I watched more women’s basketball last year and already 1-2 WNBA games this year because of her. I guess the hard part is how do you put her in over someone who is more talented when you only have a limited amount of spots.

Interesting to hear Dave's comments about women's sports given some of the things he's said about women in the past. I put about as much weight behind his opinion as I do his pizza reviews.

I’ve not seen one person claim she deserves the spot due to on the court performance. The gold medal is not in jeopardy, the women’s game today reminds me of the men’s the first 3-4 times after we allowed professionals to play in the 90s.

They will beat everyone by 20 whether she were on the squad or not.

There is a player currently on the roster that is injured and may not be healthy enough to play. If she pulls out out CC in, nothing but upside on viewership, jersey sales, etc.

The popularity of the sport will be more beneficial to EVERY woman playing the game in the future.

Saint3333 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 2:16 pm

I’ve not seen one person claim she deserves the spot due to on the court performance. The gold medal is not in jeopardy, the women’s game today reminds me of the men’s the first 3-4 times after we allowed professionals to play in the 90s.

They will beat everyone by 20 whether she were on the squad or not.

There is a player currently on the roster that is injured and may not be healthy enough to play. If she pulls out out CC in, nothing but upside on viewership, jersey sales, etc.

The popularity of the sport will be more beneficial to EVERY woman playing the game in the future.

Perhaps the fact there are already a lot of guards with talent and experience on the team has something to do with why she wasn't selected. Maybe her style of play would not mold well with the current team. At Iowa and now with the Fever it's been an offense through Caitlin type scheme. Has she shown to this point she could adjust to a different style? Has she shown the ability to take on different roles when needed? I don't think so. To no fault of her own, and she's still only a rookie.

At the highest level she's had some turnover issues and her defensive skills just aren't there at the moment.

These are all legitimate basketball things that can be considered as part of Dawn Staley's decision. Things you hardly hear the media discuss, because they already have their mind made up that because they say so with their coverage, it should be done.

The strawman of on the court play has been conceded.

I’ll ask again is the women’s game bitter off if they capitalize on her popularity or is it better off giving the 12th spot to someone that is arguably better on the court that will play 10% of the minutes at the Olympics?

If you are in the only play on the court matters camp that’s cool. I get that argument, but can you acknowledge adding her helps the women’s game. Two ideas that aren’t mutually exclusive.

asu66 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 12:23 pm

"How efen dumb can that selection group be to cut probably the best and most popular wbb player in the entire world from our team?" ... said Barstool Sports founder and el presidente, Dave Portnoy! "I'd rather watch paint dry!"

I don't get upset when a league or team does something that could be seen as dumb like leaving her off because I don't have money invested in it and no emotions because I did not go to Iowa or really watch the WNBA. I will say that I think this is a huge campaign to cause controversy in order to draw eyeballs and get the WNBA talked about.

Think about this. The women complained they don't get treated the same as the men when the pay to play became legal and they made ESPN and other national media feel bad and begin to promote the product more.

Clark and those other girls are no better than the girls from those powerhouse UCONN, Tennessee, etc teams from more than a decade ago but the media needed a larger than life character and Clark breaking the NCAA record gave them their chance. There had been many other record-breakers before that were never promoted. They knew that a sport that is primarily gay girls or black girls would see a lot of backlash to promoting a straight white girl like Clark.

Clark's stats are good but not a slam dunk that she should get invited based on them. You could argue either way btu you would think with the marketing she would get picked. I believe they put the injured player on the team knowing she probably won't play or that someone will possibly back out and they will eventually put Clark on the team. They will get all the buzz and attention from snubbing her and then get all the Clark fans and additional fans overall from the attention to watch the team when she is added.

I firmly believe they left her off knowing it spark major reaction online and they are just manipulating the public to really create more anticipation and excitement when she is added later.

App_in_Maiden wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 1:58 pm

Saint3333 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 1:21 pm

A sport that has the most momentum it has ever had should capitalize on it, missed opportunity.

This my biggest gripe. The way the other players treat her and the fact the WNBA as a whole are blowing the cash cow that Clarke has brought. Hell, I watched more women’s basketball last year and already 1-2 WNBA games this year because of her. I guess the hard part is how do you put her in over someone who is more talented when you only have a limited amount of spots.

Like I said above, I think that woman who is injured will probably have to back out and Clark will be added. Now, if I am wrong on that then instead of it being a ploy to start a controversy to create cash then I would change my stance to it being a dumb move. Either way it does not matter to me. We are talking about a league that is spending 25M on private jets for the players when they could have more than doubled the salaries of the women with that extra money.

[quoteWe are talking about a league that is spending 25M on private jets for the players when they could have more than doubled the salaries of the women with that extra money.
[/quote]

This is perhaps the best thought in this thread, bravo sir.

Saint3333 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 3:07 pm

The strawman of on the court play has been conceded.

I’ll ask again is the women’s game bitter off if they capitalize on her popularity or is it better off giving the 12th spot to someone that is arguably better on the court that will play 10% of the minutes at the Olympics?

If you are in the only play on the court matters camp that’s cool. I get that argument, but can you acknowledge adding her helps the women’s game. Two ideas that aren’t mutually exclusive.

To answer your question, yes. Adding her to the team will bring more people to watch.

Is it enough just to have her on the team? Is it meaningful if all she is doing is playing junk minutes to pad stats against a much inferior opponent? Should she start? Does Coach Staley deal with constant criticism from the experts that coach from their living room if she doesn't play her to their liking, probably.

So Coach Clark should play the sixth best receiver on offense if the sixth best receiver on the team has 10+ million X and Instagram followers as it helps the App. St. brand to make it more national... I hope not

/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 6:30 pm

Saint3333 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2024 3:07 pm

The strawman of on the court play has been conceded.

I’ll ask again is the women’s game bitter off if they capitalize on her popularity or is it better off giving the 12th spot to someone that is arguably better on the court that will play 10% of the minutes at the Olympics?

If you are in the only play on the court matters camp that’s cool. I get that argument, but can you acknowledge adding her helps the women’s game. Two ideas that aren’t mutually exclusive.

To answer your question, yes. Adding her to the team will bring more people to watch.

Is it enough just to have her on the team? Is it meaningful if all she is doing is playing junk minutes to pad stats against a much inferior opponent? Should she start? Does Coach Staley deal with constant criticism from the experts that coach from their living room if she doesn't play her to their liking, probably.

Thanks. Correct, but people will be watching.