but there is one difference between them and Clark.
Caitlyn Clarke left off Team USA
- Thread starter HotMop
- Start date
Clarke is the main reason non-WNBA people pay attention to the WNBA today and is why this issue is being talked about. Noticing certain characteristics about her, she's white and heterosexual, is a reflection of our current emphasis on identity for a host of things. Gender and sex provide benefits in some areas and not in others. We do have DEI policies in place. Thus, whether it's correct or not, it's not odd that someone might wonder if certain characteristics benefitted her or worked against her. She's talented and popular. She's good enough for the Olympic team even though she's maybe not in the best 12. That Notre Dame gal who made the last second shot to beat us in the finals is not on the team and she's having a great year. But few know who she is and I can't spell her name unless I looked it up. If Clark had made them team, I suspect there would have been a similar outcry that racism played a role. That's just where we are in America today
Last edited:
Both married to women too, as it happens. Maybe that's part of the equation. I have no idea, nor do I care. Just pointing it out. Sue Bird is married to the famous (on a relative scale) purple-haired soccer player, her name escapes me now.
I also realize Ionescu is a decent player who is white and apparently not a lesbian, so there is a unicorn someone could use as a rebuttal.
One more point. I don't think attractiveness has anything to do with it. I venture to say an overwhelming majority of men think Hailey Van Lith is far more attractive than Caitlin Clark, but who draws more fans?
This isn't addressed to you, but how about we as a society stop making excuses, complaining, race baiting and anything else and just admit the truth: People watch because she is great.
From the NY Post earlier today
"However, Clark, along with the Connecticut Sun’s Brionna Jones — the WNBA Sixth Player of the Year in 2022 — are on top of the alternates list, should Team USA need a replacement ."
As I posted earlier there is some very serious money in play here and this is not over.
"However, Clark, along with the Connecticut Sun’s Brionna Jones — the WNBA Sixth Player of the Year in 2022 — are on top of the alternates list, should Team USA need a replacement ."
As I posted earlier there is some very serious money in play here and this is not over.
You apparently aren't familiar with Cliff's Notes.
The correct answer was your first sentence. That was enough.
This is the reply we've all been waiting for.
Or Laettner but the thing is Stockton wax a point guard and Isiah was the better starter
The best college player was going to be on that team. It was a requirement.
The only argument is whether it should have been Shak or Laettner. And Laettner had won two titles and probably had the better college career.
Two things. The Dream Team was largely a marketing ploy to take the game global. For marketing purposes, Stockton and Malone were already a thing, and Stockton could present himself as likeable off the court where as Thomas was hit or miss.
From a basketball perspective, Stockton was probably a better point guard to pair with the dominant talent they already had. He brought something that Thomas didn't.
Pretty much...
The committee that selected the team also includes South Carolina coach Dawn Staley, who led the U.S. women to gold in Tokyo; Bethany Donaphin, head of league operations for the WNBA; Dan Padover, general manager of the Atlanta Dream; and athlete representatives Seimone Augustus and DeLisha Milton-Jones.
You're playing semantics, which you are known to do.
The NBA subsidizes the WNBA, which loses millions per year. This isn't debatable.
Stockton deserved to be there too. I don't think it was right to leave Thomas out but "tons better" is a ton of hyperbole. Stockton is one of the all time greats at the position and his peers will tell you that.
I wasnt playing semantics- the other poster called them reparations. Thats 17ed up, so I answered with a genuine response that would hopefully educate the poster and inform others who werent aware.
All this is, is 1 company owning 50% of another company, and deciding to financially support the product they own because they view it as a net benefit in some way.
I agree the WNBA loses money and I agree the NBA pushes money to the WNBA. I havent debated that and I even added info to the discussion which acknowledges the financial situation.
They are subsidized, they don't really need to make a rational move. This fits women in general.
I took his "reparations" comment as he intended it (tongue in cheek) and not as you took it (literal). He definitely triggered the right people, though.
It's just sad that many of these women at their age appear to have no concept of where their money will ultimately need to come from to make the league sustainable and at some point profitable.
Based on all the indirect and direct claims in this thread, of race being a motive for Clark not being picked, I didn't take the comment as tounge in cheek.
Serious complaints of race issues are littered thru the thread, so a comment claiming the nba funding is reparations is oar for the course.
This place long passed the point when you could easily tell satire from serious. There are simply too many extremist comments that should be satire, but are serious, to think that comment was tounge in cheek.
Who had fight over pro women's basketball on their sps summer bingo card?
Of course you didn't take it tongue in cheek. You're you.
I have been listening to all the commentary. I truly don't care either way because I still haven't watched a women's college basketball game or a wnba game and won't watch the Olympic women's basketball.
The general statements are along these lines to not put her on the team.
1) She is not one of the 12 best players therefore it is not fair to put her on the team. Who are you going to take off the team?
2) It won't be fair to CC because she will become the subject of even more vitriol from her competition.
3) Not fair to the coaching staff because since she is not in the top 12 she won't get any playing time and that will piss-off the unreasonable fans.
4) Doing CC a favor by not putting more pressure on her and also giving her a rest since she has gone directly from the college season to a WNBA season
5) The committees job is to put the best team on the floor and win the Olympics which they have done 7 in a row. (or whatever the number is)
To respond to each of these first I want to say there is no such thing as fairness. Nothing is fair to everyone.
1) The 12th player will get no playing time either. CC is not competing against her 11 teammates. She would be competing against the other teams players which she will still be way better that almost all of those players.
2) Might be the case, but maybe her playing and practicing with these better players will help her fit in with her WNBA competition. They could earn some respect for her because she does not seem to be "stuckup".
3) Tim Tebow comes to mind. Do they really want to start calling potential fans unreasonable?
4) Could be. But a competitor steps up to a challenge.
5) yes it is. However putting her 12th is the team now in danger of losing?
I am looking at it from a pure business standpoint. You want to grow your game and she has proven to be someone who is doing that. There is no discussion to be had that her games have all been the most attended and viewed games in the WNBA season. I just don't see, as a business, it doesn't come down from those making business decisions that CC is going to be on the team and the rest of you that haven't moved the needle all these years just need to live with it.
The general statements are along these lines to not put her on the team.
1) She is not one of the 12 best players therefore it is not fair to put her on the team. Who are you going to take off the team?
2) It won't be fair to CC because she will become the subject of even more vitriol from her competition.
3) Not fair to the coaching staff because since she is not in the top 12 she won't get any playing time and that will piss-off the unreasonable fans.
4) Doing CC a favor by not putting more pressure on her and also giving her a rest since she has gone directly from the college season to a WNBA season
5) The committees job is to put the best team on the floor and win the Olympics which they have done 7 in a row. (or whatever the number is)
To respond to each of these first I want to say there is no such thing as fairness. Nothing is fair to everyone.
1) The 12th player will get no playing time either. CC is not competing against her 11 teammates. She would be competing against the other teams players which she will still be way better that almost all of those players.
2) Might be the case, but maybe her playing and practicing with these better players will help her fit in with her WNBA competition. They could earn some respect for her because she does not seem to be "stuckup".
3) Tim Tebow comes to mind. Do they really want to start calling potential fans unreasonable?
4) Could be. But a competitor steps up to a challenge.
5) yes it is. However putting her 12th is the team now in danger of losing?
I am looking at it from a pure business standpoint. You want to grow your game and she has proven to be someone who is doing that. There is no discussion to be had that her games have all been the most attended and viewed games in the WNBA season. I just don't see, as a business, it doesn't come down from those making business decisions that CC is going to be on the team and the rest of you that haven't moved the needle all these years just need to live with it.
Last edited:
Get unlimited access today.