Caitlin Clark …. Seriously

[Derka 6403]

14 hours ago, d2o said:

Anything other than complete deferral to CC is unacceptable. 

you know you’re losing the argument when everyone on your side resorts to hyperbolic hypotheticals that nobody on the other side is saying. you, pancho, pam- you e all done this throughout this entire conversation. that’s not arguing in good faith, that’s just making shit up and attributing to the opposing side.

[YGIFS 19458]

9 minutes ago, definitely not derka said:

response from the amazing players that are on the floor : “fuck caitlin clark!”

Was talking to a neighbor yesterday whose daughter is really getting into hoops like mine.  And he brought up the Olympic team deal.  And I said, "I honestly had no idea who she was until a few months ago when my girl's teammates started talking about her at practice.  If she looks up to her, cool with me.  But I honestly don't get all the animosity towards her in the WNBA."

And Jay said with a straight face, "Well, there's a lotta politics in the WNBA."

And I thought to myself "WNBA Politics?  Yeah, that's not a thing."  

[Derka 6403]

 

[YGIFS 19458]

That dude's video is a bit on the condescending and misguided side, but a few questions...

-I'm a pretty progressive cat.  And I have never heard the term (2:00 mark) "Tall Privilege" in relation to sports.  Last I checked the literal and figurative "goal" in basketball, is 10' off the ground.  Seems to me, taller people would be better equipped to reach that "goal."  Is there "Speed Privilege" in football or "Arm Privilege" in baseball?  that's a new one, even for me. 

-I certainly believe there is some small component of race in Caitlin's draw to fans/sponsors in the game of professional basketball.  I know that Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, et. al. only became the highest grossing athletes in NBA history because of their white privilege.  

-Just from a finance guy perspective, I just don't get the animosity.  I mean, haze the rookie some...sure.  compare paystubs, got it.  But she is not the problem with your league.  The quality of play is the problem, and she may be able to elevate it with her 'tallness.'  She probably won't bail for Europe because her endorsement deals are where 80% of her income will come from and will be more U.S.-driven than anywhere else.  But this just seems like such a weird monetary flex (or lack thereof).  And the final dirty little secret, the NBA is annoyed as fuck with this shit.  They're already floating a losing enterprise, now you want them to float a reality TV show with some basketball peppered in between?   

[LTtxfan 49986]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

And Jay said with a straight face, "Well, there's a lotta politics in the WNBA."  And I thought to myself "WNBA Politics?  Yeah, that's not a thing."  

Yeah there's different folks focused on political things...Examples are:

• "pretty privilege"
• "straight privilege"
• "white privilege"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/caitlin-clark-and-the-politics-of-pretty-privilege/ar-BB1nSMQI

 

 

Edited June 9 by LTtxfan

[YGIFS 19458]

I absolutely get that.  Being straight is easier than being gay.  Being white is easier than being black.  Being pretty is easier than being ugly.  There's parallel examples in almost every country all over the world.  And yes, especially for me, life's easier being tall than being short.  unless you're a super tall guy (6'6"+) or gal (6'2"+), in which case there are health ramifications.  

I've just never heard "Tall Privilege" used in the context of basketball.  The rim is 10' up there, yeah---there's gonna be tall people playing the game.  There are degrees of benefits to height in most sports, but to complain about "tall privilege" in literally the highest up game in all of sports, that just seemed like a weird stance to take.  I'm sure she has complex opinions on why gymnasts and weightlifters are so short.  "SHORT PRIVILEGE!"  

[UpperWestside 6268]

7 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Yeah there's different folks focused on political things...Examples are:

• "pretty privilege"
• "straight privilege"
• "white privilege"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/caitlin-clark-and-the-politics-of-pretty-privilege/ar-BB1nSMQI

 

 

As soon as she said “With that being said” you knew she would undo everything prior to that. 

[LTtxfan 49986]

1 hour ago, LTtxfan said:

Caitlin: “Sometimes it stinks how much the conversation is outside of basketball and not the product on the floor and the amazing players that are on the floor and how good they are for their teams and how great this season has been for women’s basketball.”

 

Here's hoping things move past all the anger and frustrations out there, and a lot more focus goes to basketball... like Caitlin said above.

[Pato del Muerto 53454]

What does pretty privilege have to do with Clark?  If we are going there, and we shouldn’t be, she’s got an average face and is flat as an ironing board. 

[Derka 6403]

10 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

What does pretty privilege have to do with Clark?  If we are going there, and we shouldn’t be, she’s got an average face and is flat as an ironing board. 

[The Dog 44854]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/brennan/2024/06/08/caitlin-clark-olympic-decision-usa-basketball/74028245007/

Spoiler

Leaving Caitlin Clark off Olympic team, USA Basketball airballs on huge opportunity

You can love Caitlin Clark. You can hate Caitlin Clark. You can love her Iowa roots. You can hate her Iowa roots. You can like her because she’s white, or dislike her because she’s white. Same goes for being straight. You can love the media’s fascination with her, or hate it. You can love the historic TV ratings and sell-out crowds, or hate them. You can love her interviews, or hate them.

But there’s one thing that we all know to be true:

With Caitlin Clark on the 2024 U.S. Olympic women’s basketball team, players who have been largely ignored by the sports media at every Summer Olympic Games that I’ve covered, which is every one since 1984, would have finally received the spotlight they deserve from a national and global audience.

Going into the Games, with national sensation Clark on the roster, I think the top storylines for the Americans in Paris (and quite a few international reporters) would have been these: 1. Simone Biles, 2. Katie Ledecky 3. Caitlin Clark.

Maybe you add an athlete or team or two here or there, U.S. women’s soccer, U.S. men’s basketball, take your pick, but that’s the general idea. With Clark continuing to set records for TV ratings and attendance in her first eye-popping month in the WNBA as she did in NCAA basketball, it would have been inevitable: she would catapult U.S. women’s basketball to a place it so richly has deserved but has never attained — coverage from broadcasters and news organizations not just in the U.S. but around the world, headlines every day, and most important, vastly increased respect from a still male-dominated international sports media that has for decades focused almost exclusively on the U.S. men’s basketball team rather than the women, who are so good they haven’t lost since 1992.

 

But following Clark would have meant following much more than Clark. She would have introduced all those Olympic viewers and readers — many of whom are not big sports fans and have never watched a women’s Olympic basketball game — to the entire U.S. team.

You’ve never watched Breanna Stewart on one of her two previous Olympic teams? You would have been watching her this summer because America’s interest and even obsession with Clark would have brought you there. Same goes for Brittney Griner, assuming she’s healthy.

But Clark isn’t coming to Paris, unless someone withdraws or is injured. Clark won’t be there to bring the casual sports fan who fell in love with her at Iowa and now knows the difference between ION and Prime to finally and rightfully watch Diana Taurasi and Jackie Young at the Olympics.

She won’t be there, so all those fans won’t be there, because they’re never there. And one could only have imagined the global appeal of Clark once writers and reporters from around the world dropped in and watched a few logo 3s fall from the sky and a few hundred more autographs be recorded for posterity. Perhaps little girls in Europe and Africa would have been just as entranced as girls in America are. That’s not happening anymore, and it’s all on USA Basketball, whose mission statement fascinatingly includes “promoting, growing and elevating the game at all levels.” (Seems to be Caitlin Clark’s job description these days.)

Because this great opportunity to publicize international women’s basketball has been eliminated, the vast majority of broadcasters and reporters will be able to focus as they always have on the swimmers and gymnasts and runners, and leave the U.S. women’s basketball team alone.

I’ve watched all this happen in real time. I’ve covered at least five of the U.S. women’s gold-medal basketball games at the Olympics, plus countless other women’s basketball stories at the five other Summer Games I’ve attended. When I’ve looked around and seen a half-empty press tribune and wondered why, the answer I received from my peers always was that the Americans are just too good for their own good. People already know they’re going to win. And they’re right.

But something strange and potentially much most impactful is percolating around the snub of Clark. Two sources, both long-time U.S. basketball veterans with decades of experience in the women’s game, told me Friday that concern about how Clark’s millions of fans would react to what would likely be limited playing time on a stacked roster was a factor in the decision making.

If true, that would be an extraordinary admission of the existence of real tension that the old guard of women’s basketball harbors for this multi-million-dollar sensation. The two people spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

But if the players and USA Basketball officials think not having Clark in Paris means people won’t be talking about Clark around them, well, that’s just not going to happen. It’s a sure thing that one of the first questions they will receive at their opening press conference at the Games will be: “Why isn’t Caitlin Clark here?”

And if the team is missing 3’s, or has a scare, or doesn’t play well, or, horrors, loses, Clark’s name won’t be far behind and likely will become omnipresent back on the home front.

Speaking of 3’s, there seems to be a notion out there that Clark didn’t deserve to be put on the team on merit. That’s ridiculous. First of all, the decision is subjective, so you can make a case for just about anyone and everyone.

But how about some statistics? Clark is 13th in the WNBA in points per game. (Taurasi is 15th.) Clark is fourth in assists per game. (Sabrina Ionescu, 8th; Kelsey Plum, 11th; and Jewell Loyd, 14th, all are on the list for the Olympic team). Clark is second in 3-pointers made, two ahead of Taurasi.

In her first 10 games, Clark scored more than 150 points and had more than 50 rebounds and 50 assists, a feat previously accomplished only by Ionescu in WNBA history. She also became the first rookie and only the fourth player ever in the league to record 30 points, five rebounds, five assists, three steals and three blocks in a game, joining Taurasi, Stewart and Angel McCoughtry.

Just hours before she found out she wasn’t going to be on the Olympic team, Clark made a WNBA rookie record-tying seven 3’s and scored 30 points in front of the largest WNBA crowd in 17 years: 20,333 in D.C., more than double the crowd Chicago drew the night before in the same arena. She became the first player in WNBA history with 200 points and 75 assists in her first 12 career games.

And then USA Basketball dumped her.

Clark has done all of this while facing the fiercest defensive pressure statistically in the league. No one has received the kind of attention she has as a rookie. She is not the best player in the league, but she’s clearly the most important.

Never given a real chance to try out — USA Basketball preposterously scheduled her tryout during the Women’s Final Four, when she was leading Iowa to the national title game for a second consecutive season — Clark now has been told by the U.S. national governing body of basketball one simple word: No.

No, Caitlin Clark, we don’t want you on our Olympic team.

I’ve seen some bad team and athlete selection decisions in the 40 years I’ve covered the Olympics, but this is the worst by far. Then again, we probably shouldn’t be surprised. As we’ve known for years, the last amateurs left in the Olympic Games are the people running them.

 

[YGIFS 19458]

5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

What does pretty privilege have to do with Clark?  If we are going there, and we shouldn’t be, she’s got an average face and is flat as an ironing board. 

I think it was a veiled way to say "white privilege" a different way.  Yeah, we should not judge athletes based on their attractiveness.  But then, we don't run shoe companies or sports drinks companies.  Alex Morgan and Coco Gauff get more money because they are objectively attractive to men and women alike.  I don't make the rules of biology or marketing.  And spoiler alert, Coco isn't getting paid because of "tall privilege", she's 5-9.  

To your point, not to be sexist.  But Caitlin is not getting by on looks.  She has a nice smile and some charisma, but she's not getting paid because she looks like Anna Kournicova or because she's getting 'tall privilege.'  I'm assuming she'll probably command 10%+ more than a black athlete of her skill set would get on an endorsement deal.  And that sucks, and I bet if people would just give her a chance, she'd probably try to help rectify that.  But nope, the league has decided to shit on her instead.  

And again, I don't think most Americans realize how our Olympic squads get funded.  Corporate partnerships and personal fundraising.  It's not fair, but that's how our model is setup.  We don't do state-funded national teams anymore.  Caitlin coming in for 4 minutes at the end of the 2024 game versus Albania keeps eyeballs on the screen, and it raises millions upon millions of dollars for the 2028 squad in the interim.  

Oh wait, is this the part where we pretend Olympic basketball isn't about money?  

[closetohumping 17803]

31 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

What does pretty privilege have to do with Clark?  If we are going there, and we shouldn’t be, she’s got an average face and is flat as an ironing board. 

I don’t think she’s that attractive at all. IMO Cameron brink is easily hotter and there’s probably 50* hotter women in the league.  It’s the way she plays that makes the audience gravitate towards her imo

[Pato del Muerto 53454]

I think brink is weird looking. 

[HtownHorn 15231]

42 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

I don’t think she’s that attractive at all. IMO Cameron brink is easily hotter and there’s probably 50* hotter women in the league.  It’s the way she plays that makes the audience gravitate towards her imo

In a league full of Marla Hooch's and Doris Murphy's, Clark is an Evelyn Gardner.

Edited June 9 by HtownHorn

[YGIFS 19458]

this is getting to be a weird thread, and that's saying something for this board.  

-There is objective evidence that she does benefit a bit from being white.  and that the WNBA and USWNT would probably do well not to throw her under the bus for bringing money and eyeballs.  But as we see all across America these days, people love to vote against their own interests in some sort of "display."  

-She's not getting by on her looks, sorry.  She's average looking, we all know it.  All the other players and commentators know it.  You don't hit 30' jumpers based on being a 6.  

-I just saw another article mentioning 'Tall Privilege.'  Seriously, how the fuck is this a thing in basketball?  It sounds like something fucking Joe Rogan made up.  

[Pato del Muerto 53454]

2 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

-I just saw another article mentioning 'Tall Privilege.'  Seriously, how the fuck is this a thing in basketball?  It sounds like something fucking Joe Rogan made up.  

I’m sure it’s just like the looks thing, where studies show tall people get x more jobs/raises/whatever.  Not sure how well that applies in a profession where pretty much everyone is of above average height, or endorsements where it doesn’t matter (Kevin hart). 

[YGIFS 19458]

Yeah, it certainly exists in the private sector.  Maybe even in the military/government.  In some sports, it's a liability like horseracing or gymnastics.  But I've just never heard it applied to the one game where you have to build a team with the tallest people available, even guards.  Yes, there was Mugsy Bogues.  But there've been 1000 guards that were 6'6"+.  Is there "left-handed" privilege in the bullpen of baseball?  Jesse Orosco would probably say yes since he's still pitching professionally once a week for 3 minutes at age 107.  

[LTtxfan 49986]

1 hour ago, closetohumping said:

I don’t think she’s that attractive at all. IMO Cameron brink is easily hotter and there’s probably 50* hotter women in the league.  It’s the way she plays that makes the audience gravitate towards her imo

Meh...

[Kermit 3162]

15 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Meh...

Oh hell yes, but I would need a ladder.

[closetohumping 17803]

1 hour ago, HtownHorn said:

In a league full of Marla Hooch's and Doris Murphy's, Clark is an Evelyn Gardner.

Did you know the actress that played Dottie was Keanu reeves love interest in point break?

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I’m sure it’s just like the looks thing, where studies show tall people get x more jobs/raises/whatever.  Not sure how well that applies in a profession where pretty much everyone is of above average height, or endorsements where it doesn’t matter (Kevin hart). 

Tall and good looking tends to be a good thing.  

39 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Meh...

Fair enough.  This is like ordering Cameron Diaz from Wish

[DixonHur 11959]

45 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Meh...

When I was in grad school we used the term "MBA hot" to describe women in program who were attractive in relation to the average female MBA candidate, but who wouldn't be considered quite as attractive in the general population.

She's WNBA hot 

[Slacks 7047]

5 hours ago, immamac said:

And this is why she makes the big bucks. 

That is not why. 

[closetohumping 17803]

11 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

When I was in grad school we used the term "MBA hot" to describe women in program who were attractive in relation to the average female MBA candidate, but who wouldn't be considered quite as attractive in the general population.

She's WNBA hot 

Engineering hot

[Derka 6403]

then there’s pflugerville hot, where skylar diggins is a solid 5.5.

[closetohumping 17803]

7 minutes ago, definitely not derka said:

then there’s pflugerville hot, where skylar diggins is a solid 5.5.

Psshhh. Skylar is an LA 7 

[Derka 6403]

1 minute ago, closetohumping said:

Psshhh. Skylar is an LA 7 

exactly.

[HtownHorn 15231]

1 hour ago, closetohumping said:

Did you know the actress that played Dottie was Keanu reeves love interest in point break?

Lori Petty, of course. She used to be hot, but then again I used to be not fat.

[LTtxfan 49986]

 

[LTtxfan 49986]

Some fan reactions are roasting Caitlin for what she told her coach...😋

 

[UpperWestside 6268]

I never have followed any WNBA team closely, but I will keep up with the Fever more often than any other team. I find the Aces to be a fascinating team because of how they play as well though. Clark is what a dozen games into her rookie season and is the face of the league. I find the jealousy exhibited towards her to be childish and immature, but people are going to people. Nothing new under the sun.

[closetohumping 17803]

47 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

Lori Petty, of course. She used to be hot, but then again I used to be not fat.

Her character in point break was annoying.  Was hoping Keanu was gonna drown her ass in the pacific

[immamac 44321]

1 hour ago, Slacks said:

That is not why. 

You're right. See below. That's why. This is not even a politician PR answer. She's so good at the interviews and the messaging for little girls who want to grow up and play basketball etc. 

57 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

 

 

[ChickenSandwich 9953]

4 hours ago, YGIFS said:

this is getting to be a weird thread, and that's saying something for this board.  

-There is objective evidence that she does benefit a bit from being white.  and that the WNBA and USWNT would probably do well not to throw her under the bus for bringing money and eyeballs.  But as we see all across America these days, people love to vote against their own interests in some sort of "display."  

-She's not getting by on her looks, sorry.  She's average looking, we all know it.  All the other players and commentators know it.  You don't hit 30' jumpers based on being a 6.  

-I just saw another article mentioning 'Tall Privilege.'  Seriously, how the fuck is this a thing in basketball?  It sounds like something fucking Joe Rogan made up.  

Link to objective evidence?

[YGIFS 19458]

You need a link to understand that it's, on the whole, easier being white in the United States than any other race/ethnicity?  Okay.  

[ChickenSandwich 9953]

So is it not possible for a white female basketball player to warrant this level of hype on pure merit?  Is there a higher level as a pro prospect should could have achieved to do so or is it simply unachievable?

I’m old enough to remember HS Lebron signing a $90 million dollar shoe deal, espn broadcasting his HS games, cover of SI and being one of the most famous athletes in the country before ever playing a game. It’s merit was never questioned. 
 

Is that possible for a white female basketball player?

[closetohumping 17803]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

You need a link to understand that it's, on the whole, easier being white in the United States than any other race/ethnicity?  Okay.  

Not in the wnba apparently 

 

 

[closetohumping 17803]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

You need a link to understand that it's, on the whole, easier being white in the United States than any other race/ethnicity?  Okay.  

For sports?  Idk about that. Most nfl and nba players happen to be black.  Also Jokic should be the four time mvp.  Why were guys like Perkins openly campaigning against him?   

[YGIFS 19458]

that's why I said "on the whole", meaning all of American society.  Otherwise, I would have said "pro sports" or "college sports" or "athletics" 

On the whole, at the macro level, 35000ft. view, insert cliche here............it is easier to be White in the United States than not be White.  Obviously individual cases may vary, especially in sports.  

On the whole, at the macro level, etc.  Life if is easier when you're right-handed and attractive and thin.  Some shit, just is.  Wasn't my idea.  

I'm saying I think Caitlin is great for the sport.  My daughter loves her.  She's aces in my book.  Being white has nothing to do with her play on the court, but it will help her a tad on endorsements, but nothing she probably wouldn't go on to warrant otherwise.  Sorry, I'm just stuck in a loop here because of the "tall privilege" thing that the media keeps throwing out there.  In fucking basketball, of all sports.  It's like claiming Alex Morgan or Mesi has "foot privilege" in soccer because people with club-foot can't play football very well.  Also, don't enter "Foot privilege" in your porn browser searches.  It gets weird in a hurry.  

[ChickenSandwich 9953]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

that's why I said "on the whole", meaning all of American society.  Otherwise, I would have said "pro sports" or "college sports" or "athletics" 

On the whole, at the macro level, 35000ft. view, insert cliche here............it is easier to be White in the United States than not be White.  Obviously individual cases may vary, especially in sports.  

On the whole, at the macro level, etc.  Life if is easier when you're right-handed and attractive and thin.  Some shit, just is.  Wasn't my idea.  

I'm saying I think Caitlin is great for the sport.  My daughter loves her.  She's aces in my book.  Being white has nothing to do with her play on the court, but it will help her a tad on endorsements, but nothing she probably wouldn't go on to warrant otherwise.  Sorry, I'm just stuck in a loop here because of the "tall privilege" thing that the media keeps throwing out there.  In fucking basketball, of all sports.  It's like claiming Alex Morgan or Mesi has "foot privilege" in soccer because people with club-foot can't play football very well.  Also, don't enter "Foot privilege" in your porn browser searches.  It gets weird in a hurry.  

Sir this is a Wendys. 
 

 

Or a thread about Cailtin Clark

[Patrick Bateman 3966]

6 hours ago, LTtxfan said:

 

Fantastic answer.  All of it's true.  Her time will come.  If she improves she may even be a late addition; Chelsea Gray has a foot injury and hasn't played in 9 months.  Folks need to take a breath.  It's all gonna be okay.  She'll get her chances..... maybe some time soon.

[Derka 6403]

putting this here since the three people who actually post in the wnba thread get all pissy if you post anything that isn’t blond sunshine pumping for this league.

leave it to the wnba to be so embarrassing that jason whitlock can rightfully call you on your bullshit.

[BurntOrange&White 41846]

 

 

 

[closetohumping 17803]

7 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

 

 

I think a simple she’s not one of the 12 best players works best. 

[closetohumping 17803]

3 hours ago, definitely not derka said:

putting this here since the three people who actually post in the wnba thread get all pissy if you post anything that isn’t blond sunshine pumping for this league.

leave it to the wnba to be so embarrassing that jason whitlock can rightfully call you on your bullshit.

Everyone is trying to get famous

[Pancho 46269]

 

On 6/8/2024 at 8:03 PM, definitely not derka said:

how do you still not get this? the wnba and its players have been moaning and bitching since the dawn of time for people to pay attention to them. it’s *finally* happened, the nation is *finally* interested in the league/sport, it’s *all* because of caitlyn clark, and yet the wnba collectively responds by cheap shotting and shit talking cc, and now she’s not even going to be included in the showcase event for their sport. they *finally* have the real chance to grow their sport and get the attention they’ve been begging for, and instead of embracing it they are trying to kill it. it’s stranger than fiction. it’s just straight up insane.

Derka, stop with the “oMg, hOw dO YaLL noT gEt it” diatribe. It’s stupid. No one is saying that they don’t get what you’re saying. Not once have I said Clark hasn’t had an impact on the league in a positive way because she has. (And if I did say that on this thread or others, I take that back because it’s not what I meant). Yes, she’s causes a new “set” of fans to pay attention to the league. Yes, it’s positive, and yes I’ve wondered how other players don’t see this as a positive as well.

However, 

My argument on these threads has always been and still stands—there have been badass players similar to Clark in this league for decades, why is it her that has caused a certain “set” of fans to start paying attention and garner interest? Why didn’t they garner interest with players like Aja Wilson, Candace Parker, Taurasi, Delle Donne, Kelsey Plum, Sue Bird, Ionescu, Arika, Skyler and many more—and this doesn’t even include Swoopes, Leslie, Catchings, Cooper (Still a fucking bitch which is why i t’d her ass up every time when i reffed at TSU), and more. So far the consensus is because she’s a.) White (which I’ve argued there have been ton of badass White players in the WNBA before why this White one now) and b.) she shoots like Steph, which is a fine argument by me because that’s what basketball (regardless of gender or level) seems to be now.

Both arguments can be true at the same time. As I’ve said before, I’ve given Clark props before and I’ll most likely do it again. 

19 hours ago, definitely not derka said:

you know you’re losing the argument when everyone on your side resorts to hyperbolic hypotheticals that nobody on the other side is saying. you, pancho, pam- you e all done this throughout this entire conversation. that’s not arguing in good faith, that’s just making shit up and attributing to the opposing side.

 

No, a hyperbolic hypothetical doesn’t mean you’re losing the argument. I’m not sure where you got this from. 

[Pancho 46269]

18 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

 

 

 

Which is what I’ve said before—if you put her on on the team because of what certain posters here have argued that she’s the face of the league and because it would generate millions of new “sets” of watchers, what happens when she just doesn’t nothing but sit on the bench for most of the games or only plays in blowouts of Croatia or Denmark or North Haverbrook?

 

Then what?

[MonkeyDoughnut 10803]

On 6/8/2024 at 7:32 PM, Pato del Muerto said:

Agree that someone will get hurt or get “hurt” and she will be the selection. 

I mean... Chelsea Gray hasn't played all year and she's currently on the squad...so there is that possibility.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10803]

23 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

Which is what I’ve said before—if you put her on on the team because of what certain posters here have argued that she’s the face of the league and because it would generate millions of new “sets” of watchers, what happens when she just doesn’t nothing but sit on the bench for most of the games or only plays in blowouts of Croatia or Denmark or North Haverbrook?

 

Then what?

Then people will spend untold hours continuing to talk and debate about women's basketball. Something they won't do otherwise.

[Pancho 46269]

7 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Then people will spend untold hours continuing to talk and debate about women's basketball. Something they won't do otherwise.

 

Will they talk about women’s basketball or just why isn’t Clark playing? Because women’s basketball as a whole isn’t being talked about here—it’s just her.