Should Caitlin Clark have been included on the Olympic team?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there's a massive disconnect in thinking. On group loves the unprecedented talent and mass appeal of Caitlin Clark. The other group loves the insular older-black-lesbian-woman hold on the WNBA.

I think in the end there's only one answer: Caitlin Clark.

The disconnect is between the people who thinks the purpose of the Olympic team is to sell tickets to people who otherwise don't follow the sport and the people who thinks it's to win Gold.

I think there's also a disconnect between people who think "unprecedented talent" based on her performance in college and people who are focused on her performance in the WNBA. She's good, but she just jumped a level. I think she WILL be a unprecedented talent in the WNBA/international competition but she's not there yet.

[Anonymous]

The Caitlin Clark decision was honestly a hard one. Her fame suggests putting her on the team. Her play in the WNBA suggests no. Her counting stats aren’t bad, but she has really inefficient and is a poor defender. She’s shooting 33% from 3, leads the league in turnovers, and lacks the strength and athleticism to defend at a high level. She’s doing well for a rookie, but she’s not a top 12 player right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there's a massive disconnect in thinking. On group loves the unprecedented talent and mass appeal of Caitlin Clark. The other group loves the insular older-black-lesbian-woman hold on the WNBA.

I think in the end there's only one answer: Caitlin Clark.

The disconnect is between the people who thinks the purpose of the Olympic team is to sell tickets to people who otherwise don't follow the sport and the people who thinks it's to win Gold.

The disconnect is between people who think there is even a remote chance of the them team losing a game (they are -1800 to win the gold, every other team is +2900) and that a roster spot matters and those who realize that they are going to win gold and they should use the opportunity to highlight the sport to a broader audience

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously. Now nobody will watch.

This. Plus, the other players’ obvious and outward displays of envy regarding her popularity make me just root for her more. Like it or not, nobody’s going to give two shirts about Olympic women’s basketball without her.

+2 All of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously. Now nobody will watch.

This. Plus, the other players’ obvious and outward displays of envy regarding her popularity make me just root for her more. Like it or not, nobody’s going to give two shirts about Olympic women’s basketball without her.

+2 All of it.

That’s nice dear.

[Anonymous]

There is an actual process to select the members of the Olympic team and she didn’t go through it. The youngest members of the team have been playing pro ball 3-4 years.

On the previous team, the youngest members had 2-3 years of pro experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there's a massive disconnect in thinking. On group loves the unprecedented talent and mass appeal of Caitlin Clark. The other group loves the insular older-black-lesbian-woman hold on the WNBA.

I think in the end there's only one answer: Caitlin Clark.

The disconnect is between the people who thinks the purpose of the Olympic team is to sell tickets to people who otherwise don't follow the sport and the people who thinks it's to win Gold.

The disconnect is between people who think there is even a remote chance of the them team losing a game (they are -1800 to win the gold, every other team is +2900) and that a roster spot matters and those who realize that they are going to win gold and they should use the opportunity to highlight the sport to a broader audience

This is the correct answer. Both goals can be accomplished - win the gold and draw eyeballs to the sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there's a massive disconnect in thinking. On group loves the unprecedented talent and mass appeal of Caitlin Clark. The other group loves the insular older-black-lesbian-woman hold on the WNBA.

I think in the end there's only one answer: Caitlin Clark.

The disconnect is between the people who thinks the purpose of the Olympic team is to sell tickets to people who otherwise don't follow the sport and the people who thinks it's to win Gold.

The disconnect is between people who think there is even a remote chance of the them team losing a game (they are -1800 to win the gold, every other team is +2900) and that a roster spot matters and those who realize that they are going to win gold and they should use the opportunity to highlight the sport to a broader audience

This is the correct answer. Both goals can be accomplished - win the gold and draw eyeballs to the sport.

Except "draw eyeballs to the sport" is not the goal. It's not the point of the Olympics. This isn't an exhibition game.

There are a million other goals that *could* be accomplished while putting the team together - racial/religious/geographic/linguistic diversity, players with the most marketing deals to draw sponsors, players with the saddest backstory to give Costas some real material to work with. You could build a winning team that accomplished the goal of winning and also any of those goals, but since all of those goals are completely invented and beside the point, it is not a failure to build a winning team that doesn't accomplish those goals. Same with your invented goal: it may sound good to you, but it is not the purpose of the team selection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there's a massive disconnect in thinking. On group loves the unprecedented talent and mass appeal of Caitlin Clark. The other group loves the insular older-black-lesbian-woman hold on the WNBA.

I think in the end there's only one answer: Caitlin Clark.

The disconnect is between the people who thinks the purpose of the Olympic team is to sell tickets to people who otherwise don't follow the sport and the people who thinks it's to win Gold.

The disconnect is between people who think there is even a remote chance of the them team losing a game (they are -1800 to win the gold, every other team is +2900) and that a roster spot matters and those who realize that they are going to win gold and they should use the opportunity to highlight the sport to a broader audience

This is the correct answer. Both goals can be accomplished - win the gold and draw eyeballs to the sport.

Except "draw eyeballs to the sport" is not the goal. It's not the point of the Olympics. This isn't an exhibition game.

There are a million other goals that *could* be accomplished while putting the team together - racial/religious/geographic/linguistic diversity, players with the most marketing deals to draw sponsors, players with the saddest backstory to give Costas some real material to work with. You could build a winning team that accomplished the goal of winning and also any of those goals, but since all of those goals are completely invented and beside the point, it is not a failure to build a winning team that doesn't accomplish those goals. Same with your invented goal: it may sound good to you, but it is not the purpose of the team selection.

Do you understand what -1800 odds implies? The gold is going to be won. That means other goals should become more important. The NBA is still reaping the benefits from the Barcelona olympics. The goal of a struggling league should be to make people care. Most of the committee is WNBA executives, but they are also the group most adverse to effective marketing

[Anonymous]

Olympics? No. However, the WNBA should thank their lucky stars that Clark has brought more eyeballs … and dollars to the league. It doesn’t matter if she isn’t the best or is the face of the league right now. The WNBA needs to capitalize on this opportunity. Sports is an entertainment business. Just play ball. Nobody wants to watch petty behavior in this league.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there's a massive disconnect in thinking. On group loves the unprecedented talent and mass appeal of Caitlin Clark. The other group loves the insular older-black-lesbian-woman hold on the WNBA.

I think in the end there's only one answer: Caitlin Clark.

The disconnect is between the people who thinks the purpose of the Olympic team is to sell tickets to people who otherwise don't follow the sport and the people who thinks it's to win Gold.

The disconnect is between people who think there is even a remote chance of the them team losing a game (they are -1800 to win the gold, every other team is +2900) and that a roster spot matters and those who realize that they are going to win gold and they should use the opportunity to highlight the sport to a broader audience

This is the correct answer. Both goals can be accomplished - win the gold and draw eyeballs to the sport.

Except "draw eyeballs to the sport" is not the goal. It's not the point of the Olympics. This isn't an exhibition game.

There are a million other goals that *could* be accomplished while putting the team together - racial/religious/geographic/linguistic diversity, players with the most marketing deals to draw sponsors, players with the saddest backstory to give Costas some real material to work with. You could build a winning team that accomplished the goal of winning and also any of those goals, but since all of those goals are completely invented and beside the point, it is not a failure to build a winning team that doesn't accomplish those goals. Same with your invented goal: it may sound good to you, but it is not the purpose of the team selection.

Actually it is, it's not just about the best of the best. If that were true some countries would send many athletes and some would send none. It's mostly about goodwill, before winning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there's a massive disconnect in thinking. On group loves the unprecedented talent and mass appeal of Caitlin Clark. The other group loves the insular older-black-lesbian-woman hold on the WNBA.

I think in the end there's only one answer: Caitlin Clark.

The disconnect is between the people who thinks the purpose of the Olympic team is to sell tickets to people who otherwise don't follow the sport and the people who thinks it's to win Gold.

The disconnect is between people who think there is even a remote chance of the them team losing a game (they are -1800 to win the gold, every other team is +2900) and that a roster spot matters and those who realize that they are going to win gold and they should use the opportunity to highlight the sport to a broader audience

This is the correct answer. Both goals can be accomplished - win the gold and draw eyeballs to the sport.

Except "draw eyeballs to the sport" is not the goal. It's not the point of the Olympics. This isn't an exhibition game.

There are a million other goals that *could* be accomplished while putting the team together - racial/religious/geographic/linguistic diversity, players with the most marketing deals to draw sponsors, players with the saddest backstory to give Costas some real material to work with. You could build a winning team that accomplished the goal of winning and also any of those goals, but since all of those goals are completely invented and beside the point, it is not a failure to build a winning team that doesn't accomplish those goals. Same with your invented goal: it may sound good to you, but it is not the purpose of the team selection.

Actually it is, it's not just about the best of the best. If that were true some countries would send many athletes and some would send none. It's mostly about goodwill, before winning.

Are you under the impression that every country competes in every event? This thread is getting more ridiculous by the post. The point of the Olympics writ large is for countries to compete and build goodwill through sports. The point of the selection committee for each country that wins the right to compete in a given sport (read: not every country) is to send the best of their available options to try to win. Not to send their most popular or famous. And especially not to send people who didn't even try out for the team because they have a Nike deal so if course they should get everything else by default.

[Anonymous]

The thing is. Caitlin Clark isn’t one of the best 12 American women basketball players right now. Putting her on the team just because she is popular would suggest Livvy Dunne should be added to the gymnastics team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there's a massive disconnect in thinking. On group loves the unprecedented talent and mass appeal of Caitlin Clark. The other group loves the insular older-black-lesbian-woman hold on the WNBA.

I think in the end there's only one answer: Caitlin Clark.

The disconnect is between the people who thinks the purpose of the Olympic team is to sell tickets to people who otherwise don't follow the sport and the people who thinks it's to win Gold.

The disconnect is between people who think there is even a remote chance of the them team losing a game (they are -1800 to win the gold, every other team is +2900) and that a roster spot matters and those who realize that they are going to win gold and they should use the opportunity to highlight the sport to a broader audience

This is the correct answer. Both goals can be accomplished - win the gold and draw eyeballs to the sport.

Except "draw eyeballs to the sport" is not the goal. It's not the point of the Olympics. This isn't an exhibition game.

There are a million other goals that *could* be accomplished while putting the team together - racial/religious/geographic/linguistic diversity, players with the most marketing deals to draw sponsors, players with the saddest backstory to give Costas some real material to work with. You could build a winning team that accomplished the goal of winning and also any of those goals, but since all of those goals are completely invented and beside the point, it is not a failure to build a winning team that doesn't accomplish those goals. Same with your invented goal: it may sound good to you, but it is not the purpose of the team selection.

Actually it is, it's not just about the best of the best. If that were true some countries would send many athletes and some would send none. It's mostly about goodwill, before winning.

Are you under the impression that every country competes in every event? This thread is getting more ridiculous by the post. The point of the Olympics writ large is for countries to compete and build goodwill through sports. The point of the selection committee for each country that wins the right to compete in a given sport (read: not every country) is to send the best of their available options to try to win. Not to send their most popular or famous. And especially not to send people who didn't even try out for the team because they have a Nike deal so if course they should get everything else by default.

Oh you think every sport has a perfectly fair selection process? Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how surprised people associated with the team will be when NBC bumps them from prime time coverage in favor of swimming or track or mens basketball or sports people care about

Not sure women’s basketball has ever gotten a primetime slot.