Reply to Should Caitlin Clark have been included on the Olympic team?

Forum Index » Sports General Discussion

Reply to "Should Caitlin Clark have been included on the Olympic team?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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 [/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Oh you think every sport has a perfectly fair selection process? Lol[/quote]

DP. They don't but it's no reason for it not to be an aspiration. I think it's great when a team makes a choice that's clearly about the game and not about appeasing vocal fans. I felt the same way about Erin Matson getting left off the field hockey team.[/quote]

It's subjective and political, across many sports. Pretending it's not is ridiculous.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics