Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly.

And if we are just trying to add "eyeballs" to the team, why not suggest every woman athlete dress in skimpy uniforms?

The point of the Olympics is/should be about athletic achievement, not marketing.

That's the wrong track. People are leaving out the elephant in the room - race. There is no chance that the leading scorer in NCAA history would be left off the Olympic team if she were black. That's the issue. The powers that be in women's basketball are having a fit bc some white girl from the cornfields is good at basketball. And she has a huge contract with a shoe company. And she's bringing in a gazillion viewers to what has long been a viewerless sport.

Idiots. Their pathetic racism is going to cost them millions. And I'm pretty sure Caitlin Clark is good enough to play against Angola, which I guess we'll never see now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly.

And if we are just trying to add "eyeballs" to the team, why not suggest every woman athlete dress in skimpy uniforms?

The point of the Olympics is/should be about athletic achievement, not marketing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly.

And if we are just trying to add "eyeballs" to the team, why not suggest every woman athlete dress in skimpy uniforms?

The point of the Olympics is/should be about athletic achievement, not marketing.

Are you familiar with women's beach volleyball?

I feel like some of you never watch other sports of the Olympics for that matter.

I feel like you don’t understand the difference between a sport that started on/is played beaches and every other woman athlete at the games. Leaving aside that the question isn’t what women choose to wear but whether they should be forced to show a lot of skin if that will attract more male viewers— because that is what you are suggesting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly.

And if we are just trying to add "eyeballs" to the team, why not suggest every woman athlete dress in skimpy uniforms?

The point of the Olympics is/should be about athletic achievement, not marketing.

Are you familiar with women's beach volleyball?

I feel like some of you never watch other sports of the Olympics for that matter.

I feel like you don’t understand the difference between a sport that started on/is played beaches and every other woman athlete at the games. Leaving aside that the question isn’t what women choose to wear but whether they should be forced to show a lot of skin if that will attract more male viewers— because that is what you are suggesting.

Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly.

And if we are just trying to add "eyeballs" to the team, why not suggest every woman athlete dress in skimpy uniforms?

The point of the Olympics is/should be about athletic achievement, not marketing.

Are you familiar with women's beach volleyball?

I feel like some of you never watch other sports of the Olympics for that matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's subjective and political. Pretending it's not is ridiculous.

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly.

And if we are just trying to add "eyeballs" to the team, why not suggest every woman athlete dress in skimpy uniforms?

The point of the Olympics is/should be about athletic achievement, not marketing.

Anonymous wrote: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.