I disagree

Caitlin Clark is way better

:)

I will go out of my way to watch her.

Yes, her. kids these days and their names......Debby, Debbie, Sara, Sarah, Brynlee, Brinly, Brinley, Lea, Leah, never can get it right.

Clark is a female baller.

I am 50 and had never watched more than ten seconds of women's college bball until last year's NCCA final four. I now watch her entire game if I catch it on ESPN plus.

Is she really a pioneer? Taking nothing away from how good she is, but she's the latest great women's college basketball player, who will enter the WNBA and largely fade into that landscape which just doesn't get nearly as much national attention as men's pro sports. We've had several "greatest ever" women's basketball players, and none of them drove the WNBA in a way that would make me think of them as hugely influential outside of that sport, and I'm not sure how Clark is particularly influential in college ball, over and above the influence that any great player has when they're at their peak. Maybe I'm missing something because I don't follow women's basketball too closely.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I would argue she is. Folks Like Lisa Leslie and the girl from Texas Tech ( Swoops) where the biggest influences back in the day and Clark has surpassed them by miles.

Clark packs out stadiums like no women has in any sport, ever. Can you name a woman that drew the crowds she is drawing in a team sport?

No doubt, when she gets to the WNBA her star will largely fade because it's just such a bad league, bad play, and its largely ignored. But, while she is in college, she is setting records in popularity and changing the course of girl's college sports. She already has a State Farm Commercial.

If she is smart, she will stay in college another year and keep getting NIL money which is most likely multitudes more than she will make in the WNBA. Her Brand is much brighter in college.

Jennie Finch. I remember all of her games being played on ESPN 2 back in the day.

I dont follow many sports anymore, but I think Clark is the most dominant womans bball player in a long time. But a lot of that is because she plays for Iowa. I dont know if B. Stewart or Cheryl Miller were better in college.

If she is in the conversation of best ever, she is a generational talent.

Angel Reese from LSU won NCAA over Clark and Iowa.
"I prefer winners."

Sabrina Ionescu comes to mind? She'll be competing vs Steph Curry in a 3-0 point contest

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

she never drew the crowds or had the notoriety of Clark in college or the WNBA. She is just a top WNBA player which means she is irrelevant on the national stage. Clark is a relevant nationally known athlete.

Angel Reese is a whiner. Clark is a true competitor and sportsman.

Reese got kicked off her team for a few games early this season. Not the sign of a role model.

She's a senior, and has played all 4 years, so I'm not sure staying in for more NIL money is really an option, but maybe there's a COVID year exemption or something I'm not thinking of.

I get that she's very good, great, generational talent, etc. I get that she draws crowds, but she's not the first to do that. I get that she has a commercial, but she's also not the first to get endorsements.

I guess I wonder if she's really pioneering something, or if the big numbers are more about access to see these players like you couldn't before (social media, internet video, etc.) along with NIL changes that allow players to get endorsement deals, giving them even more exposure.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Hope Solo? Mia Hamm? Brandi Chastain?

I also think SDG might be overestimating the household name factor of Caitlin Clark. I think she's well know in basketball circles, but not in the national consciousness anything like Mia Hamm was, for example. Olympics and World Cup help with that in ways NCAA basketball just doesn't.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

And Alex Morgan.

Source please.

---

------------------------------
The first time man split the atom was when the atom tried to hold Jens Voigt's wheel, but cracked.

The internet. She didn't go to the tournament LSU played in the Caymans or the few games after that. Mulkey gave no definate reasons, but she was healthy and not playing or practicing with the team.

I still think its more than that. And yes, I think she has a COVID year coming if she wants it.

There was no one packing out stadiums before, no one. On the road, at home and everywhere she goes. This is like Tiger Woods on the golf course when he came out. Everyone wanted to see him.

Though to be fair, I'm the most casual of NCAA basketball fans, so barely in tune with it, and I get a vague sense that over the last year or so NCAA women's basketball has turned some kind of corner. Still nothing like NCAAM, but there's a buzz, and a persistent relevance/awareness. Different even from the Taurasi, Sue Bird, Holdsclaw days.

Sometimes I randomly tune into various sports talk radio, and I hear updates.

All subjective, of course, just my take on it.

Unrelated, but I had to bite me tongue today. I was overhearing some uniformed Navy women talking about Brittney Griner, and saying things like, "Very pretty, but transgender people shouldn't be playing women's basketball." Wanted to say, "FFS, Brittney's not transgender." But not the right venue. A bar would have been different.

Mia HAmm played college soccer at UNC. I doubt anyone new her name prior to the Womens WC. And ever after the Womens WC, she was not packing out soccer stadiums. Her notoriety was due to the WC, not because of her. She was good, no doubt, but Clark has created her won buzz due to her play, not because she in the olympics, or WC or WNBA finals.

Pioneer? Does being the first qualify for pioneer status? I believe she is the first to stay in school for the reason that she could (and does) make more money at Iowa than if she departed Iowa and signed with the professional league. Others may follow in the career progression path pioneered by Ms Clark.

Maybe. She's not the first NIL athlete. Even in basketball, Paige Buekers was dubbed the face of NIL before Clark. She probably has more opportunity to make money as NIL gets more traction and her popularity is rising, but other athletes like Livvy Dunne might be the pioneers there?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Livvy Dunne's NIL money has nothing to do with her sport. She is very cute, post photos online in very little clothing and was in the SI swimsuit issue. She is mainly just an Instagram model that also does some gymnastics.

Whether she's the best gymnast in the country doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not she's the pioneer for women's NIL deals. I agree that most of her NIL opportunities come from the fact that she's cute and plays to that on social media, but the point remains, she's probably one of the pioneers in college NIL deals for the women.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The same internet that I used to not be able to determine the exact cause of her absence? If I am going to say she got kicked off the team I want more references than she wasn't playing, the coach didn't say why, and she said it was a mental health break. Because that is all I could find which is why I asked for a source.

---

------------------------------
The first time man split the atom was when the atom tried to hold Jens Voigt's wheel, but cracked.

Never said she was the first NIL. I am glad you threw the maybe out there as I am out there without having definitive money stats but I would not place money down in a bet against my position which is : She is the first to stay in college for more money than she would have received in the pros in the same sport. Others will follow her lead.

Larry Bird vibes.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I guess. Part of why she's first is just because the opportunity never existed before NIL was a thing, which is very recent. And quite frankly, there aren't many women's sports where big money is involved, so the choice between a pro paycheck and an NIL paycheck just wasn't a thing before.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Dang slowguy, can't you just let one of us win one just once. I got a "maybe" and now a "I guess". I made no claim about anything beyond her status as the first and as such a pioneer.

An aside: I have no knowledge of NIL rules so someone might weigh in here. She is putting paying butts in the seats that normally would not be there. Were it allowed, I would expect her promoter to be asking for a cut of the take at the gate.

I can’t believe I’m agreeing with SDG but he’s right on this. I had never watched women’s basketball before I caught a game with her in it last season. I watched the entire final four and watch a few times a week now. The halo effect is huge. I paid to go watch the CU/ UCLA game and it was their first sell out since 1996. 11,330 people showed up in Boulder to watch women’s basketball. Before prime showed up I’m not sure that many were going to football games.

CC has something special that is really helping women’s basketball get popular. Heck I watched the men’s Kansas Florida game last night and it seemed tame after watching so many women’s games.

Women’s softball is also on a tear. It was the biggest revenue growth sport %age wise last season. Games are being televised on NBC.

No letting anyone else win. Letting others win is for losers, and I'm sure Caitlin Clark would agree.

Seriously, like I said up front, I'm not questioning her talent or performance. A pioneer is someone who is the first to lead others in a new way of doing things or a new territory or to develop a new technique, etc.

I think she's really good, but she's not the first really good player, or the first really popular player or the first to use NIL, or the first to shoot a three, etc. I think I see her as building on what came before her (maybe finishing as the greatest women's NCAA basketball scorer ever), rather than pioneering a new way forward. My 2 cents.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Y'all are so late. The game of basketball was created in Springfield and perfected by the women in Storrs a generation ago...Cait is great, but the Huskies are forever...and ever...

Asserted by SDG: she is a pioneer
Your response : no, she is not a pioneer
Rebutted: no one before her stayed in college to play for pay and receive more pay than were she to have moved on to the pros. Per the bolded statement I assume then we agree about pioneer status applied to this player. No comment was made as to her motivation. No comment made as to her skillset.

My two cents plus: I should add that I see her as the Pistol Pete Maravich of her time. look him up. Not the GOAT, not the best, simply unique and a pioneer.

Being the first by itself doesn't make you a "pioneer" in any meaningful way. The first person to ever drop an iPad on the left foot little toe isn't a pioneer. But I get it, she's impressive, and if you want to consider her a pioneer, that's obviously fine. When I think about it, I try to imagine 10 or 15 years in the future, and think about whether people are going to be holding her up as one of the pioneers that led the way to,....what? SDG says she'll be the most influential women's NCAA athlete ever. I'm not sure I agree, and simply being the first to be in a position to stay and make money off a new system doesn't push her over the line for me, personally.


Well, I think SDG has commented quite a bit about both.


Thanks, I'm familiar. It might be a good comparison in some ways, since Clark may actually pass him for all-time NCAA points scored. Lots of former players would consider him, and called him the best they had ever seen or played with, and part of why was that he was way ahead of his time in how he scored, passed, handled the ball, etc. We'll see if people describe Clark that way or not. I'd say that a lot of what Clark is doing now is stuff that Maravich pioneered.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The stories at the time were her grades were well below the 2.0 average. The school, coach, and Reese herself have been pretty quiet about the whole situation, so there really isn't good information. There was one interview with the coach who implied it was disciplinary, but didn't elaborate.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

For players like Reese and Clark they make more money off NIL than they would off the best WNBA rookie contract. For ladies at their level and notoriety it’s a pay cut. I think the economics eventually favor the WNBA superstars but it would make more financial sense for players like Reese and Clark to take advantage of that fifth COVID season.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

I don't know the math, but she can also make a bunch of money in endorsements as a WNBA player. The question is, can she translate her marketing buzz to a pro career and still be doing State Farm commercials. I don't think anyone really knows.

That’s where I was going with the economics eventually favor the superstars. WNBA base salaries are garbage. The highest salary in the WNBA is less than $250K. It’s all about endorsements for those that can get them or overseas money.

Angel Reese makes $1.7M while still in college. Clark less than $900K.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

Iowa native and also current resident again.

Here's my take:
She's amazing, put in a lot of work and isn't afraid to pull the trigger. She's the Steph Curry of women's basketball and there isn't anyone else playing like her just like how Steph was playing 3-4 years ago.

She's done more for the future of women's basketball than any other figure or movement previously. She's been awesome in college and will be a force in the WNBA. That being said, will one player make the WNBA relevant? No.

Most feel that she'll come back for her senior season and take advantage of the current NIL situation and partnerships she has in place even though she will have nothing left to prove, except for maybe a National title.

Superstar? Yes.
Pioneer? Not so much, she's playing the game fast and it's good for the sport.

Go Hawks!

I think this is pretty much how I view her place in college sports as well.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

$243 for a ticket? Pay up. Caitlin Clark might be worth it. (msn.com)

I don't know. This seems unusual and like Pioneer stuff. The cheapest ticket to a women's bball away game was over $200. Fans lining up at 10am for a night game in the winter at Northwestern?

She is the first women of any sport to garner this kind of fan attention and excitement. This is rock star stuff in the context of womens sports.

I guess if you want to say Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods were not pioneers either then I guess I will agree with you. Clark is just a good player in the sense that Jordan and Woods were just good players.

To the extent that Woods was a pioneer, it was in how he changed the way the game was played or how golfers prepared. He led a big change in how golfers viewed strength and fitness training, and in how courses managed players with significantly greater length. He probably also could be said to have had a pioneering role for minorities within professional golf. His status as a pioneer wasn't because he was popular and brought in more viewers.

Jordan pioneered a whole new culture of sports celebrity. He changed the way sports endorsements worked, he changed the celebrity name recognition of athletes and marketing of sports personalities. He changed the way athletes presented themselves in public, how they dressed, etc. His status as a pioneer wasn't because he was great and brought in higher ticket prices.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I think your definition of pioneer is skewed. Clark is indeed the first to achieve any of the milestones I have mentioned in this thread. In the context of the women's bball game that is and has been largely completely irrelevant to anyone but the players parents for the most part, what she is doing is groundbreaking. The simple fact that she has this many fans coming out and is this popular in such an unpopular sport is groundbreaking.

You are trying to compare her to men's sports and that simply does not work. Most men's sports are already popular so a guy coming along that generates more fans does not seem like much to you. Clark doing it in women's college bball is unprecedented. She is taking a largely unknown event and packing houses and putting it in the media consciousness all by herself.

Astounding.

I think you're mistaking "achieving more" with "being first."

She is more popular, not the first popular women's basketball player. She is scoring more, not the first player to score a lot. She'll make money, but she's not the first to make endorsement money.

I only compared her to men's sports because YOU brought up two famous male athletes. That said, if you don't think the huge increase in fans due to Jordan or Woods "seem like much" then I wonder what rock you were living under when they hit their heydays. But being big wasn't why they were considered pioneers. Again, being more popular than previous people isn't pioneering. It's spectacular, and awesome, and impressive, but not pioneering in my mind.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

It's going down tonight if you are a Clark fan. Iowa v LSU; good v evil.

Just hope LSU doesn't pull too much hair, commit to many cheap fouls and try to get people hurt.

I didn’t think she played great last night despite the 41 points and nine 3-pointers. Clark was out of sorts at times, especially when LSU made their run in the second quarter. She made a few dumb turnovers and took a few terrible shots. But then she gets on a streak and it’s lights out.

Mulkey didnt know what to do with Clark defensively. Not necessarily a knock as no coach does but Hailey Van Lith was borderline useless on defense against Clark. Johnson was much better defensively against Clark and that adjustment didn’t come until the fourth quarter when Iowa was up by 10 points. Van Lith is too small and not athletic enough to do anything against Clark.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

She is just so hard to defend. You have to guard her out to half court but if you guard too close she is a good enough ball handler to get around you. If you throw extra defenders at her, she is also an excellent passer. She really is a female version of Steph Curry.

I rarely watch women's basketball, but she is great fun to watch. She is sort of the anti Zach Edey.

Wouldn't we go back a little earlier than that to find the women's team that "perfected" the game?

Lady Volunteers:

18 Final Fours: 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008


8 National Titles: 1987, 1989, 1991, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2007, 2008


One undefeated season

UConn accepted the baton and ran like hell with it, but the Lady Vols were running with it first.

I watched part of the LSU/Iowa game last night and I have to say...I am very impressed with her play and swagger. She has the WOW factor and my gut tells me she could play in the mens league (NCAA). At first I was like, man...she's stealing Marivich's thunder, but after watching her...don't feel that way any longer. She embodies sport. Good for her. Good for the women's game. She makes me proud to be a NCAA basketball fanatic.

Your gut would be very, very wrong.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

I can agree with this statement.

Please stop.

Enjoy her for what she is, which is a phenomenal women's player. She will cook a lot of guys at LA Fitness and in open runs for sure. Once real athletes start defending, it's over.

I watched it with my 8th grade daughter who is somewhat of a little women's libber and told her how great it was CC was getting all the attention and changing the game completely. Making it prime time and getting lots of eyes on it and she ( my little girl) can do whatever she wants in life.

My little girl then said, "dad I think she is better than you", knowing I played BB growing up and have a state title to my name. I then chuckled and said I would score 45 in that game last night coming off the couch as a 50 year old.

I then had to explain we can enjoy men's and women's sports for what they are........two different sports. There is no reason to ever compare men's and women's sports, or athletic feats, and the people that do should be ignored. Just enjoy the one you like and ignore the stupid comparisons.

I wonder about that. In most of the sports we do not talk about here the elite women would be competitive at the NCAA Mens level. They would be mid pack, or slightly better, but still beat a lot of the mens field.

I ran D1 Cross country and track. I wasn't that good, mostly mid to the back of the pack. I had a former girlfriend that eventually could kick my ass. Granted she went to two Olympics but she would have been mid pack men's D1 Cross country.

Running isn't basketball.

She's an amazing shooter who could compete with the guys in something like the 3-Point Shooting Contest but that's it.

Otherwise... not athletic enough, not tall enough, not strong enough, not fast enough, can't jump high enough, etc.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

I said it on another thread: I think of gender in sport like weight classes in boxing. Both Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard had great careers. But they are not the same, so don't try to compare them. Just enjoy them.

Lot's of teams have a designated off the bench shooter for special situations. If she can shoot a men's ball she could probably fill that role on offense. Problem is, she would get torched trying to defend a D1 men's player.

Although it is a gross oversimplification, men are basically women on PEDs. Prior to age 11, we are athletically equivalent. So once you define where the PEDs give an advantage during and post puberty, you see the gaps develop.

I tend to think that questions about how she would do among men (NCAA or NBA) can be either a compliment or thinly veiled misogyny. Regardless, the responses tend to overly focus on what she would do at the offensive end. One of the biggest considerations that pro teams make when drafting players is answering the question, "Who is he going to defend?"

Caitlin Clark is a once-in-a-lifetime college player and a joy to watch. But among men, not only would she get shut down on one end, who would she successfully defend at the other end? Nobody.

But again, to express how I feel about her in the proper context (against college women): SHE IS THE BEST! So fun to watch.

To the extent that NCAA women's basketball has a larger and more dedicated (with perhaps disposable income -- all those alums or even students with poor spending skills) fan base than the WNBA, then she may have some difficulty and work maintaining that buzz after turning pro.

She would struggle to get open. Even with a heavy emphasis on screening, a dedicated defender following her would create havoc by wearing her down and beating her up. The amount of speed and strength you need to get open would be beyond her. And if she could get a screen, she's drawing a big on a switch. She would struggle to shoot over the top against a 6'7"+ guy when she has no ability to go around him.

She's making it look easy against the ladies, but it's really hard, no matter who you are playing. When you are physically overmatched, it's a wrap.

I think this will be a big problem. I don't think the buzz and star power will transfer to the WNBA because no one cares about the WNBA. She should stay in college to make more money but going pro is the logical step.

I remember back when the US women won the 2000 World Cup. It was two years after the men's team effective finished last place in France. People were talking about how they or at least some of their players could play with the men, or perhaps even in MLS. And then they got trashed playing against some boys' club team or something like that. It wasn't close. I suspect even Andrew Shue would dominate were he to play with the women.

That the skill and talent level isn't close in these sports is irrelevant though. They're both exciting and competitive in their own rights. The fact that you can spot immediately the disparity in talent doesn't take away from the game.

Okay...I need to clarify some points here...What I noticed in CC's style of play is this...she is a fantastic ball handler, she has vision on the court, moves well w/o the ball, and is a pure shooter. Maybe she can't keep up with the men. But she has some fundamentals that cannot be denied, that could allow her to compete with some ncaa men.

FC Dallas' U15 boys most recently:

https://www.cbssports.com/...team-in-a-scrimmage/

This would be so fun to watch. A squad of middle aged men who peaked in high school vs a ncaa women’s team. It would have to be mic’d up though. You could drink every time someone said -ow my hammie! Or let me stretch quick.

Are they both using the same ball? Or will she shoot with a women's ball?
I would struggle to say they are directly "competing" unless they are both following the exact same rules of competition.

Take the first place finisher at womens NCAA cross country (its only a 6K race) and if they ran in the mens D1 championship race (10K) they would be dead last, maybe they would beat one guy having a terrible or if you counted people who dropped out. Although I bet if there was a women in the race, no men would drop and suffer the indignity of taking that beat. Everyone besides the last 5 finishers in the mens race were under 33:00 for cross country at the 2023 championship. I'd say even if you let them run in the mens D3 Championship race (only 8K) the women's D1 champion would probably be dead last there also, or maybe could beat a few men. Nowhere near mid-pack even in the D3 race.

And you need to be careful what you call "elite". Its a big difference if elite means "the number one outlier woman (singular)" vs every woman who was an All-American (in NCAA CC I believe its top 35 places). If 34 of them would be dead last in the men's championship race, and one of them beat a couple of men, I wouldn't conclude that "the elite women would be mid-pack or better".

People think "false equivalency" is just something for Republicans, but the mental gymnastics people try to go through to pretend "elite" female athletes are even remotely competitive to any serious males is exactly the same principle. Elite women are basically at the level of reasonable amateur men. So for NCAA's maybe like as good as mediocre D3 men or in Amateur cycling, pro women are like average Category 3 men.

and there is nothing wrong with this, women are physiologically different, its just nature.

Yoda, women use an inch smaller ball and a couple oz lighter. Just like soccer, basketballs come in all sizes for target audience. So actually women are shooting an inch smaller ball at the same size rim as the men. Don't mean nothing, but there it is.

The 10 fastest women's 800m times, ever, are 1:53 - 1:55.

We had 4 guys on my college team that could run sub 1:55. We were an average DI college program. So yes, the 10th best runner of all time could possibly make the 4x800m relay team of an average DI men's program. The NBA is WAY harder than being on the relay team of an average DI program.

And that's distance running, where height, size, upper body strength, and jumping ability are not important.

I love CC and I think she's exciting to watch, but there's no way she could sit the bench on the worst G League team.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I saw a couple of plays when Angel Reese had the ball and Clark was near her. Clark didn't even bother trying to defend her.

Reese is 6'3", 165lbs, and she can't dunk.



I like what someone above wrote: they are different sports. Just enjoy them for what they are.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

No.

What makes CC great is that she is very difficult to guard. She has a lot of moves that work against other women; but not against men.

If you play her straight up (1-on-1), then she gets open and shoots from far away. She has a very effective dribble-left-then-shoot move. That was the majority of her 3-pointers last night. That move is completely ineffective against a male player. If you watch men's NCAA basketball at any level, that is a very rare shot if you're being guarded because men are quicker and can jump. It would just be blocked because you're shooting that shot right-handed and you dribble left (i.e., now the defender is on your shooting side hip), which is an easy block.

Or, if you get too close she drives around you. She is not going to drive around any male defender. Where would she go? Stronger/quicker males want her to get closer to the basket where their advantage is greater. The closer to the basket more contact necessarily happens and the playing area shrinks.

OTOH, if you double-team her, then she can find the open person far away from the basket (which is hard for remaining 3 players to guard 4). Since males wouldn't double-team her, this is moot.

There is no place on the offensive side where she would have an advantage. Far away, she can't dribble or shoot, and the closer to the basket she just gets dominated by stronger males. And, the closer to the basket, it's hard to get a non-jump shot off for a 6 ft player because of the other taller players who play closer to basket.

Also, in basketball, you need to play defense, too. If the male has the ball and CC is playing defense; it's over. Can you imagine CC playing team defense? She would be easily exploited and nearly useless to play team/help defense because she would be too focused not to be dominated by the her own assignment. IOW, she's not quick enough or a good enough jumper to be able to leave her player and recover before he shot an open jump shot.

Flip side to that was Clark on offense and Reese on her defensively via switches and out of position plays. Angel Reese ate Clark's lunch a couple of times defensively. As you noted, Angel Reese is only 3" taller than Clark. Now imagine that's a male player who is much taller, heavier, stronger, and faster.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

Should Olympic cyclists/ triathletes have to ride the same size bike to make it fair?

I understand the sentiment with your response. Yet, in cycling/triathlon, one only rides his/her own bike from beginning to end. In a b-ball game, the ball is often quickly shared/switched among players. Suppose you placed CC into a team game with nine other male players. It's just impractical to switch the ball every time that CC gets a touch. Thus, the size of the ball is very relevant. Is this game of 5-on-5 with CC on one team and everyone else males going to a smaller women's ball? Imagine CC trying to guard a quicker, stronger, similarly-sized male who now gets to dribble with a ball that he could previously not palm. His explosion to the basket would be exaggerated from anything he's previously experienced. Ungaurdable for CC.

In college, we would sometimes practice with a "Big Ball", which is the same weight but bigger than a normal ball. It's a little gimmicky. Yet, switching back to a normally sized ball was game-changing. One's control of the ball is significantly enhanced. It's real, albeit short-lived.

I think this really misses the point. Athletes ride bikes that fit them. I don't believe there is a rule that prevents a larger athlete from riding a smaller bike, or vice versa. They choose not to because it isn't optimal.

But in a 3 point contest, the question is, do they get to choose their balls, or does the woman get to shoot the smaller ball which fits into the basket more easily, while the man is required to shoot the larger ball? If so, then they aren't playing by the same rules. And if the woman scores more baskets, it's not correct to say that she is a better shooter as a result.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

As per the internet:

At 12.3 million viewers, last night's Iowa-LSU game had more viewers than:

• Any women's CBB game ever
• The 2023 NBA Finals
• The 2023 World Series
• The 2023 Orange Bowl
• The 2023 Big Ten Championship
• The 2023 Cotton Bowl
• The 2023 Pac-12 Championship
• The 2023 Big-12 Championship
• The 2023 ACC Championship
• The 2023 Peach Bowl
• Thursday Night Football
• Every 2023 college football regular season game except Ohio State vs. Michigan

Also the first NCAA women’s game sphere has watched in its entirety.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Women’s tees vs men’s in a golf match would probably be a better comparison.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

And after she leaves, the ratings next year will plummet

Women hold their own in some sports versus the men with regard to TV ratings (or at least they are in the same ballpark). I believe women do pretty well in tennis. I also assume ratings to be close in a lot of olympic events.

My problem with women's basketball is that they are generally just not that exciting to watch. IF more players like Clark were to emerge, I could see myself taking some interest in the game. That's a big IF, and a long shot, but hey, men's basketball wasn't all that popular until Bird, Magic, and Jordan arrived and made it exciting.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

This woman appears to be making a similar argument. I’m not aware of her or her numbers, but she’s saying that Clark’s record doesn’t compare to her scoring total because she played with no three-point line and used the men’s basketball. I think there’s some legitimacy to that argument.

https://x.com/...MKbkOzpNU_o_bXlnvUlQ

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

This is why the big fanfare around records is just stupid ratings grab stuff for the leagues and networks. Nobody setting a record in any sport today is doing so under equivalent conditions as people who set records 50 or 100 years ago.

Clark beat Maravich’s scoring record for NCAA basketball. But Maravich reached his total in only 3 years without the 3 point line. The two records aren’t comparable, if placed in context. But it sells jerseys and gets ratings if we just pop the numbers up on the screen during Sportscenter.

What Clark did this year (and the past 4 years) is astounding. What Maravich and Woodward did was also astounding. The pathological need to compare everything and declare a “greater than” judgment really is a shitty side of human nature.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Although I don't have first or second hand knowledge, but I believe there is more competition now due to Title 9 and just more girls programs in high school

Uh huh

She has been phenomenal for the women's game. However to think she could play on an division 1 NCAA men's team is just delusional. Several factors would work against her, the ball is bigger, the 3 point line is further out along with much more physical play.

My guess would be she'd maybe be able to be an average player on a men's Div. 3 team. People don't seem to appreciate the difference in physical ability between even the best women athletes and average male athletes. It's not so much the skill, it's that women are so much slower and less "powerful".

There's a reason the best female soccer players in the country on national teams have to play 14-15 year old boys to get an even match, and even then they often lose badly.

Love her and love her game, but she's not making a men's D3 team.

There's at least 100 high school boys who can currently beat the women's world record in any running event. Why do we assume the best ever(?) female in a ball sport is somehow not similarly situated?

I agree with the others who have said we don't need to compare her to men. We don't need to compare across generations. She's amazing and that's good enough.

Which brings me to the other hot take running around ESPN: "She can't be the GOAT because she didn't win a National Championship."

That's absurd.

Women's basketball is dominated by a few teams. If you don't play for one, you aren't winning a championship. Since 2000, only 9 different schools have won the championship. During that time, Maryland, LSU, Texas A&M, and Stanford won one. Baylor, UConn, SC, Tennessee, and Notre Dame have won the rest. And, the runner-up in those years was either Notre Dame, Stanford, or UConn 11 times.

The fact Iowa went to back-to-back finals is amazing in itself.

Regarding the greatest of all time. Its a toss up for me. In basketball, I would think the greatest of all time - as a senior - should be able to win the national championship. The best players of all time won college championships. A lot of very good players did not.

However, on the mens side it isnt true. When you look at the best 4 year players, you get:
1. Danny Manning - won championships.
2. Bobby Hurley / Christian Lattenear.
3. Ewing - no championships.
4. David Robinson - no championships
5. Ralph Samson - no championships
6. Tim Duncan - no championships.

If you look at overall though:
1. Jordan - won at college level,
2. Lebron - no college
3. Jabbar - won
4. Johnson - won,
5. Kobe - no college
6. O'neal - no college
7. Bird - lost to magic.
8. Wilt - won
9. Duncan - see above
10. Curry/durant/the dream - didnt win.

Who is the O'Neal you are referring to? (edit I guess you are only referring to seniors)

---

------------------------------
The first time man split the atom was when the atom tried to hold Jens Voigt's wheel, but cracked.

What's interesting about your 4-year list is that it discards Marovich who, by the way, is routinely included in the discussion of the best of all time (and yet never even MADE the NCAA tournament.)

Marvoich is not routinely included in the best players of all time.

He was prob one of bottom 50 players in the "50 greatest ever players" a while ago. And he is prob ranked in the 50-70 range now. Still REALLY good. But no one considers him one of the best all time.

Even the top PGs of all time are prob:
1. magic,
2. Curry,
3. CP3
4. Oscar
5. Jerry west?
6. Isiah
7. Stockton, nash, cousy, kidd, payton, westbrook,

So best case you are talking about lower top 10 PGs of all time.

Def would be in top 10-20 white guys of all time.

I should have specified college since that's what we're talking about.

But he still isnt even in the top 3 college PGs of all time. Let alone one of the best college players ever.

Magic is going to be considered the top college PG of all time. He won a championship.

If we are going Clark is a great scorer like Pete, I agree. But no one is talking about Pete being the greatest college bball player. People ARE putting clark up there.

On one hand, yes, she is great, maybe the greatest women's basketballer ever.

On the other hand I do believe she could make a D3 team. There are a LOT of programs. 1102 in fact. Even if 6000 18-23 year old men are better players than her, 6001st player should make a team.

The 362 D1 teams get 13 scholarships (so we'll set that as roster size, I'm not looking up more than that). 4706 D1 men's players
The 304 D2 teams get 10 scholarships (same). 3040 D2 men's players. I'm 95% sure that's wrong, but I'm sticking with my assumptions.
The 436 D3 teams get zero, naturally. But using 10, 4360 D3 men's players.

Are we sure she's not as good as all 12,106 players?

Google "Greatest College Basketball Players of All-Time".

I was a decent enough basketball player to get recruited by some D3 schools. I remember playing pickup against Kara Lawson (I was maybe a soph and she was a senior), she was a better player than I was.

If I was good enough to make a D3 roster, she 100% could.

If she got caught snoozing like this in a game with men, the socials would be screaming "see? We told ya she's not that good"

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

 

None of the top searches have pistol pete as the GOAT. Every single one had Jabar. Pete is second. If we are going to go with Clark is a very good college player by comparing her career with Pete, as said above, I agree. But using that analogy for best of all time, just doesnt add up.

I get your math.

I'm wondering who she's going to defend?

Also, at 6'0" she's tall for a woman guard, but she's giving away 2-3 inches at least on an average male guard. In addition, all her dribble drive goes away because of inside height. And if I'm defending her, I don't respect anything mid-range or dribble-drive so I'm in her pocket and I make her shoot over me every single time.

As I said before, I think she's amazing and I'd pay money to see her play. I just think we're underestimating the size, strength, and quickness differences.

But D3? MIT has 15 guards (so my math was WAY low), only 8 of them are over 6'-2" and four are under 6'-0" (one's 5'-7").
WPI has 10 guards, taller than MIT as only 1 is under 6'-0" and 5 over 6'-2".

Height is less a factor than overall strength. Clark is 154 pounds, she wouldn't be able to use her size/weight in pushing a defender off her like she does in the women's game.

At the serious/organized level sure. But just the opposite from the recreational level - tons of guys who probably think they could take NCAA women on in a 3-on-3 pickup game with their rec league buddies, and would get absolutely destroyed.

That would seem to contradict your assertion that he's not in the top 3 PGs or in the conversation of the best college players.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Any list without Pistol Pete is a fucking joke.

George Mikan?

Let's just ignore the all time points leader nonsense that occurred before the 3 pt line

What if your rec league has former D1 players a some of whom played pro overseas?

I was friendly with a girl who was a starting 4/5 on a decent D1 team. Being 4 inches taller and probably 50 pounds heavier at the time made one v one not that challenging

I'm watching the WNBA Draft, and I must ask ... why THE FUCK is there no WNBA team in Philly?

Yet?

https://bleacherreport.com/...oal-to-have-16-teams

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Philly fans will need to behave themselves first.

We behave ... in our own way

Dawn Staley is from Philly, jus' sayin'

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

$28M over 8 years and and signature shoe with NIKE

I guess if she wants to have a child before she's 30, she'll have to do it in the off-season? Because NIKE doesn't like that sort of thing

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Seems like a massive waste of money. Who are they selling that sig shoe to? Boys/Men won't buy it. Girls/women typically don't wear BBall shoes.

Maybe I am wrong but I don't think I am.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

your thinking doesn't account for the Caitlin Clark effect. She is the reason anyone cares about the WNBA right now. No one cared about the shoes of WNBA players until she became a player in the league. Little girls, HS girls, moms will buy her shoes up like crazy. Teams that play her team are moving their games to larger arenas just for her to come to town and will sell them out. She is truly more powerful than I even imagined when I started this post.

The real test will be how long it lasts. The WNBA is such an unlikeable product, and it then adds the most likeable person in the world in Clark and we will see how they mesh. Although she is a trailblazer and true pioneer for the sport, I tend to think that even with her influence, the product and sport is so bad that after a year or two, no one will be watching it yet again.

I bet people said the same thing about a weird black and red shoe that only basketball players are going to buy back in the 90s. I could certainly see them becoming a girl power fashion statement.

Maybe. We’ll see. My guess is that she does very little to drive ratings for WNBA. Maybe in the first year with curiosity. But I doubt they will sustain it.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Are you being serious or sarcastic here?

My wife was a serious BB player, loves sports in general and doesn't care for her.

It was fun to watch her but I don't find her all that magnetic, as far as likeable athletes go.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Gotta go with the numbers and facts. I guess likable may not be the word but most watched, praised, followed, want to be like her, jersey seller, rockstar are more accurate.

She is everything the WNBA is not. A good show and entertainment. Will she be able to keep it up without the stench of the WNBA getting on her, who knows. I personally think she should have stayed in college.

For decades people said the same thing about NCAAW. Why would anyone ever watch it? They rarely get above the rim, and it's so slow. It's just woke nonsense.

And they had a one year blip because of Clark... the story or local girl makes good by carrying the local school on her shoulders doesn't work in the pros IMO

Let's be fair. Up until Clark last year and throw in a little LSU; no one really cared about NCAAW. Clark is the driving force, not the other women or the game itself.

You're always predictable. :) Children being bombed: always good. Anything positive for women: always bad.

No one ever does LOL

From the ESPN link that I saw, UnderArmour offered $16M/4 years, adidas only came in $6M/4 but they both had sigs in there

Basketball shoes aren't the big heavy hi-tops that Jordans were based on, so a Caitlin Clark model could be a low-/mid-top design, appropriate for court or other uses? People (still) buy Air Force 1s for casual wear

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Admit it, you're just jealous that Crocs hasn't offered you a similar deal.

BLePCroc sounds like walking barefoot in wet crocs. You might be on to something here.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Shirley I deserve it. Who has done more to promote the brand?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Every nurse I've ever met

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Well, I watched Iowa's last 3 games and it was very exciting. I've been following this from the record, to the draft, t the Nike deal.

And I didn't realize this before, but have recently learned that the only reason anyone cares about Caitlin Clark is because they are racists. Like, this is coming up a lot.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

“And I didn't realize this before, but have recently learned that the only reason anyone cares about Caitlin Clark is because they are racists. Like, this is coming up a lot.”

I assume you’re being serious about this. I can’t speak to your personal experiences, but for me, it’s the first NCAA Final Four, M and W, that I’ve ever sat through, and Clark was a big reason for that. Curiosity, mostly, but I’m not a basketball guy and I’m not racist. The buzz just pulled me in, and I remember the drama from her showdown with LSU’s star forward (Reece) last year and was interested to see how the rematch went. Same with my wife, who’s a sports nut and former basketball player. She doesn’t like Clark or Reece all that much, because she doesn’t like players who make the game or postgame at all about themselves, and she hates that Clark doesn’t put in much defensive effort. But she hates LSU more in part because of their coach and the culture she seems to cultivate.

TLDR: Clark is an interesting player to watch because of her scoring capacity and LSU is easy to hate because of their image. Call that racism if you think it fits, but I don’t see it as the driving force for people’s preference for Clark over Reece, which seems to be the Clark story over the last two years. And given my choice of coaches if I were building a women’s basketball program, give me Dawn Staley all day long over that LSU peacock Mulkey.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

There was a bit of sarcasm in my post, so I'll clear it up.

For me, personally, I caught the Clark buzz when she won the all time scoring title. I then looked up a highlight real and thought, "Damn, I need to watch her play." I'd caught wind of some drama between her and someone else, but it wasn't anything that would make me want to watch a women's basketball game.

Since then, I've seen a lot of cries of "racism," which is really, really unfortunate.

So the narrative is that you and I are not interested in watching Clark because she's an exciting player. It's because the media went after Angel Reece last year for her antics after LSU beat Iowa in the finals last year, and she's black, and Clark is white and you and I are watching Clark for that reason.

What I find interesting about it is that the finals got 19 million viewers. But LSU wasn't in the finals. The LSU Iowa game in the elite 8 got 12 million viewers, which is really good for that round, but why would an additional 7 million racists watch Clark in a game that Reese wasn't even in?

And now her shoe deal is racist because people think that some other player that they like more should have gotten a bigger shoe deal. FWIW, that seems to be a smaller story, and a lot of black sports media personalities are pushing back on that one.

I mean, is it possible that maybe the same people who loved watching Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, and Serena Williams are also excited about Caitlin Clark?

Side note: when I started witnessing all of this drama, I had assumed Reese was a bigger star than she actually is. People are calling this the Magic - Bird rivalry. Reese went 7th in the draft. I mean, that's good, but not exactly epic. (Yes, Bird was 6th, but he was drafted a year before he graduated).

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Ok yeah, I missed the sarcasm in your post.

“is it possible that maybe the same people who loved watching Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, and Serena Williams are also excited about Caitlin Clark?”

On a related note, I saw today that the Caleb Williams jersey sales just set a new record, previously held by… Caitlin Clark.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I agree with you. I don't even watch mens professional basketball since the nineties let alone women's basketball. Why is it up to men to be more interested and the driving force for interest in women's basketball when women aren't? Should it be sports welfare for social justice. I do ( unfortunately) and don't understand the controversy.

It's called mothering. They don't have any interest in playing kickball, but they do want to make sure that all the children are playing nicely with each other.

Or in this case, "Hey kids (men), it's not fair that you're giving all of your money to the boys (NBA) but not to the girls (WNBA). Now [nag nag nag nag nag]."

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I have read a total of three posts in this thread, but I peeked in this morning to see if anything looked interesting enough for me read more. I’m not terribly interested in basketball, but I am interested in your “mothering” and “nag nag nag” words.

Income inequality seems like a legitimate beef. Unequal interest in entertainment seems like less than a legitimate beef. Where is the intersection of these two things, which obviously overlap because entertainment generates income?

Also, are there gender neutral words for the “mothering” and “nag nag nag” terms?

I went to school with sue bird and Diana taurasi. How is Caitlin Clark a pioneer compared to these two white women who also dominated college women's bball? She would be if she tried for the NBA. All she is getting is extra attention thanks to social media

Question for you:

How many WNBA games have you attended?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

There is no equality between NBA and WNBA, in terms of speed, skill, power, and spectacle, and the viewership/endorsements/compensation reflect the differences. Just as there's no income equality within the NBA--some players earn multiples of what other players make, for the same reason.

Not trying to be condescending, I know you know this.


The WNBA is an inferior product to the NBA, just as UFL is an inferior product to the NFL and compensation varies accordingly.

Where it gets interesting is viewership and advertising in highly popular women's sports, like USWNT vs USMNT soccer. Historically I've watched more women's games than men's and I'm sure I'm not alone. I don't know the numbers off hand, but whichever draws more eyeballs and advertising dollars should benefit from that market share.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

This year's NCAA women's championship game is ESPN's most-watched basketball game ever full stop.

And in the digital arena, is the most watched college event ever on ESPN+.

You're right on speed, skill, power. But I'm not sure that matters. What matters is compelling drama.

I think you're wrong on spectacle. Clearly Caitlin (with backup Angel Reese) has matched, arguably exceeded, almost any men's game spectacle. And there have been massively popular men's NCAA stars...from Michael, to Fab Five, 'Melo, to Durant, Walker, et al. It may be a different kind of spectacle, but it is undeniably spectacle.

Could be that this year's women's March Madness was just a one-shot viral phenomena. I'm not so sure.

Every once in awhile, I see an article, obviously by someone with a political agenda but little perspective, about how examples like Clark show that there's still not equal pay for equal work. Every time I feel like grabbing the person and shaking them to see if their brain will shake loose. Just because a woman also plays professional basketball does not mean she is doing equal work to an NBA player. And even within the WNBA, all players don't get paid the same.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Can you go deeper into your thinking here?

 

So you want to have a broad rule that professional sports are not subject to equal pay between the sexes? There can be inequality within the NBA and WNBA but still have parity between the two organizations.

What are the reasons that professional sports should be treated differently than other physical professions, like police work, firefighting, nursing, farming, logging, etc? Should physically weaker people be paid less?

False equivalency.

Entertainment pays based on eyeballs on advertisements and asses in seats.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Chill out.

She's a pioneer because she made people care about womens college bball and for the time being, she has made people care about WNBA. Look at the stats Trail posted. Bird and Diana were not doing that. They were great womens' players but no one cared largely. Their wNBA games had 3K fans and most folks couldn't even tell you when the season was.

Now, with Clark they have folks watching the draft, WNBA pre-season games and the college numbers were off the charts. Color doesn't matter, its people wanting to watch her jack threes from mid-court, score tons of points and pile up stats. It's why she gets the eyeballs that none of those other women ever did.

There has been a lot of dumb shit posted on this forum over the years the statement that men and women athletes should be paid the same is probably the dumbest. Want a good way to kill all women's sports? Make them get paid the same as the men. /

I have to wonder if you're related to, or in some other way connected to Clark. The way you've spent your time fawning over her in this thread, you'd think she was your kid.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

What are the reasons that professional sports should be treated differently than other physical professions
---
It's pretty much the same reason that Taylor Swift is making more money than, well, pretty much everyone right now. It is that she is able to sell a ridiculous number of tickets offered at insanely expensive prices. That's how money in the entertainment field works. Nobody is saying that she should be subsidizing lesser successful artists simply because there is an inequity in monies.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

To be more specific, the WNBA is a charity case. Literally. The league, from the numbers I've seen, brings in roughly $60M annually but spends $70M to operate. The NBA subsidizes the women's league.

In contrast, the NBA brings in about $8B annually.

Women are free to compete for jobs in the NBA just as women are free to compete for jobs on the police force and fire department. If they can do the job, they'll get the job.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

"Work" doesn't seem like the right economics term. Because women's basketball players can "work" just as hard as men, and seemingly do.

I think you mean something more like "market value."

Clark is going well into double digit millions in endorsement deals (reported $28M Nike deal, and a good number of deals beyond that). That'll put her probably well above the median net worth of an NBA player. Her WNBA salary will be relative pocket change. It would take a while for the WNBA to close the gap significantly on the NBA on advertising, gate proceeds, and endorsements that run through the team/league vs. the player.

Okay, we have a lot of careers in entertainment. Actors, stunt actors, models, singers, musicians, comedians, writers—

We expect popularity to drive entertainment compensation, and we see ongoing disparity in compensation between men and women. For instance, women actors are paid less than men actors.

In a way, it seems like sexism means women are less popular. We just don’t seem to like women as much as men— or we like them but we don’t value them or we don’t want to reward them. Inferior product.

you think so? Has anything I've said been incorrect? Why don't you like her or want to admit what she has done for womens sports? Weird.

I haven’t gone to an NBA or WNBA game. I don’t care about either.

I'm not sure what the economics term should be, but the common turn of phrase is "equal pay for equal work." That makes sense in, for example, an office environment where the work is legitimately equal. But it's not a measure of how "hard" someone works. If so, it would mean that a dumb untalented person who works really hard should get paid more than a talented person who doesn't need to expend as much effort.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Where did Sue Bird and Diana Taurasi? UCONN, they were on the same team I wonder if either of them had great teammates? Sue and Diana did not dominate women's basketball, UCONN did. Taurasi in her career averaged 15 ppg, with 4.5 assist, and Bird averaged 11.7, with 4.95 assists. Clark's college career average is 28.4 ppg, with 8.2 assists. She is also the all time leading scorer in college basketball, not just women's.

The attention she is getting is not because of social media, it's because she's a great player.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

I've disagreed with much of what you said, but a lot of it is subjective so I wouldn't necessarily paint it as true or untrue. That said, I don't dislike her, and I haven't denied anything she's done. I simply haven't slobbered all over her as if she was the next coming of Michael Jordan.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Still seems odd you are getting riled up about it. She is in fact the first coming of Michael Jordan on the women's side.

She has a 28 million dollar shoe deal before ever playing a minute in the WNBA ( a league about three people cared about prior to a week ago). I am not even exaggerating what she is doing.

You have cranky old man syndrome, or you just don't like Women's ball. Which is fine, up until Clark, very few did. Now her college games are the most watched on ESPN in history. Again, not an exaggeration.

Entertainment, including sports, is a tough economic sector to ensure fair pay structures for a host of reasons. I like how the cast of Friends (and I'm sure other programs/casts) structured their pay so that everyone split the pie equally, but in terms of value, I don't think they all brought the same value to the show. That's my opinion, obviously, but it's not a testable theory. Same would likely go for comparing a Julia Roberts film to George Clooney; both are/were big box office draws, but how do you tease apart the draw that Roberts or Clooney account for versus the director, the studio, the plot, supporting cast, etc. There's no formula or easy metric by which to base these valuations on so that they're comparable to other earners.

OTOH, you raised the subject of other less glamorous professions. On that point, my wife and I have the same degree, earned in the same year, work for the same employer and earn the same hourly pay rate. Apples to apples equality. As it should be.

But comparing Caitlin Clark's salary to Steph Curry's or whomever may be the #1 overall NBA draft pick this year is apples to orangutans. They exist in different economic universes and the fact that they both play basketball professionally is entirely irrelevant because their values are subjective and based on consumer interest, and the discrepancy on that point is by orders of magnitude.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I think you're partly validating what slowguy is arguing. Lynette Woodward has a strong claim to be everything you're arguing for in Clark, but it happened in relative media obscurity. Using a men's ball and without a 3 point line could swing Clark's point total dramatically. So Clark deserves what she's earned but the media environment certainly helped. And good for her, and women athletes, and the WNBA--I wish them nothing but the best.

That doesn't mean she stands head and shoulders above everyone who came before her.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

You have defined a place where equal pay makes sense to you: healthcare.

You have defined a place where equal pay doesn’t make sense to you: professional basketball.

When we look at professional musicians, we see that women are hired less and paid less. Obviously, musical talent is very individual. There’s subjective evaluation and preferences for certain performers. Maybe people just don’t like female musicians, like some men just don’t like female basketball players as much as male players.

I find it disturbing to look at the data that shows women are paid less across a whole industry.

I think I’m beginning to get the sense that men don’t like women. I feel like there are hints in our society. Little clues. Sometimes religious ideas seem to suggest women are inferior products. Like the entire structure of the Catholic Church

ETA: remember in Catch 22 when Yossarian says that the men shooting at him are trying to kill him? His friend said, no. They’re not tying to kill you.

I feel like men dislike women. I think it’s a fact. When I think about the random comments in this thread about “mothering” and “nag, nag, nag” and shaking someone’s brains loose and the general fact that the WNBA is so much less popular than the NBA and women still aren’t paid as well as men and the Christian Nationalists are hot bring their crap to power in the USA, it all adds up.

It’s certainly not my job to convince men to like women. It’s not my job to change anyone's attitude. How you feel about women in general, or the WNBA, or a particular player in the WNBA isn’t my business. Looking at these things— it just doesn’t look great.

eh pointed out that when I saw tiger woods mentioned earlier... the first black male to dominate golf. Im trying to say caitlin has nothing unique to be a pioneer. she brought viewership to wnba stuff... that is it? so what 90 year old should we be drooling all over for the current pickleball craze?

I'm absolutely not riled up about Clark. I get frustrated when I see articles written about pay gap that are blatantly lacking in basic logic in favor of virtue signaling or political agendas. And I'm amused by the degree of fawning you've done over Clark in this thread. Not the same thing.


Well, calling her the Michael Jordan of women's basketball before she plays a second of pro ball, is a bit of exaggeration. And saying her "games" are the most watched is a bit of exaggeration (one game was the most watched).

Again, I don't dislike Clark or what she's doing. I simply find your hero worship a little bit funny, and I disagree with some of your characterization of how much of a pioneer she is.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

What on earth are you talking about?

How many WNBA games have you attended?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Or why Serna Williams made more money than any American tennis player in history.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I noticed you mentioned models. Women models make more than the men. Why do you think that is?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Well how do you expect WNBA players to get paid if you won't buy tickets?

If you want them to get paid, then support the business. It sounds like what you want, however, is for someone else to support the business while you complain about it.

Does that sound about right?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Right. Clark is an astoundingly great college player. I have every confidence that she'll be a great WNBA player. But she is also a product of timing. She scored a few more points than Pistol Pete, who didn't play with a 3 point line, and only played 3 years of college ball. She scored a few more points than Lynette Woodward, but again, under different circumstances. I asked SDG earlier in the thread what Clark actually "pioneered," and his response was just that she's got a lot of fans and makes a lot of money. Neither of those are really pioneering. She's earning a lot of deserved success, but like most people, she's doing it on the shoulders of the actual pioneers who preceded her.

All of which is somewhat beside the point when it comes to the question of equal pay. There isn't equal pay among players within the NBA, much less between NBA players and players in other leagues. They're not working for the same employer. They're not working in the same market. They're not working at the same tier of product. They're not competing against the same pool of employee candidates. They're not producing the same profit. They're not even playing the exact same game.

You wouldn't take a man working for Apple and a woman working for a small start-up single-application software developer, and claim they should be making the same amount of money and that it's unfair and a sign of gender discrimination if they're not.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

That's a lot of typing to deflect from the fact that men just don't like women.

What would be interesting to me is to know how Nike and Clark arrived at the $28M figure and how that squares with her projected earnings for Nike, versus male athletes of her caliber at this stage of their careers and how much they projected to earn from those deals. I think that's the real apples to apples comparison, if one is even remotely possible. If she's being compensated at a lower percent projection than her male cohorts, then I could entertain the idea of sexism in compensation.

But even still, she's a professional rookie, female athletes don't typically have the same career staying power in marketing, and so I would expect a lower percentage cut as she's a bigger financial risk over the eight years of her contract.

These things just aren't comparable to the point where you can draw generalizable conclusions from.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

True. It's amazing what men will do to obscure the fact that we hate women, you know, just generally speaking. Some men would even go so far as to secretly make their basketballs smaller and move their three-point line closer to the basket. It's just madness.


Tough comparison to make, unless we assume an equal amount of shoe sales, isn't it? That said, Wembanyama's Nike shoe deal (also signed just before he was drafted) was rumored to be around $100 million. Seems like a good comparison, since he was the very highly touted prospect, now Rookie of the Year, predicted to be the new face of the league in future years. So is it discrimination? Or can we assume more boys and men buy basketball shoes than girls and women?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

My guess would be that the shoe deal isn't really the big selling point for Nike, but that they'll make their money on a clothing/fitness product line. Either way, I'd love to see their projections for her as a brand ambassador.

The Venn diagram of sneaker heads and wholesome Midwest white girls doesn't overlap by much in my imagination. I could be wrong.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I asked SDG earlier in the thread what Clark actually "pioneered,"
---

I was curious about how many womens in the WNBA had signed shoe deals, thinking that maybe CC was a pioneer in that regard. I expected the number to be small (not really sure why I expected that since I know nothing about shoe deals or womens shoes in general). Turns out that the number is higher than expected. Twelve for the womens vs 25 for the mens in active players for the WNBA vs NBA players respectively through the 2023 season. (And looking at the mens shoes, it's clear that I know nothing about mens shoes either as there wasn't a single shoe that I'd consider purchasing.)

https://therookiewire.usatoday.com/...signature-shoe-deal/
https://www.soleretriever.com/...re-sneaker-2022-2023

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Actually that's pretty apt. MJ wasn't a pioneer in anyway except shoe deals.

There were lots of tie-in basketball shoes: Kareem had a signature Adidas in 71 and paid him $25k/yr. Clyde Fraizer had a signature Pumas in 73 and got $5k/yr. Doctor J had a Converse in 76.

But after 84? LeBron got $87M over 7 years from Nike in 03. Grant Hill got $30M over 5 years in 94!

Clark could end up being a pioneer for WNBA shoe deals like MJ was.

What garbage is this? MJ lead his team to multiple titles, was able to retire and come back to do the same , also made it as a reject from youth

Not right away - they had to suck for a while and get beaten by Detroit a couple times before they got Scottie Pippen and things started to come together

If I remember correctly?

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

I don't think it's apt at all. MJ pioneered the way sports endorsement deals were done and how athletes used marketing deals for their income as compared to their playing salaries. The way he used campaigns with Nike, Gatorade, and McDonalds, among others, was a significant shift in how athletes marketed themselves, how they presented themselves to the public, etc. Caitlyn Clark isn't pioneering new ground in that regard. She's using the systems largely pioneered by people like Jordan, Woods, and Serena Williams to make a lot of money, which is great. Like I told SDG earlier, just doing the same thing but with bigger numbers doesn't necessarily make you a pioneer. Clark is far from the first woman to get a shoe deal. It's great that she's getting a big deal, and it's great that she's likely to have success in the WNBA, but I'm not sure it counts as 'pioneering.'

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Wayne gretzky is considered goat but when traded to kings fizzled off


Woods and Williams just good for their marketing? No . They were pioneer for braking race barriers in wealthy sports

More like they needed Phil Jackson.
The bulls were eliminated by the Pistons all three of Pippen's first seasons. They won the championship Jackson's 2nd year as HC.

Neither of those are really pioneering. She's earning a lot of deserved success, but like most people, she's doing it on the shoulders of the actual pioneers who preceded her. //

I agree that she has not pioneered all the different categories everyone is taking about, pay, endorsements, viewership, etc..And perhaps pioneering is just the wrong word to use here in describing her impact on womens basketball, but there needs to be some word that is unique to what she has brought to the game.


Her uniqueness has brought unheard of notoriety and eyeballs to womens basketball, never before seen and a true shift going forward. Yes her contracts are on the back of many men from the past, but it is unheard of for women. I will use unique here instead of pioneer, but she is much like Billy Jean King was to tennis, or Mark Spitz was to swimming. There was certainly great champions before both of those folks, but they put a line in the sand that is before them, and after their reigns. Caitlin will be that for womens basketball, there is a before, and there will be a completely different after due to her presence. She is that first split where people will point back too.


It is still yet to be written how big that gap of the before and after will be, she needs to have her pro career in the books for historians to evaluate that. But regardless, her presence now has already created that line, and ladies and the sport will be measured against this time, until the next Phelps or Serena comes along and draws another line going forward...

A pioneer is:

1. A person who is among the first to do something or develop a particular area of knowledge, culture, etc.12.

She is absolutely a pioneer. She is the first to ever bring this attention to women's bball, first to have these deals, first to raise and create a national conscience of the game and first to develop a large-scale culture for women's bball. The fact some want to deny that or have a problem with that word is silly.


Remember what women's bball was before CC? Right, no one else does either. Hell, anyone on the street couldn't even tell you when the season was before her.


The fact this thread has so many views and posts is a testament to CC. How many threads have there been on great womens' bball players before this one?


And this is coming from a guy/me, that never watches womens' sports unless one of my daughters is playing. It's miserable sport and competition and not entertaining in the slightest. Unless CC is possibly going to hit 15 three pointers, then I might watch for a few minutes while something else is in commercial.

Did he do anything different than golfers, bowlers, and tennis players had already been doing?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Her contracts are at a new level for women's basketball, but other women superstar athletes paved the way for her. Most notable are probably Serena Williams and Naomi Osaka. I would also mention that new NIL rules have been a huge contributing factor.

I agree she can be described as a generational talent, or a potentially transformational player (depending on whether the WNBA actually transforms or if she's just a blip on the timeline). Again, I'm not trying to take anything away from her, and I don't think it's insulting to not apply the "pioneer" label to someone.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

This is the last time I'm going over this with you, since you've clearly invested in your Caitlyn Clark shoes and your Caitlyn Clark jerseys and your Caitlyn Clark lunchbox with Caitlyn Clark thermos.

She didn't pioneer anything or do anything specifically to bring bigger audiences. She didn't develop a new technique, or come up with a new way to sell tickets, or invent a new way to engage with audiences. She just played basketball better than her competition. Nobody is trying to deny that women's college basketball gained popularity, in large part because of her record setting performances. But that doesn't mean she was the first to do something. It just means that people took more notice because of well she was doing what others did before her.



Oh yeah, women's basketball was played only in the dark corners of church basements before Caitlyn Clark. You'd hear whispers in alleyways and behind the 7-Eleven of the strange and unknown game of women's hooperball, but you could never actually see someone playing. It was just a whisper on the wind, ephemeral and mythical.

Give me a fucking break. I think Taurasi, Della Donne, Swoops, Stewart, Parker, Moore, Bird, Leslie, Fowles, Thompson, Griner, and a shit ton of other women's basketball players would take issue with your characterization of their game as if it didn't exist prior to 2024.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You simply don't like definitions and are wrong on this one. It happens, give it up.

Those women could say whatever they want but no one would care, because no one was watching them or paying attention to them. That is the point. ( I bet you had to look up those names because I have no idea who you are talking about) WBB was not in fact even a whisper before this year, it was completely non-existent in the national conscious.

The more you post in the LR, the more you expose yourself as a moron. Just because you, personally, weren't aware of women's basketball before this year, don't assume everyone else is as clueless as you are.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

you should just accept the L and move on. You are digging the whole deeper and deeper. ITs not about me or you. Its about the masses, that is the entire flipping point old fella. No one gave a shit in terms of any real numbers about WBB until Clark came along and she has changed that for the entire country. you are either too dumb or senile to accept that but you keep on going. Time to take a walk or something.

Fizzled off is not fair. Gretzky was hit from behind in 1991 by Gary Suter. He had reoccurring back problems for the rest of his career. There is a noticeable drop off in his games played and points after that.

In 92-93 he lead the Kings to the Stanley Cup final.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

This sentence alone made the argument worth following.

That being said, you haven't actually articulated exactly what Clark pioneered. What has she done differently, and dramatically so, say, from the prior record holder who actually played under far more difficult scoring conditions?

The difference is the media ecosystem and the attention being focused on her. It's nothing she's specifically done differently except exist in it and play top level ball.

If you can't elucidate the pioneering part, you might want to drop the argument and quit name calling.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

i agree here. maybe its because I lived in CT and went to UConn, the local media kept track with some of these players through out their post college career too - so pro womens bball nothing new to me. Now we have social media so things can become popular depending who shares it. Like in triathlon, you can have some AG get more followers than an actual high performing pro. Our news media tends to go to social media for its sources now since it is much more rapid in getting a story out

You too can't understand? She has changed the image, consciousness, and overall existence of the sport of womens basketball. Its not just ( hey a few more fans now watch). It's hey ( now millions more know it exists because of one person, millions more are now involved and invested, millions more now care, millions more now will watch).

That is in fact a pioneer that has put the sport on the map single handedly. those other names mentioned had the chance but until CC, no one cared. The fact someone can't see that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.

I just find it comical that SDG thinks nobody knew about women's basketball before Clark. Apparently, I just imagined the national awareness of Brittney Griner and her stint in Russian prison. And I must have been in a fever dream when the UCONN women and Gino Auriema were all over the news year after year for their winning streaks. I probably imagined the broad coverage of the 8 or 9 times the US women's basketball team won the Olympic gold medal. I probably imagined when Pat Summit was on the Wheaties box.

I don't think anyone would deny that women's basketball has always taken a back seat to the men's game, but to hear SDG tell it, you'd think thegame itself didn't exist until he suddenly became aware of it this year.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Your detachment from reality is astounding. Even funnier than your hero worship of an athlete in a sport you didn't know about until this year, is your belief that you've 'won' this discussion.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You keep saying she did the same thing over and over, and yet the thing you keep saying isn't a pioneering act. Nothing she did is new or different; she's doing the same thing the greats who came before her did, except in the age of internet media.

That's it.

And people are fascinated by it, rightfully so. That doesn't make her a pioneer simply because the world sees her and reacts favorably. She innovated nothing. She changed nothing about the game or how it's played. She changed nothing about sponsorship contracts or shoe deals.

Popularized with her electric scoring streak, sure. But she literally pioneered nothing.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

You can say its not a pioneering act yet I provide you the definition of pioner and that is what she has literally done to the game of bball? She has created a consciousness for the game that did not exist. She created a new fan base that did not exist. Something new that DID NOT EXIST, before she played. Good lord you guys are trying hard to bag on this little lady.

you are absolutely right, no one new about those things or gave a shit. Birttney Griner was famous in a russian jail for being an asshole and kneeling for the National Anthem. Nothing to do with bball. Until she was in jail in russia, maybe one in every 1000 people had heard of her, maybe. Only true womens bball simps had any idea of the rest of the stuff you mentioned and that is a very, very small population size. CC created a new fan base of people out of whole cloth that now follow womens bball.

O-fer in championship games. Just sayin'.

No one is bagging on Caitlin Clark here. It's not a criticism to say that scoring a lot of points in the traditional way points are scored, in a game in which scoring points is the entire purpose, is not pioneering just because she's good at it and people want to watch.

Tell me what about the game she's changed, or how she changed how other women play it, or what techniques or strategies she's introduced, or how she developed a new endorsement structure, or secured endorsement types that didn't exist prior to her emergence.

You can't, because she didn't.

What she did is score a lot more than most, and attracted media attention and interest because of it.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

your definition of what needs to be done to be a pioneer is incorrect. She created a entirely new population of culture and fan that now follows the sport, singlehandely by herself.

Good lord I need to check my life. I am arguing about womens' sports on the internet with two rubes and taking the position they won't recognize the greatness of a woman athlete. God help me.

The one day you get internet privileges and you spend it fawning over a 22 year old like a Dylan Mulvaney fan boy. Go find a cheap sandwich or something dude.

And furthermore...

Start by asking for help with reading comprehension.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W