2024 WNBA Thread

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Ty Cobb

Skins here are far too thin to deal frankly with this situation...not yours, but many. I already have an idiot on my block list trying to egg into a fight on a near daily basis, clearly possessed of the idea that I secretly read his posts. I suppose I should feel good about it, you know...my first cyberstalker.

Wrong. I'm not trying to egg you into a fight. I'm trying to point out to the mods your are an instigator who is slyly violating the rules against political discussions.

[monkeyman576]

Sometimes sports and political intertwine. Honestly it's hard talk about Caitlin Clark wihtout it becoming political.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

Sometimes sports and political intertwine. Honestly it's hard talk about Caitlin Clark wihtout it becoming political.

The effort should go to talking about it non politically rather than trying to talk about it politically.

[monkeyman576]

I think as long as you are being respectful about it it should be allowed but i don't make the rules. Sports has long been associated with having a positive effect on society politically(Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, etc.)

[pilight]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

Sometimes sports and political intertwine. Honestly it's hard talk about Caitlin Clark wihtout it becoming political.

Why? I've never heard Clark utter a political word.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by pilight

Why? I've never heard Clark utter a political word.

Agreed. Not political. Racial yes, political no.

No real difference from Jussie Smollett, or OJ, Al Sharpton, George Floyd, or hundreds of other incidents and situations with racial overtones.

You can disagree, on all these, without being disagreeable.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by pilight

Why? I've never heard Clark utter a political word.

She's not the most talked about person in sports this year just because of her stats.

https://apnews.com/article/caitlin-c...554720b1a35065

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

Agreed. Not political. Racial yes, political no.

No real difference from Jussie Smollett, or OJ, Al Sharpton, George Floyd, or hundreds of other incidents and situations with racial overtones.

You can disagree, on all these, without being disagreeable.

Ah, racial not political (or religious). However right above the political rule in the rules list is this:

Posting Intolerant or Prejudiced Content - Posts containing intolerant, prejudiced, or otherwise negative generalizations regarding race, religion or other often sensitive topics will not be tolerated. Tread very carefully when discussing these topics as a misstep could easily lead to an instant ban


But clearly something isn't intolerant or prejudiced if enough people in a non diverse group think it is fact. At least that's the way the board works.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

She's not the most talked about person in sports this year just because of her stats.

https://apnews.com/article/caitlin-c...554720b1a35065

Lots of talking heads are projecting their pet nonsense onto her. Clark herself has not done or said anything to merit so much non-basketball discussion.

[monkeyman576]

Politics and race are often two sides of the same coin.

[Brad K]

rudel.dietrich accurately explained the demographics of Talk Sports. And it has not resulted in any enforcement of the rule I quoted.

[Syd Thrift]

I haaaate it when I agree with Brad…

[monkeyman576]

You can discuss political issues without making political generalizations or being rude about it.

[Cobra Mgr]

This whole issue can be discussed w/o breaking the mods rules. If people want to interject "other" debates into the discussion they should go to where that is permitted. But as I posted earlier, if you take away the fluff & just look at the data, it is clear CC is not USA Olympic material.....yet.

It is OK to like the girl for whatever reason you prefer. But if you believe in people being rewarded for their production & not for the superficial, you understand this is not her time. Others are better.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I haaaate it when I agree with Brad…

You'll be OK Syd. When we go back to talking OOTP I'll be wrong all the time again!

[monkeyman576]

I think you could argue Clark is a better overall player than Kelsey Plum. Plum has higher PPG but Clark has more rebounds and assists.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

I think you could argue Clark is a better overall player than Kelsey Plum. Plum has higher PPG but Clark has more rebounds and assists.

You *could* but the bottom line is, lots of other players have done the things you needed to do to qualify for the US Olympic team and there's no really compelling reason to make an exception to put Clark on it. It's fine. She'll be able to compete in 2028. I get that she's mega-popular right now and the USOC could stand to cash in on some of that but at the same time, it's probably not a great move for Caitlin Clark and I think in the long run the league and Clark herself (who's been pretty quiet about this; it's not like she's been yelling that she should be on the team or anything and people should probably take note of that) will benefit.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

You *could* but the bottom line is, lots of other players have done the things you needed to do to qualify for the US Olympic team and there's no really compelling reason to make an exception to put Clark on it. It's fine. She'll be able to compete in 2028. I get that she's mega-popular right now and the USOC could stand to cash in on some of that but at the same time, it's probably not a great move for Caitlin Clark and I think in the long run the league and Clark herself (who's been pretty quiet about this; it's not like she's been yelling that she should be on the team or anything and people should probably take note of that) will benefit.

Yeah, but the pot smoker is on the team....

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Yeah, but the pot smoker is on the team....

This is a true point and I forgot all about it. CC could easily gain several inches of height and be a center through sheer willpower alone. Why won't the stupid USOC stupids realize this????

[thehef]

I originally posted (on the subject of CC not making the Oly team) that it was a missed opportunity from a marketing standpoint. But after giving that more thought, I no longer think that. Although we can debate the merits of her getting one of the final spots on the team, if that had happened she likely wouldn't have played much. So then the outsized focus on her as opposed to the gals actually getting the minutes, plus the questions about her lack of playing time, all leading to additional resentment (among some of the players, and those in the media and elsewhere who are always looking to insert a racial wedge into anything & everything) towards her, most-likely would've negated any marketing benefits from her inclusion on the team.

I have no clue if any of that factored in on the decision, but if so, it would make sense.

And I have no problem with Griner making the team. I assume she's only played two games so far this season because she's easing back into shape or recovering from an injury, but expected to be 100% by the time of the Olympics. When healthy, she's a dominant big. And she's a proven commodity on the Olympic stage. Should any team shock the world and actually challenge the U.S., you'd want her on the court.

That all said, the committee probably could've filled the roster with the top six picks in the 2024 WNBA draft, plus six average WNBA reserves, and the team would be good enough to yet again cop the gold