Could Caitlyn Clark compete with D1 men?

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Agreed but that's not relevant to the topic. At all.

It is because many people might say WOMEN aren't strong enough to compete with men in the NBA. But really we're just talking about one person. I'm just looking to keep the conversation focused is all.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

It is because many people might say WOMEN aren't strong enough to compete with men in the NBA. But really we're just talking about one person. I'm just looking to keep the conversation focused is all.

I don't follow the logic. The fact that she is a woman is the source of the characteristics which make her unable to compete with men.

My tiny baby brother, who's never read a book,
Knows one sex from the other,
All he had to do was look,

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't follow the logic. The fact that she is a woman is the source of the characteristics which make her unable to compete with men.

I don't follow your logic. This whole time you've said two things: she isn't physically capable of competing on a men's team and she can't defend. I don't think either of those things are dependent on her gender. I'm a man and I can't compete on a men's team either.

The point is this: there is no absolute. If you follow your logic, then you'd have to accept there will never be a woman physically gifted enough to play with men. I don't think that's anymore true than there will never be an NBA player who's 5'3. It will always come down to the individual. So, why not discuss people as individuals?

[Belfast1933]

By the way, seems like we may all be somewhat in the same "vintage" to recall players who were NOT the biggest, were NOT the fastest but WERE smarter, better decision makers, playmakers, etc.

Diff sports, I know, no one talks about physical gifts first when they discuss the greatness of Brady, Bird or Gretzky.

Never say never, boys.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't follow your logic. This whole time you've said two things: she isn't physically capable of competing on a men's team and she can't defend. I don't think either of those things are dependent on her gender. I'm a man and I can't compete on a men's team either.

The point is this: there is no absolute. If you follow your logic, then you'd have to accept there will never be a woman physically gifted enough to play with men. I don't think that's anymore true than there will never be an NBA player who's 5'3. It will always come down to the individual. So, why not discuss people as individuals?

I'm one of those people who would love to see a woman compete with men at the D1 level in any major sport.

Let's look at the data. Aside from the USWNT scrimmage against the Dallas U15 team and some other one off examples, females in contact sports tend to avoid mens and boys teams. This, in and of itself, is relevant evidence.

Anyway, I looked at the below, which is from Duke Law School, comparing athletic performance between men and women.

https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-spor...ic-performance

Though the article is slightly dated (as it does not include the most recent men's world records by Usain Bolt, Wayne van Niekirk, and David Rudisha in the 100, 200, 400 and 800m), the points made are very clear.

To the extent that explosiveness and quickness are key athletic attributes in basketball, you can draw inferences from the comparisons between elite (Olympic level) women and BOYS (forget the men) in the 100m, long jump, and high jump. Basically, the world record holding women do not compare that favourably with U18 boys.

Further, it seems that it is really hard to make a D1 mens basketball program. See the below:

https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2015/3/2...athletics.aspx

To summarize, the NCAA estimates that only the top 1% of high school boys basketball players plays in D1.

When I read this and I look at Caitlyn Clark's game, I struggle to see her even making the starting line up on any top 10 boys high school team in any state in America.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't follow your logic. This whole time you've said two things: she isn't physically capable of competing on a men's team and she can't defend. I don't think either of those things are dependent on her gender. I'm a man and I can't compete on a men's team either.

The point is this: there is no absolute. If you follow your logic, then you'd have to accept there will never be a woman physically gifted enough to play with men. I don't think that's anymore true than there will never be an NBA player who's 5'3. It will always come down to the individual. So, why not discuss people as individuals?

That there could be some fringe example does not negate the general proposition. Cheetahs are faster than squirrels. That there might be some extreme counterexample does not mean we should just consider every animal individually. I can't believe I have to explain this. Political correctness is fine but come on.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That there could be some fringe example does not negate the general proposition. Cheetahs are faster than squirrels. That there might be some extreme counterexample does not mean we should just consider every animal individually. I can't believe I have to explain this. Political correctness is fine but come on.

I don't think you're explaining anything. I'm just glad Muggsy Bogues and Spud Webb and a million other players never listened to detractors. I'm sure they heard YOU CAN'T way before they ever heard you can.

But they did.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't think you're explaining anything. I'm just glad Muggsy Bogues and Spud Webb and a million other players never listened to detractors. I'm sure they heard YOU CAN'T way before they ever heard you can.

But they did.

Yes but that has nothing to do with this topic. We are talking about the physiological differences, in general, between women and men as they relate to basketball. Not about the difference between a typical elite NBA player and a short elite NBA player.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't think you're explaining anything. I'm just glad Muggsy Bogues and Spud Webb and a million other players never listened to detractors. I'm sure they heard YOU CAN'T way before they ever heard you can.

But they did.

For what it is worth, I'd support Caitlyn Clark trying out for the CBA or a foreign men's pro league, now that her NCAA eligibility is probably over (I could be wrong here). Or perhaps let her play with the Iowa men next year for part of the season.

But would the results help the women's game? Even Lisa Leslie has deftly avoided the topic of women playing against men.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

For what it is worth, I'd support Caitlyn Clark trying out for the CBA or a foreign men's pro league, now that her NCAA eligibility is probably over (I could be wrong here). Or perhaps let her play with the Iowa men next year for part of the season.

But would the results help the women's game? Even Lisa Leslie has deftly avoided the topic of women playing against men.

She has one more year and is foregoing it and the millions she would earn to go WNBA.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't think you're explaining anything. I'm just glad Muggsy Bogues and Spud Webb and a million other players never listened to detractors. I'm sure they heard YOU CAN'T way before they ever heard you can.

But they did.

LOL, both those guys had more muscle and strength than the girl. Still not sure why you keep bringing up smaller stronger men.

[packs]

Originally Posted by bnorth

LOL, both those guys had more muscle and strength than the girl. Still not sure why you keep bringing up smaller stronger men.

To demonstrate that there are no absolutes. I've already explained that. And my reason for bringing them up is because I don't support the idea of absolutes.

[bk400]

Caitlyn Clark is a joy to watch. Just like Mia Hamm, Lisa Leslie, and Allyson Felix were joys to watch. But if you made them compete against Sergio Ramos, Shaq, and Michael Johnson, it would set the women's movement back a generation because half of the world's population (largely outside the US) are looking to see women fail.

[JustinD]

Well the current news is that the retirement league of 3 on 3, Big3, has offered her 5 million to simply play 8 games.

This would pay her the same money per game as the top 25 of the NBA to simply play 3 on 3 with some super random retired players in their late 30s to 40s. The contract also provides that she can play her normal WNBA season. It's all win.

I will be surprised if she says yes, but I would tune in to watch her try. It's certainly not crazy competition, the best player they seemingly have signed is 35 year old Michael Beasley, and this is a group that starts Cuttino Mobley at age 48.

I am interested to see how this plays out with the offer likely large multiples what her season contract will be in the WNBA (highest contract was 242k last season). However, I doubt she takes it.

If she get smoked by guys near 50 and dominates the WNBA, the optics would be rough on the storytime premises. That said if she does even okay it could be boon like Riggs-King, even though that was a silly thing as King was number 1 in the world and Riggs was 55 (and may have thrown it per numerous stories).

[bk400]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Well the current news is that the retirement league of 3 on 3, Big3, has offered her 5 million to simply play 8 games.

This would pay her the same money per game as the top 25 of the NBA to simply play 3 on 3 with some super random retired players in their late 30s to 40s. The contract also provides that she can play her normal WNBA season. It's all win.

I will be surprised if she says yes, but I would tune in to watch her try. It's certainly not crazy competition, the best player they seemingly have signed is 35 year old Michael Beasley, and this is a group that starts Cuttino Mobley at age 48.

I am interested to see how this plays out with the offer likely large multiples what her season contract will be in the WNBA (highest contract was 242k last season). However, I doubt she takes it.

If she get smoked by guys near 50 and dominates the WNBA, the optics would be rough on the storytime premises. That said if she does even okay it could be boon like Riggs-King, even though that was a silly thing as King was number 1 in the world and Riggs was 55 (and may have thrown it per numerous stories).

She should go to the WNBA. Or stay at Iowa as Peter intimated and make NIL money. Maybe it is an old school view, but I'd be sad to see a talent like her getting her ass kicked by Charles Oakley or whoever Ice Cube brings in to maul her.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Well the current news is that the retirement league of 3 on 3, Big3, has offered her 5 million to simply play 8 games.

This would pay her the same money per game as the top 25 of the NBA to simply play 3 on 3 with some super random retired players in their late 30s to 40s. The contract also provides that she can play her normal WNBA season. It's all win.

I will be surprised if she says yes, but I would tune in to watch her try. It's certainly not crazy competition, the best player they seemingly have signed is 35 year old Michael Beasley, and this is a group that starts Cuttino Mobley at age 48.

I am interested to see how this plays out with the offer likely large multiples what her season contract will be in the WNBA (highest contract was 242k last season). However, I doubt she takes it.

If she get smoked by guys near 50 and dominates the WNBA, the optics would be rough on the storytime premises. That said if she does even okay it could be boon like Riggs-King, even though that was a silly thing as King was number 1 in the world and Riggs was 55 (and may have thrown it per numerous stories).

She should go to the WNBA. Or stay at Iowa as Peter intimated and make NIL money. Maybe it is an old school view, but I'd be sad to see a talent like her getting her ass kicked by Charles Oakley or whoever Ice Cube brings in to maul her.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Well the current news is that the retirement league of 3 on 3, Big3, has offered her 5 million to simply play 8 games.

This would pay her the same money per game as the top 25 of the NBA to simply play 3 on 3 with some super random retired players in their late 30s to 40s. The contract also provides that she can play her normal WNBA season. It's all win.

I will be surprised if she says yes, but I would tune in to watch her try. It's certainly not crazy competition, the best player they seemingly have signed is 35 year old Michael Beasley, and this is a group that starts Cuttino Mobley at age 48.

I am interested to see how this plays out with the offer likely large multiples what her season contract will be in the WNBA (highest contract was 242k last season). However, I doubt she takes it.

If she get smoked by guys near 50 and dominates the WNBA, the optics would be rough on the storytime premises. That said if she does even okay it could be boon like Riggs-King, even though that was a silly thing as King was number 1 in the world and Riggs was 55 (and may have thrown it per numerous stories).

She should go to the WNBA. Or stay at Iowa as Peter intimated and make NIL money. Maybe it is an old school view, but I'd be sad to see a talent like her getting her ass kicked by Charles Oakley or whoever Ice Cube brings in to maul her.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by bk400

She should go to the WNBA. Or stay at Iowa as Peter intimated and make NIL money. Maybe it is an old school view, but I'd be sad to see a talent like her getting her ass kicked by Charles Oakley or whoever Ice Cube brings in to maul her.

I can see Clark going through that scenario: "Let's see. Option A, you give me my money, option B, you kick my ass. Now I could use a good ass kicking. Naw, I think I'm going with option A."

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk