Nanomachines son said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes this does have something to do with it. Same reason Tim Tebow and Johnny Manziel blew up nationally. They were electric must see TV because they were athletic white guys dominating a sport with a lot of blacks and they had appeal to middle America.

There is no point in denying this.

The fact is people associate with people who look like them. It's how we are made and built. This has been the norm for all of human history.

---

Cam Newton
Jameis Winston
Russel Wilson


Hell, look at University of Colorado rating this season.

Lots of examples of black athletes drawing viewers.

Do you really think a black player doing what Manziel and Tebow did wouldn't draw the same attention?

---

No, they would not. Kyler Murray, Pat Mahomes, Lamar Jackson, etc. were all just as talented and successful in college but they weren't even in the same stratosphere popularity wise. Tebow and Manziel were known by virtually everyone, even those who didn't watch football or sports.

Clark has this same sort of appeal from the female side.

Race and how they appeal to middle America absolutely does matter. The black athletes are angry because they will never be able to tap into this. It sucks for them but that's life in a heterogeneous nation. People will naturally gravitate towards those who are most like them. That's just how it works.

---

Tebow was popular, in large part, because he was openly and devoutly Christian and wasn't out banging poon left and right even though he probably could have had pretty much any chick on Florida's campus and most on Florida St's campus. That made him a target and "controversial".

JFF was popular because he was easy to hate for the media. Rich (supposedly) white boy that also went to Texas A&M. Loved to party. Typical bad boy profile.

A black player doing what either did wouldn't draw near the attention that they had, because it's socially acceptable to hate a successful white boy and not so much to hate a successful black guy. That's the long and short of it.

Cam was the absolute best player in the country, bar none. While he was in school he didn't cause many problems, but had the pay for play controversy.

Jamies was, it seemed, constantly in trouble. The crab incident seemed to overshadow the fact that he was a really good college player.

I'll be honest, I never once heard of Russel Wilson until he was at Seattle. Even then, did he really do anything other than just play ball, then decided to suck after Denver gave him a massive contract?

Colorado - it wasn't the players or the the team that drew the attention. It was Prime, bar none. Either folks watched because they wanted to see him succeed or see him fail. Very few watched because they though Colorado was a good football team.

misterguinness said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes this does have something to do with it. Same reason Tim Tebow and Johnny Manziel blew up nationally. They were electric must see TV because they were athletic white guys dominating a sport with a lot of blacks and they had appeal to middle America.

There is no point in denying this.

The fact is people associate with people who look like them. It's how we are made and built. This has been the norm for all of human history.

---

Cam Newton
Jameis Winston
Russel Wilson


Hell, look at University of Colorado rating this season.

Lots of examples of black athletes drawing viewers.

Do you really think a black player doing what Manziel and Tebow did wouldn't draw the same attention?

---

No, they would not. Kyler Murray, Pat Mahomes, Lamar Jackson, etc. were all just as talented and successful in college but they weren't even in the same stratosphere popularity wise. Tebow and Manziel were known by virtually everyone, even those who didn't watch football or sports.

Clark has this same sort of appeal from the female side.

Race and how they appeal to middle America absolutely does matter. The black athletes are angry because they will never be able to tap into this. It sucks for them but that's life in a heterogeneous nation. People will naturally gravitate towards those who are most like them. That's just how it works.

---

Tiger Woods, although not a college athlete, blows up this argument.

---

Not really, because he is an absolute outlier.

Also, he was shoved down the throats of the golf world for about 10 years straight and few people even knew other players were on the tour with him because of the media feeling like they had to fawn over Tiger 24/7, and not doing so was going to get them thrown in raicst honky white privelige prison.

Golf has just about always been a rich man's sport, which was typically dominated by white guys. In comes a black guy that not only stands out like a sore thumb on the tour, but could actually play ball. Of course he was going to be the outlier. Not a hard concept to figure out.

schmellba99 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes this does have something to do with it. Same reason Tim Tebow and Johnny Manziel blew up nationally. They were electric must see TV because they were athletic white guys dominating a sport with a lot of blacks and they had appeal to middle America.

There is no point in denying this.

The fact is people associate with people who look like them. It's how we are made and built. This has been the norm for all of human history.

---

Cam Newton
Jameis Winston
Russel Wilson


Hell, look at University of Colorado rating this season.

Lots of examples of black athletes drawing viewers.

Do you really think a black player doing what Manziel and Tebow did wouldn't draw the same attention?

---

No, they would not. Kyler Murray, Pat Mahomes, Lamar Jackson, etc. were all just as talented and successful in college but they weren't even in the same stratosphere popularity wise. Tebow and Manziel were known by virtually everyone, even those who didn't watch football or sports.

Clark has this same sort of appeal from the female side.

Race and how they appeal to middle America absolutely does matter. The black athletes are angry because they will never be able to tap into this. It sucks for them but that's life in a heterogeneous nation. People will naturally gravitate towards those who are most like them. That's just how it works.

---

Tebow was popular, in large part, because he was openly and devoutly Christian and wasn't out banging poon left and right even though he probably could have had pretty much any chick on Florida's campus and most on Florida St's campus. That made him a target and "controversial".

JFF was popular because he was easy to hate for the media. Rich (supposedly) white boy that also went to Texas A&M. Loved to party. Typical bad boy profile.

A black player doing what either did wouldn't draw near the attention that they had, because it's socially acceptable to hate a successful white boy and not so much to hate a successful black guy. That's the long and short of it.

Cam was the absolute best player in the country, bar none. While he was in school he didn't cause many problems, but had the pay for play controversy.

Jamies was, it seemed, constantly in trouble. The crab incident seemed to overshadow the fact that he was a really good college player.

I'll be honest, I never once heard of Russel Wilson until he was at Seattle. Even then, did he really do anything other than just play ball, then decided to suck after Denver gave him a massive contract?

Colorado - it wasn't the players or the the team that drew the attention. It was Prime, bar none. Either folks watched because they wanted to see him succeed or see him fail. Very few watched because they though Colorado was a good football team.

---

He also had a pretty cool nickname.

Sharpshooter said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes this does have something to do with it. Same reason Tim Tebow and Johnny Manziel blew up nationally. They were electric must see TV because they were athletic white guys dominating a sport with a lot of blacks and they had appeal to middle America.

There is no point in denying this.

The fact is people associate with people who look like them. It's how we are made and built. This has been the norm for all of human history.

---

Cam Newton
Jameis Winston
Russel Wilson


Hell, look at University of Colorado rating this season.

Lots of examples of black athletes drawing viewers.

Do you really think a black player doing what Manziel and Tebow did wouldn't draw the same attention?

---

No, they would not. Kyler Murray, Pat Mahomes, Lamar Jackson, etc. were all just as talented and successful in college but they weren't even in the same stratosphere popularity wise. Tebow and Manziel were known by virtually everyone, even those who didn't watch football or sports.

Clark has this same sort of appeal from the female side.

Race and how they appeal to middle America absolutely does matter. The black athletes are angry because they will never be able to tap into this. It sucks for them but that's life in a heterogeneous nation. People will naturally gravitate towards those who are most like them. That's just how it works.

---

Tebow was popular, in large part, because he was openly and devoutly Christian and wasn't out banging poon left and right even though he probably could have had pretty much any chick on Florida's campus and most on Florida St's campus. That made him a target and "controversial".

JFF was popular because he was easy to hate for the media. Rich (supposedly) white boy that also went to Texas A&M. Loved to party. Typical bad boy profile.

A black player doing what either did wouldn't draw near the attention that they had, because it's socially acceptable to hate a successful white boy and not so much to hate a successful black guy. That's the long and short of it.

Cam was the absolute best player in the country, bar none. While he was in school he didn't cause many problems, but had the pay for play controversy.

Jamies was, it seemed, constantly in trouble. The crab incident seemed to overshadow the fact that he was a really good college player.

I'll be honest, I never once heard of Russel Wilson until he was at Seattle. Even then, did he really do anything other than just play ball, then decided to suck after Denver gave him a massive contract?

Colorado - it wasn't the players or the the team that drew the attention. It was Prime, bar none. Either folks watched because they wanted to see him succeed or see him fail. Very few watched because they though Colorado was a good football team.

---

He also had a pretty cool nickname.

---

He also built the house the team plays in.

Tramp96 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

The fact she's #4 on assists is incredible, if you'd watch clips of her and her team. She'd be #1 if her teammates made all the "dimes" she dishes. Remember, it's women...playing basketball...so they miss a lot of those would-be assists.

Yes, she should be on the Olympic team. Hell, as a captain.

---

Moving the goalposts. You said she was the best player in the world.

Compare Clark to the WNBA's leading scorer, A'Ja Wilson:

Wilson 28.3 points per game, 11.8 rebounds per game, 2.6 assists per game, 41.7% 3 pt, and 50.8% from the field.

Clark 16.3 points per game, 4.9 rebounds per game, 6.0 assists per game, 33% 3 pt, 37.3% from the field.

Clark is objectively not the best player in the world, or particularly close to it.

---

I would take objection to this.

One thing is for certain, she definitely has the potential to be the best player in the world, very soon.

Michael Jordon wasn't the best player in the league as a rookie, but he was good enough to sign Nike.

---

He was good enough to sign with Adidas, which was THE premiere basketball shoe at the time. Nike had to practically beg him to sign by creating his very own shoe from the ground up and then stating they will pay the fines to the NBA for him wearing this shoe (because at the time the Air Jordan didn't comply with NBA rules).

---

Kind of middle of the road between where you're both seemingly at.

Jordan was certainly looked at as a star player coming out of college and was good enough to sign with Adidas (and Converse), but he would not have been their only big name basketball player. Lots of guys were good enough to sign with Adidas, and while he certainly would have been a star with Adidas, he would not have been a commercial superstar.

Nike would have been happy to sign just about any NBA player at the time because they were desperate for market share and exposure. In trying to get Jordan, they not only made a huge bet on him, but also on a completely new strategy when it came to branding. Adidas had a portfolio of the best players and sold lots of shoes, but Nike was going to build a brand around Michael Jordan and sell Jordans. That decision set them completely apart from now generic basketball shoes being worn by great players. Paying the fines to the NBA was a gimmick in many ways to draw attention and build the brand. Nike and Jordan were seen as rebels and individualistic, which was immediately cool and sold a lot of shoes.

Jordan is inarguably the greatest basketball player of all time, but the Jordan brand and his status as a superstar were propelled by Nike, and vice versa. If it weren't for Air Jordans and Nike's bet on him as the singular face of a shoe line and brand, I don't think either would have been as big as they became, commercially speaking.


I don't follow the WNBA at all, but Clark seems like the kind of player who could be to the WNBA what Jordan was to the NBA. She is probably going to be a superstar, and she is already elevating the league's status. Anecdotal, but I go to a black barbershop, and the last time I was there they were talking about the WNBA and how weird it was that they had gone from not watching it at all to couldn't turn it off. They joked that getting the games on cable/satellite was still a fraction of the cost of NBA games, but they still watched and followed it infinitely more than they did before. They are certainly capturing their intended audience, and Caitlin Clark is undeniably a huge part of that, regardless of whether she's the best player in the league or not.

Manziel was as "must-see TV" for an athlete that I can remember in a long time and basically came out of nowhere during his Heisman season unless you previously followed Texas high school football. No college football player since has matched him in that regard. Clark had a comparable effect at Iowa when you consider how few people watched women's basketball before her.

Tiger Woods was a golf prodigy that many people knew about before he ever went pro.

Sharpshooter said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes this does have something to do with it. Same reason Tim Tebow and Johnny Manziel blew up nationally. They were electric must see TV because they were athletic white guys dominating a sport with a lot of blacks and they had appeal to middle America.

There is no point in denying this.

The fact is people associate with people who look like them. It's how we are made and built. This has been the norm for all of human history.

---

Cam Newton
Jameis Winston
Russel Wilson


Hell, look at University of Colorado rating this season.

Lots of examples of black athletes drawing viewers.

Do you really think a black player doing what Manziel and Tebow did wouldn't draw the same attention?

---

No, they would not. Kyler Murray, Pat Mahomes, Lamar Jackson, etc. were all just as talented and successful in college but they weren't even in the same stratosphere popularity wise. Tebow and Manziel were known by virtually everyone, even those who didn't watch football or sports.

Clark has this same sort of appeal from the female side.

Race and how they appeal to middle America absolutely does matter. The black athletes are angry because they will never be able to tap into this. It sucks for them but that's life in a heterogeneous nation. People will naturally gravitate towards those who are most like them. That's just how it works.

---

Tebow was popular, in large part, because he was openly and devoutly Christian and wasn't out banging poon left and right even though he probably could have had pretty much any chick on Florida's campus and most on Florida St's campus. That made him a target and "controversial".

JFF was popular because he was easy to hate for the media. Rich (supposedly) white boy that also went to Texas A&M. Loved to party. Typical bad boy profile.

A black player doing what either did wouldn't draw near the attention that they had, because it's socially acceptable to hate a successful white boy and not so much to hate a successful black guy. That's the long and short of it.

Cam was the absolute best player in the country, bar none. While he was in school he didn't cause many problems, but had the pay for play controversy.

Jamies was, it seemed, constantly in trouble. The crab incident seemed to overshadow the fact that he was a really good college player.

I'll be honest, I never once heard of Russel Wilson until he was at Seattle. Even then, did he really do anything other than just play ball, then decided to suck after Denver gave him a massive contract?

Colorado - it wasn't the players or the the team that drew the attention. It was Prime, bar none. Either folks watched because they wanted to see him succeed or see him fail. Very few watched because they though Colorado was a good football team.

---

He also had a pretty cool nickname.

---

We all have MFBarnes to thank for that too! Allegedly.

It is more about her mid-west values and skills than her race.

But many in the sports media and the WNBA think everything is race.

NowhereMan said:

---

It is more about her mid-west values and skills than her race.

---

Mid-west values? What are those, and how are they separate from race?

Former MVPs Wilson and Maya Moore are both devout Christians who are dating or married to men, and neither of them received anything like the attention that Clark has received (Moore's story is particularly crazy; I live in the Twin Cities and was peripherally aware of this, but she is married to a guy who did 20+ years in prison for a crime of which he appears to be "for real" innocent-she sacrificed a year of her career to focus on his eventual exoneration.)

I will add, that I do think that Clark not being a lesbian also has a lot to do with her broad public appeal. She is far more popular than white players Breanna Stewart (reigning MVP who has an argument as the best player in the league, not conventionally attractive, gay) and Elena Della Donne (recently retired 2x MVP, pretty at least from a head shot perspective, gay).

Becoming a college star in a sports-mad community with no pro sports didn't hurt, either.

This whole argument or CC getting special treatment "because she is white" would maybe have some legs if she was a so-so player and NOT THE ALL TIIME LEADING SCORER IN NCAA HISTORY!!!!!

Raiderjay said:

---

This whole argument or CC getting special treatment "because she is white" would maybe have some legs if she was a so-so player and NOT THE ALL TIIME LEADING SCORER IN NCAA HISTORY!!!!!

---

I don't see anyone arguing that "Pistol" Pete Maravich was the best basketball player of all time despite having scored nearly as many points in the NCAA as Clark. In three seasons. With no three point line.

Everyone in the WNBA should be absolutely giddy that Clark has blown up to the extent that she has and demand that their salaries get doubled, at minimum, if they are going to sell out NBA arenas.

This is no one's fault, any more than it was someone's fault that only serious basketball fans remember Wes Unseld or Bob McAdoo (much less the likes of George Mikan-Mikan was so broke at the end of his life that Shaquille O'Neal paid for his funeral, stating "without number 99 there is no me." Good on him.)

Bocephus said:

---

Buford T. Justice said:

---

She's popular because she is the second coming of Larry Bird, in female form. She is incredibly talented and fun to watch.

---

I never thought of that but it fits. That's how I'm going to refer to her from now on, as the female Larry Bird.

---

Unfortunately she is not or she would have already been in dozens of scraps and trash talked the entire league. She's too nice to be Larry Legend and it's a shame she can't be or they would drum her out faster than they are trying to right now.

BCG Disciple said:

---

Is Tiger Woods popular because he's Blasian?

---

Nobody cares about the Asian part, but the fact that he's (part) black in a sport without a lot of black players is a big part of his popularity. Same reason the press around the world always treated Obama like a hothouse flower Everybody ignored his 50% white genes and fawned over him because he was half black and held an office dominated by whites.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

Raiderjay said:

---

This whole argument or CC getting special treatment "because she is white" would maybe have some legs if she was a so-so player and NOT THE ALL TIIME LEADING SCORER IN NCAA HISTORY!!!!!

---

I don't see anyone arguing that "Pistol" Pete Maravich was the best basketball player of all time despite having scored nearly as many points in the NCAA as Clark. In three seasons. With no three point line.

Everyone in the WNBA should be absolutely giddy that Clark has blown up to the extent that she has and demand that their salaries get doubled, at minimum, if they are going to sell out NBA arenas.

This is no one's fault, any more than it was someone's fault that only serious basketball fans remember Wes Unseld or Bob McAdoo (much less the likes of George Mikan-Mikan was so broke at the end of his life that Shaquille O'Neal paid for his funeral, stating "without number 99 there is no me." Good on him.)

---

the question was is she popular because she is white, not if she is the best player in the NBA....her achievement in the NCAA at least makes her relevant, and it has brought a lot of attention to a sport most people don't give a crap about....The league and its members should be giddy.....

Reasons why CC should have been chosen for Olympic team (i'm betting if any player gets injured she gets called up)
1. $$$. Let me repeat that for those that missed it. $$$. How this didn't make the decision just goes to show that racism/anti-straightism is strong
2. Recruiting pull. You have the chance to have millions of girls see a one of a time athlete rake in all this attention playing basketball. The talent pool for women's basketball would go up tremendously.
3. CC has a niche talent. That has value
4. USA has won the olympic gold for the past 6 maybe 7 cycles (1996-2020). Your last player on the squad who is maybe marginally as good as another isn't that key.
5. CC is likely going to play a key role in the olympics / FIBA competitions going forward. You would want your likely star player in 3 years to get experience before she has huge expectations.

End of the day her not included goes to show levels of incompetence that should honestly just be laughed at. Though my bet is there will be an injury and CC will make the squad. Then the media storm will be annoying.

I find it absolutely comical and adsurdly hypocritical that so many black people would rather see the WBNA continue to wallow in the abyss than become wildly popular if a white woman would be the face of the league.

cevans_40 said:

---

I find it absolutely comical and adsurdly hypocritical that so many black people would rather see the WBNA continue to wallow in the abyss than become wildly popular if a white woman would be the face of the league.

---

The funnier part is that THEY think they are the reason for the recent boost in popularity and not Clark.

Bocephus said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

I find it absolutely comical and adsurdly hypocritical that so many black people would rather see the WBNA continue to wallow in the abyss than become wildly popular if a white woman would be the face of the league.

---

The funnier part is that THEY think they are the reason for the recent boost in popularity and not Clark.

---

This is the sort of reasoning and behavior that you get when you're financially subsidized by a league that is working to keep themselves paid and carry your financial black hole of a league. Not all that different from the attitudes of those dependent on government subsidies towards the successful portions of society that pay the tax bill.

She's popular because she's the best player to ever touch a basketball. (That's for Yokel )


She's popular because she's good at basketball AND she's normal. She should be on the Olympic team.

Olympic basketball, both men and women, hasn't been as fun to watch since they started letting professionals be the team. We got fresh faces at least every two cycles.

Bucketrunner said:

---

Olympic basketball, both men and women, hasn't been as fun to watch since they started letting professionals be the team. We got fresh faces at least every two cycles.

---

The average sports fan doesn't watch the Olympics anymore. I only watch hockey for the most part and that's only because of the 1980s team.

Someone with alot of FU money should:
1. Form a woman's basketball league
2. Sign Clark
3. Offer 30% more pay for everyone
4. See if they can put the WNBA out of business

They can make their own rules. WNBA is not watchable. Way too much *****ing, whining and politics. Just play basketball and STFU. Go sell that model. Who better than Clark to represent a "new league interested in actual basketball"?

Seems to me that good women's basketball can draw some attendance. Get actual good players not interested in political statements and see what happens. Folks want to watch Clark play. They will watch other good women play. Offer 30% more than WNBA. Maybe some will cross over.

Yea, NBA is loaded and can take losses. Don't need them. Sure, NBA arenas are better venues, but hell, play in college arenas if needed. There is not a WNBA town that doesn't have a college arena that comfortably sit enough women's college basketball fans.

WNBA is not watchable. However, women's college basketball is. Consider the following attendance numbers for college basketball: (Note: I went back and grabbed '21-'22 attendance, this won't have the Clark effect of drawing massive more attendance)

NCAA ('21-'22 season)
Top attendance - South Carolinia - 12,268 per game
Average of top 20 schools - 6,429 per game

WNBA (last year - 2023)
Top Attendance - 9,551
Average attendance - 6,615 per game

The market for good basketball is there. These girls ***** they don't make enough money, yet they continue to insult fans nation wide and crap on a player that's actually going to make them more money. Well, end their monopoly. Take Clark away and use her talents to start over.

Or, not.

Quote:

---

Seems to me that good women's basketball can draw some attendance.

---

Please define "good women's basketball" so I'll know it when I see it

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

Seems to me that good women's basketball can draw some attendance.

---

Please define "good women's basketball" so I'll know it when I see it

---

How about this?

The problem is these dumbass WNBA racist chicks is they seem to have no clue that they need to be subsidized to have their own league stay afloat, and that they are just the female version of the NBA.

Science Denier said:

---

Someone with alot of FU money should:
1. Form a woman's basketball league
2. Sign Clark
3. Offer 30% more pay for everyone
4. See if they can put the WNBA out of business

They can make their own rules. WNBA is not watchable. Way too much *****ing, whining and politics. Just play basketball and STFU. Go sell that model. Who better than Clark to represent a "new league interested in actual basketball"?

Seems to me that good women's basketball can draw some attendance. Get actual good players not interested in political statements and see what happens. Folks want to watch Clark play. They will watch other good women play. Offer 30% more than WNBA. Maybe some will cross over.

Yea, NBA is loaded and can take losses. Don't need them. Sure, NBA arenas are better venues, but hell, play in college arenas if needed. There is not a WNBA town that doesn't have a college arena that comfortably sit enough women's college basketball fans.

WNBA is not watchable. However, women's college basketball is. Consider the following attendance numbers for college basketball: (Note: I went back and grabbed '21-'22 attendance, this won't have the Clark effect of drawing massive more attendance)

NCAA ('21-'22 season)
Top attendance - South Carolinia - 12,268 per game
Average of top 20 schools - 6,429 per game

WNBA (last year - 2023)
Top Attendance - 9,551
Average attendance - 6,615 per game

The market for good basketball is there. These girls ***** they don't make enough money, yet they continue to insult fans nation wide and crap on a player that's actually going to make them more money. Well, end their monopoly. Take Clark away and use her talents to start over.

Or, not.

---

Wow, those attendance numbers are much better than I thought. Who averaged 9500???

I suspect her popularity will be boosted by the women's basketball world's agenda to squelch her because she doesn't look or act like one of "them" . It''s so confusing tho… I thought diversity was our strength?

People like me that normally couldn't care any less about women's basketball may now take an interest just hoping to see her be successful. Will be a temporary impact either way tho because at the end of the day us producers don't have the time or inclination to follow it… the lack of a paying market for the WNBA is all the proof you need for that imo.

I might have watched a women's Olympic basketball game had Clark not been excluded particularly for the reasons I believe she was excluded … now I won't.

BCG Disciple said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Someone with alot of FU money should:
1. Form a woman's basketball league
2. Sign Clark
3. Offer 30% more pay for everyone
4. See if they can put the WNBA out of business

They can make their own rules. WNBA is not watchable. Way too much *****ing, whining and politics. Just play basketball and STFU. Go sell that model. Who better than Clark to represent a "new league interested in actual basketball"?

Seems to me that good women's basketball can draw some attendance. Get actual good players not interested in political statements and see what happens. Folks want to watch Clark play. They will watch other good women play. Offer 30% more than WNBA. Maybe some will cross over.

Yea, NBA is loaded and can take losses. Don't need them. Sure, NBA arenas are better venues, but hell, play in college arenas if needed. There is not a WNBA town that doesn't have a college arena that comfortably sit enough women's college basketball fans.

WNBA is not watchable. However, women's college basketball is. Consider the following attendance numbers for college basketball: (Note: I went back and grabbed '21-'22 attendance, this won't have the Clark effect of drawing massive more attendance)

NCAA ('21-'22 season)
Top attendance - South Carolinia - 12,268 per game
Average of top 20 schools - 6,429 per game

WNBA (last year - 2023)
Top Attendance - 9,551
Average attendance - 6,615 per game

The market for good basketball is there. These girls ***** they don't make enough money, yet they continue to insult fans nation wide and crap on a player that's actually going to make them more money. Well, end their monopoly. Take Clark away and use her talents to start over.

Or, not.

---

Wow, those attendance numbers are much better than I thought. Who averaged 9500???

---

Las Vegas Aces

2023 WNBA Attendance Report

How do you "put someone out of business" when their entire business model is to just lose the amount of money their male counterpart league is willing to siphon away from its own players and ownership?

The WNBA is nothing more that a woke tax on basketball

$500k or a date with Angel Reese? pic.twitter.com/Dddii2HklH

— Hoops (@HoopMixOnly) June 13, 2024

dis outta be good

Is that a serious question? I don't care who she is, nobody is worth $500k for a date.

TyHolden said:

---

Bucketrunner said:

---

Olympic basketball, both men and women, hasn't been as fun to watch since they started letting professionals be the team. We got fresh faces at least every two cycles.

---

The average sports fan doesn't watch the Olympics anymore. I only watch hockey for the most part and that's only because of the 1980s team.

---

Winter Olympics are a lot of fun because you never know when someone is gonna get snapped in half doing skeleton at 80mph.

Science Denier said:

---

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

Seems to me that good women's basketball can draw some attendance.

---

Please define "good women's basketball" so I'll know it when I see it

---

How about this?

---

The athleticism is worse than a boys 8th grade team.

Missed lay ups and all.

Caitlin Clark on the hate and negativity on social media:

"There's just so much hate in the world right now. I think just everybody appreciating everybody for who they are and loving on one another. That's how i go about my life and how i was raised... Social media is not… pic.twitter.com/Rt6JMi39xk

— Vanshay Murdock 🎥🎥 (@VanshayM) June 13, 2024

Dawg. How one can not be bothered by their name being used to justify racism, bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia & the intersectionalities of them all is nuts. We all see the sh*t. We all have a platform. We all have a voice & they all hold weight. Silence is a luxury.

— dιjonaι carrιngтon♛ (@DijonaiVictoria) June 13, 2024

Clark is not going to survive in the WNBA and it's not due to her lack of talent. Fans had unrealistic expectations for her coming into the WNBA. Her teammates haven't played well enough to draw pressure away from her. Her coach seems to be an abject moron who is hellbent on neutering her aggressive style. The officiating is atrocious on a good day, biased AND atrocious seems to be the norm. The entire league is toxic, petty/jealous of her and delivering cheap shots and dirty defense. Now she's apparently responsible for not stopping comments that are allegedly racist and homophobic in the eyes of those who see everything as racist and homophobic.

If there's ever been a "can't win" situation, this is it.