Moderators: Harry Garris, ken6199, Dirk, bisme37, KingDavid, bwgood77, zimpy27, cupcakesnake, Domejandro, infinite11285
xdrta+ wrote:I don't get the reasoning that her "brand" will take a big dive. If she can compete, people will say, big deal, it's just against old, fat guys. If she can't, people will say, big deal, it's against men. No one is really going to care about the result. It's a novelty that people will tune into just for the fun of it.
10 games? Take the money, I say. There's really no downside.
bballfan1three3 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:bballfan1three3 wrote:I think you're underestimating how little the average person cares about logic behind branding. McDonald's is garbage ppl eat it every day. Brands are just popular things.
Going up against MEN is like the final ceiling. Just imagine for one second how famous she would be if she could even remotely compete. For real.
It's not a "real league" as in they aren't playing full court and taking it as serious as pro sports. So what. I'm interested in the AVERAGE persons interest in putting themselves in the big 3 players shoes.
This is more like a professional version of an office basketball league. No one over 40 is gonna want to run serious games full court vs men in their teens and 20s- no duh. They will lose. But people actually do play serious games at offices that would mimic this- maybe a 22 year old girl vs a 45 year old male is a somewhat fair matchup, I don't know. Never seen it. It's more about "street cred" than anything else.
These YouTube videos will get like 50 Million views. Ice cubes is a genius
This is the absolute most ideal situation for her.
-they have 4 point shots
-her whole game is shooting
-half court
-opponents are somewhat older. As old as realistically possible for her to be taken serious
-lots of breaks, not too much sprinting
If she still can't yeah throw in the towel. But this is a actual fun scenario people could do in their driveway.
Also like 99% of humans understand that MEN and WOMEN are different. It's just an obtuse few who put head in the sand, for reasons unknown. Morality I assume.
I don't see how losing in a MENS league would make a WOMAN look bad. If anything it makes her look good she was even invited.
So we're clear, when I'm talking about branding here, I'm talking about the "Caitlin Clark" brand, and I'm not saying people care about "the branding", I'm saying they care about Clark but they won't always.
Consider this extreme career suicide scenario:
Imagine if Clark got offered a ton of money to be in porn. You really think parents would be happy to have Clark as a role model for their daughters? I personally think that if Clark wanted to do this she should have every right to do it, but in terms of future earnings, it would severely damage her brand.
So, while we can debate about the possible impacts to Clark's brand that the Big 3 league could have, the idea that it couldn't have any is just naive. The reality is that Clark has the hype she does now not because she's the clear cut greatest prospect the NCAA has ever produced, but because a confluence of factors has led he to become a crossover phenomenon, and that's something that's frankly still a fragile thing.
Let's ignore everything else and just consider a Scoot Henderson type of situation:
Scoot was hyped (irresponsibly) by the NBA was a rival to Wemby and has looked like someone who can't even be an NBA player. He personally still has time to improve and make a career for himself...but the G-league Ignite is already dead, and the G-league itself is damaged a great deal because of how this played out. The NBA was trying to create a narrative that the G-league was the better place to train for the NBA compared to college - and frankly that should have been possible - but now we can basically see that they were prioritizing hype over actually giving players realistic evaluations and good training.
Wherever Clark goes after college basketball, if she's an utter, embarrassing flop, the wave of buzz she was leaving in her wake dies, and so do the opportunities that the wave provided.
If that flop comes in the WNBA, then all of that was bound to happen anyway so while it stings crossover women's basketball appeal, there was nothing really to be done about it, because one more year in college wouldn't have changed a thing.
Such a flop elsewhere though is an unforced error. There's a reason why we've never had a super-hyped event between Serena Williams and top men in tennis, and it's not so much because we know who would win that match but that it would give us high profile footage of Williams' strengths getting shut down cold and her weaknesses making her look amateurish. Her ability to inspire young women after that would certainly not be helped by it.
Dude I think you might have porn brain or something.
You're equating being in a PORN MOVIE, to a mixed gender BASKETBALL LEAGUE. Like, what? Are you trolling me? Those aren't the same thing at all? She's a basketball player.
Unless you're one of those ppl who can't admit the fact that a 6 foot tall woman can't compete with a highly athletic man. Only way such circular logic involved
Just because they both involve black men, like, a white woman? I literally am not making a joke. I don't get the porn shot at all.
I'm at a loss for words. I can't believe a mod of a basketball forum would have such unbelievable reasoning.
The whole point of a basketball match is to see who's the better TEAM. women are waaay better in a team setting with mixed gender than 1 on 1. Big 3 is perfect because she can get a hard screen and a shot off.
Tennis is a 1v1 sport, the whole fun should be how do you cover up her weaknesses (being a 6' girl) with her gifts (being an insane shooter in her prime who plays competitive basketball every day).
Let's say, hypothetically, Caitlin Clark murdered 3 people tonight. How would that affect her brand ?
FrodoFraggins wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:FrodoFraggins wrote:The only downside I see to doing it is getting herself exposed by playing against men.
Which is a HUGE, deal-breaking downside imho.
Yep it's a huge deal. Which is also why top female tennis players prefer not to play against a pro male even for charity.
But 5 million is worth it unless she can find other ways to recoup it elsewhere. I doubt she'd be blackballed by the WNBA.
xdrta+ wrote:Hans1984 wrote:Noone would take her serious in the league(WNBA) if she did.
Just like no one took Wilt seriously after he went to the Globetrotters for a year. Oh, wait...
dhsilv2 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:Effigy wrote:
Why though? Who's watching the Indiana Fever? Let her do this, let Ice Cube promote the hell out of it, then her introduction to the WNBA can also be promoted. I only see positives for Nike, no negatives.
Big thing: When women's basketball becomes a punchline, it hurts women's basketball. Simple as that.
Re: Who's watching the Indiana Fever, let the Big3 promote the hell out of it. For perspective:
Big3 current annual revenue: $13.5 million.
WNBA current annual revenue: $180 million.
You clearly think that the WNBA is as unpopular as it could possibly get, but it's an absolute giant compared to Big3.
Is it possible that Clark to the Big3 will make way more people watch the Big3 than the WNBA has ever done before? Perhaps, but if this is the case, it will be because of Clark not because people like Big3.
Make no mistake, Ice Cube is doing this because Clark matters and the Big3 doesn't, not because his league is in a position of strength.
That's pretty comparable if it's 10 games vs 40 + playoffs on a per game revenue basis, no? Not to be annoying but that doesn't paint the WNBA in a good light given big 3 is much newer.
D.Brasco wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:Effigy wrote:
Why though? Who's watching the Indiana Fever? Let her do this, let Ice Cube promote the hell out of it, then her introduction to the WNBA can also be promoted. I only see positives for Nike, no negatives.
Big thing: When women's basketball becomes a punchline, it hurts women's basketball. Simple as that.
Re: Who's watching the Indiana Fever, let the Big3 promote the hell out of it. For perspective:
Big3 current annual revenue: $13.5 million.
WNBA current annual revenue: $180 million.
You clearly think that the WNBA is as unpopular as it could possibly get, but it's an absolute giant compared to Big3.
Is it possible that Clark to the Big3 will make way more people watch the Big3 than the WNBA has ever done before? Perhaps, but if this is the case, it will be because of Clark not because people like Big3.
Make no mistake, Ice Cube is doing this because Clark matters and the Big3 doesn't, not because his league is in a position of strength.
Despite the revenue differences one league is offering her 5 million for a season while the other is offering 200k max.
Of course Cube is doing this because his league needs her for relevance, the WNBA needs her for relevance too but will offer her a small fraction in comparison to play for them.
In my view Caitlin should feel no pressure to take less money to support a league that can barely support itself after near 30 years (WNBA).
This pressure is uniquely squared at her too, there is not one WNBA player who wouldn't take the 5 mil offer if it were offered to them instead.
It seems like implicit in all of your arguments is that Clark will dominate the wnba eventually and as such, will be contending for the goat status. But how much is that guaranteed? If she is not as good in the wnba within the next 3-4 years, no one will really care about her anymore and that 5 million dollar offer would be gone.Doctor MJ wrote:D.Brasco wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:
Big thing: When women's basketball becomes a punchline, it hurts women's basketball. Simple as that.
Re: Who's watching the Indiana Fever, let the Big3 promote the hell out of it. For perspective:
Big3 current annual revenue: $13.5 million.
WNBA current annual revenue: $180 million.
You clearly think that the WNBA is as unpopular as it could possibly get, but it's an absolute giant compared to Big3.
Is it possible that Clark to the Big3 will make way more people watch the Big3 than the WNBA has ever done before? Perhaps, but if this is the case, it will be because of Clark not because people like Big3.
Make no mistake, Ice Cube is doing this because Clark matters and the Big3 doesn't, not because his league is in a position of strength.
Despite the revenue differences one league is offering her 5 million for a season while the other is offering 200k max.
Of course Cube is doing this because his league needs her for relevance, the WNBA needs her for relevance too but will offer her a small fraction in comparison to play for them.
In my view Caitlin should feel no pressure to take less money to support a league that can barely support itself after near 30 years (WNBA).
This pressure is uniquely squared at her too, there is not one WNBA player who wouldn't take the 5 mil offer if it were offered to them instead.
I do think the money difference is going to add more fuel to the fire of what the NBA is paying WNBA players, but this isn't really about basketball salaries but endorsements for Clark.
Would WNBA players accept 5 mill to leave the WNBA? The vast majority of them yes, and those are the same players who would never anywhere near this type of offer from any endorsement.
Re: no pressure to support a league that can barely support itself after 30 years.
1. It's not about Clark being a martyr for the WNBA, it's about what Clark can do to make the most money in the long-term, and that's about the companies looking to give her money. Nike is more important here than Big3.
2. The reason why the WNBA doesn't make "profit" is because that's how the NBA does things. They killed off competition for women's basketball, just like they killed off competition for minor league basketball. They get a monopoly on these things and are then less concerned about any immediate profit and more concerned with the long term.
If the major women's basketball league were allowed to play in venues that were fitting for their level of popularity, profit would be a more reasonable way to judge the success. As is, revenue is the thing that's really objective.
HMFFL wrote:Wise move by Ice Cube but I doubt she accepts.
Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app
UcanUwill wrote:Does sound like a juvenile career path from first glance, and maybe it is, but knowing in how bad a shape WNBA is, it brings at least a moment of reflect and thought what to do. I mean, if she serious about her place in history of the sport and all, she will play professional women basketball as it is, but this is a bit interesting.
How much money does Ice Cube have anyway? I get that 5 Mil. is probably not that much to him, but I could not imagine him being so successful to a point he is signing PRO athletes for yearly multi million dollar contracts...
Doctor MJ wrote:1. The people tuning in to watch Clark in general are going to be people excited about Clark. If they watch her get humiliated, this may well dampen their enthusiasm.
2. Since not just Clark but everyone in the women's game is invested in the bubble of hype surrounding Clark, making her next move something that humiliates her seems like a guaranteed way to puncture the bubble.
Doctor MJ wrote:3. There's already a great deal of resentment among female players for the opportunities Clark is getting, and accepting this will make it worse. You might think "Why does Clark care about that?", but realistically she's going to have to play with top women if she wants to have a long, successful career.
4. If you didn't realize, there's already a specific resentment against straight, white women in the WNBA. Kelsey Plum has talked about knowing all about this before she even got to the WNBA, and working really hard to prove that she wasn't an entitled diva. Clark has also already shown a pretty deft touch in not accepting special treatment - like when Jill Biden suggested "both teams should come to the White House!" after last year's NCAA finals which left many in the women's game thinking, "She wouldn't have said that if Clark wasn't white". (For the record, I don't think Biden had any ill intentions there...but I also don't think she'd have been as aware of Iowa if not for Clark, and wouldn't have been aware of Clark if she looked different. She was foolish, and Clark & Iowa would have been foolish to embrace he suggestion, but they didn't.)
I hope she takes the offer seriously because maybe the Big 3 is the better path for her future. Even if it's just for one season. The WNBA needs to improve before she forces them too.jpengland wrote:Take the money
The WNBA will still be there.
Doctor MJ wrote:bballfan1three3 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:
So we're clear, when I'm talking about branding here, I'm talking about the "Caitlin Clark" brand, and I'm not saying people care about "the branding", I'm saying they care about Clark but they won't always.
Consider this extreme career suicide scenario:
Imagine if Clark got offered a ton of money to be in porn. You really think parents would be happy to have Clark as a role model for their daughters? I personally think that if Clark wanted to do this she should have every right to do it, but in terms of future earnings, it would severely damage her brand.
So, while we can debate about the possible impacts to Clark's brand that the Big 3 league could have, the idea that it couldn't have any is just naive. The reality is that Clark has the hype she does now not because she's the clear cut greatest prospect the NCAA has ever produced, but because a confluence of factors has led he to become a crossover phenomenon, and that's something that's frankly still a fragile thing.
Let's ignore everything else and just consider a Scoot Henderson type of situation:
Scoot was hyped (irresponsibly) by the NBA was a rival to Wemby and has looked like someone who can't even be an NBA player. He personally still has time to improve and make a career for himself...but the G-league Ignite is already dead, and the G-league itself is damaged a great deal because of how this played out. The NBA was trying to create a narrative that the G-league was the better place to train for the NBA compared to college - and frankly that should have been possible - but now we can basically see that they were prioritizing hype over actually giving players realistic evaluations and good training.
Wherever Clark goes after college basketball, if she's an utter, embarrassing flop, the wave of buzz she was leaving in her wake dies, and so do the opportunities that the wave provided.
If that flop comes in the WNBA, then all of that was bound to happen anyway so while it stings crossover women's basketball appeal, there was nothing really to be done about it, because one more year in college wouldn't have changed a thing.
Such a flop elsewhere though is an unforced error. There's a reason why we've never had a super-hyped event between Serena Williams and top men in tennis, and it's not so much because we know who would win that match but that it would give us high profile footage of Williams' strengths getting shut down cold and her weaknesses making her look amateurish. Her ability to inspire young women after that would certainly not be helped by it.
Dude I think you might have porn brain or something.
You're equating being in a PORN MOVIE, to a mixed gender BASKETBALL LEAGUE. Like, what? Are you trolling me? Those aren't the same thing at all? She's a basketball player.
Unless you're one of those ppl who can't admit the fact that a 6 foot tall woman can't compete with a highly athletic man. Only way such circular logic involved
Just because they both involve black men, like, a white woman? I literally am not making a joke. I don't get the porn shot at all.
I'm at a loss for words. I can't believe a mod of a basketball forum would have such unbelievable reasoning.
The whole point of a basketball match is to see who's the better TEAM. women are waaay better in a team setting with mixed gender than 1 on 1. Big 3 is perfect because she can get a hard screen and a shot off.
Tennis is a 1v1 sport, the whole fun should be how do you cover up her weaknesses (being a 6' girl) with her gifts (being an insane shooter in her prime who plays competitive basketball every day).
Let's say, hypothetically, Caitlin Clark murdered 3 people tonight. How would that affect her brand ?
I think you need to understand the purpose of analogy better before you start introduce hyperbolic hypotheticals.
phanman wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:1. The people tuning in to watch Clark in general are going to be people excited about Clark. If they watch her get humiliated, this may well dampen their enthusiasm.
2. Since not just Clark but everyone in the women's game is invested in the bubble of hype surrounding Clark, making her next move something that humiliates her seems like a guaranteed way to puncture the bubble.
I don't get the argument for her getting humiliated in the Big 3. She can definitely hang with that level of competition even if they are in fact men. You have to remember that it is strictly a half court game which places a higher emphasis on skills vs athleticism. There are plenty of female basketball players that can easily hang with men on the basketball court, c'mon guys, its 2024.
Your timeline is also off considering that the WNBA season officially begins on May 14. A full 10 days before the BIG 3 season kicks off. So she will have plenty of time from the draft to the start of the season to showcase her skillset in practices, pre-season games and roughly 5-6 regular season games too.Doctor MJ wrote:3. There's already a great deal of resentment among female players for the opportunities Clark is getting, and accepting this will make it worse. You might think "Why does Clark care about that?", but realistically she's going to have to play with top women if she wants to have a long, successful career.
4. If you didn't realize, there's already a specific resentment against straight, white women in the WNBA. Kelsey Plum has talked about knowing all about this before she even got to the WNBA, and working really hard to prove that she wasn't an entitled diva. Clark has also already shown a pretty deft touch in not accepting special treatment - like when Jill Biden suggested "both teams should come to the White House!" after last year's NCAA finals which left many in the women's game thinking, "She wouldn't have said that if Clark wasn't white". (For the record, I don't think Biden had any ill intentions there...but I also don't think she'd have been as aware of Iowa if not for Clark, and wouldn't have been aware of Clark if she looked different. She was foolish, and Clark & Iowa would have been foolish to embrace he suggestion, but they didn't.)
This really doesn't matter. Like you stated, why would she care that her competition resents her for the opportunities that she has earned with her play? It's not like we're talking about a fringe all star here, this is arguably one of the best prospects to ever come out woman's basketball.
As an athlete, I don't think they even give a damn about how their opponents feel about them and good riddance. You don't have to be friendly with people who are jealous of your success. With her teammates I am sure everybody on the Indiana Fever team doesn't give a damn, they just care they they are getting Clark on their team.
Doctor MJ wrote:D.Brasco wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:
Big thing: When women's basketball becomes a punchline, it hurts women's basketball. Simple as that.
Re: Who's watching the Indiana Fever, let the Big3 promote the hell out of it. For perspective:
Big3 current annual revenue: $13.5 million.
WNBA current annual revenue: $180 million.
You clearly think that the WNBA is as unpopular as it could possibly get, but it's an absolute giant compared to Big3.
Is it possible that Clark to the Big3 will make way more people watch the Big3 than the WNBA has ever done before? Perhaps, but if this is the case, it will be because of Clark not because people like Big3.
Make no mistake, Ice Cube is doing this because Clark matters and the Big3 doesn't, not because his league is in a position of strength.
Despite the revenue differences one league is offering her 5 million for a season while the other is offering 200k max.
Of course Cube is doing this because his league needs her for relevance, the WNBA needs her for relevance too but will offer her a small fraction in comparison to play for them.
In my view Caitlin should feel no pressure to take less money to support a league that can barely support itself after near 30 years (WNBA).
This pressure is uniquely squared at her too, there is not one WNBA player who wouldn't take the 5 mil offer if it were offered to them instead.
I do think the money difference is going to add more fuel to the fire of what the NBA is paying WNBA players, but this isn't really about basketball salaries but endorsements for Clark.
Would WNBA players accept 5 mill to leave the WNBA? The vast majority of them yes, and those are the same players who would never anywhere near this type of offer from any endorsement.
Re: no pressure to support a league that can barely support itself after 30 years.
1. It's not about Clark being a martyr for the WNBA, it's about what Clark can do to make the most money in the long-term, and that's about the companies looking to give her money. Nike is more important here than Big3.
2. The reason why the WNBA doesn't make "profit" is because that's how the NBA does things. They killed off competition for women's basketball, just like they killed off competition for minor league basketball. They get a monopoly on these things and are then less concerned about any immediate profit and more concerned with the long term.
If the major women's basketball league were allowed to play in venues that were fitting for their level of popularity, profit would be a more reasonable way to judge the success. As is, revenue is the thing that's really objective.
