Caitlin Clark left off USA Roster

[mastermixer]

If this is true I’m utterly shocked Nike would allow this. Everyone knows Nike runs Team USA basketball

[Free Rider]

I can't believe how annoying it's been in year 1 to have this strange segment of fans who know nothing about the WNBA and are following it through the myopic lens of a single college star.

While there has been no official news on the team USA roster, the expected roster is made up entirely of elite veterans. The youngest players on the proposed roster are Jackie Young and Sabrina Ionescu (both 26 and in their 6th and 5th years in the league, respectively).

We're talking a team made of only WNBA all-stars and no young players. Caitlin Clark is not a good WNBA player yet. She's incredibly promising but she's having a tough time as a high-usage, net negative, playing for a very young team.

This should be non news. It's like Scoot Henderson being left of the men's team.

+1 to all of this. You can really tell that most people on this board have never followed the WNBA prior to Clark which I guess is a testament to her star power but leads to some of the most ill-informed comments. Clark will eventually be a great player, a perennial All-Star, but she’s been incredibly uneven during a rookie season which is to be expected. Putting her on the Olympic team would make no sense at this point especially since she’s had no time to practice with the team. From a pure basketball perspective this is absolutely the right move and if anything the WNBA should be commended for resisting the urge to throw her on to the roster unprepared and unworthy.

[Creativetran]

I swear these woman are some dumb petty chicks... no wonder no one cares about this league.

[bisme37]

USA Women's basketball has won like 500 gold medals in a row. They don't need or care about her popularity (or shouldn't imo). The team isn't NBC trying to get ratings. They are trying to win gold. Clark is just not at Olympic level yet as a player.

This is a pretty dumb take IMO, so they are dominate but still can't break even after nearly 20 years.... mayyyyyybbbe it's time for the league to worry about entertainment aspect as well, if the NBA didn't give subsidy to this league it would have folded years ago.

You seem to be under the impression that the WNBA and USA Women's Basketball are the same thing?

[Domejandro]

Not sure how accurate it is, but saw it suggested elsewhere that the wider potential playing group didn’t want to play with her.

This petty hatred these other women seem to hold for her is pathetic.

I have some criticms about how members of the WNBA have approached Caitlin Clark's stardom, but this is not accurate at all. Caitlin Clark was not at the Team USA camp (was understandably busy with Iowa), and the team values experience. There are zero players with less than five years of WNBA experience on the Team USA roster, they are playing to win.

Being honest, it is incredibly silly how people who have zero investment in WNBA basketball are up-in-arms about who will represent the USA women team. If it's a problem, I would like folks to name who should be left off in favour of Caitlin Clark.

[shrink]

I can't believe how annoying it's been in year 1 to have this strange segment of fans who know nothing about the WNBA and are following it through the myopic lens of a single college star.

While there has been no official news on the team USA roster, the expected roster is made up entirely of elite veterans. The youngest players on the proposed roster are Jackie Young and Sabrina Ionescu (both 26 and in their 6th and 5th years in the league, respectively).

We're talking a team made of only WNBA all-stars and no young players. Caitlin Clark is not a good WNBA player yet. She's incredibly promising but she's having a tough time as a high-usage, net negative, playing for a very young team.

Is it annoying to listen to people who know nothing about the Olympics? Or would that be condescending?

The fact that there aren’t other younger players on the team is not a plus, and is something both the men and women’s team have actively tried to avoid. Were you up in arms when Christian Laetner made the Dream Team. In the two previous Olympics, the women’s team had three 24 year olds, and the one before that, they selected a 21 year old. These teams want promising young players in the system, feeling like part of the team so they sign up for the next Olympics, and getting experience for future games. This should be especially true this year, when Team USA is so heavily favored, with or without Clark.

[Domejandro]

USA Women's basketball has won like 500 gold medals in a row. They don't need or care about her popularity (or shouldn't imo). The team isn't NBC trying to get ratings. They are trying to win gold. Clark is just not at Olympic level yet as a player.

This is a pretty dumb take IMO, so they are dominate but still can't break even after nearly 20 years.... mayyyyyybbbe it's time for the league to worry about entertainment aspect as well, if the NBA didn't give subsidy to this league it would have folded years ago.

Investing in womens basketball is valuable to the long-term ecosystem of the NBA, the idea that the subsidy is a dead-end investment is not accurate. The WNBA is less than thirty years old, it takes time to develop profitability; the indirect value of getting young women across the country invested in playing basketball is massive.

[KembaWalker]

she should seek alternative citizenship and a league that pays her what shes worth
the WNBA can't handle success

[cornchip]

When did we start picking who makes Team USA roster spots based on popularity? The goal is to win gold which is what the USA women's team has done 7 straight times. Everything else comes second.

This is a such a nonstory. Anyone that's been paying attention to women's basketball knew she wasn't going to be on the team since she didn't go to a single Team USA training camp because she was in the Final Four.

Even then, Caitlin is not one of the 12 best players in the W. The Team USA roster is absolutely loaded. Who should she have gotten in over? I only see an argument against 41 year old Diana Taurasi and she's a legend they were never booting her off the team. But if that argument does nothing for you, then what about Arike Ogunbowale who has a beef over both Taurasi and Clark. She's the league's second leading scoring (26/5/4) averaging 10 more ppg than both of them and she's not going either.

The CC fanboys gotta relax, there is no "racist conspiracy" or whatever, it's just not Caitlin's time yet.

I think the Taurasi spot is pretty egregious. No need for her to hog a spot that should go to a younger player.

That said, you're right. There's others more deserving than her. I think Ogunbowale will play for Nigeria but that's an obvious one. Rhyne Howard, Alisha Gray, Ariel Atkins are deserving too.

But Clark is in that group as well. I think she should've been selected based on her college accomplishments, her shotmaking ability, and obviously the name recognition and how she's dealt with her fame.

Not a super big deal but I can understand how it looks a little silly.

[Domejandro]

I can't believe how annoying it's been in year 1 to have this strange segment of fans who know nothing about the WNBA and are following it through the myopic lens of a single college star.

While there has been no official news on the team USA roster, the expected roster is made up entirely of elite veterans. The youngest players on the proposed roster are Jackie Young and Sabrina Ionescu (both 26 and in their 6th and 5th years in the league, respectively).

We're talking a team made of only WNBA all-stars and no young players. Caitlin Clark is not a good WNBA player yet. She's incredibly promising but she's having a tough time as a high-usage, net negative, playing for a very young team.

Is it annoying to listen to people who know nothing about the Olympics? Or would that be condescending?

The fact that there aren’t other younger players on the team is not a plus, and is something both the men and women’s team have actively tried to avoid. Were you up in arms when Christian Laetner made the Dream Team. In the two previous Olympics, the women’s team had three 24 year olds, and the one before that, they selected a 21 year old. These teams want promising young players in the system, feeling like part of the team so they sign up for the next Olympics, and getting experience for future games. This should be especially true this year, when Team USA is so heavily favored, with or without Clark.

Name the player who should be left off this year for Caitlin Clark, especially with the context that she missed the Team USA practices taking the Iowa Hawkeyes to the Final Four.

[mattg]

I never pay attention to the WNBA, but just on the surface, this seems utterly insane... Could you imagine if they left say, rookie LeBron off the team usa roster?
For a group always whining about equal pay, they're sure doing everything they can to sabotage whatever chance they had at generating the kind of excitement necessary to challenge the popularity of the men...

Meanwhile male stars are taking seasons off if they don't get the respect they think they deserve...

There are no rookies, (or even second, third, or 4th year players) on the women's roster, which was reported by the Athletic.

Clark is not currently as good as the players going in their stead.

The Men's team does often bring a couple of young up and comers to grow in the program. The women's team this year is clearly just trying to bring the best current American players. It's not "utterly insane".

If you say you never pay attention to the WNBA, why have such a strong opinion on this?

And you're 100% missing the forest for the trees. The honest truth is that women's basketball on an international level is not even remotely competitive. It's a non competition for the American team. This idea that they are just trying to bring the best players doesn't make sense whatsoever. Team USA could literally bring their 20th best starting 5 and run every opponent off the court by double digits every game en route to gold. So to decide to strictly bring only the best players is meaningless, it obviously has had ZERO effect on growing women's basketball as no one has ever cared about those players and watching them play, no matter how good they are right now. Bringing the best players has absolutely ZERO effect on wining a medal. And the kicker is that what they are doing is only further feeding the toxic narrative that is polluting the women's game about the jealousy/envy/dislike towards Caitlyn Clark while also missing the biggest chance the WNBA will have to draw major international interest in their game/sport/product simply by having Clark on the team (she wouldn't even have to play significant minutes).

Not putting her on the team is so short sighted and dumb and if it truly is a situation where the established stars said "it's us or her" like it very much seems to be, then Team USA should have called their immature, petty bluff and showed up to Paris with Clark and their junior varsity squad with like the 100th-110th best WNBA players and still won gold in dominant fashion. Like reality bites for some of these women, but that's just the way it is right now. WNBA players before Clark had literally no one watching them play while making basic middle management salaries. There's literally thousands of Realgm posters who are more relevant/important in their regular person job than the vast majority of WNBA players (as in they produce more revenue, are more integral to a business functioning and providing value to society with whatever work they do). Clark's exposure actually could change that for these women and they'd rather not. Misery loves company I guess.

[shrink]

USA Women's basketball has won like 500 gold medals in a row. They don't need or care about her popularity (or shouldn't imo). The team isn't NBC trying to get ratings. They are trying to win gold. Clark is just not at Olympic level yet as a player.

This is a pretty dumb take IMO, so they are dominate but still can't break even after nearly 20 years.... mayyyyyybbbe it's time for the league to worry about entertainment aspect as well, if the NBA didn't give subsidy to this league it would have folded years ago.

Investing in womens basketball is valuable to the long-term ecosystem of the NBA, the idea that the subsidy is a dead-end investment is not accurate. The WNBA is less than thirty years old, it takes time to develop profitability; the indirect value of getting young women across the country invested in playing basketball is massive.

Another reason they should have put Clark on the world stage, right?

[Godymas]

I saw CC in person.

This decision is puzzling. She’s basically the Steph Curry of Michael Jordan’s

[madskillz8]

When did we start picking who makes Team USA roster spots based on popularity? The goal is to win gold which is what the USA women's team has done 7 straight times. Everything else comes second.

This is a such a nonstory. Anyone that's been paying attention to women's basketball knew she wasn't going to be on the team since she didn't go to a single Team USA training camp because she was in the Final Four.

Even then, Caitlin is not one of the 12 best players in the W. The Team USA roster is absolutely loaded. Who should she have gotten in over? I only see an argument against 41 year old Diana Taurasi and she's a legend they were never booting her off the team. But if that argument does nothing for you, then what about Arike Ogunbowale who has a beef over both Taurasi and Clark. She's the league's second leading scoring (26/5/4) averaging 10 more ppg than both of them and she's not going either.

The CC fanboys gotta relax, there is no "racist conspiracy" or whatever, it's just not Caitlin's time yet.

TBH, I don't think we have a single CC fanboy here. The thing is many NBA fans just started to watch some WNBA games, or highlights because of her popularity, and it is huge win not just WNBA, but women basketball in general. Maybe millions of girls started to watch college games, WNBA games because of her. Her road games were sold out in college, most of the audience were watching games for the first time. Believe me, they will continue going to games to support their local teams.

We all fell in love with basketball because of similar stories. I am a Sacramento Kings from the other side of the world, just because back in time my countryman Hedo Turkoglu was drafted by the Kings, and TVs started to air his games. That's how I met with the best of NBA basketball, watching "the greatest show on court". These millions of girls who just started to watch games with CC will make it more popular over time.

It seems like CC gives a once in lifetime opportunity to women's basketball (which is nowhere close to men's basketball in terms of fun to watch IMHO) for being relevant and profitable - and for some reason WNBA players are against to capitalize that if it comes with CC in the spotlights.

And for some reason you are ignoring this impact, and bringing top 12 argument as if Team USA were all about top 12 players. I understand she's not top 12 yet, and also it is very reasonable to not to select her to team USA for basketball reasons. But you have a young woman with a magical stick who can change the fate of woman's basketball for good. And people are mainly criticizing that missed opportunity for a team who already dominates tournaments with our without CC...

[shrink]

I can't believe how annoying it's been in year 1 to have this strange segment of fans who know nothing about the WNBA and are following it through the myopic lens of a single college star.

While there has been no official news on the team USA roster, the expected roster is made up entirely of elite veterans. The youngest players on the proposed roster are Jackie Young and Sabrina Ionescu (both 26 and in their 6th and 5th years in the league, respectively).

We're talking a team made of only WNBA all-stars and no young players. Caitlin Clark is not a good WNBA player yet. She's incredibly promising but she's having a tough time as a high-usage, net negative, playing for a very young team.

Is it annoying to listen to people who know nothing about the Olympics? Or would that be condescending?

The fact that there aren’t other younger players on the team is not a plus, and is something both the men and women’s team have actively tried to avoid. Were you up in arms when Christian Laetner made the Dream Team. In the two previous Olympics, the women’s team had three 24 year olds, and the one before that, they selected a 21 year old. These teams want promising young players in the system, feeling like part of the team so they sign up for the next Olympics, and getting experience for future games. This should be especially true this year, when Team USA is so heavily favored, with or without Clark.

Name the player who should be left off this year for Caitlin Clark, especially with the context that she missed the Team USA practices taking the Iowa Hawkeyes to the Final Four.

In case you weren’t aware, Clark has played for Team USA for years in younger age group competitions. She only missed try outs because she was carrying a mediocre Iowa team to the Final Four, and that success should be rewarded, not be punished. Finally, Team USA already said that missing the try outs was fine, and they would use her first month of WNBA play as the try out.

[Future Coach]

When did we start picking who makes Team USA roster spots based on popularity? The goal is to win gold which is what the USA women's team has done 7 straight times. Everything else comes second.

This is a such a nonstory. Anyone that's been paying attention to women's basketball knew she wasn't going to be on the team since she didn't go to a single Team USA training camp because she was in the Final Four.

Even then, Caitlin is not one of the 12 best players in the W. The Team USA roster is absolutely loaded. Who should she have gotten in over? I only see an argument against 41 year old Diana Taurasi and she's a legend they were never booting her off the team. But if that argument does nothing for you, then what about Arike Ogunbowale who has a beef over both Taurasi and Clark. She's the league's second leading scoring (26/5/4) averaging 10 more ppg than both of them and she's not going either.

The CC fanboys gotta relax, there is no "racist conspiracy" or whatever, it's just not Caitlin's time yet.

This sounds about right.

I'm confident Caitlin Clark will have her opportunity to earn a spot in the future. Even if it just becomes a celebration of Taurasi's career of greatness, I'm in favor of that.

[Fencer reregistered]

Are people suggesting that Clark should:

A. Be on the team at the end of the bench?
B. Actually play significant minutes?

In either case -- why?

[Domejandro]

When did we start picking who makes Team USA roster spots based on popularity? The goal is to win gold which is what the USA women's team has done 7 straight times. Everything else comes second.

This is a such a nonstory. Anyone that's been paying attention to women's basketball knew she wasn't going to be on the team since she didn't go to a single Team USA training camp because she was in the Final Four.

Even then, Caitlin is not one of the 12 best players in the W. The Team USA roster is absolutely loaded. Who should she have gotten in over? I only see an argument against 41 year old Diana Taurasi and she's a legend they were never booting her off the team. But if that argument does nothing for you, then what about Arike Ogunbowale who has a beef over both Taurasi and Clark. She's the league's second leading scoring (26/5/4) averaging 10 more ppg than both of them and she's not going either.

The CC fanboys gotta relax, there is no "racist conspiracy" or whatever, it's just not Caitlin's time yet.

I think the Taurasi spot is pretty egregious. No need for her to hog a spot that should go to a younger player.

That said, you're right. There's others more deserving than her. I think Ogunbowale will play for Nigeria but that's an obvious one. Rhyne Howard, Alisha Gray, Ariel Atkins are deserving too.

But Clark is in that group as well. I think she should've been selected based on her college accomplishments, her shotmaking ability, and obviously the name recognition and how she's dealt with her fame.

Not a super big deal but I can understand how it looks a little silly.

Beyond being a WNBA legend and staple of Team USA for two decades, Diana Taurasi is an incredibly stable presence who largely doesn't make mistakes on the court. I like Caitlin Clark a ton, but she is pretty streaky, is suspect defensively, and is a turnover machine. I would love for her to have a spot on the team to develop, but if you are trying to win on the international stage, Taurasi is a far safer pick.

Team USA isn't an automatic lock to win. During the 2020 Japan Olympics, these were their margins of victory:
Group B:
Nigeria: +9
Japan: +17
France: +11
Knockout Stage:
Australia: +24
Serbia: +20
Japan: +15

Is it likely that the United States will lose? Not particuarly. That said, 2020 results were far closer than 2016, and the rest of the world is slowly starting to catch up in talent. Dumping a highly reliable player who could provide a very stable 10-15 minutes in the 2024 Olympics for a rookie who didn't make the Team USA practices this year is questionable.

[Tor_Raps]

USA Women's basketball has won like 500 gold medals in a row. They don't need or care about her popularity (or shouldn't imo). The team isn't NBC trying to get ratings. They are trying to win gold. Clark is just not at Olympic level yet as a player.

This is a pretty dumb take IMO, so they are dominate but still can't break even after nearly 20 years.... mayyyyyybbbe it's time for the league to worry about entertainment aspect as well, if the NBA didn't give subsidy to this league it would have folded years ago.

Investing in womens basketball is valuable to the long-term ecosystem of the NBA, the idea that the subsidy is a dead-end investment is not accurate. The WNBA is less than thirty years old, it takes time to develop profitability; the indirect value of getting young women across the country invested in playing basketball is massive.

How many businesses in life are able to run for 30 years off negative profits? Lol

[dockingsched]

The arguments I’ve seen for why Clark was left off the roster don’t line up with why Taurasi made it ahead of her. Clark should be in instead of Taurasi.