dhsilv2 wrote:There are a staggering number of people who truly don't believe men and woman are meaningfully different physically.
You keep saying things like this but it's based on nothing...except possibly your imagination.
Outside this topic, it's just dangerous that we are teaching women they can be as strong as men.
Just where are we teaching this? Maybe you can give an example.
At the end of the day, it's going to be mostly anecdotal.
Transferring your few anecdotal perceptions (though it may seem like a lot to you) to "millions of her fans" and "a staggering number of people" is not a convincing argument.
Texas Chuck wrote:Wild to me still how threatened some men are by any successful woman. And how vital it is for them personally that everyone understand a woman can't compete physically against the best male athletes in the world. Nobody is arguing she can.
JayMKE wrote: How would be taking $5M to play 10 games with Big3 over the summer hurt her “branding” and endanger her career endorsement dollars? Do not speak hypothetically about other people’s perceptions, that’s where the accusation of concern trolling comes from, are you personally going to hold it against her? Like put your money where your mouth is and say what you really think. It doesn’t make any logical sense how it would hurt her branding with anyone that would give female athletes the time of day, do you honestly believe there are people out there that would only watch her is sticks in her lane only? You got your own narrative about how we’re not teaching boys & girls right or whatever, I think its a you issue not Nike so stop hiding behind that.
She can do Big3 and secure the bag after 10 games while putting more eyes on her & women’s basketball than ever before. Don’t be “afraid” to watch ballers play, were you nervous for Sabrina Ionescu? Was her competing against Steph Curry bad? It looked like tremendous success to me, most entertaining part of AS weekend.
My opinion isn't important. Nike's is. Do you not think it would look bad if she's humiliated in the big 3? Again doesn't matter to me, but I don't think that's the image Nike wants. I'm sure she'll make the call based on what is best for her, not what we think. But I'm going to guess the risk of injury + hurting her brand will likely send her to the WNBA.
Unless I missed the part where you're an official representative of Nike you're expressing your own opinion, c'mon man. Nike isn't going punish Clark because she has the courage to play against men in 10 exhibition games, if anything they'd celebrate her as the epitome of the "Just do it" ethos.
I'm of course offering an opinion. It's however informed by knowing a few things.
Maybe Nike wants one of their important athletes to risk injury and embarrassment in the big 3. I doubt it. But yes that's an opinion. But having watched the big 3, she'd almost assuredly have to deal with a 220 pound guy posting her up and that's gonna look terrible. These guys aren't out there using body control. You got Charles Oakley types doing dirty plays in those games.
BTW - no way Nike doesn't send an army to physically stop Jordan if he wants to play in the Big 3 too.
dhsilv2 wrote:I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but people need to just accept that men and women are physically too far apart to compete in sports outside of a few really rare exceptions (like those 100+ mile marathons). But because so many people just seemingly refuse to accept it, spelling it out on the court would just be bad for the women's game and marketing of it.
I'm old enough to remember the exact same arguments being used when Billie Jean King played Bobby Riggs in the most famous "battle of the sexes" ever. 50 million people in the US watched, and 90 million worldwide. Riggs, a former #1 in the world, was no slouch even at 55 years old, having beaten Margaret Court a few months earlier. Most people said King wouldn't have a chance, but her win put women's tennis on the map.
You never know what will happen. She should play, not just for the money though she shouldn't play without it. A big boost for the women's game if she does well, and, since most don't expect her to even compete, little downside if she doesn't. The idea she'll "ruin her brand" is just nonsense.
If this offer was anything other than a publicity stunt, then why hasn't the Big 3 offered even more money to a WNBA player in her prime to join the league?
But this is no longer the 1970's ... we don't need a circus, or a hustler/showman to put on the next "Battle of the Sexes". Any woman who wants to prove she can hang with men at any level, just has to go out and do it, put it up on YouTube, and get paid in watches.
JonFromVA wrote: Any woman who wants to prove she can hang with men at any level, just has to go out and do it, put it up on YouTube, and get paid in watches.
Maybe she wouldn't be doing it to prove anything, but because she wants $5M. You can't put watches in the bank.
If from a business decision - yeah, take the money. If WNBA and Big3 can agree to let Clark miss X games for Big3 appearances, [or DNP-Personal Reasons?], and travel to-and-from Big3 locations to then play WNBA games, it can work. [If drafted by Indiana at No. 1, she will have to target only two games that occur on the SAME day July 14th at Minnesota Lynx and August 18th vs Seattle]
Almost every weekend though... Friday nights she would be flying to Big3 match, then flying back to WNBA squad Sat night.
JonFromVA wrote: Any woman who wants to prove she can hang with men at any level, just has to go out and do it, put it up on YouTube, and get paid in watches.
Maybe she wouldn't be doing it to prove anything, but because she wants $5M. You can't put watches in the bank.
I don't think he means a wrist watch. But views = money on youtube. Given her fame right now, she could certainly do something like that and make millions.
As I mentioned in another post, her endorsement window is smaller than many people assume. I can't see that many people following the Indiana Fever for that long after she joins unless they immediately become champion contenders. She's the first female athlete in history being actively told by people to turn down a guaranteed 5 million. 99.9% of WNBA players would pray for an offer like that to fall on their lap.
The majority of the world basically understands the differences between men and women. So even if a few million in the US foolishly believe otherwise, I'm of the mind that they can't be helped.
On the flip side, I want to see Clark in the Big 3 just for the entertainment reasons. Its a gimmick league. She's also getting paid way more than what she can earn elsewhere which is great for her. Now if you put her in actual established men's basketball teams, than yeah, no. I wouldn't care how much she earns. That is doing a diservice to her and women in general and making a mockery of mens basketball.
THANK YOU
who cares, people want to get out their measuring tape and analyze **** so they don't feel sad. IT'S A GAME. I want to see how an amazing shooter with limited physical skills does against an overwhelming physical opponent? Why? BECAUSE I LIKE BASKETBALL.
JayMKE wrote:Its borderline concern trolling to want her to stay in her lane, the WNBA pays hardly nothing and is a much smaller stage than women’s college basketball. WNBA players made more money in Russia than they did the WNBA, you guys are nuts arguing about how well $75K is decent money for a 20 year old. Such a weird ass take from people who probably fancy themselves as “pro-player” when it comes to men, Caitlin is supposed to sacrifice her earning potential to “uplift” the the entire WNBA while not making enough base pay to buy to buy a house in 2024. People “concerned” about her getting crushed against men probably aren’t going to watch the WNBA either.
75k is great money for a 20 year old.
Caitlin Clark however is making 4 million a year in endorsements right now (as multiple people have pointed out and sourced)! All anyone has said as this they don't want her to impact her branding as 4 million a year in endorsements isn't going away, while that big 3 money likely would. Would you rather make 4 million a year for 10 years or 5 million now and potentially reduce that 4 going forward?
How would be taking $5M to play 10 games with Big3 over the summer hurt her “branding” and endanger her career endorsement dollars? Do not speak hypothetically about other people’s perceptions, that’s where the accusation of concern trolling comes from, are you personally going to hold it against her? Like put your money where your mouth is and say what you really think. It doesn’t make any logical sense how it would hurt her branding with anyone that would give female athletes the time of day, do you honestly believe there are people out there that would only watch her is sticks in her lane only? You got your own narrative about how we’re not teaching boys & girls right or whatever, I think its a you issue not Nike so stop hiding behind that.
She can do Big3 and secure the bag after 10 games while putting more eyes on her & women’s basketball than ever before. Don’t be “afraid” to watch ballers play, were you nervous for Sabrina Ionescu? Was her competing against Steph Curry bad? It looked like tremendous success to me, most entertaining part of AS weekend.
The Sabrina event was impressive but there's a difference between just shooting and playing against men. I think she should take the $5m unless Nike or other sponsors coach her out of it/make up for it in her contract with them. I think there is a legitimate concern she goes to the Big 3 and loses a lot of marketability. I just looked up one big 3 roster and it had Gerald Green, Corey Brewer and some guy named Garlon Green. All 3 are 6'7" to 6'9" wings...The biggest player on the colorado roster in that game was 6'3" and had no where near the athleticism and arm length of those guys. Like if she came in and averaged like 5 points a game while get swatter by washed ex-NBAers, there is definitely a brand-risk. I still think it is worth the $5m, but at the end of the day I think it is a gimmick by Ice Cube to get free publicity knowing her reps will make her turn it down.
MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:The Sabrina event was impressive but there's a difference between just shooting and playing against men. I think she should take the $5m unless Nike or other sponsors coach her out of it/make up for it in her contract with them. I think there is a legitimate concern she goes to the Big 3 and loses a lot of marketability. I just looked up one big 3 roster and it had Gerald Green, Corey Brewer and some guy named Garlon Green. All 3 are 6'7" to 6'9" wings...The biggest player on the colorado roster in that game was 6'3" and had no where near the athleticism and arm length of those guys. Like if she came in and averaged like 5 points a game while get swatter by washed ex-NBAers, there is definitely a brand-risk. I still think it is worth the $5m, but at the end of the day I think it is a gimmick by Ice Cube to get free publicity knowing her reps will make her turn it down.
Yeah people need to remember that even in a "retirement league" like the Big 3, you still have really big guys who are way more athletic and skilled than your average pickup baller.
You shouldn't be putting a 6', 155 lb woman against somebody like Gerald Green. Even a retired from the NBA and in his late 30s Gerald Green. It's 2 different leagues of athleticism and physicality.
Brian Geltzeiler: You see Mark Jackson getting a head coaching job as early as next year?
Adrian Wojnarowski: Not if people make calls on him. Not if an organization is doing their homework and knows all the things he brings with him.
As I mentioned in another post, her endorsement window is smaller than many people assume. I can't see that many people following the Indiana Fever for that long after she joins unless they immediately become champion contenders. She's the first female athlete in history being actively told by people to turn down a guaranteed 5 million. 99.9% of WNBA players would pray for an offer like that to fall on their lap.
The majority of the world basically understands the differences between men and women. So even if a few million in the US foolishly believe otherwise, I'm of the mind that they can't be helped.
On the flip side, I want to see Clark in the Big 3 just for the entertainment reasons. Its a gimmick league. She's also getting paid way more than what she can earn elsewhere which is great for her. Now if you put her in actual established men's basketball teams, than yeah, no. I wouldn't care how much she earns. That is doing a diservice to her and women in general and making a mockery of mens basketball.
THANK YOU
who cares, people want to get out their measuring tape and analyze **** so they don't feel sad. IT'S A GAME. I want to see how an amazing shooter with limited physical skills does against an overwhelming physical opponent? Why? BECAUSE I LIKE BASKETBALL.
You can see this night in and night out from the g-league and the NBA in a ridiculous number of combination of attributes, but fact is the woman have something to lose here and they're trying to protect it. They don't want their product, their league, their career, etc, to be judged against men, but on it's own merits.
When it's time for the barriers to be broken, it won't be any sort of a secret.
dhsilv2 wrote: 75k is great money for a 20 year old.
Caitlin Clark however is making 4 million a year in endorsements right now (as multiple people have pointed out and sourced)! All anyone has said as this they don't want her to impact her branding as 4 million a year in endorsements isn't going away, while that big 3 money likely would. Would you rather make 4 million a year for 10 years or 5 million now and potentially reduce that 4 going forward?
How would be taking $5M to play 10 games with Big3 over the summer hurt her “branding” and endanger her career endorsement dollars? Do not speak hypothetically about other people’s perceptions, that’s where the accusation of concern trolling comes from, are you personally going to hold it against her? Like put your money where your mouth is and say what you really think. It doesn’t make any logical sense how it would hurt her branding with anyone that would give female athletes the time of day, do you honestly believe there are people out there that would only watch her is sticks in her lane only? You got your own narrative about how we’re not teaching boys & girls right or whatever, I think its a you issue not Nike so stop hiding behind that.
She can do Big3 and secure the bag after 10 games while putting more eyes on her & women’s basketball than ever before. Don’t be “afraid” to watch ballers play, were you nervous for Sabrina Ionescu? Was her competing against Steph Curry bad? It looked like tremendous success to me, most entertaining part of AS weekend.
The Sabrina event was impressive but there's a difference between just shooting and playing against men. I think she should take the $5m unless Nike or other sponsors coach her out of it/make up for it in her contract with them. I think there is a legitimate concern she goes to the Big 3 and loses a lot of marketability. I just looked up one big 3 roster and it had Gerald Green, Corey Brewer and some guy named Garlon Green. All 3 are 6'7" to 6'9" wings...The biggest player on the colorado roster in that game was 6'3" and had no where near the athleticism and arm length of those guys. Like if she came in and averaged like 5 points a game while get swatter by washed ex-NBAers, there is definitely a brand-risk. I still think it is worth the $5m, but at the end of the day I think it is a gimmick by Ice Cube to get free publicity knowing her reps will make her turn it down.
I don't think anybody expects her to be checking 6'9" guys, there's no way that Ice Cube & Nancy Lieberman(who actually played for the Lakers in the Summer League btw) want to humiliate her either. The WNBA needs to up its game and start paying its athletes, I think this would go a long way in securing a lot more than just a paycheck for herself.
We all get that men & women are different physically obviously, that's the whole point why it would be so exciting putting herself at such a handicap. Nothing but respect from me, I think it would be a big moment that would be celebrated across the sports world.
MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:The Sabrina event was impressive but there's a difference between just shooting and playing against men. I think she should take the $5m unless Nike or other sponsors coach her out of it/make up for it in her contract with them. I think there is a legitimate concern she goes to the Big 3 and loses a lot of marketability. I just looked up one big 3 roster and it had Gerald Green, Corey Brewer and some guy named Garlon Green. All 3 are 6'7" to 6'9" wings...The biggest player on the colorado roster in that game was 6'3" and had no where near the athleticism and arm length of those guys. Like if she came in and averaged like 5 points a game while get swatter by washed ex-NBAers, there is definitely a brand-risk. I still think it is worth the $5m, but at the end of the day I think it is a gimmick by Ice Cube to get free publicity knowing her reps will make her turn it down.
I don't think anybody expects her to be checking 6'9" guys, there's no way that Ice Cube & Nancy Lieberman(who actually played for the Lakers in the Summer League btw) want to humiliate her either. The WNBA needs to up its game and start paying its athletes, I think this would go a long way in securing a lot more than just a paycheck for herself.
We all get that men & women are different physically obviously, that's the whole point why it would be so exciting putting herself at such a handicap. Nothing but respect from me, I think it would be a big moment that would be celebrated across the sports world.
I guess what are you suggesting? It's 3 on 3 and the first team i saw had 3 guys all in that range. I don't know how you put her in a spot to thrive unless you implement some rules to get her open looks.
As for the WNBA paying more, it only works if the WNBA actually makes money and they need people like CC going there. If she plays 10 games in the Big 3 and sucks, no one is going to watch her in the WNBA. Not saying its going to happen, but a huge risk for both CC and the WNBA/Sponsors.
Optms wrote: The majority of the world basically understands the differences between men and women. So even if a few million in the US foolishly believe otherwise, I'm of the mind that they can't be helped.
On the flip side, I want to see Clark in the Big 3 just for the entertainment reasons. Its a gimmick league. She's also getting paid way more than what she can earn elsewhere which is great for her. Now if you put her in actual established men's basketball teams, than yeah, no. I wouldn't care how much she earns. That is doing a diservice to her and women in general and making a mockery of mens basketball.
THANK YOU
who cares, people want to get out their measuring tape and analyze **** so they don't feel sad. IT'S A GAME. I want to see how an amazing shooter with limited physical skills does against an overwhelming physical opponent? Why? BECAUSE I LIKE BASKETBALL.
You can see this night in and night out from the g-league and the NBA in a ridiculous number of combination of attributes, but fact is the woman have something to lose here and they're trying to protect it. They don't want their product, their league, their career, etc, to be judged against men, but on it's own merits.
When it's time for the barriers to be broken, it won't be any sort of a secret.
Do it now
Stop crying
Men vs women
She can shoot set her a hard screen and stop crying
She can shoot set her a hard screen and stop crying
ya, I agree in the sense that all they have to do is play to her skill set. She has the perfect skill set to do this because she has decent handles, can pass and can shoot off the dribble as well as maybe any woman ever(plus has nba range). Its the perfect time to do something like this. People just overreact and all of that. She'd play in like 10-12 games, probably avg like 6-8 points and its a big win for her and big 3.
MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:The Sabrina event was impressive but there's a difference between just shooting and playing against men. I think she should take the $5m unless Nike or other sponsors coach her out of it/make up for it in her contract with them. I think there is a legitimate concern she goes to the Big 3 and loses a lot of marketability. I just looked up one big 3 roster and it had Gerald Green, Corey Brewer and some guy named Garlon Green. All 3 are 6'7" to 6'9" wings...The biggest player on the colorado roster in that game was 6'3" and had no where near the athleticism and arm length of those guys. Like if she came in and averaged like 5 points a game while get swatter by washed ex-NBAers, there is definitely a brand-risk. I still think it is worth the $5m, but at the end of the day I think it is a gimmick by Ice Cube to get free publicity knowing her reps will make her turn it down.
I don't think anybody expects her to be checking 6'9" guys, there's no way that Ice Cube & Nancy Lieberman(who actually played for the Lakers in the Summer League btw) want to humiliate her either. The WNBA needs to up its game and start paying its athletes, I think this would go a long way in securing a lot more than just a paycheck for herself.
We all get that men & women are different physically obviously, that's the whole point why it would be so exciting putting herself at such a handicap. Nothing but respect from me, I think it would be a big moment that would be celebrated across the sports world.
I guess what are you suggesting? It's 3 on 3 and the first team i saw had 3 guys all in that range. I don't know how you put her in a spot to thrive unless you implement some rules to get her open looks.
As for the WNBA paying more, it only works if the WNBA actually makes money and they need people like CC going there. If she plays 10 games in the Big 3 and sucks, no one is going to watch her in the WNBA. Not saying its going to happen, but a huge risk for both CC and the WNBA/Sponsors.
I wouldn't expect her to dominate to ex NBA players, just competing is impressive to me and I think people would love to see it.
I don't get this logic, so you'd watch her in the WNBA now but if she struggles against male pros as you expect she's somehow lesser than she was before? I've been a season ticket holder to the WNBA believe it or not and I can guarantee you that's not the attitude of the fans who attend the games as far as I ever saw. I can't imagine the same people would give the WNBA to the time of day if they're so judgemental that 10 games with ex NBA players would ruin her brand, it gains more fans than small minds it loses IMO plus its more than she'll make from the WNBA in her career if all things stay the same.
dhsilv2 wrote:I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but people need to just accept that men and women are physically too far apart to compete in sports outside of a few really rare exceptions (like those 100+ mile marathons). But because so many people just seemingly refuse to accept it, spelling it out on the court would just be bad for the women's game and marketing of it.
I'm old enough to remember the exact same arguments being used when Billie Jean King played Bobby Riggs in the most famous "battle of the sexes" ever. 50 million people in the US watched, and 90 million worldwide. Riggs, a former #1 in the world, was no slouch even at 55 years old, having beaten Margaret Court a few months earlier. Most people said King wouldn't have a chance, but her win put women's tennis on the map.
You never know what will happen. She should play, not just for the money though she shouldn't play without it. A big boost for the women's game if she does well, and, since most don't expect her to even compete, little downside if she doesn't. The idea she'll "ruin her brand" is just nonsense.
If this offer was anything other than a publicity stunt, then why hasn't the Big 3 offered even more money to a WNBA player in her prime to join the league?
But this is no longer the 1970's ... we don't need a circus, or a hustler/showman to put on the next "Battle of the Sexes". Any woman who wants to prove she can hang with men at any level, just has to go out and do it, put it up on YouTube, and get paid in watches.
The offer probably is just a publicity stunt but obviously there’s no player currently in the wnba that has the marketing potential as Clark does right now.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -Martin Luther King Jr
Clav wrote:If from a business decision - yeah, take the money. If WNBA and Big3 can agree to let Clark miss X games for Big3 appearances, [or DNP-Personal Reasons?], and travel to-and-from Big3 locations to then play WNBA games, it can work. [If drafted by Indiana at No. 1, she will have to target only two games that occur on the SAME day July 14th at Minnesota Lynx and August 18th vs Seattle]
Almost every weekend though... Friday nights she would be flying to Big3 match, then flying back to WNBA squad Sat night.
I see what you're saying, but do you think it's a good business decision if she doesn't play well in the Big3? That could end up hurting her business wise. I think the lore of her is part of why she is so marketable. The TALK about how she could be against men is probably more effective than her actually playing against them. If she ends up getting cooked against men in the Big3, it could have a negative effect on her
Clav wrote:If from a business decision - yeah, take the money. If WNBA and Big3 can agree to let Clark miss X games for Big3 appearances, [or DNP-Personal Reasons?], and travel to-and-from Big3 locations to then play WNBA games, it can work. [If drafted by Indiana at No. 1, she will have to target only two games that occur on the SAME day July 14th at Minnesota Lynx and August 18th vs Seattle]
Almost every weekend though... Friday nights she would be flying to Big3 match, then flying back to WNBA squad Sat night.
I see what you're saying, but do you think it's a good business decision if she doesn't play well in the Big3? That could end up hurting her business wise. I think the lore of her is part of why she is so marketable. The TALK about how she could be against men is probably more effective than her actually playing against them. If she ends up getting cooked against men in the Big3, it could have a negative effect on her
I think some posters on here have a view of Clark and how she relates to previous female players that is skewered waaaaaaaay far from reality. You guys are acting like she's going to be this huge star outside of the wnba just because espn hyped her a lot in the last year but we have seen this happen many, many times over in the last 10-20 years. Nothing she does playing against men is going to alter the career she will have in the wnba if/when she goes there in terms of ad money or w/e. The truth is that her career is going to follow the same path that every other woman did that got hype every few years going back to Sue Bird, Sheryl Swoopes, etc. She'll be making 250k a year there and maybe another million in endorsements and that's that. Playing against men won't only get her another $5m but it will just raise the amount of awareness of her skill level which would only help both her and the wnba. A woman who played in the front court wouldn't work in the big 3 because that's the wrong skill set to go against ex nba players with. She has the perfect skill set to make it work.
Clav wrote:If from a business decision - yeah, take the money. If WNBA and Big3 can agree to let Clark miss X games for Big3 appearances, [or DNP-Personal Reasons?], and travel to-and-from Big3 locations to then play WNBA games, it can work. [If drafted by Indiana at No. 1, she will have to target only two games that occur on the SAME day July 14th at Minnesota Lynx and August 18th vs Seattle]
Almost every weekend though... Friday nights she would be flying to Big3 match, then flying back to WNBA squad Sat night.
I see what you're saying, but do you think it's a good business decision if she doesn't play well in the Big3? That could end up hurting her business wise. I think the lore of her is part of why she is so marketable. The TALK about how she could be against men is probably more effective than her actually playing against them. If she ends up getting cooked against men in the Big3, it could have a negative effect on her
I think some posters on here have a view of Clark and how she relates to previous female players that is skewered waaaaaaaay far from reality. You guys are acting like she's going to be this huge star outside of the wnba just because espn hyped her a lot in the last year but we have seen this happen many, many times over in the last 10-20 years. Nothing she does playing against men is going to alter the career she will have in the wnba if/when she goes there in terms of ad money or w/e. The truth is that her career is going to follow the same path that every other woman did that got hype every few years going back to Sue Bird, Sheryl Swoopes, etc. She'll be making 250k a year there and maybe another million in endorsements and that's that. Playing against men won't only get her another $5m but it will just raise the amount of awareness of her skill level which would only help both her and the wnba. A woman who played in the front court wouldn't work in the big 3 because that's the wrong skill set to go against ex nba players with. She has the perfect skill set to make it work.
So that's my whole point. What if it doesn't? What if she doesn't look very good? I think that does more harm than good for the WNBA. We already have enough arguments on here about women playing against men and how they wouldn't survive.
I have no opinions on how good she is, if she would be good against men, anything like that. I'm just wondering if she doesn't look good against men how it could effect her future. If it wouldn't effect anything for her, she would have already accepted it... no? Where is the loss in this for her if that isn't be taken into consideration? Sounds like a win win for me if you're right
