How to shoot yourself in the foot – the WNBA and USA Basketball give a case study on how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

I have been paying some passing attention to the WNBA recently due to the emergence of their new superstar Caitlin Clark. The former University of Iowa star busted every collegiate scoring record not only for women but men as well. Over 138 games Clark put up 3,951 points which averages out to 28.4 points per game (it is important to note, “Pistol” Pete Maravich holds the men’s NCAA scoring record for most points. While he did score almost 300 fewer points than Clark did in college he did so in 55 fewer games. His per game average of 44.2 will likely never be surpassed).

After lighting up the competition in college, Clark has emerged on the scene in the WNBA as a true star. She is top-15 in scoring, averaging 16.8 PPG and is fourth in assists with 6.3 per game. The Indiana Fever guard is near the top of every category among rookies and leads in both scoring and assists.

The hype around the arrival of Caitlin Clark was measurable by the fact the WNBA Draft drew 2.446 million viewers on ESPN making it the most-watched draft in the history of the league. The attention continued as Clark’s debut in the WNBA drew over 2 million viewers making it the largest audience to watch a WNBA game in 23 years and the largest cable broadcast of a WNBA game ever!

Clark’s arrival has led to greater television and live audiences which has meant more revenue for a league that has consistently been in the red since it was founded in 1996. A league which many of us sports fans had dubbed the “friends and family” league because that was essentially the audience, has suddenly become relevant, largely due to Clark.

So what has been the reaction to this possible savior – a player who has put the WNBA in the discussion on sports shows, has created social media buzz and has helped the league recognize a once seemingly impossible goal of being financially self-sufficient? In a word, that reaction can politely be described as… puzzling.

Here are some of the inexplicable events surrounding the Caitlin Clark debate and my take on each.

The Caitlin Clark rules

Nobody is saying that any star player in any league should be treated with so-called kid gloves. However, if you are speaking of a possible generational talent who could lead a financially stagnant league out of the wilderness, maybe the league should be sending a message to players who believe that taking liberties with Clark is all part of the game.

You see, one could make the case that in the NBA or NFL or NHL that giving a rookie star player a rough ride is OK because those leagues are “established” and their teams are profitable. However, when the WNBA has been thrown a life-line in the form of a sharp-shooting guard, maybe, just maybe, you take some reasonable measures to protect that lifeline.

The league and even the on-court officials seem to be unaware of the importance that Clark and her health play into the success of the WNBA. This isn’t the 1989 Chicago Bulls’ Michael Jordan in a thriving NBA. The GOAT was literally assaulted on the court in an effort to slow him down. That said, Jordan wasn’t the savior, he was a continuation of the foundation laid over the years, most recently in the 1980s by Magic Johnson and Larry Bird.

Most of this star (mis)treatment of his Airness, which came to be known as the “Jordan Rules”, occurred during play. This was not the case in a game involving Caitlin Clark on June 1 when she was fouled when the ball was not even in play. A hard off-the-ball foul by Chicago Sky guard Chennedy Carter on an inbounds pass inexplicably did not even initially warrant anything more than a common foul (it was upgraded after the game to a flagrant one foul).

There are many takeaways from the incident. The most important of those is that the league believes it is totally OK for opponents of Clark to operate outside the rules when they wish to “send a message” to the rookie phenom.

There are some other puzzling takeaways. First, there are the comments of Adam Silver, Commissioner of the NBA. You would think that the head of the league that has been financially propping up the WNBA for years would want to protect the NBA’s indirect investment. When Silver said in the aftermath of the incident that the foul was a “welcome to the league” moment for Clark and was “nothing new in basketball” I wonder if all the franchise owners in the NBA concurred. While on their face, Silver’s comments may have been correct the commissioner again is not speaking of a league, the WNBA, which has been financially stable. It was poor form by Silver to effectively endorse illegal play which could have led to the injury of the league’s golden ticket.

Another issue I have with what happened to Clark was the response of her teammates. The non-reaction of Clark’s teammates was, in my opinion, stunning. I have played various team sports and there has always been a pack mentality among teammates. When someone goes after your star player there must be a swift and appropriate response by that player’s teammates. The response does two things, it creates a stronger team bond and it draws a proverbial line in the sand. For those who have not played team sports at a competitive level you will not understand this schoolyard justice. When a bully punches you in the nose, you punch them back or they will continue to play the bully. Clark’s teammates clearly missed the memo on this point.

The Mean Girls of the WNBA

“Kudos to all of this women they have really made WNBA interesting…  beside three point shooting what does (Clark) bring to the table man.” Chennedy Carter doubling down on her disdain for Caitlin Clark

The above quote is by no means the only one we have seen from WNBA players in relation to Caitlin Clark. The question is why? What can be the explanation for such vitriol directed toward a player who quite literally is breathing life into what was a stale league? I am searching my memory to remember this type of treatment for another “next one” player in any league and anyone can correct me if I a wrong but I just cannot recall this level of hate for a player.

Most times when a player like current young guns Connor Bedard (NHL); Victor Wembanyama (NBA); Trevor Lawrence (NFL) are being spoken about by veterans n their league it is in a positive manner. The respect is almost tangible. This is not to say that these young stars get a free pass on the playing surface but outside of the game they get the flowers they deserve from opponents.

This is not the case with Clark. Not only is she being abused on the court she is getting abused off it as well. There are multiple theories as to why but I think the possible reasons can be attributed to old fashioned jealousy and at least to some degree, race. Charles Barkley, a veteran of the NBA wars and a current NBA television analyst offered a candid take on the “cattiness” (his word – not mine but for the record I agree with his choice of words) of some WNBA players as it relates to Caitlin Clark.

Barkley focused mostly on the jealousy factor but there are those who have raised the specter of race as what may be behind some of the negative treatment of Clark. You see, Caitlin Clark is a white woman not only competing but exceling in a league dominated by black players. Almost two-thirds of all WNBA players are black. By comparison, just over one out of every ten players are white. Could it be that all the discussion of race over the years has gotten in the heads of some of the black players in the WNBA? I do not know definitively but in support of by belief is Angel Reese and how she has been treated. Reese is another WNBA player drafted this season and one who is putting up impressive numbers but is not receiving the same type of flames on or off the court from other players. By the way Angel Reese is black.

By contrast, the NBA has a number of white stars which the league and their fans embrace – most notably, Luka Doncic and three-time league MVP Nikola Jokic. While there are some NBA analysts such as Kendrick Perkins who have ridiculously brought up race to explain why, for example, Jokic has won multiple MVPs, most players just marvel at the play of Jokic and Doncic. Race doesn’t matter in the NBA. The league lived through the greatness of Larry Bird. The league and their fans understand when they see a “baller”, regardless of that player’s skin colour.

The biggest stage requires its biggest attraction – the Olympic slight

This last point is probably the one which can be filed under “what the hell were they thinking?”. In this case, the “they” is USA Basketball and the “what” is leaving Caitlin Clark off this summer’s Olympic team.

When the USA women’s basketball roster was announced this week it was an opportunity for USA Basketball to cash in on the celebrity of Caitlin Clark. Let’s be clear, it is not as if including Clark would have been controversial from a talent perspective. What it would have been from a purely marketing point-of-view is… smart.

I will never claim to know a great deal about basketball but it does not take a marketing genius to understand that including Clark on the roster for the Paris Games would have been a financial boon for women’s basketball. All of the millions of Caitlin Clark fans would have been hanging on every interview by the star and most importantly watching every minute of every game in which Team USA played (not to mention, buying all those Clark jerseys). People point out that Clark would have likely seen limited minutes, but so what? Her sitting on the bench would have drawn more viewers and sold more merchandise than a team without her as part of the roster.

I see a bit of a parallel with another young superstar in another sport. Back in 1991 hockey fans were salivating at the chance to watch an 18-year-old Eric Lindros compete on the international stage. Hockey Canada seized on that wave of interest and named Lindros to their 1991 Canada Cup roster. Recognize that Lindros who was a runaway number one draft pick at the NHL Draft in June of the same year had not played a single NHL game and you can see the comparisons. The difference is that Hockey Canada put aside all the cliches of saying Lindros had to “pay his dues” or leaning on tired assertions that he would “be a distraction to the team” and simply gave the fans what they wanted – the best young star since Mario Lemieux was drafted in 1984 playing on the stage with the best players in the world.

The decision by USA Basketball to leave Caitlin Clark off their Olympic roster guarantees one person for sure (and I am certain many others)- the author of this piece, will not be tuning in to watch even a single minute of women’s basketball at the Olympics.

One Dad With a Blog

The oppression Olympics – follow the money

Intersectionality has become a woke mantra for the oppression Olympics

As a society we cannot look anywhere without someone or some group claiming some type of victimization. Words like “marginalized”, “oppressor” and “racialized” have become part of the verbal tool-kit of the race and gender hustlers who, make no mistake, aim to profit from weaving, at best an exaggerated story and at worse a largely fabricated narrative.

There are far too many examples of this disingenuous story-telling on which to shine a light so I will just select three to examine. Buckle up, this may get bumpy.

FREE -FREE PALESTINE! (from Hamas?)

Ever since the October 7 attack by a group of Hamas-led terrorists I have had a desire to take in information from both sides to create an informed opinion. Forming an opinion is quite easy. You seek out a diversity of opinions on a subject and determine the credibility of not only the material but the source. What I have found on one side is a subset of that dogmatic toolkit of words I mentioned in the opening.

Me and my friends often played drinking games (shh, don’t tell my kids) where we would be forced to take a drink every time we heard a word. I do not suggest you do any version of this game with the words “genocide” or “occupier” or “settler colonialism” or “apartheid state” as the triggers to take a drink when you watch any interview featuring a pro-Hamas… oops, I mean pro-Palestinian speaker. I promise, should you play this drinking game, you will be face first on the floor after a few sentences from the person speaking in support of the Palestinians.

Don’t get me wrong, I do have sympathy for the innocent Palestinians caught in the literal cross-fire of the current conflict between Hamas and Israel (note, I do take issue with the portrayal by the media and politicians of women and children as “innocents”. The assumption from this is that NO women and NO children have/are participating in terrorist activities. That is just patently not true and is designed to play on the emotions of the public.). However, unlike the group of students at Harvard who signed a letter, before the bodies of Israelis (many of whom were civilians) slaughtered on October 7 had even been counted, laying FULL responsibility on Israel – I have critical thought on my side. Turning Israel into the demon in the October 7 massacre, while seemingly justifying the actions of the attackers is in a word… absurd. There is absolutely no justification for the barbarism that occurred on October 7 in Israel. Full stop.

Further to the discussion of the oppression of the Palestinian people in Gaza, who really is oppressing them? Since 2005 when the Israeli government unilaterally exited from Gaza the real oppression of the citizens of that tiny strip of land truly began. You see, Hamas who were elected to govern Gaza in a free election in 2006 have done nothing to improve the life of Gazans. Unless you believe that somehow building a network of terror tunnels beneath Gaza or launching rockets into Israel somehow has improved the life of the average person living in Gaza.

Hamas, which ironically was founded not as a  radical Islamic terrorist group but as a humanitarian aid organization, has done nothing but make life unbearable for the people who put them in power. International aid and support poured into the region after 2006 and most of that has been used not to build infrastructure to support the possibility and hope of a new Palestinian state but rather to fund a truly genocidal goal – the eradication of Israel.

There has been much discussion of Israel’s “blockade” (take a drink) of Gaza by those on the pro-Palestinian side, especially but not exclusively on university campuses. Do some of these useful idiots who masquerade as intelligent students not realize that prior to October 7 thousands of Gazans travelled freely to Israel for work? Do they also not know that one of the border entry points into Gaza, the one at the southern city of Rafah, is controlled by Egypt and NOT Israel? Have none of these people heard of Google?

The leaders of Hamas have profited immensely from the oppression narrative. Many of these individuals are not in the devastated Gaza strip wondering when the fighting will stop but rather they are living in the lap of luxury in Qatar. Remember, follow the money.

I do believe that Palestinians living in Gaza have been oppressed. The question is who is the oppressor? For me (and many rational people) the answer is obvious… Hamas.

D.E.I. (Division – Exclusion – Indoctrination)

OK, I cannot take credit for coming up with the acronym above but it sure does accurately capture the true meaning of the DEI movement that has swept through our society. Nowhere is DEI actually about “diversity”, nor “equity” nor “inclusion”- no matter what the claims in support of this belief from the race hustlers.

What is “diversity”? To the aforementioned race hustlers of the world diversity can be judged by one shallow characteristic – skin colour. OK, yes disabled or LGBT (I refuse to add the rest of the alphabet to the acronym. Consider it my silent hetero protest against the identity politics madness) are also included as a nod to how they have allegedly been oppressed. Now, if you are a trans/disabled/black woman you are at the top of the oppression spectrum known by progressives as intersectionality and thus are coveted by employers, politicians, media and advertisers.

Here is the problem. None of these traits which make up each person operate in a vacuum. Would Lebron James’ or Barack Obama’s family be more disadvantaged than a poor white family from Appalachia? Would the gay black woman who grew up in an upper middle class family in the Forest Hill  area of Toronto be more oppressed than a poor white straight man living in Winnipeg? According to the logic of the race hustlers the answer is a resounding… yes.

The idea that we cannot look beyond immutable characteristics of individuals such as race and sex to help form a real understanding of how that person is or is not oppressed, seems counter-intuitive. Some of the poorest municipalities in the United States are majority white areas. Also, academics such as Thomas Sowell have pointed out that married black couples have far greater household income on average than single parent white households. These two facts support the truth that disadvantage is not necessarily connected to the colour of a person’s skin. Cultural factors such as an absence of fathers in the household or a generational reliance on welfare are just two factors which should be part of the discussion.

The dogmatic doctrine of DEI has led to companies making it a central factor in hiring. Many employees are required to participate in “anti-racism” training (brainwashing?) which at the core is designed to identify the oppressed class and the oppressor class. Simply put, if you are a white straight male you are by default, a member of the latter group. Those in the group need to “recognize their whiteness” and “check their privilege”.

The so-called oppressed group has been told that they are victims. Everything is always about race. According to leading anti-racism academics like Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo racism is in the air we breathe and the water we drink. Absolutely everything that happens in our society can be traced back to race. Any rational person can see how divisive this ideology can be. Labelling anyone as part of the privileged or disadvantaged group before knowing their stories, which have played a part in shaping their lives, removes any nuance to the debate.

Behind this movement is the almighty dollar. I have pointed out before how many billions of dollars are now dedicated to DEI initiatives. Companies have added entire departments dedicated to promoting this divisive doctrine. Post-secondary institutions now have disciplines and departments fully dedicated to pushing this agenda. Courses like Gender Analytics: Gender Equity through Inclusive Design or Human-Centred Design for Inclusive Design offered at the University of Toronto are just some of the now common cult-like DEI offerings at so-called institutions of higher learning.

There is some hope that the identity politics which has taken hold is being challenged and the pendulum will swing back to a place of sanity. Chris Rufo, a conservative pundit, has coined another acronym – EMC (Equality: Merit: Colour-blindness) which is beginning to receive widespread support. This is the concept that these three pillars should be the over-arching consideration for companies and universities when the hire/promote/admit individuals. What a novel concept – the most qualified candidates will get the job/promotion/spot in a program REGARDLESS of their group identity – equality instead of equity.

The US Supreme Court also cast a vote for the EMC side of the debate by striking down the common use of affirmative action admissions at post-secondary institutions. (The irony of affirmative action admission standards is that it disproportionately negatively impacted Asians more than any other group. So much for white privilege) Hopefully, the Supreme Court ruling will help turn off the DEI money faucet.

BLM (Buy -Luxury-Mansions)

Looking back at the events of 2020 I believe that a fire was ignited. Some will say that it was a purposeful fire – like a controlled burn. I maintain that the fire was more like wildfire – devouring everything in its path, an out of control conflagration, one which society is collectively still fighting to get under control.

Some may argue that this actually began in 2017 when the #MeToo movement gained momentum with a some high profile cases. Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and Matt Lauer were just three celebrities who were exposed as abusers. These A-list celebrities made it easier for women (and in a few cases, men) to come forward with their stories of abuse.

However, if MeToo was the kindling, George Floyd was the gasoline which caused the societal blaze we are still dealing with today. The problem is that, as it is with many causes, there are those who seek to sow false narratives and profit from these narratives. In the case of the tragic events surrounding the death of George Floyd those people have become known in many circles as “race hustlers”.

These race hustlers are comprised of both individuals and groups. At the top of the food chain of these profiteers is one group that was founded over ten years ago but only gained widespread acceptance in the wake of the George Floyd incident. That group is of course Black Lives Matter or BLM for short.

I mentioned these leeches in the previous section on DEI but I did not provide a definition. Let me step back for a moment and explain the meaning “race hustlers”. When you think of a hustler you get an image of a con artist who has one real goal – to separate a “mark” from their money. So a race hustler is simply someone who uses race to profit in an unsavory way.

I remember all the black squares appearing on social media in the wake of George Floyd’s death. I also remember anyone like me who said let’s wait to hear the whole story before we make a conclusion being publicly shamed and ridiculed for not getting in line with the narrative that white police officers were “hunting” young black men on the streets of the United States, and yes even here in Canada. Rationality and critical thinking made me conclude that this narrative was not only false, it was dangerous and divisive.

The black squares on social media paved the way for the race hustlers (the black square and the response to those who resisted to post it reminded me of this scene from a Seinfeld episode). They had been given the legitimacy to push their narrative which led to the majority of the population in many western countries to feel a collective guilt for the death of George Floyd. Guilt often is wielded by some to get the public to open their wallets.

For those of you who go grocery shopping or to the LCBO to grab a bottle of wine, think how often you are greeted by a request for a donation to a variety of charities. It doesn’t stop with the more formal requests inside the store but it often continues with you being greeted by a request from presumably homeless individuals for money as you exit the building. I have learned to numb myself to the feeling of guilt when asked for money regardless if the request comes from a legitimate charity or a less fortunate person because if I didn’t say “no” I might soon become the person looking for help.

The death of George Floyd led to the type of guilt gouging mentioned above multiplied many times over. The difference this time was that the guilt was coupled with judgement for those who didn’t feel right about what was going on around them. The emotion of the events had led people to just throw away their ability to question the legitimate nature of those who seemed to be sowing the seeds of guilt and division. The proverbial fox was in the hen house.

BLM collected, by some calculations, almost $100 million USD in less then one year. Wallets were not just opened, they were emptied. And it wasn’t just guilty individuals, it was corporate guilt as well. Companies, big and small, were falling over each other to give to BLM or other similar charitable organizations.

So what happened to all that money? It went to help at-risk black communities or fund programs designed to improve the lives of those experiencing “systemic racism”, right? Guess again. The money donated has essentially evaporated and the only real beneficiaries seem to be individuals connected with BLM. Don’t believe me, read it for yourself .

I could write multiple posts about the shadiness and outright fraudulent activities of BLM but I don’t want to get mired in the muck of this (Marxist) organization. Let me just say I am glad that I was one of those that kept his wallet firmly closed to this corrupt organization.

All three of the cases briefly outlined above have one cynical thread in common – cash. Remember these sage words of wisdom before you support any initiative – and definitely the three discussed in this piece – “a fool and his money are soon parted”.

One Dad With a Blog