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 pussy-fication of male athletes

I think back to my days playing different sports at various levels of competitiveness . The lessons I learned have been carried on through my life and I have passed many of these lessons on to my kids and as a coach to young competitors. Mantras such as always having the backs of your teammates and never pointing fingers when mistakes are made but rather raising up your brothers/sisters in arms are just a couple of these lessons.

However, one that I have strongly conveyed seems to be getting pushback in the world of safe spaces and trigger warnings. That is the belief that words are just words and they will only hurt you if you allow them to rent space in your head. How one responds in a sports setting will likely be reflected when a person is faced with similar circumstances in the real world.

The recent suspension of Landon Sim, the son of former NHL player, Jon Sim was in a word… ridiculous. The star centre of the London Knights was handed a five-game suspension after an on-ice incident in his team’s Ontario Hockey League conference final match-up with the Saginaw Spirit.

Hockey is a physical game and often players cross the line. Liam Arnsby – captain of the OHL’s North Bay Battalion – was suspended for six games for delivering a hit to the head of Linus Hemstrom during an April 3 game. The hit saw Henstrom taken off on a stretcher after spending several minutes prone on the ice.

Mississauga Steelheads defenceman Stevie Leskovar was suspended four games for an on-ice incident. The blueliner slashed Evan Konyen in the face during a battle after a face-off. Fortunately, Konyen was able to return to the game but the suspension recognized that the possible outcome of such a reckless act could have been much more severe.

So what was Landon Sim’s transgression you may ask? He must have done something worse than slashing an opponent in the face and slightly less egregious than laying out a player with a dangerous hit to the head – the kind of hits that have led to the end of player careers (see former NHL star forward Marc Savard as an example), right?

Well, as it turns out the London Knights forward never actually laid a hand on his “victim”. He made the cardinal sin of inflaming the sensitivities of the woke mob by using a word that the language police deem as “misogynist”. No, he didn’t use the “C” word (as in C-U-Next Tuesday) or even the less offensive but still taboo twat (an aside, I love watching British comedy because both of the aforementioned words are sprinkled in liberally to the dialogue by both men and women). He called his opponent a word commonly used as slang for a cat. Yes, for those of you fellow Gen Xers he used a word that we had as part of the competitive verbal tool kit and used often. He called Saginaw Spirit captain Braden Hache… a pussy.

As I often say context matters. Sim, who had recently recovered from a shoulder injury was responding to a comment made by his opponent. Prior to a face-off Hache said to Sim that he was going to “break your shoulder”. Sim’s response? “No you won’t, you are too much of a pussy to do that”. Really, that is what gets you five games, in the midst of the playoffs no less?

Maybe I shouldn’t admit it  but I would have served an unending/overlapping suspension in every competitive sport I ever played. What was said on the ice or on the pitch, where I played a lot of hockey and soccer respectively, was left on the ice or pitch. Usually we said something that may have gotten your mouth washed out with soap at home in my day (yes, this was a thing and I still can’t get the taste of Irish Spring out of my mouth) but was totally acceptable within the confines of the game.

There were two reasons to dig into our urban dictionary of the day during a game. One was because you were angry, which probably meant the other team was winning. The other was because you wanted to get under the skin of your opponent, which probably meant your team was winning.

We were taught that words were just that… words. When an opponent said something a little offside to you your response was under your control. The player delivering the insult was hoping to illicit a response, preferably a physical one, which would lead to a power play for your team , a yellow card or possibly an ejection/red card.

When you returned to the bench after drawing a penalty or getting a player tossed by using nothing but your words you were greeted with pats on the head from your teammates. You had helped the team. Conversely, if you were the player who allowed something as simple as a word (or words) to get you to lose your cool the coach usually found you a not so nice spot at the end of the bench for an undetermined length of time. Your actions were “undisciplined” and “selfish”. You had hurt the team.

What makes the situation involving Sim which led to his suspension even more disheartening for those who believe the world has lost its collective mind is that the player who threatened to break Sim’s shoulder went to the official to report this unforgiveable verbal act. In the world in which I grew up that person would be known as anything from a tattle-tale to a rat. What’s next, telling his mommy so she can call Landon’s parents and tell them what a bad boy he has been?

For clarity, we never saw the word “pussy” as meaning anything other than soft… like a house cat. When we began using the word I would hazard a guess than none of us boys knew that it was also a slang word for part of the female anatomy. Even if we did know, so what? We called each other dicks all the time.

Do you see the problem here? When we start policing words in sports we will be playing a game of whack-a-mole. My kids use words which may be deemed offside that I have never heard before. Should we choose to police language, we will need to establish a full-time arbiter to keep track of words and deem which are acceptable and which will get you banished.

I am going to say something controversial here. I believe this also applies to race and sexual orientation slurs. I say this as someone who has been subjected to slurs. Yes, white people can be the victim of racism as well.

The difference for me is that I was taught to ignore the words. Sometimes I did – sometimes I didn’t. I learned that  choosing to ignore the attempts to get me off my game was always more preferable given the potential penalties and the spot in the coach’s doghouse.

No, I am not saying that calling someone a racial/gender/gender identity slur is acceptable. All I am saying is that eventually the referee or the teacher or your mom won’t be there to protect you from the words. What we learned is that eventually the words really didn’t matter to us. Now, instead our kids are being sheltered from the realities of the big bad world where there are people who are jerks. Learning that there are people who will say things that are hurtful is a valuable lesson.

In today’s upside down world we are not teaching our children lessons like stand up for yourself; words are just words but rather we are saying be a victim; words are violence.

For the record, the snowflake culture which wants us to believe that words can be equally as damaging as a punch in the face – we can try that experiment if you want. I have been punched in the face and also been called names like pussy, I will gladly take the latter.

One Dad With a Blog

The battle of the sexes: aka lies my parents told me

Anyone who is even a casual follower of sports is probably aware of the excitement surrounding NCAA women’s basketball and more specifically the play of Iowa Hawkeye star player Caitlin Clark. The reigning NCAA Division I player of the year and scoring champion is putting up numbers that are truly jaw-dropping and an inspiration to all young players but especially to young girls.

Why did I add the last part of the previous statement? Well, because she is a female and she was once a girl with ambitions to be the star she has become. When I think of Terry Fox, I think of a young man who inspired not only a nation but the world. However, more importantly, it can never be argued that his greatest and most important influence was on those who shared a similar challenge to his, namely not being able-bodied (note, I am not sure what the correct term is anymore for a person with a physical disability, so please don’t cancel me if I used the politically improper term. I hope you recognize sarcasm?).

Back to Caitlin Clark and the topic of this post. Clark deserves all the accolades which are showered upon her. The fame, the endorsements the press coverage – all are well-deserved. However, as a society, why do we seem to need to constantly step out of our figurative (and at times literal) lanes as it pertains to female athletes? When a female athlete like Clark – or tennis star Serena Williams or retired UFC legend Amanda Nunes or LPGA star Michelle Wie, just to name three others – achieves great heights in her sport, why must we engage in the comparison game? Namely, discussing how these female athletes would fare against male competition.

I was asked why this matters in a recent conversation. So we engage in some “harmless” debate? That’s what sports fans do all the time, right? Who is the greatest? Gretzky or Lemieux? Jordan or Lebron? The problem is when we get into comparisons around hypotheticals such as gender versus gender which can have a real impact on our young people I think we have an obligation to stand up and speak the truth.

Caitlin Clark (and Serena Williams and Michelle Wie and Amanda Nunes and any other female athlete who has reached the summit of their respective sport) should be held in the highest regard for what she has accomplished. She is a great and accomplished athlete – period. However, comparing Clark or any other generational female athlete with their male counterparts is a fool’s game and is doing harm to our young aspiring athletes – both female and male. Further, my position is that it does damage to society in a wider sense. The lies that result and are told to our children, but especially to our daughters, can set them up for a world of disappointment.

Battle of the Sexes: the origin of the gender lie in post-feminist society?

The phrase “Battle of the Sexes” has been frequently used when discussing the real or hypothetical competition between female and male athletes. That being said, it is a phrase largely synonymous with the exhibition tennis match played between Billie Jean King and Bobbie Riggs in 1973 at the Astrodome in Houston, Texas. At the time, King was regarded as the number 1 women’s player in the world for a fifth consecutive year. Riggs was also a world number 1 ranked tennis player – albeit over 15 years prior to the 1973 match with King. Riggs had been retired from professional tennis for over 10 years and was a well known commentator who was a hustler and gambler. Earlier that year, Riggs had already handily beaten another then current top female player, Margaret Court, in a similar exhibition. Riggs was 55 at the time of match while King was 29 years of age.

King ultimately won the match over Riggs and suddenly women’s tennis was in the spotlight. This match did a great amount of good for the women’s game and has played a role in women players getting better prize money relative to their male counterparts. The match also brought attention to Title IX, federal legislation in the United States, enacted just one year earlier, which was designed essentially to promote and protect female sports.

But was the impact from the King win over Riggs all good? I would argue it was at the time but over the ensuing five decades that match has taken on a legend of its own that has created some false narratives which have had negative repercussions.

The I can do anything you can do lie we tell our daughters

The broad strokes of the discussion of this post is one of women compared to men in one area of society – sports. However, this is also an important discussion as it relates to any role/activity which has physicality, in whole or in part, as an important requirement to complete the role/activity at the highest level.

Most reasonable-thinking individuals have given up the outdated belief that woman cannot stand shoulder-to-shoulder with men in almost every aspect of our modern world. Women are represented (and justifiably so) in growing numbers in fields like medicine, politics and business. Here is where we should be telling our daughters that they can be equal or even better than their male peers. What you put in, from an effort standpoint, will most often determine your success in these areas.

However, there is one area where men will always have an edge over women and that is the realm of the physical. Jobs which require an element of strength and endurance are almost always dominated by men. I would argue that any attempt to artificially inject more women into these jobs is at the very least unfair and at worst can compromise public safety.

To the first part about creating standards for women being unfair I am saying it is unfair to absolutely everyone. It is unfair to the males who have a greater ability to perform the role yet are often passed over to make room for more women to fill a gender quota. It is unfair to the women who could not meet the standards set for their male counterparts because these same women will be looked down upon as “token” hires. Further it is unfair for the small percentage of women who can meet the standards as they may be wrongfully lumped in with the “token” hires and also be seen to be lacking the qualifications to perform the role. For the males hired, they being the ones who met the minimum standards, it is unfair to them because they must work alongside someone who cannot “pull their weight”.

Finally, and probably most importantly, the public pays unfairly for the societal unexplainable need for this type of equity. It may be difficult to measure, but it makes sense that in some roles (think fire fighters and law enforcement as just two examples of many) when standards are lowered that we as a whole are not receiving the best level of service and there is a possibility that public safety and in some cases the safety of others in those professions is at risk.

Truth or consequences

The lie in this case is that women and men are equal in a physical sense and further that women can compete with men and have success. This is just not in any way factual and it does have wide-reaching negative ramifications in our world.

Returning to the gender discussion in sports. There is so much irrefutable evidence – both scientific/biological and in the results from athletes. There is a website which did an analysis of some of these results, focusing specifically on disciplines in track and field and swimming. There is no commentary on the home page of site other than a line at the top of the page which I will address later. The data simply lays out the facts.

The results 0f female Olympic Champions, the best of the best in the world, were compared to the results of high school age boys from the United States only. The data painted a stark picture of how the best female athletes would fare against American high school boys. When the medal count of this hypothetical (but accurate based on results) competition was tabulated the boys captured 81 medals to the women’s six. Further, 29 0f the 30 gold medals would have been won by the high school boys. (source: boys vs. women).

I mentioned that one line of commentary on the home page of the website. Here it is; “If boys win against the fastest women, is it fair for males to compete in female-only athletic events? What about transwomen and HRT?”

(For readers who do not know what HRT is, it stands for “Hormone Replacement Therapy”. Simply put, females and males receive HRT when they wish to present differently from their biological sex – ie. a man who wishes to present as a woman or a woman who wishes to present as a man. Note that I use the words “present as…” because I do not support some commonly accepted beliefs that a man can become a woman or a woman can become a man. Biology matters.).

The two sentences of commentary from the referenced home page of the website make it clear what the objective of this analysis was meant to illustrate. Further, after laying out the facts which are as irrefutable as a statement like water is wet, the site creators make some further conclusions which I encourage anyone to read. I will focus on one statement because I think it adequately makes the argument that men and women should never compete against each other at a high level.

“However, the statistics demonstrate that the differences between the sexes are not trivial, so any attempt to create a level playing field between males and females must account for all differences between the sexes or risk allowing for unfair advantages.”

Surely, if high school boys would dominate female Olympic medalists then objectively biological males should never be found in the same competitive arena unless it is a very young age or at a recreational level. Yet, in some warped desire to say men and women are “equal” this is exactly what is happening with increasing regularity. We cannot and should not allow this lie to take hold. Women’s records will be extinguished at a rapid rate by biological males should we allow this lunacy to continue.

Further, we risk not only the physical health and safety of female athletes but their mental well-being as well.

Why do we believe the lie?

It is only an opinion but I believe that this discussion of men versus women has morphed into a perversion of the truth. Even though some of us can see the truth there are those who choose to ignore what is evidently factual. Why? I don’t have anything to offer beyond my opinion. I believe the reason is rooted in the desire not to hurt someone’s feelings. We don’t want to tell our 5′ 2″ 120 pound daughter that she can’t compete on the high school football team because it may hurt her feelings. Similarly, that 6′ 4″ boy who believes he is a girl should be allowed to compete against the girls because we may hurt his feelings should we state the obvious that it is unfair to the girls to have to face a biological male.

Words like “affirm” or “validate” in these discussions of gender are often at odds with reality. Rather than “affirming” or “validating” our children I suggest we parent them which means supporting them and being their biggest cheerleaders but also telling them the truth when nobody else is willing to do so.

One Dad With a Blog