This is where the Olympic committee would be smart to add Clark to the team.
Sparks’ Cameron Brink tears left ACL during game vs. Sun
Brink was recently named to the USA 3x3 Olympic team.www.nytimes.com
This sucks.
Brink is a center and was on the 3 x 3 roster. She's not on Team USA.
Thunder up!
My bad. I thought I saw she was on the team. If they do lose someone, regardless of the position, they would be smart to add her simply for the ratings boost.
If she is added to the Olympic team, people will watch.
I know sports have changed but it just seems wrong to chose someone for the Olympics based on ratings. I don’t know the women’s game enough to comment on if she belongs solely on ability.
I really don't care if she is on it or not, but given the media attention when she didn't make it, it would seem a smart move if a spot opens up. I'm not inclined to dig into stats, but when they were discussing Clark not making the team, it was mentioned there was one or two (Taurasi & Gray?) on the team who's stats aren't nearly as good as Clark's.
Doesn't the Women's team have a history of winning big? There could be ample playing time available. Given she went directly from the NCAA tournament to playing in the WNBA, not being on the team would afford her some time to rest and work on getting stronger.
They could.
Here was Skylar's minutes from the last Olympics as one of the last players off the bench. If Clark would get similar minutes, I think it's best if she isn't on the team.
When you are dying for ratings you make a business decision
I understand but I just don't think the goal of the Olympic Committee should be making the WNBA's ratings better. It should be about who is deserving and what makes the best team.
Bingo. Not the world we live in, but this is pretty spot on.
I doubt they select to benefit the WNBA, but it wouldn't be to make the WNBA ratings better, but the viewing of the Women's Olympic teams games. The WNBA takes a break during the Olympics, but I could see this having a residual effect for the WNBA after the Olympics. With NBC paying large sums of money for the broadcast rights, I would guess some top person at NBC might make a suggestion about adding Clark.
Do you think the WNBA would be slightly better if the teams were part of NBA clubs, like you see in English soccer? I have no history with the names Sky and Fever and really don’t know where either play. At least with women’s college sports I have a built in reason to root for all the Notre Dame teams (and detest all the Michigan teams). I would find it much more appealing if I could root for the Lady Celtics or watch the Lakerettes lose.
I think that works since ratings through the roof. I was watching the Olympic trials yesterday and saw some chick from Colorado beat another chick from Notre Dame in one of the heptathlon events. I found it very easy to root for the young lady from Notre Dame with no history or context behind who this person even was.
Womens sports have (rightly) gotten away from the "Lady Celtics" type names (old enough to remember when college teams were sometimes referred to that way). They don't call the womens soccer teams in Europe like the Ladies of Liverpool, do they?
frontofficesports.com
I'm not sure, but I'd rather not see it go that route.
Womens sports have (rightly) gotten away from the "Lady Celtics" type names (old enough to remember when college teams were sometimes referred to that way). They don't call the womens soccer teams in Europe like the Ladies of Liverpool, do they?
But, yes, if there were a WNBA team in Boston that was also called the Celtics, it would probably benefit from a built-in natural fanbase (not to mention marketing and facilities and such).
That said, the relationship between the NBA and the WNBA has kind of been a saga. About half the WNBA teams share ownership with NBA teams, not everyone thinks that's a great model. I dunno.
Should More WNBA Teams Be Associated With NBA Counterparts?
One WNBA owner tells Front Office Sports that independent team ownership is what's best for the league long term.
www.theguardian.com
www.nytimes.com
IIRC the NBA was the primary driver in creating the WNBA. Each team provided money to support their WNBA team.Womens sports have (rightly) gotten away from the "Lady Celtics" type names (old enough to remember when college teams were sometimes referred to that way). They don't call the womens soccer teams in Europe like the Ladies of Liverpool, do they?
But, yes, if there were a WNBA team in Boston that was also called the Celtics, it would probably benefit from a built-in natural fanbase (not to mention marketing and facilities and such).
That said, the relationship between the NBA and the WNBA has kind of been a saga. About half the WNBA teams share ownership with NBA teams, not everyone thinks that's a great model. I dunno.
Should More WNBA Teams Be Associated With NBA Counterparts?
One WNBA owner tells Front Office Sports that independent team ownership is what's best for the league long term.
Yeah the NBA originally launched the WNBA, then they sold the teams individually, in some cases to NBA team owners, in some cases to others. Today about half the WNBA teams are owned by people who own NBA teams, but it's not as clear-cut as "if they're in the same city, they're affiliated." Atlanta and Chicago's WNBA teams, for instance, aren't owned by the owners of the Hawks and Bulls.
