Kudos to NCAA Women's Tourney for tonight's matchups

[Ice Man]

Rebecca Lobo said that Caitlin Clark can't be the college GOAT because at most Caitlin will win only 1 NCAA title.

That got me thinking about a broader issue. How much should GOAT status be linked with championship? On the one hand, titles are hugely important. The difference between MJ and pretenders is that every single time Mike got near a title, he delivered. Always. On the other hand, if Jerry Krause had kept Olden Polynice, drafted Armen Gilliam ahead of Horace Grant (which he almost certainly would have, if Gilliam had been available), and not signed Dennis Rodman, Mike would have had his hands full winning even 2 titles.

Is that fair? If Jerry Krause had not given Mike the support that he needed, would that make Mike less of a player, and therefore eliminated him from GOAT status?

Honestly, I don't know. What I do know, however, is that I would like to say that the titles don't matter. Because the more they do, they more that rewards players for being on superteams, and the more that we are encouraging players to be disloyal to their current teams, if their teams are not stacked. We are telling them not to be Dirk or Reggie Miller, but instead to be Durant.

[dougthonus]

Rebecca Lobo said that Caitlin Clark can't be the college GOAT because at most Caitlin will win only 1 NCAA title.

That got me thinking about a broader issue. How much should GOAT status be linked with championship? On the one hand, titles are hugely important. The difference between MJ and pretenders is that every single time Mike got near a title, he delivered. Always. On the other hand, if Jerry Krause had kept Olden Polynice, drafted Armen Gilliam ahead of Horace Grant (which he almost certainly would have, if Gilliam had been available), and not signed Dennis Rodman, Mike would have had his hands full winning even 2 titles.

Is that fair? If Jerry Krause had not given Mike the support that he needed, would that make Mike less of a player, and therefore eliminated him from GOAT status?

Honestly, I don't know. What I do know, however, is that I would like to say that the titles don't matter. Because the more they do, they more that rewards players for being on superteams, and the more that we are encouraging players to be disloyal to their current teams, if their teams are not stacked. We are telling them not to be Dirk or Reggie Miller, but instead to be Durant.

I think in college, championships matter less than in the NBA. You only have a few years, and in the past, you were just stuck wherever you started. I think especially in women's NCAA ball, historically there were massive powerhouses and they just had overwhelming advantage, so I don't think it's necessarily a fair criteria.

It's hard for me to say they matter 0 though. Especially at the NBA level. Every player you could conceive of being the GOAT in the NBA has won titles. Guys who are the undisputed #1 player of a generation are just really easy to win around, and eventually they will land in a spot where they have enough because you just don't need that much more.

Like if you removed rings from the conversation all together and just looked at stats, who would be your best GOAT candidate that didn't have a ring? Maybe Karl Malone? Maybe Charles Barkley? Someone before my time?

I mean ignoring rings those guys might get bumped up a few places, but it's hard to envision putting them in my top 10 even ignoring rings. In that sense, I don't know if it's a requirement to win a ring, but everyone who is legitimately in the running probably has at least 2 and probably most have 3+.

[Jcool0]

Rebecca Lobo said that Caitlin Clark can't be the college GOAT because at most Caitlin will win only 1 NCAA title.

That got me thinking about a broader issue. How much should GOAT status be linked with championship? On the one hand, titles are hugely important. The difference between MJ and pretenders is that every single time Mike got near a title, he delivered. Always. On the other hand, if Jerry Krause had kept Olden Polynice, drafted Armen Gilliam ahead of Horace Grant (which he almost certainly would have, if Gilliam had been available), and not signed Dennis Rodman, Mike would have had his hands full winning even 2 titles.

Is that fair? If Jerry Krause had not given Mike the support that he needed, would that make Mike less of a player, and therefore eliminated him from GOAT status?

Honestly, I don't know. What I do know, however, is that I would like to say that the titles don't matter. Because the more they do, they more that rewards players for being on superteams, and the more that we are encouraging players to be disloyal to their current teams, if their teams are not stacked. We are telling them not to be Dirk or Reggie Miller, but instead to be Durant.

Read on Twitter

[Ice Man]

I end up about where you are, Doug. Agree that titles are mostly beside the point for NCAA -- what matters is how much better player makes his or her team. Larry Bird won no NCAA titles but man ... he was something in college. Look at Indiana State's records. It was 13-12 the year before Bird arrived. Then it went 25-3, 23-9, and 33-1. Then he left and it went 16-11 and then 9-18.

Also, it's more than a little self-serving for a UConn women's player to make that argument. The year that Lobo won a title she had 3 future professional players starting next to her. I mean, yeah, that does make winning titles a bit easier than what Bird faced.

[drosestruts]

The difference between MJ and pretenders is that every single time Mike got near a title, he delivered. Always.

Apologies for derailing the thread but this is the type of legend inflating often ascribed to Jordan.

I guess to start - what does "near a title" even mean - that everytime he made a Finals he won?

What about the two times he made a Conference Finals but got eliminated?

What about the two times he was eliminated in the 2nd round?

What about the 5 seasons he was eliminated in the first round or failed to make the playoffs?

Jordan's great - no need to over inflate his greatness.

[Ice Man]

I guess to start - what does "near a title" even mean - that everytime he made a Finals he won?

Yes.

[DuckIII]

I’ll go to the complete other extreme: In college you can be the GOAT and never win a title at all. I can even imagine scenarios where I would consider a college player the GOAT who never even got to the Elite 8. Not saying it’s likely, but it could happen. Contrarily, I would never consider a ringless NBA player for GOAT.

1. As noted in the tweet above, the vast majority of the history of college basketball that we use in determining GOAT status was dominated by blue blood programs who controlled talent recruiting in a lopsided manner.

College players, before the transfer portal, were basically stuck with what their program could recruit and only in a small window of eligibility.

2. It makes a lot more sense to place great weight on titles in the NBA not just because a great NBA player has lots more time and options to contend for titles, but VERY importantly they also get entire 7 game series’ for their individual impact to overcome an opponent. Winning a NCAA tournament is vastly more unpredictable and random because it is decided on a string of single elimination contests anyone can win.

And 1 and 2 go together because the likelihood a college super team from 10-55 years ago would stumble in an isolated game is greatly reduced due to depth compared to a team carried by a single mega star who could have an off night without mitigation from other great teammates.

All this is to say not only can Clark be the GOAT without a title, but she’s already so far out in front of the GOAT contest the example has already definitively proven the point.

[sco]

I think it's great to have a player like Clark to bring the debate to the forefront. We all know here after all of the MJ Lebron debate that GOAT is a subjective title. I'm just happy to have some decent basketball to entertain me after the Bulls mess this season.

[drosestruts]

the best part has been that the big players in these big time matchups have delivered.

Clark and Reese both made huge impacts in the Iowa LSU game

Bueckers and Watkins both made huge impacts in the USC Uconn game

So not only are you getting these big time matchups - the marquee players are coming through with big time performances.

If Iowa won, but Clark played meh, but marshall and martin have good games it wouldn't be as exciting.

Should be in for another good one tonight. You've got Clark going against the school she dreamed of playing for that never bothered to scout or recruit her. Clark vs Bueckers should also be another big time matchup.

[dougthonus]

All this is to say not only can Clark be the GOAT without a title, but she’s already so far out in front of the GOAT contest the example has already definitively proven the point.

I would guess none of us are experts in WNCAA basketball (and I'm certainly not), and my gut feeling is that Clark is the GOAT too, but I think there is a reasonable enough case to be made for Breanna Stuart that I'm not sure I'd go so far to say that Clark is so far out in front of everyone it's not a discussion.

Stewart tops Clark in some advanced stats (PER, Win Score which sadly are the only ones on sports-ref's pages) and was a 4x champ and 4x most outstanding player of the tourney which are both truly insane stats when you think about it. Even with a stacked team, to win most outstanding player of the tourney as a freshman is pretty nuts.

Agree holistically with your point about the deck just not being stacked evenly enough that I'd count that over what Clark has done, but I think given my own extremely superficial knowledge of the topic, I wouldn't be surprised if people deep into it might have a real nuanced debate.

I've heard some of the arguments and don't think they're nuts, but it's hard tor really weigh them myself coming from a position of ignorance.

[jc23]

Paige Bueckers would be someone worth tanking for next season if your the Sky

[SalmonsSuperfan]

College basketball being basically a series of 1 year contracts is awful for the sport.

two incredibly damaging Supreme Court cases for the future of all sports in this country, professional or amateur: NCAA v Alston, Murphy v NCAA. Both decisions determined that there wasn't enough grey, shadowy money going around sports and that 18-year-olds had the God-given right to turn their free education into a marketing scheme.
Maybe this is a good thing so that all the leagues can go belly-up and be rebuilt in a way that prioritizes the actual sport over profit. ie under public ownership, there's no actual reason a public good like sports should be administered by billionaires. what, people are gonna stop watching and playing sports if Reinsdorf doesn't net a couple million?

[DuckIII]

College basketball being basically a series of 1 year contracts is awful for the sport.

two incredibly damaging Supreme Court cases for the future of all sports in this country, professional or amateur: NCAA v Alston, Murphy v NCAA. Both decisions determined that there wasn't enough grey, shadowy money going around sports and that 18-year-olds had the God-given right to turn their free education into a marketing scheme.

What's your counter-argument that they should be denied the freedom to contract that every other 18 year old (as if that is a pertinent point in any argument, which its not) in America has? Work harder, achieve more, get less rights?

College fans can selfishly complain all they want about how NIL and the portal are ruining collegiate sports but its just selfishness. All that matters is that the athletes themselves are treated fairly and equally. They are the ones providing the value to these programs and putting in the work to be great. The notion that they should be denied private contract rights and restrictions on movement within their chosen endeavor is repugnant on a personal level. Selfish fans just want their players kept captive for their own personal enjoyment, having no regard to these young people as individuals with lives and choices of their own.

[Ice Man]

I’ll go to the complete other extreme: In college you can be the GOAT and never win a title at all.

Since my pick over the past half century is Larry Bird, I would fully agree.

[Ice Man]

Stewart tops Clark in some advanced stats (PER, Win Score which sadly are the only ones on sports-ref's pages) and was a 4x champ and 4x most outstanding player of the tourney which are both truly insane stats when you think about it. Even with a stacked team, to win most outstanding player of the tourney as a freshman is pretty nuts. .

I did not know that about Stewart. Yes, I would think she has a really strong case. Funny thing is, the people on the GB who claim to be long-time women's hoops fans and who are pooh-poohing Cailtin, because oldtimers do that sort of thing, have never mentioned Stewart. They have talked about many other players but not her.

Which really hurts their credibility! They had a truly strong candidate, as you point out, and they never even realized it. Hmmph.

[Ice Man]

the best part has been that the big players in these big time matchups have delivered.

Clark and Reese both made huge impacts in the Iowa LSU game

Bueckers and Watkins both made huge impacts in the USC Uconn game

So not only are you getting these big time matchups - the marquee players are coming through with big time performances.

If Iowa won, but Clark played meh, but marshall and martin have good games it wouldn't be as exciting.

Correct. That was true last year too, as Clark and Reese, the stars of each of the finalists, were great all the way through the tournament, and in the Final as well. They just kept delivering.

[SalmonsSuperfan]

College basketball being basically a series of 1 year contracts is awful for the sport.

two incredibly damaging Supreme Court cases for the future of all sports in this country, professional or amateur: NCAA v Alston, Murphy v NCAA. Both decisions determined that there wasn't enough grey, shadowy money going around sports and that 18-year-olds had the God-given right to turn their free education into a marketing scheme.

What's your counter-argument that they should be denied the freedom to contract that every other 18 year old (as if that is a pertinent point in any argument, which its not) in America has? Work harder, achieve more, get less rights?

College fans can selfishly complain all they want about how NIL and the portal are ruining collegiate sports but its just selfishness. All that matters is that the athletes themselves are treated fairly and equally. They are the ones providing the value to these programs and putting in the work to be great. The notion that they should be denied private contract rights and restrictions on movement within their chosen endeavor is repugnant on a personal level. Selfish fans just want their players kept captive for their own personal enjoyment, having no regard to these young people as individuals with lives and choices of their own.

they have the freedom to turn pro. no one is forcing them to go to college. they are being paid with a free education. they can decide to forego that if they want to earn a wage. most people realize what a privilege it is to get a full-ride college scholarship though.

some of us prefer our institutions of higher learning to remain as such and not turn into yet another arena for corporations to market their pointless gizmos (or to convince children to become addicts, most of the ads it seems like). there was already way too much money in college sports to begin with (and pro sports but that's a different argument). these guys are students and their first priority is to learn and if they feel differently, they shouldn't be at a university. you sound like those nba players who say they're like slaves for signing nine-figure contracts and not wanting to honor it. they have a choice but there's still rules to follow. there's your freedom.

obviously the NCAA doesn't think this way, I think pretty much every university nowadays is interested in generating revenue more than educating students. society is going to hell in a handbasket and this turn in sports is a reflection of that. i'm sorry that you don't see that or don't care.

[SalmonsSuperfan]

...

I thought about this post some more and came up with a reasonable solution for student athletes' wages. In addition to a $200,000+ college scholarship, perhaps universities could consider athletics as a kind of "work-study" program.

https://osfa.illinois.edu/types-of-aid/employment/regulations/wages/

I have a high opinion of athletes, so maybe we could consider them as "Group D" workers, paraprofessional/professional workers. A college basketball player at the University of Illinois could earn $14 to $21 an hour. That seems like a reasonable wage for an 18-year-old to play with a ball and get some exercise and hang out with his buddies.

[DuckIII]

they have the freedom to turn pro. no one is forcing them to go to college.

The NBA and NFL literally have rules in place that explicitly prevent them from being in those leagues until they reach a certain age. They could go overseas of course, but why would America force skilled laborers to work overseas when it doesn't have to? Moreover, their ability to privately contract for marketing services has nothing to do with being a pro or an amateur. Its simply whether or not someone is willing to pay you money to appear in an advertisement or at an event.

they are being paid with a free education. they can decide to forego that if they want to earn a wage. most people realize what a privilege it is to get a full-ride college scholarship though.

Combining my athletic and academic scholarships I had nearly a full ride as well, and nonetheless had jobs tutoring athletes, being a professor's assistant and waiting tables all throughout college. Why would you deny someone like me that option? How is that a negative? These are not rhetorical questions. I'd like to know how you rationalize that there is something wrong with a student athlete doing what I did.

Do you think I don't consider my scholarships important or a privilege because I also worked to earn extra money?

some of us prefer our institutions of higher learning to remain as such and not turn into yet another arena for corporations to market their pointless gizmos (or to convince children to become addicts, most of the ads it seems like).

I don't understand this sentence at all. Not sure what pointless gizmos and addictions they are pushing. Universities are businesses themselves, as well.

there was already way too much money in college sports to begin with (and pro sports but that's a different argument).

For everyone but the athletes the people came to see.

these guys are students and their first priority is to learn and if they feel differently, they shouldn't be at a university.

Explain why they have to choose. Give me your reasons why an athlete cannot play a collegiate sport, study, and then go sign some baseballs at a convention on a Saturday afternoon or do an ad for a local Buick dealership. You are taking the position that these things are for some reason inherently incompatible with one another. Explain why please.

you sound like those nba players who say they're like slaves for signing nine-figure contracts and not wanting to honor it.

No, I don't sound like that. What I'm talking about is the opposite of that situation. Those professional athletes you are talking about had the freedom to contract, used that freedom and signed the contract, and then made offensive and embarrassing statements about how signing a free market contract of their own free will to be paid handsomely to do a job most people dream about, is akin to slavery. Which I agree is absurd. It also has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Prior to NIL, collegiate players had no ability to take advantage of the free market to realize their own worth. They were explicitly prohibited from earning despite there being a legal and willing market for them to do so. That's about as un-American a system within our capitalist economy that you will ever find. Indeed, its a false construct and stark exception to the workings of a free market.

they have a choice but there's still rules to follow. there's your freedom.

But its not equal. Its the equality part that gives freedom meaning.

obviously the NCAA doesn't think this way,

On the contrary, the NCAA agrees with you 100%. They wanted to have as close to complete and total control over the economics and freedom of movement of athletes as they could get, and desperately fought like hell in court to preserve that system and the vast riches it ensured the NCAA executives and its member schools.

I think pretty much every university nowadays is interested in generating revenue more than educating students.

Universities must generate revenue to educate students. Its not a dynamic of one requiring the exclusion of the other.

Society is going to hell in a handbasket and this turn in sports is a reflection of that. i'm sorry that you don't see that or don't care.

I care very much about these athletes and their individual rights as Americans. That's why I'm discussing it. Its you who appear to consider the athletes game board pieces rather than real living human beings who should enjoy the same equal free market economy contractual rights as every other adult in the United States.

[DuckIII]

...

I thought about this post some more and came up with a reasonable solution for student athletes' wages. In addition to a $200,000+ college scholarship, perhaps universities could consider athletics as a kind of "work-study" program.

https://osfa.illinois.edu/types-of-aid/employment/regulations/wages/

I have a high opinion of athletes, so maybe we could consider them as "Group D" workers, paraprofessional/professional workers. A college basketball player at the University of Illinois could earn $14 to $21 an hour. That seems like a reasonable wage for an 18-year-old to play with a ball and get some exercise and hang out with his buddies.

I'm not advocating that amateur athletes be paid wages by the school to compete. Scholarships, room and board, per diems are all great. I'm simply saying the NCAA, nor anyone else, should have never had any say in those athletes' ability to enter into marketing contracts for services other than competing on the floor for the school.

Its a pretty straightforward and unremarkable concept. It was the now-unlawful rules in place to prevent them from doing that which were weird.