USA today racist wnba article.

[Pelon chingon]

Watch on YouTube

Clark is going to have an uphill battle it seems on and off the court.

[HadAnEffectHere]

Love to post Jason Whitlock for some reason.

[LewisnotMiller]

Watch on YouTube

Clark is going to have an uphill battle it seems on and off the court.

She'll be okay, I'm pretty comfortable saying.
But I liked Whitlock's point. This ridiculous article was not only written, but it went through editing and publishing, and it was seen as a good thing to print. Heck, the paper might still be seeing it as good because they are getting attention.
It's a trash opinion, and basically indefensible.

Let hoopers hoop.

[ellobo]

No question there are a lot of feelings around the attention Caitlin Clark is getting.

Is she doing things and doing them in a way that deserves hype and attention? Absolutely.

Is she getting more attention than she would if she were black? Highly probable, IMO. Does this upset some people? Yes, obviously and explicitly in the case of the USA Today writer.

Are there current and former stars who resent the fact that a college kid is getting more attention than they ever did? I'd expect so.

Are even WNBA players who generally respect, welcome and support her also going to go at her extra hard? I'm sure they will.

I think Caitlin is very aware of all these factors and seems very good about handling the attention and focusing on basketball.

As we go into the NCAA tournament and then the WNBA season, the on-court drama is going to be fun to watch. The stupid off-court drama not so much, and hopefully will stay mostly in the background.

[spanishninja]

No question there are a lot of feelings around the attention Caitlin Clark is getting.

Is she doing things and doing them in a way that deserves hype and attention? Absolutely.

Is she getting more attention than she would if she were black? Highly probable, IMO. Does this upset some people? Yes, obviously and explicitly in the case of the USA Today writer.

Are there current and former stars who resent the fact that a college kid is getting more attention than they ever did? I'd expect so.

Are even WNBA players who generally respect, welcome and support her also going to go at her extra hard? I'm sure they will.

I think Caitlin is very aware of all these factors and seems very good about handling the attention and focusing on basketball.

As we go into the NCAA tournament and then the WNBA season, the on-court drama is going to be fun to watch. The stupid off-court drama not so much, and hopefully will stay mostly in the background.

the media has been unfortunately fanning the flames on many of these points. Sheryl Swoopes most notably. At the end of the day though, it's not unusual for athletic capability to continue improving over time. why can't Caitlin Clark end up being the GOAT in the WNBA? and why can't she eventually help the game to unforeseen heights? if the answer to either or both of these questions is Yes or even Maybe, what's wrong with the attention she gets?

A good comparison is Wemby. He is certainly not the best in the NBA right now but the promise and novelty are what everybody's talking about. Clark certainly has both from what we have seen so far.

[MrDollarBills]

I'm not watching a video from Jason Whitlock.

However, as a Black person I find this conversation about Caitlin Clark disturbing. I don't give a damn what color she is. She can flat out hoop and is a generational talent.

Her being white isn't the reason why she goes out there destroying people every night. Her hype is because of her own merits. She is must watch TV.

Now, what I will say, is that if you want to have a discussion about how Black female hoopers are criminally undermarketed, that's a legitimate topic. I have zero idea why A'ja Wilson doesn't get more coverage. She's a hall of famer. We can name others as well. I wish my favorite college hooper right now, Milaysia Fulwiley, got more hype because she is going to be a superstar.

But as a fan and supporter of this sport I hate seeing a player get hit over her ethnicity, she has no control over that, or the media for that matter. If Caitlin Clark becomes the top dog of Women's basketball, it's because she's developed to become that, and not because she's a white gal.

Anyway, Jason Whitlock is a piece of trash.

[the_process]

Angel Reese gets hyped. The women's game is getting more air time and spotlight than ever before.

[MrDollarBills]

Angel Reese gets hyped. The women's game is getting more air time and spotlight than ever before.

I just hate that this became a racial issue when the focus should be on how f*cking GOOD women's hoops is on both the college and pro level. It's not helping. All of these young women are helping to elevate the sport.

Milaysia Fulwiley just got signed to an NIL deal with Steph Curry's under armour brand. This thing is taking off we don't need to pit players against one another. Everyone is going to eat, especially when the WNBA adds two new teams soon.

[DimesandKnicks]

I'm not watching a video from Jason Whitlock.

However, as a Black person I find this conversation about Caitlin Clark disturbing. I don't give a damn what color she is. She can flat out hoop and is a generational talent.

Her being white isn't the reason why she goes out there destroying people every night. Her hype is because of her own merits. She is must watch TV.

Now, what I will say, is that if you want to have a discussion about how Black female hoopers are criminally undermarketed, that's a legitimate topic. I have zero idea why A'ja Wilson doesn't get more coverage. She's a hall of famer. We can name others as well. I wish my favorite college hooper right now, Milaysia Fulwiley, got more hype because she is going to be a superstar.

But as a fan and supporter of this sport I hate seeing a player get hit over her ethnicity, she has no control over that, or the media for that matter. If Caitlin Clark becomes the top dog of Women's basketball, it's because she's developed to become that, and not because she's a white gal.

Anyway, Jason Whitlock is a piece of trash.

This is what the actual article is about. The lack of backing, marketability and media coverage black female hoopers get, especially lesbian ones. WNBA players have apparently been expressing this and some of them have used there platforms to amplify the message

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaw/2024/03/07/juju-watkins-black-players-face-of-womens-basketball/72862649007/

[DimesandKnicks]

I put these messages in the thread about this in the General Board. I’d encourage anyone who was indented by the title to actually read the article, because I was equally indented by the title and the talking points of the OP

Here's ChatGPTs interpretation. AI is going to take alot of ya'lls jobs. I made sure to ask it to summarize it in less than 150 words for those of you who don't like reading anything longer than a Twitter post:

JuJu Watkins, a standout freshman for USC's women's basketball team, garners attention for her exceptional skill and poise on the court. As one of the top scorers in the nation, she's poised to become a prominent figure in women's basketball, alongside fellow freshman Hannah Hidalgo. Their rise underscores the importance of recognizing and celebrating Black women in a sport historically dominated by them at both collegiate and professional levels. Watkins and Hidalgo's playstyle and charisma are seen as pivotal in shifting the spotlight to women of color in basketball. While they acknowledge the challenges of visibility faced by Black female athletes, they're determined to inspire and broaden the game's appeal, evident in Watkins' impact on USC's attendance and fan diversity. Their success symbolizes a long-overdue recognition of the contributions and talents of Black women in basketball.

[MrDollarBills]

I'm not watching a video from Jason Whitlock.

However, as a Black person I find this conversation about Caitlin Clark disturbing. I don't give a damn what color she is. She can flat out hoop and is a generational talent.

Her being white isn't the reason why she goes out there destroying people every night. Her hype is because of her own merits. She is must watch TV.

Now, what I will say, is that if you want to have a discussion about how Black female hoopers are criminally undermarketed, that's a legitimate topic. I have zero idea why A'ja Wilson doesn't get more coverage. She's a hall of famer. We can name others as well. I wish my favorite college hooper right now, Milaysia Fulwiley, got more hype because she is going to be a superstar.

But as a fan and supporter of this sport I hate seeing a player get hit over her ethnicity, she has no control over that, or the media for that matter. If Caitlin Clark becomes the top dog of Women's basketball, it's because she's developed to become that, and not because she's a white gal.

Anyway, Jason Whitlock is a piece of trash.

This is what the actual article is about. The lack of backing, marketability and media coverage black female hoopers get, especially lesbian ones. WNBA players have apparently been expressing this and some of them have used there platforms to amplify the message

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaw/2024/03/07/juju-watkins-black-players-face-of-womens-basketball/72862649007/

Thank you, I'll check it out. I just refuse to watch anything from that piece of human garbage Jason Whitlock which is why i completely bypassed it.

The lack of marketing for Black WNBA players, especially LGBTQ players is 100% a legitimate argument and I support the players expressing these concerns, if I wasn't clear enough.

What I don't want to see happen is Black and white players being pitted against each other by the media, who is dually responsible for the lack of positive press and coverage for Black/LGBTQ players. That is counter productive.

[ellobo]

I put these messages in the thread about this in the General Board. I’d encourage anyone who was indented by the title to actually read the article, because I was equally indented by the title and the talking points of the OP

Here's ChatGPTs interpretation. AI is going to take alot of ya'lls jobs. I made sure to ask it to summarize it in less than 150 words for those of you who don't like reading anything longer than a Twitter post:

JuJu Watkins, a standout freshman for USC's women's basketball team, garners attention for her exceptional skill and poise on the court. As one of the top scorers in the nation, she's poised to become a prominent figure in women's basketball, alongside fellow freshman Hannah Hidalgo. Their rise underscores the importance of recognizing and celebrating Black women in a sport historically dominated by them at both collegiate and professional levels. Watkins and Hidalgo's playstyle and charisma are seen as pivotal in shifting the spotlight to women of color in basketball. While they acknowledge the challenges of visibility faced by Black female athletes, they're determined to inspire and broaden the game's appeal, evident in Watkins' impact on USC's attendance and fan diversity. Their success symbolizes a long-overdue recognition of the contributions and talents of Black women in basketball.

Yes, the article as a whole, beyond the headline, was mostly reasonable and positive. However, it did have a few lines that rubbed me the wrong way:

And in a game built by Black women, it matters that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past.

This just seems wrong, and justifies the use of hypothetical reverse examples in objecting to it ("In a game built by white players, it matters that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past.")

And then there's a couple of passages that also seem wrong and disingenuously presented. First there's the mention of Lynette Woodard:

Too often, the Black players who built women’s hoops — and who now dominate the professional level, where the WNBA is 70% Black — haven’t been acknowledged. Occasionally their existence has been wiped from the record books completely, like with former Kansas standout Lynette Woodard's Division-I scoring record not being recognized by the NCAA.

Lynette Woodard played in the AIAW, not the NCAA. Since she never played in the NCAA, she was never in the NCAA record books to begin with, so her existence could not be wiped from them. Even calling it a "Division-1" record is inaccurate because Division-1 only applies to the NCAA (elsewhere, it's been commonly referred to as the "major college" record). If you want to argue that the NCAA should recognize non-NCAA records under some circumstances, that's a different topic. Ironically, Caitlin Clark's scoring has drawn new attention to Lynette Woodard's (and Pearl Moore's) achievements, and to the history of women's collegiate basketball.

Then the next paragraph is quote from USC coach Lindsay Gottlieb that is presented in a way that seems like it could be an endorsement of the previous statement about Lynette Woodard's record being wiped out, but is actually about commercial endorsement opportunities for black female athletes in general:

“I don’t think it’s anyone’s fault or been anyone’s intention,” Southern Cal coach Lindsay Gottlieb told USA TODAY Sports. “But there haven’t been enough commercial endorsements of Black female superstars in our society, period.”

With no transition between "Occasionally their existence has been wiped from the record books completely, like with former Kansas standout Lynette Woodard's Division-I scoring record not being recognized by the NCAA." and "I don’t think it’s anyone’s fault or been anyone’s intention," it sounds like Gottlieb is commenting on Lynette Woodard. Yes, the second part of her statement clarifies that she's talking about endorsement opportunities, but the way it's presented seems disingenuous.

The article just strikes me as an awkward conflation of two different topics: The influx of exciting young talent in women's college basketball (which should include Madison Booker, Milaysia Fulwiley, and others), and disparities in recognition and endorsement opportunities in women's basketball (in which case, college freshman are of relatively minor significance).

[DimesandKnicks]

This just seems wrong, and justifies the use of hypothetical reverse examples in objecting to it ("In a game built by white players, it matters that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past.")

This example would make sense if the paradigm was that 70 percent of players were white or that there were white players who weren’t being marketed or endorsed in accordance with their merit. It appears to be the opposite in the WNBA, for example:

I don’t watch women’s basketball at all. But I know Kelsey Plum’s face more than I know A’ja Wilson. You see her speak on the ESPN’s more and I’ve seen her more on commercials despite Wilson having won MVP and DPOY in that same year. More on this:

Read on Twitter

?s=20

And I believe this was the year she won both awards.
In short, the faces of the WNBA, to outsider such as myself, appear to be white. And maybe they are currently the best players.

Another thing that we need to consider is did white players pioneer the league? Was there an unspoken rule to only allow one or four players on a team up until the late 60’s? You know, when black people were still fighting for civil rights? Yes. If these were the circumstances white players were subject two while also making the majority of NBA players, I’d have no problem with your hypothetical statement. And regardless, these players are still celebrated by the NBA in the form of taking spots from the Dwight Howard’s and McGrady’s of the world in the Top 25 lists, not because of their abilities but because of their contributions.

With no transition between "Occasionally their existence has been wiped from the record books completely, like with former Kansas standout Lynette Woodard's Division-I scoring record not being recognized by the NCAA." and "I don’t think it’s anyone’s fault or been anyone’s intention," it sounds like Gottlieb is commenting on Lynette Woodard. Yes, the second part of her statement clarifies that she's talking about endorsement opportunities, but the way it's presented seems disingenuous.

I don’t think anyone reading the article in good faith is in sympathy with you. As you stated, it’s very clear that she isn’t talking about Lynette’s record and is referring to endorsements and opportunities.

[ellobo]

This just seems wrong, and justifies the use of hypothetical reverse examples in objecting to it ("In a game built by white players, it matters that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past.")

This example would make sense if the paradigm was that 70 percent of players were white or that there were white players who weren’t being marketed or endorsed in accordance with their merit. It appears to be the opposite in the WNBA, for example:

I don’t watch women’s basketball at all. But I know Kelsey Plum’s face more than I know A’ja Wilson. You see her speak on the ESPN’s more and I’ve seen her more on commercials despite Wilson having won MVP and DPOY in that same year. More on this:

Read on Twitter

?s=20

And I believe this was the year she won both awards.
In short, the faces of the WNBA, to outsider such as myself, appear to be white. And maybe they are currently the best players.

Another thing that we need to consider is did white players pioneer the league? Was there an unspoken rule to only allow one or four players on a team up until the late 60’s? You know, when black people were still fighting for civil rights? Yes. If these were the circumstances white players were subject two while also making the majority of NBA players, I’d have no problem with your hypothetical statement. And regardless, these players are still celebrated by the NBA in the form of taking spots from the Dwight Howard’s and McGrady’s of the world in the Top 25 lists, not because of their abilities but because of their contributions.

With no transition between "Occasionally their existence has been wiped from the record books completely, like with former Kansas standout Lynette Woodard's Division-I scoring record not being recognized by the NCAA." and "I don’t think it’s anyone’s fault or been anyone’s intention," it sounds like Gottlieb is commenting on Lynette Woodard. Yes, the second part of her statement clarifies that she's talking about endorsement opportunities, but the way it's presented seems disingenuous.

I don’t think anyone reading the article in good faith is in sympathy with you. As you stated, it’s very clear that she isn’t talking about Lynette’s record and is referring to endorsements and opportunities.

I absolutely agree there are disparities in recognition and marketing. Black women players have often received less recognition than they deserve, both in absolute terms and relative to their white peers (not universally, but often enough). Not disputing that one bit, so I'm not sure what you're arguing about there.

Unlike you, I do watch women's basketball, from Cheryl Miller's USC teams, to the beginning of the WNBA, to now. I mean, I saw Dawn Staley, Niele Ivey, Becky Hammon, Kellie (Jolley) Harper, and Kim Mulkey (all established successful current coaches) as college players. I wish women's basketball in general were much more popular and appreciated. I certainly think great black players should get all the recognition they deserve and have no problem with anyone advocating for that.

But saying that it's important that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past strikes me as a weirdly reactionary mentality that could be and is used to preserve and perpetuate historical and structural racism. It's also an odd thing to write because the black pioneers of the game didn't receive a high level of recognition or remuneration in their own time (neither did the white pioneers for that matter). Is the point that the faces of the future should look like Lynette Woodard, Cheryl Miller, Cynthia Cooper, and Teresa Edwards instead of Nancy Leiberman, Ann Myers, Carol Blazejowski, and Katie Smith? Or is the point that black players should receive the same recognition, marketing, and financial rewards as white players?

The article's misrepresentation of Lynnette Woodard's scoring record (something ChatGPT would be unlikely to address) just seems dishonest, and is a general issue with the NCAA not recognizing women's basketball, not anything specific to race.

I agree with the author of the article that Juju Watkins and Hannah Hidalgo are exciting young players. I've seen a lot of their games this year and they're both awesome. I'm especially a fan of Hidalgo, and I actually think she's been a little slept on in terms of national recognition. But in hyping up the impact of the best freshman players, I think not mentioning Madison Booker (not a natural point guard but forced into that role when Rori Harmon went down early in the season with a torn ACL, who had led Texas to a conference championship and top 5 ranking), and Milaysia Fulwiley (who's been kept on a bit of short leash by Dawn Staley, but has been a key spark for the undefeated number 1 ranked team) are glaring omissions.

[DimesandKnicks]

I absolutely agree there are disparities in recognition and marketing. Black women players have often received less recognition than they deserve, both in absolute terms and relative to their white peers (not universally, but often enough). Not disputing that one bit, so I'm not sure what you're arguing about there.

But saying that it's important that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past strikes me as a weirdly reactionary mentality that could be and is used to preserve and perpetuate historical and structural racism. It's also an odd thing to write because the black pioneers of the game didn't receive a high level of recognition or remuneration in their own time (neither did the white pioneers for that matter). Is the point that the faces of the future should look like Lynette Woodard, Cheryl Miller, Cynthia Cooper, and Teresa Edwards instead of Nancy Leiberman, Ann Myers, Carol Blazejowski, and Katie Smith? Or is the point that black players should receive the same recognition, marketing, and financial rewards as white players

Saying it’s important for players to resemble the players of the past may be weird in its own, but when you have an entire article to provide context for the title, reflecting a sentiment about disparities in recognition that you agree than I’m not sure what the issue is

[ellobo]

I absolutely agree there are disparities in recognition and marketing. Black women players have often received less recognition than they deserve, both in absolute terms and relative to their white peers (not universally, but often enough). Not disputing that one bit, so I'm not sure what you're arguing about there.

But saying that it's important that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past strikes me as a weirdly reactionary mentality that could be and is used to preserve and perpetuate historical and structural racism. It's also an odd thing to write because the black pioneers of the game didn't receive a high level of recognition or remuneration in their own time (neither did the white pioneers for that matter). Is the point that the faces of the future should look like Lynette Woodard, Cheryl Miller, Cynthia Cooper, and Teresa Edwards instead of Nancy Leiberman, Ann Myers, Carol Blazejowski, and Katie Smith? Or is the point that black players should receive the same recognition, marketing, and financial rewards as white players

Saying it’s important for players to resemble the players of the past may be weird in its own, but when you have an entire article to provide context for the title, reflecting a sentiment about disparities in recognition that you agree than I’m not sure what the issue is

I already tried to explain my issues with the article, but I'll try again.

1. The phrase "it matters that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past."
2. Inaccurate and misleading characterization of Lynette Woodard's scoring record.
3. In an article highlighting exciting young black women players and pointing out how black players deserve more recognition, only including two, and omitting a number of deserving others who could also use the attention.

[DimesandKnicks]

I absolutely agree there are disparities in recognition and marketing. Black women players have often received less recognition than they deserve, both in absolute terms and relative to their white peers (not universally, but often enough). Not disputing that one bit, so I'm not sure what you're arguing about there.

But saying that it's important that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past strikes me as a weirdly reactionary mentality that could be and is used to preserve and perpetuate historical and structural racism. It's also an odd thing to write because the black pioneers of the game didn't receive a high level of recognition or remuneration in their own time (neither did the white pioneers for that matter). Is the point that the faces of the future should look like Lynette Woodard, Cheryl Miller, Cynthia Cooper, and Teresa Edwards instead of Nancy Leiberman, Ann Myers, Carol Blazejowski, and Katie Smith? Or is the point that black players should receive the same recognition, marketing, and financial rewards as white players

Saying it’s important for players to resemble the players of the past may be weird in its own, but when you have an entire article to provide context for the title, reflecting a sentiment about disparities in recognition that you agree than I’m not sure what the issue is

I already tried to explain my issues with the article, but I'll try again.

1. The phrase "it matters that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past."
2. Inaccurate and misleading characterization of Lynette Woodard's scoring record.
3. In an article highlighting exciting young black women players and pointing out how black players deserve more recognition, only including two, and omitting a number of deserving others who could also use the attention.

Ok

[boogiezen]

Why is everything about the race? That article is just full of entitlement.

[MrDollarBills]

Mods please close this. This thread adds nothing of substance to this forum.