The most important thing about Caitlin Clark is she captured our imaginations
Two things about Caitlin Clark.
One, to the extent she’s sparked debate, that debate’s been stupid.
There’s the one about is she really that great after all? and the one that asks, yeah, but is she really going to make the WNBA must-watch television?
Each is exclusively pushed by naysayers.
Like we’re supposed to think less of her because Pete Maravich played without a 3-point arc and would have averaged 60 if he had, all the while nobody points out Maravich’s LSU Tigers went mostly nowhere over his three seasons in Baton Rouge, look it up, while Clark’s Hawkeyes won 20, 24, 31 and 34 games, twice finishing national runner-up.
Like we’re supposed to think less of her because she failed to lead her team to a national championship, even as it’s clear as day Iowa would have been lost without her, the same way each LeBron James led Cavalier squad would have been lost without him.
No, she doesn’t look like she’ll beat you standing still, but the game’s not played standing still.
Like, she shouldn’t be a phenomenon because she might not take over the pro game like Larry Bird and Magic Johnson took over the pro game; and even if she does, she may not move the cultural mountains they moved; and even if she does, come on, she’s still not Magic or Larry … as though only those things would retroactively earn her current phenomenon status.
So dumb.
A false argument.
Oklahoma Columnist is a reader-supported publication. Though most content is free, this venture continues to be made possible by donations in the form of paid subscriptions. Please consider one for the small price of $6/month or $60/year. You’ll get the rest of this column and everything else in the Oklahoma Columnist catalog. Thanks for reading.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Oklahoma Columnist, by Clay Horning to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.