Caitlin Clark and Iowa Women’s Team Draw 4 Million More Viewers than Men’s NCAA Championship Game – But Ignorant WNBA ‘Stars’ Still Throw Shade at Clark
The NCAA Men’s Basketball Final drew 14.82 million viewers on Monday night. The game between Purdue and UConn men surpassed the previous year’s final by 4%.
The Iowa women drew in 18.87 million viewers in their NCAA final game against the South Carolina women’s basketball juggernaut.
The men’s number was 4 million viewers short from the women’s final with Caitlin Clark and the Iowa Hawkeyes.
Iowa’s Caitlin Clark broke every record imaginable this year in women’s AND men’s basketball.
Caitlin Clark also brought excitement to the game of women’s basketball – something unimaginable before she entered college. <----- !!!
I watched the final quarter. She has done a great job of bringing women's college basketball to American's television. Anyone who "throws shade" her way is just jealous of her God given talent in my humble opinion. I doubt if she can build a fire under women's professional basketball but I say more power to her.
She is a very talented basketball player and fun to watch. Plus she is mentally tougher than the WNBA thinks. Since nobody watches the WNBA anyway, they should welcome her as a big addition to their future. Plus she will bring diversity to the league. Ironic, no? 🤣
as long as the nBLMa continues subsidizing the wnBLMa they'll keep it up. CC would bring viewers but as long as this^^^ continues they just don't care.
CC is a she, and she was the talent of 15 lifetimes. Women's college basketball benefitted from her performance and talent, but will fade back to nothingness next year.
I watched. Pretty classy girl. Doing a great job with the pressure put on her. The entire Iowa team acted with class and respect. Refreshing to see in sports these days.
I have noticed a disturbing trend here lately. There seems to be an increasing number of forum members who only come on here to find something or someone to hate, or at a minimum, to denigrate the accomplishments of someone. It's as if there's a permanent chip on their shoulder.
CC is a she, and she was the talent of 15 lifetimes. Women's college basketball benefitted from her performance and talent, but will fade back to nothingness next year.
I have noticed a disturbing trend here lately. There seems to be an increasing number of forum members who only come on here to find something or someone to hate, or at a minimum, to denigrate the accomplishments of someone. It's as if there's a permanent chip on their shoulder.
Agree the blacks don’t want her there I’m scared they will put her out, break a leg arm whatever to ruin her career She should have stayed or retired and started CC school of shooting ,, how many 10-12 yr old girls would want to go to learn shooting skills from her? A fortune waiting
I have noticed a disturbing trend here lately. There seems to be an increasing number of forum members who only come on here to find something or someone to hate, or at a minimum, to denigrate the accomplishments of someone. It's as if there's a permanent chip on their shoulder.
I have noticed a disturbing trend here lately. There seems to be an increasing number of forum members who only come on here to find something or someone to hate, or at a minimum, to denigrate the accomplishments of someone. It's as if there's a permanent chip on their shoulder.
Lately? The place is stuffed with bitter skcuf.
And we wonder why the Democrats and Liberals keep making inroads everywhere. We have folks walking around with chips on their shoulder and we can't even come together in a common fight. They pick at the little [bleep] that aggravates their chip, or simply to feel superior to someone else on a message board. Hell, look at the GOP, if I hear of Marjorie Taylor Green scream about ousting another House leader I'm gonna lose my mind. The whole time we are bickering at each other the other side is running away with everything. We've turned into our own worst enemy.
Since I don't want to fully highjack the thread. I watched the tournament for the first time in 20 years. The women's teams are much more technical about the game, rather than physically muscling everything. It was fun to watch. CC is definitely a girl. She has the hips, legs and hands of a girl. Yes there is a slight adams apple and it is more pronounced as she has less body fat. If she's transgender, they started her off when she was 4-5, as they showed videos of her as she grew up. She has helped the game. Good on her!
I have noticed a disturbing trend here lately. There seems to be an increasing number of forum members who only come on here to find something or someone to hate, or at a minimum, to denigrate the accomplishments of someone. It's as if there's a permanent chip on their shoulder.
Lately? The place is stuffed with bitter skcuf.
And it's a shame when the hatred is costing us good people. A trusted friend whom I will not name, who was universally liked and respected here, a man with a wealth of knowledge and hunting experience, grew weary of this crap and now rarely, if ever, posts here. I'd say that's our loss, not his. And I doubt he's the only one.
Sunday vs. Monday game. And a 930 pm est tip for the men didn't help. Uconn fatigue also, most I talked to just didn't care to watch Purdue get crushed.
CC is a she, and she was the talent of 15 lifetimes. Women's college basketball benefitted from her performance and talent, but will fade back to nothingness next year.
Originally Posted by centershot
I watched. Pretty classy girl. Doing a great job with the pressure put on her. The entire Iowa team acted with class and respect. Refreshing to see in sports these days.
This is pretty much how I feel about it. I don’t watch BB but I watched CC and her teammates play. I doubt I’ll watch any next year.
I have noticed a disturbing trend here lately. There seems to be an increasing number of forum members who only come on here to find something or someone to hate, or at a minimum, to denigrate the accomplishments of someone. It's as if there's a permanent chip on their shoulder.
Lately? The place is stuffed with bitter skcuf.
And it's a shame when the hatred is costing us good people. A trusted friend whom I will not name, who was universally liked and respected here, a man with a wealth of knowledge and hunting experience, grew weary of this crap and now rarely, if ever, posts here. I'd say that's our loss, not his. And I doubt he's the only one.
' Yep, Rick might have to clean all the retards out if he ever wants to sell the forum. Probably have to delete the whole sub-forum. I've seen it happen.
canyt send you a Pm as you are over your topic limit 160user suggested you nmay be able to help me ID a synthetic stock i acquired in a bunch of stuff. manufacturer needed i can figure out the fit. if you can please e mail me at [email protected] as i cannot post photos on forum thanks Larry in Reno
I have noticed a disturbing trend here lately. There seems to be an increasing number of forum members who only come on here to find something or someone to hate, or at a minimum, to denigrate the accomplishments of someone. It's as if there's a permanent chip on their shoulder.
Lately? The place is stuffed with bitter skcuf.
The number of grown men here who start childish virtue signaling threads just to get their group of buddies to jump on the jerkoff bandwagon amazes me..
Then we have a plethora of those who cant help but call anybody a tranny a spook a homo..like was said before it’s no wonder we get our asses handed to us
I have been an interested watcher of women's college basketball for 20+ years. I have a few thoughts to share. When I first started watching women's basketball, I was impressed with the way that it was played, which was totally different from the men's game - skill and finesse were the norm instead of brute force. This has been changing, and I do not like that. I also do not like whining and disrespect of officials. Clark has amazing talent and did indeed break all sorts of records in both women's and men's basketball. The rest of the story there is that she broke those records against women's teams.
I haven't ever watched a women's basketball game and I've watched 2 of hers this year. She will play next year, too big of a chip on her shoulder not too. Unfortunately it's not a great career choice. Only money is in endorsement contracts.
I have been an interested watcher of women's college basketball for 20+ years. I have a few thoughts to share. When I first started watching women's basketball, I was impressed with the way that it was played, which was totally different from the men's game - skill and finesse were the norm instead of brute force. This has been changing, and I do not like that. I also do not like whining and disrespect of officials. Clark has amazing talent and did indeed break all sorts of records in both women's and men's basketball. The rest of the story there is that she broke those records against women's teams.
Years ago, a local sportswriter got in trouble for calling women's basketball "synchronized standing". I like the women's game of today and so does that sportswriter. The game has a good balance of skill and athleticism, along with a healthy dose of Good vs. Evil. It reminds me of the NBA of the '80's.
Now if Caitlan was black it would be a whole different story.
Sure. The truth of the matter is the only reason the numbers were what the were is because she is white. Very few if any media people will admit that. The South Carolina team was very talented and destined to win. No one was watching South Carolina outside of the faithful fans of SC. Next year the numbers will go right back to what they were.
I can't say I watched that closely, but did have the TV on two games this year, which is two games more than I did in the last 10+ years.
Man all you old hardlegs have drank the KoolAid on Caitlyn Clark. Do you actually watch womens basketball?
Amazing talent, hardly. She is a fair 3-point shooter, OK, I guess. In fact she was 55th in womens college basketball 3-point FG percentage this season. And #203 in career 3-point percentage. She is strictly a volume proposition. Throw up a ton of shots and some of them will go in. But not among the best in the game. Nowhere near.
Otherwise you really can't call her a basketball player at all. She is a volume shooter, is all.
She does not handle the ball well and is frequently very careless with it, opponents steal the ball away from her fairly easily. A fair amount of her offensive production comes from being allowed to push off and shove defensive players whenever she wants, to get open. If she were called for her push-offs she would have fouled out by halftime of most of her games the last two seasons.
Expects a foul to be called every time she touches the ball and does not get a basket.
Is a non-presence on defense and hardly ever goes hard after a rebound or boxes anybody out, the only times she gets a rebound is if the ball bounces directly onto her hands.
Yes, she will make millions from the game, due to all the sheep swallowing the media hype.
Much was made of her passing Pete Maravich's all-time scoring record. What she did does not in any way, shape, form or fashion compare to what Pistol Pete accomplished. She does share a record with him though - number of national championships she led her team to, ZERO. FOr all the big points they poured into the basket, the holes in the rest of their game ultimately did their teams fairly little good in terms of a championship.
Man all you old hardlegs have drank the KoolAid on Caitlyn Clark. Do you actually watch womens basketball?
Amazing talent, hardly. She is a fair 3-point shooter, OK, I guess. In fact she was 55th in womens college basketball 3-point FG percentage this season. And #203 in career 3-point percentage. She is strictly a volume proposition. Throw up a ton of shots and some of them will go in. But not among the best in the game. Nowhere near.
Otherwise you really can't call her a basketball player at all. She is a volume shooter, is all.
She does not handle the ball well and is frequently very careless with it, opponents steal the ball away from her fairly easily. A fair amount of her offensive production comes from being allowed to push off and shove defensive players whenever she wants, to get open. If she were called for her push-offs she would have fouled out by halftime of most of her games the last two seasons.
Expects a foul to be called every time she touches the ball and does not get a basket.
Is a non-presence on defense and hardly ever goes hard after a rebound or boxes anybody out, the only times she gets a rebound is if the ball bounces directly onto her hands.
Yes, she will make millions from the game, due to all the sheep swallowing the media hype.
Much was made of her passing Pete Maravich's all-time scoring record. What she did does not in any way, shape, form or fashion compare to what Pistol Pete accomplished. She does share a record with him though - number of national championships she led her team to, ZERO. FOr all the big points they poured into the basket, the holes in the rest of their game ultimately did their teams fairly little good in terms of a championship.
"Generational talent," "Amazing player," PLEASE.
You missed the point of this thread. It's not about how great she is. It's about the number of viewers that watched her game and how that compares to the men's and the historical average. Doesn't really matter if you like her or not, but the amount of interest in HER was huge. And it was about her, not womens basketball. Next year the numbers will go right back to being a non event.
There were a few of them polishing her knob in the middle of the thread, but overall I will admit you are correct. I just have not seen much substance to back up all the fuss.
And I do agree about the ratings and interest next season.
There were a few of them polishing her knob in the middle of the thread, but overall I will admit you are correct. I just have not seen much substance to back up all the fuss.
And I do agree about the ratings and interest next season.
I personally don't like modern basketball, but I'm just old. Every time they carry the ball and walk I just yell at the TV.
Man all you old hardlegs have drank the KoolAid on Caitlyn Clark. Do you actually watch womens basketball?
Amazing talent, hardly. She is a fair 3-point shooter, OK, I guess. In fact she was 55th in womens college basketball 3-point FG percentage this season. And #203 in career 3-point percentage. She is strictly a volume proposition. Throw up a ton of shots and some of them will go in. But not among the best in the game. Nowhere near.
Otherwise you really can't call her a basketball player at all. She is a volume shooter, is all.
She does not handle the ball well and is frequently very careless with it, opponents steal the ball away from her fairly easily. A fair amount of her offensive production comes from being allowed to push off and shove defensive players whenever she wants, to get open. If she were called for her push-offs she would have fouled out by halftime of most of her games the last two seasons.
Expects a foul to be called every time she touches the ball and does not get a basket.
Is a non-presence on defense and hardly ever goes hard after a rebound or boxes anybody out, the only times she gets a rebound is if the ball bounces directly onto her hands.
Yes, she will make millions from the game, due to all the sheep swallowing the media hype.
Much was made of her passing Pete Maravich's all-time scoring record. What she did does not in any way, shape, form or fashion compare to what Pistol Pete accomplished. She does share a record with him though - number of national championships she led her team to, ZERO. FOr all the big points they poured into the basket, the holes in the rest of their game ultimately did their teams fairly little good in terms of a championship.
Man all you old hardlegs have drank the KoolAid on Caitlyn Clark. Do you actually watch womens basketball?
Amazing talent, hardly. She is a fair 3-point shooter, OK, I guess. In fact she was 55th in womens college basketball 3-point FG percentage this season. And #203 in career 3-point percentage. She is strictly a volume proposition. Throw up a ton of shots and some of them will go in. But not among the best in the game. Nowhere near.
Otherwise you really can't call her a basketball player at all. She is a volume shooter, is all.
She does not handle the ball well and is frequently very careless with it, opponents steal the ball away from her fairly easily. A fair amount of her offensive production comes from being allowed to push off and shove defensive players whenever she wants, to get open. If she were called for her push-offs she would have fouled out by halftime of most of her games the last two seasons.
Expects a foul to be called every time she touches the ball and does not get a basket.
Is a non-presence on defense and hardly ever goes hard after a rebound or boxes anybody out, the only times she gets a rebound is if the ball bounces directly onto her hands.
Yes, she will make millions from the game, due to all the sheep swallowing the media hype.
Much was made of her passing Pete Maravich's all-time scoring record. What she did does not in any way, shape, form or fashion compare to what Pistol Pete accomplished. She does share a record with him though - number of national championships she led her team to, ZERO. FOr all the big points they poured into the basket, the holes in the rest of their game ultimately did their teams fairly little good in terms of a championship.
"Generational talent," "Amazing player," PLEASE.
Very hard to argue with any of that.
Until you add the assists which make her contribution over 50% of the team output. Toss in a few rebounds...
Man all you old hardlegs have drank the KoolAid on Caitlyn Clark. Do you actually watch womens basketball?
Amazing talent, hardly. She is a fair 3-point shooter, OK, I guess. In fact she was 55th in womens college basketball 3-point FG percentage this season. And #203 in career 3-point percentage. She is strictly a volume proposition. Throw up a ton of shots and some of them will go in. But not among the best in the game. Nowhere near.
Otherwise you really can't call her a basketball player at all. She is a volume shooter, is all.
She does not handle the ball well and is frequently very careless with it, opponents steal the ball away from her fairly easily. A fair amount of her offensive production comes from being allowed to push off and shove defensive players whenever she wants, to get open. If she were called for her push-offs she would have fouled out by halftime of most of her games the last two seasons.
Expects a foul to be called every time she touches the ball and does not get a basket.
Is a non-presence on defense and hardly ever goes hard after a rebound or boxes anybody out, the only times she gets a rebound is if the ball bounces directly onto her hands.
Yes, she will make millions from the game, due to all the sheep swallowing the media hype.
Much was made of her passing Pete Maravich's all-time scoring record. What she did does not in any way, shape, form or fashion compare to what Pistol Pete accomplished. She does share a record with him though - number of national championships she led her team to, ZERO. FOr all the big points they poured into the basket, the holes in the rest of their game ultimately did their teams fairly little good in terms of a championship.
I have noticed a disturbing trend here lately. There seems to be an increasing number of forum members who only come on here to find something or someone to hate, or at a minimum, to denigrate the accomplishments of someone. It's as if there's a permanent chip on their shoulder.
Man all you old hardlegs have drank the KoolAid on Caitlyn Clark. Do you actually watch womens basketball?
Amazing talent, hardly. She is a fair 3-point shooter, OK, I guess. In fact she was 55th in womens college basketball 3-point FG percentage this season. And #203 in career 3-point percentage. She is strictly a volume proposition. Throw up a ton of shots and some of them will go in. But not among the best in the game. Nowhere near.
Otherwise you really can't call her a basketball player at all. She is a volume shooter, is all.
Much was made of her passing Pete Maravich's all-time scoring record. What she did does not in any way, shape, form or fashion compare to what Pistol Pete accomplished.
You seem to be channeling Sheryl Swoopes.She also lied about Caitlin Clark's accomplishments.
Swoopes falsely claimed that Clark has played for 5 years and averaged 40 shots per game.Unfortunately for Swoopes many social media users proved she was a liar based upon actual statistics.
Clark has played for 4 years and she averaged 18.7 shots per game.
Maravitch averaged 44 shots per game.So the actual statistics have proven that you're a liar,as well as Swoopes.LOL
Man all you old hardlegs have drank the KoolAid on Caitlyn Clark. Do you actually watch womens basketball?
Amazing talent, hardly. She is a fair 3-point shooter, OK, I guess. In fact she was 55th in womens college basketball 3-point FG percentage this season. And #203 in career 3-point percentage. She is strictly a volume proposition. Throw up a ton of shots and some of them will go in. But not among the best in the game. Nowhere near.
Otherwise you really can't call her a basketball player at all. She is a volume shooter, is all.
Much was made of her passing Pete Maravich's all-time scoring record. What she did does not in any way, shape, form or fashion compare to what Pistol Pete accomplished.
You seem to be channeling Sheryl Swoopes.She also lied about Caitlin Clark's accomplishments.
Swoopes falsely claimed that Clark has played for 5 years and averaged 40 shots per game.Unfortunately for Swoopes many social media users proved she was a liar based upon actual statistics.
Clark has played for 4 years and she averaged 18.7 shots per game.
Maravitch averaged 44 shots per game.So the actual statistics have proven that you're a liar,as well as Swoopes.LOL
I was thinking the same thing. Either that or he’s a butthurt LSU Fan. 😜
Man all you old hardlegs have drank the KoolAid on Caitlyn Clark. Do you actually watch womens basketball?
Amazing talent, hardly. She is a fair 3-point shooter, OK, I guess. In fact she was 55th in womens college basketball 3-point FG percentage this season. And #203 in career 3-point percentage. She is strictly a volume proposition. Throw up a ton of shots and some of them will go in. But not among the best in the game. Nowhere near.
Yep, the millions of fans, the Olympic team, and all the pundits, WNBA team owners and coaches all have it wrong. No way Clark is a Number One draft choice...
Man all you old hardlegs have drank the KoolAid on Caitlyn Clark. Do you actually watch womens basketball?
Amazing talent, hardly. She is a fair 3-point shooter, OK, I guess. In fact she was 55th in womens college basketball 3-point FG percentage this season. And #203 in career 3-point percentage. She is strictly a volume proposition. Throw up a ton of shots and some of them will go in. But not among the best in the game. Nowhere near.
Otherwise you really can't call her a basketball player at all. She is a volume shooter, is all.
She does not handle the ball well and is frequently very careless with it, opponents steal the ball away from her fairly easily. A fair amount of her offensive production comes from being allowed to push off and shove defensive players whenever she wants, to get open. If she were called for her push-offs she would have fouled out by halftime of most of her games the last two seasons.
Expects a foul to be called every time she touches the ball and does not get a basket.
Is a non-presence on defense and hardly ever goes hard after a rebound or boxes anybody out, the only times she gets a rebound is if the ball bounces directly onto her hands.
Yes, she will make millions from the game, due to all the sheep swallowing the media hype.
Much was made of her passing Pete Maravich's all-time scoring record. What she did does not in any way, shape, form or fashion compare to what Pistol Pete accomplished. She does share a record with him though - number of national championships she led her team to, ZERO. FOr all the big points they poured into the basket, the holes in the rest of their game ultimately did their teams fairly little good in terms of a championship.
"Generational talent," "Amazing player," PLEASE.
you seem bitter. LOL
He must have been wacking his pud over her and blistered himself.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/W3f58BLW/Whitlock.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/ryt0z1H5/caitlin-clark-nike80.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/8zC4t9s8/Caitlin-Clark-green-dot-stats-compared-to-all-9-718-D1-college-basketball-players-this-season-r-Th.png)
