The amazing thing to me is that Dowling never made it to the state tournament with her. I believe that is a correct statement.
Her senior year, I believe, it was a team that included Nyamer Diew that kept Dowling from state.
The amazing thing to me is that Dowling never made it to the state tournament with her. I believe that is a correct statement.
Did she whine and ***** all the time, or has she learned that from her whiney and ******** coach sweet Lisa?The amazing thing to me is that Dowling never made it to the state tournament with her. I believe that is a correct statement.
Her senior year, I believe, it was a team that included Nyamer Diew that kept Dowling from state.
I think you're way off. Harden is a big guard with range.Id say James harden, elite offensively but doesn't really engage at the other end.
I enjoy WBB more than most, have had season tkts for ISU for a long time, but I wonder how much money should really be spent on the sport. Do even the top programs break even? I believe ISU finishes in the hole most yrs though I could be wrong on that.I guess if you view equal scholarships as being the primary aspect of equality, then sure. But equality goes way beyond Title 9 requirements. I'm talking more about equality in terms of public perception, which means fandom, viewing opportunities, and more.
I think in terms of money you could count the number of break-even programs on two hands, at most. I think it's important to remember, though, how young women's basketball is. Most schools didn't have teams until the 70s, and the NCAA didn't have a women's tournament until 1982. The WNBA didn't exist until 1996. It takes generations to establish a strong fandom around a sport in the best of circumstances and that's even harder when the men's equivalents already saturate the media market.I enjoy WBB more than most, have had season tkts for ISU for a long time, but I wonder how much money should really be spent on the sport. Do even the top programs break even? I believe ISU finishes in the hole most yrs though I could be wrong on that.
It's popular but only when you catch lightning in a bottle does it really become popular Iowa with the Caitlyn Clark show, ISU back in the late 1990 early 2000s with our attendance peak. I guess UConn would be the exception. I've seen Stanford on TV some nights they don't draw that well S. Carolina does since Staley (Spelling) and Boston. Baylor's attendance has cratered since Mulkey left (don't know LSU's attendance #s)
I've heard she's the second coming of MJ, but I don't care.
Yeah. I think there's a reason that the Joenses got out of the Iowa City metro for college and that the Clarks got out of the DSM/Ames metro.Really damn good player. From things I've heard from some very close sources, her and her parents are not pleasant people to be around
I understand what Steph is saying and I respect. Me personally I don't view the enemy as people, I view them as disposable.
Clark is a very good player.In one of the best episodes ever of the Title IX podcast, Steph and Alisa have a great debate about Caitlin Clark. Should we met at least generally supportive of her because she is so good for women's sports? Or must we not care about her because of our dislike for the Hoks? Epic discussion on the podcast.
![]()
Title IX: Episode 94
The ladies discuss the upcoming Big 12 Tournaments, break down their passion for women's basketball's hottest debate, and interview the Harlem Globetrotters' Mia Mighty Hopkins.cyclonefanatic.com
I guess if you view equal scholarships as being the primary aspect of equality, then sure. But equality goes way beyond Title 9 requirements. I'm talking more about equality in terms of public perception, which means fandom, viewing opportunities, and more.
During realignment, there's been a lot of points made by Iowa State fans that popularity is at least partly a product of media exposure. That's partly true for women's basketball as well. I believe the article below is the one cited on the Title IX podcast about women's basketball viewership. Viewership numbers up across the board. Sure, they still fall way short of the men's equivalents, but especially considering the fact that men's basketball had a decades-long head start on women's, the growth is impressive.That's not how it works. Entertainment that is more popular gets more fans, attention and money. Not sure what Clark will do for WBB other than inflate the egos of Iowa fans who are now all of a sudden WBB fanatics. Same thing with baseball. Nobody outside of their fan base really cares that much.
Watch what happens when Clark leaves Iowa.
Clark is a very good player.
Clark is also a volume scorer who plays on a a team set up to make Clark the focus of everything.
Clark also appears to engage in arrogant, mean-spirited antics and complains about every single potentially adverse call just like a McCaffrey would.
So, no, I won't be supportive of Clark personally, though if more people start watching women's collegiate basketball regularly, I consider that a great thing.
Can’t speak for him but if I see a business with black and gold in its colors, a vehicle of theirs with a Hawk decal, a worker wearing a Hawk hat, etc they are dead to me.I love the way you never shrink back from your dislike for the Hoks. It is always inspiring.
However, it begs the question of whether you view any of these "disposable Hok fans" as "paying clients?" Or do you "dispose of them" once you find out prospective clients are Hok fans?
Why not? I think I can be glad that more people are tuning in without bowing down at the altar to worship her arrogance.The bolded part of your post is the debate in a nutshell. Is it possible to do both?