DEI and NCAA women’s basketball tournament

NCHawker said:
Wow. What do you think of this?

youtu.be

DEI DESTROYED Caitlin Clark & Iowa’s NCAA Tourney Bracket | Gilbert Arenas Advises ‘304s’ | Ep 647

Caitlin Clark and Iowa’s Final Four dreams may be busted before they ever take the floor for the Women’s NCAA Tournament. The biggest opponent in their way i...
youtu.be youtu.be
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I buy it.
If I'm an NCAA bigwig, I'm doing everything I can for an Iowa-LSU matchup in a later round of the tourney. Eyeballs. Zilcho to do with anything other than dollar bills. The participants of the most watched women's basketball game ever, that drew 10,000,000 viewers in a late round rematch? Why, yes. Yes, I will do whatever I can to make that happen.

Mix in that I'm sure they knowingly lined up Van Lith's former team for her in the second round.
Had USC not won their conference tourney, I'm sure they would have wound up in there with Iowa too, for the torch passing ceremony from Clark to Watkins.

I just see it all as $$$$.

Texas, I'm sure coughed up $$$ for an easier path. That's what Texas does.

I think with this tournament, you're either gonna win it. Or you're not.


The K-State bit, though is a little....huh??? Really?

Edit:
I watched the video.
He makes a point, about $$$.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to numbers if/when the Hawks get bounced.
I still think the numbers will be high. But his point about losing out on one last chance to cash in on Clark is valid.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it is DEI. Maybe they just don't like Iowa very much. :) Men got the second 3 seed in the NIT so they really stuck it to them and they were far from first four out. Iowa State men got a rough road. Iowa women got a rough road. ISU women got Maryland then Stanford. Not one given a great road in the tourney and Iowa in the NIT would be on the 4 line if no one declined their invite which is a little rough. Looking at it all does make you think though.

If it is DEI it isn't really fair. Iowa hasn't gotten any breaks or special treatment that deserves Equity. Equity, not equality, meaning someone else has had the advantage or gotten more so now we have to give another the edge or advantage to equal things out. Where has Iowa gotten more or preference over someone else that they deserve to be held back or things made harder for them?
 
I mean, is it really that much or at all harder than the other regions? I mean LSU supposedly had some issues with games this year. Iowa would have to play the games anyway regardless.

I am one who is glad as if they are able to make a run to the Final Four and get to the C-ship game again, it would shut a lot of the naysayers up. I'm kind of like a bring it on kind of guy.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
I mean, is it really that much or at all harder than the other regions? I mean LSU supposedly had some issues with games this year. Iowa would have to play the games anyway regardless.

I am one who is glad as if they are able to make a run to the Final Four and get to the C-ship game again, it would shut a lot of the naysayers up. I'm kind of like a bring it on kind of guy.
Click to expand...
I think the general thought is our bracket is the hardest 2/3 seed combo. That doesn't really matter for Iowa tho because we only play one of them. But I guess the 4 and 5 seed both spent time ranked in the top 5 this year. Again, we only have to play one of them too. But when you stack a tough 4 and 5 seed, and also stack a tough 2 and 3 seed, it makes it very likely you will have a really tough game every round. I just changed my opinion halfway through my post lol.
 
dagdaj said:
I'm not sure I buy it.
If I'm an NCAA bigwig, I'm doing everything I can for an Iowa-LSU matchup in a later round of the tourney. Eyeballs. Zilcho to do with anything other than dollar bills. The participants of the most watched women's basketball game ever, that drew 10,000,000 viewers in a late round rematch? Why, yes. Yes, I will do whatever I can to make that happen.

Mix in that I'm sure they knowingly lined up Van Lith's former team for her in the second round.
Had USC not won their conference tourney, I'm sure they would have wound up in there with Iowa too, for the torch passing ceremony from Clark to Watkins.

I just see it all as $$$$.

Texas, I'm sure coughed up $$$ for an easier path. That's what Texas does.

I think with this tournament, you're either gonna win it. Or you're not.


The K-State bit, though is a little....huh??? Really?

Edit:
I watched the video.
He makes a point, about $$$.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to numbers if/when the Hawks get bounced.
I still think the numbers will be high. But his point about losing out on one last chance to cash in on Clark is valid.
Click to expand...
Judging by the numbers for Iowa's first two games, it doesn't make sense to go for high ratings matchups with Iowa. They are clearly getting high ratings no matter what, so ratings wise its smarter to save good matchups for other teams. Iowa could play the 6 worst teams in the tournament and they would still be the 6 most watched games. That's crazy to think about, but I bet it's true.
 
I just watched the video. No idea if giving Clark a tough draw is race related or not, but the part about KState being their sweet 16 matchup is pretty damning. They could pick from a handful of teams to be that 4 seed and they choose a team they played twice this year? When does that ever happen in a bracket.

It's such a weird thing to do you have to assume there has got to be a reason. When you have the information that Iowa lost to KState two out of three times over the last two years, they have one of the best centers, and Iowa struggles against big teams, it's pretty obvious that it's a really bad draw for Iowa. So why do you want the second best team to have a overly bad matchup in the sweet 16? They deserved an easy match-up based on being the 2nd overall seed.

A good match-up for ratings doesn't make any sense because the slightly better ratings you might get from that matchup isn't worth the lost ratings you will get once Clark is bounced. So why would you do that? Why give that overly tough match-up that no one cares to see because they've already seen it three times? Maybe the racist black guy from the video is wrong that it's because Clark is white. But he's right that there has to be a reason. Can anyone think of any reason that makes sense?
 
PCHawk said:
I just watched the video. No idea if giving Clark a tough draw is race related or not, but the part about KState being their sweet 16 matchup is pretty damning. They could pick from a handful of teams to be that 4 seed and they choose a team they played twice this year? When does that ever happen in a bracket.

It's such a weird thing to do you have to assume there has got to be a reason. When you have the information that Iowa lost to KState two out of three times over the last two years, they have one of the best centers, and Iowa struggles against big teams, it's pretty obvious that it's a really bad draw for Iowa. So why do you want the second best team to have a overly bad matchup in the sweet 16? They deserved an easy match-up based on being the 2nd overall seed.

A good match-up for ratings doesn't make any sense because the slightly better ratings you might get from that matchup isn't worth the lost ratings you will get once Clark is bounced. So why would you do that? Why give that overly tough match-up that no one cares to see because they've already seen it three times? Maybe the racist black guy from the video is wrong that it's because Clark is white. But he's right that there has to be a reason. Can anyone think of any reason that makes sense?
Click to expand...
Thinking about this further. Imagine if they would have put Ohio State as the 2 seed in Iowa's bracket. You would have to ask yourself why they would do that. You would think they would avoid that matchup at all costs, and I'm sure they made it a point to do just that.

But say they did put them together. Why did they do it? Well, they played twice. Iowa won at home fairly easily and lost a big lead to lose an overtime game on the road. That would tell me Iowa has a pretty good chance against them as far as a 2 seed matchup goes. If they put them in the same bracket, I would assume they did it to give Clark the easiest matchup possible. And then why would they give Clark the easiest matchup possible? Easy. To maximize ratings and exposure for as long as possible.
 
PCHawk said:
I think the general thought is our bracket is the hardest 2/3 seed combo. That doesn't really matter for Iowa tho because we only play one of them. But I guess the 4 and 5 seed both spent time ranked in the top 5 this year. Again, we only have to play one of them too. But when you stack a tough 4 and 5 seed, and also stack a tough 2 and 3 seed, it makes it very likely you will have a really tough game every round. I just changed my opinion halfway through my post lol.
Click to expand...

I get it, but why is it presumed Kansas St or Colorado would be harder than say OK, Utah, Baylor, or a NC State?
 
MelroseHawkins said:
I get it, but why is it presumed Kansas St or Colorado would be harder than say OK, Utah, Baylor, or a NC State?
Click to expand...
I dont know enough about the other teams to answer that completely. What we know for sure is Iowa struggles against good bigs. Kstate has a really good big. Kstate plays Iowa really tough (winning 2 of the last 3). If you want to set up a known tough match-up for Iowa, Kstate is a really good choice. If you want to set up an unknown match-up any of the other teams you listed would work.

Also Kstate's big was hurt for a stretch. At full strength they played closer to a 2 seed all year. I'm not sure if you can say that about the other teams you listed.
 
PCHawk said:
I dont know enough about the other teams to answer that completely. What we know for sure is Iowa struggles against good bigs. Kstate has a really good big. Kstate plays Iowa really tough (winning 2 of the last 3). If you want to set up a known tough match-up for Iowa, Kstate is a really good choice. If you want to set up an unknown match-up any of the other teams you listed would work.

Also Kstate's big was hurt for a stretch. At full strength they played closer to a 2 seed all year. I'm not sure if you can say that about the other teams you listed.
Click to expand...

I think I heard NC State has a bigger and athletic team. I've been telling people that the team that would take Iowa down would be a team loaded with some bigger and athletic post players. The physicality of playing teams that are physical with Clark also frustrates her.
 
Fryowa said:
The illuminati apparently hates Clark, so they conspired to give Iowa the hardest tournament path. Lol.
Click to expand...
Everybody's been bitching about their draw since the selection show. Is Colorado too tough for Sweet 16? Should a team expect to play a good/great team like UCLA/LSU? LSU's been dog shit so far. Iowa fans are scared of them because of last year. There were 7 really good teams in Iowa's bracket. We have to play 2 of them.

I will admit, though, that I thought there was a good chance that the NCAA would put Iowa, LSU, and South Carolina in their own brackets with UConn and USC in the 4th bracket. Swap LSU and NC State and it would've happened. Would've been a helluva Final Four.
 
In the end....
I'm more fascinated by how so many statements made regarding Clark by so many current and former female players....


Would absolutely be called "gatekeeping" and "gaslighting" if it were a man saying it.

And how it's being echoed and repeated by so many.

A list of the goalpost moving:
-she's only good because she's a ball hog. Leads country in assists. Again.
-whiny flop queen. And while I get itchy about her behavior sometimes, I remind myself you could watch an ENTIRE game where the camera exclusively followed her 100% of the time and I see plenty of similar behavior from others. In bits and pieces.
-can't play defense. Leads a team in steals that is still playing while 348 teams are done.
-Swoopes (honest mistake albeit misinformed, but the result is gaslighting and goalpost moving) 40 shots/game over 5 years
-no 3 pointer
-Maravich only played 3 seasons
-not a record until you pass Woodward. Passes Woodward
-just a great player unless she wins championships
-this week that is now "just a great player unless she wins MULTIPLE championships"

In theory, if they win today...
Then they would all have to agree. Maybe to the point that we just go ahead and cast her in bronze and put a statue on every campus of every university, state capital and city hall. Course, I suspect there would be further goalposts that could be found. WNBA records titles I suppose is where they would head next.

It's such a bad look and I don't think some don't realize it. Sports writers, announcers, etc don't anoint greatness. A contest doesn't even do that.

People decide it. And I think the people have decided. 12 million
14 million
How many today?
What about the extra 5000 that will sit in seats at the Las Vegas WNBA team who's moving one game on their schedule to a bigger arena for Clark's first visit.
Shit, more people watched Clark in person than the number of people who watched the WNBA All Star Game on TV.

Again. Under slightly different circumstances this would absolutely be called gatekeeping and gaslighting. And toxic.
 
-Maravich only played 3 seasons

This is the only comparison that is probably on point. Pete's college days were 50 years ago. Freshmen couldn't play, and Pete averaged 44.3 PPG and over 44 in each of his next two seasons, without the three. When hot, the Pistol had no real limit to his range.

BLM would be burning down the streets if white commentators said the things said to diminish CC22 by black commentators and players.
 
Teddy said:
BLM would be burning down the streets if white commentators said the things said to diminish CC22 by black commentators and players.
Click to expand...

To me, that's an assumption. That may or may not be accurate.

I'm far more likely to believe that race is actually far from being at the center of this.

Because I do know for a fact that if men were going so far out of their way to tell people they shouldn't appreciate a wildly successful female and have tried so hard to mitigate how people view her, they would be called toxic and be accused of gatekeeping and gaslighting. Even more interesting when they're wearing "Everyone watches womens sports" tee shirts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top