Caitlin Clark about to break Pistol's NCAA scoring total...

[derek_tiger]

of 3,667 points... which is fine for Women's BBall and for her personally. It's all over the sports news this morning. Great.

HOWEVER, not once... not a single time... did I hear any comparisons to Pete Maravich's record and any announcer mentioning HE DID NOT HAVE A 3 POINT LINE AVAILABLE. Caitlin has hit 503 3pt shots in her career as of this morning... I'll do the math for you... that = 1,509 points. Change those to 2pt'ers and that now becomes 1,006 points. Jus' sayin'.

Nor did they mention Pete played before FR were allowed to play, so he set his record in 3 seasons.

Nice job Caty... but I knew Pete and you are no Pete Maravich.

 

[Reasoned]

of 3,667 points... which is fine for Women's BBall and for her personally. It's all over the sports news this morning. Great.

HOWEVER, not once... not a single time... did I hear any comparisons to Pete Maravich's record and any announcer mentioning HE DID NOT HAVE A 3 POINT LINE AVAILABLE. Caitlin has hit 503 3pt shots in her career as of this morning... I'll do the math for you... that = 1,509 points. Change those to 2pt'ers and that now becomes 1,006 points. Jus' sayin'.

Nor did they mention Pete played before FR were allowed to play, so he set his record in 3 seasons.

Nice job Caty... but I knew Pete and you are no Pete Maravich.

🙄

Is that you @Bill_D ?



😏

 

[derek_tiger]

🙄
Is that you @Bill_D ?
😏

'Get OFF MY LAWN...'...

🤣

 

[Sanctions Stand]

I guess they think those are small details... like one had a pecker and one has a poon

 

[Bill_D]

🙄

Is that you @Bill_D ?



😏

An assistant coach or someone on the coaching staff keeps a chart of the court and marks every spot a shot from which it is made on the court In a game. I heard that if they had counted Pete’s 3 point shots LSU would have won every game they played that year.

But Pete was more than a shooter. He also was awesome at assists. Like Caitlin a true AA and super star.

 

[GwinnettDawg]

🙄

Is that you @Bill_D ?



😏

He’s not wrong. Her being a chick of the corn shouldn’t change your view.

 

[BKHusky]

Comparing records between divisions in sports is dumb anyhow

 

[Reasoned]

He’s not wrong. Her being a chick of the corn shouldn’t change your view.

Yep, hence my snarky emoji

Comparing records between divisions in sports is dumb anyhow

Absolutely true, and any scoring records post 3 point shots should be * .

 

[Bill_D]

Comparing records between divisions in sports is dumb anyhow

Lots of stuff should be ignored. Anybody remember a few years ago when some kid in a minor league school needed about one game to break Pete’s record and his father felt that justified his son’s team being justified to be in the 64 teams or the NIT even though it didn’t justify it for any other reason.

 

[GwinnettDawg]

Lots of stuff should be ignored. Anybody remember a few years ago when some kid in a minor league school needed about one game to break Pete’s record and his father felt that justified his son’s team being justified to be in the 64 teams or the NIT even though it didn’t justify it for any other reason.

Or when a mid major is undefeated and claims a natty down in central Florida.

 

[derek_tiger]

Or when a mid major is undefeated and claims a natty down in central Florida.

Or when a football school joins a basketball 1st conference and proceeds to win a gaudy number of games, bowls, championships vs. Div-II level competition... 'it ain't who ya beat, it's how many you win'.

#@Bobby Bowden

 

[derek_tiger]

Finally.... a bit of context...

Once again, progressive forces in the media have seized control of the narrative in college athletics.

A while back we were told we must accept that transgender athletes CeCé Telfer and Lia Thomas were female athletes, because they said so. Now we are being told that the University of Iowa’s Caitlin Clark, a phenomenal female basketball player, is the NCAA’s new all-time leading scorer (3,685 points) because she surpassed Pete Maravich’s long-standing scoring record (3,667 points).

When I first read the reports, I kept looking for a qualifier that would correctly label her as the NCAA’s greatest all-time scorer in women’s basketball history. So far, however, every bit of reporting I’ve perused — from ESPN to the alphabet media news outlets along with various social media tributes — all celebrate Caitlin Clark beating Pete Maravich’s record. That’s it. No qualifier.

As the proud father of a former women’s Division 1 NCAA athlete, you will not find a more supportive fan of women’s athletics. Indeed, my issue with the trans movement injecting itself into NCAA sports is that it makes a mockery of the entire concept of women’s athletics and neuters Title IX advancements in the NCAA.

Ms. Clark’s achievement is truly remarkable. And, yes, technically she did surpass “Pistol Pete” as the all-time NCAA basketball scorer. But let us return, once again, to cold, hard reality.

First off, during Maravich’s era, there was no three-point line, no shot clock, and no dunking. It was a different game. Second, Maravich played only three seasons for LSU, since freshmen were ineligible to play on varsity teams in the late 60s. But of course, that’s not the elephant in the room.

There remains one other unavoidable and seminal fact: Ms. Clark is a woman playing against other women. Maravich played against men and not just any men. During his 1967-1970 career at LSU his collegiate contemporaries included the likes of Kareem Adbul-Jabar (Lew Alcindor) (7’2”) and Elvin Hayes (6’9”) and many others known for their tremendous ability on the court. That alone should be enough to end the argument. As impressive as Ms. Clark’s stats may be, they should be calculated on the women’s side of the basketball ledger.

For the legacy media, however, political correctness drives the headlines, like this one from CBS Sports: “Caitlin Clark Becomes NCAA All-Time Leading Scorer.” UPI’s headline reads: “Alone at the Top: Caitlin Clark sets NCAA all time points record.” Yahoo! News says she broke the women’s and men’s all-time leading scoring record. “Caitlin Clark breaks Pete Maravich’s NCAA all-time scoring record”

Yahoo! News does remind us that there are women’s and men’s sports before pivoting back to “all-time NCAA leader,” which is pretty typical of the dissonance so many journalists must force themselves to overcome when reporting such landmarks.

Yet, this is not a new phenomenon.

Many years ago, during an interview on NPR, John McEnroe stated Serena Williams was the greatest female tennis player in history. When the female interviewer suggested dropping gender from the equation, McEnroe refused:

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah, best tennis player in the world – you know, why say female player?
MCENROE: Well, because if she was – if she played the men’s circuit, she’d be, like, 700 in the world.

When CBS News anchor Nora O’Donnell subsequently asked McEnroe if he wanted to apologize for his remarks, he rightfully refused again. Facts are facts.

Williams herself has backed McEnroe’s assessment, telling David Letterman:

If I were to play Andy Murray, I would lose, 6-0, 6-0, in five to six minutes, maybe 10 minutes … The men are a lot faster, they serve harder, they hit harder. … It’s a completely different game.

Ms. Williams, who has more grand slam wins (23) than either Roger Federer (20) or Rafael Nadal (22) — but one less than Novak Djokovic (24) — clearly does not consider herself in the same league. She understands men’s tennis and women’s tennis are far from the same sport. As such, Serena Williams, along with Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova, and Margaret Court, deserve their own places as the greatest women tennis players in history.

Ms. Clark’s accomplishments are truly remarkable, but truth and accuracy in journalism still matter. Weren’t we recently told by collegiate presidents themselves that context matters? I should think it applies to men’s versus women’s athletics most of all when making superlative claims based on numbers with no qualifiers added.

So look up to Caitlin Clark for her stunning play, yes. And congratulate her, as I do. If her drive and hard work are reflections of her character as a whole, as I suspect they are, she is a role model America’s kids, girls especially, should emulate. But let’s not try to make her into more than she is. Why? Because truth matters. This is a concept the media seem to have left behind in their relentless mission to create rather than report the narrative to achieve their social engineering goals.

We know that Ms. Clark could not compete head-to-head with the man whose record she has beaten. We know this because there is not a woman who could genuinely compete, let alone be a force, in the NBA against the best players of the world on the same court. Otherwise, the NBA would be filled with women too. Instead, they have their own league.

So, unless Ms. Clark’s record was achieved against male players, her stats should not therefore be held up to those of Maravich. Such a qualifier would not relegate women’s athletics to second-tier status.

As the success of women’s tennis has shown, people will still appreciate and marvel at awesome playing in all forms from both sexes. Why can’t we just leave it at that?


When It Comes To Breaking Records, Context Matters

 

[Reasoned]

^ Well technically she is “the NCAA’s new all-time leading scorer”. If you want to make the point she had the advantage of the 3 point line, that’s fair but insinuating it’s more of an accomplishment for men vs men than women vs women is 🐂.

 

[dhetiger]

^ Well technically she is “the NCAA’s new all-time leading scorer”. If you want to make the point she had the advantage of the 3 point line, that’s fair but insinuating it’s more of an accomplishment for men vs men than women vs women is 🐂.

I think that everything you said after "3 point line" shows that you are missing the point.

 

[HONKifUvCOACHED4BAMA]

than women vs women is 🐂.

 

[Reasoned]

Okay, (and I know I’ll regret this so here it is 🙄)

from the above:
First off, during Maravich’s era, there was no three-point line, no shot clock, and no dunking.
Agreed
Second, Maravich played only three seasons for LSU, since freshmen were ineligible to play on varsity teams in the late 60s.
Also, no argument
There remains one other unavoidable and seminal fact: Ms. Clark is a woman playing against other women. So 🤷‍♂️ Maravich played against men and not just any men. During his 1967-1970 career at LSU his collegiate contemporaries included the likes of Kareem Adbul-Jabar (Lew Alcindor) (7’2”) and Elvin Hayes (6’9”) and many others known for their tremendous ability on the court. That alone should be enough to end the argument. As impressive as Ms. Clark’s stats may be, they should be calculated on the women’s side of the basketball ledger.
Here’s where there’s an issue, it’s all relative to the era or time the record is established. That would be like saying Babe Ruth hit his homer’s against inferior pitching compared with Hank Aaron’s era (which is true but also relative and uncontrollable). Perhaps if one looks at shooting percentage of Clark vs Maravich: She has hit 1,207 of 2,593 attempts in her career for a .465 shooting percentage. Maravich hit 1,387 of 3,166 shots for a .438 shooting percentage. Clark is averaging 19.9 shots a game in her career. Maravich averaged 38 shots a game. But even this doesn’t make a fair comparison, perhaps she’s shot more layups, who knows so arguing over this with (as sockpupet might say) a bunch of southern, misogynists (him, not me 😏) is futile.

 

[dhetiger]

Okay, (and I know I’ll regret this so here it is 🙄)

from the above:
First off, during Maravich’s era, there was no three-point line, no shot clock, and no dunking.
Agreed
Second, Maravich played only three seasons for LSU, since freshmen were ineligible to play on varsity teams in the late 60s.
Also, no argument
There remains one other unavoidable and seminal fact: Ms. Clark is a woman playing against other women. So 🤷‍♂️ Maravich played against men and not just any men. During his 1967-1970 career at LSU his collegiate contemporaries included the likes of Kareem Adbul-Jabar (Lew Alcindor) (7’2”) and Elvin Hayes (6’9”) and many others known for their tremendous ability on the court. That alone should be enough to end the argument. As impressive as Ms. Clark’s stats may be, they should be calculated on the women’s side of the basketball ledger.
Here’s where there’s an issue, it’s all relative to the era or time the record is established. That would be like saying Babe Ruth hit his homer’s against inferior pitching compared with Hank Aaron’s era (which is true but also relative and uncontrollable). Perhaps if one looks at shooting percentage of Clark vs Maravich: She has hit 1,207 of 2,593 attempts in her career for a .465 shooting percentage. Maravich hit 1,387 of 3,166 shots for a .438 shooting percentage. Clark is averaging 19.9 shots a game in her career. Maravich averaged 38 shots a game. But even this doesn’t make a fair comparison, perhaps she’s shot more layups, who knows so arguing over this with (as sockpupet might say) a bunch of southern, misogynists (him, not me 😏) is futile.

A) Derek copied and pasted someone else's opinion. B) nobody is saying that Clark's accomplishments are diminished in any way. Kudos to her. C) it's probably fair to say the overall level of talent as compared to their own was greater in Pete's favor than Clark's. Not her fault, but it's probably fair. D) stop giving Megan Rapinoe your login.

 

[Reasoned]

A) Derek copied and pasted someone else's opinion.

I’m aware

B) nobody is saying that Clark's accomplishments are diminished in any way. Kudos to her.

😉

C) it's probably fair to say the overall level of talent as compared to their own was greater in Pete's favor than Clark's. Not her fault, but it's probably fair.

Agree…mostly

D) stop giving Megan Rapinoe your login.

Pack sand pal 🙂

 

[Bill_D]

I’m aware

😉

Agree…mostly

Pack sand pal 🙂

Shooting percentage is not much a factor First Catkin uses a significantly smaller ball and not even considering that the difference in percentage would probably be only around 130 points Or so. Caitlin also had the 3 point shot and for about 1000 points more and Pete averaged about 1200 points per year.and with the extra year would make his total go an equal period of timeabout2200 points more than Catlin. roughly. So while Catlin should be congratulated for her feat let’s not pretend it would be anywhere close to Pete efforts under the same conditions.

 

[HONKifUvCOACHED4BAMA]

Shooting percentage is not much a factor First Catkin uses a significantly smaller ball and not even considering that the difference in percentage would probably be only around 130 points Or so. Caitlin also had the 3 point shot and for about 1000 points more and Pete averaged about 1200 points per year.and with the extra year would make his total go an equal period of timeabout2200 points more than Catlin. roughly. So while Catlin should be congratulated for her feat let’s not pretend it would be anywhere close to Pete efforts under the same conditions.

I never imagined LSU fans would complain about Pistol Pete’s ball not being smaller. What a lame excuse.

 

[David_Dennison]

of 3,667 points... which is fine for Women's BBall and for her personally. It's all over the sports news this morning. Great.

HOWEVER, not once... not a single time... did I hear any comparisons to Pete Maravich's record and any announcer mentioning HE DID NOT HAVE A 3 POINT LINE AVAILABLE. Caitlin has hit 503 3pt shots in her career as of this morning... I'll do the math for you... that = 1,509 points. Change those to 2pt'ers and that now becomes 1,006 points. Jus' sayin'.

Nor did they mention Pete played before FR were allowed to play, so he set his record in 3 seasons.

Nice job Caty... but I knew Pete and you are no Pete Maravich.

I saw him play at Coleman as a SR. He scored in the 60s. With a 3 point line he could have hit 100 in a game.

Ditto for Wilt Chamberlain and Lew Alcindor if dunks had been legal. They were unstoppable as it was.