Caitlin Clark is overrated

There were 61 other teams wishing they were playing today and a year ago today. I'm guessing most posting here are fans of one of those other 61 teams?

Begs the question, how good must those 61 be if they can't get past a crappy team from Iowa?

Exactly!

I never watch women’s basketball, she had me tuned into the last 3 games and thoroughly enjoyed it

that said, she missed too many shots today, cost them the game. I question whether she has the size and power for the pro level

And another thing, what's up with the women playing with the non-regulation sized ball?

Women should be forced to play with men's balls.

Clark is elite, Juju is an everyman.

While Vlark could be absolutely amazing playing with those of her level, Juju is great playing with people of any level. Athletic, balanced, and skilled, Juju just needs better awareness. I think she’s better-rounded and more workmanlike, which is something I favor. It would be WAY easier to get under Clark’s skin than under Juju’s. The RIGHT person on Clark would crush her, we might see that in the pros, where she will be imo just another player. Hog the shots like that, and you’ll never end up getting the ball.

She’s had a huge burden, and imo borne it pretty well. Maybe she will settle into the pros, and find her groove.

Clark is someone I want to WATCH play, while Bueckers and Juju are two I would want to play WITH. It’s tough to articulate the difference.

Same difference for me as as Jordan vs Magic.

Over rated or not, she's about to become anonymous again as she enters the WNBA.

You are a moron.

Had a subpar Final Four.

Does anyone watch women's basketball, sparky?

I do--it's the sport I love even more than T&F, and will watch men's & women's, pro and college. I suspect I'm an outlier here. That said, I do think it's important to acknowledge that even as recently as 15 years ago, the men and women's game had a very different visual appeal, as the men have the potential to play the game above the rim and that definitely affects the viewing experience. However, in the advent of advanced metrics, there is simply a lot more three pointers being taken, which, in turn, really opens up the court. It also levels the viewing experience between men's and women's basketball. When the viewing experience is bad, random players jack up shots and play helter skelter. But when the game is one, it's really quite a beautiful thing to watch. And I think that really does extend to the various levels of basketball.

Everyone has relative weaknesses. But you are making a ludicrous argument for someone leading both in points and assists. You don't "follow your shot" for 3 pointers these days. Watch a full mens game. It's not worth the transition points. Behind the arc her % is higher than some players FG %. Other than that you are spot on.

She always just jacks up super long 3 pointers immediately after passing half court, very rarely setting up the offense, taking ill advised shots with tons of time on the shot clock.

As they say....You live by the sword, you die by the sword. She was cold for almost 3 quarters against South Carolina. Carolina played a bad game for them and over a half dozen questionable calls and they still won easily. That South Carolina team was one of the best ever and they received very little recognition due to the overhype train of Clark.

Is she overrated, Yes. More hype for her than any women's college player ever and it started last year with that hand gesture against Louisville and when it was directed back at her by LSU, she somehow became a darling hero and LSU the antagonist and the media hype went supersonic. She is a great player, no doubt about it, however she isn't the greatest college women's player. Diana Taurasi, Maya Moore, Cheryl Miller, Elena Delle Donne, Chamique Holdsclaw, Sue Bird, Kelsey Plum, Cynthia Cooper, Skyler Diggins are all better or equal. Clark is top 10 and definitely not top 5. I didn't even mention the bigs like Lisa Leslie and Brittney Griner who dominated when they played college ball.

What I've seen this is not about Clark; she's a great player. It's about how her coach uses her. The fact that she gets touches and shots every time down the floor was extolled by the analysts as they felt it was a positive that Bluder "turns Clark loose". I think it hurt them just enough to not get a championship.

We saw this in Chicago with Michael Jordan. The Bulls could never get to to finals because Jordan had the ball way too much and as defenses like the Pistons "Jordan Rules" showed, they double and triple teamed him to make the rest of the team beat them.

Phil Jackson said the success of the Bulls championship teams started when Jordan started to give up the ball more and switched to point guard and involve his teammates.

Your question, sparky, is completely irrelevant to my statement, sparky.

First of all, since there are so many clueless takes on this, some should not even be allowed to post.. "Does anyone watch women's basketball"?

Well, not as much as when Caitlin Clark played ..EVER..12.5M and 14.3M, you cannot argue that it was not compelling Sports TV.

No single player, Men's or Womens' carried a team, where not one player on their own team would not have started for the opponent in either final.All the way to two finals in any sport.

I could care less about women's hoops, but I watched her games, which I never even thought I would do that.

The only negative regarding her game to me, is the constant throwing up of here hands on every non call and a relative lack of defensive effort, altho with the amount of energy required to take shots from that far and the weight of carrying a bunch of otherwise okay but not great players, is understandable.

I agree it was a messy 30pts and they bottled her up pretty well. Still a goat and its not even close.

Lynette Woodard scored almost as many points with no 3-pt shot and she was using a bigger ball than Clark.

And her competition was not nearly the level it is now. A good woman's team 15 years ago would win by 50 points or more on a regular basis.