Note to opinion editors: editorial It represents the opinion of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently of the newsroom.
•••
There's no denying that Caitlin Clark has elevated women's basketball viewership and profile to unprecedented levels. She has broken records on and off the court, her games have been among the most-watched in women's basketball history, and her playing career is filled with similar accolades. She has had an incredibly positive impact on a sport that has historically not garnered the same attention as men's basketball, despite the talent of those who came before her.
This is only part of why Clarke's exclusion from the Olympic team was such a shock. There are many arguments for her exclusion, including inexperience on the international stage, not having enough time to train with the rest of the Olympic team, and mainly because some believe there is no reason to change something that is good. The Olympic members selected are proven athletes with a track record to back up their selection. The U.S. women's basketball team has brought home nine gold medals in the past 12 Olympic Games.
But has pure performance been enough to advance women's basketball? Enough? It's not gold medals that are bringing the attention, recognition, viewership and money that women's basketball deserves. It's the presence and influence of young, marketable players like Clark that was denied the U.S. women's national team selection committee for this summer's Paris tournament.
Of course, we don't send athletes to the Olympics just because they have a high market value. We send athletes to the Olympics because they can win and contribute to the future of the sport. Clark had the potential to do all of that. From a performance standpoint, the objective risk of playing the experienced and talented 42-year-old Diana Taurasi would be roughly the same as playing the inexperienced Clark. The difference is that Clark would have gained new viewership in a way that nine gold medals could not.
Additionally, Clark is not a controversial or political figure and has been problem-free thus far. She has become influential in a neglected field that desperately needs someone like Jessie Diggins. This was a rare opportunity to shake up the status quo, and the selection committee passed on him.
