Payton Sandfort lost to Caitlin in AAU ball
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
I don't think losing to a team with Caitlin Clark on it is anything to be ashamed of. There are plenty of Division 1 men's basketball teams that Clark could play on right now and be an effective player. I don't know if she could take over a game like she does in the women's game but she would compete and make teams better.
Really. She's 6 foot tall, and weighs 155 lbs. If they call the game the same way they do in men's college ball, I doubt that she makes a team better. She just isn't physical enough to play in the men's game. She would need to adjust to a larger basketball and while she may be fast in the women's game, she would have below average speed in the men's game.
She's a great women's player, but way too many people have bought the hype that she could compete on the men's level. Just aint so. Remember the best women's soccer players in the world lost to a U15 (14-year-old boys which means 8th and 9th grade) boys' team. They just weren't fast enough and physical enough to compete.
I remember watching her as a third or fourth grader destroy girls teams at a youth tournament in Waukee. You just knew she was going to be somebody good later in life and here we are. Great player but even better person. I laugh at all the haters and people that don’t think she is the goat.
Brock Harding is 6' 0" 160 and doesn't have nearly the skill of CC. I agree that women typically can't compete with men in basketball.
You are wrong in this case. She could do it.
CC is a great player - but she would not come close to being effective, let alone dominate, at the D-1 mens level. She is roughly the same size as Brock Harding, though lighter, and he is considered pretty small. I would venture to say if those two played one on one she would struggle to get her shot off. Harding would score 50 a game if he wanted for the Iowa womens team. Let's not pretend it is the same game - the athletes are different and that is simple physiology.
Young boys and girls compete very evenly up until the testosterone kicks in. I would take Brock Harding any day of the week over CC even though she is a better shooter. She just doesn't have the strength, speed, and leaping ability of an athletic guy.
Besides long range shooting - what exactly does CC do better than Brock Harding? Be careful with your answers here because there are people on this board who have compared Harding's passing with Jason Williams.
I didn't say dominate, I said effective. She would be able to get open and hit 3 point shots and she would still be able to pass. There are plenty of D-1 teams where she would get playing time. Probably not for an NCAA tourney team, but you forget just how many D-1 teams there are.
If you are implying that he is a better passer than CC, you are insane. I think she has higher basketball IQ (better at passing teammates open, better in transition) and has similar straight line speed. She is also better at creating space for her own shot, which is money at historical levels.
He can probably accelerate and change directions faster and can probably jump higher. His defensive quickness is definitely better, and would be the area that she would struggle the most.
Last edited:
You are forgetting the simple physical difference between men and women. Could she play for a bottom end D-1 team, probably. Could she hit an open jumper in any D-1 game - of course she could. But at any time a legit D-1 mens player wanted to shut her down, they would completely dominate her. There is a reason why the women bring in men to practice against - and they aren't D-1 players.
We aren't stupid, we get all of that. We are saying that Clark is good enough to overcome these deficiencies. Eyes don't lie.
I'm not implying it - I am saying it directly. He is every bit the passer that CC is. What the F do you think he would do in the womens game? She is a better shooter, yes. And in your words - "he probably accelerates faster and changes direction faster and can probably jump higher." Are you insane even implying there is a comparison here?
Oh yeah. My eyes says she looks incredibly impressive against other women. Apparently you have seen her against Div 1 men.
It’s a cute story but a stupid argument. The one person not participating- Caitlin.
It’s just a way to not so slyly diminish her accomplishments. And the trite, “She’s a great player” is always followed by “but”. So condescending. Enjoy and revel who she is and appreciate that you get to see her play in an Iowa uniform. She is one of a kind.
It’s just a way to not so slyly diminish her accomplishments. And the trite, “She’s a great player” is always followed by “but”. So condescending. Enjoy and revel who she is and appreciate that you get to see her play in an Iowa uniform. She is one of a kind.
Last edited:
Simply compare a mediocre male swimmer who transitioned to a woman and dominated the competition. Not even close. Love Caitlin, but she wouldn't be able to compete against D1 players. She could be a spot up shooter and a post feed passer, but nothing more. She's the goat without doubt, but lets be realistic here.
On the other side of the equation, I think PMac would be an excellent center for the women's team & probably average 45 points per game.
On the other side of the equation, I think PMac would be an excellent center for the women's team & probably average 45 points per game.
No, I'm not forgetting that. Your expectations of what "effective" means are just too high. If you don't think that Clark could run off a pick, catch a pass, and hit a 3 3-5 times a game then I don't know what to tell you. If you don't think she would be able to get the pass to feed someone driving the lane or a big under the post 3-5 times a game I don't know what to say. She would struggle keeping up with players on defense and would likely be pulled if that's what they would need to do, but offensively she would contribute. She would find it far more difficult to bring the ball up the floor, though and she would not be able to beat very many players off the dribble. Her stepback 3 would be effective against many players, especially guards that aren't very tall.
But there are already dozens of D-1 players that are that player every game. Iowa has like 3 of them.
Last edited:
Is anyone making the argument that she would go to the men's game and be the best player on the team? I think people are misunderstanding the debate here.Simply compare a mediocre male swimmer who transitioned to a woman and dominated the competition. Not even close. Love Caitlin, but she wouldn't be able to compete against D1 players. She could be a spot up shooter and a post feed passer, but nothing more. She's the goat without doubt, but lets be realistic here.
On the other side of the equation, I think PMac would be an excellent center for the women's team & probably average 45 points per game.
And all three of those would completely shut her down. CC is competing against women - not men. Until she does that you cannot say she would be effective at the D-1 mens level. She would not beat anyone off the dribble and if she did it would get thrown back in her face because she can't elevate. Because there would be no threat of that, they would be right up on her and her step back would get slapped back too. I have not even touched on what would happen to her on the defensive end of it all. Enjoy her for who she is, a multi generational womens player, not for someone you want to make her out to be.
Yeah, again, someone doesn't have to score 25 points and have 12 assists to be considered to be competing. If that's your metric, only about 5% of all players in Division 1 are competing. Pretty sure I acknowledged that she would have issues with some of those things too. Which is, of course, why she would not dominate.
Last edited:
Let's get real. Much as I love Caitlin, she would not be a competitive performer on a D1 or even D2 team. One-on-one with Harding, she would get smoked. He is faster, stronger, and can jump higher. CC has amazing skills when playing against other women, but even the Top 5-ranked Iowa women's team wouldn't be able to hang with their D3 practice player opponents if the men went all out (they said as much in that recent article on the D3 guys who scrimmage against the Iowa BB women)
This does NOT diminish CC in any way, it's just apples and oranges. She's the best women's college BB player ever, period. She's a phenom. But she would not be competitive against male players. In tennis, both Williams sisters once played and lost to the 203rd ranked man in tennis in 1998--and it wasn't even that close
I actually feel her best opportunity WOULD be with a top 15 team. In that situation she would have players around her that could cause situations where she's open. They would also be able to help out on defense where she might be lacking. On a men's team she might become 1 dimensional but that 1 area she is outstanding at.
I don't disagree with you there. She wouldn't start but she might come in, hit 3 threes in 3 minutes (off of screens from other players), and then sit down. Although it is tougher to be a consistent shooter when you come off the bench and only get a few shots all game.
The statement made was CC could play on a mens team and compete and make it better. There's no doubt she could to some extent on the part of the offensive game.
I'm not going to argue the point of her versus Brock Harding as far as passes are concerned. I know he is a good passer, but great, I'm not sure. I'll just say this, I've seen Caitlin passes over the years that I don't see guys making on a regular basis. She throws some bad ones, but she also throws incredible ones.
I'm not going to argue the point of her versus Brock Harding as far as passes are concerned. I know he is a good passer, but great, I'm not sure. I'll just say this, I've seen Caitlin passes over the years that I don't see guys making on a regular basis. She throws some bad ones, but she also throws incredible ones.
It's also tougher when you will have someone bigger, stronger, and faster in your face when you want to get your shot off. She's just 6ft tall and 150 lbs! You act like she will just be getting open looks all the time or will rise above everyone like Dr. Dunkenstein did. And by the way, she is shooting a smaller basketball now which when she switches over to the man's game she no longer gets that advantage and her range will be a little more limited.
Maybe you should start a campaign to get her to use her last year of eligibility to come and play for the men? You know why she won't - because she can't compete at that level against male athletes. And shooting a handful of long range jumpers a game and being a defensive liability is not competing. See Austin Ash - and in the women's college game he might just average 40.
Maybe you should start a campaign to get her to use her last year of eligibility to come and play for the men? You know why she won't - because she can't compete at that level against male athletes. And shooting a handful of long range jumpers a game and being a defensive liability is not competing. See Austin Ash - and in the women's college game he might just average 40.
The only place CC would be equal with the Iowa men would be on defense! Optional
Actually, she plays with a smaller and lighter ball, so that would affect her shooting, ballhandling, and passing in a negative way. As good as she is, I'm surprised teams haven't slowed her down a little more. She like to shoot going left and drive going right. Force her right and double team the drive and you'll give her some problems. Someone else might beat you, but it won't be her.
The only Men's team she could probably excel for would be Grinnell...perfect fit for her!
Similar threads
