So, now you'll just ignore the numbers, since you and your buddies got called out on it.
BAU.
The CC Show....
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
So, now you'll just ignore the numbers, since you and your buddies got called out on it.
BAU.
Only someone as catastrophically stupid as JP would claim that the reason USA/Japan only drew 13,000 attendance was because the game didn’t start until 9:00pm local time….and then brag that a game played at 3:00 in the afternoon drew higher tv ratings than games played at 2:00 in the morning.
Yet, that's what actually happened. Same w/ another 9 PM start time game, w/ low attendance.
And your "catastrophically stupid" take that ratings are down is thoroughly debunked by data (again) w/ games having higher viewership than anything before.
You missed my point entirely, as per usual. If 9:00pm is just too doggone late to attend a basketball game then what makes you think tv ratings for a game played in the middle of the night are comparable to a game played in the afternoon?
This is yet another blatant lie by you. We’ll just add it to the growing list of your blatant lies. At no time did I say ratings are down. I said ratings would have been higher if Clark was there. That’s indisputable common sense.
This is demonstrably false. Viewership is most definitely not higher than anything before. It is higher than viewership for the previous Olympics in Tokyo - which, as I have tried to explain to you, is a 13-16 hour time difference from mainland United States. When it’s afternoon or early evening in Japan, most Americans are asleep because it’s the middle of the night here.
The three US Women’s games that were televised by NBC in the 2012 London Olympics averaged over 10 million viewers. The preliminary round game between USA and Croatia drew an average of 11.4 million viewers. So no, USA/Japan last week did not set any all-time records. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
No; I have not.
You claimed that your posts were not all over the place here, and this one (again) demonstrates you're a liar.
Every argument you've made has a very rational and logical counter. You're back to "attendance numbers" again, which are on pace to be a record at this Olympics for WBB, and USA women's games have had huge draws (which I've posted for you).
Lol. “No; I have not (missed your point).” Then proceeds to prove beyond any doubt that he missed my point.
You’re like a t-shirt cannon of misinformation.
"we may have decided differently".
is not lobbying. That is a stretch even for you. Hopefully you didn't pull anything.
She is basically saying "mid season CC probably should have been on the team".
Except she didn't say that. For a poster that parses words and attempts to be very factual that is another big reach for you. Until Staley says 'she probably should be on the team' she hasn't said it. I know you wish she did but she didn't.
"Ergo: Her performance BEFORE the cutoff was virtually no different than Taurasi"
This was a quote from a Joe post. If her performance was virtually no different.......
Then this post from Joe indicating that prior to the selection was 'league average' not my claim, this was Joes claim.
"Her early league play was sporadic, and "league average". Not "league all star". Since that date, her play has substantially improved"
Let me see if I remember the process.
If the performance of both were essentially the same and one of the players was 'league average'(per Joe) then that would make the other player 'league average'
So when Joe asked which 'league average' player made the team he had already answered his question.
Please feel free to take snippets and try to deflect and deny. It is getting easier the more you post.
Nothing would have changed, even if they knew then what we know now. Even if they knew DT was going to play this poorly she would still be on the team. She wanted one last gold medal and no one at USA Basketball has the balls to tell her no.
I don’t know how much input Cheryl Reeve has in the selection process, but I know she’s the head coach and I know she did not want Clark on the team. We know this because she said so. She wanted nothing to do with the media circus that would have ensued and she wanted nothing to do with Clark fans on social media questioning her every decision.
It wasn't different. Those stats have been posted for you
Go look at the first 5 or so games. That is what I'm referring to. She had serious foul trouble in almost all of them.
Did I claim she was "lobbying"?
She referred to much higher standards of play over the past 5-10 games, including a record assists game.
EARLY game play was "league average"
Go look at the first 5 games. Indiana was terrible and their defense was simply awful (as was Clark's)
Staley has to be diplomatic about it. I don’t.
There is zero chance that USA Basketball was going to tell Taurasi ‘no’. Hell, she was still in the starting lineup even after posting a total of 2 points and 1 assist in her first two games.
You should agree, it’s your misinterpretation of what Staley actually said.
I do enjoy you scrambling and trying to play word games. When the facts aren’t on your side, muddy the playing field.
In case you forgot your post
Joes Place said:
She did say that in the interview I'd posted. She said "if we knew how she had performed" (later in June) "we may have decided differently".
Go listen to it. She is basically saying "mid season CC probably should have been on the team".
Except she didn’t say that, you somehow came to that conclusion contrary to what she actually said.
Yep. That's what I'd posted.
Consistent with what she says in the interview.
You wanting to compare "early season" vs. "late season" play?
(because you keep claiming I'm the one going down the rabbit holes - but that is YOU)
What I told you is entirely consistent with what she said.
Go compare the first 25% of games (6 games) vs. the last 25% of games.
It is night-and-day for Clark. You need the numbers pushed out for you on that?
Because these (again) are YOUR Rabbit Hole arguments, that you claim I keep bringing up.
"Yep. That's what I'd posted.
Consistent with what she says in the interview."
You keep leaving out parts of what you have posted.
Leaving off your wonderful
'Go listen to it. She is basically saying "mid season CC probably should have been on the team".'
Which doesn't really match up with
" She said "if we knew how she had performed" (later in June) "we may have decided differently"."
How exactly do you go from Staley saying 'may have' to your
She is basically saying "mid season CC probably should have been on the team".'
Because Staley said 'may have been considered'
a smart poster like you knows that 'may have been considered' doesn't really equate to 'should have been on the team'
it's actually not even very close to the same thing. Solid leap there.
"Go compare the first 25% of games (6 games) vs. the last 25% of games.
It is night-and-day for Clark. You need the numbers pushed out for you on that?"
Why? it's immaterial to what is being discussed. You are better off bringing up Jru Holiday or rowing again.
Currently you are attempting to evade your
'Go listen to it. She is basically saying "mid season CC probably should have been on the team".'
Staley didn't say anything close to that. Do we need to back to your league average player made the olympic team claim as well?
Other than it isn't accurate
But to you it is spot on 100% spot on. You should contact Staley and let her know you are putting words she never said in her mouth. She should take that well.
Not "immaterial" at all.
MOST of the rest of Team USA attended the tryouts.
Clark did not.
Her league play was her tryout.
Early play was not any better than those to attended tryouts, and worse than most on the team.
Her last few games before the AS game are a night/day difference, if you bother to review the numbers. That is what Staley is referring to.
That play just before the AS game is probably even better than many on Team USA. Go review those numbers, if you want.
Post your own "analysis" here of the numbers. Because you and your buddies keep pulling out random shit that gets debunked.
Let me see if I can track this. To bring you back on subject this last bit has been about the Staley interview you linked.
Joe links Staley article and puts this piece in the thread.
Joes Place said:
She did say that in the interview I'd posted. She said "if we knew how she had performed" (later in June) "we may have decided differently".
This is a quote from Staley according to Joe's linked article.
Joe then adds his interpretation
'Go listen to it. She is basically saying "mid season CC probably should have been on the team".'
What have I ignored?
Your reality is that you weren't even close to accurately representing what Staley said. In no way shape or form did Staley mention, infer or even hint that 'CC probably should have been on the team'(that's what you posted)
You claimed that and are now back tracking to the 'look at the numbers, first six games, didn't try out, etc'
You talked out of your backside. It's okay, it happens. Some are adult enough to admit it when it happens. Others are like you.
Intellectually disingenuous indeed.
Why am I breaking down numbers, we did that. In your own breakdown a league average player made the team. A player that didn't try out or even play made the team.
Why do I want to analyze the numbers when we were talking about a comment from Staley and your gross incompetence with your ''CC probably should have been on the team'(that's what you posted)
That's what is inaccurate. We did the numbers showing that she had an advantage over a player on the team, then it became 'but fouls, the turnovers' ignoring points created. Keep trying, it hasn't turned out well for you so far.
MOST of the rest of Team USA attended the tryouts.
Clark did not.
Her league play was her tryout.
So now it is just random criteria?
Yes, let's see if you can.
Post the data/stats you think support your and your buddies' position here.
No
It was her WNBA level of play early in the season (which is what they stated they would evaluate)
I'd posted this pages ago for you and your buddies.
And that Clark's play was not all that stellar, early on (quite poor in the first 5 games).
Staley's interview refers to Clark's most recent play (last 5-10 games) which is substantially improved over those first couple weeks.
Go look the numbers up, yourself. I also watched the games, and the Fever's play (and defense) was abominable early on (which is why they were like 1-10 in the early going). They've since played at playoffs-caliber level, in no small part due to Clark being one of the best players on the team (and possibly looking like one of the best guards in the league, statistically). Go look those numbers up, yourself.
Similar threads
