Caitlin Clark and the Snub That Wasn’t

There’s a term being used to describe Caitlin Clark’s non-immediate selection to the women’s US Olympic team that strikes me each time as an interesting word choice. Almost every report I’ve watched or heard about her non-selection has described that decision by the USA Basketball Women’s National Team Committee as a “snub.” With the use of the word “snub,” however, there’s an implication that the denied party was absolutely and without question deserving. I’m here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen of the readership, Caitlin Clark not being selected to that team was not a snub.

Before going further, I feel compelled to state a few known and obvious facts about Ms. Clark. First and foremost, Caitlin Clark is undoubtedly a phenomenal talent. She is a superstar. Her level of skill and capability is undeniable, and the flare with which she plays the game moves the needle in an incomparable way. She has brought more attention to the women’s game than any woman before her, and it’s hard to imagine anyone being able to duplicate her level of popularity in the foreseeable future. None of these factors in isolation or in sum make her a shoo-in for one of the best collections of basketball talent ever assembled, however.

Let me also acknowledge that I do understand the arguments for her being on the team. Her style of play is exciting, she’s probably capable of playing on the international stage, and that it would be a huge marketing opportunity for the WNBA and women’s basketball is an absolute fact; basketball fans do indeed love watching Caitlin Clark play. Nothing would be better for the brand right now than for Caitlin Clark to play on the biggest stage in women’s basketball. She, and the team would no doubt be the center of attention at The Games. Being capable, being exciting, and even the once in a lifetime marketing opportunity still don’t make her spot on the US National Team a given.

I even understand those who argue against the twelve best players theory. It is difficult to argue that this is a collection of the twelve best US women’s basketball players in the world when someone like Diana Taurasi is there. Taurasi is past her prime, and an argument could be made that she should step aside and let a younger, potentially more deserving player step in and have that opportunity. I wouldn’t disagree with that argument, but there is plenty of precedent for this type of selection for these teams; especially since pros have been allowed to participate, beginning with the 1992 Olympics. On the initial Dream Team, in fact, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson were both well past their primes. Based on level of play alone, neither of them was deserving of being on the team, but they were being rewarded for their years of ambassadorship and contributions to the game. We all knew they wouldn’t be around to play on the next team in four years, so they were rewarded with that opportunity to have that end-of-career moment of glory. The 2024 team will be Taurasi’s chance to do something similar. She is the logo, after all, and the committee felt she deserved to be rewarded with one last Olympic go-round. It’s not the ‘92 Dream Team, but being on these teams, and playing for Olympic gold is a landmark moment in anyone’s career, of course; even a career as long and decorated as Taurasi’s.

One could take my argument based on precedent and cite an example from that very same ‘92 team to make a case for Caitlin Clark as well. Christian Laettner was on that team. He’d not played an NBA game yet, so you can’t really argue that he was deserving based on level of play, unless you’re counting his outstanding college career. Christian Laettner’s selection took place at a different time, however. The committee, or persons in charge of selecting the players for that team still had concerns about sending professional players to the Olympics at that time. The concept and idea were new then, and those in charge weren’t sure how it would go over with fans and viewers, so the decision to have a college player on that team probably had as much to do with those concerns as it did Christian Laettner’s deservedness.

All in all, from my observation, those in charge of making these decisions for US Women’s Basketball made what they felt was the best decision for women’s basketball, this national team, and maybe even for Caitlin Clark. After all, Caitlin Clark just got here. About four months ago she was playing for Iowa in the NCAA women’s tournament. Give it time. Let her get faster, stronger, and gain more experience. Dare I say, let her get better. Caitlin Clark is not yet one of the twelve best US women’s basketball players, and she’s not been in the league long enough to have earned the “goodwill ambassador” selection to the national team that seems to be given to at least one player every four years. She may not be the best player on her own pro team yet (see Aliyah Boston).

What’s been obvious thus far is that Caitlin Clark can play, she is great; her time will come. She’s made an immediate and unprecedented impact on the WNBA and women’s basketball in her short career already. She and Angel Reese have both outplayed expectations and taken the attention paid to the game to new heights. She will undoubtedly be rewarded for that by being voted an all-star. If I understand correctly, she still actually has a chance to be on the Olympic team. If I’m not mistaken, she was named an alternate. Isn’t that a great start to what is lining up to be the most high-profile career any woman has ever had in basketball? Caitlin Clark is magnificent, and deserving of all the attention and money she has and will earn. Right now, however, in this very moment in time, and at this point in her career, her absence from this US Women’s Olympic Team, ladies and gentlemen, is no snub.