In all good stories, it’s seemingly simple: there’s a hero, and there’s a villain. We know who to root for and who to root against.
Basketball fans believe it’s that way in real life, too.
With a celebrated group of rookies having just been drafted to the WNBA, there’s been considerable media buzz concerning the league’s current players’ opinions about Iowa’s Caitlin Clark and other incoming stars from this past season.
While commentating on the NCAA Final Four, Phoenix Mercury guard Diana Taurasi responded to a Tweet asking who she would pick first in building a WNBA team, Clark or UConn’s Paige Bueckers.
Without giving rationale, Taurasi chose Bueckers.
And immediately following Monday’s draft, ESPN sportscaster Scott Van Pelt asked Taurasi what the future had in store for the incoming class.
Taurasi answered, “Reality is coming.”
Both of Taurasi’s remarks sparked an onslaught of hate from media outlets. The basketball-watching public started thrashing the three-time WNBA champion, characterizing her answers as jealous and petty. People started accusing her of hating Clark.
Instantly, news broke of trouble brewing between Clark and Taurasi, and this alleged beef snowballed into fan excitement for a foreseeable rivalry for the upcoming WNBA season.
Even before the WNBA 2024 draft, Phoenix Mercury hinted at this feud by specifically promoting their matchup against the Indiana Fever in this post. Taurasi’s face — along with “The GOAT” caption — is front and center, considerably larger than the shadow of the 22 jersey, which was heavily implied to be Clark.
But is there even merit in labeling this Clark-Taurasi relationship a rivalry?
Is it spiteful for Taurasi to choose another immensely talented player to be her projected first pick in a completely hypothetical situation, since Bueckers didn’t even declare for the 2024 draft?
While headlines advertise that Taurasi warns Clark “reality is coming,” the phrase has been taken out of context.
In watching the full video of her interview with SVP, it’s clear Taurasi said more than just those three words.
Here’s Taurasi’s entire answer:
“Reality is coming. You know, there’s levels to this thing. That’s just life. We all went through it. And you see it on the NBA side, and you’re gonna see it on this side — where you look superhuman playing against 18 year-olds, but you’re going to come with some grown women that have been playing professional basketball for a long time.
“Not saying that it’s not going to translate because when you’re great at what you do, you’re just going to get better. But, there is going to be a transition period where you’re going to have to give yourself some grace as a rookie. It might take a little bit longer for some people.”
Taurasi was talking to all draftees, not just Clark. She indicates that a difficult college-to-professional transition period is natural and that these incoming players are capable of translating their game, with some adversity.
Can one detect malice there?
This kind of relationship and rivalry distortion didn’t start with this WNBA news.
The two season-long Angel Reese-Caitlin Clark animosity was purely a media push intended to guide viewers to that basic conclusion of heroes and villains.
Mainstream media heavily criticized Reese for her ring celebration gesture during the 2023 NCAA championship. This judgment of her fierce competitive drive cemented her as the “villain” of the college basketball storyline.
In a recent post, Reese clarified, as she had done many times before, that there was no hostility beyond the competitiveness that viewers saw on the court.
Preceding the women’s collegiate 2024 Elite Eight round, a Los Angeles Times writer released a now-edited commentary on the UCLA and LSU game as “America’s sweethearts vs. its basketball villains.” Overwhelming, obvious bias portrayed the Bruins positively, describing them as operating “in saintly shadows while being as wholesome as a miniature stuffed Bruin mascot.” The writer asked the reader if they preferred a team that was looking to grow women’s basketball or the team that polarized and divided the sport.
Many denounced the article as racist and sexist, taking issue with the binary itself as a reductive simplification of female competition as “good versus evil.”
After initially reposting the article, UCLA head coach Cori Close deleted it and issued an apology saying she had only read the headline and not its problematic contents.
Even after USC freshman JuJu Watkins posted a season-record of 51 points against Stanford, she had to respond politely to a baiting comment by a reporter about Clark, who was totally irrelevant to Watkin’s accomplishment on that night.
Why does the media need to pit women against each other in order to be interested in them?
Is an underlining dramatized storyline necessary in women’s competition?
Finally, is it justifiable?
This media’s narrative warping is a double-edged sword, in that it might have a positive impact. Fans, even women’s basketball haters like Jason Whitlock, have admitted that they’ll tune in to the Fever and Mercury game.
This assumed rivalry has people interested and eyes engaged, before Clark has even stepped on a WNBA court. More people are inclined to watch because they want to see Clark topple Taurasi. Increased viewership means more profit for the WNBA.
Should we overlook this contortion of reality because it might help the WNBA?
It’s very easy to believe a simple, popular story. Media plays a very powerful role in public opinion. It is impossible to isolate ourselves from its influence.
We will always receive conflicting narratives, but it’s up to the individual to choose which ones to believe.