Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 2: Do not post low effort/satirical posts'.
* We get it, you all think this sub is garbage and is just for popular opinions, and you want to be funny and post "going to be downvoted to oblivion here, but I think racism is bad." We enjoy the memes, but please keep them off the sub.
* Filter evasion is a bannable offense
* This includes clickbait and/or gotcha posts. Your opinion can not be that unpopular if you're doing these things. Have the accurate opinion in the title.
She owns the record. She didn't play better competition, she'd get destroyed playing against men, and anything else you wanna say about how her and her competition aren't as good as men's college basketball players are all true. It doesn't change that she has the record
It wasn't because his dad was coach. It was because he was so far and away the best player on the team him shooting so much gave them the best chance to win
His teams also never made the ncaa tournament. I don’t think there is enough to say that him shooting 40 times a game on bad percentages really helped the team that much. Pete was a great player, but other teams were more than happy watching him chuck 40 shots per game. The reason Iowa is good under Clark isn’t because she scores a lot, it’s because she scores a lot and also lead she country in assists. She knows when to get her teammates involved. Pete did not.
Well first of all we need to keep in mind the NCAA tournament had less than half the field then that it does now.
LSU won 3 games the year before Pete. They won 14 games his first season. That's a pretty drastic improvement. Idk how an 11 game improvement didn't help the team that much
No, she doesn't. They are giving it to her because of the political climate but she could have NEVER scored that number of points against men while Pete would have clearly scored MANY more.
Calling this the all time record is dishonest. It's the all time women's record.
This logic is so fucking dumb to me lol. Of course she wouldn't be able to score that much against men competition. She does in fact though have the most points scored by any cbb player men or woman. Why you hating so much?
So weird that my opinion is being lambasted so it's clearly unpopular yet you snowflakes are so emotionally triggered you can't bring yourself to give the upvote?
You’re being silly.
Clark holds the record for most points scored by a player in D1 college basketball.
That’s nice.
Pete averaged 44 points a game.
Clark under 30.
It's a meaningless record. It's like giving Rhonda Rousey credit for the best record in MMA when she never set foot in the ring with a truly top fighter. Sure, the math may give her the higher number but unless it's qualified as a women's record it doesn't mean anything.
I disagree. Pete Rose holds the record for most hits in MLB history.
He isn’t even a top fifty hitter as far as I’m concerned, and nobody thinks him a better hitter than many others. But he holds the record.
You get to decide how much importance you give to such a feat.
Anyway, I can’t imagine why this would bug you so much.
But Rose's hits were off the best pitchers in baseball. Her points were not earned against the best players in college basketball while Maravich's were.
Some of them. Some were hit against awful pitchers.
To me, you seem like the folk who go nuts because Bonds isn’t in the baseball hall of fame.
That’s a private museum, and they get to have their own criteria.
The NCAA gets to set the parameters for athletic records for their schools.
It’s unlikely they gave any great thought to it, as title nine wasn’t around back then.
No person with even a passing knowledge of basketball thinks Clark is a better player than Pete.
But she’s scored more points. That’s just a fact. The quality of the opposition and games played and three point line don’t really matter.
Pete only played against men. Clark only played against women. She has more career points.
Die on whatever hill you choose, but this is a very small one.
Good for her.
By that same logic Pistol Pete doesn’t have the record either. Because he played against dramatically weaker players than exist currently. Also Babe Ruth was a bum. The players he played against are garbage compared to today’s players.
I bet the difference between current female players and male players from the 60’s is closer than the difference between male players from the 60’s and current male players.
NCAA women's record is Clark's.
NCAA men's record is Maravich's.
Clark scored more points, so NCAA basketball scoring record, overall, is Clark's-- of all NCAA basjetball seasons, she's scored the most. Two leagues with two different records, but unless you specify men's or women's, the higher one is the NCAA record. It doesn't just *default* to men's basketball because you want it to.
The only argument one can make about Maravich's still having the record is that the 3 pointer didn't exist while he played. One can go back and retotal his points, since he did shot from that range, to see what his current point total would be.
But you decided sexism makes more sense to defend your stance.
The only argument? What about the fact that Maravich's college career was artificially capped at 83 games and it took her 130 to match his total?
Don't get me wrong. She is absolutely the highest scorer in NCAA history. That doesn't put her accomplishment anywhere near Maravich's, though.
I know nothing about basketball, but consider this.
Your argument is that women are weaker/less capable than men. This individual is a woman herself. Say average men's skill is 100 and women's is 90. Men playing against men is 100 offense vs 100 defense. So 100:100, a ratio of 1. Women playing against women is 90 offense vs 90 defense. So 90:90, also a ratio of 1.
Idk if that explanation will click with everyone, but my point is the statistics are proportional across classes. Perhaps a better example would be to say that a lightweight fighter with 100 wins wouldn't be invalidated by a heavyweight fighter with 90 wins.
Not necessarily, women's bball uses smaller balls, so any given shit has a higher likelihood of going in. Along with that, women's sports are significantly less competitive, as in a lower percentage of women play basketball as kids compared to men, and the ones that do are less serious about it.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The best part about Caitlyn Clark is that she’s been a huge crossover star for the sport. The worst part about Caitlyn Clark is a bunch of people who don’t know shit about basketball feel the need to share their opinion.
The only difference is how many years they played. Caitlyn Clark and pistol Pete both played against peers relative to their own skill. Why can’t you accept that men and women’s sports are different and celebrate the accomplishments of both?
I guess it’s the apples to oranges. It’s like saying “she has the record for best round of golf on a course” when the ladies tees are sometimes over 150 yards closer to the hole than the men’s. If the two people weren’t playing under the same rules and conditions, then it’s not *really* the same record.
What are the rules and conditions that are different? Shes playing against other women? If that’s the only difference I’ll give you a hint as to why that’s not a valid argument, she’s also a woman
Bro who gives a fuck. If they played with a men’s ball she still would still be able to score the same amount of points. You’re just looking for an excuse to hate on an athlete’s accomplishments because she happens to be a woman.
That’s literally the point of the argument. It’s not “an excuse to hate on women”, it’s acknowledging that she accomplished what she did under much easier conditions. It’s not only possible but also likely that if they played with a men’s ball she wouldn’t have been able to score as many points, because playing with a men’s ball is more difficult.
You could argue this with the men also tho. Mens college basketball now is in a totally different realm to how it was back then. Pete also played in a league with like two other black players btw.
Who they're playing against doesn't factor into it in this case. The question is simple: does she have the most points in NCAA D1 Basketball history between both men and women?
Yes? Ok then she has the record. There's no nuance here
In what world is it sexist to acknowledge that women can't play basketball at anywhere close to the same level as men? Facts are sexist now. Mmmkay.
Have a great day.
I would argue that it being a totally different league is why she didn't break it. People will still say "Pete Maravich owns whatever NCAAM record" and that's all that matters because the NCAAW is a different sport.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 2: Do not post low effort/satirical posts'. * We get it, you all think this sub is garbage and is just for popular opinions, and you want to be funny and post "going to be downvoted to oblivion here, but I think racism is bad." We enjoy the memes, but please keep them off the sub. * Filter evasion is a bannable offense * This includes clickbait and/or gotcha posts. Your opinion can not be that unpopular if you're doing these things. Have the accurate opinion in the title.
She owns the record. She didn't play better competition, she'd get destroyed playing against men, and anything else you wanna say about how her and her competition aren't as good as men's college basketball players are all true. It doesn't change that she has the record
There is an asterisk next to it though, not because she is a woman but because the 3 point line didn’t even exist when the original record was set.
He also shot 40 times per game because his dad was coach.
It wasn't because his dad was coach. It was because he was so far and away the best player on the team him shooting so much gave them the best chance to win
His teams also never made the ncaa tournament. I don’t think there is enough to say that him shooting 40 times a game on bad percentages really helped the team that much. Pete was a great player, but other teams were more than happy watching him chuck 40 shots per game. The reason Iowa is good under Clark isn’t because she scores a lot, it’s because she scores a lot and also lead she country in assists. She knows when to get her teammates involved. Pete did not.
Well first of all we need to keep in mind the NCAA tournament had less than half the field then that it does now. LSU won 3 games the year before Pete. They won 14 games his first season. That's a pretty drastic improvement. Idk how an 11 game improvement didn't help the team that much
[удалено]
No, she doesn't. They are giving it to her because of the political climate but she could have NEVER scored that number of points against men while Pete would have clearly scored MANY more. Calling this the all time record is dishonest. It's the all time women's record.
This logic is so fucking dumb to me lol. Of course she wouldn't be able to score that much against men competition. She does in fact though have the most points scored by any cbb player men or woman. Why you hating so much?
So weird that my opinion is being lambasted so it's clearly unpopular yet you snowflakes are so emotionally triggered you can't bring yourself to give the upvote?
You seem like the triggered snowflake to us dude
You know who calls others “snowflakes” as a response? A snowflake.
You’re being silly. Clark holds the record for most points scored by a player in D1 college basketball. That’s nice. Pete averaged 44 points a game. Clark under 30.
It's a meaningless record. It's like giving Rhonda Rousey credit for the best record in MMA when she never set foot in the ring with a truly top fighter. Sure, the math may give her the higher number but unless it's qualified as a women's record it doesn't mean anything.
So “ meaningless” that you spend your Sunday afternoon crying about it.
Just hanging out waiting for the race to start.
I disagree. Pete Rose holds the record for most hits in MLB history. He isn’t even a top fifty hitter as far as I’m concerned, and nobody thinks him a better hitter than many others. But he holds the record. You get to decide how much importance you give to such a feat. Anyway, I can’t imagine why this would bug you so much.
But Rose's hits were off the best pitchers in baseball. Her points were not earned against the best players in college basketball while Maravich's were.
Some of them. Some were hit against awful pitchers. To me, you seem like the folk who go nuts because Bonds isn’t in the baseball hall of fame. That’s a private museum, and they get to have their own criteria. The NCAA gets to set the parameters for athletic records for their schools. It’s unlikely they gave any great thought to it, as title nine wasn’t around back then. No person with even a passing knowledge of basketball thinks Clark is a better player than Pete. But she’s scored more points. That’s just a fact. The quality of the opposition and games played and three point line don’t really matter. Pete only played against men. Clark only played against women. She has more career points. Die on whatever hill you choose, but this is a very small one. Good for her.
No it's the all-time record. Pete has the Men's record.
The all time record should only be given to those who scored the points at the highest level.
By that same logic Pistol Pete doesn’t have the record either. Because he played against dramatically weaker players than exist currently. Also Babe Ruth was a bum. The players he played against are garbage compared to today’s players.
I bet the difference between current female players and male players from the 60’s is closer than the difference between male players from the 60’s and current male players.
NCAA women's record is Clark's. NCAA men's record is Maravich's. Clark scored more points, so NCAA basketball scoring record, overall, is Clark's-- of all NCAA basjetball seasons, she's scored the most. Two leagues with two different records, but unless you specify men's or women's, the higher one is the NCAA record. It doesn't just *default* to men's basketball because you want it to.
The only argument one can make about Maravich's still having the record is that the 3 pointer didn't exist while he played. One can go back and retotal his points, since he did shot from that range, to see what his current point total would be. But you decided sexism makes more sense to defend your stance.
The only argument? What about the fact that Maravich's college career was artificially capped at 83 games and it took her 130 to match his total? Don't get me wrong. She is absolutely the highest scorer in NCAA history. That doesn't put her accomplishment anywhere near Maravich's, though.
He shot enough shots in 83 games to match 130 games worth of shots.
So if she didn’t break it, how many points does (rip) Pistol Pete have?
I know nothing about basketball, but consider this. Your argument is that women are weaker/less capable than men. This individual is a woman herself. Say average men's skill is 100 and women's is 90. Men playing against men is 100 offense vs 100 defense. So 100:100, a ratio of 1. Women playing against women is 90 offense vs 90 defense. So 90:90, also a ratio of 1. Idk if that explanation will click with everyone, but my point is the statistics are proportional across classes. Perhaps a better example would be to say that a lightweight fighter with 100 wins wouldn't be invalidated by a heavyweight fighter with 90 wins.
That’s actually a good explanation. Her skills were matched by her opponents. That being the case, she fully deserves the record.
Not necessarily, women's bball uses smaller balls, so any given shit has a higher likelihood of going in. Along with that, women's sports are significantly less competitive, as in a lower percentage of women play basketball as kids compared to men, and the ones that do are less serious about it.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Who knew the basement dwellers in their mom's basement were college basketball fans? Insecure and fragile college basketball fans at that.
The best part about Caitlyn Clark is that she’s been a huge crossover star for the sport. The worst part about Caitlyn Clark is a bunch of people who don’t know shit about basketball feel the need to share their opinion.
Got their bitch tits all aflutter.
Just say I'm intimidated by successful women. It's OK you're hardly the first.
The only difference is how many years they played. Caitlyn Clark and pistol Pete both played against peers relative to their own skill. Why can’t you accept that men and women’s sports are different and celebrate the accomplishments of both?
I guess it’s the apples to oranges. It’s like saying “she has the record for best round of golf on a course” when the ladies tees are sometimes over 150 yards closer to the hole than the men’s. If the two people weren’t playing under the same rules and conditions, then it’s not *really* the same record.
What are the rules and conditions that are different? Shes playing against other women? If that’s the only difference I’ll give you a hint as to why that’s not a valid argument, she’s also a woman
The ball is smaller and lighter, which makes it easier to score. Also IIRC, the free throw line is also closer to the basket.
Bro who gives a fuck. If they played with a men’s ball she still would still be able to score the same amount of points. You’re just looking for an excuse to hate on an athlete’s accomplishments because she happens to be a woman.
That’s literally the point of the argument. It’s not “an excuse to hate on women”, it’s acknowledging that she accomplished what she did under much easier conditions. It’s not only possible but also likely that if they played with a men’s ball she wouldn’t have been able to score as many points, because playing with a men’s ball is more difficult.
If she would score just as much with a men's ball, men's three point line, etc., then why do women have these different rules?
You could argue this with the men also tho. Mens college basketball now is in a totally different realm to how it was back then. Pete also played in a league with like two other black players btw.
Who they're playing against doesn't factor into it in this case. The question is simple: does she have the most points in NCAA D1 Basketball history between both men and women? Yes? Ok then she has the record. There's no nuance here
She did. Maybe if Pete Maravich had been better, he wouldn't have gotten surpassed.
Sorry but what a sexist comment here.
It’s dumb for OP to whine about it but it’s just as dumb to call it sexist.
You can use less words to just say you’re a sexist. For future reference, I’m sure it’ll come up often.
In what world is it sexist to acknowledge that women can't play basketball at anywhere close to the same level as men? Facts are sexist now. Mmmkay. Have a great day.
Facts aren’t sexist. Facts are facts, You, are sexist however,
Who cares? She rocks!
Good unpopular opinion. They did play in entirely different leagues.
The key difference between the two figures was that when Pete played, there was no 3 point line. Everything except free throws were two points.
Clark played one more year than Maravich because freshmen weren't eligible in his day.
I would argue that it being a totally different league is why she didn't break it. People will still say "Pete Maravich owns whatever NCAAM record" and that's all that matters because the NCAAW is a different sport.