View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
miller40
Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 1334
Back to top |
|
Michael V Pearson
Joined: 23 Oct 2015 Posts: 64
Back to top |
Posted: 04/01/16 4:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I see this everywhere on my timelines. Ones that struck the most are Griner's, Latta's and Augustus's reaction. There may be pros or cons of lowering the rim but it's not stupid. People who think it 's stupid gets on my nerves. EDD is actually being honest about it. She may not be right but at least we get insider's thought about this, particularly from the players.
My wife is so impressed how vocal WNBA players can be, considering most players like to lay low. We get that most players are against it. But all this lowering discussion is not stupid, it's good for the league actually. It helps open up more discussions, like viewership, marketing, salary etc
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
|
Jet Jaguar
Joined: 11 Feb 2014 Posts: 1111
Back to top |
Posted: 04/01/16 4:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Michael V Pearson wrote: |
I see this everywhere on my timelines. Ones that struck the most are Griner's, Latta's and Augustus's reaction. There may be pros or cons of lowering the rim but it's not stupid. People who think it 's stupid gets on my nerves. EDD is actually being honest about it. She may not be right but at least we get insider's thought about this, particularly from the players.
My wife is so impressed how vocal WNBA players can be, considering most players like to lay low. We get that most players are against it. But all this lowering discussion is not stupid, it's good for the league actually. It helps open up more discussions, like viewership, marketing, salary etc |
Guess I'm going to get on your nerves....
_________________ Oderint dum metuant - Let them hate, so long as they fear
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8254 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 04/01/16 10:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Changing the rim height, up or down, has been a very old and always discredited idea. It began at least as early as George Mikan's college days in the 1940's. In 1967 it was felt that dunking would so RUIN the game -- rather than improve it -- that dunking was banned in college for 10 years.
Geno Auriemma has mentioned lowering the basket several times during this century, and he clearly has meant it for all levels of the female game. It would make no sense to have different rim heights at different levels of the sport. It makes the least sense, to me, to have the lowest rim level at the highest level of the sport -- the WNBA -- if that is what EDD is indeed advocating.
WBB is considered unwatchable by most basketball fans simply because it is boring in all aspects, not because of an absence of dunks.
Men slam dunk in circumstances that don't arise that often, relatively speaking, in WBB:
1. Off power drives through and over traffic. Virtually no woman player can drive like this.
2. Off fast breaks. Women's teams don't have that many fast breaks. In the Oregon State vs. Baylor E8 game last week, which had two of the top guard tandems in WCBB, there was only one fast break basket by both teams combined, for example. When WBB teams do get fast breaks, it's often by short guards who steal the ball. These short female guards would never dunk even on a nine foot rim, whereas a substantial percentage of top college and NBA guards can easily dunk on 10 foot rims.
3. Off high lobs and alley oops into the post. Women's teams are often so inept at teamwork they can't even pass the ball into the post. As one simple example, Oregon State with a "giant center" had only 18 points in the paint against Baylor. If a team has trouble getting any kind of shot in the paint, it's not going to be able to set up dunks by post players.
Finally, players who dunk are not necessarily interesting to watch. Griner can dunk sort of like a guy, but some fans would rather click off than watch her. Some felt the same about Shaq's one dimensional offense.
Lowering the basket is flawed idea born mainly of desperation or, possibly, by attention seeking. |
|
LosLynxAngeles
Joined: 26 Jul 2014 Posts: 860
Back to top |
Posted: 04/01/16 10:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
OK I think what are all missing.
Elena clearly recognized how much power and voice she now has within the WBB community and sports community in general and she is taking advantage of it. This alone is great. She started a national discussion that is getting picked up by all the sports media and more. I love this even if I don't agree with Elena. She is using her platform. Go Elena speak your mind.
|
|
UofDel_Alum
Joined: 10 Jul 2013 Posts: 3979 Location: Delaware
Back to top |
Posted: 04/01/16 11:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
LosLynxAngeles wrote: |
OK I think what are all missing.
Elena clearly recognized how much power and voice she now has within the WBB community and sports community in general and she is taking advantage of it. This alone is great. She started a national discussion that is getting picked up by all the sports media and more. I love this even if I don't agree with Elena. She is using her platform. Go Elena speak your mind. |
I absolutely agree with you.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9724
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 1:12 am ::: |
Reply |
|
In the Hartford Courant article where Geno Auriemma advocated lower rims, he never mentioned dunking as a reason. He talked about missed layups and how they lowered offensive efficiency and that turned off viewers.
I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger.
|
|
UofDel_Alum
Joined: 10 Jul 2013 Posts: 3979 Location: Delaware
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 10:20 am ::: |
Reply |
|
tfan wrote: |
In the Hartford Courant article where Geno Auriemma advocated lower rims, he never mentioned dunking as a reason. He talked about missed layups and how they lowered offensive efficiency and that turned off viewers.
I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger. |
Absolutely, this is the number 1 reason this issue started. I would not be surprised if the 3 point line is brought into this discussion also.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 10:21 am ::: |
Reply |
|
tfan wrote: |
I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger. |
I think everyone is. Both the Fagan article and the Clarendon one explained quite clearly why lowering the rims would not do this. If rim height were the actual reason that people were not watching I think most people would be in favor of lowering them. But they are not. It is a much deeper issue than that, one that lowering would have no effect on. In fact, lowering would only serve to feed some of those issues.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 Posts: 5065 Location: New York City
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 11:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
tfan wrote: |
I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger. |
I think everyone is. Both the Fagan article and the Clarendon one explained quite clearly why lowering the rims would not do this. If rim height were the actual reason that people were not watching I think most people would be in favor of lowering them. But they are not. It is a much deeper issue than that, one that lowering would have no effect on. In fact, lowering would only serve to feed some of those issues. |
Agreed. Lowering the rims would be wonderful fuel for the misogynists and their contempt for women's basketball and women's sports in general.
_________________ Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
|
|
Michael V Pearson
Joined: 23 Oct 2015 Posts: 64
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 2:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Jet Jaguar wrote: |
Michael V Pearson wrote: |
I see this everywhere on my timelines. Ones that struck the most are Griner's, Latta's and Augustus's reaction. There may be pros or cons of lowering the rim but it's not stupid. People who think it 's stupid gets on my nerves. EDD is actually being honest about it. She may not be right but at least we get insider's thought about this, particularly from the players.
My wife is so impressed how vocal WNBA players can be, considering most players like to lay low. We get that most players are against it. But all this lowering discussion is not stupid, it's good for the league actually. It helps open up more discussions, like viewership, marketing, salary etc |
Guess I'm going to get on your nerves.... |
That's alright, at least my we're talking someone is an active WNBA players who is also an MVP, not a 4-wnba-teams-rejected bum scrapping in the European league
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11193
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 3:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Would a higher shooting percentage -- the main improvement the 9-foot basket might bring -- increase paid attendance and viewership?
Presumably the game would be more exciting, which would be to the good, if making baskets is more exciting than missing them (which I would say is true). But would incrementally more baskets and points attract fans who are not already fans?
I think it would be fair to say that the game would move along at a better pace and scores would be higher with a lower rim, but what are the costs that come with that benefit -- and not just financial costs?
I think Auriemma and EDD feel that the game as it is has plateaued and they may well be right, but the plateau isn't a bad one (as long the high school participation numbers quit decreasing). There's a risk in trying to push the interest higher, and it's unclear to me that the reward is worth the risk.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8254 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 4:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MeJnBytUYZI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9724
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 6:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
tfan wrote: |
I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger. |
I think everyone is. Both the Fagan article and the Clarendon one explained quite clearly why lowering the rims would not do this. If rim height were the actual reason that people were not watching I think most people would be in favor of lowering them. But they are not. It is a much deeper issue than that, one that lowering would have no effect on. In fact, lowering would only serve to feed some of those issues. |
Expressing an opinion, even if done by two people, does not make something true. Auriemma and Delle Donne saying it would increase viewership doesn't mean it will. Fagan and Clarendon saying it won't doesn't mean it won't.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9724
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 6:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
I think Auriemma and EDD feel that the game as it is has plateaued and they may well be right, but the plateau isn't a bad one (as long the high school participation numbers quit decreasing). |
Adam Silver is also not happy with the status quo of the WNBA. And the league is on it's fourth President.
Last edited by tfan on 04/12/16 11:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8254 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 6:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Let's have some really creative thinking by the FBB doom-and-gloomers who want to "improve" the game.
<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2ouXw328WYI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 6:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
tfan wrote: |
justintyme wrote: |
tfan wrote: |
I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger. |
I think everyone is. Both the Fagan article and the Clarendon one explained quite clearly why lowering the rims would not do this. If rim height were the actual reason that people were not watching I think most people would be in favor of lowering them. But they are not. It is a much deeper issue than that, one that lowering would have no effect on. In fact, lowering would only serve to feed some of those issues. |
Expressing an opinion, even if done by two people, does not make something true. Auriemma and Delle Donne saying it would increase viewership doesn't mean it will. Fagan and Clarendon saying it won't doesn't mean it won't. |
No. Stating a simple opinion does not make it true. However, neither the Fagan nor Clarendon articles stopped at the opinion. Really, what they offered was a conclusion. The article details out the logical reasoning and evidence that they used to draw that conclusion. So if someone wants to take umbrage with their logic, go for it. But if someone is going to argue this position they need to at least address the evidence/reasoning cited.
The most important part of those articles is that they addressed the underlying assumptions that EDD and Geno used about why people weren't watching. It exposes the flaw in their logic. It is not opinion to say that someone else position is illogical, that is something that can be objectively argued.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 6:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
tfan wrote: |
ClayK wrote: |
I think Auriemma and EDD feel that the game as it is has plateaued and they may well be right, but the plateau isn't a bad one (as long the high school participation numbers quit decreasing). |
Adam Silver is also not happy with the status quo of the WNBA. Besides saying "It's not where we thought it would be", he fired Laurel Richie. |
You are talking about two seperate things. The plateau is about the skill level/excitement level of the game. The other is about the overall state of the game.
You (assuming you are arguing to lower the rims) are making the assumption that an increase to one would have a direct correlation to the other. We are arguing that this isn't the case. That the "excitement" added by lowering the rims (through increasing FG% and adding slam dunks) would have a negligible at best impact on the viewership. The sociological and historical evidence should demonstrate well that this is the case. And that lowering the rims would actually have a deleterious effect on the ability to reach more people by feeding into certain social biases.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9724
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 10:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
tfan wrote: |
justintyme wrote: |
tfan wrote: |
I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger. |
I think everyone is. Both the Fagan article and the Clarendon one explained quite clearly why lowering the rims would not do this. If rim height were the actual reason that people were not watching I think most people would be in favor of lowering them. But they are not. It is a much deeper issue than that, one that lowering would have no effect on. In fact, lowering would only serve to feed some of those issues. |
Expressing an opinion, even if done by two people, does not make something true. Auriemma and Delle Donne saying it would increase viewership doesn't mean it will. Fagan and Clarendon saying it won't doesn't mean it won't. |
No. Stating a simple opinion does not make it true. However, neither the Fagan nor Clarendon articles stopped at the opinion. Really, what they offered was a conclusion. The article details out the logical reasoning and evidence that they used to draw that conclusion. So if someone wants to take umbrage with their logic, go for it. But if someone is going to argue this position they need to at least address the evidence/reasoning cited. |
Clarendon states some familiar opinions. Women's basketball is less popular because of less coverage,cultural bias and sexism. Those opinions do not disprove the opinion that it would be more popular with lower rims. All four could be true, all four could be false. Even if we assume all three of her opinions as true, it doesn't preclude lowered rims from having a positive effect on interest.
She also equates lowering the rims to wearing tighter uniforms when she should be equating it to having a closer three point line and a smaller ball. She does correctly point out that playgrounds would be the wrong height but it doesn't have to change for elementary, high school or even college.
Women's basketball is getting more coverage than ever. There are now three channels dedicated to showing the sports of a college conference (Big 10, Pac-12, SEC) and they are broadcasting many women's games. So we will see if extra coverage of the college game can translate to better ESPN WNBA ratings. But there is the situation in that ESPN has paid the WNBA more money for the right to show fewer games. And that happened with five dedicated sports channels now fighting for sports content.
Her call for background material or "get to know" type articles/videos on individual players should be directed right to the league office. Or her team's head office. They both have youtube and wnba.com to use for free.
Quote: |
The most important part of those articles is that they addressed the underlying assumptions that EDD and Geno used about why people weren't watching. It exposes the flaw in their logic. It is not opinion to say that someone else position is illogical, that is something that can be objectively argued. |
I just read the Clarendon article and I don't see any flaws exposed in Auriemma and Delle Donne saying that lowering the rims could get more viewers or attendees. She just says "that won't work it's a distraction - this is why people don't watch". And she leaves athletic ability out of the equation, even athletic ability "viewed through a patriarchal lens".
And as Auriemma said - just do it as an experiment. It's like using a piano and guitar in church instead of an organ or having the pastor wear business clothes instead of a robe in an attempt to boost declining attendance. The church sees if it helps attendance and if not they can reverse it to please the current parishioners who were happy with the way things were and take offense at the suggestion that changes are needed.
Clarendon concludes with:
Quote: |
We need to band together as a league and say we're enough. Because we are. |
Maybe. But if things are good enough right now why is attendance still declining?
Last edited by tfan on 04/03/16 12:54 am; edited 8 times in total |
|
mb1
Joined: 09 Feb 2006 Posts: 4691 Location: Scottsdale,AZ,USA
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 10:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
How about raising the men's rim to eleven feet.*
*sarcasm
_________________ I've got a crush on Rebby!
LONG LIVE THE WNBA!
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 24401 Location: London
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 11:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
tfan wrote: |
Maybe. But if things are good enough right now why was Laurel Richie fired? |
Considering you're so keen to point out whether things are entirely proven or not, it seems fair to point out that officially she wasn't. Richie 'stepped down', 'departed', or 'left the league to pursue her other interests' depending on which line of the releases you wish to use. You can assume she was fired if you wish, but we have no more evidence of that than we have that she was sick of the job and decided to do something else. |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9724
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 11:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
tfan wrote: |
ClayK wrote: |
I think Auriemma and EDD feel that the game as it is has plateaued and they may well be right, but the plateau isn't a bad one (as long the high school participation numbers quit decreasing). |
Adam Silver is also not happy with the status quo of the WNBA. Besides saying "It's not where we thought it would be", he fired Laurel Richie. |
You are talking about two disperate things. The plateau is about the skill level/excitement level of the game. The other is about the overall state of the game. |
I see now that ClayK was probably talking about the skills of the players being at a plateau, whereas I thought he was discussing fan interest.
Quote: |
You (assuming you are arguing to lower the rims) are making the assumption that an increase to one would have a direct correlation to the other. We are arguing that this isn't the case. That the "excitement" added by lowering the rims (through increasing FG% and adding slam dunks) would have a negligible at best impact on the viewership. The sociological and historical evidence should demonstrate well that this is the case. And that lowering the rims would actually have a deleterious effect on the ability to reach more people by feeding into certain social biases. |
I think that it should be tried as Auriemma suggested, in some exhibitions. I would not say that it would definitely increase interest or enjoyment of fans, but if I had to bet one way or the other I would bet that it would. And I don't know whether or not it would be significant enough to make a difference. But I wouldn't do it 9'7" like Auriemma said. It should be tried at different heights between 8 and 9 feet.
I don't think that the WNBA trying lower rims for a few games would permanently tarnish the league if they ultimately didn't go that way. Although I do see that the WNBA trying something different is a suggestion that the current product is flawed. But I think it would be quickly forgotten.
Last edited by tfan on 04/03/16 2:16 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9724
Back to top |
Posted: 04/02/16 11:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Richyyy wrote: |
tfan wrote: |
Maybe. But if things are good enough right now why was Laurel Richie fired? |
Considering you're so keen to point out whether things are entirely proven or not, it seems fair to point out that officially she wasn't. Richie 'stepped down', 'departed', or 'left the league to pursue her other interests' depending on which line of the releases you wish to use. You can assume she was fired if you wish, but we have no more evidence of that than we have that she was sick of the job and decided to do something else. |
True, people can quit jobs without having another for reasons other than "resign or be fired". And I felt a little guiltful each time I wrote that she was fired.
So I will change it to:
"Maybe. But if things are good enough right now why does attendance keep declining?"
|
|
miller40
Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 1334
Back to top |
Posted: 04/03/16 8:53 am ::: |
Reply |
|
tfan wrote: |
justintyme wrote: |
tfan wrote: |
justintyme wrote: |
tfan wrote: |
I think both Auriemma and Della Donne are concerned with viewership and how to get it larger. |
I think everyone is. Both the Fagan article and the Clarendon one explained quite clearly why lowering the rims would not do this. If rim height were the actual reason that people were not watching I think most people would be in favor of lowering them. But they are not. It is a much deeper issue than that, one that lowering would have no effect on. In fact, lowering would only serve to feed some of those issues. |
Expressing an opinion, even if done by two people, does not make something true. Auriemma and Delle Donne saying it would increase viewership doesn't mean it will. Fagan and Clarendon saying it won't doesn't mean it won't. |
No. Stating a simple opinion does not make it true. However, neither the Fagan nor Clarendon articles stopped at the opinion. Really, what they offered was a conclusion. The article details out the logical reasoning and evidence that they used to draw that conclusion. So if someone wants to take umbrage with their logic, go for it. But if someone is going to argue this position they need to at least address the evidence/reasoning cited. |
Clarendon states some familiar opinions. Women's basketball is less popular because of less coverage,cultural bias and sexism. Those opinions do not disprove the opinion that it would be more popular with lower rims. All four could be true, all four could be false. Even if we assume all three of her opinions as true, it doesn't preclude lowered rims from having a positive effect on interest.
She also equates lowering the rims to wearing tighter uniforms when she should be equating it to having a closer three point line and a smaller ball. She does correctly point out that playgrounds would be the wrong height but it doesn't have to change for elementary, high school or even college.
Women's basketball is getting more coverage than ever. There are now three channels dedicated to showing the sports of a college conference (Big 10, Pac-12, SEC) and they are broadcasting many women's games. So we will see if extra coverage of the college game can translate to better ESPN WNBA ratings. But there is the situation in that ESPN has paid the WNBA more money for the right to show fewer games. And that happened with five dedicated sports channels now fighting for sports content.
Her call for background material or "get to know" type articles/videos on individual players should be directed right to the league office. Or her team's head office. They both have youtube and wnba.com to use for free.
Quote: |
The most important part of those articles is that they addressed the underlying assumptions that EDD and Geno used about why people weren't watching. It exposes the flaw in their logic. It is not opinion to say that someone else position is illogical, that is something that can be objectively argued. |
I just read the Clarendon article and I don't see any flaws exposed in Auriemma and Delle Donne saying that lowering the rims could get more viewers or attendees. She just says "that won't work it's a distraction - this is why people don't watch". And she leaves athletic ability out of the equation, even athletic ability "viewed through a patriarchal lens".
And as Auriemma said - just do it as an experiment. It's like using a piano and guitar in church instead of an organ or having the pastor wear business clothes instead of a robe in an attempt to boost declining attendance. The church sees if it helps attendance and if not they can reverse it to please the current parishioners who were happy with the way things were and take offense at the suggestion that changes are needed.
Clarendon concludes with:
Quote: |
We need to band together as a league and say we're enough. Because we are. |
Maybe. But if things are good enough right now why is attendance still declining? |
I honestly doubt lowering the rim will make any difference to people who already dislike women's basketball. People who hate the women's game are still going to find reasons to hate on the women's game. This was the response when Bleacher Report reposted Parker's dunk. "But it's a 9 foot rim" would probably become the haters most Tweeted sentence.
Bleacher Report @BleacherReport Apr 1
Candace Parker puts an end to the rim discussion (via @Candace_Parker)
Jeff Martini @jeff_martini5 Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker she's 6'4 I would hope she could dunk
Justin Gregorio @justingregorio9 Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker that is 8 feet tho 😐
Jos Manuel. @Joey101_ Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker one handed dunk. So many highlights
Baxx Mlackburn @maxxblackburn Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker @jesselyonxvii still a terrible dunk
Seor Byrom @kylebyrom Apr 1 El Rio, CA
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker @vine She barely got it in there......
Cole @JayCole_35 Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker @vine 8 feet tho.....😐😐
KJ @thekjhaluska Apr 1 Gary, IN
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker @vine DAMN she got like 4 inches off the ground!
Beans @DortmundKuba16 Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker I mean, I could dunk on 8 feet too...
Tay @Taylor_Seltzer Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker 9 feet
BSTILLZ @BS_till69 Apr 1
@BleacherReport woman basketball 😂😂😂😂😢😂😂
Austin G @AustinG_Says Apr 1
@BleacherReport 6'4" with a 6'8" wingspan and a women's ball.... There's nothing impressive here
Randy @N0MoreFreeRandy Apr 1
@AustinG_Says haha that's how I dunked when I was 14
Austin G @AustinG_Says Apr 1
@N0MoreFreeRandy lol right and she's tryna act so cocky and cool... Like you better be able to do that shit
Jameson Gallagher @jamogallagher Apr 1
@StRoNGissoBaD @BleacherReport @Candace_Parker she's over 6'2" though, I'd still give her a run though
taywrex @taywrex Apr 1
@BleacherReport @Candace_Parker @vine women's ball don't count.
|
|
|
|