7 comments Mark Cuban Says Brittney Griner Could Play in the NBA and Jemele Hill Somehow Takes Offense to This

I'm pretty sure JemeHill (I combine her first and last name because it is fun to type it that way) could take any compliment given to a person and turn it into an insult. Mark Cuban had the audacity to say Brittney Griner could play in the NBA or that he would think about drafting her. To add insult to injury, it appears Cuban was entirely serious. I say "to add insult to injury" because this comment by Mark Cuban offers a false promise that is setting back women, women's sports, the WNBA, and most likely the world's chances to avoid a nuclear war with North Korea in the mind of JemeHill. JemeHill is very offended by Cuban's comment. She is offended out of proportion for how much she should be offended. She thinks Mark Cuban is saying Griner needs to play men's sports to legitimize herself, when he was simply saying she is a great basketball player and he would think about drafting her. It's easy to take offense to something when you seemingly look for things that piss you off and skew the intended meaning of other otherwise innocent statements.

I have no doubt that Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban was sincere when he said he would draft Brittney Griner, or at the very least, perhaps invite her to play for Dallas' summer league team in Las Vegas.

But it was an offensive thing to say! How dare Mark Cuban give out compliments!

I wonder if JemeHill would have liked it better if Cuban had stated women had no business playing in the NBA? My guess is if that happened we would get a column from her stating women could play in the NBA and that Mark Cuban was wrong to suggest Griner couldn't make it in the NBA. You can't win sometimes.

But unfortunately that's not how Griner responded. Instead, she tweeted to Cuban: "I would hold my own! Lets do it."

I can't believe Brittney Griner is willing to demean herself by taking Cuban up on an invitation to play in the NBA. Just when you think women's athletics can't be set back any further something like this happens. 

My problem with Cuban's offer has nothing to do with whether I believe Griner can play with men. The gap in physical strength would be a huge issue for her, 

Right, but it is still nice for Mark Cuban to Tweet that he wouldn't mind Griner playing for the Mavericks. It's not going to happen, but it is a nice compliment. Only a demented person could find a way to take offense to this offer.

just as her quickness and array of post moves might be an issue for some of the men she would play.

We have talked about women playing basketball against men before. No, Brittney Griner would not be too quick for the men that would guard her in the post. If Griner has good moves, it would be offset by the fact she is going to struggle to get position in the post due to the gap in physical strength that JemeHill just mentioned.

I would imagine that Griner already has spent a good deal of her career playing against boys and men recreationally. But how she could fit in the NBA isn't really the point.

No, it really is the point. Mark Cuban said Griner could play in the NBA. Griner said, "Let's do it." JemeHill wrote a column about how this offer to play in the NBA offers a false promise to Griner. The entire discussion and this entire article is about how she would fit in the NBA. I don't see how anyone can believe this article is/should be about anything else.

What I don't like about Cuban's comments is that it perpetuates the dangerous idea that great female athletes need to validate themselves by competing against men.

Well it's not about how Griner fits in the NBA when JemeHill decides to take a comment and blow it up into something bigger than it really is. Mark Cuban's comment doesn't perpetuate the "dangerous" idea female athletes need to validate themselves competing against men. It says Griner has validated her skills against women and Cuban thinks she is good enough to play against men, despite the gap in physical strength and because of the post moves JemeHill just mentioned. Notice how JemeHill immediately evaluates Griner's ability to play in the NBA and then decides this evaluation (that she herself just made) is "dangerous." It's a compliment that Mark Cuban was paying Griner. Just take it as that.

This season, Griner was the best college player in women's or men's hoops.

In JemeHill's opinion it is "dangerous" to try and evaluate Griner against men, but this is the second time in this fairly short column JemeHill has compared Griner to men's basketball players. So apparently this is a dangerous comparison, unless JemeHill would like to make this comparison, in which case the comparison only goes to show how great Brittney Griner is at playing basketball.

Griner doesn't have anything to prove. But because of Cuban's interest in her, it's opened the door for people to talk more about what Griner can't do, rather than appreciate what she can.

But what I don't get is why JemeHill is criticizing this discussion people have about what Griner can't do even though SHE HERSELF JUST TALKED ABOUT WHAT GRINER CAN'T DO! JemeHill said:

My problem with Cuban's offer has nothing to do with whether I believe Griner can play with men. The gap in physical strength would be a huge issue for her, 

No one is forcing JemeHill to make this comparison, she is choosing to do so on her own free will. Mark Cuban's comment doesn't highlight what Griner can't do, but highlights how good of a women's basketball player Griner is.

Once Cuban's comments spread, it was open season on Griner. She's too slow to play with men. She isn't physical enough. She doesn't have the athleticism.

But these are comments JemeHill just made herself. She is essentially citing her own reaction to Cuban's comment as an example of how some will make it open season on Griner. JemeHill's own reaction and comments about Griner are the very comments JemeHill finds troubling. She basically finds herself "dangerous" for making these comments.

I've come to believe JemeHill doesn't have a ton of talent. She has to take offense, change the subject or talk around an issue in order to be able to write a column. Even once she takes offense, she still can't help but create a problem that doesn't exist or cite her own opinion as the only supporting evidence for her column.

Everything she accomplished is being measured against professional male players, and that simply isn't fair.

The reason she is being compared to NBA players is because she has been so dominant in college. Considering (in my opinion) no women's basketball player could thrive in the NBA, it is a compliment to even suggest Griner could. It doesn't take away from Griner's accomplishments. Plus, JemeHill herself is the one not being fair to Griner and comparing her to NBA players. She does it in this very article.

As the WNBA draft approaches, the conversation should be about how Griner's college stardom can translate to professional success, and perhaps boost the WNBA to another level in popularity. 

Good luck with that. I don't know if Griner has the ability to pull in people to the WNBA who haven't ordinarily watched women's basketball.

This Griner situation reminds me of how, every so often, people would wonder whether former Tennessee coach Pat Summitt should coach men.

This seems like an interesting topic of conversation. There have also been people who wondered if Coach K could coach NBA players. Simply by wondering if Coach K could coach NBA players over a full season doesn't mean he has to validate himself by coaching these players? No, of course not. How good of a women's basketball coach would Phil Jackson have been? I think he would have been a better women's basketball coach than a men's basketball coach, but that's just my opinion. Me wondering how good Phil Jackson would have been at UConn coaching women basketball players doesn't mean Jackson needs to validate himself by coaching women.

I don't doubt that Summit could do it, but I reject the idea that Summit needed to coach men to legitimize what anyone with common sense already knew -- that the woman can coach.

JemeHill can be such a pain in the ass sometimes. Simply asking if Coach Summit could coach men (and no one says she "should" coach men, it's always if she "could" coach men) isn't saying she has to coach men to legitimize herself. This is another example of JemeHill creating an fake argument that she can dispel in order to better prove her point. She does this quite frequently. JemeHill will make up a point of view that few or no people hold, then will rebut that argument in a column and believe she proved something. She will write something like, "The idea LeBron isn't the best forward on the Heat roster is ridiculous," and then start to disprove this argument few or no people are making.

I would not compare Griner playing in the NBA to Danica Patrick competing against men in NASCAR. For one, NASCAR is one of the few sports men and women can compete with one another without strength or stature being an issue.

Only someone who hasn't ever watched a NASCAR race would make this statement and believe it to be true. Being a NASCAR driver takes conditioning and strength. The difference in men and women's bodies can be seen in this sport. There's a reason Dale Earnhardt Jr. claims part of his resurgence is a better dedication to conditioning and getting in shape.

The only things that matter in NASCAR are reaction time, endurance and, of course, the car.

I don't like NASCAR, but this is a very simplistic way to look at it. It's like saying the only things that matter in basketball is being athletic and being able to shoot. 

But having not won a race in NASCAR and having barely won anything as an IndyCar driver, she has invited criticism about whether she's good enough. Madison Avenue loves her, but can she win? 

And why has she barely won anything? Is it because she isn't very good or the fact she is a tiny person gives her a small disadvantage when driving against men? I'm asking, because apparently JemeHill is a NASCAR expert and claims there is no disadvantage to a woman driving a race car as compared to a man driving a race car.

But as we saw with Patrick, there is a lot of pressure that comes with competing in a male-dominated sport. And while Griner dealt with high expectations at Baylor because the team looked practically unbeatable, vying for a spot on an NBA team would bring scrutiny unlike anything she experienced in college. 

And of course the insinuation Griner could handle this scrutiny is a huge insult to Griner, women, and women's sports.

From Billie Jean King versus Bobby Riggs to Patrick versus the pack, there has always been an infatuation with women who compete against men.

And an infatuation with men who compete against women. It can go both ways.

In 1979, Ann Meyers signed a contract with the Pacers and tried out for the team. Even though she didn't make an NBA roster, her efforts to play in the NBA never damaged her credibility.

So history says if Brittney Griner tried out for an NBA roster then her credibility would not be damaged, but somehow JemeHill thinks it is different 34 years later when society and the NBA is possibly more accepting of a women's ability to play basketball.

That's not how it would work today.

This is not a statement of fact simply because you hold yourself in high esteem and make this statement. This is purely an opinion.

If Griner flirted with the NBA and failed, it would do a lot more damage. There would be an obsession with her successes and failures. Every missed and made shot would be replayed repeatedly on TV and throughout social media.

I don't know if it would do any real damage. It would simply reinforce what some people already believe, that an elite women's basketball player can't compete with elite men's basketball players. Maybe that's JemeHill's biggest fear, the confirmation that elite women can't compete with elite men in basketball. I don't see it as the end of the world. Men's college basketball teams can't compete with NBA teams and I don't think that takes anything away from the men's college basketball game. We saw a woman fail at kicking at the NFL Combine recently and it hasn't destroyed women's sports, so perhaps we would see Griner struggle and simply move on with our lives.

One of the greatest players in women's college basketball history would risk being relegated to being the punch line of far too many jokes.

I already joke about her even before she has played one game against men. (Mean comments to follow) I'm not entirely convinced Brittney Griner isn't a guy. She has kind of a deep voice and I'm not passing up the idea she could just be a really girly-looking guy. I don't say this because I enjoy being mean to women athletes or because she is good at basketball, but because she has kind of a deep voice and I'm not entirely convinced she doesn't have a different set of chromosomes from other women basketball players. If a male basketball player had a high-pitched voice I would wonder if he wasn't really a girl. It's fun to be mean like this.

Or worse, considered a failure.

I don't think she would be considered a failure. Ann Meyers wasn't considered a failure 34 years ago and I really believe the more progressive attitude towards women sports means Brittney wouldn't be seen as a failure just like Ann Meyers wasn't seen as a failure.

There is no question that Griner could gain much more exposure if she, say, decided to play in a few summer league games. But the NBA doesn't need any more marketing help. The WNBA, however, desperately needs more players and personalities like Griner. 

This is a completely different argument. Whether the NBA or the WNBA needs more marketing help is irrelevant and has nothing to do with whether Cuban's statement that Brittney Griner could try out for the Mavericks is a false promise or not. Let's stick to the subject at hand and not try to distract the audience from your weak argument.

Too many people already treat Griner like a freak because of her size.

It's not her size that gets me. It's her voice. That's a very different voice for a female. I don't think she is a freak, but I can't help but notice her voice isn't very lady-like. I always love it when a writer says something like "too many people" and then doesn't cite a single piece of evidence or a statement by these "people" to support this argument. It's like they are hoping by just making a blanket statement everyone will assume the statement is factual.

The last thing she should want is for the NBA to use her as a sideshow. 

I'm sorry, what was this article about again? Wasn't this article supposed to be about how Mark Cuban's comment made it seem like Brittney Griner had to legitimize herself by playing in the NBA? What ever happened to that argument (as weak as it was)? The column ended with JemeHill saying people think Brittney Griner is a freak and then saying the NBA shouldn't use her as a sideshow. So just remember girls (girl? who I am kidding, no girls read this blog), if someone tells you that you could play in the NBA then don't dare take this as a compliment because that is a huge insult to you and everyone thinks you are a freak. 

3 comments Frank Deford Wishes Life was Still Like the Movie "Grease"

I remember growing up reading Frank Deford's articles in Sports Illustrated. Reading his columns today is like seeing Willie Mays in a Mets uniform or watching any other once-great athlete (author) dealing with impending age. I felt the same way about Furman Bisher, though it was still fun to write about him here, I am able to recognize he was once a great writer. Anyway, Frank Deford is concerned about NASCAR's popularity, those darn kids who like to listen to their iPods in the car, and how this relates to fixing cars. The article is about NASCAR, but it is also about how people don't like messing around with cars anymore. Clearly, the Internet is to blame. Also, where is everyone's leather jacket and does nobody roll up cigarettes in their t-shirt sleeve these days?

Individual sports are always volatile, and after being the next big thing, NASCAR's popularity has stalled. A lot had to do with the economy.

This is absolutely true. The economy is probably mostly to blame for the decline in NASCAR attendance. Since this article is about NASCAR, let's straighten one thing up at the very start. NASCAR is struggling with attendance right now, but the ratings for NASCAR races are very, very good. Since the premise of this article is NASCAR is declining in popularity, I feel it is important to mention that while NASCAR attendance is declining those square boxes with all the colors, we call them televisions, show that NASCAR still has a fan base who don't mind watching the sport. So the idea Frank Deford furthers (and then rambles away from until he is talking about iPods in cars) fails to be in true in my mind. Attendance is down, but the popularity of NASCAR doesn't seem to be on the decline as much.

And as for fans, when it became cut-back time, they had to think twice about gassing up those big old RVs and driving a far piece to sit in those ear-shattering stadiums.

I'm "Southern" which means I was born in the South and I have never watched a NASCAR race in person or on television. I always wanted to go to a NASCAR race just to see what it is like, but I also don't think I would enjoy it very much. I envision pony-tails, mullets, an extreme lack of shirts on men and women, really loud pop-country music, and a lot of dirt. Before I die, I want to go to a NASCAR race, but attending a NASCAR race doesn't seem like something a casual fan (or non-fan like me) of NASCAR would enjoy doing. I could be wrong and perhaps I'm not the best example to use.

So, NASCAR invested $5 million in research to find out how to get back out of the pits. To me, the most fascinating finding was that all those old, white guys, who were the bread-and-butter NASCAR constituency, were not being replicated by their sons and grandsons. Frankly, the younger generations don't care to mess around with cars.

Here is the problem with this finding...younger generations didn't want to mess around with cars in the early 2000's when NASCAR was peaking in attendance and popularity. Why was attendance great a decade ago, but is flattening out now? Am I to believe a decade ago the younger generation liked to mess around with cars, but the demographics have changed very drastically in the last decade?

But what NASCAR found out was that it's now only a platonic relationship. No more hands on. A whole cohort of our young boys -- and girls -- has been growing up without any interest in "tinkering" around with cars.

The first problem I see here is why would I want to "tinker" with my car when it works perfectly fine? If there is nothing wrong with my car, and I have no need to make it go faster than it already does, then I'm not going to "tinker" with the car. If I want to "tinker" with my car to make it go faster then I'm probably needlessly getting speeding tickets and endangering the lives of other drivers on the road. That's a different story, I guess.

Frank Deford doesn't link this study that NASCAR funded, so I am not sure exactly what the study revealed. I'm not sure NASCAR even had a study. Maybe Frank Deford got confused and there never was a study. There has to be a better reason for the decline in NASCAR attendance outside of young boys and girls not wanting to "tinker" with cars. I say this because plenty of people seem to be watching NASCAR on television, so the interest is still there. I think the first answer, which is the economy, is the issue at-hand. I know people who like to "tinker" with cars who don't watch NASCAR, so I do struggle a bit with this article saying the decline in the American love story between man and car is the reason for NASCAR's struggling attendance. People are watching on television, so there still seems to be interest in the sport.

In fact, it made me think that the last time I ever heard anybody talking about looking under the hood was Ross Perot,

Annnnnnnnnnnnd, we now begin our little trip down the rabbit hole that is Frank Deford's thoughts on cars, Ross Perot, and Indians.

when he ran for president back in '92, and he kept saying that all we had to do to fix all things in America was to just look under the hood.

To which, after being elected President, Bill Clinton spent eight years trying to look under the hood of interns and various other women to the disgust of the Republicans. Didn't Ross Perot say to look under the hood? Clinton just wanted to see what made this nation tick under the hood and it turned to be a combination of thong panties and cigars. Clinton was just trying to do what Ross Perot claimed he would do as President.

Well, NASCAR found nobody much wants to do that anymore. There are no more gearheads growing up in America.

Zero. None. There are no gearheads in America. Frank Deford saw the (unlinked and uncited) NASCAR findings, saw NASCAR has found the younger generation doesn't like "tinkering" with cars and has latched onto this as why NASCAR attendance is down...yet ratings are up. It's almost like fans like the sport, but don't go to the races because it is too expensive.

Sure, younger people still view automobiles as a necessary evil to get from A to B, but no less so than do Brazilians or Indians or Chinese.

Except for the French. Those bastards don't see a purpose for automobiles other than to get them from A to B. Don't even get Frank Deford started on how Egyptians view automobiles.

In fact, Americans aren't satisfied only to drive.

They want to drive AND have the air conditioning work. We can't have it all people!

They otherwise want to talk on the phone, eat and drink,

And this is relevant to NASCAR declining attendance in what way?

plug in their iPods, change CDs or fool around with the GPS.

Clearly Frank Deford doesn't have an iPod or a GPS. Most likely someone is plugging in their GPS and fooling around with the iPod, not the other way around. Though I do like the image of a person fooling around with the GPS. Does Frank Deford realize if a person fools around with the GPS it will constantly change the destination and make it very hard to reach the desired destination, thereby ruining the purpose of having a GPS?

(Frank Deford's wife) "Set the GPS for Atlantic Beach."

(Frank Deford sets the GPS for Atlantic Beach and then begins fooling around with the GPS to see how far it is to South Dakota)

(Four hours later Frank's wife gets concerned and wakes Frank up from his nap) "Are you sure we are supposed to be passing St. Louis on the way to Atlantic Beach?"

(Frank Deford) "Probably not, why are you driving this way?"

(Frank's wife) "It's what the GPS told me.

(Frank Deford) Oh, well I was fooling around with the GPS and wanted to see how far it was to South Dakota."

(Frank's wife opens the car door while the car is still moving and dives out of the car)

How many Americans would even get into cars if they couldn't be entertained while driving?

Considering millions of Americans get into their car everyday to go to work...I would say millions of Americans would get into their cars if they could not be entertained. Also, what does this have to do with NASCAR again?

If the government could just eliminate all the amusing stuff from cars, not many would get in them,

This is so absolutely false. I leave my mom's attic everyday to go to work 8 miles away from my house (ok, fine...my "work" is just another friend's attic where I spend the day watching old Star Trek episodes and try to create the first completely computer-automated baseball player). I'm not taking the bus nor am I walking to work. So if the car ride was just a boring ride without any music playing I would still get in my car because I am too good to ride the bus and I'm not walking 8 miles my friend's attic. I think this is probably true for the majority of Americans (my general feelings about not driving, not the part about working in a friend's attic).

And yet, I'm still not sure what Americans liking entertainment in their cars while driving said cars has to do with NASCAR's declining attendance.

and there goes the demand for foreign oil right there.

Sounds like you have everything solved then. So back to the whole NASCAR attendance issue? Any further thoughts on that which don't deal with "young people don't like cars, they like hip-hop music and pissing on my front lawn"?

Moreover, when it comes to cars, kids grow up being primarily accustomed to watching cars crashing in movies and on TV.

Yes, but the cars crash going very fast, which should be of interest to "the kids." Also, didn't older movies also feature cars crashing? I swear I remember a car crash or two in "Rebel Without a Cause." Not to mention, I'm pretty sure cars crash during a NASCAR race. So wouldn't the crashing of cars cause "the kids" to enjoy NASCAR more if they enjoy these types of television shows and movies, even if "the kids" don't know how to fix a car?

Cars aren't admired for racing anymore, for going fast.

If only there were a movie called "The Fast and Furious" and it made a ton of money at the box office and then spawned a bunch of sequels. Then, and only then, could kids appreciate how fast cars go.

And tinker? Researchers at the University of Michigan found that the kids who tinker more with the internet delay getting their driver's license.

You had to figure the Internet was to blame at some point for this problem of NASCAR's declining attendance. If kids would stay off the Internet and go "tinker" with a car then those kids would also eventually get into watching NASCAR and buy tickets to race. What I'm saying is we should really get rid of the Internet.

Not wanting a driver's license? Next to making out, that was the most important rite of passage in an American teenager's life.

Which it still is an important rite of passage. I'm pretty sure this article advocates excessive spending and pre-marital sex, preferably in a car, which I wouldn't expect from Frank Deford.

What's funny is this study in reality had nothing to do with "tinkering" with cars, racing these cars or even NASCAR. What was it about? Moving skills to areas of the United States during a tough economy. So even when the answer to the NASCAR attendance problem isn't about the economy, it still ties into the economy in a certain way. So while Frank Deford is correct about this conclusion, it still takes a few degrees of separation for a child to get a license, then enjoy messing around with cars and finally wanting to attend a NASCAR race. I'm not sure why, outside of the economy, the younger generation enjoyed "tinkering" with cars a decade ago when NASCAR attendance soared and now this need to "tinker" is non-existent. Frank doesn't sufficiently explain this huge demographics change to me.

Look, I wish NASCAR well. I hope it gets people back to the races,

The ratings are really good. The trick is to take his popularity on television and translate it into attendance at races.

but it will have to do it with stars and steroids and point spreads, like all the other sports.

I'm not entirely sure what steroids have to do with NASCAR and no matter how many people like racing the stars of the sport are always going to help drive attendance. This would be true even if every person in the country loved "tinkering" with cars. Stars drive sports.

Nobody cool wants to look under the hood anymore. They want to look at Facebook and YouTube.

Then watch a NASCAR race on television. We also have to remember NASCAR tracks can hold over 100,000 fans in attendance. That's a lot of people to fill up the stands.

I can officially declare that, as of 2012, the American love affair with the car is over. Cars are so Greatest Generation.

Which explains why NASCAR races are second only to the NFL in television viewership. Gee, with the popularity still seemingly high, there must be another reason fans aren't attending the races as often. Tickets to a NASCAR race are free, right?