I had a great weekend. I spent my days curled up on my couch, excitedly watching three of my favorite basketball players dominate in exciting games. What may surprise you, however, is that none of these players were professionals, nor were the games they were playing in. And even more surprising? Not a single one of those players were men.
I am, of course, referring to the three superstars of women’s college basketball, who all put their varied skillsets on display during the Elite 8 of the NCAA Women’s Basketball tournament. The first, the enigmatic Skylar Diggins, star point guard for Notre Dame, had 16 points, 4 rebounds and 5 assists (as well as 7 turnovers) in a rout of Iowa, and a chance to play Duke to go to the final four. The second, the multi-faced forward/center Elena Delle Donne, notched 33 and 9 rebounds in a losing effort to Kentucky, thus ending her illustrious (and interesting) college career at the University of Delaware. Finally, Brittney Griner, the brilliant 6’8” pivot, consensus best player in women’s college basketball, and surefire number one overall draft pick for the WNBA, scored 14 and 10 in an upset loss to Louisville; a relative non-factor in the final college game of her illustrious career. All of the games were exciting, and though all the participants played admirably, it was very clear who the superstars were.
It’s hard not to look at Diggins, Delle Donne and Griner over their peers; they are truly superstars, they easily pass the eye test. Their skillsets don’t only seem superior to the other players on the court; they draw your attention and suck you in. In Diggins, you have an end-to-end point guard, equally capable of setting up a half-court set, making the right pass on the fast break, or stepping up and scoring the bucket herself. In Delle Donne, you have an ice-cold assassin; a Nowitzki-esque talent who will start picking apart your defensive game from above the three point arc, and before the shot clock has expired has found a way to either kill you with her range from deep or work her way to the hoop with a series of moves facing the basket or with her back to the post. And finally, with Griner, you have a transformative talent; the focus of every team’s defensive, someone who is just as likely to drill a soft midrange jumper as she is to spin off her shoulder, drive the hoop and dunk the ball — yes, dunk the ball — with impunity. It goes as no surprise that these players have been unanimously chosen by WNBA experts (I am not one of them) as the top three picks in their college draft. While Griner is assumed to be on her way to Phoenix as the can’t-miss top pick in the draft, Delle Donne and Diggins are expected to go two and three (some drafts list Diggins as the second best prospect, others list Delle Donne) to Chicago and Tulsa. What is certain is that these three teams will be the beneficiaries of some of the most skilled (and marketed) amateur players, male or female, in recent memory.
The hardcore (though perhaps short-sighted and chauvinistic) NBA observer might point to the 2013 WNBA draft, and its presumptive stars, resembling the 2003 NBA draft, when several transformative players entered the Association, and began the process of carving out the legacies they wear proudly every time they step on the floor in an NBA arena. In Griner, there are visions of LeBron James; the transformative superstar, who veterans had difficulty stopping even from Day One. With Diggins, it’s hard not to see a little D-Wade in her game, with the gifts of penetration, shooting, facilitation and on-ball defense stored away in her tool box, ready to be employed at a moment’s notice. And though she seems to have none of the unsavory character traits of Carmelo Anthony, one can easily see his skillset in the persona of Delle Donne; a multi-talented forward whose big body causes big problems down low, but whose seemingly unlimited range makes her a threat from literally every spot on the court. As a fan of professional basketball, it’s hard to not get excited about the prospects of Griner, Diggins and Delle Donne, exciting not just for on the court reasons, but for their potential impact off the court as well.
Bird vs Magic for NBA = Griner vs Delle Donne for WNBA. Will elevate league’s standing; bring more into mainstream.
— Jacob Greenberg (@jacobjbg) March 30, 2013
@jacobjbg the WNBA will never have mainstream status ever!!! I don’t care if people get offended by that statement
— Mohamed Mohamed (@Moesquare) March 30, 2013
The shortcoming of this breathless, hasty argument is its own patriarchial postionality; a problematic and largely unavoidable factor in this delicate situation. I cannot claim to be an expert for women’s college basketball, or women’s sports in general. While I have never stooped to the level of some of my male peers — “It looks like it’s played underwater!” “Can’t anyone hit a shot?” “Why would I watch women who look and sound like men when I can just watch the men?” — I have not been an ardent observer or outspoken advocate for the expansion and dissemination of women’s sports. Indeed, the fact that I am comparing these amateur female players to professional male players speaks to my lack to grounded information. I’m sure — certain, really — that there are more appropriate players who I could compare Griner, Delle Donne and Diggens with who, importantly, are women, and have skillsets that more closely resemble the aspects of these players that I find so compelling and unique than their male counterparts. If I actually knew what I was talking about, the names and attributes of WNBA players currently participating in the league today, perhaps I wouldn’t make this argument in general, and certainly not with the 2003 NBA draft firmly in the front of my mind.
However, the reason I am making this potentially problematic argument is because, when lined up next to one another, a superstar is a superstar, regardless of gender, color or creed. Indeed, there is something special about these players that have begun to push them into the mainstream, where everyone can watch and discuss, and not just the narrow group of fans who already know the sport back-and-front. It’s not an accident that Li’l Wayne has purchased courtside seats to watch Skylar Diggins play (and, as far as I can tell, only did so because he enjoys watching her game). It’s not an aberration that Kevin Durant went to watch Baylor’s game against Louisville, so he could watch Brittney Griner in the flesh. It’s not far-fetched that Elena Delle Donne is being compared to Larry Bird, both in terms of her college-transfer story, but also her unapologetic Bird-esque game (and, in all likelihood, skin color). These are individuals trending upwards; whose unique skills have become marketable across multiple platforms, and whose particular stories hold mass appeal to a wide, interested viewing audience. In terms of “mainstreaming”, the ascendance of these players represents a big moment not just for women’s college athletics, but women’s athletics in general.
It is worth remembering that the NBA’s rise to prominence happened in the 1980s, and not really a moment sooner. It didn’t ascend to new heights because it compromised itself to fit the misinformed stereotypes of the audience it was attempting to attract. The NBA didn’t start games later in the day to accommodate the coke habits of the vast majority of its players. They didn’t shorten the games to motivate the players to work hard enough to shed their “overpaid and drugged up” images. Instead, the NBA joined Major League Baseball and the National Football League at a very specific moment: when Earvin “Magic” Johnson and Larry Bird went first and second in the 1979 NBA draft. They offered, at that point, unprecedented skills and engaging personalities to a large viewing audience, and lived up to their individual billings. The result was perhaps the greatest individual rivalry in the history of professional sports, and a legacy that carries on to this day. Every superstar since then, from Jordan to James, can point to the popularity of Magic v. Bird to show how they used their athleticism and personality attributes to earn millions, and help spread the game to the far corners of the globe. Similarly, role players and end-of-benchers can thank Magic and Bird for their efforts, as their rivalry, over the course of a long decade, recruited enough casual viewers to raise the sport’s global profile, and allow for expanded opportunities and bigger salaries for non-stars. It wasn’t a change in the rules, or the game itself. Rather, it was a change in the people who excelled at the game; who pioneered the image of what a superstar looks like.
Who knows if Griner, Diggins and Delle Donne will become the transformative superstars for the WNBA and women’s basketball. Murphy’s Law is strong in this sport, and for many presumptive superstars, male or female, things don’t always work out (see: Holdsclaw, Chamique; Stiles, Jackie). There is no guarantee that they will push the league forward into a new era in the same way the NBA draft class of 2003 did. There’s no strong assumption that their skills will help people forget about patriarchal proposed rule changes to make the sport look more like the men’s game, like widening the lane and lowering the hoop. Nothing is ever a given in this sport, regardless of gender. Superstardom and the ascension to the mainstream is hardly assured, for Griner, Delle Donne, Diggins, or the WNBA.
But as someone who’s ready for the WNBA to finally go mainstream, I certainly, unapologetically, hope so.