Objectively speaking, the discourse around Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese brings out the worst in us.
Because it’s never about basketball, and it’s always about something else.
So when Colin Cowherd suggested that Reese might have some “built-in animosity” towards Clark because she doesn’t get the same media attention, Danny Parkins rolled his eyes. It doesn’t bother Cowherd that Reese doesn’t like Clark. He didn’t say “hate,” like Robert Griffin III did, but that suggestion entirely has taken on a world of its own with each passing headline.
But Parkins’ issue isn’t with his FS1 cohort.
“I think it’s the worst story in sports media,” Parkins said on The Colin Cowherd Podcast. “I hate the discourse around it. I think it brings out the worst in everybody. I really do think a lot of people are showing their ass on this story. Of course, what you just said is correct. One of my things, it’s a trope, it’s a cliché that I created: ‘Less hate in the world, more hate in sports.’ Sports hate is good. It is objectively good. Now, when it leads to fights in the stands, OK, fine, someone took it too far. But that doesn’t mean that it is a bad thing. Trash talk, rivalries, bulletin board material, lobbing shots in the press, hard fouls, stare downs, the occasional fight.
“Those things are good. They’re good for ratings. They’re good for business. They’re good for fan interest. They’re good for jersey sales. They’re good. It is good for the WNBA for there to be sports hate, for there to be rivalries. It is a good thing. That is so objectively obviously true that I can’t believe anyone dares to deny it.”
This is the part people keep missing. Parkins isn’t defending cheap shots or dragging things into ugly territory. He’s saying the rivalry itself is good. Sports needs this stuff. The drama. The edge. That feeling that one player genuinely doesn’t like the other. That’s what makes fans care. But instead of leaning into that energy, way too many people are twisting it into something darker and uglier, almost like it’s a moral crisis instead of just basketball.
That said, Parkins thinks the Larry Bird-Magic Johnson stuff is a “little ridiculous.”
“Because Bird and Magic in terms of talents were kind of equals,” Parkins explained. “This is more like Michael Jordan and Bill Laimbeer. They were rivals. But they’re not really the same type of player, right? They hated each other. They had great moments. But they were not like, no, it was like, ‘You know who carried the NBA popularity? Michael Jordan AND Bill Laimbeer.’ It was not how we described it.”
He’s not wrong. Clark and Reese are both stars, but only one of them is changing the entire conversation around the league. That doesn’t mean Reese doesn’t matter, it just means we don’t need to pretend this is some perfectly balanced rivalry like Bird-Magic. It’s not. It’s Caitlin Clark drawing the crowds and changing the economics, and everyone else figuring out how to respond to that.
“Caitlin Clark is the phenomenon. She is the comment,” the ex-670 The Score host added. “Does that spur jealousy? No doubt. Are there interesting racial components that I think are fair to be discussed for a league that has had great players, white and Black, before Caitlin Clark? Why haven’t they caught on in the same type of way? I think there is like fair conversations to be had. But a hard foul on Angel Reese in a basketball game that didn’t even result in a fight. It resulted in, ‘She said the F-word!’ What the hell is the matter with people? It’s embarrassing.
“We don’t need to name the names. Everyone knows the discourse of who’s going. You’re talking about people’s wives, and you’re making it personal, and then you’re bringing all the other — shut up. Shut up. It’s so beneath the industry to take the discourse of online… But it is so very clear that way too many people in the industry formulate their opinions based on the algorithm they see on X, and it’s just complete horsesh*t.”
That’s the real frustration for Parkins and anyone watching this unfold without chasing clout. The racial conversation is valid. The jealousy angle? Sure. But instead of thoughtful discussions, we get performative outrage and pundits latching onto whatever’s trending on X and turning it into TV content. Not because they believe it. Because they think it plays.
“I don’t believe the people that went to the basketball game left being like, ‘Phew, you know what that was? A race war.’ Like it was a basketball game,” Parkins said. “…It’s crazy. I’m not the biggest WNBA fan. I’m not claiming to have WNBA bonafides or like watching for years or going 10 deep on all the rosters. So people like, ‘Parkins, I don’t give a sh*t about your WNBA takes,’ that’s fine. I just know sports and narratives. That is a good thing for business. And people taking their online commentary that is designed to divide us, and then making it actually inform their opinions on television when they’re multi-millionaire former professional athletes. They don’t even realize what they’re doing, but it’s really embarrassing.”
Parkins really does find it embarrassing.
And now it’s not just the usual talking heads. Parkins is clearly calling out Ryan Clark and RGIII here. Former athletes who should know the difference between a hard foul and a full-blown culture war, but are too caught up in feeding the machine to care. That’s what embarrasses him. Not the basketball. Not the players. The way this whole thing has been twisted, watered down, and served back as algorithm-approved outrage masquerading as sports commentary.