Rookies are usually not part of the original pool, so that doesn't apply. Parker was part of the original pool in 2008, but that's because she was selected to play with the National team while she was still in college. Fowles was not part of the original pool, but she was selected to the National team as a rookie. Nneka's case should have been similar to Fowles. There are WNBA coaches that have publically stated that Nneka should have been included. The rationale is that the top young players need to be developed for the future years. These young players will also accept the role of being the understudy players that will come off the bench behind the more experienced players and they won't complain about lack of playing time, as what was suggested earlier in this thread. Typically, the older players do not make the Olympic team for a first time around, because the committee places more importance on getting the younger players some experience.
You stated that Nneka's numbers aren't nearly as good as some of those others, but Maya's aren't either. Nneka's numbers are better. I have no problem with Maya being on the team because she is part of that youth. Using her numbers as an argument would not favor her being on the team. Maya's the future, as is Nneka. The next go around, it's quite possible that Sue, DT, Catchings, Cash, Jones, Augustus, and Whelan all may be past their prime for the next Olympics. That leaves 5 returning players the next time around, which means lack of experience for the next team. Typically, they do a better job of balancing the team from very experienced players to players with little experience to players with no experience.
As for Nneka having something unique, she does. Nneka is a relentless worker with a nose for the ball. As a rookie, she's in the top 10 in the league with her overall numbers, statiscally speaking. No player from this class or even last year's class is in that group.
Fowles was part of the original pool in 2007. She was selected to the National team pool in the spring of '07, her Junior year at LSU, more than a year before the 2008 Olympics.
. She came into the pool with Parker, C. Paris, and Jess Davenport. This time around, Griner and 'Sloot were added in spring of 2011, again more than 1 year before the Olympics. Sophia Young was the lone late addition to the pool this past January, IIRC. Shortly after that, in February, the Committee was already starting to make the first round of cuts.
So again, the real question should be: Why didn't Nneka make the pool in spring 2011 after her Junior season? She was clearly a great collegian at that time but apparently not impressive enough to be added at the same time as Griner and 'Sloot. That was probably the real opportunity missed; everybody else except Sophia Young was already in the pool. So fast forward to Nneka's senior season. By the time Young was added--which looks like about the final timeframe that the Committee considered adding players before cuts began--how many more big/notable games did Stanford have that might have caught the Committee's attention? They had a good win at Texas, but Nneka was dinged up and I don't believe she played. She played well and was the Cardinal's leading scorer with 22 at UCONN, but KML had 25 and Stanford lost the game. Then around the holidays she goes absolutely NUTS at home against Tennessee. 40+ points and a gazillion rebounds. Definitely a statement game for the ages that served notice she was taking it to another level. But by that point in her senior season (January) that was the only game against a big-name program that really stood out (and boy did it stand out...) that they hadn't already seen in spring 2011. So, the committee decided to take a pass when they could have added her along with Sophia Young. And in January 2012 the pool already had 12 players who could be labelled forwards or combo forwards. Nneka would have made it 13. At its largest, the 2007-08 pool had 11. Maybe the Committee was close to talking her but thought by adding Young they had added another new, athletic forward to the mix and that was enough. I would have to think they took a hard look at Nneka, not just for talent but also for the youth movement that you rightly identify as a necessary ingredient in the larger process.
For whatever reason, they didn't, and it may have been largely due to the fact that after she wasn't picked for the pool in spring 2011, there were not--IIRC--any opportunities for her to scrimmage or play against them or against other pro talent like she did as part of a Select team in 2010 before the WC. That team, and the national pool team, played and scrimmaged against each other, and later the national pool team had its own scrimmages internally as cuts progressed. I think that final cuts for the 2010 WC team didn't occur until almost right before the Championships began in September. In contrast, Sophia Young had already been an WNBA all-star and was looking good in her 2011 WNBA season. She may also have had a partial overseas season under her belt by the end of 2011. If there were any games in 2011 between the national pool team and a Select team that included collegians, I don't remember any. (Not saying there weren't.) Anyway, final cuts for this Olympic team were made way in advance, unlike the WC team.
To repeat what I said in another post,
I think Nneka is clearly one of a handful of people who could be put on this team right now, if the process were set up that way, and play great ball for Team USA. IMO she is at that level, and she has the youth element on her side. (Lawson is another who could easily play great ball for us right now. She's having a great year and could suit up tomorrow.) But too many people are mixing what they've seen in this WNBA season--or in Nneka's case, all games after December 2011--and basing their opinions on that
in addition to what they saw earlier in her college career. The Committee had a schedule that appears to show January 2012 was the last opportunity to get added. Cuts began thereafter. Certainly there were people in 2011 and early 2012, particularly after the Tennessee game, who saw Nneka and said "She should be on that team." Not an unreasonable position AT ALL. But for reasons above, mostly having to do with timing, it didn't happen. One last unfortunate reason for her 2011 omission may well have been the
huge amount of press Griner was getting and continues to get, which sucked most of the air out of the room when it came to collegians on the team, even though 'Sloot broke through the noise.
a 15 fter is different than a 3, by 6 in. I think Nneka is better than Griner at this point because she has more skills and better range. I never said she could drain the 3, but she consistently hits shots from 10-12 ft, at elbow, baseline, etc. And she shots a pretty good percentage, 50% now and 60% in college.
