RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

What’s really bad for women’s basketball
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5082
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/18 6:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:


Still not buying the depth of the talent pool. It doesn't explain why we're getting four #1 seeds three times in seven years compared to one time in the previous 30.


Perhaps the explanation is that the SelComm has become smarter and smarter, especially since they now have an apparently infallible tool in RPI, which is currently mopping the floor in real time in the fun brackets.

Just a thought.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/18 7:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
pilight wrote:


Still not buying the depth of the talent pool. It doesn't explain why we're getting four #1 seeds three times in seven years compared to one time in the previous 30.


Perhaps the explanation is that the SelComm has become smarter and smarter, especially since they now have an apparently infallible tool in RPI, which is currently mopping the floor in real time in the fun brackets.

Just a thought.


Clearly the women's committee does a better job than the men's



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6814



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/18 11:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

What is the definition of "depth of the talent pool"? Are we now seeing more 2nd round and 3rd round draft picks do well in the WNBA than have in the past? That would indicate a "deeper talent pool". If that is happening, I haven't noticed it.

What matters, for example, is how different are the UConn players from the players of the #33 (or the #12 school, etc.). I think they are closer in ability on the men's side than on the women's side. There is a steeper drop off in ability, and, on the women's side the top players are focused on fewer schools. It could even be said they are focused on a single school.

I believe that 538 said that the difference between the UConn talent and the rest of the field is greater this year than in any year they have been following the women.


CBiebel



Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 646
Location: PA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/28/18 12:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
toad455 wrote:
I think the fact that all #1 seeds advanced to the Final Four isn't good for the women's game. Look at the men's side this year, only two #1 seeds made it to the final four, plus a #3 seed(Michigan) & a cinderella team, #11 seed Loyola-Chicago.


We seem to be moving backwards in that regard. This is the third time in seven years we've had all four #1 seeds in the F4. It had only happened once in the 30 tournaments before that.


In those 3 years in the last 7, the list was basically:

ND, UConn, two other teams

Those 2 other teams were completely different. ND and UConn were the only 2 #1 seeds who were in more than one of those FFs. Stanford, Baylor, Maryland, South Carolina, Louisville, and Mississippi St.

Basically, it's ND and UConn, then two other random teams.

ND helped to keep all #1s from doing by losing to Stanford in the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight last year. Now it's UConn's turn to do it's part to keep the Final Four from being all #1s... Wink

Let's compare different 10 year spans.

Last 10 years:

2018: All #1
2017: #1, #1, #2, #2
2016: #1, #2, #7, #4
2015: All #1
2014: #1, #1, #2, #4
2013: #1, #1, #2, #5
2012: All #1
2011: #1, #1, #2, #2
2010: #1, #1, #3, #4
2009:#1, #1, #2, #3

The "UConn/UT heyday" (1995-2004):
2004: #1, #2, #4, #7
2003: #1, #1, #1, #2
2002: #1, #1, #1, #2
2001: #1, #1, #3, #5
2000: #1, #1, #2, #2
1999: #1, #1, #3, #3
1998: #1, #3, #4, #9
1997: #1, #1, #3, #6
1996: #1, #1, #1, #2
1995: #1, #1, #2, #3

First 10 years (1982-1991):
1991: #1, #1, #2, #3
1990: #1, #1, #2, #2
1989: All #1s
1988: #1, #1, #2, #2
1987: #1, #1, #2, #1
1986: #1, #1, #4, #4
1985: #1, #2, #2, #4
1984: #1, #1, #3, #3
1983: #1, #1, #2, #2
1982: #1, #2, #2, #2


First 10 years: 21 #1s, 13 #2s, 3 #3s, 3 #4s
UConn-UT years: 21 #1s, 7 #2s, 6 #3s, 2 #4s, 1 #5, 1 #6, 1 #7, 1 #9
Last 10 years: 25 #1s, 8 #2s, 2 #3, 3 #4, 1 #5, 1 #7

Averages:
First 10: 1.7
UConn-UT: 2.2
Last 10 years: 1.8

There were a few more larger seeds in the middle years and a few more #1s in the last 10 years (mostly due to this year), but overall it doesn't really seem that different, IMO.

BTW, I did this manually and checked it again, but if there are any errors, let me know.


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 975



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/28/18 8:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Nice work, thanks.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9304



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/28/18 9:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This is great, thanks ...

People bash the committee all the time, but it does look like they can pick out the top seeds.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/28/18 10:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The number of different schools reaching the F4 is also down.

82-91 there were 15
95-04 there were 18
09-18 there were 14

Only two schools are in all three groups (UConn and Stanford)



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5082
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/28/18 2:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Significant effort and nice work, CBiebel. How do you apply your statistical analysis to the question at hand? Does the analysis show there's something wrong with WCBB, that there's nothing wrong with WCBB, or perhaps that there's something wrong but it's been there for 36 years.

Actually, the success of the seeded teams in reaching the FF doesn't tell us much about the depth of talent issue. More informative would be the number of different schools that have reached the FF historically. I guess pilight has provided some of that, but I'm not sure why we're leaving out some years. I'd like to see a list of all the schools that have made the FF in the NCAA era and how many times they've made it.

Personally, I think the shallow depth of talent has always been the primary issue and will continue to be. I could also be convinced that the potential athleticism pool was deeper 36 years ago, although perhaps the best female athletes were not involved in basketball then. My basis for saying that is that I believe youth, in general, were in better nutritional and exercise shape 36-100 years ago than now. Studies have showed something to the effect that in the 1950's, about 70% of a child's free time was spend playing outside doing some form of exercise. Today, they spend about that same percentage of time inside staring at LCD screens.

In addition, 36 years ago was about the time the prodigious obesity epidemic began in this and other countries. Significant numbers of basketball players at all levels are now overweight, especially on the female side. I never saw that in basketball prior to the 80's. The best basketball athletes until then were always leanly muscled, lithe or gazelle-like, if not downright skinny. Now, even in top women's college teams such as Notre Dame, you will see what I can only call all-chubby lineups. Chubbiness results in reduced speed, quickness, vertical leap, defensive effectiveness, and increased knee injuries.

Reduced childhood exercise, junky carbohydrate food, obesity, and perhaps competition from sports that still require lithe gazelles -- such as volleyball and soccer -- contribute to a klutzy WBB sport that not many people want to watch.
CBiebel



Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 646
Location: PA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/29/18 3:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
I guess pilight has provided some of that, but I'm not sure why we're leaving out some years.


I went with 10 year spans for even comparisons. One was the last 10 years. One was the first 10 years, and the third was a middle 10 years. With a few years gap in between, it also helped make sure the "eras" were separated, so it differentiated them more.


The middle was the rise of the UConn-UT rivalry (plus a nod to the old joke UT fans used to say 20 or so years ago that UConn fans seemed to think that Women's Basketball started in 1995... Wink )


Ladyvol777



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 227



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/29/18 8:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

UCONN


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9304



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/18 9:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ladyvol777 wrote:
UCONN


So was Tennessee bad for women's basketball when it dominated the sport?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/18 9:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Ladyvol777 wrote:
UCONN


So was Tennessee bad for women's basketball when it dominated the sport?


Tennessee was never as dominant as UConn has been over the last decade



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10767
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/18 9:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
Ladyvol777 wrote:
UCONN


So was Tennessee bad for women's basketball when it dominated the sport?


Tennessee was never as dominant as UConn has been over the last decade


Yeah, but that wasn't the question.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 3520
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/30/18 1:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
Ladyvol777 wrote:
UCONN


So was Tennessee bad for women's basketball when it dominated the sport?


Tennessee was never as dominant as UConn has been over the last decade


I don't see why it's UConn fault that most of the other teams that get top recruits end up under-performing to their talent or don't maximize it like Geno does and/or they lose (choke) in the NCAA tournament before ever reaching the Final Four (that is, if they even make it past the 2nd round first).


PlayBally'all



Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 224



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/18 6:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
Ladyvol777 wrote:
UCONN


So was Tennessee bad for women's basketball when it dominated the sport?


Tennessee was never as dominant as UConn has been over the last decade


Tennessee has consistently played quality competition. That begins with the fact that they play in the SEC. When Tennessee went to multiple Final 4s in the 1980s, they consistently met conference schools, losing to Ole Miss in the sweet 16 in 1984 and played Auburn in the 1988/89 title game, who they had already played twice during the regular season. Its extremely difficult to judge eras of dominance when UConn plays the conference schedule that they play. I'm not saying that they can control that, but it is what it is.


CBiebel



Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 646
Location: PA


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/18 8:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So I'm watching ND in the Hockey National Championship game (ND down 2-1 end of the 2nd against Minnesota-Duluth).

They mentioned that the last 7 NCs in Hockey have been won by 7 different teams (if ND wins, it would be 8 different teams over the last 8 years).

I can't think of any other sport where something like that was happening.


CBiebel



Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 646
Location: PA


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/18 9:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CBiebel wrote:
So I'm watching ND in the Hockey National Championship game (ND down 2-1 end of the 2nd against Minnesota-Duluth).

They mentioned that the last 7 NCs in Hockey have been won by 7 different teams (if ND wins, it would be 8 different teams over the last 8 years).

I can't think of any other sport where something like that was happening.


Just an update: UM-Duluth ended up winning 2-1, so the "streak" of different teams shortened a bit (UMD won it in 2011). Still 7 different teams in 8 years?


Carol Anne



Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1551
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/08/18 10:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Meet Addison Potts, the eighth-grader committed to Missouri women's basketball

"...Even with four years of high school ahead of her, Potts said she has closed her recruitment and won’t be taking any more visits..."

https://www.columbiamissourian.com/sports/mizzou_womens_basketball/meet-addison-potts-the-eighth-grader-committed-to-missouri-women/article_9723afe0-3aae-11e8-9168-4fe4dd421c30.html

Such early recruitment and commitment is bad for women's basketball. She's a child still.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12742



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/08/18 11:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

SpaceJunkie wrote:

I don't see why it's UConn fault that most of the other teams that get top recruits end up under-performing to their talent or don't maximize it like Geno does and/or they lose (choke) in the NCAA tournament before ever reaching the Final Four (that is, if they even make it past the 2nd round first).


Ok, now let's be realistic about your "top recruits" comment. NO ONE has ever had remotely equal talent to UConn per recruiting ratings. NO ONE in the past decade at least. So your "underperforming" comment is horseshit when you're comparing these other schools to UConn.

As one example, I don't think Notre Dame has EVER had a #1 ranked national recruit on it's roster. UConn had TWO just this year. So who "underperformed"? Next year UConn will have THREE #1s. ND will still have none. So maybe ND has "top recruits" vis 99% of the teams, but don't pretend for an instant that ND or anyone else has even remotely equally rated high school talent compared to UConn.

If you want to compare UConn's recruiting to that of two time runner up Miss St, UConn's "underperformance" would be even more glaring.

If you're going to talk about performance based on "top recruits", UConn should win every game every year, and the only team "underperforming" is UConn when it loses. Maybe you should ask Geno why he's not "maximizing" his talent.


Fighting Artichoke



Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 3575



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/08/18 12:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PlayBally'all wrote:
pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
Ladyvol777 wrote:
UCONN


So was Tennessee bad for women's basketball when it dominated the sport?


Tennessee was never as dominant as UConn has been over the last decade


Tennessee has consistently played quality competition. That begins with the fact that they play in the SEC. When Tennessee went to multiple Final 4s in the 1980s, they consistently met conference schools, losing to Ole Miss in the sweet 16 in 1984 and played Auburn in the 1988/89 title game, who they had already played twice during the regular season. Its extremely difficult to judge eras of dominance when UConn plays the conference schedule that they play. I'm not saying that they can control that, but it is what it is.

Since UConn joined the AAC, they have had such a tough OOC schedule that their overall schedule has been ridiculously difficult (among the toughest schedules in the nation). Before that, The Old Big East was tough as well. UConn's dominance is NOT due to their conference affiliations.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12742



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/08/18 12:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Carol Anne wrote:
Meet Addison Potts, the eighth-grader committed to Missouri women's basketball

"...Even with four years of high school ahead of her, Potts said she has closed her recruitment and won’t be taking any more visits..."

https://www.columbiamissourian.com/sports/mizzou_womens_basketball/meet-addison-potts-the-eighth-grader-committed-to-missouri-women/article_9723afe0-3aae-11e8-9168-4fe4dd421c30.html

Such early recruitment and commitment is bad for women's basketball. She's a child still.


I don't know if it's bad for women's basketball, but I seriously doubt that it's good for her.

So if she goes through HS with a A average and gets 750s on her various SATs, she shouldn't even consider attending Stanford or Duke or Princeton?

That's just nuts.


Carol Anne



Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1551
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/08/18 12:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:

I don't know if it's bad for women's basketball, but I seriously doubt that it's good for her.

So if she goes through HS with a A average and gets 750s on her various SATs, she shouldn't even consider attending Stanford or Duke or Princeton?

That's just nuts.

If Brittney Griner had taken any visits to other schools, would she have signed with Baylor? She was pleasing her father, but the young lesbian hoops phenom put herself into a straitjacket for four years.


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14426
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/08/18 2:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Carol Anne wrote:
Meet Addison Potts, the eighth-grader committed to Missouri women's basketball

"...Even with four years of high school ahead of her, Potts said she has closed her recruitment and won’t be taking any more visits..."

https://www.columbiamissourian.com/sports/mizzou_womens_basketball/meet-addison-potts-the-eighth-grader-committed-to-missouri-women/article_9723afe0-3aae-11e8-9168-4fe4dd421c30.html

Such early recruitment and commitment is bad for women's basketball. She's a child still.


I don't know if it's bad for women's basketball, but I seriously doubt that it's good for her.

So if she goes through HS with a A average and gets 750s on her various SATs, she shouldn't even consider attending Stanford or Duke or Princeton?

That's just nuts.


I think it seems unlikely that she will end up playing at Missouri. There are occasional middle school "commitments" like this on the men's side. I seem to recall them rarely playing out.


Carol Anne



Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1551
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/08/18 5:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:


I think it seems unlikely that she will end up playing at Missouri. There are occasional middle school "commitments" like this on the men's side. I seem to recall them rarely playing out.


I hope you are right. The fervent language in that article is disturbing to me.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin