| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8940
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/03/21 9:42 pm ::: Take That NCAA!!!! |
Reply  |
|
| Quote: |
| March Madness began with the uproar over the NCAA’s blatant disregard of women’s basketball, Mark Emmert and his cronies apparently believing it to be an extracurricular activity rather than an actual sport. It is finishing with the women’s tournament showing itself to be superior to the men’s event for competitiveness, quality of play and pure watchability. |
| Quote: |
While the keyboard warriors who hide their own insecurity behind misogynistic insults will take any opportunity to trash the women’s game, it has always been the ignorant or oblivious decision-makers, often men, who have done the most damage.
Emmert either didn’t realize or didn’t care that the women’s tournament was still being treated as a sideshow, so neither did the people below him. |
| Quote: |
“When there’s good product, good basketball, people watch,” Barnes added.
And in what will surely be a disappointment to those who insist “no one” watches the women’s game, the numbers back Barnes up. |
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/nancy-armour/2021/04/03/ncaa-womens-basketball-tournament-big-winner-march-madness/7076611002/
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
Milks26
Joined: 25 Mar 2021
Posts: 830
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/21 10:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Since the mayhem of the first- and second rounds, the most compelling games have occurred in the women’s tournament.
That sh*t ain't new. The women's game has been better from 2017 to present.
_________________
~College WBB & the "W' need other tv networks covering the important stuff...Espn is beyond tired~
|
|
blaase22
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 4163
Location: Paradise
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/21 10:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Clearly written before Ucla/Gonzaga.
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8940
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/21 10:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| blaase22 wrote: |
| Clearly written before Ucla/Gonzaga. |
Yeah, she said that it was. This was a great game!!!!!!
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/21 10:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
| blaase22 wrote: |
| Clearly written before Ucla/Gonzaga. |
Yeah, she said that it was. This was a great game!!!!!! |
WOW that buzzer beat!
The UCLA/Gonzaga men's game had the exact same pace as the Texas/Maryland women's game.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66896
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/21 10:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| blaase22 wrote: |
| Clearly written before Ucla/Gonzaga. |
The men's semis had one great game and one snoozer while the women had two good ones
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
LitePal
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 613
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/21 11:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| That one great game passed any other, male or female. Bad timing on this article's part.
|
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3510
Back to top |
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7821
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/04/21 11:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Sally Jenkins, who has written about women's basketball for what, 40 yeasrs?, had a great piece in yesterday's WaPo about this, but it's behind a paywall so i won't post the link. Anyone who has a subscription can probably find it though. (Out of politeness, I try not to post links that I know are behind paywalls.)
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8940
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/04/21 11:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| LitePal wrote: |
| That one great game passed any other, male or female. Bad timing on this article's part. |
How? Better than Stanford/South Carolina? Better than UConn/Baylor? Better than TX/MD? IU/NCST? A&M/ISU? Baylor/Mich? And others that I'm sure were just as good, but that I didn't see.
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11136
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/04/21 11:28 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
| LitePal wrote: |
| That one great game passed any other, male or female. Bad timing on this article's part. |
How? Better than Stanford/South Carolina? Better than UConn/Baylor? Better than TX/MD? IU/NCST? A&M/ISU? Baylor/Mich? And others that I'm sure were just as good, but that I didn't see. |
Yes ... considering the importance of the game, and the great moments (from taking a charge with four fouls on the last possession of regulation, et al.).
A truly amazing finish ...
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
LitePal
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 613
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/04/21 1:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
There was also there built in drama. Undefeated team that was the unanimous favorite. Scrappy team from a once fable program that no one gave a chance, especially since they were in the First Four. Close to 60% shooting from both teams. Overtime. An incredible series of events leading to a fabled final shot.
Commentators are still shaking their heads about the game. It also exemplified the concept of a team losing but becoming stronger. A team fighting all the way to the end.
So yeah, it was better. But the fact that it was written before the UCLA/Gonzaga game was even contested reveals the author's biases.
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66896
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/04/21 7:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| OTOH for all the supposed "unpredictability" of the men's tournament, the final is two #1 seeds who have been 1-2 in the polls basically all season...
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
NFL1
Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Posts: 144
Location: Ithaca, NY
Back to top |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11136
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/21 9:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
What an awful final ... just an ugly, ugly game. Not a good advertisement for women's basketball.
Arizona's defense is superb, if you like watching defense, but Stanford helped with brainless play, lack of offense and horrid shot selection.
And Arizona had no offense to speak of, as experience with McDonald allowed the Tree to keep her under control -- and no one else can do much.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/21 9:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
What an awful final ... just an ugly, ugly game. Not a good advertisement for women's basketball.
Arizona's defense is superb, if you like watching defense, but Stanford helped with brainless play, lack of offense and horrid shot selection.
And Arizona had no offense to speak of, as experience with McDonald allowed the Tree to keep her under control -- and no one else can do much. |
I completely agree. Stanford's clock management down the stretch was just awful. I have no idea what on earth they were thinking.
I wanted McDonald to pass to the right wing on that last play as her teammate was wide, wide open but then I thought, I probably have more confidence in McDonald hitting a highly contested shot against multiple defenders than I do in her teammate hitting a wide open shot with the clock running down.
Anyway, it was a relatively rough game to watch.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/21 2:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
What an awful final ... just an ugly, ugly game. Not a good advertisement for women's basketball.
Arizona's defense is superb, if you like watching defense, but Stanford helped with brainless play, lack of offense and horrid shot selection.
And Arizona had no offense to speak of, as experience with McDonald allowed the Tree to keep her under control -- and no one else can do much. |
I completely agree. Stanford's clock management down the stretch was just awful. I have no idea what on earth they were thinking.
I wanted McDonald to pass to the right wing on that last play as her teammate was wide, wide open but then I thought, I probably have more confidence in McDonald hitting a highly contested shot against multiple defenders than I do in her teammate hitting a wide open shot with the clock running down.
Anyway, it was a relatively rough game to watch. |
Two out of the three FF games were ugly in that sense. And both for the same reason: Arizona's superb defense combined with its own limited offense. It was like the 1969 Knick's "defense offense", but with really not much offense offense beyond McDonald's adept gun-slinging.
I was fascinated by Arizona's defense. It was the best of any team's I've seen all year, especially the perimeter defense. I'd really be interested in where Barnes got this defense -- her own design, or from some HC she played for or worked with, or from one of her assistants. |
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7821
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/21 3:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
What an awful final ... just an ugly, ugly game. Not a good advertisement for women's basketball.
Arizona's defense is superb, if you like watching defense, but Stanford helped with brainless play, lack of offense and horrid shot selection.
And Arizona had no offense to speak of, as experience with McDonald allowed the Tree to keep her under control -- and no one else can do much. |
I completely agree. Stanford's clock management down the stretch was just awful. I have no idea what on earth they were thinking.
I wanted McDonald to pass to the right wing on that last play as her teammate was wide, wide open but then I thought, I probably have more confidence in McDonald hitting a highly contested shot against multiple defenders than I do in her teammate hitting a wide open shot with the clock running down.
Anyway, it was a relatively rough game to watch. |
Two out of the three FF games were ugly in that sense. And both for the same reason: Arizona's superb defense combined with its own limited offense. It was like the 1969 Knick's "defense offense", but with really not much offense offense beyond McDonald's adept gun-slinging.
I was fascinated by Arizona's defense. It was the best of any team's I've seen all year, especially the perimeter defense. I'd really be interested in where Barnes got this defense -- her own design, or from some HC she played for or worked with, or from one of her assistants. |
As my daughter's favorite t-shirt when she played soccer said, "Offense scores points. Defense wins games." The SEC has always operated on that principle. People have complained about it on here, but there we are.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
Rock Hard
Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 5376
Location: Chocolate Paradise
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/21 3:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
What an awful final ... just an ugly, ugly game. Not a good advertisement for women's basketball.
Arizona's defense is superb, if you like watching defense, but Stanford helped with brainless play, lack of offense and horrid shot selection.
And Arizona had no offense to speak of, as experience with McDonald allowed the Tree to keep her under control -- and no one else can do much. |
I completely agree. Stanford's clock management down the stretch was just awful. I have no idea what on earth they were thinking.
I wanted McDonald to pass to the right wing on that last play as her teammate was wide, wide open but then I thought, I probably have more confidence in McDonald hitting a highly contested shot against multiple defenders than I do in her teammate hitting a wide open shot with the clock running down.
Anyway, it was a relatively rough game to watch. |
Two out of the three FF games were ugly in that sense. And both for the same reason: Arizona's superb defense combined with its own limited offense. It was like the 1969 Knick's "defense offense", but with really not much offense offense beyond McDonald's adept gun-slinging.
I was fascinated by Arizona's defense. It was the best of any team's I've seen all year, especially the perimeter defense. I'd really be interested in where Barnes got this defense -- her own design, or from some HC she played for or worked with, or from one of her assistants. |
Yes, Arizona's defense was very impressive. James Wade should be sending Coach Barnes emails, phone calls, text messages, smoke signals, what ever means necessary to find out her coaching tactics for playing team defense. Beggers can't be choosy. Coach Wade need to scour the four corners of the Earth to find a defensive strategy/tactics that will help improve Chicago's defense.
_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11136
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/21 9:38 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Barnes' coaching "secret" is simple: Have really good athletes.
Man-to-man is not complicated, though there are some wrinkles, but basically it comes down to having athletes who can stay in front of drivers while being close enough to contest jumpers.
Put those athletes in an organized system (pretty much any system will work if you have the talent), and opponents will have trouble scoring.
Ideally, of course, those athletes have some skills at the other end, but in Arizona's case, they really don't -- except that they got hot (43% from three or something) in the tournament, as opposed to their usual shooting (32%).
Give Barnes credit for collecting the talent and getting them to play together on defense, but there's no magic wand here.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/21 9:54 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
Barnes' coaching "secret" is simple: Have really good athletes.
Man-to-man is not complicated, though there are some wrinkles, but basically it comes down to having athletes who can stay in front of drivers while being close enough to contest jumpers.
Put those athletes in an organized system (pretty much any system will work if you have the talent), and opponents will have trouble scoring.
Ideally, of course, those athletes have some skills at the other end, but in Arizona's case, they really don't -- except that they got hot (43% from three or something) in the tournament, as opposed to their usual shooting (32%).
Give Barnes credit for collecting the talent and getting them to play together on defense, but there's no magic wand here. |
Agree with this, though I would make it more specific by saying "athletic guards and small forwards." Arizona did not have remarkable size or athleticism in the post, but their superior perimeter defense put enough pressure on the opposing teams' guards that making post entry feeds became exceedingly difficult. This essentially neutralized Arizona's disadvantage in the post. In the UConn game, for example, when UConn was able to make a good post entry feed, the bigs didn't finish most of their shots.
The other aspect of Arizona's defense that went beyond "traditional" woman-to-woman defense was their aggressiveness and intelligence at when to bring a double team to try to trap off of ball screens. There is certainly a lot of coaching involved here so players know whom and when and how aggressive to trap. Poor communication or teamwork on the defensive end here and this system would fall apart fast. So I chalk that more up to good coaching than "just" pure athleticism. (That said, their perimeter athleticism--as you said--is what raised this system from "good" to "elite.")
|
|
|
|
