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

 
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
bballjunkie



Joined: 12 Aug 2014
Posts: 617



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/18 11:09 am    ::: What’s really bad for women’s basketball Reply Reply with quote

What's really bad for women basketball...

Well just for starters Jealousy. Putting down teams and players where one has an agenda or hatred just because what they have isn't as good. A lack of appreciation for good and great basketball. Sexism, where not only mysoginist males have to put down women but also women who don't like that a male is successful in a womens arena. Racism where one has to stereotype players which goes both against black and white athletes. The womens game needs all the appreciation it can get. Success of teams and players hilites womens basketball not the other way around.


summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 4840
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/18 11:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Well stated.



_________________
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
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10740
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: 03/23/18 11:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
Well stated.


Am I wrong to feel the irony here? Smile



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
Nixtreefan



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2106



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/18 12:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Womens basketball definitely needs more positivity from its own.


PickledGinger



Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 402



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/18 12:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

What’s really wrong with WCBB is that ESPN only wants to cover UConn, because it is in it’s backyard (cough...cheap) and they will do anything they can to keep them successful.. Antonelli’s complete hatred of the PAC-12 is evidence.

I’m not saying Geno isn’t a great coach or anything, he DEFINITELY knows talent when he sees it. But there’s more than one reason why the top players keep deciding to go to that winter wasteland. It’s because they know that is where they will get the most free publicity.


linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 3579



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/18 2:57 am    ::: Re: What’s really bad for women’s basketball Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
What's really bad for women basketball...

Well just for starters Jealousy. Putting down teams and players where one has an agenda or hatred just because what they have isn't as good. A lack of appreciation for good and great basketball. Sexism, where not only mysoginist males have to put down women but also women who don't like that a male is successful in a womens arena. Racism where one has to stereotype players which goes both against black and white athletes. The womens game needs all the appreciation it can get. Success of teams and players hilites womens basketball not the other way around.


It's rare that a thread displays the symmetry we have here. Reminds me of the old Sixty Minute segment "Point-Counterpoint"

Quote:
What’s really wrong with WCBB is that ESPN only wants to cover UConn, because it is in it’s backyard (cough...cheap) and they will do anything they can to keep them successful.. Antonelli’s complete hatred of the PAC-12 is evidence.

I’m not saying Geno isn’t a great coach or anything, he DEFINITELY knows talent when he sees it. But there’s more than one reason why the top players keep deciding to go to that winter wasteland. It’s because they know that is where they will get the most free publicity
.


GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 13641
Location: Los Angeles


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/18 3:00 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PickledGinger wrote:
What’s really wrong with WCBB is that ESPN only wants to cover UConn, because it is in it’s backyard (cough...cheap) and they will do anything they can to keep them successful.. Antonelli’s complete hatred of the PAC-12 is evidence.

I’m not saying Geno isn’t a great coach or anything, he DEFINITELY knows talent when he sees it. But there’s more than one reason why the top players keep deciding to go to that winter wasteland. It’s because they know that is where they will get the most free publicity.


I haven't watched the broadcast so I don't know what she says, but I think hatred is a strong word especially since she has gone to multiple Pac-12 schools to talk to the teams. Even if she disliked the Pac-12 why should she go out of her way to travel to these schools to talk to the players.



_________________
DeLisha Milton-Jones is my favorite player Smile

Win or Lose LA Sparks Fan for life!!!
ucbart



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 1327
Location: New York


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/18 5:18 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PickledGinger wrote:
What’s really wrong with WCBB is that ESPN only wants to cover UConn, because it is in it’s backyard (cough...cheap) and they will do anything they can to keep them successful.. Antonelli’s complete hatred of the PAC-12 is evidence.

I’m not saying Geno isn’t a great coach or anything, he DEFINITELY knows talent when he sees it. But there’s more than one reason why the top players keep deciding to go to that winter wasteland. It’s because they know that is where they will get the most free publicity.


This post is totally irresponsible. We get a lot of attention from ESPN because we deserve it. And, the proof is in the pudding with the way he develops players, which is why so many great ones chose to go to a 'winter wasteland." UCONN is a media cornerstone right now because it;s the dominant program at the moment. Before UCONN started this run, Griner/Baylor, EDD, and Diggins were shoved down our throat, and before that Pat, Tennessee, and Candace Parker were. It's the way things go!


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9294



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/18 9:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PickledGinger wrote:
What’s really wrong with WCBB is that ESPN only wants to cover UConn, because it is in it’s backyard (cough...cheap) and they will do anything they can to keep them successful.. Antonelli’s complete hatred of the PAC-12 is evidence.



And the moon landing took place in Arizona ...

And the Illuminati run the deep state that determines everything we do ...

And all the news is fake ...



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57514
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/18 10:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
And the moon landing took place in Arizona ...


Well, no, the filming was done at Norton AFB in San Bernadino. Everybody knows that.



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



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 1048



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/18 10:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Does anyone have any actual statistics on the number of times ESPN has covered UConn vs other top-25 teams in regular season games over the past decade? It would be nice to put this debate to rest. I also find it amusing that for years, Doris Burke was accused of being ESPN's UConn shill, and now it's Debbie Antonelli, who was previously thought to have an ACC-bias while Burke was still doing the women's games.


Nixtreefan



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2106



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/18 10:23 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

For those who struggle with this disease of Hatred I have heard that there is a great reliever and works wonders for those who just can't help themselves for falling into a Hatred downward spiral - its called Humor. You know a smile a day...


CBiebel



Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 645
Location: PA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/18 6:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
I also find it amusing that for years, Doris Burke was accused of being ESPN's UConn shill,


You mean the woman who, during a ND-UConn broadcast, decided to become a rumor-monger and called out ND for an alleged postgame comment (funny how that story didn't come out anywhere near the time it supposedly happened, but only after ND was getting a lot of attention for being ranked ahead of UConn in the preseason BE standings). I'm betting that she never tried to ask around at ND to see if the rumor had any merit.

It was an extremely unprofessional thing to do.

For the record, I don't think that ESPN was telling her to be like that. I think she's just a shill on her own. I'm glad she's no longer doing games.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3076
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/18 8:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories related to the lack of Pac 12 coverage on ESPN or the homerism of UConn. ESPN has a lucrative deal with the SEC across sports and that extends to women's basketball. The SEC has several good teams so they provide good matchups for the network to televise. The Pac 12 is more associated with Fox and so ESPN only broadcasts a few Pac 12 games per year. Individual announcers may have more of a bias based on the teams they see on a more regular basis, particularly given that games from other regions are often harder to access. The Pac 12 and other western teams have it doubly tough because their games are played late at night for easterners, often ending after midnight. As for UConn, ratings show that even if their games are blowouts they tend to draw better. That isn't what I want to see, but if the ratings were different I believe ESPN would react.

Women's basketball is less popular than men's basketball for many reasons that go to both the nature of sports in general and the position of men and women in society. We can try to dissect those reasons, rail against them, accept them as beyond our ability to directly change, or become frustrated by them. Or we can just enjoy the sport for what it is and try to grow the sport as best we can without concerning ourselves with its relative popularity to other things. There is enough good with the sport that we should make that our focus.


PickledGinger



Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 402



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/18 10:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ok, so I will admit that I may have been drunk and (for personal reasons) angry when I wrote that post, and I’m not particularly proud of it. HOWEVER, I believe that it is undeniable that we live in a corporate-run society and I find it very believable based on past evidence that there is a link between UConn’s recruiting success and ESPN. Anyone in their right mind has to admit that moving from Chino, California to Storrs, Connecticut is a rough lifestyle change.

That being said, Geno is the probably the best overall basketball coach ever, regardless of gender, and his ability to develop players is one of the reasons why the WNBA is as successful as it is. MAD respect to him and the program that he has built.

My great hope as a Washingtonian / Pac 12 fan is that the dynamic of WBB will eventually shift to the rest of the country. That’s why I am such a huge fan of Sabrina and Ruthy and Kelly and Satou. I am NOT an Oregon fan. But I am a fan of growth and I don’t believe that womens basketball will continue to grow with UConn as its focal point.


toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 17633



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/18 7:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57514
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/18 8:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



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



Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 2072



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/18 8:37 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.



How will that change?

I’m sure they are great kids but it’s demoralizing to see the top recruits pick the same schools over and over again.


FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 1048



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/18 8:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Is it worse that all #1 seeds made it to the FF, or that the Elite 8 games were decided by an average of 22 points? For me, it's the latter. By mid-second quarter last night, I found the UConn-SC game unwatchable and turned it off. Not only did the lack of competitiveness make for an unengaging game, it didn't give the announcers anything interesting to discuss and led to a non-stop stream of drivel.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9294



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/18 9:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

One reason for the dominance of certain programs is the relatively shallow talent pool. As I repeat too often, I'm sure, the steady drain of volleyball is deleting long, tall, explosive female athletes from basketball rosters and so there just isn't as much elite talent to go around.

And elite talent tends to gravitate toward elite programs, especially elite programs that have a track record of making players better and getting to the Final Four.

And since there are fewer elite programs on the women's side, we get this concentration of talent and four No. 1 seeds in the Final Four.

You can see the same at the high school level, where the upsets on the girls' side are rarer, and usually much rarer, than on the boys' side -- and for the same reasons. In California's Open divisions, the top girls' teams dominate the bottom seeds; for the boys, though there are some powerhouses, for the most part, games are much more competitive.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57514
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/18 9:51 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's not just the shallow talent pool. After all, the pool is deeper now than it was when we only had four #1 seeds reach the F4 once in 30 years. And it's not just elite programs. Yes, we have all four #1 seeds in the F4, but two of them are schools that had never been #1 seeds before this season.



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



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 49317



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/18 3:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PickledGinger wrote:
What’s really wrong with WCBB is that ESPN only wants to cover UConn, because it is in it’s backyard (cough...cheap)



It’s not a backyard thing. UConn gets ratings, and ratings gets money.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 4840
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/18 4:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I don't know, I'm officially bored now and waiting for the draft. Once Loyola-Chicago is out on the men's side, I'm done with the college game until November.



_________________
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
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 3579



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/18 5:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PRballer wrote:
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.



How will that change?

I’m sure they are great kids but it’s demoralizing to see the top recruits pick the same schools over and over again.


The top picks on the men's side also pick among a handful of schools. The difference is the size of the talent pool.

Add to that the political angle. Instead of finding the best coach available, a lot of women's coaches get hired because of their demographics.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57514
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/18 5:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
PRballer wrote:
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.



How will that change?

I’m sure they are great kids but it’s demoralizing to see the top recruits pick the same schools over and over again.


The top picks on the men's side also pick among a handful of schools. The difference is the size of the talent pool.

Add to that the political angle. Instead of finding the best coach available, a lot of women's coaches get hired because of their demographics.


A lot of women's coaches get hired because they're affordable.

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. Unless you're saying the talent pool is thinner than it was back in the day.

As for them picking the same schools, Mississippi State certainly wasn't considered an elite program when the current players chose to go there. How does that fit your theory?



_________________
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: 03/27/18 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: 57514
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: 6808



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: 645
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: 9294



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: 57514
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: 645
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: 9294



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: 57514
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: 10740
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.
SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 3517
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: 645
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: 645
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: 12708



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: 3557



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: 12708



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: 14424
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
Page 1 of 1

 
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