View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66944 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66944 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009 Posts: 8956
Back to top |
Posted: 03/26/21 11:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Pilight, do you have easy access to what the women did year-to-year? Have there been more upsets this year, more closer games, fewer blowouts? Anything to say that neutral courts really do make a difference? Anything to show that the women's tourney is ready for all neutral courts?
I can go back and dig up the info from previous years and start another thread if you don't have it, but I thought that you might have it handy (like all of your stats seem to be).
Thanks.
_________________ "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.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66944 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 03/27/21 8:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Ex-Ref wrote: |
Pilight, do you have easy access to what the women did year-to-year? Have there been more upsets this year, more closer games, fewer blowouts? Anything to say that neutral courts really do make a difference? Anything to show that the women's tourney is ready for all neutral courts?
I can go back and dig up the info from previous years and start another thread if you don't have it, but I thought that you might have it handy (like all of your stats seem to be).
Thanks. |
Try here:
http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?p=1568092#1568092
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009 Posts: 8956
Back to top |
Posted: 03/27/21 10:30 am ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
Ex-Ref wrote: |
Pilight, do you have easy access to what the women did year-to-year? Have there been more upsets this year, more closer games, fewer blowouts? Anything to say that neutral courts really do make a difference? Anything to show that the women's tourney is ready for all neutral courts?
I can go back and dig up the info from previous years and start another thread if you don't have it, but I thought that you might have it handy (like all of your stats seem to be).
Thanks. |
Try here:
http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?p=1568092#1568092 |
Thanks. I'll take a look at it tonight when I get home. Will be much easier there than on my phone.
_________________ "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.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66944 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66944 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019 Posts: 4701
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/21 12:32 am ::: |
Reply |
|
For all the perpetual talk about how there's so much more "madness" that goes on in the men's Tournament, this year it'll almost certainly end up with either a 1 seed-vs-1 seed or a 1 seed-vs-2 seed Championship Game matchup (fwiw).
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011 Posts: 2819 Location: Indiana
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/21 9:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Stormeo wrote: |
For all the perpetual talk about how there's so much more "madness" that goes on in the men's Tournament, this year it'll almost certainly end up with either a 1 seed-vs-1 seed or a 1 seed-vs-2 seed Championship Game matchup (fwiw). |
The "madness" is what leads up to that point. Most of the time you end up with a top 3 or 4 seed winning the whole thing. I believe the 19 upsets (15 being of the big variety) is where that comes into play. In fact, the USA Today wrote an article after it got down to the Sweet 16 about how this was the "maddest" year ever. A couple of the highlights:
1. 4 double digit seeds got to the Sweet 16. The record is 5, but that year, 3 of the 5 were 10 seeds. This year, all 4 are 11 or lower.
2. The cumulative total of the 16 teams that made it was 94. The previous high was 89.
An 11 seed, UCLA, played in the First Four and have now advanced to the Final Four.
The men's tournament was about as crazy as it has ever been. The cream usually rises to the top in the end every year. It's not the destination that provides the madness, it's the journey to that destination where it all happens. This year did not disappoint.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11158
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/21 9:29 am ::: |
Reply |
|
purduefanatic wrote: |
Stormeo wrote: |
For all the perpetual talk about how there's so much more "madness" that goes on in the men's Tournament, this year it'll almost certainly end up with either a 1 seed-vs-1 seed or a 1 seed-vs-2 seed Championship Game matchup (fwiw). |
The "madness" is what leads up to that point. Most of the time you end up with a top 3 or 4 seed winning the whole thing. I believe the 19 upsets (15 being of the big variety) is where that comes into play. In fact, the USA Today wrote an article after it got down to the Sweet 16 about how this was the "maddest" year ever. A couple of the highlights:
1. 4 double digit seeds got to the Sweet 16. The record is 5, but that year, 3 of the 5 were 10 seeds. This year, all 4 are 11 or lower.
2. The cumulative total of the 16 teams that made it was 94. The previous high was 89.
An 11 seed, UCLA, played in the First Four and have now advanced to the Final Four.
The men's tournament was about as crazy as it has ever been. The cream usually rises to the top in the end every year. It's not the destination that provides the madness, it's the journey to that destination where it all happens. This year did not disappoint. |
The women's game is simply not as deep in talent so there is less chance of major upsets. The top teams are, relative to the men, much better than the next level down.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011 Posts: 2819 Location: Indiana
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/21 9:31 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
purduefanatic wrote: |
Stormeo wrote: |
For all the perpetual talk about how there's so much more "madness" that goes on in the men's Tournament, this year it'll almost certainly end up with either a 1 seed-vs-1 seed or a 1 seed-vs-2 seed Championship Game matchup (fwiw). |
The "madness" is what leads up to that point. Most of the time you end up with a top 3 or 4 seed winning the whole thing. I believe the 19 upsets (15 being of the big variety) is where that comes into play. In fact, the USA Today wrote an article after it got down to the Sweet 16 about how this was the "maddest" year ever. A couple of the highlights:
1. 4 double digit seeds got to the Sweet 16. The record is 5, but that year, 3 of the 5 were 10 seeds. This year, all 4 are 11 or lower.
2. The cumulative total of the 16 teams that made it was 94. The previous high was 89.
An 11 seed, UCLA, played in the First Four and have now advanced to the Final Four.
The men's tournament was about as crazy as it has ever been. The cream usually rises to the top in the end every year. It's not the destination that provides the madness, it's the journey to that destination where it all happens. This year did not disappoint. |
The women's game is simply not as deep in talent so there is less chance of major upsets. The top teams are, relative to the men, much better than the next level down. |
Yep. Felt that was a given and well-known. That is the battle the women's game has been fighting for several years now.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66944 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/21 9:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
The men usually (but not always) have more upsets, though the gap has been closing in recent years. Only once (2007) have the women managed more big upsets.
The 15 big upsets for the men this year is a record high. The old record was 13, set in 1985 and matched in 2014.
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021 Posts: 2864
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/21 10:01 am ::: |
Reply |
|
FWIW, I feel that Texas beating Maryland should qualify as a "big upset" even though they were not more than 4 seeds apart. The seeds don't always tell the whole story.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66944 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/21 10:20 am ::: |
Reply |
|
undersized_post wrote: |
FWIW, I feel that Texas beating Maryland should qualify as a "big upset" even though they were not more than 4 seeds apart. The seeds don't always tell the whole story. |
I needed an objective measure and over four was the most favorable break point for the women the year I started using "big upsets" (2009). Before that I had just done upsets, which were often quite close. Then CamrnCrz1974 noted that many of the women's upsets were just one seed apart ( 8/9 and 5/4 especially ). Then I went back and did historical data.
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 16364 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/21 12:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
purduefanatic wrote: |
ClayK wrote: |
purduefanatic wrote: |
Stormeo wrote: |
For all the perpetual talk about how there's so much more "madness" that goes on in the men's Tournament, this year it'll almost certainly end up with either a 1 seed-vs-1 seed or a 1 seed-vs-2 seed Championship Game matchup (fwiw). |
The "madness" is what leads up to that point. Most of the time you end up with a top 3 or 4 seed winning the whole thing. I believe the 19 upsets (15 being of the big variety) is where that comes into play. In fact, the USA Today wrote an article after it got down to the Sweet 16 about how this was the "maddest" year ever. A couple of the highlights:
1. 4 double digit seeds got to the Sweet 16. The record is 5, but that year, 3 of the 5 were 10 seeds. This year, all 4 are 11 or lower.
2. The cumulative total of the 16 teams that made it was 94. The previous high was 89.
An 11 seed, UCLA, played in the First Four and have now advanced to the Final Four.
The men's tournament was about as crazy as it has ever been. The cream usually rises to the top in the end every year. It's not the destination that provides the madness, it's the journey to that destination where it all happens. This year did not disappoint. |
The women's game is simply not as deep in talent so there is less chance of major upsets. The top teams are, relative to the men, much better than the next level down. |
Yep. Felt that was a given and well-known. That is the battle the women's game has been fighting for several years now. |
I am not sure it's a battle that they should be fighting. The Men's tournament is "fun" when you see the upsets, but it's not good for actually identifying the best teams and featuring those match-ups.
What's a more preferable outcome for a tournament: Overall No. 1 seed Stanford facing South Carolina in the semi-finals or overall No. 1 seed Gonzaga facing UCLA?
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011 Posts: 2819 Location: Indiana
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/21 12:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
PUmatty wrote: |
I am not sure it's a battle that they should be fighting. The Men's tournament is "fun" when you see the upsets, but it's not good for actually identifying the best teams and featuring those match-ups.
What's a more preferable outcome for a tournament: Overall No. 1 seed Stanford facing South Carolina in the semi-finals or overall No. 1 seed Gonzaga facing UCLA? |
Other than UCLA, you have 2 No 1 seeds and a No 2 (Houston). The upsets are what makes it fun to watch. Who the hell wants chalk all the way through??
I think UCLA has earned the right to still be playing given the gauntlet they just went through to get there. They have played 5 games in 12 days and won them all. I happen to LOVE the fact that they got through to the Final Four. They are a team that had a rough patch at the end of the regular season only to rebound and are playing arguably their best basketball.
Besides, it's been pretty obvious that Gonzaga was the best team in men's hoops this year for the past few months. Baylor is a close second and then you had several teams like Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio State, Alabama, etc that all looked like challengers but couldn't live up to expectations.
Does anybody think Arizona has a prayer in beating UConn? Is it good that NC State got upset in the Sweet 16?
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66944 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/21 12:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
purduefanatic wrote: |
Does anybody think Arizona has a prayer in beating UConn? Is it good that NC State got upset in the Sweet 16? |
Arizona has as good a chance of beating UConn as NC State would have
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011 Posts: 2819 Location: Indiana
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/21 1:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
purduefanatic wrote: |
Does anybody think Arizona has a prayer in beating UConn? Is it good that NC State got upset in the Sweet 16? |
Arizona has as good a chance of beating UConn as NC State would have |
Maybe, but that really wasn't even the point of my comment.
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021 Posts: 2864
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/21 1:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think there is sexism involved when people criticize NCAAW for lack of parity and praise NCAAM for having more upsets. If the situation were reversed (that is, if the women's side had more upsets than the men's) I think the same haters would frame it as, "There's not even really elite talent on the women's side because the so-called top teams aren't even that good."
These things are all about how you frame them. And certain people will always find a way to justify their belief that women are "less than." Especially in domains that are traditionally considered masculine, like athletics.
p.s. I'm not leveling an accusation of sexism at anyone on this board---not at all. I'm just speaking in general terms about society.
p. p. s. Certain sports are exceptions, like gymnasitcs, figure skating, etc. For example, Simone Biles isn't considered by some to be the GOAT because her moves are too powerful, too athletic, not enough 'grace.' AKA she's too 'masculine' for a domain that is traditionally feminine. (That's not my belief--I'm just paraphrasing an argument I've heard.) These things are so arbitrary.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66944 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 03/31/21 2:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I started tracking so it could be discussed with actual data rather then just anecdotes and gut feelings. You can use it to support whatever viewpoint you wish.
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66944 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66944 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66944 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66944 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11158
Back to top |
Posted: 04/06/21 1:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
It's pretty clear the gap between the elite teams and the bottom part of the bracket is much bigger in the women's game.
I don't know what that means exactly, but it seems to be consistently true.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
|
|