Thought experiment

[connie]

Longtime lurker. First post.

Okay. So we've all heard the assertions: NCAAWB is a joke; female players are not as talented as male players; the women's game is slower; women don't play above the rim; blah blah.

Put aside whether there is any truth to the assertions. Let's say that someday we humans happened upon some extraordinary alien species, similar to homo sapiens in every respect, but naturally endowed with incomprehensible physical ability--able to dart around a basketball court with lightening quickness; incredible strength and reflexes; end-to-end in a split second; capable of jumping 15 feet; etc. Suppose this species revolutionized the way the game of basketball was played.

Would any of that make the abilities and achievements of human male basketball players any less remarkable? Would it make us disparage the play of Larry Legend, Michael Jordan, Wilt , Kareem, Lebron, Steph, Cousy, Russell, West, the Big O, etc.? Would we regard the great teams of the Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Warriors, etc. any less? Would the history of NBA and Male NCAA basketball be any less entertaining and compelling?

Consider the answer. The ask what conclusions we can draw from the criticisms and underlying assumptions leveled at WCBB.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Longtime lurker. First post.

Okay. So we've all heard the assertions: NCAAWB is a joke; female players are not as talented as male players; the women's game is slower; women don't play above the rim; blah blah.

Put aside whether there is any truth to the assertions. Let's say that someday we humans happened upon some extraordinary alien species, similar to homo sapiens in every respect, but naturally endowed with incomprehensible physical ability--able to dart around a basketball court with lightening quickness; incredible strength and reflexes; end-to-end in a split second; capable of jumping 15 feet; etc. Suppose this species revolutionized the way the game of basketball was played.

Would any of that make the abilities and achievements of human male basketball players any less remarkable? Would it make us disparage the play of Larry Legend, Michael Jordan, Wilt , Kareem, Lebron, Steph, Cousy, Russell, West, the Big O, etc.? Would we regard the great teams of the Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Warriors, etc. any less? Would the history of NBA and Male NCAA basketball be any less entertaining and compelling?

Consider the answer. The ask what conclusions we can draw from the criticisms and underlying assumptions leveled at WCBB.

Only conclusion is people have difference preferences--and those that does not take the time to FOLLOW one of the great Women's College Basketball teams--must be a follower--you may tend to miss the technical greatness of many women's teams. Also--the pros have pushed men's BB to become come like them--run and gun and more hockey than BB--so WBB tend to not be that physical (usc/uconn game excepted). To some BB fan that and only that is BB.. You make your own choices..

 

[UcMiami]

Absolutely - it is why for me, MCBB is such a joke. They are so slow, and can't jump and can't shoot anything like the pro men's players. It is so boring and there is so little competition that I gave up watching it years and years ago! Honestly, do you think Duke or any other MCBB team could come within 50 points of Golden State? Heck, the Knicks would make a mockery of the best college teams and their are terrible!

 

[JoePgh]

To the OP: No, the fact that women's teams can't beat men's teams at basketball really shouldn't affect the popularity of women's basketball. But obviously in real life, women's basketball is less popular.

Another mystery is why some individual female athletes (tennis players, track stars, figure skaters) do gain immense popularity, but women's team sports almost universally do not.

I think it has to do with the fact that young adult men spend time following male sports teams (probably because they can vicariously enjoy the career that they dreamed of as kids), but young adult women do not tend to be fans of spectator sports at all. Either they are actually playing sports in their free time, or they are watching their children play.

If Rebecca Lobo had a "regular job" (unrelated to basketball), how much time do you think she would spend following any college or pro team sport? Probably very little. But that is not true of men in her age group.

 

[bags27]

Welcome to the Board!!

Interestingly, of the charges you impute to the women's game, one I don't hear is that the game is slower. It can't be significantly slower, because women score nearly as many points as do the men. I think this is an important point: that, despite being signficantly less physically strong or fast, women score nearly as much because they tend to pass more and look for the best shot. (Is it better/different coaching, compensatory behavior to their physical challenges, or psychological predilections based on gender distinctions?)

So, to your point of, if an alien species could play the game with greater physical skills, would that diminish appreciation of the men's game, I say that women already tend to play a somewhat different game than do men, and it's that difference that we already appreciate.

 

[CL82]

Let's say that someday we humans happened upon some extraordinary alien species, similar to homo sapiens in every respect, but naturally endowed with incomprehensible physical ability--able to dart around a basketball court with lightening quickness; incredible strength and reflexes; end-to-end in a split second; capable of jumping 15 feet; etc. Suppose this species revolutionized the way the game of basketball was played.

I have no words....

Congrats on making leap to posting Connie. Keep them coming.

 

[NVUConnFan]

OP thanks for your first post. Well thought out and I like the alien species argument.

For my part, I only watch 2 teams in 2 sports anymore: UConn WCBB and Nebraska WCVB. There is elegance and performance at the highest level in each. As for men's sports (of which I used to be a big fan when I was young): Meh. I think it's "gorilla ball".

 

[connie]

Welcome to the Board!!

Interestingly, of the charges you impute to the women's game, one I don't hear is that the game is slower. It can't be significantly slower, because women score nearly as many points as do the men. I think this is an important point: that, despite being signficantly less physically strong or fast, women score nearly as much because they tend to pass more and look for the best shot. (Is it better/different coaching, compensatory behavior to their physical challenges, or psychological predilections based on gender distinctions?)

So, to your point of, if an alien species could play the game with greater physical skills, would that diminish appreciation of the men's game, I say that women already tend to play a somewhat different game than do men, and it's that difference that we already appreciate.

Nice to be aboard.

I think we are in agreement. (And I absolutely admire and adore UCWB). But let me be clear. I do not impute any charges to the women's game. I am merely taking some commonplace judgments (not my own), then ask how they could withstand scrutiny even assuming the observations underlying the judgments are true. (Answer: they can't.)

As to differences b/t the men's and women's game, I agree. And that is exactly my point. Different abilities in different pools of participants would likely foment different styles of play (whether we are talking about men, women, adults, children, or Insectmen from Planet 10). But that, standing alone, is no reason to disparage any particular form of play.

 

[connie]

To the OP: No, the fact that women's teams can't beat men's teams at basketball really shouldn't affect the popularity of women's basketball. But obviously in real life, women's basketball is less popular.

Another mystery is why some individual female athletes (tennis players, track stars, figure skaters) do gain immense popularity, but women's team sports almost universally do not.

I think it has to do with the fact that young adult men spend time following male sports teams (probably because they can vicariously enjoy the career that they dreamed of as kids), but young adult women do not tend to be fans of spectator sports at all. Either they are actually playing sports in their free time, or they are watching their children play.

If Rebecca Lobo had a "regular job" (unrelated to basketball), how much time do you think she would spend following any college or pro team sport? Probably very little. But that is not true of men in her age group.

You raise a very interesting issue -- though somewhat separate from my point. Why certain team sports become popular (and not others) is complex and probably informed by many cultural and historical factors. The ones you mention are certainly worth considering. The issue is further complicated in that (as you note) there does seem a rise in recent decades in the popularity of the individual woman athlete. Why not women's teams?

 

[oldude]

Longtime lurker. First post.

Okay. So we've all heard the assertions: NCAAWB is a joke; female players are not as talented as male players; the women's game is slower; women don't play above the rim; blah blah.

Put aside whether there is any truth to the assertions. Let's say that someday we humans happened upon some extraordinary alien species, similar to homo sapiens in every respect, but naturally endowed with incomprehensible physical ability--able to dart around a basketball court with lightening quickness; incredible strength and reflexes; end-to-end in a split second; capable of jumping 15 feet; etc. Suppose this species revolutionized the way the game of basketball was played.

Would any of that make the abilities and achievements of human male basketball players any less remarkable? Would it make us disparage the play of Larry Legend, Michael Jordan, Wilt , Kareem, Lebron, Steph, Cousy, Russell, West, the Big O, etc.? Would we regard the great teams of the Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Warriors, etc. any less? Would the history of NBA and Male NCAA basketball be any less entertaining and compelling?

Consider the answer. The ask what conclusions we can draw from the criticisms and underlying assumptions leveled at WCBB.

Welcome to the BY. I'm going to give a more philosophical response to your question. Everyone has different preferences. Which, if any, sport an individual is drawn to may depend on a variety of factors: where you grew up, what your friends & family like, what sports you played growing up, etc.

So whether you like Men's BB, WBB, football, WVB, Rowing, synchronized swimming or tiddlywinks is entirely a matter of personal preference.

Now I'll shift from being philosophical to a little ranting. While everyone has the right to watch WBB, or not, I have no idea why so many complete idiots feel compelled to go out of their way to undermine the effort and achievements of these extraordinary young women. As Geno said last year when faced with the idiotic comments of reporter Dan Shaunessey, "if you don't like women's basketball, don't watch."

 

[JoePgh]

You don't even need to imagine an alien species to make your point.

Why didn't everyone lose interest in who "the world's fastest human" is as soon as it was pointed out that Secretariat could beat the fastest human in a mile-long race without breaking a sweat? Someone might have pointed out that even the humblest horse (even a filly!) could do the same thing. Did that make it less interesting to know who the world's fastest human is, and to watch male sprinters compete for that title?

As I implied in the previous post, the reason (I think) is that young male humans like to imagine themselves as the world's fastest human, and root for some male athlete whom they admire to achieve that distinction. But young male humans aren't going to empathize with a female competitor, and young female humans probably aren't going to care about the whole subject anyway.

And young adults are the target audience who make or break a sport's popularity.

 

[huskyd]

Longtime lurker. First post.

Okay. So we've all heard the assertions: NCAAWB is a joke; female players are not as talented as male players; the women's game is slower; women don't play above the rim; blah blah.

Put aside whether there is any truth to the assertions. Let's say that someday we humans happened upon some extraordinary alien species, similar to homo sapiens in every respect, but naturally endowed with incomprehensible physical ability--able to dart around a basketball court with lightening quickness; incredible strength and reflexes; end-to-end in a split second; capable of jumping 15 feet; etc. Suppose this species revolutionized the way the game of basketball was played.

Would any of that make the abilities and achievements of human male basketball players any less remarkable? Would it make us disparage the play of Larry Legend, Michael Jordan, Wilt , Kareem, Lebron, Steph, Cousy, Russell, West, the Big O, etc.? Would we regard the great teams of the Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Warriors, etc. any less? Would the history of NBA and Male NCAA basketball be any less entertaining and compelling?

Consider the answer. The ask what conclusions we can draw from the criticisms and underlying assumptions leveled at WCBB.

Smart post, Connie, hope we'll here more from you. Welcome.

 

[NVUConnFan]

You raise a very interesting issue -- though somewhat separate from my point. Why certain team sports become popular (and not others) is complex and probably informed by many cultural and historical factors. The ones you mention are certainly worth considering. The issue is further complicated in that (as you note) there does seem a rise in recent decades in the popularity of the individual woman athlete. Why not women's teams?

I must compliment you on your writing style. If you're not a professional writer, you should be.

Besides WCBB & WCVB that I noted earlier, I personally admire individual achievement by men or women, such as your writing style. I attended some high achieving schools and organizations in addition to founding and running same, which was invigorating in and of itself. UConn WCBB is beyond doubt the epitome of Women's team sports, with Nebraska and Penn State (although I'm not a fan of theirs) WCVB close behind. Tiddlywinks not so much.

 

[connie]

I must compliment you on your writing style. If you're not a professional writer, you should be.

Besides WCBB & WCVB that I noted earlier, I personally admire individual achievement by men or women, such as your writing style. I attended some high achieving schools and organizations in addition to founding and running same, which was invigorating in and of itself. UConn WCBB is beyond doubt the epitome of Women's team sports, with Nebraska and Penn State (although I'm not a fan of theirs) WCVB close behind. Tiddlywinks not so much.

Thanks. Two things.

First, I like the drama of sports. It really is one of the few things that I can regularly turn to that provides (dare I say it?) an authentic narrative experience. The stuff that happens in sports is often "stranger than fiction". But it is real, and happening in real-time. Sports competitions tell a story with each game. And each season tells its own story. The healthy thing to do is to enjoy the story as it's being told, to "re-read" certain parts, to await the next developing chapter.

Second, and perhaps even more important, I have to like the people in team sports. This has become increasingly difficult to do in the major professional sports because of the high turnover. That does not happen so much in college sports--especially, NCAAWB. Geno made some comment that the women's college game differs from the men's in that great male players are already looking to make the jump to the pros by their sophomore year. The college women are generally in for the long haul (partially because there just isn't a market for most of the players). This foments a team chemistry, something that develops and endures. We become invested in the team because we come to know the players--their personalities, their strengths, the weaknesses, their successes, their failures.

And that is why it is so enjoyable and so gratifying following this year's Huskies! What. A. Story!

 

[Biff]

Oh great. We thought we had it all covered and now we need to create an Alien Sports board.....

WELCOME ABOARD.

 

[Los24]

Longtime lurker. First post.

Okay. So we've all heard the assertions: NCAAWB is a joke; female players are not as talented as male players; the women's game is slower; women don't play above the rim; blah blah.

Put aside whether there is any truth to the assertions. Let's say that someday we humans happened upon some extraordinary alien species, similar to homo sapiens in every respect, but naturally endowed with incomprehensible physical ability--able to dart around a basketball court with lightening quickness; incredible strength and reflexes; end-to-end in a split second; capable of jumping 15 feet; etc. Suppose this species revolutionized the way the game of basketball was played.

Would any of that make the abilities and achievements of human male basketball players any less remarkable? Would it make us disparage the play of Larry Legend, Michael Jordan, Wilt , Kareem, Lebron, Steph, Cousy, Russell, West, the Big O, etc.? Would we regard the great teams of the Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Warriors, etc. any less? Would the history of NBA and Male NCAA basketball be any less entertaining and compelling?

Consider the answer. The ask what conclusions we can draw from the criticisms and underlying assumptions leveled at WCBB.

First I don't even watch men's college BB anymore and rarely NBA. Here is my take. Many folks are casual fans now, meaning many do not admire the finer points of a particular game. That translates to folks looking for the Wow moments in a game. So while looking at it from that perspective, men's game with their physical abilities draw a larger fan base. What is ironic is that most of us fans here somewhat support this with how everyone is raving about Gabby now because of her physical gifts. Look how folks go crazy because she skies through the air for a rebound which results in announcers owwwing and ahhing. Pheese has as many rebounds, more blocks, scores more, shoots better, etc.. but she is not talked about as much by the broader women's fans or announcers because she is not as exciting as Gabby (to non-uconn fans, I know we all appreciate Pheese here as much as Gabby and Lou.)

 

[eebmg]

The underlying essence (for me) of team sports is that to reach your goal, you need to work as much as possible as a team. In the men's game, the speed and physicality as well as the 3 pt shot has opened the court so much that the athleticism of NBA and to a lesser extent MCBB players allows them to play 1-1 ball a high percentage of the time (since the offense has the big advantage of acting as opposed to reacting) and if passing is done, it is usually 1-2 passes off pick and rolls leading to the same dunks or uncontested 3pt shots. To me, the construction of points through multiple passes, screens, backcuts, etc is much less emphasized and to me more satisfying. Of course, I am not against athleticism (ie Gabby) but I prefer it to be synergistic with the team approach

In the alien race scenario, it is even worse with offense having more imbalance to defense. No thanks

On the other hand, it is still possible that team oriented basketball in the men's game may occur with more frequency but it is fairly rare and requires the super stars to be really team oriented such as Golden State, San Antonio, Cleveland. Even in these cases, as the games come to the end, team ball disappears in favor of 1-1 isolation.

I think a reasonable parallel to this situation is men's vs women's tennis. The athleticism of the men's game often results in ace serving or short rally points which to me is not very satisfying while more point construction occurs in the women's game.

P.S. Nothing would make me think less of Larry Legend and Magic Johnson. Player's of average athletic gifts who maximized their game beyond reason and played the ultimate team ball with artistry and flair.

 

[connie]

The underlying essence (for me) of team sports is that to reach your goal, you need to work as much as possible as a team. In the men's game, the speed and physicality as well as the 3 pt shot has opened the court so much that the athleticism of NBA and to a lesser extent MCBB players allows them to play 1-1 ball a high percentage of the time (since the offense has the big advantage of acting as opposed to reacting) and if passing is done, it is usually 1-2 passes off pick and rolls leading to the same dunks or uncontested 3pt shots. To me, the construction of points through multiple passes, screens, backcuts, etc is much less emphasized and to me more satisfying. Of course, I am not against athleticism (ie Gabby) but I prefer it to be synergistic with the team approach

In the alien race scenario, it is even worse with offense having more imbalance to defense. No thanks

On the other hand, it is still possible that team oriented basketball in the men's game may occur with more frequency but it is fairly rare and requires the super stars to be really team oriented such as Golden State, San Antonio, Cleveland. Even in these cases, as the games come to the end, team ball disappears in favor of 1-1 isolation.

I think a reasonable parallel to this situation is men's vs women's tennis. The athleticism of the men's game often results in ace serving or short rally points which to me is not very satisfying while more point construction occurs in the women's game.

P.S. Nothing would make me think less of Larry Legend and Magic Johnson. Player's of average athletic gifts who maximized their game beyond reason and played the ultimate team ball with artistry and flair.

I agree with your description of notable differences in the men's and women's game. I also like the example of the differences between men's and women's tennis. This helps to illustrate a useful distinction -- one that goes further to the heart why it is we Uconn fans love our Huskies.