Which Meant More Emotionally - Men's or Women's Championship?

[cabbie191]

The starting point for this thread is a posting that RSHERMVIKES made in "2015 Final 4 - What Teams?"

I was struck by the number of teams that were listed as potential candidates - I think I counted a dozen. The issue isn't whether any of them can hang with UConn next year - I don't think anyone can if we remain relatively healthy.

What I like, as I look down the future of WCBB, is that in a few years there will hopefully (and I think likely) more than just two or three dominant teams out there.

That led to the following thought - I think I enjoy UConn women's victories more when they are against really good competition. Don't get me wrong - I'm not complacent, but the majority of games don't charge me up like games did in the early days of our ascendence.

My brothers and I were in Nashville and thoroughly enjoyed everything we saw, especially the drubbing the women gave Notre Dame. But I think it is also equally true that we were more emotionally charged with the men's championship this year, because it was so much against the odds.

So, which is it for you? Did you get more out of a) the women's championship, b) the men's championship, or c) they were equal.

 

[rocky rococo]

For me it was the tandem. Neither one alone would have anything near the charge the two together brought.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

The more improbable one.

 

[LesMis89]

The women. Don't follow the men's team

 

[Sonny44]

The more improbable one.

Agree.

 

[Zorro]

Sorta depends on "to whom", don't you think?

 

[uconnell]

Definitely the men.

 

[j66kicker]

Men's. Was so unlikely it was almost shocking, where it would have been shocking if the women DIDN'T win.

 

[alexrgct]

I can make all three arguments.

I'm proud to be a Nutmegger, and for such a great matching pair of outcomes to happen is so wonderful for our state. In that sense, I was equally thrilled by both NCs.

Given that there was some doubt as to how the men's program would respond to the retirement of Jim Calhoun and the period following a loss of postseason eligibility, the men's championship was astounding. It was such a pleasant surprise (and more rare- a fourth NC as compared to nine) that it was perhaps more precious.

As for why the women's NC this year meant so much to me? Well, I posted about it in this thread I started the night after the drubbing of Notre Dame, so it's clear as to why I valued that championship so much.

 

[intlzncster]

If the women didn't win the NC, it would have been a disaster of colossal proportions. Barring an enormous amount of injuries, it was fait accompli.

The men winning was nothing short of shocking (if you had to guess pre postseason). And with the whole Kevin Ollie story, and the Shabazz Napier story, it was amazing.

 

[Buzzyboy]

The starting point for this thread is a posting that RSHERMVIKES made in "2015 Final 4 - What Teams?"

I was struck by the number of teams that were listed as potential candidates - I think I counted a dozen. The issue isn't whether any of them can hang with UConn next year - I don't think anyone can if we remain relatively healthy.

What I like, as I look down the future of WCBB, is that in a few years there will hopefully (and I think likely) more than just two or three dominant teams out there.

That led to the following thought - I think I enjoy UConn women's victories more when they are against really good competition. Don't get me wrong - I'm not complacent, but the majority of games don't charge me up like games did in the early days of our ascendence.

My brothers and I were in Nashville and thoroughly enjoyed everything we saw, especially the drubbing the women gave Notre Dame. But I think it is also equally true that we were more emotionally charged with the men's championship this year, because it was so much against the odds.

So, which is it for you? Did you get more out of a) the women's championship, b) the men's championship, or c) they were equal.

You made a remark about enjoying the women's victories more when they are against good competition. If you're talking about good competition in the latter part of the NCAA tournament where they won championships, what is to suggest that they didn't face really "good competition" in all those Final Fours, when they ended up winning it all. The fact that in some of these games they won handily doesn't necessitate the assumption that they were facing less than "good" and maybe even "great" teams. Just because they may have dominated some of these teams, it doesn't demean these teams but suggests that they were themselves phenomenal. They beat Tennessee a few times handily and Louisville as well but if your remarks suggest that these teams were not good teams because of the amount of points the Huskies won by, I think you might be slighting the brilliance of those Huskie teams and their mental toughness. Secretariat had a brilliant race in the Belmont where he destroyed an exceptional race horse named Sham who had competed very well against him in the Kentucky Derby and Preakness. Secretariat's record setting performance in the Belmont made Sham's finish look bad even though Sham ended the race with a very respectable time for the mile and one half race. It was so much more about Secretariat being brilliant than Sham being ordinary. I feel the same way about those Final Four games where UConn dominated a team. You may not have enjoyed the game as much because it stopped being competitive relatively early but to say that the team they defeated wasn't a very good team based on the disparity in score diminishes the Huskies exceptionalism.

 

[cabbie191]

You made a remark about enjoying the women's victories more when they are against good competition. If you're talking about good competition in the latter part of the NCAA tournament where they won championships, what is to suggest that they didn't face really "good competition" in all those Final Fours, when they ended up winning it all. The fact that in some of these games they won handily doesn't necessitate the assumption that they were facing less than "good" and maybe even "great" teams. Just because they may have dominated some of these teams, it doesn't demean these teams but suggests that they were themselves phenomenal. They beat Tennessee a few times handily and Louisville as well but if your remarks suggest that these teams were not good teams because of the amount of points the Huskies won by, I think you might be slighting the brilliance of those Huskie teams and their mental toughness. Secretariat had a brilliant race in the Belmont where he destroyed an exceptional race horse named Sham who had competed very well against him in the Kentucky Derby and Preakness. Secretariat's record setting performance in the Belmont made Sham's finish look bad even though Sham ended the race with a very respectable time for the mile and one half race. It was so much more about Secretariat being brilliant than Sham being ordinary. I feel the same way about those Final Four games where UConn dominated a team. You may not have enjoyed the game as much because it stopped being competitive relatively early but to say that the team they defeated wasn't a very good team based on the disparity in score diminishes the Huskies exceptionalism.

Actually, I wasn't thinking very much about the quality of games in the FF specifically as to the relative level of competition throughout an entire season. I don't think anywhere did I say anything to imply that the quality of competition is bad, but to be clear, by no means did I mean to slight the accomplishments of the Husky teams over the years. In fact, I think my writing supports your view - we have become so dominant that scores against very good opposition are often not competitive.

Related to Secretariat and Sham, allow me to tell the story of my brother who was a track runner at a Hartford area high school. His best event was the 880. On one of his very last races before graduating, at the Greater Hartford invitational, he ran the greatest race of his life, breaking the Connecticut scholastic record. And he came in third! The young man who won set the national high school record that day. It was a thrilling, incredible race.

 

[intlzncster]

You made a remark about enjoying the women's victories more when they are against good competition. If you're talking about good competition in the latter part of the NCAA tournament where they won championships, what is to suggest that they didn't face really "good competition" in all those Final Fours, when they ended up winning it all. The fact that in some of these games they won handily doesn't necessitate the assumption that they were facing less than "good" and maybe even "great" teams. Just because they may have dominated some of these teams, it doesn't demean these teams but suggests that they were themselves phenomenal.

If they got dominated, they were not great teams. And name on the jersey means nothing.

 

[j66kicker]

Running track (humans or horses) is different. You have an absolute (the time) with which to compare everyone, and you can't play defense, or very limited anyway. Basketball is more mano a mano - you can affect the competitor's outcome more directly. If a team gets "dominated", then they are not 'great' - at least on that day.

 

[CL82]

I enjoyed them both, of course, but the Men's win was key for the program and the university. Always tough to transition from one of the best coaches ever. A national championship with his successor kind of takes the sting out of it.

 

[JellyBean]

Both for me. The coaching change, the NCAA ban, and all of the college basketball experts never picking our men's program to do anything, really made it fun to watch our men's team attack each game and win the whole thing. The women's was magically because of all of the hype and drama surrounding each tournament win. All along we would look over our shoulder and see that other team copying our style, playing at a high clip, and doing the right things to make it a wonderful title game battle between to undefeated powerhouse squads. Both games were special and it is hard to pick one.

 

[cabbie191]

Running track (humans or horses) is different. You have an absolute (the time) with which to compare everyone, and you can't play defense, or very limited anyway. Basketball is more mano a mano - you can affect the competitor's outcome more directly. If a team gets "dominated", then they are not 'great' - at least on that day.

No doubt they are very different, but I don't think that was Buzzyboy's point. It was that in any competition, just because you might lose by a lot (whether by points or by time) doesn't mean you weren't very good.

 

[warbler1055]

I am a women BB fan but how can I not vote for the men's incredible tournament!!!

 

[intlzncster]

No doubt they are very different, but I don't think that was Buzzyboy's point. It was that in any competition, just because you might lose by a lot (whether by points or by time) doesn't mean you weren't very good.

A very good team does not get blown out in critical games. Sure they can lay an egg now and again, but they don't get crushed in a big spot, unless they aren't as good as was previously thought.

 

[DaddyChoc]

#Olliewood

 

[reno tony]

A very good team does not get blown out in critical games. Sure they can lay an egg now and again, but they don't get crushed in a big spot, unless they aren't as good as was previously thought.

Of course they do, I watched it with my very own eyes in Nashville. Unless you are implying N.D. was not a very good team.... which is ridiculous.

45 TO GO​

 

[intlzncster]

Of course they do, I watched it with my very own eyes in Nashville. Unless you are implying N.D. was not a very good team.... which is ridicous.

No it's not. They weren't that good, especially when they lost Achonwa. And they proved it on the court. If they were, they would have made a game of it.

They had 2 respectable players: McBride and Lloyd. Neither of which would have started on UCONN (ie neither would start over KML or Hartley). They were a good team, not very good, and certainly not great.

UCONN had no chance of losing that game, despite the nervous nellies on the Boneyard. As I said before, fait accompli.

 

[mauconnfan]

No it's not. They weren't that good, especially when they lost Achonwa. And they proved it on the court. If they were, they would have made a game of it.

They had 2 respectable players: McBride and Lloyd. Neither of which would have started on UCONN (ie neither would start over KML or Hartley). They were a good team, not very good, and certainly not great.

UCONN had no chance of losing that game, despite the nervous nellies on the Boneyard. As I said before, fait accompli.

Spot on intlzncster………..

 

[RadyLady]

Sorta depends on "to whom", don't you think?

my thought, too

 

[reno tony]

No it's not. They weren't that good, especially when they lost Achonwa. And they proved it on the court. If they were, they would have made a game of it.

They had 2 respectable players: McBride and Lloyd. Neither of which would have started on UCONN (ie neither would start over KML or Hartley). They were a good team, not very good, and certainly not great.

UCONN had no chance of losing that game, despite the nervous nellies on the Boneyard. As I said before, fait accompli.

A team that loses only one game during the season, to UCONN, and you say they aren't very good. I agree that there was no way they, or anyone for that matter, were going to beat UCONN. But I think you have allowed UCONN's dominance to skew your views as to what a very good team is.

I disagree about your opinion that McBride and Lloyd are only respectable players. They are both top level players. The following were just some of Kayla's accolades along with being selected third in the WNBA draft : AP All-America First Team ... USBWA All-America Team ... WBCA Coaches' All-America Team ... Wooden Award All-America Team ... espnW All-America First Team (unanimous) ...Sports Illustrated All-America Team ... Full Court Press All-America First Team ... ACC Player of the Year (Coaches) ...WBCA Wade Trophy Finalist ... Naismith Trophy Finalist ... Wooden Award Finalist.

Lloyds were also impressive: AP All-America Second Team ... USBWA All-America Team ... WBCA Coaches' All-America Team ... espnW All-America Second Team ... Full Court Press All-America Second Team ... WBCA Wade Trophy Finalist ... Wooden Award Finalist ... Naismith Trophy Semifinalist ... WBCA Coaches' All-Region II Team ... NCAA Notre Dame Regional Most Valuable Player ... ACC Tournament Most Valuable Player.

I'm not trying to start a fight, but I believe giving credit where it is due. Even if it is to a group of green shamrock wearing WBB players.

45 TO GO​