And so it begins: USA Today says the St. Francis blowout is bad for the sport

[tomcat]

As I said in another thread. This is getting old. USA Today barely covers women's sports let alone WCBB. They're morons and their opinion is meaningless in this instance. They're a cartoon version of a newspaper and they know it. None of the trolls that peek out from under their rocks this time of year follow the women's game or even understand it. And none of them understand, or want to understand, the work that goes on behind the scenes in a program like Connecticut. Why we even give them the time of day is beyond me.

I agree with everything you said about USA Today except that compared to many newspapers, they actually do cover WCBB once in a while, and once in a while is a lot better than what we get from most.

 

[shizam]

In this case, the calling out is not over one team winning a lot, or almost always, but beating another supposedly tournament-ready team 140-52. That is a very different thing. Do not answer the old Dan Shaughnessey b.s. about UConn being bad for basketball because it wins all the time. That is not the accusation this time and besides, you and I and everyone else on this site agree that watching UConn is watching poetry in motion and that the scores, most of the time, are irrelevant.

No, this writer's point is that an 88-point beatdown does the sport no good. The writer is saying that the difference between #1 and #64 is 88 points, which indicates the stratification of the sport.Not that UConn isn't good, but that he lower part of the women's game offers no competition with the UConns of the world. It's true.

As opposed to the men's game, I might add, where (finally!) #16 beat #1` last night. The writer is not wrong. There is a huge distance between 1 and 64, much more than on the men's side. The most I can say is that the women's game is developing and has a ways to go before it reaches the competitive level of the men, but that it's improved in that way recently.

Maybe cut the tourney to the top 32 teams

 

[shizam]

They get higher TV ratings because they are in big TV markets. UConn lives in the #31 TV market while bordering the #8 and #1 TV markets. Of course they are going to get big ratings. Ohio State football dreams of having the media exposure of the UConn WCBB team.

I wasn’t clear. UConn gets higher ratings

 

[HoopsFan21]

Maybe cut the tourney to the top 32 teams

I've caught myself saying this as well, but it's really not a progressive idea, so as bad as some of these first round games are, I do not agree.

 

[chrissaran]

UConn tried to get into the ACC, but we all know football takes precedence. It's not their fault they're in the ACC. Also, they schedule the toughest non conference schedule every year. There's nothing more they can do.

 

[oldude]

For those that think that cutting the tournament to 32 teams is a good idea, tell it to the young ladies at FL Gulf Coast, Creighton, Central Michigan, Buffalo or Quinipiac, all of whom are celebrating upset wins tonight, and none of whom would have been in the tournament had it been limited to 32 teams.

 

[Bayareahusky]

Is UConn bad for WCBB?? I get a bit tired of hearing this question.....

I guess I would ask in what context do you mean to ask that question.... If the question is does it make watching some of their games less exciting ... I may tend to agree with the writer....

But I see UConn as being invaluable to WCBB in the sense that they bring everyone to a new level.... they set a higher bar.... that is why coaches want to sit in on UConn practices.... pick brains of coaching staff.... what are they doing that can be taught at my school..... The game is constantly evolving.... and if there are not trendsetters, who are on the crest of the wave... that is UConn and THAT is very very good for the game.....

And as far as "watchability" is concerned.... I cannot recall the last really exciting pro football game I saw....

 

[lne001]

For those that think that cutting the tournament to 32 teams is a good idea, tell it to the young ladies at FL Gulf Coast, Creighton, Central Michigan, Buffalo or Quinipiac, all of whom are celebrating upset wins tonight, and none of whom would have been in the tournament had it been limited to 32 teams.

And virtually all will be gone after their next game and will not be a factor.

I've caught myself saying this as well, but it's really not a progressive idea, so as bad as some of these first round games are, I do not agree.

So is it a 'progressive idea' to expand to 128 teams, and if not why not?

 

[cohenzone]

Is UConn bad for WCBB?? I get a bit tired of hearing this question.....

I guess I would ask in what context do you mean to ask that question.... If the question is does it make watching some of their games less exciting ... I may tend to agree with the writer....

But I see UConn as being invaluable to WCBB in the sense that they bring everyone to a new level.... they set a higher bar.... that is why coaches want to sit in on UConn practices.... pick brains of coaching staff.... what are they doing that can be taught at my school..... The game is constantly evolving.... and if there are not trendsetters, who are on the crest of the wave... that is UConn and THAT is very very good for the game.....

And as far as "watchability" is concerned.... I cannot recall the last really exciting pro football game I saw....

UConn is bad for the sport the way Tiger Woods was for golf at his best. They are great for the sport because they bring attention to the sport. A lot of people who pay attention to the women’s hoops are pretty interested in the success of or in the prospect of UConn losing. And because they appreciate how well coached UConn is. It’s almost impossible to compare major sports to women’s basketball in terms of fan interest because it’s still pretty much a niche sport. I think the niche would be smaller without UConn.

UConn can’t do anything about how good or bad the competition is, but I’d wager casual fans pay attention, at least at tournament time, to how UConn is doing and: just instinct, not so much to how say Baylor is doing, and that’s no knock on Baylor. On the Tiger Woods analogy, I think the casual fan was far less aware of how Phil Mickelson was doing than Tiger even though Phil is a great golfer.

I think most sports critics bring up UConn’s dominance just to fill space or air time and wouldn’t care less about the sport if UConn fell off the planet. To be fair, I wonder how interested in women’s hoops we would be if Geno hadn’t shown up at our door. I also think, sorry Tennessee fans, that it is the rise of UConn that spurred TV interest and has led to uncountable more little girls to play hoops then ever before.

 

[JoePgh]

Of course, they were playing against the bench from St. Francis. I should hope they would show something. My question is how would the UConn bench (sans Stevens) fare against the St. Francis starters. That would have been a much better 'contest'.

Your first sentence is factually incorrect. St. Francis was rotating its players hockey-style for the entire game — that is the only way they could possibly play at their tempo for 40 minutes.

But I was at the game and also watched the replay, and Jessica Kovatch (their star and the second-leading scorer in Division 1) was on the floor for at least 4 or 5 minutes in the 4th quarter. She only came out of the game for the last time at around the 2-minute mark. The UConn bench was playing against the same set of 10 or 12 SFU players as the starters played against in the first quarter. It is true that they were probably fresher than the SFU players because they had been sitting for most of the game, but they were not playing against “scrubs”.

 

[my2cents]

The idea that UConn ran up the score is 100% wrong.
In the 3rd qtr, UConn took off the press and walked the ball up the court.
The top 6 players played 15-29 (Nurse) minutes.
If Geno wanted to, UConn could have scored 170-180 pts.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

Of course, they were playing against the bench from St. Francis. I should hope they would show something. My question is how would the UConn bench (sans Stevens) fare against the St. Francis starters. That would have been a much better 'contest'.

Ine001- - -I was at the game and St. Francis HC, Joe Haigh, substituted freely but had 3 or 4 starters on the court most of the time except for the last minute or two! He stated in pregame that the only chance his team had to win the game was play their "normal style and hit a million 3's and hope they go in, so we shot a million 3's and didn't make them!
The Red Flash attempted 57 shots from behind the arc, making just 10 of them!
The UCONN bench players were playing against a higher opponent than the usual last off the bench level players they usually face!
IMHO the UCONN substitutes played as good a 4th period as they've played all year!
Eight SF better players played between 13 and 29 minutes, with 5 players over 23 minutes. 4 bench players played 2, 2, 3, & 5 minutes.
Megan Walker played 25 minutes
Azura Stevens 15
Kyla Irwin 15
Molly Bent 12
Batouly Camara 10
Alexis Gordon 10
If this wasn't the first game for UCONN in the Tournament and he needed to get his rested Huskies some game action his subs would have played about 5 minutes more per player!
Also IMHO St. Francis in their league and vs their usual competition is a good team but cannot compete with the elite teams in WCBB! They were over matched as #1 vs #64 should be!

 

[Blueballer]

It's nice that they came up with that original concept

 

[Blueballer]

BTW - USA Today is aware that we lost last year right?

 

[Sluconn Husky]

 

[lne001]

In the 3rd qtr, UConn took off the press and walked the ball up the court.
The top 6 players played 15-29 (Nurse) minutes.
If Geno wanted to, UConn could have scored 170-180 pts.

I thought UConn should have called off the press early in the 1st quarter. 4 of the starters played over 20 minutes. The fact that UConn could have won by 130 points is not a plus, it points to the absurdity of this game.

 

[lne001]

Your first sentence is factually incorrect. St. Francis was rotating its players hockey-style for the entire game — that is the only way they could possibly play at their tempo for 40 minutes.

Understood. I should have realized that fact given they use Paul Westhead's system. I stand corrected.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

I thought UConn should have called off the press early in the 1st quarter. 4 of the starters played over 20 minutes. The fact that UConn could have won by 130 points is not a plus, it points to the absurdity of this game.

The bench played half the game. I don't understand what you wanted them to do. Irwin, Bent, Camara, and co were supposed to play 30 minutes apiece?

 

[lne001]

The bench played half the game. I don't understand what you wanted them to do. Irwin, Bent, Camara, and co were supposed to play 30 minutes apiece?

Why not? They need the work and it's not like they will see a lot of time in the remaining games.

 

[Carnac]

Well, duh. It's one thing to win by an average of what? 36 points? and to view such wins as performance art. I do that, too, and I buy into that theory. I also buy into the concept that UConn has helped other teams improve their game, and that they nd their dominance are good for the sport.

But I guess I reluctantly agree that this game does the sport no good. Yes, it highlights the chasm between the top teams and the best of the bottom teams. Hell, they might as well play on different planets. But the trouble is, I don't know what anyone ca do about it. It's not as though St. Francis is going to seriously recruit, say, Napheesa Collier. It just ain't gonna happen.

The only consolation I can draw is that the lower level teams (despite this game, which I know, is an outlier because of St.Francis' style) seem better and more competitive than they used to be. Problem is that on a surface level, this game argues against it, for those sports fans (most of them) who do not look beyond the score and the headline.

Sigh.

Thanks for sharing USA Today's miserable attempt to pee in UConn's kool-aid. UConn takes the floor today and does exactly what Geno has coached and expects them to do, and outsiders try to chide them for it. Some folks are jealous of the success of a team (in any sport) that wins the majority of the time, i.e., the Patriots, The Warriors, etc. I'll bet they didn't have a problem when UConn lost to Mississippi State last year. After reading your comment, an old popular phrase came to mind: "The lion does not concern himself with the opinion of sheep". SMH.

 

[uconnfan68]

That’s a good stat. How many single digit margins were UConn games? Bama easily has more competitive games. The spread on a Bama championship game is going to be much closer than a UConn spread. A UConn spread will more than likely be 30 points in a championship game. Why? Because they win by that much! Shaughnesy was right when he wrote that article after UConn beat Miss St by 60 in a late tourney game.

You get that most basketball games produce more points than most football games?

 

[uconnfan68]

Why not? They need the work and it's not like they will see a lot of time in the remaining games.

They haven’t played in almost 2 weeks, thanks to absurd planning by the NCAA, and have another game on Monday. They all have an obligation to do their best, and also to be prepared for Monday. If watching them win pains you do much, just don’t bother watching, and save your opinions for things you care about.

 

[Shorty Dee]

I am so over the "Naysayers". There are 4 quarters in WCBB, so UConn can't play mediocre because of their opponent. I do not hear them complaining about other schools scoring over a certain number. Let them talk.....keep playing UConn ball.

 

[MSGRET]

Of course, they were playing against the bench from St. Francis. I should hope they would show something. My question is how would the UConn bench (sans Stevens) fare against the St. Francis starters. That would have been a much better 'contest'.

The "Bench" played the whole 4th Quarter and St. Francis had 3 of their starters play at least 6 minutes of the 4th Quarter. So I would say our "Bench" did good against their starters.

 

[MSGRET]

Maybe cut the tourney to the top 32 teams

They can't do that due to Title IX. If the men have a 64 team Tourney then the women must have one also. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a lawsuit against the NCAA because the men's now has play in games and the women do not.