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

[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!

 

[Blue Huskie]

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

 

[Blue Huskie]

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.

 

[Alydar]

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.

The NCAA could play two 32 team tournaments. But that is the politics of the NCAA. The problem is the automatic bids that let in teams from programs that have no business playing elite D1 teams. St F was seeded as the 64th team but in reality they were probably about the 125th. What surprises me is why the media hasn't asked the NCAA to comment on this issue because it's their tournament.

The writer who wants competitive games should watch the 1st half of Tenn's 1st game and then tell me which was more entertaining. I thoroughly enjoyed that first half.

 

[CL82]

Maybe cut the tourney to the top 32 teams

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.

If you define the “problem“ as blow out games, then this is absolutely the way to fix it. Personally I am willing to accept the fact that there will be some blowouts in order to give teams who would not otherwise make the tournament a chance to compete and advance.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

The answer is that young girls need to be empowered to excel in sports in the same manner as young boys. The reason there's such a chasm is that the difference between a top 10 recruit and a 90-100 recruit in WBB is probably 2 or 3 times as large as in MBB because there isn't much depth of talent. If the same number of 7 year old girls played basketball as 7 year old boys and the quality of youth coach was identical, we wouldn't have such a large differential.

 

[CMC'72]

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.

Especially the St. Francis women, who lived their dream coming to the altar known as UCONN to play, no matter the score! They said they would remember this game for the rest of their lives! (See St. Francis players' PRE-game presser).

This isn't about sports writers. This is about growing and enjoying dreams.

 

[CMC'72]

Loved Jeff Waltz, always will.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

Renewed talk of UConn being "too dominant" is the epitome of concern trolling

 

[oldude]

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

Not sure what your point is. In a 64 team tournament, 48 teams “all will be gone” after the 2nd round. That’s the same for the men as it is for the women.

 

[OldAlum]

And once again people who do not follow or really care about WCBB are writing about UConn "ruining" the sport.

As far as the first round mismatches: I wonder if the NCAA would consider using "play-in" games. The lowest seeded teams would play each other (on home court of higher seeded team). Winners would then move on to the rest of the tourney. Maybe they could even play earlier, in that off week. With 13 playing 16 and 14 playing 15, you should get some competitive games. I think you will still get some blowouts when the winner meets the top seeds, but there is only so much you can do!
I haven't looked at the math of figuring out how it would all work but maybe it could help.

 

[oldude]

UConn is bad for the sport the way Tiger Woods was for golf at his best.

Why we’re at it we should mention a few others who were bad for their particular discipline:

Fred Astaire was bad for dancing
Pavorotti was bad for singing
Einstein was bad for Quantum Physics
etc. etc.

 

[HuskyNan]

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.

I’m not sure that interpretation is correct. Title IX says that schools accepting govt funds need to spend equally on boys and girls. It’s not a sports law, it’s an equality in education law. There is nothing about tournament games or basketball specifically in Title IX