Geno Advocating for Major Change...[merged thread]

[Biff]

I disagree with much of Geno's opinions here and I'm sure he doesn't care that I do.

Sure the game hasn't grown like he and others hoped it would. But I don't agree that making it more like the men's game is the answer. Head up. I don't think the Women's game will attract the same audience as the men's . A large part of the existing women's game fan base is there because it is a different game. Keep it that way and celebrate it.

I'm not sure that you increase the fanbase because your layup percentage increases. Players can't shoot? Work on grassroots programs to develop proper shooting technique early on. I also disagree on the half-court time line. To me that just will add more responsibility and error on the officials. Want more action in a shorter time? Just decrease the shot clock time.

I never take anything that Geno says literally. He runs at the mouth way too often to take his word as gospel. However this is one of those times he seems to show m4 he really doesn't understand a large part of his fan-base and why it is there.

But then again I've been wrong once or trice before.

 

[msf22b]

Not one of Geno's greatest hits. I could see a Saturday Nite Live skit on this one.

 

[Phil]

It made the Drudgereport

 

[jdubct]

I think lowering the rim would generally lessen the respect people would have for the game. I do think that using the larger ball would be a major benefit to women's basketball. Geno suggested this years ago and it went unheard. Maybe now this can be acted upon.

 

[dapriest]

1. Magical, with all due respect to you and Geno who I consider one of the best if not the best coaches in all of basketball,

2. there is absolutely NO WAY that Geno (a male) is or should be THE spokesperson for WCB. This is part of the problem with Women's athletics in general...they in large part are run by men...or pushed under the rug at many schools by men's athletic programs.

3. But just when they get a little momentum, the "good ol boy, male chauvinst pig crowd" makes a stand to protect their turf (see University of Tennessee situation).

4. For the record, I am a male.

1. It's impossible to know how Geno would do outside of women's CBB, just like it is impossible to know how any other coach would do anywhere other than his/her native turf. JC might have made a horrible NBA coach, or WCBB coach. GA may have made a great NBA coach or a horrible NBA coach. Isn't it completely possible that GA is simply really good at relating to young women who play basketball? And he is good at motivating them? But would not be so great if it was adult men?

2. This is about as sexist as you can get. Why does having a penis or vagina matter? Shouldn't love and care about the game of WCBB matter the most? Isn't this what the whole Title IX was meant to protect against? Discrimination based on gender? Geno has done more for WCBB than any other human being on the planet. And you'd suggest he should not be a spokesperson for WCBB because of his gender? Is it okay that he's white? Or should we be looking for a black female spokesperson.

3. Regarding Tennessee, they consolidated the two sports programs and a woman lost her job and suddenly it's the good old boys network? What do you know about that situation? About how well the woman did her job? About who took her place? Pat Summit says she stepped down voluntarily. This woman says Pat was forced out. Ergo, either Pat Summit or this woman is a liar, and this woman, through the filing of her complaint, has called Pat Summit a liar. This woman also said that, if the University had fired Pat Summit, it would have been a violation of the ADA. Because that makes sense to reasonable people. Right? When you lose your mind, you should be able to retain a job that requires a very sharp mind. Right?
And somebody like you comes flying out of the woodwork to impugn the UofT simply because somebody who got fired complained about getting fired. It is your sort of knee-jerk hysteria that allows Duke-Lacrosse type frivolous harassment suits to persist. Shame on you for concluding that discrimination was involved with absolutely no proof offered.

4. [mod edit][Mod - I hope this edit is okay - dapriest edit - well, you certainly have presented arguments that could have been made by somebody who is a radical female genderist, by which I mean somebody who would push for something that was beneficial to his or her gender regardless of whether it was right or wrong, or in itself discriminatory.]

 

[Icebear]

On the other hand we may not know but he has professional friends across MBB, college and pros, who think he would succeed at any level. Geno is much more humble about that than they are on his behalf.

 

[dapriest]

Regarding Geno's suggestion, I agree that he doesn't get it.

Lowering the rim would likely increase the % of baskets made per attempt. So what?

So the shooting percentages go up. Fewer lay ups are missed. So what?

The game fundamentally would not change.

I agree with previous posters who say that attempting to make the women's game more like the men's game is a mistake. I disagree, however, with the rationale.

If they could make the women's game more like the men's game, meaning great spin moves, lightning quick dribbling and change of directions, soaring dunks, monster alley-oops, above-the-rim play, and so on, then the result would undoubtedly be a substantial increase in popularity and $$ coming in. If you look at ESPN's top plays, they are generally dunks, great moves, athletic defensive plays, and so on. Clearly athletic plays are entertaining.

Therein lies the rub. Geno has pointed out the height difference between men and women, and then extrapolated that lowering the rims to account for that height difference would result in a game more like the men's game. Certainly there would be a few more dunks here and there, and that would help interest levels.

But Geno is not factoring in the large difference in athleticism between the two games. Women's vertical leap is about 12" less than mens between the sports, and there is a substantial difference in athleticism which affects how that leap can effectively be used. The result is that there really is more like a 19" difference in ability to get up to the rim between the two sports, and moving the rims 7" isn't going to have nearly as big an impact as the simple reference to height difference suggests.

Then, of course, there are practical considerations. Changing a volleyball net is a simple matter, and can be pretty much done on any net anywhere. For basketball, it's not so straightforward, and by forcing women to play on lower rims, you'd almost certainly be excluding women from using some rims that are currently available to them.

Finally, the women's game is years behind the men's game in terms of generating youth interest. When I was a kid, girl's basketball wasn't on the map back in grade school, junior high, high school. There were no role models. Give it some time.

In the end, bad idea Geno, but with good intentions.

 

[Phil]

Pat Summit says she stepped down voluntarily. This woman says Pat was forced out. Ergo, either Pat Summit or this woman is a liar, and this woman, through the filing of her complaint, has called Pat Summit a liar.

This is far too strong. It is conceivable, maybe even likely, that Hart talked to Pat about the future, and left strong hints that she should seriously consider retirement. It is virtually certain that Pat would discuss this with Jennings. It may well be that Jennings heard this as an attempt by Hart to push Pat into retirement. Pat may have gone off, decided it was time, and announced her decision. Pat could honestly convince herself that she made the decision on her own, Jennings could equally well conclude that Hart was making his position clear, and if Pat didn't make the decision, he was going to make it for her. Both could have a legitimate position, without one of them lying.

 

[dapriest]

This is far too strong. It is conceivable, maybe even likely, that Hart talked to Pat about the future, and left strong hints that she should seriously consider retirement. It is virtually certain that Pat would discuss this with Jennings. It may well be that Jennings heard this as an attempt by Hart to push Pat into retirement. Pat may have gone off, decided it was time, and announced her decision. Pat could honestly convince herself that she made the decision on her own, Jennings could equally well conclude that Hart was making his position clear, and if Pat didn't make the decision, he was going to make it for her. Both could have a legitimate position, without one of them lying.

Regarding your hypothetical. Absolutely not. This is the sort of intentional graying that allows liars to get away with lies.
It's really quite simple.
Pat Summit said, "I was not forced out."
Jennings, much later said, "Pat Summit was forced out."

Jennings made her statement well after Summit made hers.

Jennings is either lying or she's calling Pat Summit a liar. Worse yet, her implication is that Summit is lying to protect the discrimination that she claims was applied to her. In other words, she's implying that Pat Summit failed to uphold her solidarity to women, and instead bowed to the University.

It's frankly despicable that she would impugn Pat Summit like she did for her own potential monetary gain.

Pat Summit did more for the sport than anybody except Geno, and she should not be called a liar by a disgruntled colleague who is looking to make a buck.

There is one other possible interpretation of your hypothetical - that Pat Summit was forced out, but somehow rationalized that she was making her own call. I really hope that you are not suggesting that, because that is even more insulting to Pat Summit than calling her a liar who lied to protect the University; if you are suggesting that, what you are suggesting is that one of the strongest females to ever participate in sports was too weak and incompetent to come to grips with the fact that she was being force out. I have a very high regard for Pat Summit and I think it would be horribly insulting to suggest that about her.

 

[uconnfan68]

I think lowering the rim would generally lessen the respect people would have for the game. I do think that using the larger ball would be a major benefit to women's basketball. Geno suggested this years ago and it went unheard. Maybe now this can be acted upon.

Like that avatar.

 

[alexrgct]

Magical, with all due respect to you and Geno who I consider one of the best if not the best coaches in all of basketball, there is absolutely NO WAY that Geno (a male) is or should be THE spokesperson for WCB. This is part of the problem with Women's athletics in general...they in large part are run by men...or pushed under the rug at many schools by men's athletic programs.

Women need to take control of their sport(s) and make the changes to improve and evolve their games. However, props to Geno for getting the ball rolling. It's been a slow process but more and more women have been making their way into higher ranking administrative positions and coaching spots. But just when they get a little momentum, the "good ol boy, male chauvinst pig crowd" makes a stand to protect their turf (see University of Tennessee situation).

For the record, I am a male.

Huh?

The overwhelming percentage of the sports-watching public is male. Even with women's sports, a substantial percentage of the fanbase is male. That is the market share that will need to be captured for the sport to grow. Women becoming sports fans in general is on the rise, but that is a generational kind of change.

Moreover, it's not like women have the monopoly on good ideas. Geno knows more about WBB than anyone on the planet. He's the most recognizable face in WBB since Pat Summitt retired. He's the acting head coach of the national team, the head coach of the most successful WCBB program since 1994, and to go-to person anytime anyone in the media wants an insider's perspective of the sport. Who else matters? Does a casual fan care what Coach P thinks, or even what Kim Mulkey or Tara VanDeVeer think? No, they don't.

Geno knows more about the game of basketball and how women play it than anyone else. He entered the coaching ranks in WBB when it paid crap and men were looked upon with suspicion. He's not "the man" keeping women with bright ideas down. He's got more of himself invested in women's basketball than anyone. Moreover, when he has an opinion, he's not afraid to express it.

I'll be waiting for you to come back with an actual name of a specific woman who is more qualified and better equipped to be the spokesperson for the sport. Or I'll die of old age- whichever comes first is fine.

 

[wallman]

When I first saw this thread my poor eyesight opened it as I thought it said "Geno advocating for Mayor..."

 

[Phil]

Regarding your hypothetical. Absolutely not. This is the sort of intentional graying that allows liars to get away with lies.
It's really quite simple.
Pat Summit said, "I was not forced out."
Jennings, much later said, "Pat Summit was forced out."

Jennings made her statement well after Summit made hers.

Jennings is either lying or she's calling Pat Summit a liar. Worse yet, her implication is that Summit is lying to protect the discrimination that she claims was applied to her. In other words, she's implying that Pat Summit failed to uphold her solidarity to women, and instead bowed to the University.

It's frankly despicable that she would impugn Pat Summit like she did for her own potential monetary gain.

Pat Summit did more for the sport than anybody except Geno, and she should not be called a liar by a disgruntled colleague who is looking to make a buck.

There is one other possible interpretation of your hypothetical - that Pat Summit was forced out, but somehow rationalized that she was making her own call. I really hope that you are not suggesting that, because that is even more insulting to Pat Summit than calling her a liar who lied to protect the University; if you are suggesting that, what you are suggesting is that one of the strongest females to ever participate in sports was too weak and incompetent to come to grips with the fact that she was being force out. I have a very high regard for Pat Summit and I think it would be horribly insulting to suggest that about her.

No, it isn't that simple. First, lying is not simply the statement of a falsehood, it is the statement of a falsehood knowing it is false. You included two statements in quotes. If those are exact quotes, it is not proof that one is lying it is simply evidence that one or both are not exactly correct.

I don't agree that my hypothetical is insulting. Every single day people decide to leave a position, in cases where reading of the tea leaves suggests that if one doesn't jump, one will eventually be pushed. It isn't insulting to suggest Pat was smart enough to see which way the wind was blowing, rather, it would be insulting to say otherwise.

It is a troubling, and sad situation. I don't see why you need to claim things that aren't supported by evidence.

 

[John Glass]

They already have a smaller ball than the men so what's the big deal in lowering the rim a few inches? Geno makes some valid points. It should be tested on the aau circuit & see how it goes. What's the worse that could happen?




most gyms do not have baskets that can lower the rim

 

[easttexastrash]

I usually agree with most of what Geno says, but lowering the rim seems ridiculous. Women's basketball already has a respect issue and this would not help. Do we really think that women miss layups becasue they are not capable of getting the ball up to a 10 foot rim, as if they are so lacking in strength that they cannot muster enough power to get the ball up to 10 feet?

 

[TDiNozzo]

There are plenty of games where a team scores 100 and over... So 150 would be more fun to watch??

 

[JimGunther]

I'm waiting for that scene from Dallas where Bobby Ewing(?) wakes up and let's us know "it was only a dream". This has to be a "put on"

 

[dapriest]

It is a troubling, and sad situation. I don't see why you need to claim things that aren't supported by evidence.

Oh, quite on the contrary. What I wrote is supported by two public statements (I was not forced out. She was forced out). What you're saying is behind the scenes speculation (well, she could have meant this or that).

Why "I need to claim . . . " is that I'm interested in the truth.
More interesting to me is why "you need to claim . . . ." My guess is that you'd prefer neither woman to be a liar, so you look for ways to make that the case, even if unsupported.

I believe that you have gravely insulted Pat Summit when you say that "she read the tea leaves" and left, and then said publicly she wasn't forced out. What it would mean is that she was too weak to say in public, "I resigned because they made it clear it was my only choice if I didn't want to be fired."

And of course, if you believe that your boss coming to you and saying, "if you don't quit in 30 days I'm firing you," followed by your willful resignation, is NOT being "forced out," then what can I say to that?

 

[arty155]

When I first saw this thread my poor eyesight opened it as I thought it said "Geno advocating for Mayor..."

I ain’t genoflectn genufectin bowing for no Mayor! I won’t do it!

 

[Phil]

More interesting to me is why "you need to claim . . . ." My guess is that you'd prefer neither woman to be a liar, so you look for ways to make that the case, even if unsupported.

The "why" is because I take lying very seriously, and do not like to see it casually used, when there is no evidence supporting the claim. You have absolutely no proof that either woman uttered the statement, knowing it was false.

 

[meyers7]

I Do we really think that women miss layups becasue they are not capable of getting the ball up to a 10 foot rim, as if they are so lacking in strength that they cannot muster enough power to get the ball up to 10 feet?

The point is layups shouldn't be based on strength (except leg strength - and yes women have less leg strength than men). It's a layup. Unfortunately for many women it becomes a pushup (arm strength) due to the height. Then it does become a matter of strength (too much or too little). With a lower rim, many more women could perform an actual layup as opposed to a pushup as lots of them tend to do.

Maya had the leg strength (and height) to perform layups. Lots of women do not. They jump but have to push the ball the rest of the way up.

 

[easttexastrash]

I simply cannot get on board with lowering the rims. More people are not going to watch because more layups are made. I would rather see evolution of the female basketball player than lowering of the rim.

Brooklyn Pope misses more point blank shots than any player I've ever seen but it certainly isn't due to lack of strength.

 

[mr006]

They jump but have to push the ball the rest of the way up.

Don't they have to do this on *all* shots? In fact, on other shots, they of course have to not only push it up, but also toward the hoop - 10, 15, 20 or more feet away. There is a reason that the word "lay-up" is sometimes used similarly to the "batting practice fastball"; it's supposed to be relatively easy. Shouldn't be a lot of strength required to push it up maybe 4 feet at most, usually with a good running start.

 

[Icebear]

Don't they have to do this on *all* shots? In fact, on other shots, they of course have to not only push it up, but also toward the hoop - 10, 15, 20 or more feet away. There is a reason that the word "lay-up" is sometimes used similarly to the "batting practice fastball"; it's supposed to be relatively easy. Shouldn't be a lot of strength required to push it up maybe 4 feet at most, usually with a good running start.

Not really a matter of shot strength but more of an exercise of math, geometry and the distance the ball must travel after leaving the hand after release. Men releasing the ball on a lay up are much closer to the rim, often literally inches when not dunking. Women are often 4 to five times the distance far more often.

 

[Waquoit]

I don't agree with Geno about changing WBB to Biddy Basketball. If they players can't shoot well they should practice shooting more. How do you think Ray Allen and Larry Bird got to be such great shooters? Geno's said in the past that girls don't work on their games as much as boys.

 

[meyers7]

Don't they have to do this on *all* shots? In fact, on other shots, they of course have to not only push it up, but also toward the hoop - 10, 15, 20 or more feet away. There is a reason that the word "lay-up" is sometimes used similarly to the "batting practice fastball"; it's supposed to be relatively easy. Shouldn't be a lot of strength required to push it up maybe 4 feet at most, usually with a good running start.

Yes that's the point. It makes a layup like other shots instead of a layup. With a lower rim, some of them, more of them could actually do a layup instead of a pushup.

I'm not advocating for this change. Just stating the mechanics of it.

 

[Alydar]

Most of the missed layups are put back attempts. How many times did we see Tina take 3 shots to make a layup? If a 6' 4" post can't make them its more of "hands of stone" issue than a height issue. IMO most of the missed shots by guards are due to them being out of control on their drives. I'd say they need less practice on spins and other fancy moves and more time practicing shots.

 

[mr006]

I'd guess missing the layups are more a result of not focusing rather than not being able to physically do so. Perhaps being distracted by footsteps behind you, or waiting for the contact. If that's the case (and I've always believed it was), then not sure that lowering the rim is going to do anything. A larger ball? Maybe...

BTW, I'm considering layups as a drive of some length, with perhaps minimal opposition, not the put-backs under the hoop with arms flailing all about. I still don't think those need a lower rim either.

 

[mr006]

Not really a matter of shot strength but more of an exercise of math, geometry and the distance the ball must travel after leaving the hand after release. Men releasing the ball on a lay up are much closer to the rim, often literally inches when not dunking. Women are often 4 to five times the distance far more often.

True, it may be 4 or 5 times the distance but I don't think that's applicable when a matter of inches is involved. "Free throws" are supposed to be relatively easy payback for fouls, and what do they do? Shoot undefended - from 15 *feet* out. So if someone is right under the basket, 8 inches or 40 should not matter. Work on the mathematics and geometry then, I say. How are you gonna make "free throws" (let alone three pointers) if you cannot hit what is essentially a point-blank shot?

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I disagree with much of Geno's opinions here and I'm sure he doesn't care that I do.

Sure the game hasn't grown like he and others hoped it would. But I don't agree that making it more like the men's game is the answer. Head up. I don't think the Women's game will attract the same audience as the men's . A large part of the existing women's game fan base is there because it is a different game. Keep it that way and celebrate it.

I'm not sure that you increase the fanbase because your layup percentage increases. Players can't shoot? Work on grassroots programs to develop proper shooting technique early on. I also disagree on the half-court time line. To me that just will add more responsibility and error on the officials. Want more action in a shorter time? Just decrease the shot clock time.

I never take anything that Geno says literally. He runs at the mouth way too often to take his word as gospel. However this is one of those times he seems to show m4 he really doesn't understand a large part of his fan-base and why it is there.

But then again I've been wrong once or trice before.

Geno sounds like he is bored, waiting to get it on with the season. But I think he is spot on about where to hold events. Major cities/venues are just not into the womens' game. Rim??? No way. I am with you on that. It would denigrate the game just when women are demonstrating they have a big game. Clock...definitely.