Lin Dunn: UConn Bad for the Game

[maddoggy]

A dynasty is always good for the sport from a ratings/money point of view. The casual fan is always more interested when there's one team or player that dominates. They either root for them or against them but there's certainly more interest.

From the more serious fan point of view it's only generally more interesting if you're a fan of the dominating team/player.

So my basic premise is that whether it's good for the sport or not is in the eye of the beholder.

SW and others who have made similar points could well be right. But isn't it possible that the real ratings boost is an intense rivalry like UConn-UTenn in the olden days or UConn-ND in more recent times? Yeah, ESPN and print will talk up a streak as it gets close to 88, but that's once every three years at best. Rivalry games in the regular season and often the playoffs seem like a more consistent path to coverage and fan enthusiasm: everyone gets to pick a side AND have a reasonable expectation that their side could win.

 

[SWHuskyFan]

I agree with your point to a degree maddoggy. A rivalry is another reason why ratings might increase. I don't think that changes the general point on dynasties in sports. There are lots of reasons why the casual fan might watch a sport that they otherwise tend to ignore. A transcendent star might have a similar effect to a rivalry or a dynasty.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

so who's the heavyweight champion at the moment? i really don't know.

Exactly.

The Kliztko (so?) Brothers, but Vitali I is preparing a run at political office.

 

[maddoggy]

You are absolutely right, and I'm sorry I didn't say it better.

There are lots of reasons for fans to watch not only a transcendent star but also a transcendent team. We have only to look at the home attendance bump that UConn's opponents get every time the Huskies come to town.

 

[svetbird]

In fairness to her, she may be tired of losing WNBA championships to teams with UConn Alum. We should all send her some cheese to go with her whine.

She did Draft Sue first overall remember. To be honest I can kind of get what she is saying. I think it would be better for the game if their were more than one UConn (a team who can make the plays we can ) but not having any team that can play like this would only fuel the belief that women can not play with the skill men can.
What is "bad for the game" is that we don't get to renew our rivalry with ND during the regular season

 

[chrissaran]

Before the championship I remember watching Louisville as they were being introduced with all kinds of dance moves and handshakes. Then there was UConn, nothing fancy. They shook the Louisville players' hands and went about the business of playing the game and annihilated Louisville. It's mainly in the attitude. Many teams have skilled players, but only one team has the UConn coaching staff.

 

[UConnCat]

I actually thought of Lin Dunn last Sunday night watching Georgia Tech play Tennessee. I watched as Tennessee aggressively over-played on defense and wondered when Georgia Tech's coach, Machelle Joseph, was going to instruct her players to make the most basic basketball play: the backdoor cut. I wondered what Machelle Joseph learned from her former coach and mentor Lin Dunn.

The college game needs better coaches who need to be taught the game by their mentors. Maybe Lin Dunn could have done a better job of teaching the game.

 

[alexrgct]

Lin Dumb?

 

[John Glass]

I can't believe 6 people actually Liked this post. Talk about generalization! It's like saying all people of a certain age, ahem, are cranky curmudgeons. Certainly some are, but painting all with such a broad brush is just wrong. And this comes from someone who's constantly in our high school, as a robotics team mentor and now as a band parent.

Where did I say everyone ? Getting a trophy for participating , and guaranteed playing time is just wrong. It teaches kids they are entitled to things, and discourages hard work.

I was on a baseball team as an 11 year old, and didn't play one inning, or get an at bat all season. It was because the boy (catcher) ahead of me was better. I knew it, and worked hard to become a starter the next 3 seasons. Competition is good, it brings out the best in most people.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I'll stay out of the John Glass discussion, but I tend to agree to an extent, both with his premise and the fact that it is an over-generalization.

As to Lin Dunn, I don't think she was dissing UConn. I really think that there are benefits of a strong dynasty (for the casual sports fan and for the fans of the dynasty) and some negative aspects for fans (casual and fanatical) of other teams. Having never been in that position, you cannot understand how absolutely frustrating it is to know your team has to play UConn and has, by definition, a less than 50% chance of winning, and often less than 1% chance.

Now, the fault is not UConn's, it is everyone else's who have not stepped up, except that it is extraordinary difficult to step up, and teams that have succeeded on a short term basis (Baylor for example) can't sustain it. I think that, for a team to make themselves a consistent competitor with UConn, they would need to get a base of superior talent, and really, while first rate classes for a single year are out there, not many schools besides you guys can consistently recruit, year in and year out, at that level.

 

[HuskyNan]

Where did I say everyone ? Getting a trophy for participating , and guaranteed playing time is just wrong. It teaches kids they are entitled to things, and discourages hard work.

I was on a baseball team as an 11 year old, and didn't play one inning, or get an at bat all season. It was because the boy (catcher) ahead of me was better. I knew it, and worked hard to become a starter the next 3 seasons. Competition is good, it brings out the best in most people.

One of my beefs is people who think that things have to be done the same way they were a generation ago or they're wrong. Times change, people change.

The giving everyone a trophy thing isn't good for inspiring kids to try their hardest but it is good for getting some kids to try at all. You know, those shy, awkward kids that are terrified of joining a team, a club or whatever because they think they're not good enough. Well, maybe encouraging those kids might help them find abilities and strengths they didn't know they had.

As the parent of two teens, one now a freshman in college, I'm seeing more of a compromise between praising everyone equally and shutting kids out from activities. I live in a sports crazy town and everyone - EVERYONE - is encouraged to try out for something. The best performers get additional recognition; the bench players get included into the jocks' "inner circle" and everyone wins. I saw a stat that something like 65% of the high school students here are on some kind of team and many, many more are in organizations like marching band or competitive clubs (like the robotics club, math team, debate team, etc). Our town has high SAT scores, high student involvement in community service, and a ridiculously high rate of college bound seniors (95%, I think). Being included and involved is a good thing, and if you have to hand out a few trophies to all the kids at the elementary and middle school level, I'm fine with that.

 

[Phil]

I'll stay out of the John Glass discussion, but I tend to agree to an extent, both with his premise and the fact that it is an over-generalization.

As to Lin Dunn, I don't think she was dissing UConn. I really think that there are benefits of a strong dynasty (for the casual sports fan and for the fans of the dynasty) and some negative aspects for fans (casual and fanatical) of other teams. Having never been in that position, you cannot understand how absolutely frustrating it is to know your team has to play UConn and has, by definition, a less than 50% chance of winning, and often less than 1% chance.

Now, the fault is not UConn's, it is everyone else's who have not stepped up, except that it is extraordinary difficult to step up, and teams that have succeeded on a short term basis (Baylor for example) can't sustain it. I think that, for a team to make themselves a consistent competitor with UConn, they would need to get a base of superior talent, and really, while first rate classes for a single year are out there, not many schools besides you guys can consistently recruit, year in and year out, at that level.

Yeah, I think the criticism is a bit over-blown. While the wording was inartful, I thought her message wasn't "UConn bad" but "rest of NCAA bad" for not being able to compete better.

 

[Icebear]

The giving everyone a trophy thing isn't good for inspiring kids to try their hardest but it is good for getting some kids to try at all. You know, those shy, awkward kids that are terrified of joining a team, a club or whatever because they think they're not good enough. Well, maybe encouraging those kids might help them find abilities and strengths they didn't know they had.

Amen, Nan. There is nothing to indicate the two extremes are the only options. One needs to have a broader view and think outside the box. There are multiple things to be reinforced in every event. Participation is just one and athletic dominance is just another.

 

[UcMiami]

I'll stay out of the John Glass discussion, but I tend to agree to an extent, both with his premise and the fact that it is an over-generalization.

As to Lin Dunn, I don't think she was dissing UConn. I really think that there are benefits of a strong dynasty (for the casual sports fan and for the fans of the dynasty) and some negative aspects for fans (casual and fanatical) of other teams. Having never been in that position, you cannot understand how absolutely frustrating it is to know your team has to play UConn and has, by definition, a less than 50% chance of winning, and often less than 1% chance.

Now, the fault is not UConn's, it is everyone else's who have not stepped up, except that it is extraordinary difficult to step up, and teams that have succeeded on a short term basis (Baylor for example) can't sustain it. I think that, for a team to make themselves a consistent competitor with UConn, they would need to get a base of superior talent, and really, while first rate classes for a single year are out there, not many schools besides you guys can consistently recruit, year in and year out, at that level.

I think you hit on the biggest issue - sustaining excellence - Can Baylor remain in the top ten for the rest of the decade, can Delaware sustain the impetus provided by EDD, etc. There are a few teams that have done well consistently for a prolonged period and not just for a four year window with a superstar dropping in their lap. ND, Stanford, TN, Louisville come to mind as those types of teams, as does Marist at the mid-major level. It is tough because it requires recruiting and coaching and a little luck. But it also requires commitment and setting expectations and accepting nothing less and that is not as difficult.
And I think we can laugh about Villanova and dismiss DePaul as not in the top echelon, but I think both of those schools have shown commitment and expectations and coaching that is commendable - they will probably never attract the top recruits, but they get more out of the skill they do have than most coaches get with better skilled players. There probably isn't enough women's talent in HS to support 20 great teams, but there is enough right now to support 10.
Kim got a lot of publicity and coaching accolades because she got BG and no one else did, but the coach that has impressed me the most in that conference is Coale - she won the lottery with the Paris twins, but since then she has been consistently competitive with 'smoke and mirrors' - some really good players but I don't think top 5 HS talent, some really tough injuries, and good coaching.

 

[John Glass]

One of my beefs is people who think that things have to be done the same way they were a generation ago or they're wrong. Times change, people change.

The giving everyone a trophy thing isn't good for inspiring kids to try their hardest but it is good for getting some kids to try at all. You know, those shy, awkward kids that are terrified of joining a team, a club or whatever because they think they're not good enough. Well, maybe encouraging those kids might help them find abilities and strengths they didn't know they had.

As the parent of two teens, one now a freshman in college, I'm seeing more of a compromise between praising everyone equally and shutting kids out from activities. I live in a sports crazy town and everyone - EVERYONE - is encouraged to try out for something. The best performers get additional recognition; the bench players get included into the jocks' "inner circle" and everyone wins. I saw a stat that something like 65% of the high school students here are on some kind of team and many, many more are in organizations like marching band or competitive clubs (like the robotics club). Our town has high SAT scores, high student involvement in community service, and a ridiculously high rate of college bound seniors (95%, I think). Being included and involved is a good thing, and if you have to hand out a few trophies to all the kids at the elementary and middle school level, I'm fine with that.

My beef is being dishonest with the kids, and taking a Pollyanna approach . I have coached hundreds of kids at all levels, from the Bad News Bears, to D1 student athletes. I praise productive performances enthusiastically, and encourage kids that struggle. I never needed a trophy to motivate anyone.

" Times change, people change " for the better ? being on time, and discipline are frequently optional these days

 

[UcMiami]

One of my beefs is people who think that things have to be done the same way they were a generation ago or they're wrong. Times change, people change.

The giving everyone a trophy thing isn't good for inspiring kids to try their hardest but it is good for getting some kids to try at all. You know, those shy, awkward kids that are terrified of joining a team, a club or whatever because they think they're not good enough. Well, maybe encouraging those kids might help them find abilities and strengths they didn't know they had.

As the parent of two teens, one now a freshman in college, I'm seeing more of a compromise between praising everyone equally and shutting kids out from activities. I live in a sports crazy town and everyone - EVERYONE - is encouraged to try out for something. The best performers get additional recognition; the bench players get included into the jocks' "inner circle" and everyone wins. I saw a stat that something like 65% of the high school students here are on some kind of team and many, many more are in organizations like marching band or competitive clubs (like the robotics club). Our town has high SAT scores, high student involvement in community service, and a ridiculously high rate of college bound seniors (95%, I think). Being included and involved is a good thing, and if you have to hand out a few trophies to all the kids at the elementary and middle school level, I'm fine with that.

Nan - I agree to a certain degree but I think it goes too far in many cases, to the point of minimizing excellence and preventing failure. And rewarding poor effort and indifference. If a person doesn't experience failure how do they learn to value their success? I think failure is a necessary experience in growing up. If you do not challenge yourself or your children and do not allow the chance of failure, what is the reward of success. If we do not allow kids to excel because we want to include everyone in everything, we are short changing our society from producing excellence.
At Uconn - we don't expect Polido or Lawlor to start any games or to play in competitive games, but I bet their skill level will improve more over the next few years than if they were getting 20 minutes a game on a really bad team.
I don't think we want to crush any child's psyche but we have to find a way to do that without stunting other children's potential. If we surround the really skilled players with mediocrity then there is little reason for them to play because they will not be challenged to improve nor be surrounded by enough skill to succeed.

 

[HuskyNan]

Nan - I agree to a certain degree but I think it goes too far in many cases, to the point of minimizing excellence and preventing failure. And rewarding poor effort and indifference. If a person doesn't experience failure how do they learn to value their success? I think failure is a necessary experience in growing up. If you do not challenge yourself or your children and do not allow the chance of failure, what is the reward of success. If we do not allow kids to excel because we want to include everyone in everything, we are short changing our society from producing excellence.
At Uconn - we don't expect Polido or Lawlor to start any games or to play in competitive games, but I bet their skill level will improve more over the next few years than if they were getting 20 minutes a game on a really bad team.
I don't think we want to crush any child's psyche but we have to find a way to do that without stunting other children's potential. If we surround the really skilled players with mediocrity then there is little reason for them to play because they will not be challenged to improve nor be surrounded by enough skill to succeed.

I'm not talking about college aged or even high school aged students. I specifically mentioned elementary and middle school kids need encouragement and an incentive to try. For some, a trophy is an excellent incentive. When he was 6-7, my oldest son played soccer just to get the trophy and he turned out to be a pretty good defender so he played until he was 12 or so. He didn't stay with soccer but he now knows all the high school team players because he went through AAU (non-travel team) with them. He's part of their circle of friends and can hang out with the jocks as well as the nerds, all because he got a trophy as a 6 year old.

The kids that are spoiled or act like they deserve something regardless of effort didn't just learn that from soccer or basketball or football. If coaches are telling kids they're the best thing since sliced bread, this lesson needs to be reinforced at home and in the schoolroom for it to take root deeply. When you hear about playing time or starting for the team in women's basketball, it's almost always a parent making these demands rather than the kid. There's plenty of blame to go around for poor behavior so simply pegging it to an inclusionary attitude towards sports is lazy thinking.

 

[UcMiami]

I'm not talking about college aged or even high school aged students. I specifically mentioned elementary and middle school kids need encouragement and an incentive to try. For some, a trophy is an excellent incentive. When he was 6-7, my oldest son played soccer just to get the trophy and he turned out to be a pretty good defender so he played until he was 12 or so. He didn't stay with soccer but he now knows all the high school team players because he went through AAU (non-travel team) with them. He's part of their circle of friends and can hang out with the jocks as well as the nerds, all because he got a trophy as a 6 year old.

The kids that are spoiled or act like they deserve something regardless of effort didn't just learn that from soccer or basketball or football. If coaches are telling kids they're the best thing since sliced bread, this lesson needs to be reinforced at home and in the schoolroom for it to take root deeply. When you hear about playing time or starting for the team in women's basketball, it's almost always a parent making these demands rather than the kid. There's plenty of blame to go around for poor behavior so simply pegging it to an inclusionary attitude towards sports is lazy thinking.

Thanks Nan - appreciate the explanation. I am not completely convinced, but have a better perspective.

 

[David 76]

I love the program and Auriemma is the best. But 8 titles in 18 years means there is some parity at the top. The problem lies in that beyond the top 5 or 6 programs, there is not a lot of institutional strength.

 

[cardfan]

I don't remember hearing this crap when TENN was winning all the time. By the way was the same thing said about Wooden's teams?

I did.

 

[cardfan]

I'll stay out of the John Glass discussion, but I tend to agree to an extent, both with his premise and the fact that it is an over-generalization.

As to Lin Dunn, I don't think she was dissing UConn. I really think that there are benefits of a strong dynasty (for the casual sports fan and for the fans of the dynasty) and some negative aspects for fans (casual and fanatical) of other teams. Having never been in that position, you cannot understand how absolutely frustrating it is to know your team has to play UConn and has, by definition, a less than 50% chance of winning, and often less than 1% chance.

Now, the fault is not UConn's, it is everyone else's who have not stepped up, except that it is extraordinary difficult to step up, and teams that have succeeded on a short term basis (Baylor for example) can't sustain it. I think that, for a team to make themselves a consistent competitor with UConn, they would need to get a base of superior talent, and really, while first rate classes for a single year are out there, not many schools besides you guys can consistently recruit, year in and year out, at that level.

Lin could have easily made the same point about a top 5 team vs. an unranked team, or any ranked team ranked vs UConn. There simply are not enough top women bball players spread around for any parity.

Women's college soccer and vball have experienced the same thing, the top teams just reload, with a rare year when a power team wins. UConn has riches of talented players beyond any team this year and probably the next 2-3 years. As a fan of the game, and someone who played and coached, I am BORED to death with the game now. I love watching good bball, and I love and support what Stanford has accomplished over the years, but my interest in the game is at an all time low.

 

[doggydaddy]

Lin could have easily made the same point about a top 5 team vs. an unranked team, or any ranked team ranked vs UConn. There simply are not enough top women bball players spread around for any parity.

Women's college soccer and vball have experienced the same thing, the top teams just reload, with a rare year when a power team wins. UConn has riches of talented players beyond any team this year and probably the next 2-3 years. As a fan of the game, and someone who played and coached, I am BORED to death with the game now. I love watching good bball, and I love and support what Stanford has accomplished over the years, but my interest in the game is at an all low.

After watching that horrible display of basketball in Texas, I don't blame you for losing interest.

 

[semper]

If you had an autistic child who never ever could win anything no matter how hard he tried, you might feel differently. At least once in their life at school kids need something...so matter how small, and to feel a moment of joyful recognition for who and what they are. This doesn't detract from the beautiful, the skilled, and the brilliant.

 

[cardfan]

After watching that horrible display of basketball in Texas, I don't blame you for losing interest.

I didn't watch the game yet as I have a lot going on right now, but I read about it. Beyond your sarcastic reply, my post wasn't about Stanford, but about the lack of parity in the game. Stanford is very, very young, has a lot of injuries, lost a pg for good, and has one AA player. I'm not sure what you expect to see this early in the season, but I don't care what you think.

Texas will be good, just not this year.

 

[doggydaddy]

I didn't watch the game yet as I have a lot going on right now, but I read about it. Beyond your sarcastic reply, my post wasn't about Stanford, but about the lack of parity in the game. Stanford is very, very young, has a lot of injuries, lost a pg for good, and has one AA player. I'm not sure what you expect to see this early in the season, but I don't care what you think.

Texas will be good, just not this year.

You cared enough to reply.

"After watching that horrible display of basketball in Texas, I don't blame you for losing interest."

No sarcasm there. Just facts about the game.

Stanford shot 32.3%, 26.1% on 3's and 15-25 on FT's.
Texas shot 26.2%, 25% on 3's and 18-24 on FT's.
49 FT's taken. 45 personal fouls.

A horrible display of basketball. I didn't know you didn't see it. If you are bored to death with the game now I would suggest you don't watch the game.

Young is relative. Stanford starts 2 seniors and a junior every game with a junior and a senior in the regular rotation off the bench. Along with at this time two freshman starters and two freshman off the bench. Lots of youth but plenty of experience.

They certainly are hurting with injuries, but I think the Kokenis excuse has reached it's statute of limitations.

One AA? I'd like to introduce you to Taurasi's junior season.