Parity Anyone?

[RockyMTblue2]

New Mexico within 3 of Stanford ... er Stanford down 3. Quinnepiac up 13 at the half. All across the early games we have seen some pretty tough match ups despite wide seeding disparities. I love it. It demonstrates what a number of pundits have been saying about the maturation of WCBB. Just gotta say again: I love it.

 

[nwhoopfan]

yep

 

[JordyG]

New Mexico within 3 of Stanford ... er Stanford down 3. Quinnepiac up 13 at the half. All across the early games we have seen some pretty tough match ups despite wide seeding disparities. I love it. It demonstrates what a number of pundits have been saying about the maturation of WCBB. Just gotta say again: I love it.

It's one of Jay Bilas' conceits that what is truly amazing about UConn's continued dominance is how it persists even while WCBB continues to get better. Kara Lawson said during the same round table discussion that UConn continues to exceed expectations and they are the expectation, which is also amazing.

 

[Nuyoika]

People in WCBB only like parity when it doesn't happen to their team..... They only want parity for UConn and for them parity just means for UConn to lose 1 game and preferably to them. It's quite odd.

 

[JordyG]

So right. People and the media talk about parity but they really only like it when the number of teams are increased in their sports respective playoffs. Then after a few years the same people complain about the watered down quality in their sport.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

New Mexico within 3 of Stanford ... er Stanford down 3. Quinnepiac up 13 at the half. All across the early games we have seen some pretty tough match ups despite wide seeding disparities. I love it. It demonstrates what a number of pundits have been saying about the maturation of WCBB. Just gotta say again: I love it.

So much for the meme that UConn wins because there is a "lack of parity" in women's basketball.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Quinnepiac ... yes. Stoked!

 

[MilliniumPrince]

Parity is an illusion. Since 1990 15 different programs have won the Men's NCAA Title, but Uconn, Duke, Carolina, and Kentucky account for at least 15 of those wins. Over the same duration 10 different programs have won the Women's Title. All things being equal, that isn't nearly as large as difference as the naysayers would have you believe.

 

[UcMiami]

Parity is an illusion. Since 1990 15 different programs have won the Men's NCAA Title, but Uconn, Duke, Carolina, and Kentucky account for at least 15 of those wins. Over the same duration 10 different programs have won the Women's Title. All things being equal, that isn't nearly as large as difference as the naysayers would have you believe.

And men don't get back to back winners because when they do win their whole team immediately declares themselves draft eligible, if they don't win most come back for one more year!

 

[tomcat]

Parity is an illusion. Since 1990 15 different programs have won the Men's NCAA Title, but Uconn, Duke, Carolina, and Kentucky account for at least 15 of those wins. Over the same duration 10 different programs have won the Women's Title. All things being equal, that isn't nearly as large as difference as the naysayers would have you believe.

Could not disagree more. Yes, there is a top group -- sometimes it's five, sometimes eight, with UConn generally at the top. But we are seeing teams like Quinnipiac beat teams they aren't supposed to. We see FGCU, a good team in a weak conference, take Miami to the wire (and if the refs had not screwed them, they would have won). New Mexico State, for cryin' out loud, held Stanford to a victory of less than 10 points.

Yesterday, Elon loses by only 7 against a much higher-ranked team. And Belmont, of all teams, loses by only three against Kentucky. My point: These kinds of things, which are happening regularly now, almost never used to happen at all.

In other words, the women's ability to upset is increasingly looking like the men's. And that, IMHO, is a move toward parity. Complete parity will come later, when a superstar chooses Washington, say, instead of UConn or SC or TN, and takes a couple of 4-Star players with her. That's when a team like Washington wins it all and establishes a tradition of landing and developing fine players. I'm guessing that happens within 4-5 years.

 

[CTyankee]

It's getting there... Glad to see the mid-majors getting some play... It's a sad day to see so many SEC and ACC teams get bids as reflected in another thread...

 

[triaddukefan]

It's getting there... Glad to see the mid-majors getting some play... It's a sad day to see so many SEC and ACC teams get bids as reflected in another thread...

I disagree on the ACC part. You guys cant convince me that the ACC got more bids than they deserved. The SEC on the other hand........

Your post deserves a double dislike if I could

 

[CTyankee]

Keep your emotions under control... I recognize that the ACC has 7 teams, but 4 of them are old Big East, a non Power 5 association... Their programs were developed there not in the ACC.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

Could not disagree more. Yes, there is a top group -- sometimes it's five, sometimes eight, with UConn generally at the top. But we are seeing teams like Quinnipiac beat teams they aren't supposed to. We see FGCU, a good team in a weak conference, take Miami to the wire (and if the refs had not screwed them, they would have won). New Mexico State, for cryin' out loud, held Stanford to a victory of less than 10 points.

Yesterday, Elon loses by only 7 against a much higher-ranked team. And Belmont, of all teams, loses by only three against Kentucky. My point: These kinds of things, which are happening regularly now, almost never used to happen at all.

In other words, the women's ability to upset is increasingly looking like the men's. And that, IMHO, is a move toward parity. Complete parity will come later, when a superstar chooses Washington, say, instead of UConn or SC or TN, and takes a couple of 4-Star players with her. That's when a team like Washington wins it all and establishes a tradition of landing and developing fine players. I'm guessing that happens within 4-5 years.

My point is the difference in parity between the Women's and Men's game isn't nearly as large as many say. You seem to agree.

 

[DefenseBB]

Quinnepiac ... yes. Stoked!

No, you're pronouncing it wrong as I was informed - Quina-PEE-ack!

 

[DefenseBB]

My point is the difference in parity between the Women's and Men's game isn't nearly as large as many say. You seem to agree.

I do think there is big difference in tiers of teams talent levels. For the women, really how many any one year can win the NCAA title? 5? Just look at the polls from the 1st week of the year until the end. How much variance happens at the top? Now compare that to the Men's programs: you have 15 programs that start the year that have a shot. Look at the 1st poll and the last poll, some serious shake up. Is the middle getting stronger in WCBB, sure I would agree. There are more programs that can contend occasionally with the 2nd tier of the Major conferences. Not the top tier. Baylor, ND, SC, MD and UConn are the blue bloods to alsways assess as potential champs. Louisville, Duke, OSU, Oregon are all trying to make that top tier. MSU, Stanford, Tenn are trying to keep from slipping down to the 3rd tier. I say MSU in that I need to see more of a higher peak or a sustained "near top" success to claim them a program. Tara hasn't been a threat to the title in a while though her teams are usually competitive. Still this year, she is in the 8-14 range. And Tenn, well we all know that story. You would have to use a larger list for the men.

 

[tomcat]

My point is the difference in parity between the Women's and Men's game isn't nearly as large as many say. You seem to agree.

Yup. Missed your point, and I do agree.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I do think there is big difference in tiers of teams talent levels. For the women, really how many any one year can win the NCAA title? 5? Just look at the polls from the 1st week of the year until the end. How much variance happens at the top? Now compare that to the Men's programs: you have 15 programs that start the year that have a shot. Look at the 1st poll and the last poll, some serious shake up. Is the middle getting stronger in WCBB, sure I would agree. There are more programs that can contend occasionally with the 2nd tier of the Major conferences. Not the top tier. Baylor, ND, SC, MD and UConn are the blue bloods to alsways assess as potential champs. Louisville, Duke, OSU, Oregon are all trying to make that top tier. MSU, Stanford, Tenn are trying to keep from slipping down to the 3rd tier. I say MSU in that I need to see more of a higher peak or a sustained "near top" success to claim them a program. Tara hasn't been a threat to the title in a while though her teams are usually competitive. Still this year, she is in the 8-14 range. And Tenn, well we all know that story. You would have to use a larger list for the men.

Everyone says that........the list of potential winners is larger. That is reasonable speculation. However, that fact is a handful and of half programs dominate the Men's Game. Go check the list over the past 25 years. You will find a lot of repetition on that list.

And that is my point. People seem to think there is parity in the Men's game, but that simply isn't true in reality. It is an illusion.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Could not disagree more. Yes, there is a top group -- sometimes it's five, sometimes eight, with UConn generally at the top. But we are seeing teams like Quinnipiac beat teams they aren't supposed to. We see FGCU, a good team in a weak conference, take Miami to the wire (and if the refs had not screwed them, they would have won). New Mexico State, for cryin' out loud, held Stanford to a victory of less than 10 points.

Yesterday, Elon loses by only 7 against a much higher-ranked team. And Belmont, of all teams, loses by only three against Kentucky. My point: These kinds of things, which are happening regularly now, almost never used to happen at all.

In other words, the women's ability to upset is increasingly looking like the men's. And that, IMHO, is a move toward parity. Complete parity will come later, when a superstar chooses Washington, say, instead of UConn or SC or TN, and takes a couple of 4-Star players with her. That's when a team like Washington wins it all and establishes a tradition of landing and developing fine players. I'm guessing that happens within 4-5 years.

What about Oregon? Ionescu fits the superstar criteria and some other young talent around her there.

 

[JellyBean]

Yes indeed.

 

[triaddukefan]

Keep your emotions under control... I recognize that the ACC has 7 teams, but 4 of them are old Big East, a non Power 5 association... Their programs were developed there not in the ACC.

And where did those old Big East teams come from? Besides Syracuse.

 

[tomcat]

What about Oregon? Ionescu fits the superstar criteria and some other young talent around her there.

I had Oregon in the back of my mind. Ionescu is a start, for sure. For all we know, she could be Oregoin's Lobo. But we'll have to see what happens with next year's class. Is she enough of a draw to cause others to join her? It takes more than one year and one superstar to do the job.