"Style of Play": WNBA vs. UConn

[JoePgh]

OK, for the first time in months, finally there was a discussion on another thread that really motivated me to comment. It wasn't exactly the topic of the other thread, so I decided to start this one.

It's confounding to me (but not surprising, based on reactions I've heard from other UConn WBB fans) that someone who is as interested in top-caliber women's basketball as Icebear could say that he "simply does not enjoy" the WNBA game. Ice, can you be a little more specific about why it leaves you cold? (No pun intended.)

I think I can guess, to some degree. Most people who like WCBB but not the WNBA (in my experience) say either or both of the following things:

1. "The pro players don't play with the urgency or selfless commitment of the college kids. For them it's just a job, and it shows on the court."

2. "The pro game is all about 1-on-1 play. It doesn't have the teamwork or the passing intricacy of the college game, especially at UConn. It's built around individual stars showing off."

I don't think either of these points is valid, and I base that statement on my direct observation as a multi-year Connecticut Sun season ticket holder. Regarding #1, I see pro players playing with as much urgency, and much greater skill, than top-level college players. Did you see Taj, 6-2 and 41 years old, score in the low post on Sunday? Did you ever see Tina take and hit a quarter as many jump shots in college as she does for the Sun? And speaking of commitment, before her senior year, did you ever see her play at UConn with the consistency and commitment that she has given to the Sun?

I will acknowledge that most WNBA players play nearly 12 months a year and have to take care of their bodies, so they have to be judicious about playing all-out when it isn't necessary or likely to be productive. Did you work as many hours at your job in your 30's as you did in your mid-20's? (Probably not, but because of your experience, you probably did your job better in your 30's.) Good coaches prevent excessive wear on starters by limiting their minutes to 25-30 per game, so that they don't completely wear themselves out before the playoffs. And WNBA benches are good enough to make that possible (unlike in college, typically).

Regarding #2, it's true that there is more 1-on-1 play in the WNBA than (say) at UConn. Some of that is a necessary consequence of the 24-second shot clock. The extra 6 seconds in college definitely allows for a lot of passing and probing of the defense that isn't possible in the WNBA. And pro defenses are less likely to break down under pressure as many college defenses do, even in top programs. Having said that, if you look at Sun box scores, you will see that about 2/3 of field goals are assisted, which is about the same as UConn's average. The night that Tina had 7 assists (originally thought to be 10), some of them were amazing. The interior passing by most teams in the paint is something that any UConn team would be proud of, on most nights.

Even if there is some validity in either or both of these arguments, they are offset in my mind by undeniable arguments in favor of WNBA basketball: (a) the talent level is sooooo much better; and (b) the vast majority of games are extremely competitive and not decided until the final minutes.

UConn is fun to watch because they play an entertaining style and almost always win. But over half the games are not even remotely competitive, which offsets the enjoyment significantly (at least for me). The Sun are frustrating because they never win quite enough, but the quality of the athletes and the closeness of the games makes up for it (again, obviously, speaking personally).

Are there other reasons why some UConn fans don't get interested in the Sun or the WNBA?

 

[Scotter]

I have a similar hard time understanding why people don't like the WNBA if they are someone that is a true WCBB fan and not just a UConn fan, and they have watched enough WNBA basketball in recent years to actually make that determination from watching game.

If people don't like to watch the WNBA because there is too much 1 on 1 play or the games are too physical I would be interested in knowing which WCBB teams besides UConn they like to watch. Understanding what people actually like is probably as important to this dialogue as it is for them to articulate what they don't like about the WNBA.

 

[ThisJustIn]

Imagine how much physical and/or one-on-one team there would be if the NCAA simply consisted of the Elite Eight's playing each other?

I accept people say they don't like or watch the WNBA. I just don't really understand their reasoning.

 

[VAUConnFan]

I agree with the previous comments and was compelled to start a similar thread but could not find the wording that would adequately start a discussion as opposed to sounding critical of those who seem to only appreciate UConn WBB. UConn is able to play its "beautiful" game of basketball because they are executing against severely overmatched opponents. The closer the games become, the more evenly matched the talent level, the more intensely some teams are willing to play defense, the uglier the games tend to get; Resulting in rousing choruses of howling and complaints in the Boneyard. In the WNBA, the teams and players are much more evenly matched, so the strategy has to be different. The pros work very hard on creating and exploiting mismatches, while keeping the floor spaced. And because of repetitious familiarity, execution becomes even more difficult.

 

[Dairyair]

For me, I didn't have a lot of interest in the WNBA until the onslaught of UConn alums came on board. Back in the day, it was novel to get to see Rebecca, Jen or Nykeesha at the next level, but it was hard to find them on TV. Nowadays, especially with online games, there is always a game to watch, and usually at least one of them feature a UConn alum or two. It's also interesting to see how your feelings change towards players. When she was at Tenn, Kara Lawson was "the enemy" but now is one of my favorites on the Sun, along with our girls and Tan White.
Another factor: I am a Giants fan--both baseball and basketball. If they are playing, I like to watch them, but I seldom watch games involving other teams. Not sure if this makes me a bad fan or not. I'm more a fan of the teams than of the sports, I guess. I know when I started watching UConn back in the mid-1990s, I'd only watch them...now, especially with different sports channels, I watch (and enjoy) lots of other WCBB games.

 

[Icebear]

Geno said it pretty well in the other thread although I have said here many times before. WNBA ball lacks the beauty of excellent picks, well executed cuts, crisp passes and solid team play. It is Geno/Wooden's vision of the game I love. I watch very little WCBB outside of UConn or PSU because to me much of it is unbearably ugly.

"Geno himself said the other night that the game used to be about cutting and teamwork and now it's more people beating the crap out of each other, or something to that extent."

Add on Tuesday morning: Please remember that I have not suggested that anyone else should not enjoy the WNBA. I simply don't. It is what it is. Sadly, in recent years I even see the women's college game sliding more into the type of physical play that I do not enjoy and find boring. It's the same reason I care less for the NBA and most all men's college ball outside of cheering for UConn. I loved Pete Carroll's teams and the heyday of UCLA, too.

 

[VAUConnFan]

Geno said it pretty well in the other thread although I have said here many times before. WNBA ball lacks the beauty of excellent picks, well executed cuts, crisp passes and solid team play. It is Geno/Wooden's vision of the game I love. I watch very little WCBB outside of UConn or PSU because to me much of it is unbearably ugly.

"Geno himself said the other night that the game used to be about cutting and teamwork and now it's more people beating the crap out of each other, or something to that extent."

My present view of the WNBA is quite a bit different from the one held prior to attending the Mystics/Lynx gme on 8/18. Everything you claim the game lacks was on full display. The pros defend the picks much better, and are much, much more physical in the post. They play a beautiful game with very little wasted effort. What we might perceive as a lack of effort or intensity is merely the efficiency of seasoned pros.

My feeling is that if you attended a game and watched from courtside, you would appreciate how hard these young ladies wor, and how hard they have to work just to get a shot off in 24 seconds.

 

[tomcat]

I feel the same way -- love women's college basketball, have no interest in WNBA. Folks above have suggested lots of good reasons. For myself, I agree with most of them, but also believe that the WNBA is the creation of the NBA, so the expectations of the creators is that the women would play up to what are the standards of the men's game. If most of 'em cannot dunk, well, they'll still play the one-on-one game that is the hallmark of NBA. The WNBA game is accelerated, and a premium is placed on athleticism.

If you like the NBA game -- and I don't at all -- you've got a shot at liking the WNBA. My take on this is the expectations of the WNBA and its creators is that the women are to be treated like men with breasts. Many of the things I like in the women's game are largely absent from the WNBA game. Can it be exciting? Sure. Can there be great teamwork? Yep, especially when the players revert to their college-trained instincts. But I just cannot warm up to it.

Let's put it this way: A lot of us women's college bball fans believe the cliche: Men's college basketball is played above the rim, while women's college basketball is played above the shoulders. The WNBA, it seems to me, is played by people who wish they could play above the rim, and forget about the shoulders altogther.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

While I prefer college ball, I can appreciate the WNBA. At a Rutgers fan club meeting a few years ago I asked Patty Coyle, then the HC of the New York Liberty, what the biggest difference was between college and the pro's as it affected coaching. Her answer was the quality of the players. She maintained that few college teams have more than one (or maybe 2) really good players - in the pro's, all the players can execute at that high level. And this definitely impacts what happens on the floor, as mentioned by a poster above. It is this factor that creates the premium on players who can create one on one, while few fans appreciate the work that goes into setting them up to execute that way.

Unfortunately, it is and always has been my opinion that the poster who referred to UConn's play being attractive because they overmatch their opponent has some truth - as ugly as Rutgers can play, when RU is way, way better than the competition even Rutgers looks "pretty" on the court. Which comes back to my main point, that the talent gap that permits the game to be "pretty" isn't there in the pro's.

 

[Icebear]

While I prefer college ball, I can appreciate the WNBA. At a Rutgers fan club meeting a few years ago I asked Patty Coyle, then the HC of the New York Liberty, what the biggest difference was between college and the pro's as it affected coaching. Her answer was the quality of the players. She maintained that few college teams have more than one (or maybe 2) really good players - in the pro's, all the players can execute at that high level. And this definitely impacts what happens on the floor, as mentioned by a poster above. It is this factor that creates the premium on players who can create one on one, while few fans appreciate the work that goes into setting them up to execute that way.

Unfortunately, it is and always has been my opinion that the poster who referred to UConn's play being attractive because they overmatch their opponent has some truth - as ugly as Rutgers can play, when RU is way, way better than the competition even Rutgers looks "pretty" on the court. Which comes back to my main point, that the talent gap that permits the game to be "pretty" isn't there in the pro's.

Let's not confuse respect and enjoy. I fully respect the incredibly hard work that these young women put into their game but that is not what draws me to enjoy the game. I have little interest in paying to attend or watching what I don't enjoy. The issue is closer to what Patty Coyle is getting at but has less to do with the increased athleticism than the way in which the rules are applied to the game and the resulting physical style of play I find poorly officiated, frequently arbitrarily called and boring. Increased athleticism can result in a faster and more wide open game, too, sometimes it in fact does. It is not what I see in most of the WNBA play that I see on occasion. Again that is just me and apparently some others who agree.

 

[Icebear]

Tomcat is very much on the same wave length.

 

[Icebear]

Joe's first in the OP is something I have never suggested so I can't address it.

As to the second I agree with the 24 second clock possibly being part of the problem but the 10 second line at mid court somewhat offsets that. More important to compare would be the effective time on the clock when an offensive set is started since many college teams take a lot of time to bring the ball into the forecourt. Personally, I would prefer a 28 second clock if the 24 second clock is the problem. Either way IF the short clock leads to increased one on one play then it is part of the problem and not an asset. The counter point I would suggest is that the short clock did not lead to one on one play in the NBA when introduced in the 1950s. The Celtics played great team basketball under the leadership of Cousy. Having a strong point guard is essential to great team basketball. Numerous teams have played great passing based and tactician basketball over the years. They often succeed despite a talent deficit like Pete Carroll's best teams at Princeton. Remember there is no magic in the 24 second clock it was simply the result of 48 minutes of game time divided by 120 possessions which the NBA Syracuse coach though was the number of possessions per game as a goal then divided out to come to 24 seconds.

Geno's coaching of the Team USA has already brought out a more interesting style of play among the very same players playing in the WNBA. It is somewhere between college ball and the WNBA in terms of physical play and certainly has all the talent one could want. I would suggest the parallel is the NHL vs Olympic hockey. It is the rules and application of the rules that makes a huge difference to me. I love Olympic hockey and find NHL games and the constant interruptions for fights which could be stopped overnight completely uncompelling.

All the talent in the world doesn't make up for something if it is something you don't enjoy watching what is being done. Freestyle rock climbers are some of the most amazing athletes in the world but I have little interest a weekly competition among climbers even if they are on a razor's edge between life and death.

 

[DaddyChoc]

While I prefer college ball, I can appreciate the WNBA. At a Rutgers fan club meeting a few years ago I asked Patty Coyle, then the HC of the New York Liberty, what the biggest difference was between college and the pro's as it affected coaching. Her answer was the quality of the players. She maintained that few college teams have more than one (or maybe 2) really good players - in the pro's, all the players can execute at that high level. And this definitely impacts what happens on the floor, as mentioned by a poster above. It is this factor that creates the premium on players who can create one on one, while few fans appreciate the work that goes into setting them up to execute that way.

Unfortunately, it is and always has been my opinion that the poster who referred to UConn's play being attractive because they overmatch their opponent has some truth - as ugly as Rutgers can play, when RU is way, way better than the competition even Rutgers looks "pretty" on the court. Which comes back to my main point, that the talent gap that permits the game to be "pretty" isn't there in the pro's.

well said... as long as you can easily kick tail its "beautiful basketball". I see (a few posters say) that any team that gives UConn a "good game" doesnt play "beautiful basketball" (Tenn, Rutgers, & this past season GTown) JMO

 

[Icebear]

Beautiful basketball has little to do with blowouts when I refer to it. Both Rutgers and Georgetown play ugly basketball because of what they are allowed to get away with in the manner the games is called. Call the game traditionally and they would have to abandoned their excessively physical style of play and the game will open up and more movement will occur and the game will be prettier. Problem is that officials often start out calling the fouls and then as they accrue stop. They don't want to foul numerous players out of the game. Stanford has played great defensive against and has been physical in blocking the cutting lanes but less physical in the manner of either Rutgers or Georgetown. ND has played similarly tough defense without the same type physical play. Good or great defense always causes the opponent to look ragged, but there is a difference in the type of physicality in what I am talking about.

Tennesee has been very capable of playing an excellent open style of basketball but less so recently. I think their problems, however, have been more on the offensive end of the court than the defensive end. Pat has tended to let the offense tend to the one on one game. She recognized the problem almost a decade ago and sought solutions but none of them were able to be installed successfully.

It should, also, be noted that UConn's "beautiful" game has raised it's beast against many quality teams and not just against weak over matched opponents. We have done it in national championship games, see 2000 vs TN. We have done it against teams who played in . We have done it against Duke, UNC, and OK and many others.

 

[AboutWeston]

As ICE noted in entry #6 in this thread: "Geno said it pretty well in the other thread although I have said here many times before. WNBA ball lacks the beauty of excellent picks, well executed cuts, crisp passes and solid team play. It is Geno/Wooden's vision of the game I love..."

A matter of beauty of execution - I agree with the quote above. UCONN WBB reminds me of the difference between Russian Olympic hockey and the NHL. A ballet rather than a street brawl.

 

[Blakeon18]

I like following 'schools' more than WNBA teams...same on the guy-side and the NBA. When I find myself watching a WNBA game involving UConn kids, I wind up rooting for them to do well regardless of their team. That makes for a less than entertaining experience when I rarely care who wins the game. The Ct. Sun get a bit of love due to their locale and their many UConn players. Forty five years as a teacher probably has something to do with my preference.

 

[EricLA]

I like following 'schools' more than WNBA teams...same on the guy-side and the NBA. When I find myself watching a WNBA game involving UConn kids, I wind up rooting for them to do well regardless of their team. That makes for a less than entertaining experience when I rarely care who wins the game. The Ct. Sun get a bit of love due to their locale and their many UConn players. Forty five years as a teacher probably has something to do with my preference.

i tend to agree with this. but also, it has to do with quality of the game. i certainly have enjoyed the playoffs where the quality of play was elevated, even Indiana vs. Atlanta where there are no UCONN alums playing.

watching Tulsa play Washington would be like watching paint dry. Chicago vs. LA would be interesting only in seeing Fowles or Parker play. i grew up a Red Sox fan. that has allowed me to like the team in spite of who plays for them. obviously there is no on on the team now who was on it 30 or 40 years ago so i'm a fan of the Sox. Same goes for the Patriots - even tho i don't like Belicheck. it's the same for the Celtics. grew up rooting for them.

my point is the WNBA has been around for what - 15 years or so? it's not unrealistic to understand that fans didn't grow up following one team or another. so following the teams for some would naturally be a product of the continuation of their college affiliations and following the players from those schools who have made it to the pros.

however, i tend to disagree with people who use the argument that UCONN's form of basketball is so much more beautiful than what you see in the pros. UCONN's form of basketball is gorgeous when they beat the snot out of someone (even top teams - see UNC, Duke and L'ville recently!).

was it a thing of beauty when they lost to Stanford in the semi's 4 years ago? how about against Stanford in the NC game when we scored 13 points in the 1st half? how about the beauty of our game vs. ND in the semi's this past year?

my point is when things are clicking, even against good teams who don't match up properly against us (see any Duke game recently or the NC game vs. L'ville), of course UCONN's style of basketball looks fantastic. but how good would it look if every single game we played was against a team the caliber of Stanford, or Notre Dame, or Baylor? How good does our offense look when we beat Rutgers 52-48?

in the game we beat Baylor last year - Hartley scored about 7 points in the last 5 minutes. was the basketball beautiful in getting her open? no. she dribbled the ball down the court, took a shot, and it went in. Against Stanford in the NC game where we scored 13 points in the first half, where was the beauty? even in the 2nd half, it was all about Maya getting on track. These players in the WNBA are pros for a reason.

so i would argue that against really good teams, or in games we lose, the "beauty" of our game sort of goes out the window. so back to my point - in the pros, aside from Tulsa and Washington, EVERY game is against a team the quality of UCONN, Baylor, Stanford, Rutgers, ND, A&M, Tennessee, etc. watch the defense and tell me you think UCONN plays better defense. you'd be 100% wrong IMHO. UCONN simply does not have the quality of players at positions 1-5 that exist on any pro team. heck, 2 of our starers were freshmen last year! as for the offense, how good do you think UCONN's offense would look if EVERY SINGLE game we played was against top 10 teams?

now i'm not criticizing anyone who dislikes the WNBA for whatever reason. but if every game UCONN played was a grind out win against top 10 teams i'd say you wouldn't like UCONN's "beautiful offense" any more either...

 

[Icebear]

however, i tend to disagree with people who use the argument that UCONN's form of basketball is so much more beautiful than what you see in the pros. UCONN's form of basketball is gorgeous when they beat the snot out of someone (even top teams - see UNC, Duke and L'ville recently!).

was it a thing of beauty when they lost to Stanford in the semi's 4 years ago? how about against Stanford in the NC game when we scored 13 points in the 1st half? how about the beauty of our game vs. ND in the semi's this past year?

If that was how UConn basketball was all the time then I would not likely be watching it.

my point is when things are clicking, even against good teams who don't match up properly against us (see any Duke game recently or the NC game vs. L'ville), of course UCONN's style of basketball looks fantastic. but how good would it look if every single game we played was against a team the caliber of Stanford, or Notre Dame, or Baylor? How good does our offense look when we beat Rutgers 52-48?

It is those moments against quality teams that I wait for in every season. Even when shooters are off the picks, screens and rolls are often still being set. When they are not being executed, yuck. Once in awhile we see the players just standing around. Rarely, however, even in tightly contested game is that ever happening. Even in those games the beauty of the UConn style breaks out in moments. It is always there lying in wait.

in the game we beat Baylor last year - Hartley scored about 7 points in the last 5 minutes. was the basketball beautiful in getting her open? no. she dribbled the ball down the court, took a shot, and it went in. Against Stanford in the NC game where we scored 13 points in the first half, where was the beauty? even in the 2nd half, it was all about Maya getting on track. These players in the WNBA are pros for a reason.

Yes, there was beautiful basketball in that moment because of where every other player went and what they did that contributed to that moment when Bria closed the deal. Keeping their spread on the floor was critical.

so i would argue that against really good teams, or in games we lose, the "beauty" of our game sort of goes out the window. so back to my point - in the pros, aside from Tulsa and Washington, EVERY game is against a team the quality of UCONN, Baylor, Stanford, Rutgers, ND, A&M, Tennessee, etc. watch the defense and tell me you think UCONN plays better defense. you'd be 100% wrong IMHO.

Is the game more uneven against quality opponents, of course, does UConn sometimes lose its mind and forget how to play its game in such games, sometimes, but usually they are still working hard to execute solid basketball principles and the game comes back to them. That it the reward for playing the game Geno's way, what I consider the right way, and the disciplined way.

UCONN simply does not have the quality of players at positions 1-5 that exist on any pro team. heck, 2 of our starers were freshmen last year! as for the offense, how good do you think UCONN's offense would look if EVERY SINGLE game we played was against top 10 teams?

Absolutely true about the higher quality of players in the WNBA top to bottom but that doesn't affect whether the game can be played what Geno calls the right way. In fact I believe that learning to play the right way is why so many UConn players are in the pros. They understand and know how to execute those important smalls details that shape the game the way UConn plays it. We have heard several times from different players who had not played for UConn how much they learned from Geno in the Team USA camps in a very short time. Yes, UConn does play the game differently and others like it when they learn it and understand it. That it is experienced as new to them says something.

UConn really doesn't run a lot of set plays. You don't in either the triangle or the motion offense but you do learn how to play the game a certain way and within certain principles. You learn how to read the game in front of you and how to react AS A GROUP, as a unit, as a team to what is happening in front of you. Many folks don't "see" all this stuff happening and so don't understand why Geno loves Kelly Faris despite she rarely scores 10 points in a game. They moan and groan like the world is ending when Maya fails to score in double figures and don't notice all the other things she did that night including things that don't have a column in the stat book. The beauty of UConn basketball is not just the sudden back door cuts or the lightening fast breakout off the steal or the rebound. The real beauty of UConn basketball is all the small things that lead to those moments. Things I have more often than not have not seen in the WNBA.

now i'm not criticizing anyone who dislikes the WNBA for whatever reason. but if every game UCONN played was a grind out win against top 10 teams i'd say you wouldn't like UCONN's "beautiful offense" any more either...

I understand you are not criticizing and yes if UConn played ugly grind it out ball without any of the skill and effort to play the game as it does I wouldn't be a UConn fan. I am as much a fan of a certain style of basketball as a fan of UConn basketball fortunately they go together. That style does not just involved wide open back door cuts, or beautiful pick and rolls, or getting out on the break and filling the lanes. It involves all those things and a hundred things more. It is setting the second and the third pick in a single offensive rotation. It is reading the defensive breakdown a moment before it occurs and exploiting the opportunity. It is rotating when you are on defense because you will not let any shot go unchallenged and knowing and trusting that someone is rotating behind you, as well. It is playing with one will and forcing it on the opponent until they realize you won't quit even when you are tired and exhausted because you are relentless. And then the moment comes when out of the chaos and the struggle that the beauty suddenly emerges like an orchid that has grown off of something that looked dead.and the easiest basket of the day happens because you did not stop you did not succumb. And then the end the ball goes into the post and is kicked out for a wide open three and then a high screen is set and there is a hard cut to the hoop and then there is a steal on a lazy pass born out of exhaustion and the court is reversed in the blink of a eye and suddenly it is a ten point run. Then in the midst of what has been the ugliest of games there is the beauty. The first story of creation in Genesis 1 starts with chaos in a boiling turmoil when the ruach of God moves or blows over it and suddenly a word brings forth light and order emerges from the chaos separating day and night and the beauty of creation begins. As the story of creation continues the beauty of this order is only appreciated as it merges out of chaos. Each day's work God observes it and declares it is good.

It is all this and more that is Husky basketball as it is revealed against the chaos of ugly basketball. It is very good indeed.

 

[Alydar]

Geno said it pretty well in the other thread although I have said here many times before. WNBA ball lacks the beauty of excellent picks, well executed cuts, crisp passes and solid team play. It is Geno/Wooden's vision of the game I love. I watch very little WCBB outside of UConn or PSU because to me much of it is unbearably ugly.

"Geno himself said the other night that the game used to be about cutting and teamwork and now it's more people beating the crap out of each other, or something to that extent."

Add on Tuesday morning: Please remember that I have not suggested that anyone else should not enjoy the WNBA. I simply don't. It is what it is. Sadly, in recent years I even see the women's college game sliding more into the type of physical play that I do not enjoy and find boring. It's the same reason I care less for the NBA and most all men's college ball outside of cheering for UConn. I loved Pete Carroll's teams and the heyday of UCLA, too.

I think Geno described it as ..... basketball used to be "pass & cut" but some have turned it into "mug & thug" alluding to the pro game without saying so.

 

[VAUConnFan]

It is still a game of pass and cut. In today's game, the passes and cuts are better defended.

 

[Icebear]

It is still a game of pass and cut. In today's game, the passes and cuts are better defended.

Yeah, by mug and thug, grab and hold.

 

[DaddyChoc]

It is still a game of pass and cut. In today's game, the passes and cuts are better defended.

VA... UConn isnt kickin a** so its no fun.

I wonder how many poster actually PLAYED basketball...

talking about the Celtics in the 60's to these (W)NBA days is rather silly IMO

 

[Icebear]

VA... UConn isnt kickin a** so its no fun.

I wonder how many poster actually PLAYED basketball...

talking about the Celtics in the 60's to these (W)NBA days is rather silly IMO

The point was specific and apropos. It is possible to do more than play one on one with a 24 second clock. That was the sole purpose of citing the Celtics and Cousy. If it could be done then it can be done now.

 

[speedoo]

VA... UConn isnt kickin a** so its no fun.

I wonder how many poster actually PLAYED basketball...

talking about the Celtics in the 60's to these (W)NBA days is rather silly IMO

Re. The last comment, why is it silly to talk about the 60's Celtics along with the WNBA? The NBA in those days was not played nearly as much above the rim, and imo that is the biggest difference between men's and women's ball today.

 

[Cafe Poliziano]

1) the wnba by and large does not play team ball, 2) and does not flow nearly as well as Uconn College ball does, imo this can not be argued. 3) That and the vast majority of Uconn women's basketball fans are just that, 4) The wnba failed in their first year by not building the game off of the premiere college game, teams and locations and they have been playing catch up ever since. 5) The management of the wnba is blind to this and that is why the league has struggled so much since its inception. jmo of course feel free to disagree at your leisure .

GO UCONN !!!!!!!