The best male coaches crammed into the east

[seeya27]

Geni, Mitchell, Walz, and Fernandez. All in the east. All FF potential coaches. How ironic.

 

[seeya27]

Oops --/meant to say Gen"o". Although he is a genie sometimes.

 

[BlueDevils]

I literally just posted on the Duke forums that there were some good coaches out in Uconn bracket. Don't forget the Iowa State coach neither. As a male I like that they are all males lol

 

[pinotbear]

I literally just posted on the Duke forums that there were some good coaches out in Uconn bracket. Don't forget the Iowa State coach neither. As a male I like that they are all males lol

But this is not the first time that the strong male-coached teams have all been stacked in the same regional. Makes it impossible, or at least unlikely, that more than one team at the final four will be male-coached. Funny, how that works...

 

[Icebear]

But this is not the first time that the strong male-coached teams have all been stacked in the same regional. Makes it impossible, or at least unlikely, that more than one team at the final four will be male-coached. Funny, how that works...

Not at all it is almost a tradition.

 

[Icebear]

Hard to believe they threw USF in there already playing UCONN three times.

 

[seeya27]

This happens too often to be coincidence. I guess the women wanted to a Geno-Walz or Geno-Mitchell FF matchup.

I think Fernandez is an up and comer. And, USF is a legitimate threat this year to knock some teams off.

 

[j66kicker]

But this is not the first time that the strong male-coached teams have all been stacked in the same regional. Makes it impossible, or at least unlikely, that more than one team at the final four will be male-coached. Funny, how that works...

Not at all it is almost a tradition.

I believe this was in the seeding principles JS posted the other day, wasn't it?

 

[Alydar]

Well, since it's unlikely ESPN has the guts to ask the committee chair to explain, and given that the UConn horde is rumored to read this board, maybe one of them can ask Geno this question?

Please.

 

[Cheddie]

But this is not the first time that the strong male-coached teams have all been stacked in the same regional. Makes it impossible, or at least unlikely, that more than one team at the final four will be male-coached. Funny, how that works...

Yes, quite the coincidence.

 

[ThisJustIn]

Poor boys. Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

Gwad.

 

[MilfordHusky]

Hard to believe they threw USF in there already playing UCONN three times.

Agreed. I think it is one of the biggest missteps by the committee.

 

[DobbsRover2]

It's the Old Boys Club, and they all get together and exclude the ladies. How in heck did Cal's Lindsay Gottleib and that late-game presser Karen Ashton of Texas gain entry? Call the bouncers.

And yes, after the RPI list, the next list that the Committee enslaves itself to is the one showing all the teams with male coaches so they can put them in the Nutcrackers' region where only a super male called Geno emerges with his team. Sounds good to me. Makes the FF easier.

 

[Sonny44]

Bunch of nonsense; male or female the unlucky coach will lose (probably embarrassingly) to a male in the end and on National TV.

 

[Beemer]

I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I don't wear a tin foil hat.

But this has happened often enough that I am beginning to wonder....

 

[Intpseeker]

Poor boys. Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

Gwad.

Actually, imho, it doesn't suck to be an XY, but to suggest after decades of involvement with WCBB that there is no bias by the XX establishment against male coaches hints of privilege.

This is no different than the bias that still exists, though more covert than 30 years ago, in the corporate world which favors males.

I'm not complaining about what is. It is a reflection of the human condition to protect one's own, while excluding those who are different. I am commenting on the fact that you don't seem to recognize the pattern that has and will continue to exist, a pattern, that, if found in any environment, ultimately inhibits excellence.

This said, it probably really is just a coincidence...repeatedly.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Um, before posters go all Psycho Killer Qu'est-ce que c'est here, we do realize that the Conspiracy Kitty theory about UConn always getting paired up with teams with male coaches is kind of an old BY gag, right? I mean, no one is seriously taking it as more than just "some foolish absurdity to grouse about" I hope.

Sure maybe years ago in that fabled time when men were men, women were women, and dinosaurs roamed the earth, perhaps a group of old AAIW-AAU neanderthal crone creatures gathered in a cave and came up with some rule to make the men go into a separate cave and fight to the death (using their women clubs though). Think some fables about that have come down from the past. Maybe they had a shred of evidence, maybe not.

But as far as the "has happened enough" idea goes, the facts from a more modern technological age don't give any credence to such strange fantasies. In the previous five years, 6 of the 25 teams in the 2-6 seeds (the better teams with a pulse) in UConn's region have been coached by men, or 24%. The percentage for male coached teams in the WCBB is 40%. If anything, the committee has been starving UConn of teams coached by men, cutting its rations in about half.

But getting back to the trog women in the cave, I do know that they all have tattoos saying, "I hate Ivies." Seen it.

 

[ndmb]

Actually, imho, it doesn't suck to be an XY, but to suggest after decades of involvement with WCBB that there is no bias by the XX establishment against male coaches hints of privilege.

This is no different than the bias that still exists, though more covert than 30 years ago, in the corporate world which favors males.

I'm not complaining about what is. It is a reflection of the human condition to protect one's own, while excluding those who are different. I am commenting on the fact that you don't seem to recognize the pattern that has and will continue to exist, a pattern, that, if found in any environment, ultimately inhibits excellence.

This said, it probably really is just a coincidence...repeatedly.

You can't think of a way that those two things are different?

 

[Intpseeker]

You can't think of a way that those two things are different?

Well...the power structure in one is made up of females and the other is dominated by males.

What differences do you see?

 

[DobbsRover2]

Actually, imho, it doesn't suck to be an XY, but to suggest after decades of involvement with WCBB that there is no bias by the XX establishment against male coaches hints of privilege.

This is no different than the bias that still exists, though more covert than 30 years ago, in the corporate world which favors males.

I'm not complaining about what is. It is a reflection of the human condition to protect one's own, while excluding those who are different. I am commenting on the fact that you don't seem to recognize the pattern that has and will continue to exist, a pattern, that, if found in any environment, ultimately inhibits excellence.

This said, it probably really is just a coincidence...repeatedly.

Wow, so male coaches numbers in WCBB are soaring at a spectacular rate, going from less than 10% when the NCAA tournament started to 40% today. But we're supposed to feel that these persecuted guys are being persecuted by some weird type of perception that there is a pattern of bias toward them? Maybe instead of using fuzzy principles with no evidence to back them it would be more cool to women's coaches like Carla and Jamelle and Jen and Tonya and Courtney Banghart and all the other women coaches busting their butts to raise their programs that they not be tarred by some mutter-mutter-mutter half-baked conspiracy theories about that old-girl cabal.

Fact is that like in the corporate world as with women's basketball, top executive positions and head coaching jobs mean more money. Women are frozen out of coaching men's basketball and most other male college sports teams, and the opportunities are dwindling on the women's side as guys eat up more of the available jobs. Is it a conspiracy within the AD departments that the women's sports team jobs have been going at an increasing rate to men? Doubt the ADs think so; they just feel they're picking the best candidate. But before we go digging up conspiracy tales about the witches' coven doing all their nefarious deeds, maybe it would be good to see if there's a shred of evidence to support the wild charges.

Repeatedly. I guess if you repeat it enough, we'll all be dancing to the pied piper.

 

[Intpseeker]

We'll agree to disagree. The fact that an individual denies that the human animal is free of bias is de facto proof of same.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Just checked the records. Almost 60% of the teams (38 of 64) in the Tournament have male head coaches. So obviously since 40% of the teams overall in WCBB have male head coaches, the committee does not have a selection bias against those teams. As to the placement with UConn, when you have 60% of the teams having male coaches, it would be a wonder if some were not headed by a guy. But among the better teams in the region, Rutgers, Texas, and California all have women coaching them.

Whether we should get the pitchforks out and hunt down the committee is hard to say at this point.

 

[CocoHusky]

I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I don't wear a tin foil hat.

But this has happened often enough that I am beginning to wonder....

Like you I don't believe conspiracy theories either unless you can point to someone getting some tangible benefit (money, bragging rights, sense of accomplishment etc...) I don't see a tangible benefit. What would the committee or any individual on the committee gain from the stacking of the best men’s coaches into a single region? The NCAA women’s basketball tournament as a whole is a money losing enterprise so there is no money in it. The same thing with this concept that the Committee is “protecting” the Lady Vols from a matchup with UCONN. What am I missing here?

 

[meyers7]

Wow, so male coaches numbers in WCBB are soaring at a spectacular rate, going from less than 10% when the NCAA tournament started to 40% today. But we're supposed to feel that these persecuted guys are being persecuted by some weird type of perception that there is a pattern of bias toward them? Maybe instead of using fuzzy principles with no evidence to back them it would be more cool to women's coaches like Carla and Jamelle and Jen and Tonya and Courtney Banghart and all the other women coaches busting their butts to raise their programs that they not be tarred by some mutter-mutter-mutter half-baked conspiracy theories about that old-girl cabal.

Fact is that like in the corporate world as with women's basketball, top executive positions and head coaching jobs mean more money. Women are frozen out of coaching men's basketball and most other male college sports teams, and the opportunities are dwindling on the women's side as guys eat up more of the available jobs. Is it a conspiracy within the AD departments that the women's sports team jobs have been going at an increasing rate to men? Doubt the ADs think so; they just feel they're picking the best candidate. But before we go digging up conspiracy tales about the witches' coven doing all their nefarious deeds, maybe it would be good to see if there's a shred of evidence to support the wild charges.

Repeatedly. I guess if you repeat it enough, we'll all be dancing to the pied piper.

Dude, you're gonna have to turn in your "man card".

 

[DobbsRover2]

Dude, you're gonna have to turn in your "man card".

As long as I get to keep my "Just checking the real numbers" card, I'll be fine with that. Got some women in my household who keep throwing facts at me all the time, and still thinking that having three female coaches out of the other seven in the top half of the bracket with Geno is pretty close to the standard ratio, and actually is a tad high for the women.

Have to admit I had no idea that the number of male head coaches in the Women's tournament would be so high. I would have guessed more like 25% than 60%.