UConn/KSU - 72-26

[MattMang23]

Is it uninformed male chest beating to say that I find the games to suck because they aren't competitive and are unwatchable? If it is then I need to see the doctor, because my chest is all red and swollen I pounded it so hard.

http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/w-baskbl/sched/conn-w-baskbl-sched.html

Here, these are the results of the women's team's games this season; please, enlighten us all as to how the result last night was not typical.

 

[HuskyNan]

Cue huskynan's list of the last 50 women's college BB games decided by less than 10 points...so exciting!

Not sure what your problem with me is. I was simply discussing the topic but if you feel being condescending will help make whatever point it is you have, have fun. It doesn't bother me, btw, I have teenagers and am used to that kind of behavior.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Why does every female hoops fan assume that it's a chauvinistic attitude that's behind any man's distaste for women's basketball. If the average men's basketball season only had 4-6 teams with a serious chance to compete for a national title, then I wouldn't watch even if the men were embarrassing almost all of their opponents. I like watching a competitive game and I think most sports fans would agree, and the top level of women's basketball just doesn't have that balance.

 

[MattMang23]

I find all women who have no interest in men's NCAA hoops (if I had to guess, roughly 95% of all females) to be man haters. That's fair right?

 

[champs99and04]

Women's basketball is kind of like the special olympics. There is nothing wrong with it, I'd just prefer to watch the best of the best.

 

[Fishy]

A 72-26 game in the second round isn't a good result for the sport - it just isn't.

But it doesn't seem to be the rule.

Looking at the other scores from last night, they range from three to 17 - all in all, perfectly normal.

I think it was just a case of one very good team being matched up against a team that was just not remotely prepared for the game. In men's hoop, that's a 30-point beating - this one just happened to be much, much worse.

 

[Drumguy]

For all the hoopla of parity on the men's side, because of the upsets in the early rounds, there's really only a few teams that really compete for a championship every year. Look at the last 20 years. Only 12 schools, and they are pretty much the same blue bloods - year in year out - UConn, Duke, North Carolina, Michigan State, FL, Cuse and KY. That's not really parity at all, just the perception. imho the "depth" of talent on the men's side is really a myth.

Going back 20 years look at the BIG parity we have on the men's side - same schools over and over:

1991​

Duke​

1992​

Duke​

1993​

North Carolina​

1994​

Arkansas​

1995​

UCLA​

1996​

Kentucky​

1997​

Arizona​

1998​

Kentucky​

1999​

Connecticut​

2000​

Michigan State​

2001​

Duke​

2002​

Maryland​

2003​

Syracuse​

2004​

Connecticut​

2005​

North Carolina​

2006​

Florida​

2007​

Florida​

2008​

Kansas​

2009​

North Carolina​

2010​

Duke​

2011​

Connecticut​

 

[champs99and04]

For all the hoopla of parity on the men's side, because of the upsets in the early rounds, there's really only a few teams that really compete for a championship every year. Look at the last 20 years. Only 12 schools, and they are pretty much the same blue bloods - year in year out - UConn, Duke, North Carolina, Michigan State, FL, Cuse and KY. That's not really parity at all, just the perception. imho the "depth" of talent on the men's side is really a myth.

Going back 20 years look at the BIG parity we have on the men's side - same schools over and over:

1991​

Duke​

1992​

Duke​

1993​

North Carolina​

1994​

Arkansas​

1995​

UCLA​

1996​

Kentucky​

1997​

Arizona​

1998​

Kentucky​

1999​

Connecticut​

2000​

Michigan State​

2001​

Duke​

2002​

Maryland​

2003​

Syracuse​

2004​

Connecticut​

2005​

North Carolina​

2006​

Florida​

2007​

Florida​

2008​

Kansas​

2009​

North Carolina​

2010​

Duke​

2011​

Connecticut​

I disagree. Obviously there are going to be schools that separate themselves from the pack. It's unrealistic to expect 350 or whatever number of teams in Division One to compete for a title. I think men's hoops has a lot of parity right now because there are a lot of teams who can win the tournament in any given year. It may not have been that way in the early 90's, but with Butler, VCU, and George Mason all playing in the final four over the last six years, it's not as if these non-bcs schools are going into the tournament thinking they don't have a shot.

How many teams have won the super bowl over the past 17 years? The Patriots won three, the Giants have won two, the Packers have won two, the Steelers have won two. So that's what, 11 or 12 different winners over the past 17 years? I'd say that's similar to the state college basketball is in now, and people consider the NFL to be the gold standard. That's not to say it's not beneficial to a sport to have a dominant team. You just don't want the same ten teams playing in the final four every year, and you don't want teams playing an entire season without being challenged (A couple of those UConn teams might qualify).

 

[kobebeanbryant]

Women's basketball is kind of like the special olympics. There is nothing wrong with it, I'd just prefer to watch the best of the best.

so why do you bother with college ball? why not just the nba?

 

[Inyatkin]

So, Baylor and Notre Dame are winning their second-round games by 15-18 points. Kind of like Kentucky and Syracuse. Can we just agree the UConn score was an anomaly?

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Funny place, The Boneyard.

Lots of complaints about the Men's team not hustling, not trying, not having a killer instinct . . . and then lots of complaints about the Women's game, the lack of parity, the level of competition even when presented with 40 minutes of effort. That alone was a pleasure to watch.

 

[kobebeanbryant]

Can we just agree the UConn score was an anomaly?

this is an internet message board. there will be no agreeing.

 

[spoop]

I love watching both UConn teams. The men's game is more exciting with closer games, dunks and whatnot. Except they're often very frustrating to watch. The women are like a breathe of fresh air, air that actually knows how to play basketball. When I get bored of the blowouts, I watch the men, the cycle continues.

 

[Dove]

I can't believe this thread gained traction.

 

[Gurleyman]

The difference is more simple, in my opinion. Picture Kentucky starting Wall, Cousins, Davis, Knight and Kidd-Gikchrist this year with Lamb (or Bledsoe), Miller and Liggins off the bench. And realize they are all coming back next year. Then throw Kyrie Irving on Duke playing point with Rivers at the two and all the Plumlees setting screens. That's what women's hoops is like - the top teams get the best players, but they keep them for four years, so the mid-majors, second-tier teams don't get to benefit from building a veteran team, because the bluebloods are building a veteran team with better players. Syracuse is a top four men's team this year, but the women's equivalent would be a fiesty, plucky five seed.

As for entertainment value, sure the men are more exciting for athletic ability, etc. But it's more enjoyable from a basketball standpoint to watch a Taurasi or Maya Moore at their best than watching Drummond at this stage of his career, who makes you say 'wow' with a dunk, but then alternates that with head-bang-on-a-table decisions. In two years, Drummond would be better to watch, but you don't get to see that level of development in the men's game with the top players. The difference from a watchability standpoint is that the dropoff from the Moores and Taurasis to the more normal players is huge, while a second-tier Division I men's team can still be entertaining with its athleticism.

 

[uconnfan68]

Sorry, but you have to throw out the Gonzaga "upsets." Why did they win? THEY'RE PLAYING ON THEIR HOME FLOOR AS AN 11 SEED!
*** and yet Duke was beaten by a 15 seed on basically their home court! ***
The women's tournament is absurd for many reasons, but this is the worst of them all. Clinging to possible ticket sales by skewing the competitive landscape - at least the men's tourney does this with only the higher seeds, which has some reward level to it (not that I don't hate the pods with a passion, too).

 

[Drumguy]

I disagree. Obviously there are going to be schools that separate themselves from the pack. It's unrealistic to expect 350 or whatever number of teams in Division One to compete for a title. I think men's hoops has a lot of parity right now because there are a lot of teams who can win the tournament in any given year. It may not have been that way in the early 90's, but with Butler, VCU, and George Mason all playing in the final four over the last six years, it's not as if these non-bcs schools are going into the tournament thinking they don't have a shot.

How many teams have won the super bowl over the past 17 years? The Patriots won three, the Giants have won two, the Packers have won two, the Steelers have won two. So that's what, 11 or 12 different winners over the past 17 years? I'd say that's similar to the state college basketball is in now, and people consider the NFL to be the gold standard. That's not to say it's not beneficial to a sport to have a dominant team. You just don't want the same ten teams playing in the final four every year, and you don't want teams playing an entire season without being challenged (A couple of those UConn teams might qualify).

Nice, you disagree and then use anther example to illustrate how perception differs from reality. Way to prove my point.

 

[mauconnfan]

.
Did you actually watch the game, or is this just more underinformed male chest-beating?

1) It's a new NCAA record, not a typical result.
2) The UConn men could learn a few things from watching the UConn women play defense.

I was there. It was an impressive performance.
.

Please Wonster? They "could learn a few things"? Kidding right........the difference in guarding ONE good player and focusing the defense on that one person is not something ou learn, it's simple. KState was lucky to have one player who could score........the womens game would change immensely if they ALL had to guard someone....and Geno is the best at gimmick defense he's years ahead of most womens coaches quite honestly and is great......but completetely different worlds, different speed, different athletes and he knows it and that's why he's so good!!!

 

[blackbird]

1. Women's fans often consider this under informed male chest-beating, because 9 out of 10 times it is. We'll hear too many people whine about the lack of competition and hoarding of basketball talent to one team for women, and then John Wooden is propped up as a basketball coaching god, and UCLA is looked at with great nostalgia in the same breath. (PSSST...exact same situation. Geno's just won more. )

This specific instance, was most likely a result of over seeding (how they beat their 9 seed team, no one knows) and an excellent game from the Uconn women.

And yes, the Uconn men could learn a heck of a lot from the Uconn women. Despite the blowouts, I usually enjoy watching the women play more than the men. They just play a better brand of basketball. From a defensive stand point and offensive standpoint (and I say that knowing the women have struggled offensively this season.) That doesn't mean I'll keep watching with 3 minutes to go and the entire bench is in. Yea, sometimes I shut it off then. But I've never shut off a women's game out of disgust.

Defensively, the women are outstanding. And it's particularly stunning, because we're playing someone the size of a point guard at power forward (and she does a remarkable job defending even the best power forwards.)

Look at the last Notre Dame game. It could be argued that Notre Dame has the best two guards in the country in Novosel and Diggins. Then they have a great rebounder and BE defensive player of the year in Peters (their PF/C) then they have another great guard in McBride, who will contend for All American status. Then they have another solid senior in Mallory. Easily the most talented team, and well coached team, in the country. Yet Uconn held them to a 32% field goal. That's unbelievable.

 

[EricLA]

IMHO, nothing wrong with fans of the men's game not having any interest in the women's game. does anyone enjoy women's softball as much as MLB? would anyone enjoy watching women's football or women's hocky? clearly it would be played at a much lower level of skill and pace than the men's game. i think there are only a handful of sports that are nearly as enjoyable to watch women at as men - tennis, swimming, track & field, and maybe golf/gymnastics/figure skating. mostly i think because the glaring weaknesses of women's size and strength are on relatively less display in the aforementioned sports.

so i get why hardcore men's fans would think a woman's game is "unwatchable". food for thought on why UCONN is so good (aside from Geno). in the past 7 years of recruiting, they have landed 5 players who are #1 in their class, and 7 players who are in the top 10. that's a total of 12 top 10 players in 7 years. just a ridiculous amalgamation of talent.

that would be like the men landing Kevin Durant, Brandon Jennings, Jrue Holliday, John Wall, Kevin Love, Derrick Rose, Harrison Barnes, Jared Sullinger, Anthony Davis, Andre Drummond, Nerlens Noel, and Shabazz Muhammad, AND having all of them stay for 4 years. that's the equivalent of what Geno has recruited since 2006.

on top of that, schools like Stanford, Duke, and Tennessee have also traditionally recruited at a high level (not as high as UCONN lately), but when you have schools like Baylor, Notre Dame, UCONN and Stanford with a ridiculous amount of talent compared to the rest of WCBB, there just aren't enough uber talented WCBB players to go around. That's why kids like Tina Charles, Maya Moore, Brit Griner and Elena Delle Donne are so sought after - they are just that much better than everyone else.

and one last thought - when you generally look at top 10 recruits, they tend to gravitate towards big time programs (established) or up and coming programs. you look at the number of top 10 recruiting classes in the past 4-5 years and only a few schools have 3 or more, and only another small handful even have had 2. this year there was a pretty big drop off from the big 4 to the rest of WCBB. i'd not be surprised to see all four #1 seeds make it to the final 4. but the upsets and close games have been very fun to watch this year.

WCBB is not for everyone. but to denigrate the game or the accomplishments of teams with multiple NC's like UCONN, Tennessee, Stanford, etc. is silly.

 

[UCONNfan1]

i'm not sure what the big deal is. either you enjoy watching the women or you don't. nothing wrong with feeling either way, but there's a reason there's not as much parity in the women's game and i think it's partly because most of the top 20 kids go to the big time top 10 type programs, and there simply aren't as many highly talented girls playing. there's a pretty big talent gap (in general) between the #10 player and the #25 player on the women's side. can't say the same for the men.

 

[alexrgct]

Women's basketball is kind of like the special olympics. There is nothing wrong with it, I'd just prefer to watch the best of the best.

That's why you're posting on a men's college basketball board, right? Sorry, this post is just plain silly.

 

[alexrgct]

I disagree. Obviously there are going to be schools that separate themselves from the pack. It's unrealistic to expect 350 or whatever number of teams in Division One to compete for a title. I think men's hoops has a lot of parity right now because there are a lot of teams who can win the tournament in any given year. It may not have been that way in the early 90's, but with Butler, VCU, and George Mason all playing in the final four over the last six years, it's not as if these non-bcs schools are going into the tournament thinking they don't have a shot.

How many teams have won the super bowl over the past 17 years? The Patriots won three, the Giants have won two, the Packers have won two, the Steelers have won two. So that's what, 11 or 12 different winners over the past 17 years? I'd say that's similar to the state college basketball is in now, and people consider the NFL to be the gold standard. That's not to say it's not beneficial to a sport to have a dominant team. You just don't want the same ten teams playing in the final four every year, and you don't want teams playing an entire season without being challenged (A couple of those UConn teams might qualify).

Parity in the men's game is NOT a good thing. It's exciting that a VCU team that barely made the draw got to the Final Four? No, what that says is that the men's game has been diluted because the most talented players bolt to the NBA at the first possible opportunity. Oh, but wait. You like to watch "the best of the best".

 

[61cygni]

That's why you're posting on a men's college basketball board, right? Sorry, this post is just plain silly.

It's why I only watch the NBA all-star games and Olympic gold medal games!

 

[alexrgct]

i'm not sure what the big deal is. either you enjoy watching the women or you don't. nothing wrong with feeling either way, but there's a reason there's not as much parity in the women's game and i think it's partly because most of the top 20 kids go to the big time top 10 type programs, and there simply aren't as many highly talented girls playing. there's a pretty big talent gap (in general) between the #10 player and the #25 player on the women's side. can't say the same for the men.

No, there's nothing wrong with feeling either way. There is, however, something wrong with going out of your way to show your ass and crap on the accomplishments of a bunch of young women who wear jersies that say UConn on them, represent the state with honor, graduate at nearly a 100% clip, and play the game the right way. And some on this thread have done just that.

By the way, this year's WBB team has only one player who was ranked higher than 10 out of high school, and she's a freshman.

If men's players stayed four years, there'd be a lot less parity. Yes, the talent pool is deeper, but the lack of elite players in the men's college game is a big part of it.