Will there ever be true parity in WCBB?

[alexrgct]

In 2006, there was supposedly parity in WCBB. After all, Baylor and Maryland had just won NCs for the first time. Immediately thereafter, Tennessee and UConn won the next four national championships.

In 2012, there was supposedly parity in WCBB. A (gasp!) #2 seed won the NC in 2011, and several different teams contended in 2012 (even if Baylor dominated). Immediately thereafter, UConn won the next three NCs. At this point, there is no end in sight as to when the Huskies will cease to be the alpha dogs.

This led me to create a poll, and I hope doing so will spark discussion. Here are the central points about which I'm most interested in reading opinions.

Firstly, is there a measurable operational definition of parity? Can you describe what parity would truly look like, as opposed to the parodies of parity the media hyped in 2006 and 2011/12?

And secondly, what sequence(s) of events will need to occur for there to be parity? Is it just about having the clear best coach, or could Geno remain aboard and still lose control of the national championship? What might cause the top recruits to become more dispersed?

I'd love to get some input on this...

 

[alexrgct]

Whoops. Posted my poll before providing seven choices therein, even though I implied there were seven choices within the poll itself. Oh well; hopefully my intentions were clear...

 

[2Husky]

I would expect evolution like the men's game, where there is more parity in individual game outcome, but the same few programs always seem to be really good and they Often have deep post season runs.

 

[HGN]

Dynasties come and go. The NBA had the Celtics , Lakers , Knicks , Bulls etc.

The NCAA mens game had John Wooden and the UCLA program in the 70's. A program or 2 will always rise to the top....Currently there are many D-1 programs vying for the top talented recruits each year. And maybe 8 programs have a legitimate chance of winning the NCAA Tournament each year. And it's not always recruits that make the difference. Coaches have as much to do with who wins as recruits in many cases. At one time Summit was considered the best in WCBB.

For now , UConn just happens to have , arguably , the best coach in the game.

 

[Boreifs]

Dynasties come and go. The NBA had the Celtics , Lakers , Knicks , Bulls etc.

The NCAA mens game had John Wooden and the UCLA program in the 70's. A program or 2 will always rise to the top....Currently there are many D-1 programs vying for the top talented recruits each year. And maybe 8 programs have a legitimate chance of winning the NCAA Tournament each year. And it's not always recruits that make the difference. Coaches have as much to do with who wins as recruits in many cases. At one time Summit was considered the best in WCBB.

For now , UConn just happens to have , arguably , the best coach in the game.

Please advise; when were the New York Knicks a dynasty? They won two championships in four years; that wouldn't meet my definition. One could also argue that both of them were upsets; after all, the Lakers had three of the top 10 players in NBA history on their roster at the time. (Wilt,Elgin,West)

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

There won't be parity until more girls take up basketball before high school and youth and high school coaching improves. Until then, there won't be enough depth of talent for there to be more than a handful of elite teams each year.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

There won't be parity until more girls take up basketball before high school and youth and high school coaching improves. Until then, there won't be enough depth of talent for there to be more than a handful of elite teams each year.

Yes, I think this is exactly right. The game might evolve to the point where, in any
given season, there might be a dozen teams who have a shot, but the Butler and
George Mason - like teams on the men's side will have no parallel on the women's
side.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Who knows if Dayton wasn't in UConn's Bracket, they might have just been in the Final Four.

Yes, I think this is exactly right. The game might evolve to the point where, in any
given season, there might be a dozen teams who have a shot, but the Butler and
George Mason - like teams on the men's side will have no parallel on the women's
side.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

Who knows if Dayton wasn't in UConn's Bracket, they might have just been in the Final Four.

I think Dayton was able to stay with UConn for the first half due to some
very hot shooting (which most teams can't sustain - especially against UConn).

I the second half UConn blew them away by 20+ which was typical of our
half-game production against AAC opponents.

I don't mean to imply that Dayton was no better than our AAC members,
but I think it very improbable that they would have beaten the likes of
Notre Dame, South Carolina, or even Maryland.

 

[rvwsleep]

Parity is not here in women's college basketbll and I don't see it on the near horizon. Here is a definition of sports parity from Wikipedia:

"In sports, parity is when participating teams have roughly equivalent levels of talent. In such a league, the "best" team is not significantly better than the "worst" team. This leads to more competitive contests where the winner cannot be easily predicted in advance. The opposite condition, which could be considered "disparity" between teams, is a condition where the elite teams are so much more talented that the lesser teams are hopelessly outmatched."

You can forget about "the "best" team is not significantly better than the "worst" team." In the last couple of years, the best team has been significantly better than all but one team (and even that can be debated).

Here are the seeds of the final four teams the last 3 years.
2015 - #1,1,1,1
2014 - #1,1,2,4
2013 - #1,1,2,5

And from 10+ years ago
2005 - #1,1,1,2
2004 - #1,2,4,7
2003 - #1,1,1,2

"Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss" There still isn't parity.

 

[rvwsleep]

In 2006, there was supposedly parity in WCBB. After all, Baylor and Maryland had just won NCs for the first time. Immediately thereafter, Tennessee and UConn won the next four national championships.

In 2012, there was supposedly parity in WCBB. A (gasp!) #2 seed won the NC in 2011, and several different teams contended in 2012 (even if Baylor dominated). Immediately thereafter, UConn won the next three NCs. At this point, there is no end in sight as to when the Huskies will cease to be the alpha dogs.

This led me to create a poll, and I hope doing so will spark discussion. Here are the central points about which I'm most interested in reading opinions.

Firstly, is there a measurable operational definition of parity? Can you describe what parity would truly look like, as opposed to the parodies of parity the media hyped in 2006 and 2011/12?

And secondly, what sequence(s) of events will need to occur for there to be parity? Is it just about having the clear best coach, or could Geno remain aboard and still lose control of the national championship? What might cause the top recruits to become more dispersed?

I'd love to get some input on this...

What parity would look like is a difficult question to answer but I know it hasn't arrived yet.
Which of the following, if any, would you consider as parity.
Regular season records
eventual NC team record Record of 2nd place team Average record for teams 2-10 Average record for teams 11-50
34-0 34-0 28-6 24-10
27-7 26-8 25-9 20-14
31-3 30-4 29-5 27-7

In the first case you have 2 teams far and away better than any other team.
In the second case there isn't much separating the top 10 teams or even the top 50.
In the third case you have at least 50 teams with very good records.
How many teams have to be included in the analysis to reach parity ? 10 ? 20 ? 50 ? 100 ? half or about 175 ?

 

[Gus Mahler]

Whenever I see or hear a discussion about parity, I am reminded of a quip I read in SI many, many years ago about the NFL, when parity was a relatively new situation there. Some commentator said words to the effect of: There's a fine line between parity and mediocrity.

I don't really care about the NFL and its "any given Sunday" structure. What appeals to me about UCONN WBB, on the other hand, is that it's about excellence, the state of the art in college basketball. Mediocrity is boring and disengaging, the antithesis of competing to be the best.

 

[Boreifs]

Yes, I think this is exactly right. The game might evolve to the point where, in any
given season, there might be a dozen teams who have a shot, but the Butler and
George Mason - like teams on the men's side will have no parallel on the women's
side.

Yes, I think this is exactly right. The game might evolve to the point where, in any
given season, there might be a dozen teams who have a shot, but the Butler and
George Mason - like teams on the men's side will have no parallel on the women's
side.

Forgive me, but didn't BYU and Dayton both give UConn all they could handle for a half in two successive seasons? 10 years ago, the top 16 seeds were winning almost every game; that is no longer the case. Granted, there is still a long way to go before parity (as if that were a desirable goal), but great coaches in mid-major schools are regularly giving teams in the Big conferences all they can handle. Dayton beat Louisville this year, which is easily one of the top five programs in the country.

 

[rvwsleep]

Forgive me, but didn't BYU and Dayton both give UConn all they could handle for a half in two successive seasons? 10 years ago, the top 16 seeds were winning almost every game; that is no longer the case. Granted, there is still a long way to go before parity (as if that were a desirable goal), but great coaches in mid-major schools are regularly giving teams in the Big conferences all they can handle. Dayton beat Louisville this year, which is easily one of the top five programs in the country.

The facts say otherwise. And when did playing a good half of basketball only to lose by 20 or so points constitute parity ? There were only 3 teams not seeded 1-4 that made the suite 16 in this year's NCAA playoffs. In 2005, there were 4 teams not seeded 1-4 that made the suite 16 including #13 seed Liberty. In 2004, there were 5 teams not seeded 1-4 that made the sweet 16 including #11 UC Santa Barbara. If anything there is less parity now than 10 years ago. All 4 #1 seeds made it to the final four this year. That was the second time in at least 25 years that it happened. The other time was 2012.

 

[UcMiami]

Parity is not here in women's college basketbll and I don't see it on the near horizon. Here is a definition of sports parity from Wikipedia:

"In sports, parity is when participating teams have roughly equivalent levels of talent. In such a league, the "best" team is not significantly better than the "worst" team. This leads to more competitive contests where the winner cannot be easily predicted in advance. The opposite condition, which could be considered "disparity" between teams, is a condition where the elite teams are so much more talented that the lesser teams are hopelessly outmatched."

You can forget about "the "best" team is not significantly better than the "worst" team." In the last couple of years, the best team has been significantly better than all but one team (and even that can be debated).

Here are the seeds of the final four teams the last 3 years.
2015 - #1,1,1,1
2014 - #1,1,2,4
2013 - #1,1,2,5

And from 10+ years ago
2005 - #1,1,1,2
2004 - #1,2,4,7
2003 - #1,1,1,2

"Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss" There still isn't parity.

By that definition there is no parity in any sport and especially in D1 - 300+ teams play basketball and 100+ compete in most D1 sports and the bottom half are helplessly outclassed by the top half in every case. The NFL which has put more rules in places to promote parity and mediocrity than I think any pro sport still has perennial cellar dwellers, and an elite group of about ten teams that dominate year after year.
Whatever the top level of D1 football is now called - maybe ten teams with a few rotating in and out each year control the sport. Men's basketball - yeah you get a few cinderella stories each year, but they never win the prize - that is reserved for a much smaller universe of teams.

At the moment in WCBB Uconn is dominant and has succeeded in remaining so for a incredibly long time (almost mirroring the Patriots dominance in the NFL) but sometime in the next ten years Geno will retire and if it hasn't already happened by then, Uconn will fall back into the pack. If you look at the sport without Uconn - you have a group of maybe 20 teams that represent a good level of parity over the last 15 years - probably pretty comparable to most other sports level of parity. The variation may not be as significant year to year, but in four year cycles it is.

 

[rvwsleep]

By that definition there is no parity in any sport and especially in D1 - 300+ teams play basketball and 100+ compete in most D1 sports and the bottom half are helplessly outclassed by the top half in every case. The NFL which has put more rules in places to promote parity and mediocrity than I think any pro sport still has perennial cellar dwellers, and an elite group of about ten teams that dominate year after year.
Whatever the top level of D1 football is now called - maybe ten teams with a few rotating in and out each year control the sport. Men's basketball - yeah you get a few cinderella stories each year, but they never win the prize - that is reserved for a much smaller universe of teams.

At the moment in WCBB Uconn is dominant and has succeeded in remaining so for a incredibly long time (almost mirroring the Patriots dominance in the NFL) but sometime in the next ten years Geno will retire and if it hasn't already happened by then, Uconn will fall back into the pack. If you look at the sport without Uconn - you have a group of maybe 20 teams that represent a good level of parity over the last 15 years - probably pretty comparable to most other sports level of parity. The variation may not be as significant year to year, but in four year cycles it is.

It's not easy defining parity in sports which is why I used the one from Wikipedia. What would your definition be ?
"a group of maybe 20 teams that represent a good level of parity over the last 15 years " Even if I agree that there are 20 teams on the same level (I don't think that's at all accurate. Ohio St was #20 this year with 11 losses on the season), how can 20 out of 347 be considered parity ?
You can't look at a league without it's best team because it's that very team that is a major cause for the lack of parity. However, if you did remove UConn, that would still leave ND in four of the last 5 finals. That would be the same ND team that went undefeated last year before losing to UConn in the finals. Now that I think about it. ND, without UConn, would have won back to back titles with only 1 loss in 2 years. Parity ?
Baseball has parity, even by the wikipedia definition. The best teams win 6 out of 10 games while the worst team wins 4 out of 10 games. That's easily the most equal among major sports.

 

[MilfordHusky]

Ever? Yes, I think so. To me, it seems that the discussion on First Take was on point. WCBB is a "young" product, relative to MCBB. Compare Title IX to today with MCBB from relatively early in the 20th century to about 1970 or so. They are really similar. Those years were dominated by Kansas, Kentucky, and UCLA. Over time, Geno will retire, the depth of talent will expand, and the number of teams that can win the NCAA title will go from 1-5, which it has been for 90% of the past 3 decades, to 20 or so. How long will that take? Probably more than 10 years, possibly as long as 30 years.

 

[nd2tty]

Although there is much more to parity than championship totals - in particular game-to-game competitiveness and margin of victory - a look at the first 34 years of the WCBB and MCBB NCAA tournaments might be illustrative (or not):

WCBB (1982-2015; first 34 seasons)
Connecticut – 10
Tennessee – 8
Louisiana Tech – 2
USC – 2
Stanford – 2
Baylor – 2
Old Dominion – 1
Texas – 1
Texas Tech – 1
North Carolina – 1
Purdue – 1
Notre Dame – 1
Maryland – 1
Texas A&M – 1

14 teams
8 one-time winners
2 teams with 5 or more


MCBB (1941-1972; first 34 seasons)
UCLA – 8
Kentucky – 3
Indiana – 2
Cincinnati – 2
San Francisco – 2
Oklahoma A&M (Oklahoma State) – 2
Texas Western (UTEP) – 1
Loyola Chicago – 1
Ohio State – 1
California – 1
La Salle – 1
CCNY – 1
Holy Cross – 1
Utah – 1
Wyoming – 1
Stanford – 1
Wisconsin – 1
Oregon – 1
Kansas – 1
North Carolina – 1

20 teams
14 one-time winners
1 team with 5 or more

The next 41 seasons of MCBB saw 15 new champions, but only 7 new winners that remain one-time winners. It also saw 4 more teams eclipse the 5 championships barrier.

 

[UcMiami]

rvwsleep - baseball is an interesting game and fairly unique in being built around individual offensive failure rates of 70+% and team failure rates even higher (innings scoring at least one run.) The regular season is littered with 'surprising results' but the end result - teams left standing for playoffs - is still surprisingly consistent, and with futility rates for certain franchises that have stretched into many decades.

My point in reviewing WCBB without Uconn is that you can choose periods in most sports of single teams distancing themselves from all others. MBB - UCLA, NBA - Celtics, Cetics/Lakers, Bulls, BB - Yankees, NFL - Steelers, Patriots. We happen to be in such a period with WBB at the moment and everyone is wringing their hands. But the image behind Uconn actually points to a much more competitive environment and no one really expects Uconn to continue this into the future for decades more. You point to ND and five FF - Stanford and LSU also had those runs as well as Uconn previously and except for Uconn, they all failed to actually win anything. And those runs were preceded and followed by much more pedestrian results.

And what number do you want out of 300+ teams to be competitive? MBB - when was the last 12 seed upset in the men's tournament and how often has it happened, 11 seed? 10 seed? - the lowest seeded team in the elite eight or final four. The win percentage for higher seeds in each round?

NFL - average record over the last 15 years for the Pats is around 12-4, for the Raiders around 4-12. You can say 'any given Sunday' but ... you would make a fortune betting on the Pats and lose one betting on the Raiders straight up.

 

[rvwsleep]

rvwsleep - baseball is an interesting game and fairly unique in being built around individual offensive failure rates of 70+% and team failure rates even higher (innings scoring at least one run.) The regular season is littered with 'surprising results' but the end result - teams left standing for playoffs - is still surprisingly consistent, and with futility rates for certain franchises that have stretched into many decades.

My point in reviewing WCBB without Uconn is that you can choose periods in most sports of single teams distancing themselves from all others. MBB - UCLA, NBA - Celtics, Cetics/Lakers, Bulls, BB - Yankees, NFL - Steelers, Patriots. We happen to be in such a period with WBB at the moment and everyone is wringing their hands. But the image behind Uconn actually points to a much more competitive environment and no one really expects Uconn to continue this into the future for decades more. You point to ND and five FF - Stanford and LSU also had those runs as well as Uconn previously and except for Uconn, they all failed to actually win anything. And those runs were preceded and followed by much more pedestrian results.

And what number do you want out of 300+ teams to be competitive? MBB - when was the last 12 seed upset in the men's tournament and how often has it happened, 11 seed? 10 seed? - the lowest seeded team in the elite eight or final four. The win percentage for higher seeds in each round?

NFL - average record over the last 15 years for the Pats is around 12-4, for the Raiders around 4-12. You can say 'any given Sunday' but ... you would make a fortune betting on the Pats and lose one betting on the Raiders straight up.

A lot of good points. As far as "What number do you want out of 300+ teams to be competitive?", I'm not sure but I'll take a stab at it. To my way of thinking, all of the following would have to happen in order to qualify as competitive.
No undefeated NC winning teams.
No team would be able to win each of their NCAA games by 10+ points
Since not every one of the 340+ teams in D1 is going to take wcbb seriously, the following will apply to the top 30 rated teams. (top 5 of each P5 and 5 others)
Of the top 30, no team should be projected (Massey, Sagarin etc.) to win by more than 25 points against another top 30 team and 20 pts vs a top 20 team.
These requirements could certainly be tweaked but I think it provides a good starting point.
In the NCAA tournament just completed on the women's side, there were 9 upsets by seeds in the 63 games played. This year's elite 8 had all 1 and 2 seeds except for Dayton a #7 seed.

 

[ctdad]

And what number do you want out of 300+ teams to be competitive? MBB - when was the last 12 seed upset in the men's tournament and how often has it happened, 11 seed? 10 seed? - the lowest seeded team in the elite eight or final four. The win percentage for higher seeds in each round?

In MBB, a 12 beating a 5 happens quite frequently. Since the men's tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, it has happened 44 times. There were none this year for only the 4th time (1998, 2000 and 2007 being the others). In the 2014 tournament, three #12 seeds advanced to the second round.

Wikipedia doesn't list any 10 vs 7 stats.

11 beating 6? 42 times (twice this season)

13 beating 4? 25 times (2013 was the last time)

14 beating 3? 20 times (twice this year)

15 beating 2? 7 times (2013 was the last)

No 16 has ever beaten a 1 (there have been some close games). It did happen once in the women's tournament I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Championship_upsets

 

[ctdad]

Although there is much more to parity than championship totals - in particular game-to-game competitiveness and margin of victory - a look at the first 34 years of the WCBB and MCBB NCAA tournaments might be illustrative (or not):

WCBB (1982-2015; first 34 seasons)
Connecticut – 10
Tennessee – 8
Louisiana Tech – 2
USC – 2
Stanford – 2
Baylor – 2
Old Dominion – 1
Texas – 1
Texas Tech – 1
North Carolina – 1
Purdue – 1
Notre Dame – 1
Maryland – 1
Texas A&M – 1

14 teams
8 one-time winners
2 teams with 5 or more


MCBB (1941-1972; first 34 seasons)
UCLA – 8
Kentucky – 3
Indiana – 2
Cincinnati – 2
San Francisco – 2
Oklahoma A&M (Oklahoma State) – 2
Texas Western (UTEP) – 1
Loyola Chicago – 1
Ohio State – 1
California – 1
La Salle – 1
CCNY – 1
Holy Cross – 1
Utah – 1
Wyoming – 1
Stanford – 1
Wisconsin – 1
Oregon – 1
Kansas – 1
North Carolina – 1

20 teams
14 one-time winners
1 team with 5 or more

The next 41 seasons of MCBB saw 15 new champions, but only 7 new winners that remain one-time winners. It also saw 4 more teams eclipse the 5 championships barrier.

Minor nit, Kentucky had 4 titles over the span you cite (1948. 1949, 1951 and 1958)

 

[nd2tty]

Minor nit, Kentucky had 4 titles over the span you cite (1948. 1949, 1951 and 1958)

Whoops, thanks.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

It is all in the definition of parity, as others have noted.

For me, if you are looking for a mystical true parity, it ain't going to happen.

However, I think a much less demanding scenario could be equally exciting. That is, there are 20 or so programs that have a legitimate shot (of varying strength) to make it to the Final Four. An undefeated season is not impossible, but unlikely. No team is so dominant that every game is won by 10 or more points. The same team can win the NC 3 years on a row, but it will be a battle and an upset at least one of the 3 years.

Until teams can figure a way to challenge UConn, or UConn fades due to Geno's retirement or some other unanticipated reason, I expect UConn to dominate and everyone else that is any good to play for second. I think the pool of teams playing for second has expanded, but is far short of being over 20 programs at this point. Not parity of any sort, yet.

 

[Striper69]

Wooden's dynasty was in large part due to two players:

Alcindor

Walton.

Stewie's ankle injury in the NC game prevents her from returning...

we might be talking about a different NCAA Women's champion right now.

 

[ctdad]

Wooden's dynasty was in large part due to two players:

Alcindor

Walton.

Stewie's ankle injury in the NC game prevents her from returning...

we might be talking about a different NCAA Women's champion right now.

Not sure I totally agree with your assessment of Wooden. He won 5 with Alcindor (3) and Walton (2). They did not win Walton's senior year (1974) and since freshmen were ineligible for varsity play back then, neither played as frosh. Wooden's first 2 titles came while Alcindor was still in high school, and he won 2 (1970 and 1971) between those players. His last title came a year after Walton graduated, at which time he retired.

Interesting speculation about Stewart; IMO her coming back actually helped ND slightly. Had she been out, they would have seen a steady dose of Stokes down low, that may have negated the good 2nd half Turner had. With Stewart at less than 100%, but playing, she was more mortal. She certainly chose to concentrate on the defensive side of things. UConn obviously had just enough offense without her, and Stokes doesn't really change that calculus.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Over the next five-seven years, IMHO your going to have the same 5-7 teams that can compete to reach the Final Four most years. They are UConn, ND, Louisville, Baylor, Maryland and I'll reluctantly include the Lady Vols. Lady Vols have the talent, IMHO they have under achieved.

Then I think you'll occasionally see other teams that will have a two or three years span due to great recruiting classes that will be contenders. They are South Carolina, Duke, Stanford and I'm going to include Ohio State who except for injuries this year, might have made it to the Final Four this year. Normally most would have included Stanford in the first group because of their recent history, but I don't, as in the next five-seven years, I don't see them making the Final Four frequently due to improvement in recruiting by other PAC 12 teams and the failure of Stanford to get an elite talent recently. Still Tara is a great coach and should never be under estimated. Duke is in this group, but with a different coach could easily be a Final Four contender annually. If South Carolina signs a great recruiting class in 2016 and 17 they could easily be added to my first group. South Carolina needs to start recruiting nationally or poaching the elite talent out of Georgia.

Then I think there are some teams if the cards fall right, can make the Final Four. They are Kentucky, California, Florida State and North Carolina. These are talented teams, but usually missing a piece or two whether its players and/or coaching, but upsets do happen and these teams are capable of pulling off one. Not ready to include Arizona State or Oregon State in this mix.

There's not enough Girls HS Talent to spread out over 10-15 different schools so that you can get the parity that's desired. If the Top 10-15 ranked Girls are predominately going to the same schools, you can't get parity, especially considering most girls stay four years. It also doesn't help when schools like ND and UConn are signing multiple players ranked in the Top 15 in a single class and then repeat it a year or two later. While the Men's Game has their Elite Talent coming out of HS, there's not that much difference between the player ranked 20th and the player ranked 60th. That's not the same in the girls game. Very few difference makers in the girls game and they seem to be going to one of usual elite teams in WBB.

 

[TFintheMix]

There won't be parity until more girls take up basketball before high school and youth and high school coaching improves. Until then, there won't be enough depth of talent for there to be more than a handful of elite teams each year.

While AAU coaching varies, the biggest problem problem is high school coaching. There are girls high school basketball coaches who have little to no coaching experience. With 3 to 4 months of daily practices, there should be some overall progress in player development. I've seen some teams who even appear to be poorer conditioned by the end of the season.

 

[UcMiami]

Wooden definitely had the advantage over modern men's teams of being able to stockpile talent - he had one year of teaching his system and three years of playing from ALL of his players -
KY this year had 3 seniors who played a total of 35 minutes in the season or less than one minute a game. They had two juniors, one who lead the team at 26 minutes a game and the other played 162 minutes only in 8 games. The rest of the minutes were divided between 7 sophomores and 4 freshman - playing 85% of the minutes for the year.

Uconn's seniors accounted for 47 mpg and the juniors accounted for 82.5 mpg - 129.5 mpg in total or 65% of the total minutes - a huge advantage for Uconn and all women's teams similar to what Wooden experienced. The ability to stockpile and teach talented recruits multiplies the advantage of good recruiting. KY is losing 7 players to the NBA draft - Uconn lost 2 seniors.

Unless Loyd becomes the norm in WCBB and we are a long way from that - partial parity will continue to look different in WCBB than in MCBB and the depth of competitive teams will remain smaller. Think of it this way - if Uconn were a men's team, Geno would be replacing not just KML and Stokes, but Stewart, Jefferson, and maybe Tuck. ND would not just have lost Loyd, but Turner as well and maybe Allen, Baylor - Johnson and Davis, etc. And the top ten teams would be anyones guess. Men's basketball each year culls out the top 30 or 40 players from the college ranks and sends them to the pros.

 

[JellyBean]

Oh yeah. There will be true parity in the women's game, in time. It is a process and getting better each year. At the lower levels (elementary, middle, and high school), and because of the exposure of the WNBA and women's college basketball on TV, the quality of coaching and player development is getting better. As those players and coaches get better, it just expands the pool of talent for university coaches and their staff. So I believe that true parity will happen in WCBB. It is just a matter of time.