UConn Wimmen

[gbpfan1231]

I agree that you can't compare this to a streak at a different level. yes the streak is impressive and is the longest in Women's basketball but you just can't compare it to a men's streak or even a woman's softball streak.

 

As far as bias goes - I can watch some womens sports like Tennis and golf and even womens soccer for a bit - I can't stomach women's basketball - not sure what it is? Is it because the women in Tennis, golf, soccer are somewhat attractive people? I just can't watch women's basketball.

 

If you took a state championship high school boys team they would beat UConn - I don't think you can say that about women's pro soccer or tennis or golf??? Could be wrong but maybe that has something to do with it???

[Furd]

As far as bias goes - I can watch some womens sports like Tennis and golf and even womens soccer for a bit - I can't stomach women's basketball - not sure what it is? Is it because the women in Tennis, golf, soccer are somewhat attractive people? I just can't watch women's basketball.

 

I'm kinda like this.

 

I think that it has something to do with how the competition "appears," perhaps more so to an untrained eye, when compared to its highest levels (which are typically male.)

 

When I watch professional or advanced amateur women compete at golf or tennis or volleyball, for instance, it doesn't appear to me to be all that different then the men at that same level competing. I know that men can hit the ball harder and farther, but it isn't really overt for the most part. I watch a little NCAA volleyball and I don't really care if its men or women competing.

 

Basketball is different - to my eye at least. It doesn't look like the best women players belong on the same floor as even average collegiate players. The game looks different -it looks inferior to the game played at its highest levels.

 

I don't give a rat's ass about either school or either team's winning streak. Its just that women's NCAA basketball is different. Its an inferior game to mens NCAA basketball, and noticeably so. So I don't think that its productive to compare the two when it comes to accomplishments. They each are remarkable under their own set of circumstances.

[millerx]

Did nobody see that Billy Jean King beat Bobby Riggs? Women are equal regardless of the sport. Enough said.

[Jackass]

Did nobody see that Billy Jean King beat Bobby Riggs? Women are equal regardless of the sport. Enough said.

 

you are joking, right?

[gbpfan1231]

Did nobody see that Billy Jean King beat Bobby Riggs? Women are equal regardless of the sport. Enough said.

The only thing equal about men's and women's College BB is that ALL the player equally enjoy licking carpet.

[Azazello1313]

You didn't lose me. Your disrespect for these women is pretty clear. Everyone knows that an apple isn't the same as an orange, but what you seem to be saying is that an apple is worth less than an orange.

 

if we're talking about men's hoops versus women's hoops, then yeah. an apple is worth a helluva lot less than an orange. it is laughably stupid to pretend otherwise.

[Azazello1313]

I'm kinda like this.

 

I think that it has something to do with how the competition "appears," perhaps more so to an untrained eye, when compared to its highest levels (which are typically male.)

 

When I watch professional or advanced amateur women compete at golf or tennis or volleyball, for instance, it doesn't appear to me to be all that different then the men at that same level competing. I know that men can hit the ball harder and farther, but it isn't really overt for the most part. I watch a little NCAA volleyball and I don't really care if its men or women competing.

 

Basketball is different - to my eye at least. It doesn't look like the best women players belong on the same floor as even average collegiate players. The game looks different -it looks inferior to the game played at its highest levels.

 

I don't give a rat's ass about either school or either team's winning streak. Its just that women's NCAA basketball is different. Its an inferior game to mens NCAA basketball, and noticeably so. So I don't think that its productive to compare the two when it comes to accomplishments. They each are remarkable under their own set of circumstances.

 

yup, pretty much. I actually kinda prefer women's tennis, because the game isn't quite all serve and power like the men's game has become. it looks to me a little like men's tennis from the wood racquet era, which in a lot of ways is more interesting than the men's pro game now. it also helps that the women tennis players are usually pretty damn sexy. beach volleyball is the same way. good looking participants playing an interesting brand of ball. but basketball? no. just no. it is awful compared to just about any other sporting competition people might pay to watch.

[detlef]

So, you know what, I'm going to have to issue a bit of a mea culpa.

 

Not on the quality of the woman's game because I simply don't think it's at an an entertaining brand of basketball unlike, say tennis, for the exact reasons Azz gave above and even enough so that it's fun to watch even when they're not smoking hot.

 

But on the relative merits of this streak vs Wooden's.

 

One could actually make a fine argument that Wooden had an even easier time.

 

Both benefit from a lack of overall depth, but Wooden also benefited from a particular lack of regional depth in an era where teams didn't make a point of playing as much outside their region and certainly not in first rounds of the tourney. This was a massive advantage for him in two ways. One, basically any player on the west coast worth a damn wanted to play for him because he was really the only game in town. Two, like the woman's game now, the lure of the pros was not as strong, so he was able to recruit very good players to come and win championships rather than go to other schools that may have not been as good so they could showcase their talents for the next level. So he could flat-out stock pile talent and then compound that by feasting on those other teams.

 

Had he coached in a state like NC back then, he'd not only be sharing the best players with other elite regional programs but also going up against them night in and night out and would have had to win the much tougher (at the time) ACC tourney just to make the NCAA tourney. The odds of them getting tripped up would simply be so much higher then they were.

 

And this is the thing that Geno doesn't have going for him. There might not be that many great teams in the game, but it's still a national game. He plays UT every year and, like him, Pat Summit is going all over the country gathering top talent. So, there's really no reason why she shouldn't be doing what he is. The SEC may be a bit tougher which could make it harder for her to run the table, but, again, she's had more than her fair share of chances to beat UConn and hasn't of late.

 

This is certainly not intended to completely discount the achievement of lacing em up every night and taking care of business. But that argument holds for the women and, again, Wooden had one major thing going for him that Geno doesn't have.

[Cameltosis]

boobs

[cdrudge]

Well, at least the continued comparisons will die down soon now.