NCAA Record broken

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Geno is no Coach Wooden. Wooden's record stands.

"My grandfather would have been thrilled. He would have been absolutely thrilled to see his streak broken by a women’s basketball team. And he thought, especially in the last 10 years, that the best basketball was played at the collegiate level, and it wasn’t by the men." (Greg Wooden, grandson of former UCLA coach John Wooden)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"My grandfather would have been thrilled. He would have been absolutely thrilled to see his streak broken by a women’s basketball team. And he thought, especially in the last 10 years, that the best basketball was played at the collegiate level, and it wasn’t by the men." (Greg Wooden, grandson of former UCLA coach John Wooden)

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Would Wooden have been thrilled? Probably. But I do not buy that women are playing the best basketball. Your average NAIA division II school would destroy the UConn women's team.

It's an impressive streak, I'm not saying it isn't. I enjoy watching girls and women play basketball, but whether it's "better" is purely subjective and aesthetic. By any objective standard, it's not true.

As some caller said on the radio, "The women are better at the fundamentals. The fundamentals are boring."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

As some caller said on the radio, "The women are better at the fundamentals. The fundamentals are boring."

I don't even buy that they are better at the fundamentals. It's just that the fundamentals are all they have. Not a lot of 360 degree tomahawk jams in the women's game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't even buy that they are better at the fundamentals. It's just that the fundamentals are all they have. Not a lot of 360 degree tomahawk jams in the women's game.

It probably depends on how you define fundamentals. FT percentages? Shooting percentages? I'm not sure what those comparisons would reveal, but just thinking "out loud."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It probably depends on how you define fundamentals. FT percentages? Shooting percentages? I'm not sure what those comparisons would reveal, but just thinking "out loud."

I have no numbers to back it up, but I don't think the women do anything better than the men. Is there one woman who has a better free throw percentage than any man? Possibly. From top to bottom, do the women do anything better than the men? I doubt it.

With regard to athletic ability, I say the following: How many women in the country can dunk a basketball? A handful

Pick a big high school randomly. 1000 students. How many boys are there in this school that can dunk that don't even play basketball?

[chartrusepengui]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't think the women do anything better than the men.

Nope - Toooo easy. Not even going to go here. It wouldn't be right. Kind of like UConn playing the women of the Luther Home and not allowing walkers on the court! Nope - not gonna do it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I have no numbers to back it up, but I don't think the women do anything better than the men. Is there one woman who has a better free throw percentage than any man? Possibly. From top to bottom, do the women do anything better than the men? I doubt it.

With regard to athletic ability, I say the following: How many women in the country can dunk a basketball? A handful

Pick a big high school randomly. 1000 students. How many boys are there in this school that can dunk that don't even play basketball?

Irrelevant...athleticism does not equate to "basketball". Lots of slam dunk phenoms can't play. And men are clearly better at athleticism. I don't think anyone has ever debated that point.

However, if you're talking about "pure basketball"...passing, screening, teamwork, etc., there is no reason why women couldn't be just as good or better.

That, of course, doesn't make it more fun to watch, but it could be "better".

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Irrelevant...athleticism does not equate to "basketball". Lots of slam dunk phenoms can't play. And men are clearly better at athleticism. I don't think anyone has ever debated that point.

However, if you're talking about "pure basketball"...passing, screening, teamwork, etc., there is no reason why women couldn't be just as good or better.

Actually athleticism does play a part in all of it. More physical strength makes it possible to make the tough pass. More speed and quickness makes it possible to get in position to make the screen. But the main point is the addition of athleticism changes the overall game so much that I find it difficult to compare the two and find it unacceptable that the women feel that they have "broken the men's record."

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Irrelevant...athleticism does not equate to "basketball". Lots of slam dunk phenoms can't play.

He can't play compared to other men. Put that guy on the women's team at his high school and it would shock me if he wasn't the best player on the team.

Of course there are some things, like teamwork, that the men and women can do equally as well, but you are not more likely to see those things in a women's game. You might as well just watch the men's games because the level of play is so much higher. I would think that an average men's team would beat this UCONN team by 80 points every game. That is only outscoring them by 2 points per minute which might even be too low. When the level of play is that much lower I don't really see how it could be considered a "good" game no matter how well they pass and how much teamwork they use.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

However, if you're talking about "pure basketball"...passing, screening, teamwork, etc., there is no reason why women couldn't be just as good or better.

That, of course, doesn't make it more fun to watch, but it could be "better".

+1.

Some womens college teams have better fundamentals than either some D1 mens teams or NBA teams.

But it's still boring to me. It's up to the individual whether they want to watch it, same as any sport.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It probably depends on how you define fundamentals. FT percentages? Shooting percentages? I'm not sure what those comparisons would reveal, but just thinking "out loud."

The only thing that is comparable is free throw percentage. Everything else is completely different. You can't compare field goal percentage because that is affected by defense. Put men up against some women's team and see what their stats are for that game.

The most basic skills needed for a basketball player are to be able to run fast and to jump. Women can't do either one nearly as well as men.

When I was in college (D-III) the women's basketball team was pretty decent. For a couple practices they got 2 of the offensive linemen from the football team to come and play with them. The guys were athletic of course but they couldn't jump really high, they weren't super fast, and they weren't the slightest bit good at basketball. They didn't play basketball in HS, there is no way they would have made the team. If you would see their shooting form you would understand what I am saying. Well they just dominated the women. Just think what would have happened if these guys were even average HS players.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Cobra

The only thing that is comparable is free throw percentage. Everything else is completely different. You can't compare field goal percentage because that is affected by defense. Put men up against some women's team and see what their stats are for that game.The most basic skills needed for a basketball player are to be able to run fast and to jump. Women can't do either one nearly as well as men.

When I was in college (D-III) the women's basketball team was pretty decent. For a couple practices they got 2 of the offensive linemen from the football team to come and play with them. The guys were athletic of course but they couldn't jump really high, they weren't super fast, and they weren't the slightest bit good at basketball. They didn't play basketball in HS, there is no way they would have made the team. If you would see their shooting form you would understand what I am saying. Well they just dominated the women. Just think what would have happened if these guys were even average HS players.

I was thinking that as I wrote it. Good point.

The only reason I didn't go with high school is coaching. Frankly, I'd guess you could go into a YMCA on any Saturday morning and pick 8 or 9 guys who could form a team and beat the UConn team for the very reasons you state.

[zm1283]

To me this isn't a mens basketball vs. womens basketball thing. Yes, they are completely different in that I don't think the women's record should be THE record everyone else is judged by. I think there is a men's record and a women's record. I don't think the UCONN record is as impressive, and it has nothing to do with how good women are at basketball. It has to do with the fact that womens D1 basketball is EXTREMELY watered down. A handful of programs dominate the sport and the rest have no chance year in and year out. How many womens teams have a shot at a national title before the season starts? Five or six?...And that's in one of these years when UCONN isn't as dominant. I think you could honestly say that 20 or more mens teams have a shot at a national title before the season starts.

[26 Year Gap]

I remember being glued to the TV as Austin Carr made basket after basket. I might scan a headline or maybe not with the UConn win. Probably not since I know the outcome.

"Doesn't that tofu taste just like meat?"

"No. It doesn't."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I remember being glued to the TV as Austin Carr made basket after basket. I might scan a headline or maybe not with the UConn win. Probably not since I know the outcome.

"Doesn't that tofu taste just like meat?"

"No. It doesn't."

LOL, the true vegetarians I know don't want it to taste like meat.