NCAA Record broken

[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."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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."

The extra athleticism is balanced by the extra athleticism of the opposing team. The ability to get to a new position quicker is countered by an opponent doing the same. Yes, the women are slower, but, that doesn't automatically make them worse. It is entirely possible that they could execute a better "game". I'm not saying I enjoy it or thing is is more fun to watch, I don't generally watch it much at all...but the elements of execution do not necessarily correlate to the absolute speed at which they are executed but relative to the base abilities of those involved.

[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.

[deecee]

Why is this a discussion. Its good the players involved, but other than them and their families and the organization who cares?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

Why is this a discussion. Its good the players involved, but other than them and their families and the organization who cares?

The state of Connecticut?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The state of Connecticut?

And all 20 of its citizens?