PDA

View Full Version : UCONN Women lose: 'The Streak' ends at 90



Red Leader
12-30-2010, 10:48 PM
For those interested, the UCONN women's team is currrently trailing by 10 points with about 6 minutes left in the game. They are playing Stanford on ESPN2. Their consecutive win streak is in real trouble.

paintmered
12-30-2010, 11:06 PM
UCONN looks to be going down. 42 seconds left, down 8 and Stanford is on the line.

Red Leader
12-30-2010, 11:10 PM
The streak that started in 2008, the longest in the history of basketball, has come to an end. Stanford has beaten Connecticut 71-59. The win streak is stopped at 90 consecutive games. An incredible record.

Some numbers on the streak:

UCONN's average margin of victory during the streak: 33.4 pts/gm.
Wins vs AP ranked teams: 31
Wins by 10+ points: 88
Days since last loss: 998

In case your wondering, the last time a UCONN women's team lost 2 in a row? March of 1993. Wow.

goreds2
12-30-2010, 11:20 PM
One of (if not the best) the greatest winning streaks in sports history has ended at 90 games. I think I saw 31 of those games were against top 25 teams. Average margin of victory was 33 points!

Sea Ray
12-30-2010, 11:29 PM
Good riddens! Now we don't have to hear about it on ESPN...

webbbj
12-30-2010, 11:30 PM
Irrelevant

Brutus
12-30-2010, 11:36 PM
Irrelevant

Yet, you took the time to post about something that you call irrelevant.

I don't like women's ball nearly as much as men's. But I cannot get over the total insecurity guys exhibit when it comes to discussing it. They go out of their way to tell people how meaningless it is, like they need some boost to their ego.

Seriously... if you don't like it, you're in the majority. But what are you not getting in life that you have to waste space with these types of responses?

reds1869
12-30-2010, 11:51 PM
Well, that makes me feel better about Xavier getting pasted by Stanford earlier in the week. Congrats to UCONN on an amazing accomplishment.

Red Leader
12-30-2010, 11:51 PM
I don't actively follow women's basketball. I think tonight was the first time in maybe 10-15 years that I actually watched more than 5 minutes of a game. To say that this news is irrelevant is crazy, though. This streak may have been one of the only reasons that women's basketball received any coverage at all, or was discussed by casual sports fans. This streak was very, very impressive whether you think women's basketball is relevant or not. You just don't see teams putting together 90 straight victories, 88 of those being by more than 10+ points. That's just competely destroying your competition. I congratulate the UCONN women's team on a tremendous run.

Boston Red
12-31-2010, 12:50 AM
Yet, you took the time to post about something that you call irrelevant.

I don't like women's ball nearly as much as men's. But I cannot get over the total insecurity guys exhibit when it comes to discussing it. They go out of their way to tell people how meaningless it is, like they need some boost to their ego.

Seriously... if you don't like it, you're in the majority. But what are you not getting in life that you have to waste space with these types of responses?

I think ESPN's attempt to cram this whole thing down everyone's throat as if it really compared to UCLA's streak turned a lot of people's opinions from apathy to antipathy. You couldn't avoid the whole thing if you were just trying to mind your own business and watch a bowl game.

I actually enjoy a bit of women's basketball (mostly in the NCAA Tournament). But the way ESPN covered this streak, and Geno's comments throughout, were just ridiculous.

Kingspoint
12-31-2010, 01:21 AM
I think ESPN's attempt to cram this whole thing down everyone's throat as if it really compared to UCLA's streak turned a lot of people's opinions from apathy to antipathy.

Like the NBA trying to cram the WNBA down people's throats. Few people care.

I might watch ESPN (other than live games of some type) once a week for 3 or 4 minutes, at the most. It just doesn't offer anything anymore.

When women golfers start playing 72-hole tournaments every week while hitting from the men's tees; and, women basketball players start playing with a basketball that's the same size as a "regular" basketball; and, when women tennis players start playing best-of-five-set matches every week; and, when women softball players start playing with baseballs with the same field and diamond dimensions as a baseball field; then, and only then will I begin to think of comparing a streak performed by women to a streak performed by men. Until then, the only thing it's worthy to be compared with is another women's basketball streak.

Amateur and professional women athletes need to take a page from horse-racing, where women athletes compete on an equal basis against men. There, where they aren't given any "handicaps", like they are given in most sports, they have shown to be equal in strength, stamina, ferocity, competitiveness, and talent as the men they compete against. They are as fun to root for (and against) as any man in their profession. Gender doesn't come one's mind when watching them, as it's all about the above things I mentioned. But, when a "handicap" is given, such as the fewer rounds or sets played, or the smaller basketball used, then the whole experience is tainted and a waste of time to watch. Women do themselves a disservice by not demanding that things be changed. They still act like it's 1890 in tennis. That's why nobody wants to watch. Most women tennis players are fat and out of shape. It's a joke. Women's basketball is a joke because they play with a smaller basketball. Women's golf is a joke because they play only 54 holes while playing a shorter course.

Do women run an 80-meter dash? No. That would be ridiculous. But, it's no more ridiculous than playing with a smaller basketball. Why should amazonian women play with a smaller basketball than middle-school boys play with? Get serious about your sport and you'll draw a serious audience who cares.

Brutus
12-31-2010, 02:58 AM
I think ESPN's attempt to cram this whole thing down everyone's throat as if it really compared to UCLA's streak turned a lot of people's opinions from apathy to antipathy. You couldn't avoid the whole thing if you were just trying to mind your own business and watch a bowl game.

I actually enjoy a bit of women's basketball (mostly in the NCAA Tournament). But the way ESPN covered this streak, and Geno's comments throughout, were just ridiculous.

I agree that ESPN has been overplaying it, but they tend to overplay Connecticut in general because of the proximity to headquarters. But I think the reaction that has been going on is typical of anytime women's basketball is mentioned, and not just during this streak. And I really don't get it. I get why some people don't care, but why do we need to know that? It doesn't add anything to the discussion nor does it attempt to.

Boston Red
12-31-2010, 03:30 AM
Again, people who have been perfectly happy to just ignore women's basketball are prompted to complain about it when ESPN interrupts the football game they actually want to watch to update them on something they honestly don't care about. Just about every site I've visited tonight has a thread celebrating Stanford's win today because it means they don't have to hear about the streak anymore.

It's similar to people who don't like soccer. Most of the time they just ignore it. When the World Cup comes around and it takes longer to get to the baseball highlights on SportsCenter, they take shots at the sport. I generally hope for the US to be eliminated as quickly as possible to minimize the time spent discussing it.

*BaseClogger*
12-31-2010, 04:25 AM
Serious discussion me and my friends had recently--could UCONN's womens basketball team defeat a Division III mens team?

dabvu2498
12-31-2010, 07:43 AM
Like the NBA trying to cram the WNBA down people's throats. Few people care.

I might watch ESPN (other than live games of some type) once a week for 3 or 4 minutes, at the most. It just doesn't offer anything anymore.

When women golfers start playing 72-hole tournaments every week while hitting from the men's tees; and, women basketball players start playing with a basketball that's the same size as a "regular" basketball; and, when women tennis players start playing best-of-five-set matches every week; and, when women softball players start playing with baseballs with the same field and diamond dimensions as a baseball field; then, and only then will I begin to think of comparing a streak performed by women to a streak performed by men. Until then, the only thing it's worthy to be compared with is another women's basketball streak.

Amateur and professional women athletes need to take a page from horse-racing, where women athletes compete on an equal basis against men. There, where they aren't given any "handicaps", like they are given in most sports, they have shown to be equal in strength, stamina, ferocity, competitiveness, and talent as the men they compete against. They are as fun to root for (and against) as any man in their profession. Gender doesn't come one's mind when watching them, as it's all about the above things I mentioned. But, when a "handicap" is given, such as the fewer rounds or sets played, or the smaller basketball used, then the whole experience is tainted and a waste of time to watch. Women do themselves a disservice by not demanding that things be changed. They still act like it's 1890 in tennis. That's why nobody wants to watch. Most women tennis players are fat and out of shape. It's a joke. Women's basketball is a joke because they play with a smaller basketball. Women's golf is a joke because they play only 54 holes while playing a shorter course.

Do women run an 80-meter dash? No. That would be ridiculous. But, it's no more ridiculous than playing with a smaller basketball. Why should amazonian women play with a smaller basketball than middle-school boys play with? Get serious about your sport and you'll draw a serious audience who cares.

Wow. Just wow.

You don't think the physiological differences between men and women might be the reason for the differences in their competitions?

Women's tennis players are fat and out of shape? Man, I got nothing for you.

I seriously hope this post was tongue in cheek, but somehow, I doubt it.

dabvu2498
12-31-2010, 07:52 AM
Serious discussion me and my friends had recently--could UCONN's womens basketball team defeat a Division III mens team?

I'd say that's a fair question and depending on the makeup of the particular teams, might make a good matchup.

bucksfan2
12-31-2010, 10:13 AM
Serious discussion me and my friends had recently--could UCONN's womens basketball team defeat a Division III mens team?

Absolutely not. Men are stronger, tougher, can jump higher, are faster, are more athletic, etc. Its not a knock on anything other than an anatomy issue. The one thing that women's basketball has going from them is their fundamentals. But when you get to the lower divisions in mens basketball you see more fundamental teams.

I would even venture to say this. UCONN's womens team couldn't beat a good high school team. Could you imagine UCONN playing against Jarrod Sullinger and co. last season? I remember a story years ago in SI about Tennessee's womens team and how they practiced against a team of male students. These males students gave UT everything they could handle and more.

WVRed
12-31-2010, 10:24 AM
Yet, you took the time to post about something that you call irrelevant.

I don't like women's ball nearly as much as men's. But I cannot get over the total insecurity guys exhibit when it comes to discussing it. They go out of their way to tell people how meaningless it is, like they need some boost to their ego.

Seriously... if you don't like it, you're in the majority. But what are you not getting in life that you have to waste space with these types of responses?

I wouldn't call it irrelevant, but it does show something I've always believed when it comes to womens college basketball, the lack of overall parity.

I can't speak for the Golden Era at UCLA because I was not alive during that time, but was the mens sport as watered down as what womens college basketball is today?

It's basically UConn, occasionally Tennessee, and thats about it.

jojo
12-31-2010, 10:38 AM
Amateur and professional women athletes need to take a page from horse-racing, where women athletes compete on an equal basis against men. There, where they aren't given any "handicaps", like they are given in most sports, they have shown to be equal in strength, stamina, ferocity, competitiveness, and talent as the men they compete against. They are as fun to root for (and against) as any man in their profession. Gender doesn't come one's mind when watching them, as it's all about the above things I mentioned. But, when a "handicap" is given, such as the fewer rounds or sets played, or the smaller basketball used, then the whole experience is tainted and a waste of time to watch. Women do themselves a disservice by not demanding that things be changed. They still act like it's 1890 in tennis. That's why nobody wants to watch. Most women tennis players are fat and out of shape. It's a joke. Women's basketball is a joke because they play with a smaller basketball. Women's golf is a joke because they play only 54 holes while playing a shorter course.

Do women run an 80-meter dash? No. That would be ridiculous. But, it's no more ridiculous than playing with a smaller basketball. Why should amazonian women play with a smaller basketball than middle-school boys play with? Get serious about your sport and you'll draw a serious audience who cares.

This is just an opinion but last night's game was basically unwatchable without the intrigue of a historic streak possibly coming to an end. If that was the best that woman's basketball has to offer, suggesting it's not very compelling is a major understatement. I'd rather play wii golf than watch that brand of basketball. As for taking the effort to buy a ticket and actually physically attending a a woman's basketball game, after watching last night's "showcase", it aint gonna happen.

RichRed
12-31-2010, 10:48 AM
Absolutely not. Men are stronger, tougher, can jump higher, are faster, are more athletic, etc. Its not a knock on anything other than an anatomy issue. The one thing that women's basketball has going from them is their fundamentals. But when you get to the lower divisions in mens basketball you see more fundamental teams.


I even think the women's supposed superiority in the fundamentals is overblown. When I watch women's basketball (not often), I see an awful lot of bad passes, poor shot selection, turnovers, missed FTs and missed layups. Especially when you get down past the top 10 or so teams in the country.

Jack Burton
12-31-2010, 10:51 AM
They had a good run but I'm glad it's over. As has been already mentioned I was sick of seeing this on ESPN and for some reason I don't care for that Geno character.

Redsfan320
12-31-2010, 11:22 AM
I couldn't give less of a crap about women's college basketball, but to win 90 straight games in any sport is pretty darn impressive. :clap:

320

webbbj
12-31-2010, 12:25 PM
Serious discussion me and my friends had recently--could UCONN's womens basketball team defeat a Division III mens team?

it wouldnt even be close. a d3 team wins by 40+

any HS w/ atleast 500 students in it would beat UCONN women. their tallest player is a 6ft 5in freshman center. they have 6 players under 6ft.

even at the HS level at a school of 500 every player is gonna be 6ft tall atleast, and their gonna have multiple bigs over 6ft 4in.

it would be a lot closer than against a D3 team b/c UCONN would be at a higher skill level but defensively a HS team is gonna have an advantage and offensively they will have shots against players they have 4+inches on.

i think you gotta get down to little tiny HS teams that have an enrollment of like 200 until the women could win.


and the game got a 1.5 tv rating. yeah it really had the attention of the Nation.

Roy Tucker
12-31-2010, 12:56 PM
Serious discussion me and my friends had recently--could UCONN's womens basketball team defeat a Division III mens team?

It might be a good game. I remember reading that the Tennessee women's teams regularly scrimmage against fellow men students. And (from what I can recall, it was a while back), the men players had been good HS players but couldn't quite compete at the UT Div. 1 mens level. And they went at it pretty hard per directive of Pat Summit. Other women weren't really able to challenge the team.

But I don't know how much Div. III guys play above the rim and that might be the difference. The women are very skilled in fundementals (maybe more than Div. 1 men), but lack the dynamic athleticism that men have. I think it would be a good ballgame. Maya Moore is the real deal and plays like a guy.

Sea Ray
12-31-2010, 12:57 PM
I resent ESPN cramming this down our throats. It didn't warrant all that coverage as their ratings proved. The competition in the women's game is severely lacking. The difference between the #10 womens team and the #1 is much greater than the same comparison in Div 1 men's.

This record means as much to me as if someone won 90 straight arm wrestling matches

RBA
12-31-2010, 02:24 PM
Good record, but I am scratching my head because I don't even think it's in the same league as the men's record. (and it is not by definition)

BuckeyeRed27
12-31-2010, 02:53 PM
It is certainly impressive, but like others have said I think speaks more to the general weakness of the competition than the domination of UConn. However you do have to give credit to the program for year after year always being good.

The coverage of it certainly was annoying though. Women's basketball is a third tier sport at best in most sport fans minds, but this was getting top billing. I wonder if there was a win streak for D3 Football or if a college wrestler or hockey team had a record win streak going what type of coverage it would get?

dabvu2498
12-31-2010, 03:08 PM
It might be a good game. I remember reading that the Tennessee women's teams regularly scrimmage against fellow men students. And (from what I can recall, it was a while back), the men players had been good HS players but couldn't quite compete at the UT Div. 1 mens level. And they went at it pretty hard per directive of Pat Summit. Other women weren't really able to challenge the team.

But I don't know how much Div. III guys play above the rim and that might be the difference. The women are very skilled in fundementals (maybe more than Div. 1 men), but lack the dynamic athleticism that men have. I think it would be a good ballgame. Maya Moore is the real deal and plays like a guy.


Most high-level women's D1 teams do this. Heck, a lot of high school varsity girls teams will scrimmage against fresman boys' teams in practice, if freshman boys' coaches ego will allow. And those generally provide decent practice settings if the kids take them seriously.

And you're generally right about D3 men's basketball. Generally the skill level and "basketball IQ" of those kids is pretty high, but with a few exceptions, they aren't great athletes. And the one's who are good athletes tend to be fairly unskilled.

There was a kid from the Dayton area a few years ago who went on to become a D3 All-American post at Wooster. Skill level, court awareness, hands, feet -- all off the charts. But he was only 6'4 and kinda bolted to the ground. I doubt if he could've grabbed the rim.

The difference might be the one or two good athletes you might find on a D3 team that would beat the women's team on the glass. I doubt you'd see a ton of difference in the guards at UConn and the guards at Mt. St. Joe's or Wilmington or Centre.

And for the record, I don't love women's college hoops but I will watch a good game every now and then because I'm a live sports junkie. I do enjoy the levl of competition that the upper echelon teams bring to the table and any good high school coach worth his salt will watch a women's game to steal offensive sets. That's probably the thing I like most about the women's game. They execute sets. Unlike the iso one-on-one garbarge that has largely trickled down from the NBA to the college game.

Kingspoint
01-01-2011, 09:38 PM
Wow. Just wow.

You don't think the physiological differences between men and women might be the reason for the differences in their competitions?

Women's tennis players are fat and out of shape? Man, I got nothing for you.

I seriously hope this post was tongue in cheek, but somehow, I doubt it.

You don't think the physiological differences between men and women might be the reason for the differences in their competitions?

Do you? Are you saying that women are inferior to men when it comes to stamina and that's why they play best-of-three sets instead of best-of-five, and why they play three rounds of golf instead of four? I have a lot more appreciation for women athletes than that. There hasn't been a physical difference in stamina for decades between men and women when it comes to athletics.

----------------------------------------------------

Women's tennis players are fat and out of shape?

Duh! Of course they are. Do you not watch professional women's tennis? When it takes 30 minutes to complete a match, where does stamina come into play and where does the energy spent come into play to offset the obvious calories that so many of them take in. There should not be a single fat woman playing professional tennis, but when you see the very best players, it has been commonplace for quite some time that they are fat and out of shape.

----------------------------------------------------

This certainly was not tongue-in-cheek. I meant every bit of the suggestion that women athletes get serious about their competitions if they want to be taken seriously in the sports world, while at the same time wanting to be paid the same as their male counterparts.

Use the same size basketball (which is such a joke that they use a smaller basketball than a 13-year old boy uses who is just 5 feet tall).

Play 4 rounds of golf.

Play best-of-five sets in tennis.

There's nothing physically different about women that they shouldn't be doing all three of these things.

Kingspoint
01-01-2011, 09:42 PM
I couldn't give less of a crap about women's college basketball, but to win 90 straight games in any sport is pretty darn impressive. :clap:

320

I've failed to shoot a sub-80 90 straight times in Golf. Does that count? (I've never done it and never will. Just never had the time to get that good.)

Sea Ray
01-01-2011, 10:05 PM
This certainly was not tongue-in-cheek. I meant every bit of the suggestion that women athletes take get serious about their competitions if they want to be taken seriously in the sports world, while at the same time wanting to be paid the same as their male counterparts.



I love posts that start with "wow, just wow". When I see that I know the person writing it has few facts to add.

Of course you meant it and you've defended it quite nicely

dabvu2498
01-01-2011, 10:41 PM
You don't think the physiological differences between men and women might be the reason for the differences in their competitions?

Do you? Are you saying that women are inferior to men when it comes to stamina and that's why they play best-of-three sets instead of best-of-five, and why they play three rounds of golf instead of four? I have a lot more appreciation for women athletes than that. There hasn't been a physical difference in stamina for decades between men and women when it comes to athletics.

----------------------------------------------------

Women's tennis players are fat and out of shape?

Duh! Of course they are. Do you not watch professional women's tennis? When it takes 30 minutes to complete a match, where does stamina come into play and where does the energy spent come into play to offset the obvious calories that so many of them take in. There should not be a single fat woman playing professional tennis, but when you see the very best players, it has been commonplace for quite some time that they are fat and out of shape.

----------------------------------------------------

This certainly was not tongue-in-cheek. I meant every bit of the suggestion that women athletes take get serious about their competitions if they want to be taken seriously in the sports world, while at the same time wanting to be paid the same as their male counterparts.

Use the same size basketball (which is such a joke that they use a smaller basketball than a 13-year old boy uses who is just 5 feet tall).

Play 4 rounds of golf.

Play best-of-five sets in tennis.

There's nothing physically different about women that they shouldn't be doing all three of these things.

Hate to point this out, but most of the events on the LPGA tour are 4-day events.

http://www.lpga.com/content/LPGA_Schedule.pdf

And I also hate to point out that the only men's tennis tournaments where best of 5 sets are played are the 4 majors.


I love posts that start with "wow, just wow". When I see that I know the person writing it has few facts to add.

Of course you meant it and you've defended it quite nicely

Still feeling that way?

Sea Ray
01-01-2011, 11:08 PM
And I also hate to point out that the only men's tennis tournaments where best of 5 sets are played are the 4 majors.





Right on. What's wrong with judging tennis based on the majors? Why can't the women play best of five in the majors?

jojo
01-01-2011, 11:26 PM
Right on. What's wrong with judging tennis based on the majors? Why can't the women play best of five in the majors?

Because that would qualify as torture under the Geneva convention and the WTA doesnt want to alienate it's 10+ fans....

paintmered
01-01-2011, 11:33 PM
Right on. What's wrong with judging tennis based on the majors? Why can't the women play best of five in the majors?

Probably because the extra time required for the matches would make playing the tournaments in two weeks nearly impossible.

dabvu2498
01-01-2011, 11:34 PM
Right on. What's wrong with judging tennis based on the majors? Why can't the women play best of five in the majors?

I can think of one reason. Quite a few top women's players also play doubles, especially at the majors. Not one hundred percent sure, but I don't think many of the men do.

Kingspoint
01-02-2011, 01:39 AM
Right on. What's wrong with judging tennis based on the majors? Why can't the women play best of five in the majors?

Which is the only women's tennis that I watch.

One of the greatest sporting events I've ever seen live was an Evert/Navratalova(sp?) French Open match. While it only lasted three sets, it seemed like five.

Kingspoint
01-02-2011, 01:43 AM
I can think of one reason. Quite a few top women's players also play doubles, especially at the majors. Not one hundred percent sure, but I don't think many of the men do.

They wouldn't be playing the Doubles if they played a "real" match. Let me know the next time a "Doubles" match is showcased on CBS or NBC during a Finals Weekend.

Most of the men do, too. The really good men players don't as they have more important things to do than play Doubles.

Kingspoint
01-02-2011, 01:49 AM
Hate to point this out, but most of the events on the LPGA tour are 4-day events.

http://www.lpga.com/content/LPGA_Schedule.pdf

And I also hate to point out that the only men's tennis tournaments where best of 5 sets are played are the 4 majors.


It's good that women's golf has finally figured out that they should be playing 4-day tournaments like the men's major tours (European and PGA).

That pretty much leaves basketball and tennis. Since the only tournaments that anybody watches when it comes to women's tennis are the Majors, then they should change to best-of-five sets just as the men do if they want to be taken seriously.

Sea Ray
01-02-2011, 11:19 AM
Probably because the extra time required for the matches would make playing the tournaments in two weeks nearly impossible.

OK, if time's a factor then why have anyone play a 5 set match? I don't think you've nailed the exact reason

paintmered
01-02-2011, 09:24 PM
OK, if time's a factor then why have anyone play a 5 set match? I don't think you've nailed the exact reason

Once upon a time, the conventional wisdom was that if a woman ran over 220 yards, she would die.

Watch Wimbledon and you'll notice that the schedule is always a topic of conversation. Assuming everything goes as planned, there's not much free time in the two weeks. Delays are such an issue that Wimbledon went through the expense of installing a roof over center court. Changing from three to five sets will add 50-150% to the match time. Let's assume the average of that to be 75%. Let's assume that a women's match lasts around 1:30. Now the average match lasts 2:38. That's an additional 143 hours of match time. And that's if include only womens' singles.

And as others stated, five sets is the exception and not the rule for the men.

Sea Ray
01-02-2011, 11:56 PM
Once upon a time, the conventional wisdom was that if a woman ran over 220 yards, she would die.

Watch Wimbledon and you'll notice that the schedule is always a topic of conversation. Assuming everything goes as planned, there's not much free time in the two weeks. Delays are such an issue that Wimbledon went through the expense of installing a roof over center court. Changing from three to five sets will add 50-150% to the match time. Let's assume the average of that to be 75%. Let's assume that a women's match lasts around 1:30. Now the average match lasts 2:38. That's an additional 143 hours of match time. And that's if include only womens' singles.

And as others stated, five sets is the exception and not the rule for the men.

I understand time's an issue. So why do they have the men playing a best of 5 and not the women? Why not the other way around?

RBA
01-03-2011, 12:26 AM
I understand time's an issue. So why do they have the men playing a best of 5 and not the women? Why not the other way around?


In the early years of Tennis, men couldn't accept defeat. So after 1 game, the loser said, "Best of 3 games". Still not content, the man said, "First one to 6 games wins." Then loser said, "you must win by 2 games". The loser still not happy, says, "Best of three sets". And finally the loser says "Best of 5 sets" wins the match.

BRM
01-03-2011, 09:20 AM
That's probably the thing I like most about the women's game. They execute sets. Unlike the iso one-on-one garbarge that has largely trickled down from the NBA to the college game.

This right here is the biggest reason why I can and will watch women's hoops, although still not very often. Given that, it's hard to watch a full game though. The fact that it's more team oriented and they execute sets does make it interesting in small doses.

Hoosier Red
01-03-2011, 09:44 AM
I wouldn't call it irrelevant, but it does show something I've always believed when it comes to womens college basketball, the lack of overall parity.

I can't speak for the Golden Era at UCLA because I was not alive during that time, but was the mens sport as watered down as what womens college basketball is today?

It's basically UConn, occasionally Tennessee, and thats about it.

Actually, I think it's the parity that made the streak possible. Parity for everyone else at least. Essentially Women's basketball used to be about a 4-5team race. There was UConn, Tennessee, Stanford, and maybe 2 or 3 other teams who could really play. They got all the top players, they could give each other a good game, but really they were going to beat everyone else by 40-50 points.

As the game and the talent pool expanded, more and more top players went to different schools. It started to thin out the top teams. Except for UConn.
So now UConn is collecting the same number of top players as before, (if not more because they're the biggest super power) and the rest of the teams are starting to see the talent level flatten out. Now pretty much everyone from about 2-20 can give each other a game, but all were going to get creamed by UConn.

Hoosier Red
01-03-2011, 09:47 AM
They wouldn't be playing the Doubles if they played a "real" match. Let me know the next time a "Doubles" match is showcased on CBS or NBC during a Finals Weekend.

Most of the men do, too. The really good men players don't as they have more important things to do than play Doubles.

The women's players aren't paid as much. Whether they should be or not, is really immaterial. (And has nothing to do with the amount of time spent on court, but rather is based on the amount of fan interest.)

The top players can make enough from endorsements and what not, but for players 10-400, they pretty much have to play doubles in order to make a living.

Hoosier Red
01-03-2011, 09:57 AM
It is certainly impressive, but like others have said I think speaks more to the general weakness of the competition than the domination of UConn. However you do have to give credit to the program for year after year always being good.

The coverage of it certainly was annoying though. Women's basketball is a third tier sport at best in most sport fans minds, but this was getting top billing. I wonder if there was a win streak for D3 Football or if a college wrestler or hockey team had a record win streak going what type of coverage it would get?

I agree with many others who think comparing this to UCLA's streak is silly. But not because one or the other is better or worse, but rather because the two sports are simply different. True, men could more easily win a women's game than vice versa, but just because the worst NFL team could beat the best College Football team doesn't make College Football any less deserving of coverage.

I think it was a noteworthy sporting event and it deserved coverage, (even breaking into a football game,) but it was noteworthy on its own merits. Not because it was longer than UCLA's streak.

As far as ESPN "shoving it down the consumer's throat," they do nothing more than promote their own products. There aren't a whole lot of women's basketball games, but ESPN does show the women's tournament. So it makes sense to build interest in the women's tournament. I think this has less to do with any PC issue than it does with trying to get viewers for their tournament.

IslandRed
01-03-2011, 05:51 PM
A few random thoughts:

I don't see the comparison between UConn and UCLA either, just because it's not the same sport any more than a college baseball hitting streak doesn't count as breaking DiMaggio's record. But in terms of the degree of difficulty -- UCLA not only won 88 straight games, they won seven national titles in a row, and most of their Final Four games weren't close. So how strong was their competition, really?

In tennis with the difference in sets, it's that way because it's always been that way. Seriously, sometimes it's no more complicated than that. If it ever changes, it's more probable that men start playing best-of-three in Grand Slams than women play best-of-five, although I don't foresee either happening under current tournament structures. And honestly, playing five-set matches isn't going to make anyone a women's tennis fan who isn't already, nor is it going to bring more money into the sport. Just more work for the same pay.

And a few of you are no doubt destined to have daughters someday who love sports, just because the world sometimes has a sense of humor. :p:

Kingspoint
01-04-2011, 12:41 AM
This right here is the biggest reason why I can and will watch women's hoops, although still not very often. Given that, it's hard to watch a full game though. The fact that it's more team oriented and they execute sets does make it interesting in small doses.

I've attended my share of playoff games at various levels. Always appreciate good fundamentals.

Kingspoint
01-04-2011, 12:48 AM
The women's players aren't paid as much. Whether they should be or not, is really immaterial. (And has nothing to do with the amount of time spent on court, but rather is based on the amount of fan interest.)

The top players can make enough from endorsements and what not, but for players 10-400, they pretty much have to play doubles in order to make a living.

All true. You hear constantly from the women's top tennis players that they should get paid as much as the men, especially from the Williams' sisters, but they miss the point that they aren't as popular. Thus the whole reason for what I said what I said, as I think they'd be more popular if they had grueling best-of-five matches.

Who remembers how during Andre Agassi's early years (until about 23, 24, or 25) that he could never win a 5-set match. But, then as he physically developed (and he quit hanging out with Barbra :) ), he then became, in my opinion, the best player ever to play a 5-set match. If Andre got you to five sets, you were toast.

Navratalova would have had another half-a-dozen Majors if they had been doing best-of-five back then, and players like Monica Seles and her fat-body wouldn't have won anything as she would have pooped out before the 4th set got finished, if not been exhausted before the 3rd set got finished. She'd put people away in 35 minutes and not break a sweat throughout the tournament.

Kingspoint
01-04-2011, 12:52 AM
FWIW, I love the University of Connecticut. It's one of my Top-10 favorite Universities.

Hoosier Red
01-04-2011, 09:43 AM
All true. You hear constantly from the women's top tennis players that they should get paid as much as the men, especially from the Williams' sisters, but they miss the point that they aren't as popular. Thus the whole reason for what I said what I said, as I think they'd be more popular if they had grueling best-of-five matches.

Who remembers how during Andre Agassi's early years (until about 23, 24, or 25) that he could never win a 5-set match. But, then as he physically developed (and he quit hanging out with Barbra :) ), he then became, in my opinion, the best player ever to play a 5-set match. If Andre got you to five sets, you were toast.

Navratalova would have had another half-a-dozen Majors if they had been doing best-of-five back then, and players like Monica Seles and her fat-body wouldn't have won anything as she would have pooped out before the 4th set got finished, if not been exhausted before the 3rd set got finished. She'd put people away in 35 minutes and not break a sweat throughout the tournament.

Nah I disagree. The women aren't historically as big of stars, but it's not because they don't play 5 set matches. As others have pointed out, the majority of the audience doesn't really sit and watch an entire 5 set match anyway. Diehards will, but it's not diehards who pay the bills for the US Open, it's the casual fan who knows to pay attention to tennis two to three times per year.

goreds2
01-04-2011, 11:24 PM
Next Game / New Streak

01/05/11 vs. Villanova * Storrs, Conn. (Gampel Pavilion) 7:30 p.m