UCONN Women lose: 'The Streak' ends at 90

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

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]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRed27

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]

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. :

[Kingspoint]

Originally Posted by BRM

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]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

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]

FWIW, I love the University of Connecticut. It's one of my Top-10 favorite Universities.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

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]

Next Game / New Streak

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