UCONN Women lose: 'The Streak' ends at 90

[Red Leader]

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]

UCONN looks to be going down. 42 seconds left, down 8 and Stanford is on the line.

[Red Leader]

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]

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]

Good riddens! Now we don't have to hear about it on ESPN...

[webbbj]

Irrelevant

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by webbbj

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

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]

Originally Posted by Boston Red

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]

Originally Posted by Boston Red

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]

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*]

Serious discussion me and my friends had recently--could UCONN's womens basketball team defeat a Division III mens team?

[dabvu2498]

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

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.