I know we'll get a backlash from this, but I don't care too much at this point...I've been biting my tongue for a bit, and I've bitten it clean off.I'm not a fan of women's basketball. I don't like watching it, don't find it interesting...and you know what- I don't really care if you disagree with me. I don't mean that in a mean way, but I'm probably not going to sell not liking women's basketball to you, if you're a fan. And I'm positive you're not going to be able to convince me to become a fan of the game...so let's get that out of the way.
As long as Purdue's athletic department has a women's team, I'll root for them to do well as I want to see Purdue succeed in whatever endeavor it enters. But, just like I don't follow men's cross country (for instance) and wish them well...same goes for the Lady Boilers on the hardwood.
I think a lot of people think like I do about the women's game. Attendance and financial woes in the WNBA and across the nation in women's college basketball reaffirms my belief. Talking to people I know does the same...but EsPN continues to try to force the women's game upon the average fan...and I don't think it's working. More and more, they have women's highlights along side men's during college basketball highlight shows- and that's their right. And as a consumer, I in turn have the right to turn the channel or turn it off all-together.
The network's coverage of UConn's historic winning streak has been persistant and pervasive. In the defense of the producers, it's a pretty big deal to win that many games in a row in a division 1 sport. But, the cross-gender comparisons are silly and a line needs to be drawn.
The Lady Huskies seem to beat an opponent EACH SEASON by 70 points or so. Wooden's dominant teams also beat a few teams badly each year...but the average margin of these shellackings was around 50...and that type of win was not a regular occurrence. During the NCAA tourney, UCLA's teams when they won by a high margin would win by 15-20 points. The Lady Huskies, conversely, in the 2010 tourney won by 56, 54, 48 and 40...in consecutive tournament games.
I think the women's basketball fan might say that these numbers show just how dominant Ariemma's team is. I'd counter by saying these beatings do nothing but tear down the legitimacy of their game and show how little parity there is in their sport. And at the same time, UCLA's margins show how difficult their competition was and how similarly-talented their opponents were.
You simply don't see men's basketball teams win in the NCAA tournament (after the first round) by more than 30 points. But, in the women's game, 50 and 60 point margins are the norm for the upper echelon in that sport.
Another problem I have comparing women's and men's basketball is the details of the game
simply aren't the same...and those details matter. The women's ball is smaller and lighter and their three point line is closer.
Why does this matter? Because I've had multiple women's fans tell me that some of these girls could play the men's game. Sure, there are many that are great athletes and great shooters. BUT, shooting a smaller, lighter ball through the same size hoop from a closer distance is simply easier. If we want equitable talk- take away the 28.5 right away and move the three point line back to the men's line. Let's see what happens to the women's game.
Next, and most-obvious, the speed, and strength of the game isn't comprable.
It's a big story (according to EsPN) when a woman is able to dunk the basketball in college and in the WNBA. We see it each year when a female player does it in a game. But think about this- Lewis Jackson is far and away Purdue's shortest player on scholarship. He's listed at 5'9". He's probably closer to 5'7". No matter- he can not only dunk, but double pump on the way up or two hand reverse dunk...and I've never seen Sports Center anchors salivate with anticipation that LewJack might dunk sometime in the coming season. BUT, they did just that for multiple female players- specifically 6'4" Candace Parker (most recently).
The point is, the two games are very, very different. And for that reason the comparisons from the Men's to Women's games are like comparing a hockey team's feat to a basketball team's. It's asinine. Granted that doesn't stop EsPN from doing that either...so at least they're consistently moronic.
Let me close with one more point of comparison. And at this point, I don't think it needs to be made, but it shows how truly different the men's and women's games really are.
UConn is unquestionably the most-dominant women's team ever. As I talked about earlier, they're dominant because they're coached well, have some of the most-talented players and are a good-sized team.
Let's compare and contrast them with (arguably) the worst Division I men's team- Alcorn State, who our Boilers beat 103-48 earlier this season, is considered by some to be the worst in America. They have no wins on the season. They've been beaten by 30 and 40 points multiple times this season...So let's see how they'd match up v. the starting 5 of the Lady Huskies:
ACSU Men v. UConn Women
F Francis 6'8" 195 v. F Moore 6'0" 170
F Starks 6'8" 211 v. C Dolson 6'5" ???
G McDonald 5'10" 165 v. G Hartley 5'10 145
G Walker 6'2" 195 v. G Hayes 5'10 ???
G Ingram 6'3" 180 v. G Faris 5'11 155
-Alcorn St. brings a few guys off the bench (goes about 9 deep), who are 6'4"+ 200+
-UConn (who goes about 10 deep) brings players between 5'4" and 6'5" who weigh from 145 to around 180 (???)
It's crystal clear how silly that comparison really is. If they were to play, it'd be even clearer how it makes no sense to compare them. For this reason I can't wait for this UConn story to end and the cross-gender comparisons to stop.
Just like Pat Summitt shouldn't be compared to Bobby Knight, the 2010 Lady Huskies shouldn't be compared to the 1974 UCLA Men's Bruins.
But I'll make a promise- if the Lady Boilers can win the national title and get this crap off of my television, I'll do a first and post a story about the Lady Boilers basketball squad as a thank you.
9 comments:
Alcorn St. vs UCONN women.........
Now that is a GENIUS idea!
The other story, I truly believe, is that, had this been about ANY other program, ESPN wouldn't have covered it.
But ESPN has a fetish for all things UCONN. UCONN is the program that ESPN built. Prior to ESPN, the joke was that UCONN's nickname was the Fighting Insurance Salesmen (first heard on an episode of Cheers). I don't understand WHY, but UCONN would still be another insignificant Division 1-aa northeastern school like UMASS were it not for the intervention in the form of waaaaaay too much publicity from ESPN.
I agree with everything you say. Like the other "John" who posted a comment above, however, I've been struck by the degree to which UConn is ESPN's home team and gets excessive coverage for that reason. I don't think the hype would be so pervasive if it were Tennessee or Baylor or Purdue on a streak like this.
My favorite UConn moment came last year when IU and Illinois were playing on either ESPN or ESPN2. There was a game on the network before that game, and I certainly understand that if that game had run over, then we wouldn't have seen the beginning of the IU-UI game. Instead, however, the early game ended early. ESPN then switched to bonus coverage of a syndicated broadcast of UConn, which was fine. But then ESPN stuck with that game, which wasn't even scheduled for broadcast, instead of airing the first few minutes of the regularly scheduled IU-UI game. I've never seen anything like it.
Come on! UConn's women could totally crush Alcorn St. in a game on a neutral...okay, even I couldn't get that out with a straight face.
But these women play the game the way it is supposed to be played, in the 1940's.
Amen Boilerdowd!! Aside from the obvious fact that women’s bball is painfully un-athletic and not even bearable to watch, it’s an entirely separate sport. The NCAA gives out two separate championships. No one is comparing baseball and softball stats. This story about uconn is just so frustrating. Anyone with half a brain can see how this comparison is just absurd.
I have to blame my beloved NHL for some of this though. Before the lockout back in ’04, women’s bball was rarely on tv. Hockey was regularly on EsPN several nights a week. I guess EsPN was looking for an excuse to dump hockey, and the stupid lockout gave them just that. As much as I’m still mad at the NHL for doing that, I’ve never been able to comprehend why they would replace hockey with women’s bball though. I know hockey isn’t the most popular sport in America, but more people would watch the NHL than NCAA women’s games! Damn you espn
I think it's a great accomplishment for the UCONN women's team, but I totally agree- there is no comparison. That's why men & womens' sports are separate; because they can't possibly compete.
John Wooden said he thought women's college teams were playing basketball the way it should be played. Less above-the-hoop play, more athleticism. Sure, it may not be as much fun to watch. But don't for a second say they're less talented. Not convinced? Here's a great column:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/columns/story?columnist=voepel_mechelle&id=5262861
I'm not sure I would say that women's bball players are less talented... I've seen some very talented women players. My high school used to dread their annual games vs. Steph White at Seeger. They considered it a 'victory' to hold her below her average of 28 or 32 ppg....
Anywyas, I do agree that there is a very great disparity in talent in the women's game. There is less quantity of talented players. There just is - thus the 50 and 60 pt blowouts. And it IS a different game. I tried watching it in college when our Lady Boilers were kickin' butt (thx to S. White). I couldn't make it thru one game. It's too different - no backcourt violations (10sec), 30sec shot clock instead of 35 for men... and it's played different. The style of play is very different from the men's side.
So yes, UConn achieved a feat of similar quantity to that of Wooden's UCLA team. Wooden also won 7 consecutive NCAA titles. He was also 205-4 from '66 to '74. So 88 games doesn't exactly define Wooden's dominance. Just sayin'
Post a Comment