Women's NCAA title game sucked...
- Thread starter R-M-U-h-o-o-p-s-f-a-n
- Start date
Wouldn't watch it if they were playing it in my back yard
No that is not the only reason
And this is a forum to talk about anything bb
Would not watch it if played in my back yard, both teams 30 - 0 and a pickem
I don't understand why at least one other program can't step up and challenge UConn. Either there is a real lack of girls basketball talent coming out of high school (doubtful) or Auriema is the greatest coach in the history of sports.
And I agree it sucks for the sport, big time, but I can't blame UConn for that.
And I agree it sucks for the sport, big time, but I can't blame UConn for that.
First, Auriemma is a great coach. But, it has a lot to do with the huge drop-off in talent from the Top 5-10 HS recruits and everybody else. Plus, they stay 4 years. If bball players stayed 4 years, maybe it would be Kentucky vs Duke every year.
Notre Dame women have given them a run a couple of times. I agree their dominance is not good for women's hoops.
It must be exhausting and demoralizing to be a program like ND or Rutgers from a while back to put forth such effort and still not come close to UConn. I look at ND records over the years and it amazes me they have won only one title.
Baylor was good for a few years, and ND is always around, but Duke, and UNC have fallen off, La Tech is finished, and Tennessee is a shadow of it's former powerful self. When Baylor and S. Carolina were upset, you knew there was no chance for a remotely competitive game. It's like UCLA under Wooden.
The difference is UCLA actually had competition Connecticut has none. It's damaging the women's game the gap between Connecticut and the rest of the teams is huge despite what Doris Burke says if ESPN didn't promote it so much no one would watch it I saw the very last few seconds and I was just flipping through channels.
Notre Dame beat UConn three times in 2013 (twice in Hartford) and then UConn beat them in the Final Four and won the title. Notre Dame took three of four in 2012 also, including the Final Four.
As easy as it is to write off UConn's advantage as being unfair, there's a ton of effective coaching and player development there too. The first year Geno was there, they were 4-12 in conference.
UConn is basically the women's equivalent of Kentucky under Calipari, except their players actually play four years. If you want to play professionally as a woman, UConn basically guarantees you'll get there.
As easy as it is to write off UConn's advantage as being unfair, there's a ton of effective coaching and player development there too. The first year Geno was there, they were 4-12 in conference.
UConn is basically the women's equivalent of Kentucky under Calipari, except their players actually play four years. If you want to play professionally as a woman, UConn basically guarantees you'll get there.
Women's basketball, and soccer, I would add, has a generic attendance and viewing problem because--
--Most (but not all, of course) women aren't really sports fans of either women's or men's sports. Their major life interests are in areas other than sports. Even when there is an interest in sports it often is in sports that are more artsy and aesthetic (e.g., figure skating, ice dancing, gymnastics, etc.).
--Most men have little or no interest in women's sports because they prefer to watch men's sports where the competitors are bigger stronger, faster and overall more athletic.
--Those men who follow and watch women's basketball and soccer are mostly the dads, brothers, uncles and cousins of the actual competitors (e.g. family). When they aren't they are mostly fans of the particular college team they root for, especially if it is their alma mater.
--Most (but not all, of course) women aren't really sports fans of either women's or men's sports. Their major life interests are in areas other than sports. Even when there is an interest in sports it often is in sports that are more artsy and aesthetic (e.g., figure skating, ice dancing, gymnastics, etc.).
--Most men have little or no interest in women's sports because they prefer to watch men's sports where the competitors are bigger stronger, faster and overall more athletic.
--Those men who follow and watch women's basketball and soccer are mostly the dads, brothers, uncles and cousins of the actual competitors (e.g. family). When they aren't they are mostly fans of the particular college team they root for, especially if it is their alma mater.
While I admit I do not follow women's sports, I did watch Pitt Lady Panther hoops last year when they were doing well and on TV. So if the product improves, I am interested. But they have to be competitive.
Women's basketball is a joke , and if I hear how great Geno Valderrama is one more time I'm gonna punch a lobster right in the face
My wife and I watched the women were great!
We like watching excellence and that's what you get when you watch the UConn women!!!!!!!
It's a great example of where hard work can get you!
The rest of the teams should be embrassed!
Can you provide some facts to support your point about viewing interests?
People also never watch men's competitive swimming or track and field, but when it comes time for the Olympics every year, they grab all the headlines. Regardless of gender, people want to watch professional-level athletes because they are the best in the world. The problem with women's sports is not that they are played by women, it is the fact that there isn't enough money involved to attract a volume of talent.
Women's golf gets money. Women's tennis gets money. At this point, women's MMA gets money.
Just read about the new lawsuit filed from the USWNT about wages.
UConn was expected to win the championship game by 30 points. That's all you need to know about womens hoops.
My wife and I watch womens basketball, soccer, and volleyball but you're premise is correct. My wife played sports and used to announce youth football so she's a sports girl unlike most of her and our friends.
The rise of womens golf and tennis was primarily due to male viewers not women viewers.
Things are shifting now with more young women becoming interested in different kinds of televised sports which is the emerging market for sports broadcasting.
Two womens sports that have been popular with women are college and nfl football.
Last edited:
This is for people that don't like parity to look at. WCBB sucks, because it's always dominated by a few teams, always UConn, ND, Tennessee, to name a few. The '60s UCLA teams where awesome, greatest ever, but to me, it sucks when the same team wins all the time. UConn being as dominant as they are make the sport a NOT-must see.
They're like UCLA in the '60s, ALL of the nation's best players go ONLY THERE, just to win the NC. Having teams with that much "excellence" makes the sport SUCK, I'd rather see 20 teams with 5 losses each and not be sure who would win. UConn is not "working harder" than the other teams, they're just getting all the best prospects every year.
So why is there such a disparity?
I do not say this to knock Geno or (whoever the ND coach is), but in woman's hoops, is it more about talent and less about coaching?
Again, I do not know much about the sport, but I would assume that most of the talent goes to UConn, ND, Rutgers, Tenn? or whoever the upper group is. Which means all the other teams get the scraps.
But then that would mean that the other players can not be developed? One would think that a coach somewhere could develop a team to compete?
Or I guess it is possible that maybe it is coaching? But then would that mean that all but 4 coaches are idiots?
Combination of Both? But then again, a team with a good coach should be able to develop players to challenge.
Anyway, until Pitt women become more interesting and some other team arises, I will not have much interest.
I do not say this to knock Geno or (whoever the ND coach is), but in woman's hoops, is it more about talent and less about coaching?
Again, I do not know much about the sport, but I would assume that most of the talent goes to UConn, ND, Rutgers, Tenn? or whoever the upper group is. Which means all the other teams get the scraps.
But then that would mean that the other players can not be developed? One would think that a coach somewhere could develop a team to compete?
Or I guess it is possible that maybe it is coaching? But then would that mean that all but 4 coaches are idiots?
Combination of Both? But then again, a team with a good coach should be able to develop players to challenge.
Anyway, until Pitt women become more interesting and some other team arises, I will not have much interest.
I don't think you understand basic economics. It's all free market driven, people will spend money where they want and those sports will pay their employees ( athletes) more! Simple!
The money for sports comes primary from advertising, attendance, selling stuff, etc. Not from mandated wages/salaries.
Advertisers are only interested in sports that have high viewship and attendance ratings.
Athletes are paid based on the money the sport generates.
Womens golf and tennis are huge and pay hugh purses because of the high level of male and female interest!
Womens team sports pay less than men because the franchise owners make less than owning a mens sports franchise ( mlb, or nfl).
Wages aren't going to increase until the particular womens sport becomes more interesting. viewership increases attracting more advertising dollars etc.
Noone dictates what women athletes are paid the sport and owners do!
Womens golf and tennis pay hugh purses because of the high level of interest and viewship from the general public. If you noticed the women that play both of those sports look and dress different from those in the past which has attracted male viewers and the sports exploded!
This is just one of many examples of why womens sports aren't supported by women. You can find many on the internet:
The typical person watching female athletes on television is a man. The audience for this year's championship game in women's college basketball was 57 percent male, according to Nielsen Media Research.
Last edited:
I think women's golf, tennis and soccer; and to some extent softball and volleyball, are "popular", relatively speaking, because there are several attractive, marketable stars. It's not PC, but I believe that's why a good portion of male sports fans watch. I know that's the main reason that I follow the LPGA. The talent disparity between the men's game and the women's game is just too great to watch solely for my pure love of the game itself.
That's one of the reason womens golf, tennis,, beach volleyball have skyrocked. Go look at a pic of a womens golfer in the 90's and look at the women on the tour today. Same for tennis!
Both sports are primarily supported by males.
As one famous NYCity single male radio personality said:
"when I'm to busy or I cant get a date I turn on womens golf, beach volleyball or tennis matches that I TIVO'd"
UCLA 1960s. Lew Alcindor, later to be known as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, was a NYC kid. But back then most of the tope prospects just went to UCLA. WCBB is like that now. UCONN is UCLA, But it also seems that women's ball is always like this, just very few dominant teams. Another thing, I figure there are less girl "gym rats", who are just obsessed with hoops, to come out of nowhere, bloom late, and be big stars. The top kids are developed early, and there are less of them.
The wages earned in the WNBA are horribly low. That is because the league doesn't make much money. That is because fans aren't interested. That is because the talent level/pool is low. That is because they don't earn enough money.
Some sports manage to break out of that cycle, some don't. It isn't any different for a male wrestler, swimmer, or lacrosse player.
when he gets compared to Wooden....
Blow lunch right then and there.
Keep the discussions within the confines of what he did and talk about it in those terms ....
There is NO comparison to women's college BB and men's
None
I think the fact the NCAA rule that allows 14 scholarships for women hurt the game more than it helps, if you can drop the limit to 13 (yea I know Title IX) i honestly believe it would spread out talent more....Ok QuitCallingMeWanny, you ask, how would reducing that number by one help? Because women don't leave school early and if a stud HS player sees that she might not see the floor until her junior year she might go elsewhere....Just my opinion but I believe I am onto something....
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
That's what I said in my reply to you and guess what WNBA pay deserves to be low its a terrible product ( WNBA).
Now compare the WNBA to womens golf or tennis a big difference, better product which attracts a wide range of viewership and advertising money.
Its all about a good product that people want to watch!
UCLA 1960s. Lew Alcindor, later to be known as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, was a NYC kid. But back then most of the tope prospects just went to UCLA. WCBB is like that now. UCONN is UCLA, But it also seems that women's ball is always like this, just very few dominant teams. Another thing, I figure there are less girl "gym rats", who are just obsessed with hoops, to come out of nowhere, bloom late, and be big stars. The top kids are developed early, and there are less of them.
Women's tennis is far and away the one women's sport that gets major attention. It's not recent either. Women tennis players were a big deal even back when Althea Gibson played. Billie Jean King, Chris Everett, and Martina Navratilova were household names in the 70s. I can watch Women's tennis with just as much interest as watching the men. The other sports, not so much.
I agree. Because Auriemma is most likely doing it "clean", or at least as clean as you can given the ridiculous state of the current NCAA rule book, and Wooden did it in large part thanks to boosters handing kids large sacks of cash on a regular basis. Two completely different things.
they are so dominant, you'd think that their past and current success would hurt their recruitment. I mean players want to play for great teams and compete for NCs but they do it so much, it's almost like anything less is a failure.. I could see recruits almost being turned off by that. Of course they don't so I am wrong but eventually, maybe, a top player would rather start something new than just being another in a long line of the same old..
I think I agree, but I'm not sure I follow your logic. UConn is proof that a lot of girls don't care about being on the bench, or potentially not playing 30 minutes per game ever. Going to UConn is the top accomplishment of a female high school player, basically. Their 13th player is probably better than anyone at Pitt, and they don't mind the repercussions of that. If UConn could only recruit 10 players, then those players would get signed to ND or Stanford, and ND's recruits get signed by Pitt, and so on.
The main reason for the disparity is because for the absolute top players to get their due, they need as much attention and coverage as possible, and that happens when you win rings at UConn. Brianna Kiesel played really well at Pitt for some really awful teams. Maybe she isn't in the WNBA if Pitt hadn't scrounged up enough talent in her senior year to actually make an NCAA run. These girls also have to at least try to earn real degrees, because their pro prospects are so much worse. It isn't an even comparison at all to men's D-I.
Yeah cause everytime I think of clean I think of UCONN....
Regardless
Nothing about women's basketball should ever be compared to men's. Nothing
Including Clean Gene being mentioned in the same breath as Wooden.
No, if that was the case, Duke, Kentucky, UNC and schools like that would stop getting 2-3 one and dones EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
Getting a college scholarship is basically their PRO salary. WNBA max salary is $107K/year. And woman that dreams of being a pro basketball player and getting rich, needs to figure that "getting rich" is not part of the job.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Recruiting Article Roman Siulepa impressing at Adidas EuroCamp- Latest: AvonBarksdale
