Getting this thread back on track. Yes...there is one program that stands above all the rest - just like Louisiana Tech and Tennessee in the women's game....and UCLA in the men's game.

That doesn't diminish the point that outside of UCONN, 3 of the Final 4 participants have never been there before.

Pretty much the definition of parity.

NCAA woman's tournament should be called the UConn Invitational. We can narrow it down to 16 teams and get it over with.

(03-29-2016 03:56 PM)ivet Wrote:  NCAA woman's tournament should be called the UConn Invitational. We can narrow it down to 16 teams and get it over with.

Cool story bro. 3 BRAND NEW Final Four participants and it's the UCONN Invitational?There is a lot of parity in WBB these days. Yes...there is a juggernaut this year, but anyone who follows the sport isn't complaining this season (unless you have an agenda).

Like I said, a lot of parity in those ranked #2 - whatever number this year.

(03-29-2016 04:06 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 03:56 PM)ivet Wrote:  NCAA woman's tournament should be called the UConn Invitational. We can narrow it down to 16 teams and get it over with.

Cool story bro. 3 BRAND NEW Final Four participants and it's the UCONN Invitational?There is a lot of parity in WBB these days. Yes...there is a juggernaut this year, but anyone who follows the sport isn't complaining this season (unless you have an agenda).

Like I said, a lot of parity in those ranked #2 - whatever number this year.

Cool story bro.

Season Team Overall Conference Standing Postseason
Connecticut Huskies (Big East Conference) (1985–2013)
1985–86 Connecticut 12–15 4–12 7th
1986–87 Connecticut 14–13 9–7 7th
1987–88 Connecticut 17–11 9–7 5th
1988–89 Connecticut 24–6 13–2 1st NCAA 1st Round
1989–90 Connecticut 25–6 14–2 T–1st NCAA 2nd Round
1990–91 Connecticut 29–5 14–2 1st NCAA Final Four
1991–92 Connecticut 23–11 13–5 T–2nd NCAA 2nd Round
1992–93 Connecticut 18–11 12–6 3rd NCAA 1st Round
1993–94 Connecticut 30–3 17–1 1st NCAA Elite Eight
1994–95 Connecticut 35–0 18–0 1st NCAA Champions
1995–96 Connecticut 34–4 17–1 1st NCAA Final Four
1996–97 Connecticut 33–1 18–0 1st NCAA Elite Eight
1997–98 Connecticut 34–3 17–1 1st NCAA Elite Eight
1998–99 Connecticut 29–5 17–1 T–1st NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1999–2000 Connecticut 36–1 16–0 1st NCAA Champions
2000–01 Connecticut 32–3 15–1 T–1st NCAA Final Four
2001–02 Connecticut 39–0 16–0 1st NCAA Champions
2002–03 Connecticut 37–1 16–0 1st NCAA Champions
2003–04 Connecticut 31–4 14–2 1st NCAA Champions
2004–05 Connecticut 25–8 13–2 T–2nd NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2005–06 Connecticut 32–5 14–2 2nd NCAA Elite Eight
2006–07 Connecticut 32–4 16–0 1st NCAA Elite Eight
2007–08 Connecticut 36–2 17–1 1st NCAA Final Four
2008–09 Connecticut 39–0 16–0 1st NCAA Champions
2009–10 Connecticut 39–0 16–0 1st NCAA Champions
2010–11 Connecticut 36–2 16–0 1st NCAA Final Four
2011–12 Connecticut 33–5 13–3 3rd NCAA Final Four
2012–13 Connecticut 35–4 14–2 2nd NCAA Champions
American Athletic Conference (2013–present)
2013–14 Connecticut 40–0 18–0 1st NCAA Champions
2014–15 Connecticut 38–1 18–0 1st NCAA Champions

UConn Invitational! Actually, when he retires they should call it the Geno Invitational.

True story bro!

Yes, the UConn Invitational. It still would have been that if Tennessee, Baylor, Purdue, Texas, Louisiana Tech or Notre Dame had made it that far. It'd be like me playing in a 1-on-1 tournament with fifth graders.

(03-29-2016 04:27 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yes, the UConn Invitational. It still would have been that if Tennessee, Baylor, Purdue, Texas, Louisiana Tech or Notre Dame had made it that far. It'd be like me playing in a 1-on-1 tournament with fifth graders.

But every now and then you run into this kid.

(03-29-2016 08:13 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 09:09 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:59 PM)ivet Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:53 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Sexist much...

Why sexist? The style of play from men vs women are totally different and seriously, would be able to land McDonald's AA and make Final Four runs practically every year? Doubt it.

You wouldn't be asking the same question if their coach was female.

Did you ask why Pat Summit didn't move to coaching men? Have you asked why unsuccessful coaches in the men's game (like JT3) don't switch to coaching women? Doubt it.

I don't think your questions here show that his original comment was 'sexist'.

Women's college hoops is a lower-level of play, and when someone dominates at a lower level of play, the question always arises about how they would do at a higher level. E.g., when I was growing up in Maryland, there was a local high school, DeMatha, that was famous for having great boys teams, and their coach was a legend. He was always asked whether he was going to take a college job, and people routinely speculated about whether he could duplicate his success if he did. Same thing with great college football coaches like Bowden and Paterno, there was always speculation about how they would do in the NFL, etc.

We do that with players, too. E.g., right now, people are wondering how good LSU's Ben Simmons and that Oklahoma guard will do in the NBA. Dominate at a lower level and people wonder whether you can do it at a higher level. It's natural, not sexist.

In terms of level of play, top-level women's college hoops is equal to decent boys high school hoops, so it makes sense to speculate about how Geno would do as a men's college coach.

Cool story.

If ivet was asking a serious question, the nipple reference probably wasn't the best way to start it off.

It isn't just a cool story, it's a correct one. Telling me what ivet said about nips is beside the point: my points clearly show that asking about how Geno might do as a men's hoops coach isn't sexist.

(03-25-2016 11:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 10:38 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Not for teams ranked #2 - #300+

Friday Results:

4 Syracuse defeats 1 South Carolina
7 Washington defeats 3 Kentucky
4 Stanford defeats 1 Notre Dame
7 Tennessee defeats 3 Ohio State

But the rest of the tournament is a joke, since UConn has about a 98% chance of winning it.

Not since Pat Summitt eroded mentally and that 6'8" woman left Baylor has UConn had any competition.

While this looks to be true- check out the conference standings for women's basketball. The conference records seem to line up with men's basketball. UConn seems to be having a "UCLA"-type run. http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/standings

(03-29-2016 04:31 PM)ivet Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 04:27 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yes, the UConn Invitational. It still would have been that if Tennessee, Baylor, Purdue, Texas, Louisiana Tech or Notre Dame had made it that far. It'd be like me playing in a 1-on-1 tournament with fifth graders.

But every now and then you run into this kid.

I was just about to say there are some tall and frisky youngsters that could probably take me to task on the court.

That said, I could outsmart him, even if not outquick him.

(03-28-2016 05:17 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Ok, so I know UConn has dominated the wbb scene for years. UofL is trying their best to climb the mountain. We have had great recruiting classes.We avg about 9,000 in attendance. We play a tremendous conference schedule. We have had great NCAA tournament runs. That is about ALL anyone can expect to do. The UConn dominance will end sometime or another. Until then, all you can do is hate it or accept it.

Jeez, UL women's team draws 9k? I wish our men's team could do that. I also wish it wasn't a steaming hot pile of fresh dogshit.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(03-29-2016 07:55 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  That said, I could outsmart him, even if not outquick him.

I'd probably just shove him or wrap my arms around him after the 2nd crossover pass me.

I'd block him just like this:

Consider that before this year:
UConn had been to 8 Final Fours in a row
Notre Dame had been to 5 Final Fours in a row
Stanford had been to 6 of last 8 Final Fours

So three teams dominated 75% of the most recent Final Fours
Stanford lost in the Elite Eight this year, Notre Dame was knocked out by Stanford in the Sweet 16.

and this year has 3 new final 4 teams.

Stanford barely beat South Dakota St in the round of 32.

Parity has gotten better. I think this may be the end of the UConn run. Yeah they're getting a top 5 recruit. But they're losing maybe the best women's player ever.

Another data point that shows how thin the talent is spread - number of wins

On the Men's side, only one team, Kansas, reached the 30-win mark. Villanova, with one win, or UNC, with two wins, could get there as well.


On the Women's side, 10 teams are at the 30+ win mark:

UConn: 36-0 (still in NCAA Tourney)
Baylor: 36-2
Notre Dame: 33-2
South Carolina: 33-2
Oregon State: 32-4 (Still in NCAA Tourney)
FGCU: 32-5 (Still in NIT)
Colorado State: 31-2
Maryland: 31-4
Texas: 31-5
South Dakota: 30-6 (Still in NIT)


Plus Syracuse is at 29 wins and still in NCAA

wrong......
Nova 33
UNC 32
Kansas 33
Oregon 31
Valpo 30
UALR 30
so 6 already....
Oklahoma 29

also- you have UVA, Mich St, St Mary's, and Chattanooga all who finished with 29 wins.

So 11 teams with 29+ wins, or just as many as on the women's side....

(03-30-2016 12:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  wrong......
Nova 33
UNC 32
Kansas 33
Oregon 31
Valpo 30
UALR 30
so 6 already....
Oklahoma 29

also- you have UVA, Mich St, St Mary's, and Chattanooga all who finished with 29 wins.

So 11 teams with 29+ wins, or just as many as on the women's side....

I see that now - ESPN has women's overall records updated through the post-season, but not the men's overall records. Weird.

But it doesn't change the basic premise - the top of the women's division is much more concentrated than on the men's side.

We will see if this year was a fluke, or whether the usual suspects will be back dominating next year.

(03-29-2016 05:19 PM)chess Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 11:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 10:38 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Not for teams ranked #2 - #300+

Friday Results:

4 Syracuse defeats 1 South Carolina
7 Washington defeats 3 Kentucky
4 Stanford defeats 1 Notre Dame
7 Tennessee defeats 3 Ohio State

But the rest of the tournament is a joke, since UConn has about a 98% chance of winning it.

Not since Pat Summitt eroded mentally and that 6'8" woman left Baylor has UConn had any competition.

While this looks to be true- check out the conference standings for women's basketball. The conference records seem to line up with men's basketball. UConn seems to be having a "UCLA"-type run. http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/standings

... and before UConn, Tennessee had a "UCLA like run". It's common in women's hoops.

Thing is, in men's hoops, "UCLA-type runs" stopped happening more than 40 years ago, because parity rose.

Another thing that stopped 40 years ago in men's hoops was undefeated champions. It's been 40 years since Indiana became the last undefeated champ.

Women's hoops? It's very common, has happened 7 times in the past 18 years, and by three different programs - Tennessee, UConn, and Baylor. Heck, it's happened 3 of the past 6 years, and there is a 99% chance it will happen this year too.

That's another sign of lack of competitive balance.

I think a team as dominant as UConn has been in WBB can be a good thing for the sport. Sure, nobody likes seeing the same team win all the time, but people will likewise want to watch to see someone take down such a dominant team. I don't know that UConn's dominance has been GOOD for women's basketball, but I don't see it as having been BAD for it either. I think the biggest thing against WBB is that, for whatever reason and whether right or wrong, it's seen as an inferior product to men's basketball. I'm not really sure what could be done to alter that view, but having a dominant team isn't the biggest factor against the sport.