UConn Women Vs. UCLA

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

Math.....The first I heard of a female basketball player was Ann Meyers (David Meyers older sister and Mrs. Don Drysdale) when she was at UCLA in the mid 70s. About '79, I became curious about women playing bball when I read an article about Nancy Lieberman in the NY Times playing against boys on the playgrounds in Brooklyn. As a point guard she was the first great player in the women's game. I started watching on TV the once or twice a year games were shown, mostly in the Final Fours of the then AIWA. Until UConn came to prominence in the early '90s, I remained a curious fan. In that 15 or so year period of time, the players improved by leaps and bounds.

With the '94 baseball strike, I became basically fed up with the greed of professional sports as well as the college bballers leaving early for the NBA. As someone that went to UConn who has lived in CT most of my life, I gravitated to the Huskie women. What I think I appreciate the most is the girls stay at the school for four years. As a fan, I knew Maya Moore and Diana Taurasi would be playing at UConn through their senior years. If I lived anywhere else and had not attended UConn, I would probably still only have the casual interest that I did prior to their emergence as a powerhouse.

Edit: To put it into perspective, I am willing to bet that the ratings on Tuesday night were higher than some Breeders Cups

Let's be honest, they stayed in school for all four years because there is no money to be made in the WNBA. If the WNBA pay scale was 1/3rd of what the NBA is, I would think that there would be very little chance that many of these girls would be there for all 4 years.

I understand what you are saying, but you are obviously vested/genuinely interested in the program as you attended college and from the sounds of it live in the area/state.

As a sports fan from a nearby state, I could honestly say I just don't find women's basketball interesting. They could win 1000 in a row and while I acknowledge that it's an accomplishment, I honestly couldn't care less. I just don't find the sport interesting.

I do enjoy certain womans sports, just basketball isn't one of them.

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Let's be honest, they stayed in school for all four years because there is no money to be made in the WNBA. If the WNBA pay scale was 1/3rd of what the NBA is, I would think that there would be very little chance that many of these girls would be there for all 4 years.

I understand what you are saying, but you are obviously vested/genuinely interested in the program as you attended college and from the sounds of it live in the area/state.

As a sports fan from a nearby state, I could honestly say I just don't find women's basketball interesting. They could win 1000 in a row and while I acknowledge that it's an accomplishment, I honestly couldn't care less. I just don't find the sport interesting.

I do enjoy certain womans sports, just basketball isn't one of them.

There is an age limit of 22 for entering the WNBA, the same as there was in the NBA years ago. Remember Wilt jumping to the Globe Trotters from Kansas after his junior season? The exceptions to the rule are the player has completed 4 years of college or is not an American. Underage foreigners can play in the W but few do because as you said, there is just no money here. Diana Taurasi and a few other American gals are making $1 mil a season playing in Russia during the winter. There is also good money to be made in Spain, Turkey, and Israel. Weird, eh? Then they play in the W in the summer under a salary cap that only allows salaries of $40,000 to $100,000 a season.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

There is an age limit of 22 for entering the WNBA, the same as there was in the NBA years ago. Remember Wilt jumping to the Globe Trotters from Kansas after his junior season? The exceptions to the rule are the player has completed 4 years of college or is not an American. Underage foreigners can play in the W but few do because as you said, there is just no money here. Diana Taurasi and a few other American gals are making $1 mil a season playing in Russia during the winter. There is also good money to be made in Spain, Turkey, and Israel. Weird, eh? Then they play in the W in the summer under a salary cap that only allows salaries of $40,000 to $100,000 a season.

I find that amazing that there is such a market for them overseas.
Makes you think, why even play for 100k during the summer and jepordize your 7 digit paydays in the winter.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

I find that amazing that there is such a market for them overseas.
Makes you think, why even play for 100k during the summer and jepordize your 7 digit paydays in the winter.

For da love of the game

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

For da love of the game

Exactly...A W championship means much more to them than one in Russia or Spain.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Let's be honest, they stayed in school for all four years because there is no money to be made in the WNBA. If the WNBA pay scale was 1/3rd of what the NBA is, I would think that there would be very little chance that many of these girls would be there for all 4 years.

I understand what you are saying, but you are obviously vested/genuinely interested in the program as you attended college and from the sounds of it live in the area/state.

As a sports fan from a nearby state, I could honestly say I just don't find women's basketball interesting. They could win 1000 in a row and while I acknowledge that it's an accomplishment, I honestly couldn't care less. I just don't find the sport interesting.

I do enjoy certain womans sports, just basketball isn't one of them.

Women's Beach Volleyball has a tendency to capture my attention.

[blackthroatedwind]

I actually think the two streaks are extremely comparable. I wonder what the lines were in the VAST majority of UCLA's games. I bet the competitive level was shockingly similar. Division I men's hoop was a LOT different back then and UCLA was absolutely stacked. No doubt UConn has a similar competitive advantage, though many women's programs have gotten much stronger since Diana and Sue were playing there.

It's an amazing achievement and I bet Bill Walton would agree with me.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I actually think the two streaks are extremely comparable. I wonder what the lines were in the VAST majority of UCLA's games. I bet the competitive level was shockingly similar. Division I men's hoop was a LOT different back then and UCLA was absolutely stacked. No doubt UConn has a similar competitive advantage, though many women's programs have gotten much stronger since Diana and Sue were playing there.

It's an amazing achievement and I bet Bill Walton would agree with me.

In the history of the NCAA womans tourney, Uconn and Tenn have won more championships than every other team combined, 15-14. The talent pool is simply not that deep and the teams getting the premier players (currently Uconn and formerly Tenn) win 50% of the championships. The difference in the little womans basketball that I watch seems to be the bottom teams have practically no chance to ever beat a top team.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

In the history of the NCAA womans tourney, Uconn and Tenn have won more championships than every other team combined, 15-14. The talent pool is simply not that deep and the teams getting the premier players (currently Uconn and formerly Tenn) win 50% of the championships. The difference in the little womans basketball that I watch seems to be the bottom teams have practically no chance to ever beat a top team.

Over a period of 10 or so years, how many championships did UCLA win?

I'm not saying it is the SAME....just that it is MORE comparable than many people realize. I doubt you find that an outrageous claim.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Over a period of 10 or so years, how many championships did UCLA win?

I'm not saying it is the SAME....just that it is MORE comparable than many people realize. I doubt you find that an outrageous claim.

I guess all winning streaks are comparable to some degree.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Over a period of 10 or so years, how many championships did UCLA win?

I'm not saying it is the SAME....just that it is MORE comparable than many people realize. I doubt you find that an outrageous claim.

I agree. Its actually quite comparable.

The difference in talent that UCLA was getting back then in comparison to what most other teams were getting is staggering. There were a few teams back then that went undefeated. If not for injuries in 1975, the hoosiers would probably have done it two years in a row. Isn't it interesting that since that 1976 Hoosier team, no NCAA men's team has finished undefeated? Why is that?

The game was much different then. There were a maximum of 25 teams in the tournament until 1975 when they expanded to 32 teams.

Recruiting was different then. It was more regional. There certainly weren't any other teams out west that were getting kids to come nationally like UCLA was. Other programs simply weren't paying the kind of money to kids that UCLA had been paying. That being the case, UCLA had a huge advantage. Sure they played midwest and east coast powers too, but a majority of the win streak came against overmatched west coast schools. Then they get to the tournament when you have to play a couple of tough games but the tourney for them back then was only like three games with no conference tourney.



Basketball was a much different game then. Yes, if you had a mens basketball team go on an 88 game winning streak TODAY, comparing UCONN'S winning streak would be pretty dumb. But taking into account the differences in the men's game back then and UCLA's massive competitive advantage over its foes, I think the streaks are much more comparable than some think.

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

In the history of the NCAA womans tourney, Uconn and Tenn have won more championships than every other team combined, 15-14. The talent pool is simply not that deep and the teams getting the premier players (currently Uconn and formerly Tenn) win 50% of the championships. The difference in the little womans basketball that I watch seems to be the bottom teams have practically no chance to ever beat a top team.

Does UConn get top recruits? Definitely, but other schools, Duke and Tennessee specifically, get players who rated just as highly coming out of high school. What makes UConn different? They have a great, great coach who knows which players to recruit to fit his system and he knows how to develope them once they get to his program.

In '99, UConn had their first great recruiting class. BTW's girl Sue Bird was rated #10 in that class. She was recruited as a shooting guard but when the point guard went down before her college career began, Sue took over the reins. She ended her college career as a three time Lieberman Award winner (Best point guard) and the 2002 player of the year. She became the #1 pick in the W draft and is presently considered the best point guard in the world.

OTOH, in '08 Tennessee signed the #2 player coming out of high school (same year as Maya Moore). In '09 they had one of the best classes of all time with 6 players ranked in the top 20. In the last two seasons, they have won two NCAA tourney games. Last year, Baylor as a #4 seed beat #1 Tennessee and #2 Duke in their region, making it to the final four. Why? They have a great coach in Kim Mulkey who is second only to Geno.

Cannon, there is much more parity in the women's game now than there was ten years ago. UConn and Baylor just happen to stand alone this year just as UConn and Stanford did last year. This year unranked DePaul beat #3 at the time Stanford by 20. Unranked Syracuse beat #6 at the time Ohio State by 10. #20 Georgetown beat #5 Tennessee by 11. #14 at the time Florida State lost to Ivy cellar dweller Yale.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

Does UConn get top recruits? Definitely, but other schools, Duke and Tennessee specifically, get players who rated just as highly coming out of high school. What makes UConn different? They have a great, great coach who knows which players to recruit to fit his system and he knows how to develope them once they get to his program.

In '99, UConn had their first great recruiting class. BTW's girl Sue Bird was rated #10 in that class. She was recruited as a shooting guard but when the point guard went down before her college career began, Sue took over the reins. She ended her college career as a three time Lieberman Award winner (Best point guard) and the 2002 player of the year. She became the #1 pick in the W draft and is presently considered the best point guard in the world.

OTOH, in '08 Tennessee signed the #2 player coming out of high school (same year as Maya Moore). In '09 they had one of the best classes of all time with 6 players ranked in the top 20. In the last two seasons, they have won two NCAA tourney games. Last year, Baylor as a #4 seed beat #1 Tennessee and #2 Duke in their region, making it to the final four. Why? They have a great coach in Kim Mulkey who is second only to Geno.

Cannon, there is much more parity in the women's game now than there was ten years ago. UConn and Baylor just happen to stand alone this year just as UConn and Stanford did last year. This year unranked DePaul beat #3 at the time Stanford by 20. Unranked Syracuse beat #6 at the time Ohio State by 10. #20 Georgetown beat #5 Tennessee by 11. #14 at the time Florida State lost to Ivy cellar dweller Yale.

My question to you is how accurate are the rankings for womans basketball, especially in regard to high school player? The mens rnkings can be pretty skewed and there is probably 1000 times more coverage/attention paid to that. Hell in football every year we hear how great of a class Notre Dame gets then once they actually hit the field we hear how slow they are or how the SEC schools get all the talent.

The only similarity between the two teams is they both like p.ussy.

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

My question to you is how accurate are the rankings for womans basketball, especially in regard to high school player? The mens rnkings can be pretty skewed and there is probably 1000 times more coverage/attention paid to that..

I agree with you about the accuracy of the ratings. When Maya Moore was rated #1 in her class, the #2 player Angie Bjorkland chose Tennessee. Maya will be a 4 time All-American. Angie never will. There are 30 players in the country better than her. UConn's freshman point guard was ranked anywhere from 10 to 14 in the various rating services. She might be the best frosh in the country. My point is that Geno is very good at schmoozing kids that are not at the top of the list that turn out to be extremely good players.

Cannon, the recruiting in wcb is a lot more intense than you might think. Because of Title IX, the women receive just as many scholarships as the men. That money is going to be spent even if the program loses money.

[herkhorse]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It's an amazing achievement and I bet Bill Walton would agree with me.

oooooohhh, Bill Walton