Women's college basketball needs some help

[justacollegefan]

Some sad stats about women's college hoops. UConn has won 30% of the national titles now and together with Tennessee they have combined for 18 of the 33 total national championships or 55%

UConn has had the player of the year 5 out of the last 10 seasons. They have the number 1 and 7 recruit next season and are in the lead for the number 1 girl in 2016 to go along with the number 3 ranked girl who has already committed. I actually didn't know it but there are only 64 total teams in women's college basketball to begin with, obviously do to money, but it leaves girls with less choices like they have on the men's side.

This isn't a knock on UConn, because I never thought we had a shot to beat them, but I found these numbers interesting. I do think their head coach gets way too much hype, I saw an article comparing him to Wooden and Phil Jackson lol. I guarantee most of the good coaches could lead those girls to titles, that is what happens when you have little diversity in the game.

Anyway congrats to UConn and our Irish... probably be a repeat next season as well. This sport will not be growing though if it continues to happen, just saying.

Go Irish

 

[Mheezyfosheezy3]

See any con men using "rent a players" to win a title with no intention of graduating, nope. A much purer, collegiate form of basketball. Men please take notice.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[irish316]

I actually didn't know it but there are only 64 total teams in women's college basketball to begin with, obviously do to money, but it leaves girls with less choices like they have on the men's side.

Where on Earth did you get that number of only 64 teams? There are way more than 64 women's teams in Division I.

 

[Classic Irish]

I just saw that Breanna Stewart's major at UConn is "Individualized Sports in Society."

Sounds academically rigorous.

 

[schadenfreude]

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

I just saw that Breanna Stewart's major at UConn is "Individualized Sports in Society."

Sounds academically rigorous.

She is going to be a pro basketball player. What major would you suggest?

 

[gipper04]

Geno and Chris Dailey had to recruit those women to Uconn, which is a cow pasture. They built the program from the ground up.Muffet is beginning to do the same. In 14 she got he #2 and 21, in 15 it was #10,14 and 26 and for 16 she got #9 and 16 already. And her whole program right now is underclassmen.Used to be that UT and Stanford would get most of the great players until Uconn came along.

 

[Izo]

Mc Graw is still a few front line players away

 

[utahND]

She will be making a million or so a year overseas just like Diana Taurasi is. Isn't the point of college to put yourself in the best situation to make money? I think Stewart will be just fine financially.

 

[MTIrish98]

Parity definitely does not exist in WNCAA BB, but do not underestimate what Geno has done at UCONN. Building a dynasty like that in any college level (or above) sport is quite impressive. It is possible that he wouldn't succeed as the men's coach because motivating women is different than motivating men, but do not let that diminish what he and his teams have accomplished.

ND looked intimidated to me last night. The missed layups, passing when they had an open look, and unforced turnovers cost them any chance of staying in the game. Take the intimidation factor away and the gap is pretty small.

 

[justacollegefan]

Originally posted by irish316:

I actually didn't know it but there are only 64 total teams in women's college basketball to begin with, obviously do to money, but it leaves girls with less choices like they have on the men's side.

Where on Earth did you get that number of only 64 teams? There are way more than 64 women's teams in Division I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Women%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Championship

sorry but there are only 64 teams in D1 women's basketball

my bad on what I wrote originally... I meant there were only 64 teams overall and they make the tourney, and most are average at best. I think UConn vs Texas this year in the tourney was a great example 1 vs 5 and UConn wins by 50 lol. hey the same goes for our Irish, they dominate a lot of good teams and it shouldn't be that way on a regular basis. the lack of "quality" programs gives good high school recruits such a limited option, especially because smaller schools that have D1 basketball probably don't have much of a program to begin with.

This post was edited on 4/8 11:59 AM by justacollegefan

 

[justacollegefan]

Originally posted by MTIrish98:

Parity definitely does not exist in WNCAA BB, but do not underestimate what Geno has done at UCONN. Building a dynasty like that in any college level (or above) sport is quite impressive. It is possible that he wouldn't succeed as the men's coach because motivating women is different than motivating men, but do not let that diminish what he and his teams have accomplished.

ND looked intimidated to me last night. The missed layups, passing when they had an open look, and unforced turnovers cost them any chance of staying in the game. Take the intimidation factor away and the gap is pretty small.

I think he is a very good coach, don't get me wrong, but at the same time I just think the comparisons to greats on the men's side is not realistic.

 

[NDEwing18]

Originally posted by justacollegefan:

Originally posted by irish316:

I actually didn't know it but there are only 64 total teams in women's college basketball to begin with, obviously do to money, but it leaves girls with less choices like they have on the men's side.

Where on Earth did you get that number of only 64 teams? There are way more than 64 women's teams in Division I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Women%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Championship

sorry but there are only 64 teams in D1 women's basketball

my bad on what I wrote originally... I meant there were only 64 teams overall and they make the tourney, and most are average at best. I think UConn vs Texas this year in the tourney was a great example 1 vs 5 and UConn wins by 50 lol. hey the same goes for our Irish, they dominate a lot of good teams and it shouldn't be that way on a regular basis. the lack of "quality" programs gives good high school recruits such a limited option, especially because smaller schools that have D1 basketball probably don't have much of a program to begin with.


This post was edited on 4/8 11:59 AM by justacollegefan

I'm confused - you think there are only 64 teams in all of Division 1 women's college basketball?

 

[schadenfreude]

Originally posted by justacollegefan:

Originally posted by MTIrish98:

Parity definitely does not exist in WNCAA BB, but do not underestimate what Geno has done at UCONN. Building a dynasty like that in any college level (or above) sport is quite impressive. It is possible that he wouldn't succeed as the men's coach because motivating women is different than motivating men, but do not let that diminish what he and his teams have accomplished.

ND looked intimidated to me last night. The missed layups, passing when they had an open look, and unforced turnovers cost them any chance of staying in the game. Take the intimidation factor away and the gap is pretty small.

I think he is a very good coach, don't get me wrong, but at the same time I just think the comparisons to greats on the men's side is not realistic.

I think it is realistic. If you want to say the men's side is more developed, you have to compare UCLA vs the field in the 60's. Things didn't look too "competitive" in that case either. Wooden dominated his peers just like Geno is dominating his.

 

[tkirish]

I think McGraw has done an awesome job. However, you can't have your head coach say " we didn't expect to be here" and expect to win. The game was over before it began. Uconn knew they would win. ND was just glad to be there, and that's how they played. Mcgraws team should be upset today that they played so poorly. They shouldn't be satisfied with just getting there.

 

[TurnoverMachine]

collegefan,

You couldn't be more wrong. There are 349 D1 women's basketball teams.

 

[irish316]

Um, 64 teams make the tournament but if you think there are only 64 teams in Division I and they all make the tournament then I'll have what you're smoking.

 

[Toby Smart]

IMHO, there will be a ton of lost interest in women's college basketball if UConn continues to dominate. ND is probably the second best program around and the difference between the Irish and UConn is large. I don't blame UConn or their staff. It's up to the rest of the programs to catch up and stay consistent. There are probably only so many top elite big girls to go around. Tall does not equal elite.

 

[gipper04]

Originally posted by irish jack:

IMHO, there will be a ton of lost interest in women's college basketball if UConn continues to dominate. ND is probably the second best program around and the difference between the Irish and UConn is large. I don't blame UConn or their staff. It's up to the rest of the programs to catch up and stay consistent. There are probably only so many top elite big girls to go around. Tall does not equal elite.

Uconn gets 3-4 of the top 20 each year. SO, either they do a phenomenal job of getting all the right ones, or other teams do a terrible job of picking the right ones.
Duke, Texas, Baylor, South Carolina, ND and Stanford all get their share. There are enough top 25 or 50 girls to go around. It is about getting the right ones and eveloping them. Geno and Chris do both, and do it very well.
And, I live in CT and despise UCONN the school and athletic dept with all my heart, with the exception of the girls b'ball who I marvel at.

 

[MTIrish98]

ND beat UCONN 3 out of 4 times just 2 years ago. Unfortunately the 1 loss was in the NC game. The gap didn't grow that much in the interim. Our leader from that year (Skylar Diggins) graduated and their young freshmen from that year (Breanna Stewart) grew into the NCAA player of the year. That change alone explains a 10 point loss.

 

[Classic Irish]

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

I just saw that Breanna Stewart's major at UConn is "Individualized Sports in Society."

Sounds academically rigorous.

She is going to be a pro basketball player. What major would you suggest?

Yeah, how silly of me to think that student-athletes should go to college for a real education and not study farcical curricula created just to keep athletes eligible. Got it.

 

[Classic Irish]

Originally posted by utahND:
She will be making a million or so a year overseas just like Diana Taurasi is. Isn't the point of college to put yourself in the best situation to make money? I think Stewart will be just fine financially.

Wow, what a myopic and anti-intellectual view of a college education. God forbid that anyone acquire the skills to think critically and become an educated, well-rounded person.

 

[irishnumberone1]

Time for UConn current HC to be retired. If Without current UConn HC then UConn will lost many games.

 

[no1e]

The whole sport needs a makeover. Women's BB has become basically boring. How many National Championship games are there where one team is a 19 point favorite? Seriously? The two best teams in the land shoot 37 percent. How many turnovers and missed shots?

Every year UConn is penciled in as the champion. There are no Cinderella teams like in the men's tournament. This kind of dominance is not good for the game and I'm a huge fan of the sport.

 

[57Patrick]

I enjoy WBB. UConn dominates, but ND isn't that far behind. Right now ND has the #2 program. Stanford proved you CAN beat UConn. Until Pat Summit retired TN went toe to toe with UConn and won as many titles. I think the interest level is increasing in the women's game and that will bring about more parity. No question Geno has done an outstanding job but Muffett is becoming a player to contend with.

 

[schadenfreude]

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

I just saw that Breanna Stewart's major at UConn is "Individualized Sports in Society."

Sounds academically rigorous.

She is going to be a pro basketball player. What major would you suggest?

Yeah, how silly of me to think that student-athletes should go to college for a real education and not study farcical curricula created just to keep athletes eligible. Got it.

She is getting a real education. Have you ever seen her interviewed? She is more mature and better spoken than 3/4s of male basketball players and football players.

 

[Classic Irish]

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

I just saw that Breanna Stewart's major at UConn is "Individualized Sports in Society."

Sounds academically rigorous.

She is going to be a pro basketball player. What major would you suggest?

Yeah, how silly of me to think that student-athletes should go to college for a real education and not study farcical curricula created just to keep athletes eligible. Got it.

She is getting a real education. Have you ever seen her interviewed? She is more mature and better spoken than 3/4s of male basketball players and football players.

How she presents herself in interviews is irrelevant to her current course of study. Many people without college educations are well spoken, too. Perhaps you think "Individualized Sports in Society" is a legitimate course of study. I don't. I see it for what it really is: an academic joke, solely intended to keep athletes eligible. Do you honestly believe that that the University of Connecticut would even offer that major if it didn't have an athletics department? It probably is little more than spending all day in the gym shooting the ball around. If you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise, that's your prerogative.

 

[schadenfreude]

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

I just saw that Breanna Stewart's major at UConn is "Individualized Sports in Society."

Sounds academically rigorous.

She is going to be a pro basketball player. What major would you suggest?

Yeah, how silly of me to think that student-athletes should go to college for a real education and not study farcical curricula created just to keep athletes eligible. Got it.

She is getting a real education. Have you ever seen her interviewed? She is more mature and better spoken than 3/4s of male basketball players and football players.

How she presents herself in interviews is irrelevant to her current course of study. Many people without college educations are well spoken, too. Perhaps you think "Individualized Sports in Society" is a legitimate course of study. I don't. I see it for what it really is: an academic joke, solely intended to keep athletes eligible. Do you honestly believe that that the University of Connecticut would even offer that major if it didn't have an athletics department? It probably is little more than spending all day in the gym shooting the ball around. If you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise, that's your prerogative.

I don't know what is involved in her major. You are assuming isn't legitimate. Do you think a liberal arts major is legitimate? UConn, ND and all schools are free to offer any kind of major that its students are interested in pursuing. You seem to want academic standards for what can be taught, but not academic standards for who can be admitted. Seems pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

 

[dagimpper1]

First off Gino did have to build the program up. I give him credit for that but, now he pretty much picks whatever players he wants. So, he should be winning a lot. He has an eye for talent, knows how to coach them up and like i said he gets who ever he wants. If a girl goes to uconn it's not for the education. I'm not knocking the university at all. I am just saying if a girl has a choice between ND, Stanford or uconn there is only one reason she would pick uconn and that's bb. I am sure both ND and uconn lose some players who want stay close to home and i wonder if ND loses some players due to their Catholic beliefs.

 

[schadenfreude]

Originally posted by dagimpper1:
First off Gino did have to build the program up. I give him credit for that but, now he pretty much picks whatever players he wants. So, he should be winning a lot. He has an eye for talent, knows how to coach them up and like i said he gets who ever he wants. If a girl goes to uconn it's not for the education. I'm not knocking the university at all. I am just saying if a girl has a choice between ND, Stanford or uconn there is only one reason she would pick uconn and that's bb. I am sure both ND and uconn lose some players who want stay close to home and i wonder if ND loses some players due to their Catholic beliefs.

Well, since Stanford is the best school that plays top level football, you could say anyone who could play football for the Cardinal but goes to USC or ND or Michigan is going only for football.

 

[no1e]

lol .... good point.

 

[dagimpper1]

First off ND is Stanford's equal in every way IMO. Second you are comparing apples to oranges with your football analogy. There are many top fb schools. Some have better academics then others. Women's bb is a different animal all together. There are only a hand full of elite programs. Thus the reason for this thread. When choosing a program the top players only have a few teams to choose from that have a shot at a natty. Since the pay disparity between the WNBA and NBA is so much less ( plus those that don't play professionally) they would want the best degree and education they could get. ND, Stanford ,Northwestern and the like would have the best teams in that case. By choosing UCONN they are choosing bb over education. In other words UCONN is the women's bb version of Kentucky.

 

[Classic Irish]

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

I just saw that Breanna Stewart's major at UConn is "Individualized Sports in Society."

Sounds academically rigorous.

She is going to be a pro basketball player. What major would you suggest?

Yeah, how silly of me to think that student-athletes should go to college for a real education and not study farcical curricula created just to keep athletes eligible. Got it.

She is getting a real education. Have you ever seen her interviewed? She is more mature and better spoken than 3/4s of male basketball players and football players.

How she presents herself in interviews is irrelevant to her current course of study. Many people without college educations are well spoken, too. Perhaps you think "Individualized Sports in Society" is a legitimate course of study. I don't. I see it for what it really is: an academic joke, solely intended to keep athletes eligible. Do you honestly believe that that the University of Connecticut would even offer that major if it didn't have an athletics department? It probably is little more than spending all day in the gym shooting the ball around. If you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise, that's your prerogative.

I don't know what is involved in her major. You are assuming isn't legitimate. Do you think a liberal arts major is legitimate? UConn, ND and all schools are free to offer any kind of major that its students are interested in pursuing. You seem to want academic standards for what can be taught, but not academic standards for who can be admitted. Seems pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

As someone who has spent most of their adult life as an academic (including teaching at two large public universities with major athletic programs), I feel very comfortable believing that it isn't legitimate. You're profoundly naïve to think otherwise. Yes, the liberal arts are legitimate. In fact, my undergrad degree and one of my grad degrees is in the liberal arts. So I'm not sure what your question has to do with anything. I want academic standards for what can be taught but not who can be admitted? Again, this seems out of left field. Sorry, I don't think higher education's mission is to keep athletes eligible so they can then bounce to the pro ranks. Maybe you think so, but I don't. If student-athletes want to go to the pro ranks, that's their choice. I don't see why that absolves them from receiving a real college education---not a course of study only created to keep them eligible. If you think that makes me hypocritical, that's your right. To think that "Individualized Sports in Society" is other than a jock major is laughable. Seems pretty naïve if you ask me.

 

[schadenfreude]

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

I just saw that Breanna Stewart's major at UConn is "Individualized Sports in Society."

Sounds academically rigorous.

She is going to be a pro basketball player. What major would you suggest?

Yeah, how silly of me to think that student-athletes should go to college for a real education and not study farcical curricula created just to keep athletes eligible. Got it.

She is getting a real education. Have you ever seen her interviewed? She is more mature and better spoken than 3/4s of male basketball players and football players.

How she presents herself in interviews is irrelevant to her current course of study. Many people without college educations are well spoken, too. Perhaps you think "Individualized Sports in Society" is a legitimate course of study. I don't. I see it for what it really is: an academic joke, solely intended to keep athletes eligible. Do you honestly believe that that the University of Connecticut would even offer that major if it didn't have an athletics department? It probably is little more than spending all day in the gym shooting the ball around. If you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise, that's your prerogative.

I don't know what is involved in her major. You are assuming isn't legitimate. Do you think a liberal arts major is legitimate? UConn, ND and all schools are free to offer any kind of major that its students are interested in pursuing. You seem to want academic standards for what can be taught, but not academic standards for who can be admitted. Seems pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

As someone who has spent most of their adult life as an academic (including teaching at two large public universities with major athletic programs), I feel very comfortable believing that it isn't legitimate. You're profoundly naïve to think otherwise. Yes, the liberal arts are legitimate. In fact, my undergrad degree and one of my grad degrees is in the liberal arts. So I'm not sure what your question has to do with anything. I want academic standards for what can be taught but not who can be admitted? Again, this seems out of left field. Sorry, I don't think higher education's mission is to keep athletes eligible so they can then bounce to the pro ranks. Maybe you think so, but I don't. If student-athletes want to go to the pro ranks, that's their choice. I don't see why that absolves them from receiving a real college education---not a course of study only created to keep them eligible. If you think that makes me hypocritical, that's your right. To think that "Individualized Sports in Society" is other than a jock major is laughable. Seems pretty naïve if you ask me.

If you don't think all major colleges keep athletes with 900 SATs eligible by spoon feeding them, giving them pass fail classes (where showing up is have your grade, etc), then you are the one who is naive. Many and possibly most of these kids would never get into a collage as good as UConn, let alone ND. So you think bending the rules with majors is bad, but bending the rules regarding admissions is okay? Again: hypocritical.

 

[Classic Irish]

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

Originally posted by schadenfreude:

Originally posted by Classic Irish:

I just saw that Breanna Stewart's major at UConn is "Individualized Sports in Society."

Sounds academically rigorous.

She is going to be a pro basketball player. What major would you suggest?

Yeah, how silly of me to think that student-athletes should go to college for a real education and not study farcical curricula created just to keep athletes eligible. Got it.

She is getting a real education. Have you ever seen her interviewed? She is more mature and better spoken than 3/4s of male basketball players and football players.

How she presents herself in interviews is irrelevant to her current course of study. Many people without college educations are well spoken, too. Perhaps you think "Individualized Sports in Society" is a legitimate course of study. I don't. I see it for what it really is: an academic joke, solely intended to keep athletes eligible. Do you honestly believe that that the University of Connecticut would even offer that major if it didn't have an athletics department? It probably is little more than spending all day in the gym shooting the ball around. If you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise, that's your prerogative.

I don't know what is involved in her major. You are assuming isn't legitimate. Do you think a liberal arts major is legitimate? UConn, ND and all schools are free to offer any kind of major that its students are interested in pursuing. You seem to want academic standards for what can be taught, but not academic standards for who can be admitted. Seems pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

As someone who has spent most of their adult life as an academic (including teaching at two large public universities with major athletic programs), I feel very comfortable believing that it isn't legitimate. You're profoundly naïve to think otherwise. Yes, the liberal arts are legitimate. In fact, my undergrad degree and one of my grad degrees is in the liberal arts. So I'm not sure what your question has to do with anything. I want academic standards for what can be taught but not who can be admitted? Again, this seems out of left field. Sorry, I don't think higher education's mission is to keep athletes eligible so they can then bounce to the pro ranks. Maybe you think so, but I don't. If student-athletes want to go to the pro ranks, that's their choice. I don't see why that absolves them from receiving a real college education---not a course of study only created to keep them eligible. If you think that makes me hypocritical, that's your right. To think that "Individualized Sports in Society" is other than a jock major is laughable. Seems pretty naïve if you ask me.

If you don't think all major colleges keep athletes with 900 SATs eligible by spoon feeding them, giving them pass fail classes (where showing up is have your grade, etc), then you are the one who is naive. Many and possibly most of these kids would never get into a collage as good as UConn, let alone ND. So you think bending the rules with majors is bad, but bending the rules regarding admissions is okay? Again: hypocritical.

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Nowhere did I mention admission requirements nor once say that bending the rules for admission was good or bad. You're being totally disingenuous and putting words in my mouth. Furthermore, I'm fully aware of the sort of classes to which you allude. I wasn't aware that I denied the existence of such classes. I've spent most of my adult life in higher education, so I'm more cognizant of these sorts of classes than you are. My entire point has been that academic majors (an entire curriculum for which one is awarded a degree) created for the sole purpose of keeping athletes eligible to play their respective sports runs counter to the mission of higher education. You apparently approve of such a practice. That's your prerogative. I don't happen to agree, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm done with this thread since you insist on claiming that I wrote things I didn't---a very shabby way to debate, I might add.