OT: It is NOT...

[courtside]

Man there are some mentally slow people who participate in discussions on this board. No one said the women were better than the men. However, the UConn women do now own the longest winning streak in d1 basketball. It's simple, disagree all you want, you'll still be wrong.

The Lakers, Heat, Mavs, Celtics etc... could all beat the Bills. In fact the Bills rarely have a player who could even compete at the highest level, yet somehow we all care about the Bills results and watch their games. Why? I mean if it isn't basketball at the highest level, is it relevent?

It's an interesting topic Skip. In the U.S. Women can draw fans for tennis, golf, and the one time special event every few years, Olympics etc...

The interest is not there yet for sustainable pro leagues or full seasons of college ball etc...there will be a few exceptions, but even Geno was raffling off items after the game, a draw to get some fans to attend.

Often times, the truth is in the middle. On one end you have some archaic fearful men who only think by way wins and losses at the highest levels. The nuances of women and women's sports are not understood by these people. On the other end, how much interest is there?

Women who get interested in sports at a young age vs those who don't often times have an older family member to introduce them to sports. For many women, watching men's sports is preferred by mostly because sports is seen as bonding time with men or family etc...and that's what the men are watching.

Even today, the level of interest is not there for sustainable pro leagues, as well as major D-1 sports etc...interest in gymnastics and figure skating wains when it isn't the olympics or big event etc...

So, coverage of an event like this would warrant more and better coverage than many think, but also not coverage equal to a lot of other things. One would think with all of the overdone coverage of Brett Favre, Rex Ryan and insert person here that the coverage of the streak would be a breath of fresh air. It is pretty startling the anger, and venom of insecure male media types and fans.

[MB73]

The black guy on ESPN "Pardon The Interruption" stated that the U. Conn women's achievement was not equivalent to the UCLA men's accomplishment.

Number are numbers, 88 games, 89 games, but those of us in the business world understand that they are not always the true bottom line.

It is good that more females are participating in sports, and U. Conn women have achieved great things.

But the continual coverage of, and the often played video footage of Coach Wooden and the UCLA team during the celebration of the U. Conn's victory streak implies it is equal and disrepects the Wooden era.

SLU is RPI 138, we average about 6,500 attendance... find out what woman's teams are around 138 and I bet they average 200-300 per game. Losing money. In state schools, some of it is at the taxpayer's expense.

Some of you have daughters, and now I hear at least one of you coaches a girls team... but come on: Coach John Wooden, Bill Walton, Henry Bibby, Jamaal Wilkes, Sidney Wicks, Swen Nater, Marques Johnson...

[slufanskip]

The black guy on ESPN "Pardon The Interruption" stated that the U. Conn women's achievement was not equivalent to the UCLA men's accomplishment.

Number are numbers, 88 games, 89 games, but those of us in the business world understand that they are not always the true bottom line.

It is good that more females are participating in sports, and U. Conn women have achieved great things.

But the continual coverage of, and the often played video footage of Coach Wooden and the UCLA team during the celebration of the U. Conn's victory streak implies it is equal and disrepects the Wooden era.

SLU is RPI 138, we average about 6,500 attendance... find out what woman's teams are around 138 and I bet they average 200-300 per game. Losing money. In state schools, some of it is at the taxpayer's expense.

Some of you have daughters, and now I hear at least one of you coaches a girls team... but come on: Coach John Wooden, Bill Walton, Henry Bibby, Jamaal Wilkes, Sidney Wicks, Swen Nater, Marques Johnson...

would the same winning streak in mens d1 hockey be as impressive?

[courtside]

The black guy on ESPN "Pardon The Interruption" stated that the U. Conn women's achievement was not equivalent to the UCLA men's accomplishment.

Number are numbers, 88 games, 89 games, but those of us in the business world understand that they are not always the true bottom line.

It is good that more females are participating in sports, and U. Conn women have achieved great things.

But the continual coverage of, and the often played video footage of Coach Wooden and the UCLA team during the celebration of the U. Conn's victory streak implies it is equal and disrepects the Wooden era.

SLU is RPI 138, we average about 6,500 attendance... find out what woman's teams are around 138 and I bet they average 200-300 per game. Losing money. In state schools, some of it is at the taxpayer's expense.

Some of you have daughters, and now I hear at least one of you coaches a girls team... but come on: Coach John Wooden, Bill Walton, Henry Bibby, Jamaal Wilkes, Sidney Wicks, Swen Nater, Marques Johnson...

Is it really the end of the world that some people celebrate the streak? And, is it really so bad that some compare it to a past men's streak? Why so much fear, anger, venom?

My personal stance as I stated a few posts ago is that they are two different celebratory things. It's not possible to compare eras. John Wooden isn't the greatest coach of all time. Why? Because he didn't coach all time. Those UCLA teams of that era can only be compared to other teams of that era and not teams today or other eras.

I don't get into discussions of greatest of all time etc...because to me there is no such thing.

If anything the UConn women's streak sadly illustrates the lack of equality in the women's game. However, it's a great accomplishment.

The point I was making of coverage is that interest dictates coverage often times...though not always.

If the coverage was disrespectful of Wooden's era, why did John Wooden's grandson fly out to the game and enthusiastically support it?

ESPN is always going to promote their brands excessively.

I can think of a lot of people and things I'd rather see leave ESPN...as opposed to the coverage of the UConn women's streak.

[slufanskip]

It's an interesting topic Skip. In the U.S. Women can draw fans for tennis, golf, and the one time special event every few years, Olympics etc...

The interest is not there yet for sustainable pro leagues or full seasons of college ball etc...there will be a few exceptions, but even Geno was raffling off items after the game, a draw to get some fans to attend.

Often times, the truth is in the middle. On one end you have some archaic fearful men who only think by way wins and losses at the highest levels. The nuances of women and women's sports are not understood by these people. On the other end, how much interest is there?

Women who get interested in sports at a young age vs those who don't often times have an older family member to introduce them to sports. For many women, watching men's sports is preferred by mostly because sports is seen as bonding time with men or family etc...and that's what the men are watching.

Even today, the level of interest is not there for sustainable pro leagues, as well as major D-1 sports etc...interest in gymnastics and figure skating wains when it isn't the olympics or big event etc...

So, coverage of an event like this would warrant more and better coverage than many think, but also not coverage equal to a lot of other things. One would think with all of the overdone coverage of Brett Favre, Rex Ryan and insert person here that the coverage of the streak would be a breath of fresh air. It is pretty startling the anger, and venom of insecure male media types and fans.

The girls and their families are partially responsible also. We have over 130 girls on 15 teams and many of them play other sports including soccer. Yet I would pitch to them why they needed to support the Athletica and very few if any did. If families want their daughters to have opportunities at the highest level, they have to support the teams that we have now. When teams like the Athletica fold due to a lack of fan support, its easy to understand why people don't want to invest their money in it. The Athletica had some of the best players in the world including arguably the worlds best women's keeper and a fantastic world class homegrown player in Chalupney and couldn't draw enough fans. Not to mention prices that made it a no-brainer for family entertainment. It wasn't a lower level league, it was the best womens players in the world.

[boomerang]

They abide by the same recruiting rules

That's not entirely accurate. Women's basketball gets 15 scholarships whereas the men get 13. It's somewhat easier for the dominant teams to stay dominant since they get to keep more of the best HS players. Not taking anything away form them, but it's a reason as to why the women's game is so top heavy year in and year out.

[ARon]

Yes and there are few if any one-and-dones in WBB.

Let's face it some of those wins were against teams that weren't even clear on the rules. The level of competition just isn't there.

[doowop]

When UCLA was winning all those championships they were consistently getting the better players in the nation. How many other men's teams were getting the kind of talent they were getting? Their competition was no stronger than what the UCONN women have faced. Freshmen could not play so UCLA could stock up on outstanding players. But as soon as freshmen were allowed to play, their dominance stopped because players could now go to other schools and play immediately. There were not nearly as many teams in the national tournament and not as many games to win. Teams stayed in their own regions to play. It wouldn't matter to some of you because you are just close minded towards women's sports and don't believe they are talented. Anyone who says Chaminade could be UCONN is just plain wrong. If the Billikens had shooters as accurate as some of UCONN's women players, we would not have lost a game this year. I am talking about uncontested shots. I don't care what level the sport is 89 straight wins is a GREAT accomplihment. Manyof you who are commenting were too young to know anything about the teams UCLA beat during their streak. Just as UCONN has, they had the very best talent and a very good coach. Just because UCONN are women does not make their accomplishment any less remarkable. We should judge junior league competition against junior league competition, high school competition against high school competition, and colleges against colleges; boys against boys, girls against girls, women against women and men against men. We know the best women's teams could not beat a good men's team, but any smart person would not judge that way. UCONN has beaten every team that they have faced. It is not their fault the competition is not stronger. If Elana DellaDonne had stayed at UCONN they would not lost a game this year either. Those UCLA teams could not dominate today like they did back then. There is a lot more competition now than before. In the men's game Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky and a handful of others are getting the bulk of the high school All Americans but who is complaning about he same men's teams always winning? And with all those All Americans, if Duke or North Carolina does not have a SUPER STAR, they sometimes don't even make it to the final four. Look it up for yourself. Kentucky had five first round draft picks last year and did not win it all. So, the women's game is not the only one where just a few teams continually get the best players.

[Quality Is Job 1]

When UCLA was winning all those championships they were consistently getting the better players in the nation. How many other men's teams were getting the kind of talent they were getting? Their competition was no stronger than what the UCONN women have faced. Freshmen could not play so UCLA could stock up on outstanding players. But as soon as freshmen were allowed to play, their dominance stopped because players could now go to other schools and play immediately. There were not nearly as many teams in the national tournament and not as many games to win. Teams stayed in their own regions to play. It wouldn't matter to some of you because you are just close minded towards women's sports and don't believe they are talented. Anyone who says Chaminade could be UCONN is just plain wrong. If the Billikens had shooters as accurate as some of UCONN's women players, we would not have lost a game this year. I am talking about uncontested shots. I don't care what level the sport is 89 straight wins is a GREAT accomplihment. Manyof you who are commenting were too young to know anything about the teams UCLA beat during their streak. Just as UCONN has, they had the very best talent and a very good coach. Just because UCONN are women does not make their accomplishment any less remarkable. We should judge junior league competition against junior league competition, high school competition against high school competition, and colleges against colleges; boys against boys, girls against girls, women against women and men against men. We know the best women's teams could not beat a good men's team, but any smart person would not judge that way. UCONN has beaten every team that they have faced. It is not their fault the competition is not stronger. If Elana DellaDonne had stayed at UCONN they would not lost a game this year either. Those UCLA teams could not dominate today like they did back then. There is a lot more competition now than before. In the men's game Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky and a handful of others are getting the bulk of the high school All Americans but who is complaning about he same men's teams always winning? And with all those All Americans, if Duke or North Carolina does not have a SUPER STAR, they sometimes don't even make it to the final four. Look it up for yourself. Kentucky had five first round draft picks last year and did not win it all. So, the women's game is not the only one where just a few teams continually get the best players.

I won't take anything away from UConn's streak, regardless of the gender. I agree with you. But what I disagree on is your statement that the Chaminade boys team couldn't beat UConn's women's team. A decently coached average varsity team (like Berkeley, for example) would beat UConn's women's team and the WNBA champion. They can have great fundamentals and hit open shots forever, but the athleticism of the boys would negate the fundamentals and prevent open shots.

[kevinfootes]

The girls and their families are partially responsible also. We have over 130 girls on 15 teams and many of them play other sports including soccer. Yet I would pitch to them why they needed to support the Athletica and very few if any did. If families want their daughters to have opportunities at the highest level, they have to support the teams that we have now. When teams like the Athletica fold due to a lack of fan support, its easy to understand why people don't want to invest their money in it. The Athletica had some of the best players in the world including arguably the worlds best women's keeper and a fantastic world class homegrown player in Chalupney and couldn't draw enough fans. Not to mention prices that made it a no-brainer for family entertainment. It wasn't a lower level league, it was the best womens players in the world.

How is the LPGA doing these days? By and large, no one in the U.S. has ever cared about soccer, men or women, outside of the world cup and olympics. The LPGA was doing pretty well about 10 years ago. When the established women's pro sports are struggling, you can't expect an upstart league to survive.

[Billiken4life5]

I enjoy watching women's basketball. I have played against girls who are very talented and could stack up against a lot of solid men's players. But I still believe that the St. Louis Eagles could beat that UConn team. In fact, I think Chaminade could beat that UConn team.

However, that DOES NOT take away from this record. They played 89 games in a row without losing, and we should take that record for what it is. But I don't think it does any sense to compare it in any way with the UCLA record. UCLA broke the men's record. UConn broke the women's record. In the current scheme of things, men's basketball is more important so the UCLA record is probably more important.

But those girls beat other girls or Two and a half straight years and that's incredible.

Forgot which ESPN analyst it was but one of them said that a good boy's high school team could beat a WNBA team. Take it for what it's worth

[Tonka]

It's fantastic what UCONN did. In fact, unbelievable. Having to deal with illness, injuries, or just an off night and bad night of play could easily result in a loss or two during that streak. But, they overcame time and time again. They now have the longest streak in D1, not even debatable.

Would it be as impressive if a men's team did the same today? IMO, no way. But, that's not the point. What they did is amazing. But, I would still be more impressed if a men's team today rattled off 50 straight wins.

[courtside]

How is the LPGA doing these days? By and large, no one in the U.S. has ever cared about soccer, men or women, outside of the world cup and olympics. The LPGA was doing pretty well about 10 years ago. When the established women's pro sports are struggling, you can't expect an upstart league to survive.

Women's tennis was noticeably absent from your list. Sponsorship revenue is up over 500 percent the past 7 years. All time attendance records and record prize money, and still lots of room for improvement.

LPGA made a mistake by not making the sport a global brand sooner. It wanted to be a U.S. brand and that was a big mistake. It's way too parochial. It has had an opportunity to have had some of the success of women's tennis but has failed to this point.

Soccer? Big difference between men and women. Interest is there for men. However the casual observer wants to see the game played at the highest levels and does not want to be a part of building something from nothing.(MLS) The biggest challenege for American television viewing is the best World soccer leagues have a 6,7 hour time difference and games have to be shown very early A.M. Live. Despite this challenge, ratings for ESPN and Fox Soccer Channel for these games are up...in the $3 plus billion dollar EPL to name one. The interest is there. That's why ESPN, Fox, others are paying the money to bring it to their airways and will continue to do so, and will continue to get tv interest. And DiSH and recently Directv has made games available in HD. Women is a different story than men.

As long as women and women's sports supporters have more interest in men's sports than women's sports, lots of sports and leagues will often struggle.

[kevinfootes]

Women's tennis was noticeably absent from your list. Sponsorship revenue is up over 500 percent the past 7 years. All time attendance records and record prize money, and still lots of room for improvement.

LPGA made a mistake by not making the sport a global brand sooner. It wanted to be a U.S. brand and that was a big mistake. It's way too parochial. It has had an opportunity to have had some of the success of women's tennis but has failed to this point.

Soccer? Big difference between men and women. Interest is there for men. However the casual observer wants to see the game played at the highest levels and does not want to be a part of building something from nothing.(MLS) The biggest challenege for American television viewing is the best World soccer leagues have a 6,7 hour time difference and games have to be shown very early A.M. Live. Despite this challenge, ratings for ESPN and Fox Soccer Channel for these games are up...in the $3 plus billion dollar EPL to name one. The interest is there. That's why ESPN, Fox, others are paying the money to bring it to their airways and will continue to do so, and will continue to get tv interest. And DiSH and recently Directv has made games available in HD. Women is a different story than men.

As long as women and women's sports supporters have more interest in men's sports than women's sports, lots of sports and leagues will often struggle.

I mentioned one sport. I wouldn't call it a list. Even so, women's golf was declining while men's was at an all-time high (for many reasons). If there was growing interest in many women's sports, the idea of a soccer league might make sense to me. Tennis is certainly a bright example.

I like soccer just fine, but how do MLS ratings compare to NFL, NBA, MLB? For that matter, how do EPL ratings compare?

Soccer could get there in the US. It's not like any other major sport started out with a great deal of interest. The NBA was playing in very small towns for a long time. Hockey went down to a handful of teams for a long time. When MLS started, they made crazy demands like insisting venues had a 50K capacity. Have you ever seen the 8K fans inside of Arrowhead stadium for a Wizards game? MLS has improved it's plan, but the entry fee seems pretty outrageous right now. I could see soccer being a bigger deal 20-30 years from now, but that's not much different than how things went for the NBA and NFL. The shifting population demographics point to growing interest in soccer.

[bonwich]

Who was it that hit the amazing shot from the corner (which would be a three-pointer today) to end the streak? Austin Carr? I remember watching that game on a farm out near Warrenton (which is probably a subdivision today).

[doowop]

I won't take anything away from UConn's streak, regardless of the gender. I agree with you. But what I disagree on is your statement that the Chaminade boys team couldn't beat UConn's women's team. A decently coached average varsity team (like Berkeley, for example) would beat UConn's women's team and the WNBA champion. They can have great fundamentals and hit open shots forever, but the athleticism of the boys would negate the fundamentals and prevent open shots.

Your thinking that Chaminade would beat UCONN is as Absurd as your first name. Chaminade won't even win the state tournament this year. To think an average high school boys team could beat the WNBA champion is beyond absurd. I have seen many times all white basketball teams with very little athleticism and very good fundamentals easily beat all black teams that were very, very athletic and relied mainly on their athleticism. I am surprised at you. It is hard to believe you that you think that way.

[MB73]

Your thinking that Chaminade would beat UCONN is as Absurd as your first name. Chaminade won't even win the state tournament this year. To think an average high school boys team could beat the WNBA champion is beyond absurd. I have seen many times all white basketball teams with very little athleticism and very good fundamentals easily beat all black teams that were very, very athletic and relied mainly on their athleticism. I am surprised at you. It is hard to believe you that you think that way.

This year's Chaminade team would pound the U. Conn women by 20, 30 points.

Beal would score at will...he'd score 50+ points. On defense, the Chaminade boys would presure U Conn with speed and strength that they are unaccustomed to dealing with... no open shots.

[Quality Is Job 1]

Your thinking that Chaminade would beat UCONN is as Absurd as your first name. Chaminade won't even win the state tournament this year. To think an average high school boys team could beat the WNBA champion is beyond absurd. I have seen many times all white basketball teams with very little athleticism and very good fundamentals easily beat all black teams that were very, very athletic and relied mainly on their athleticism. I am surprised at you. It is hard to believe you that you think that way.

Hey, I love women, but athletically, women and men aren't equal. Men have a considerable advantage. I'm far from the only one who thinks that an average boys high school basketball team could beat the best women's team. Do you think we think that way because we're unfair to women? No, it's because it's a whole different level. The difference between average men and elite women (athletically) is considerably greater than the difference between average men and highly athletic men.

We're talking about basketball players. Would it make you feel better if I added on that I don't think you could put together a team of average guys, who don't play on a varsity team, and beat UConn's women's team?

[doowop]

This year's Chaminade team would pound the U. Conn women by 20, 30 points.

Beal would score at will...he'd score 50+ points. On defense, the Chaminade boys would presure U Conn with speed and strength that they are unaccustomed to dealing with... no open shots.

You are dreaming. Maya Moore wold score at will against Chaminade. Sometimes the UCONN women scrimmage against the men's team, so they are used to the speed and strength of men. They would not beat college men's teams but stop underestmating women athletes and over estimating Chaminade. Last year's UCONN team would run away with Chaminade.

[AlumniFan]

Screw it, I'll play devil's advocate. It is still division 1 basketball right? Court 94 ft long, 50 feet wide? Sure the 3 pt line is a little closer but they still play 2s and 3s. 1 for a free throw still. They abide by the same recruiting rules. They play 40 minutes. If they still played old school wbball rules where I think it was 2 players had to play defense at all times then I would agree.

Very well said!

[thetorch]

Speaking from personal experience I was a part of a group of guys at Flo Valley and SEMO who scrimmaged women's teams. We would usually do it once a week or every other week. At my best as a college player I could have played on most varsity HS teams as a bench guy. I made my freshman team in HS but never went any further than that. We only had 6 guys allowed to scrimmage, against the whole women's roster. The deck would be stacked against us in other ways as well. Sometimes we would only play defense, sometimes only offense. The other guys were at or about the same skill level as me. None of us were over 6'4, we weren't allowed to dunk, doubt if many of us could. We really had to try to lose. As long as you could run with the girls, which was sometimes a challenge, it was no contest. If Brad Beal went Juwanna Mann he would score 200 points against UConn.

[JohnnyJumpUp]

You are dreaming. Maya Moore wold score at will against Chaminade. Sometimes the UCONN women scrimmage against the men's team, so they are used to the speed and strength of men. They would not beat college men's teams but stop underestmating women athletes and over estimating Chaminade. Last year's UCONN team would run away with Chaminade.

[doowop]

I do.

[courtside]

I mentioned one sport. I wouldn't call it a list. Even so, women's golf was declining while men's was at an all-time high (for many reasons). If there was growing interest in many women's sports, the idea of a soccer league might make sense to me. Tennis is certainly a bright example.

I like soccer just fine, but how do MLS ratings compare to NFL, NBA, MLB? For that matter, how do EPL ratings compare?

Soccer could get there in the US. It's not like any other major sport started out with a great deal of interest. The NBA was playing in very small towns for a long time. Hockey went down to a handful of teams for a long time. When MLS started, they made crazy demands like insisting venues had a 50K capacity. Have you ever seen the 8K fans inside of Arrowhead stadium for a Wizards game? MLS has improved it's plan, but the entry fee seems pretty outrageous right now. I could see soccer being a bigger deal 20-30 years from now, but that's not much different than how things went for the NBA and NFL. The shifting population demographics point to growing interest in soccer.

Men's golf is Tiger Woods and Tiger Woods is men's golf,...to the casual millions of golf fans. So, I would not agree about "many reasons." Die hard golf fans might want to say different but up until now that's the case.

As for soocer, men. The interest is there and has been there in the past. The ability to watch the best players in the world play on a weekly basis has not. The casual soccer fan in the U.S. Wants to see the best leagues in the world which mostly are played in Europe. MLS is a long term baby steps process. And the league wants every team to play in soccer specific 20k stadiums, not the 50k stadiums. KC just built there's for example. Most teams now have them and all new ones need one. Seattle has been a unique successful exception. They partner with the Seahawks for marketing, pr, and other workers and they use cross over staff and it works well. Tv money is going up from about $12 million to anywhere from $20-40 million in the next contracts for MLS.

[courtside]

Who was it that hit the amazing shot from the corner (which would be a three-pointer today) to end the streak? Austin Carr? I remember watching that game on a farm out near Warrenton (which is probably a subdivision today).

Dwight Clay.