|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Dec 31, 2010 14:24:37 GMT -5
If anything, the fact that UConn was able to run roughshod over everyone for so long is more of a commentary on the lack of attention/funding given to women's athletics as a whole, hench the lack of parity and competition.
They're one of a few programs that actually know how to operate and properly recruit, as they've had the love and effort put into it.
However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be applauded for their efforts, let alone trashed. They still had to go out there and win the games.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Dec 31, 2010 15:11:05 GMT -5
If anything, the fact that UConn was able to run roughshod over everyone for so long is more of a commentary on the lack of attention/funding given to women's athletics as a whole, hench the lack of parity and competition. They're one of a few programs that actually know how to operate and properly recruit, as they've had the love and effort put into it. However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be applauded for their efforts, let alone trashed. They still had to go out there and win the games. True, the fact that anyone was able to put together a properly ran women's basketball team in and of itself is impressive. And hell, I still respect their streak, it is a remarkable achievement in their sport, just when you start to REALLY compare it to the impressive streaks of other sports, like a lot of people are doing, you'll find a lot of faults in the impressiveness of their feat.
|
|
pavement
AC Slater
I mark for Shaq Korpela
Posts: 121
|
Post by pavement on Dec 31, 2010 19:11:20 GMT -5
Leave The Memories Alone?
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips Has Left on Dec 31, 2010 21:11:02 GMT -5
If anything, the fact that UConn was able to run roughshod over everyone for so long is more of a commentary on the lack of attention/funding given to women's athletics as a whole, hench the lack of parity and competition. They're one of a few programs that actually know how to operate and properly recruit, as they've had the love and effort put into it. However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be applauded for their efforts, let alone trashed. They still had to go out there and win the games. True, the fact that anyone was able to put together a properly ran women's basketball team in and of itself is impressive. And hell, I still respect their streak, it is a remarkable achievement in their sport, just when you start to REALLY compare it to the impressive streaks of other sports, like a lot of people are doing, you'll find a lot of faults in the impressiveness of their feat. But can't you pick apart any streak like that? There had to have been hundreds of games where Cal Ripken didn't get a hit during his streak; should we say "Yeah, he played every game but man, he totally sucked in a bunch of them!" Should we not count the games against Buffalo in the New England Patriots win streak from a few years back? Are the Braves 15 straight division title less impressive when you consider the NL East was pretty miserable for at least 10 of those years?
|
|
|
Post by Bake Or Die on Dec 31, 2010 21:26:20 GMT -5
Who cares if they're women? 90 consecutive wins is impressive either way you slice it. This sexist BS has to end. They beat John Wooden's UCLA team record by 2 games. Get over it. but that nobody cares about women's sports. . 1.It is the same 2.I care about women sports 3.I'm willing to bet that they'd be more then capable of beating some men teams.
|
|
pegasuswarrior
El Dandy
Three Time FAN Idol Champion
@PulpPictionary
Posts: 8,748
|
Post by pegasuswarrior on Jan 1, 2011 4:54:56 GMT -5
3.I'm willing to bet that they'd be more then capable of beating some men teams. I'd be more than willing to take that bet/anyone's money willing to bet it. First, please let me preface everything by saying I love the skill set and finesse game of really good women's basketball, if that skill set and finesse is indeed present. So this is just all a reply to the idea behind the quote above and in no way an attempt to degrade women's basketball. As stated in a previous thread about this topic, the comparable level of men vs. women in NCAA basketball is that any reasonably decent high school boys team (not even one of a state's Top 25 boys team in most cases) would be able to take down Division I women's teams, no matter who it is. I played on a definitively average team, and as Freshmen (yes, 9th graders only) we scrimmaged and easily handled a Top-10-in-the-nation women's college team (not Division I though). That being said, I really didn't mean to make the argument into a men vs. women thing, as I certainly respect the streak. I think it's awesome. But as soon as a statement is made that ANY women's college basketball team is comparable in competition level as the men's game, I think it's fair game for that statement to be refuted. I would go so far as even say that a great many men's Division I college teams (if they turned up the heat and actually had a game plan and the will to inflict this kind of punishment) could keep even the UConn women's team to under 10 points total with a concerted effort. What I certainly WOULD argue in defense of women vs. men competition, however, is that if you took the nation's absolute best 5th-7th grade girls and put them up against statewide 5th-6th grade boys talent, the gaps would not be nearly as wide, and I would be more inclined to think that the women's team might even pull some victories. Throw in some of the best 8th and 9th grade girls, and the 5th-6th grade boys teams would be handled much more easily, in fact. By 8th grade, however, the gaps in skill levels start exponentially increasing and a head-to-head competition would soon go very very badly for the females. And yes, you can name some 200 member high school of ineptly athletic kids who don't really have any sort of inclination to play sports to say, "Division I teams couldn't beat THAT?!" But clearly, my point is that if it's a typical high school team that works at its competition, then it's totally in the male team's favor. Again, all this is said ONLY because the case was brought up that UConn women could somehow defeat some of the men's teams. To me, that's like saying Mercury could be as big as Saturn if it was put head-to-head and given the chance. And certainly not ALL sports have that same gender level gap. This is just one sport that does.
|
|
|
Post by Bake Or Die on Jan 1, 2011 5:04:22 GMT -5
3.I'm willing to bet that they'd be more then capable of beating some men teams. I'd be more than willing to take that bet/anyone's money willing to bet it. First, please let me preface everything by saying I love the skill set and finesse game of really good women's basketball, if that skill set and finesse is indeed present. So this is just all a reply to the idea behind the quote above and in no way an attempt to degrade women's basketball. As stated in a previous thread about this topic, the comparable level of men vs. women in NCAA basketball is that any reasonably decent high school boys team (not even one of a state's Top 25 boys team in most cases) would be able to take down Division I women's teams, no matter who it is. I played on a definitively average team, and as Freshmen (yes, 9th graders only) we scrimmaged and easily handled a Top-10-in-the-nation women's college team (not Division I though). That being said, I really didn't mean to make the argument into a men vs. women thing, as I certainly respect the streak. I think it's awesome. But as soon as a statement is made that ANY women's college basketball team is comparable in competition level as the men's game, I think it's fair game for that statement to be refuted. I would go so far as even say that a great many men's Division I college teams (if they turned up the heat and actually had a game plan and the will to inflict this kind of punishment) could keep even the UConn women's team to under 10 points total with a concerted effort. What I certainly WOULD argue in defense of women vs. men competition, however, is that if you took the nation's absolute best 5th-7th grade girls and put them up against statewide 5th-6th grade boys talent, the gaps would not be nearly as wide, and I would be more inclined to think that the women's team might even pull some victories. Throw in some of the best 8th and 9th grade girls, and the 5th-6th grade boys teams would be handled much more easily, in fact. By 8th grade, however, the gaps in skill levels start exponentially increasing and a head-to-head competition would soon go very very badly for the females. And yes, you can name some 200 member high school of ineptly athletic kids who don't really have any sort of inclination to play sports to say, "Division I teams couldn't beat THAT?!" But clearly, my point is that if it's a typical high school team that works at its competition, then it's totally in the male team's favor. Again, all this is said ONLY because the case was brought up that UConn women could somehow defeat some of the men's teams. To me, that's like saying Mercury could be as big as Saturn if it was put head-to-head and given the chance. And certainly not ALL sports have that same gender level gap. This is just one sport that does. I personally think women make better athletes then men.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips Has Left on Jan 1, 2011 9:09:07 GMT -5
I personally think women make better athletes then men. That's a valid opinion, but it still doesn't mean they can compete head-to-head. There's no getting around the fact that in most sports, size and strength matter a great deal. In fact, let's leave the women out of this for this example. Many boxing folks consider Sugar Ray Robinson the best all-around fighter in boxing history. NONE of those folks would give him a chance against a good heavyweight, let alone someone like Joe Louis or Ali. Everyone appreciated Robinson's skill set against his fellow middleweights and even stated there was no heavyweight that could display comparable skill in that division, but to claim his superior skills would somehow carry him past the weight, reach and power he'd be giving up against a heavyweight is just insane. UConn's women could be the five most skilled and athletic players in the country, male or female. But going against men, they'd be giving up height, reach, strength, weight and possibly speed to every member of the men's team. That's not a good matchup for a game of basketball. Watch the videos on youtube of women dunking. Then think about a man making the same dunk. He'd be laughed out of the gym.
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Jan 1, 2011 9:18:01 GMT -5
They'd lose 150-10.
They have no physical advantages on even the most average men's team.
They don't even use the same size ball, for god's sake.
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Jan 1, 2011 9:29:34 GMT -5
So Pat Summitt is just old news at this point?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2011 10:33:03 GMT -5
Do all streaks like this have to end with the last team to beat them prior to the streak to be the one to end it? Because ND did the same to the UCLA one. If memory serves me correct, when the Los Angeles Lakers went 69-13, they had a 33-game winning streak, which broke the record (27, I believe) once held by the Lew Alcindor-led Milwaukee Bucks. Alcindor (renamed Kareem Abdul-Jabbar by this point) & the Bucks beat them to end the streak. (Not really the same, but kinda interesting to say the least. I like fun quirks like that.)
|
|
|
Post by FightinPhils777 on Jan 1, 2011 10:55:02 GMT -5
I am just glad this means less UCONN games interrupting the real sports on ESPN with score updates.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 1, 2011 11:35:31 GMT -5
True, the fact that anyone was able to put together a properly ran women's basketball team in and of itself is impressive. And hell, I still respect their streak, it is a remarkable achievement in their sport, just when you start to REALLY compare it to the impressive streaks of other sports, like a lot of people are doing, you'll find a lot of faults in the impressiveness of their feat. But can't you pick apart any streak like that? There had to have been hundreds of games where Cal Ripken didn't get a hit during his streak; should we say "Yeah, he played every game but man, he totally sucked in a bunch of them!" Should we not count the games against Buffalo in the New England Patriots win streak from a few years back? Are the Braves 15 straight division title less impressive when you consider the NL East was pretty miserable for at least 10 of those years? Exactly. Even UCLA's win streak could be broken down in such a way. They played fewer ranked opponents than this UConn team, and as for level of competition? People act like UCLA was playing triple OT games every time they took the court as well. Some games were closer, yeah, but they still won by an average of 23 points a game, and had nearly 30 wins by more than 30. Wouldn't that indicate that there was a bit less parity than people claim? Or is it the case of one team just being better? I think the streaks are separate and should stand separately, but UConn's streak was still damn impressive no matter what you do to try to undermine it. Any athlete will tell you that winning that many games in a row is hard.
|
|
|
Post by Bake Or Die on Jan 1, 2011 19:11:28 GMT -5
I am just glad this means less UCONN games interrupting the real sports on ESPN with score updates. Real sports?
|
|
|
Post by FrankGotch on Jan 1, 2011 22:15:33 GMT -5
I personally think women make better athletes then men. When a statement like this is made you absolutely must give an explanation for it. I guess at this point I'll assume that what you really meant to say was that you enjoy watching womens athletics more than mens. Because if you meant what you wrote then I'm sorry, but saying "I personally think women make better athletes then men" doesn't work. Athletic skill is not something that you get to have a personal opinion about. There is no disputing that men are better athletes than women. Why can't you dispute that? Its because we have concrete measurables from both men, and women who are at the top in their respective sports, and just a quick glance at those numbers prove that men are superior athletes. Across the boards males are quicker, jump higher, run/swim faster, and are much stronger then their female counter parts, and the numbers in most cases aren't even close. Even the worst male sprinters weight lifters ect in the Olympics usually would have won the womens event by a large margin. I know that in our modern 21st century society its seems wrong to make statements that seem to paint an entire group of people as inferior at something. But sometimes its up to people to accept the facts for what they are rather than stick to our idealistic agendas in the face of all evidence and logic. Fact is that when it comes to athletics men simply have genetic advantages that women do not.
|
|
|
Post by Bake Or Die on Jan 1, 2011 23:09:11 GMT -5
I personally think women make better athletes then men. When a statement like this is made you absolutely must give an explanation for it. I guess at this point I'll assume that what you really meant to say was that you enjoy watching womens athletics more than mens. Because if you meant what you wrote then I'm sorry, but saying "I personally think women make better athletes then men" doesn't work. Athletic skill is not something that you get to have a personal opinion about. There is no disputing that men are better athletes than women. Why can't you dispute that? Its because we have concrete measurables from both men, and women who are at the top in their respective sports, and just a quick glance at those numbers prove that men are superior athletes. Across the boards males are quicker, jump higher, run/swim faster, and are much stronger then their female counter parts, and the numbers in most cases aren't even close. Even the worst male sprinters weight lifters ect in the Olympics usually would have won the womens event by a large margin. I know that in our modern 21st century society its seems wrong to make statements that seem to paint an entire group of people as inferior at something. But sometimes its up to people to accept the facts for what they are rather than stick to our idealistic agendas in the face of all evidence and logic. Fact is that when it comes to athletics men simply have genetic advantages that women do not. I meant the way it sounded & I stick by my previous comment.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jan 1, 2011 23:22:19 GMT -5
This argument is ridiculous.
Everyone knows boys have cooties.
|
|
|
Post by FrankGotch on Jan 1, 2011 23:38:42 GMT -5
When a statement like this is made you absolutely must give an explanation for it. I guess at this point I'll assume that what you really meant to say was that you enjoy watching womens athletics more than mens. Because if you meant what you wrote then I'm sorry, but saying "I personally think women make better athletes then men" doesn't work. Athletic skill is not something that you get to have a personal opinion about. There is no disputing that men are better athletes than women. Why can't you dispute that? Its because we have concrete measurables from both men, and women who are at the top in their respective sports, and just a quick glance at those numbers prove that men are superior athletes. Across the boards males are quicker, jump higher, run/swim faster, and are much stronger then their female counter parts, and the numbers in most cases aren't even close. Even the worst male sprinters weight lifters ect in the Olympics usually would have won the womens event by a large margin. I know that in our modern 21st century society its seems wrong to make statements that seem to paint an entire group of people as inferior at something. But sometimes its up to people to accept the facts for what they are rather than stick to our idealistic agendas in the face of all evidence and logic. Fact is that when it comes to athletics men simply have genetic advantages that women do not. I meant the way it sounded & I stick by my previous comment. OK I'm skeptical, but I'll be more then happy to hear the reasoning behind your position. I gave you the reason why I believe the way I do, and I offered solid evidence and mensurable stats to back up my argument. Now I must request that you do the same, because at this point unless you can at least give me some reason for your statement I'll be inclined to believe that you are trolling.
|
|
|
Post by Bake Or Die on Jan 2, 2011 0:06:47 GMT -5
I meant the way it sounded & I stick by my previous comment. OK I'm skeptical, but I'll be more then happy to hear the reasoning behind your position. I gave you the reason why I believe the way I do, and I offered solid evidence and mensurable stats to back up my argument. Now I must request that you do the same, because at this point unless you can at least give me some reason for your statement I'll be inclined to believe that you are trolling. Trolling? No. I'm just not going to bother arguing with a group of people who won't really listen to my opinion anyway because regardless of what I say men of course are better then women in sports because it's a proven fact that they are. I'll let you have your opinion & I'll keep mine but I'll be damned if anyone tells me I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by i.Sarita.com on Jan 2, 2011 0:11:48 GMT -5
I will say, the UConn women's team is a lot sexier than the UCLA team was.
|
|