If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Not news: UConn women's basketball wins another tourney game. News: The final score was 72-26. Fark: The team they beat was an 8 seed that already won their first round game   (sports.sportsillustrated.cnn.com) divider line 125
    More: Amusing, Geno Auriemma, basketball, Maya Moore, College of Charleston, perfect game, field goal percentage, uconn, rout  
•       •       •

1687 clicks; posted to Sports » on 20 Mar 2012 at 11:43 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



125 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-20 08:22:14 AM  
Can we just name UConn as the Eternal National Champion of Women's College Basketball and give someone else a change to show good fundamentals?
 
2012-03-20 08:31:02 AM  
UConn didn't win last year. Texas A&M is the defending champion. That said, UConn is pretty ridiculous, but I'd rather they win again than farking Baylor.
 
2012-03-20 09:05:41 AM  
Jesus. That sounds like some of the scores you get out of high school basketball up here.
 
2012-03-20 09:28:06 AM  
Well no sh*t the 8 seed had already beaten their first-round opponent. 1 seeds face 16 seeds in the first round.

Also, this may come as a shocker, there is not much parity in women's basketball.

Still, 26 points is kind of ridiculous. Not as ridiculous as the Bulls holding the Magic to 59, but still.
 
2012-03-20 11:47:54 AM  
EMAW!
 
2012-03-20 11:48:59 AM  

IAmRight: Also, this may come as a shocker, there is not much parity in women's basketball.


This. Although the funny thing is, a 16 seed did once beat a 1 seed in the women's NCAA tourney. However, a 15 has never beaten a 2, and a 14 has never beaten a 3. The men's tourney has the opposite history.
 
2012-03-20 11:54:04 AM  

Aar1012: and give someone else a change to show good fundamentals?


lmao, omg youre killin me!!!!

PUNCH...SLAP.....KICK...

omg youre killin me
 
2012-03-20 11:55:52 AM  

machoprogrammer: IAmRight: Also, this may come as a shocker, there is not much parity in women's basketball.

This. Although the funny thing is, a 16 seed did once beat a 1 seed in the women's NCAA tourney. However, a 15 has never beaten a 2, and a 14 has never beaten a 3. The men's tourney has the opposite history.


If I remember right, the one seed lost their best player (probably the best player in the country that year) between the seeding and the game.
 
2012-03-20 11:59:25 AM  
University of Delaware to win it all! Screw UCONN!
 
2012-03-20 12:00:09 PM  

IAmRight: Well no sh*t the 8 seed had already beaten their first-round opponent. 1 seeds face 16 seeds in the first round.

Also, this may come as a shocker, there is not much parity in women's basketball.

Still, 26 points is kind of ridiculous. Not as ridiculous as the Bulls holding the Magic to 59, but still.


Uh, actually, it's much more ridiculous. Kansas St. scored 10 points in the first half 10 points in 20 minutes of game time.
 
2012-03-20 12:09:13 PM  
The Women's NCAA tourney should be 16 teams, tops.

The skill drop off from the first 4 teams to the next 12 is huge.

The skill drop from the 16th team to the 64th team is cavernous.
 
2012-03-20 12:11:16 PM  
But do they do good snu-snu?
 
2012-03-20 12:14:21 PM  
No surprise. It's an upset in women's basketball when a 9 beats an 8. The difference between skill levels is huuuuuge.
 
2012-03-20 12:15:50 PM  

HulkHands: Uh, actually, it's much more ridiculous. Kansas St. scored 10 points in the first half 10 points in 20 minutes of game time.


No, holding an NBA team (No. 3 in the conference, no less) to 59 points on their home floor without your best player is f*cking impressive.

Beating a scrub team in women's basketball (a game that doesn't even have a shot clock, much less a 24 second clock) is not. The team's mostly been slaughtered by every ranked team they played, including a 36-point game, a 40-point game, and other similar poor performances. They've also put up 33 against Iowa State. They're not a good team.
 
2012-03-20 12:20:23 PM  
Having a women's tourney with 64 teams is a joke. They need like 16 teams and even then, the top ones are probably going to crush the lower ones much of the time.
 
2012-03-20 12:23:34 PM  
I should really do the women's march madness challenge, pick all chalk, then brag about my brackets in the real tournament threads as though I'm a wizard.

Chalk would have you at 28/32 in the first round in the women's tourney.

You'd only be 6-2 in the second round, though, thanks to a 4/5 upset and Gonzaga being as good as their men can't be. (Yeah, I know they went down fighting, but I don't like them, so they can suck it).
 
2012-03-20 12:27:51 PM  
From the Kansas State FY2011 budget (new window)
Men's Basketball Tickets $3,329,743
Women's Basketball Tickets $249,728

Part of the difference in skills is due to a huge difference in money. Less training equipment, worse coaches, fewer ancillary trainers, etc.
 
2012-03-20 12:32:58 PM  

Theaetetus: Part of the difference in skills is due to a huge difference in money. Less training equipment, worse coaches, fewer ancillary trainers, etc.


So if a women's basketball program received as much money as a men's team, it would be an even match if the two were to play head-to-head?
 
2012-03-20 12:33:10 PM  

Theaetetus: From the Kansas State FY2011 budget (new window)
Men's Basketball Tickets $3,329,743
Women's Basketball Tickets $249,728

Part of the difference in skills is due to a huge difference in money. Less training equipment, worse coaches, fewer ancillary trainers, etc.


The difference starts at the high school level and below. There just aren't nearly as many good girls basketball players coming out of high school and the ones who are good all want to go to the same schools. The #6-10 players at UConn would probably be a ranked team. Men's basketball is much deeper.
 
2012-03-20 12:34:10 PM  
nappy headed hoes
 
2012-03-20 12:36:03 PM  
We used to go to lots of ASU women's games. my wife liked being that close to the floor and she palyed ball in high school. i liked watching Charlie Turner-Thorne scamper around in her tight miniskirt.
 
2012-03-20 12:40:39 PM  
Isn't women's basketball kinda like what the special Olympics are to the real Olympics?
 
2012-03-20 12:44:56 PM  

protectyourlimbs: Isn't women's basketball kinda like what the special Olympics are to the real Olympics?


Is Men's NCAA basketball like Rollerball these days?
 
2012-03-20 12:57:32 PM  
And in other news, people watch women's basketball.
 
2012-03-20 12:58:32 PM  

IAmRight: HulkHands: Uh, actually, it's much more ridiculous. Kansas St. scored 10 points in the first half 10 points in 20 minutes of game time.

No, holding an NBA team (No. 3 in the conference, no less) to 59 points on their home floor without your best player is f*cking impressive.

Beating a scrub team in women's basketball (a game that doesn't even have a shot clock, much less a 24 second clock) is not. The team's mostly been slaughtered by every ranked team they played, including a 36-point game, a 40-point game, and other similar poor performances. They've also put up 33 against Iowa State. They're not a good team.


Except the Celtics held them to 56 points earlier in the season, and twice they have been held to under 70. They are feast or famine offensively
 
2012-03-20 01:02:32 PM  
10 of 57. Ouch.

38-10 at halftime. Uconn had them almost quadrupled up.
 
2012-03-20 01:36:27 PM  

Wettner: University of Delaware to win it all! Screw UCONN!


Elena Della Donne is three inches taller than me and I would hit it so hard, whoever pulled me out would be crowned King of Death by Snu-Snu.
 
2012-03-20 01:37:02 PM  

IAmRight: Beating a scrub team in women's basketball (a game that doesn't even have a shot clock, much less a 24 second clock) is not.


I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'm pretty sure NCAA women have a shot clock of 30 seconds.
 
MBK [TotalFark]
2012-03-20 01:39:28 PM  
I play a game called "Arena Football Score or Women's Basketball Score"

I send my friends a text of a score. They have to answer if it is an Arena Football score or a Women's Basketball score.
 
2012-03-20 01:40:06 PM  

PunchDrunkPanda: Theaetetus: Part of the difference in skills is due to a huge difference in money. Less training equipment, worse coaches, fewer ancillary trainers, etc.

So if a women's basketball program received as much money as a men's team, it would be an even match if the two were to play head-to-head?


Don't know. There's certainly many reasons to expect that training makes a huge difference, possibly more than physiology. For example, women's marathon times are now well beyond what men's marathon times were 80 years ago. Paula Radcliffe's world record was invalidated by the IAAF because her training partners were men who "encouraged" her to her world record performance. Clearly, their position is that training equivalent to that which men receive is a unfair performance boost.

For another example, men and women used to compete together in Olympic shooting sports, and medal placement was mixed. That practice stopped when a woman won gold, and since then, scores have diverged as more money is spent on training the men's shooting competition. The women's competition, for example, doesn't even shoot at the same number of targets.

So, yeah. Let's find out. Let's take some sport, fund the women's division equally well for a couple decades so that experienced coaches and trainers can develop and upcoming talent can be located and directed from early on, and see what happens.
 
2012-03-20 01:42:34 PM  

you have pee hands: Theaetetus: From the Kansas State FY2011 budget (new window)
Men's Basketball Tickets $3,329,743
Women's Basketball Tickets $249,728

Part of the difference in skills is due to a huge difference in money. Less training equipment, worse coaches, fewer ancillary trainers, etc.

The difference starts at the high school level and below. There just aren't nearly as many good girls basketball players coming out of high school and the ones who are good all want to go to the same schools. The #6-10 players at UConn would probably be a ranked team. Men's basketball is much deeper.


Yep. There are private high schools that start scouting basketball players in elementary schools now. With this much money behind the men's sport - which simply isn't there for the women's sport - you can't make any meaningful comparisons regarding skill.
 
2012-03-20 01:51:28 PM  
When a team signs 7 of the top 10 players in the country, they are probably going to win often. Ha, what am I saying? Its just good coaching.
 
2012-03-20 01:57:55 PM  
Good thing men's basketball never went through a period when one school just dominated everyone, winning like, I dunno, 10 national titles or something.
 
2012-03-20 01:59:53 PM  

Theaetetus: Don't know. There's certainly many reasons to expect that training makes a huge difference, possibly more than physiology. For example, women's marathon times are now well beyond what men's marathon times were 80 years ago. Paula Radcliffe's world record was invalidated by the IAAF because her training partners were men who "encouraged" her to her world record performance. Clearly, their position is that training equivalent to that which men receive is a unfair performance boost.


That is not true. Training with men wasn't the issue, having men serve as pace setters during the actual race was. Much like a male marathoner would not be allowed to have someone ride a bicycle next to him the whole race.
 
2012-03-20 02:02:11 PM  

IAmRight: Beating a scrub team in women's basketball (a game that doesn't even have a shot clock, much less a 24 second clock) is not.


I think you are drunk.... Womens College Basketball has a 30 second shot clock... which is actually shorter than the mens (35 seconds).
 
2012-03-20 02:02:41 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Good thing men's basketball never went through a period when one school just dominated everyone, winning like, I dunno, 10 national titles or something.


In other words, women's basketball is half a century behind the men's game and has no business staging a 64-team tournament?

Agreed.

/fundamentals
 
2012-03-20 02:03:54 PM  

SlothB77: 10 of 57. Ouch.

38-10 at halftime. Uconn had them almost quadrupled up.


Also, UConn could have decided to just dribble around on every possession until they ran out the shot clock and not scored, and still won by 12.

Actually, they might have won by more than 12... had they used up 30 seconds on every possession, as opposed to scoring so much, K State probably wouldn't have even gotten 16 points in the second half.
 
2012-03-20 02:13:23 PM  
you have pee hands
Theaetetus:
From the Kansas State FY2011 budget (new window)
Men's Basketball Tickets $3,329,743
Women's Basketball Tickets $249,728
Part of the difference in skills is due to a huge difference in money. Less training equipment, worse coaches, fewer ancillary trainers, etc.

The difference starts at the high school level and below. There just aren't nearly as many good girls basketball players coming out of high school and the ones who are good all want to go to the same schools. The #6-10 players at UConn would probably be a ranked team. Men's basketball is much deeper.


To paraphrase what a coaching staff member of Germany's pretty good national field hockey squad said :
In a good year for the men's team, we can add 7-10 really talented young guys to the pool of potential players for the country's national team.
In a bad year, there'll still be 3 or 4 which is enough to fill the gaps by leaving players and to keep a decent-quality team.

Well, 3 or 4 would be a really good year for the women's team.
In a bad year we get nobody for the women's team, which not only means that we often can't fill gaps, but also that the players with potential simply do not face enough competition on their teams, both local as well as national.
So if you're a talented young girl, some half-assed effort is enough to keep you the spot at the top and most of them seem to be happy with that (btw, field hockey isn't a pro sport in Germany, so they aren't getting paid and the only thing you get out of it is having fun playing (actually, the players are usually more likely to spend money for playing: club membership fee, sometimes equipment and travel costs for away games/tournaments)).
But this way they don't reach their full potential and have difficulties competing with international top-teams.


/knows a goalie who preferred to train with her club's men's team because training with her team couldn't prepare her for the speed and the strength (of shots) of the handful of top players she would have to face from time to time
 
2012-03-20 02:14:07 PM  

bacongood: Theaetetus: Don't know. There's certainly many reasons to expect that training makes a huge difference, possibly more than physiology. For example, women's marathon times are now well beyond what men's marathon times were 80 years ago. Paula Radcliffe's world record was invalidated by the IAAF because her training partners were men who "encouraged" her to her world record performance. Clearly, their position is that training equivalent to that which men receive is a unfair performance boost.


That is not true. Training with men wasn't the issue, having men serve as pace setters during the actual race was. Much like a male marathoner would not be allowed to have someone ride a bicycle next to him the whole race.


Except:
(a) if the pace setter isn't touching the person and they're doing nothing more than give encouragement, how is that in any way invalidating of a record?
(b) she was allowed to have pace setters, and a male marathoner is also allowed to have pace setters... But while his can be men, hers are not allowed to be. Clearly the existence of a pace setter does not invalidate a record - see (a) above.

Sorry, dude, that one's indefensible. "Your record is invalid because you, a woman, used the same training tools that men use."
 
2012-03-20 02:15:24 PM  
The Duke women won, which means that they don't suck. But if Duke women don't suck, then it must suck at Duke. Therefore, Duke sucks. Classical logic 101.
 
2012-03-20 02:19:02 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: AliceBToklasLives: Good thing men's basketball never went through a period when one school just dominated everyone, winning like, I dunno, 10 national titles or something.

In other words, women's basketball is half a century behind the men's game and has no business staging a 64-team tournament?

Agreed.


If it's only 50 years behind the men's game, then any differences can't be attributable to hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, no?
It's like the marathon records I mentioned above. If women are routinely beating men's world records from 80 years ago, then any claim that women can't compete on an equal level due to innate differences in physiology that evolved over thousands of years must be false.
 
2012-03-20 02:28:02 PM  
There's not much parity in women's college BB. There's at most a handful of good teams, the rest of varying degrees of mediocre to bad.

Even the best women's teams and players look slow and sloppy compared to most men's teams. Don't give me that fundamentals line. For every Shaq that shoots ugly free throws there's 500 women who can't dunk. And even more than that who dribble so slowly and sloppy that a 12 year old kid could steal the ball from them.

/KSU fan
//not bitter :)
 
2012-03-20 02:28:16 PM  

Theaetetus: If it's only 50 years behind the men's game, then any differences can't be attributable to hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, no?
It's like the marathon records I mentioned above. If women are routinely beating men's world records from 80 years ago, then any claim that women can't compete on an equal level due to innate differences in physiology that evolved over thousands of years must be false.


You've confused me with someone involved/interested in your conversation.

As for your basic premise, if you want to fund women's athletics, go right ahead. Football and men's basketball already fund entire athletic departments as it is, so expecting them to do more isn't realistic.
 
2012-03-20 02:37:05 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: You've confused me with someone involved/interested in your conversation.


O hai. Welcome to Fark, an internet forum where people can post a message on a page called a "thread" and not only can everyone else see that message, but they can reply too! It's like a group conversation! Neato, huh? Of course, if you don't want to participate in the group discussion, you can always just send private emails or instant messages.

Also, if you ever upgrade from lynx, you'll see that we now have the technology to include images in web pages, like this:
joe.monterosso.net
 
2012-03-20 02:41:42 PM  

Theaetetus: O hai. Welcome to Fark, an internet forum where people can post a message on a page called a "thread" and not only can everyone else see that message, but they can reply too! It's like a group conversation! Neato, huh? Of course, if you don't want to participate in the group discussion, you can always just send private emails or instant messages.


Hi there. Welcome to the world in which I'm not required to join a discussion you're having with someone else simply because you choose to involve me.

Have an excellent day.
 
2012-03-20 02:42:19 PM  

Theaetetus: Except:
(a) if the pace setter isn't touching the person and they're doing nothing more than give encouragement, how is that in any way invalidating of a record?
(b) she was allowed to have pace setters, and a male marathoner is also allowed to have pace setters... But while his can be men, hers are not allowed to be. Clearly the existence of a pace setter does not invalidate a record - see (a) above.

Sorry, dude, that one's indefensible. "Your record is invalid because you, a woman, used the same training tools that men use."


I disagree with their decision, Paula's record should stand (though the record is still hers, just a slower time from a woman's only race - the gap between her and the #2 woman all time is absolutely enormous).

You're misconstruing the point, though. A man can have pacers, but (logically) they can't pace you to a world record, because if they could, they'd be fast enough to set a world record themselves and would not be wasting their time pacing you. The pacers drop off part of the way though and the guy going for the record must run alone or race someone else going for the record. In case you're unfamiliar with the way pacing in races works there isn't another guy jumping into the race at mile 13 to pace the second half; that would also be illegal.

A male pacer could take a woman all the way to the finish line, because a man running 2:15 is fast but still two miles behind the winners at the major marathons.

A woman could have female pacers to take her through the first half and this would be legal, though because Paula is such an outlier the only women capable of maintaining her record marathon pace for the first half of the race are other internationally competitive runners who have better things to do than set pace.

Pacing does provide some benefit besides encouragement. Drafting doesn't have nearly the same effect running at 12-13mph as it does on a bike at 25-30, but it does help.
 
2012-03-20 02:48:13 PM  

you have pee hands: Theaetetus: From the Kansas State FY2011 budget (new window)
Men's Basketball Tickets $3,329,743
Women's Basketball Tickets $249,728

Part of the difference in skills is due to a huge difference in money. Less training equipment, worse coaches, fewer ancillary trainers, etc.

The difference starts at the high school level and below. There just aren't nearly as many good girls basketball players coming out of high school and the ones who are good all want to go to the same schools. The #6-10 players at UConn would probably be a ranked team. Men's basketball is much deeper.


Also part of the problem is many of the girls that play high school basketball that are very good end up not playing in college because they either get pregnant and drop the sport, or other things about their private lives (somebody outs them as lesbian) are found out and they drop out of society because of the stigma surrounding it. I know people are going to flame me because of this, but this came directly from the mouth of the Marshall high school (Chicago Public League and for a while one of the best girls high school programs in the nation) girls basketball coach. She said that around the country these are the two main issues that coaches have to deal with, and is what is holding women's basketball back, when trying to send women from high school to the next level. And also wasn't it in the news a few months ago how the Penn State women's basketball coach was accused of harassing women on the team who she suspected of being lesbian until they quit?
 
2012-03-20 02:54:36 PM  

Theaetetus: bacongood: Theaetetus: Don't know. There's certainly many reasons to expect that training makes a huge difference, possibly more than physiology. For example, women's marathon times are now well beyond what men's marathon times were 80 years ago. Paula Radcliffe's world record was invalidated by the IAAF because her training partners were men who "encouraged" her to her world record performance. Clearly, their position is that training equivalent to that which men receive is a unfair performance boost.


That is not true. Training with men wasn't the issue, having men serve as pace setters during the actual race was. Much like a male marathoner would not be allowed to have someone ride a bicycle next to him the whole race.

Except:
(a) if the pace setter isn't touching the person and they're doing nothing more than give encouragement, how is that in any way invalidating of a record?
(b) she was allowed to have pace setters, and a male marathoner is also allowed to have pace setters... But while his can be men, hers are not allowed to be. Clearly the existence of a pace setter does not invalidate a record - see (a) above.

Sorry, dude, that one's indefensible. "Your record is invalid because you, a woman, used the same training tools that men use."


It invalidates the record because they set the pace for the entire race. That is a lot more than "giving encouragement".

pace setters are not training tools, they are racing tools. You are just a tool.
 
2012-03-20 03:03:25 PM  

you have pee hands: You're misconstruing the point, though. A man can have pacers, but (logically) they can't pace you to a world record, because if they could, they'd be fast enough to set a world record themselves and would not be wasting their time pacing you. The pacers drop off part of the way though and the guy going for the record must run alone or race someone else going for the record. In case you're unfamiliar with the way pacing in races works there isn't another guy jumping into the race at mile 13 to pace the second half; that would also be illegal.


Not so. From an article at Running Times (new window), far more knowledgeable than I:
In Berlin this year, pacemakers took second and third place across the finish line. Eight years ago, when Paul Tergat became the first man to run sub-2:05 in the marathon (2:04:55), he edged out pacemaker Sammy Korir by less than a second to clinch the record.
Thus, contrary to your assertion, pacers can and do pace winners to the world record.

Accordingly, this is also proven false by those races above:
A male pacer could take a woman all the way to the finish line, because a man running 2:15 is fast but still two miles behind the winners at the major marathons.
A male pacer also takes a male runner all the way to the finish line.

A woman could have female pacers to take her through the first half and this would be legal, though because Paula is such an outlier the only women capable of maintaining her record marathon pace for the first half of the race are other internationally competitive runners who have better things to do than set pace.

Pacing does provide some benefit besides encouragement. Drafting doesn't have nearly the same effect running at 12-13mph as it does on a bike at 25-30, but it does help.


So? As we've established, male runners have pacers take them all the way to the finish line, and using a pacer is not a violation of the rules, and it provides a tangible benefit.
Therefore, Paula's use of a pacer is no different than any other runner's use of a pacer. If her record is suspect, then so are theirs.

The crazy part is this... Theoretically, a man and woman could run a race, side by side, pacing each other, and cross the finish line in the same split second, both faster than any existing world record. Under the IAAF rules, his new record would stand and hers would be thrown out.
 
2012-03-20 03:04:17 PM  

bacongood: It invalidates the record because they set the pace for the entire race. That is a lot more than "giving encouragement".


Eight years ago, when Paul Tergat became the first man to run sub-2:05 in the marathon (2:04:55), he edged out pacemaker Sammy Korir by less than a second to clinch the record.

So, your position is that Tergat's record is invalid?
 
Displayed 50 of 125 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report