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.

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.

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

lmao, omg youre killin me!!!!

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

omg youre killin me

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.

University of Delaware to win it all! Screw UCONN!

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.

But do they do good snu-snu?

No surprise. It's an upset in women's basketball when a 9 beats an 8. The difference between skill levels is huuuuuge.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

nappy headed hoes

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.

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

And in other news, people watch women's basketball.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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.