I find the lack of parity in women's BB very troubling.

[RU MAN]

When a team that's as stacked as UCONN blows the doors off a 5th seed by 51 points, the women's game is made a mockery. I can understand one or two teams being dominant like the Kentucky men's BB team seem to be this year, but you don't see the same lopsidedness in the men's game as you see in the women's game. There is no way in my mind that a team ranked number one like UCONN was for most of the season, is able to win each game in the tournament by such obscene margins of 56 points, 36 points and 51 points. That's just crazy!

I realize that Geno is not running up the score, but he is getting the best players in the country to play for him. This reminds me of the first Dream Team in men's BB in the Olympics. That team won by an average of more than 43 points a game. It wasn't a matter of if they win but by how much.

What can be done? I don't know. I'm hoping some of you make suggestions here. Maybe to bring more parity in the women's game, if a particular school wins the NCAA championships they are only allowed to bring in one AA recruit over two years after they win the championship. And if a team reaches the Elite 8 they are only allowed to bring in one AA recruit the following year. I know some here will criticize this idea, but I'm trying to find a way to bring more parity. For example UCONN is bringing in 3 AA next season. Louisville is bringing in 2 next year. How is this going to slow down the UCONN juggernaut? It won't.

FYI, I loved seeing FSU only beat Arizona State by 2 points to move into the Elite 8 (a 2 seed vs. a 3 seed), and South Caroline beating UNC by 2 (a 1 seed vs. a 4 seed) in the other bracket. That is parity. That's what you see in the men's game. Duke just beat Utah last night by 6 points. Wisconsin really struggled the other night but pulled out a 7 point win over UNC. And Arizona had a difficult time beating Xavier pulling away in the last 3 minutes of that game, which was tight most of the way. That is what NCAA tournament BB should be about. And that's why you see two 3 seeds lose to two 14 seeds on the men's side. I don't recall EVER seeing a 3 seed in women's BB lose to a 14 seed.

So with that said, what say you? How do we get to the point where there is more parity in the women's game, because quite honestly, I think UCONN BB is detrimental to the women's game.

 

[Doctor Worm]

One thing which could make a marginal impact is scholarship reduction from 15 to 13 as in the men's game. But it wouldn't change things much.

BTW, ironically the only time a 16 seed has ever beaten a 1 seed is in the women's tournament - Harvard over Stanford in 1998.

 

[gigantor1024]

idk. Geno's just a greedy old bum and with Summit out of the way he just wants to rake in title after title till Retirement

 

[Ewecon]

Maybe everyone else's poor recruiting is detrimental to the game....that's where the problem lies, not in UConn's dominance. You're suggesting limiting scholarships and the quality of players they're allowed to recruit? In the high jump, when someone raises the bar to a level you can't clear, you don't ask them to lower the bar. You learn to jump higher.

 

[knightfan2000]

First step is for the top teams to stop scheduling UConn and let their lousy conference finally take its toll. It will take time but eventually it should help to even the playing field a bit. It is already impacting the men's basketball team and football.

 

[bac2therac]

Not good for the game...power 5 schools need to band together and stop scheduling them

 

[MADHAT1]

Hate to see a too good for us attitude that wants the best WBB program to be kept off your school's schedule:" Because their too good."
Much rather see fans trying to figure out a way RU and( name those schools) field a team that , at first, be competitive and then equal to.
Not run and hide from a school that's getting it done.
If they cheat to do it, then refuse to play them. But if they are that good on the up & up, be willing to play the best while you're trying to build a program that will be the best and overtake them.
I hate seeing UConn win, but I would hate it more to see that program destroyed because of jealousy and that would be the reason for trying to hurt a program by refusing to play them because they are too good,
That's my opinion on refusing to play the best so they stop being the best.

 

[knightfan2000]

Totally disagree - they've been given a huge leg up by having tournament game after tournament game scheduled on their home floor, in Hartford, or at Mohegan Sun. If we had been given such favorable scheduling year in and year out who knows where we'd be - It's time to reverse the effects of the huge advantage they've had and level the playing field.

 

[lne001]

Simple. Make them shoot only with their off hand. Maybe wear heavy ankle weights as well. No time outs, no water, the possibilities are endless.

 

[knightfan2000]

hilarious

 

[BeKnighted]

Originally posted by lne001:

Simple. Make them shoot only with their off hand. Maybe wear heavy ankle weights as well. No time outs, no water, the possibilities are endless.

Kurt Vonnegut beat you to it.

 

[lne001]

Excellent catch.

Here's a video version for anyone interested - 2081

 

[ecojew]

I can't say that I find it "troubling," just boring. I've tuned out. Same with the men's side when the NCAA rules evidently permit a group of non-students - essentially an NBA farm team - to compete against college teams. Uninteresting.

 

[RUChoppin]

Originally posted by Ewecon:
Maybe everyone else's poor recruiting is detrimental to the game....that's where the problem lies, not in UConn's dominance. You're suggesting limiting scholarships and the quality of players they're allowed to recruit? In the high jump, when someone raises the bar to a level you can't clear, you don't ask them to lower the bar. You learn to jump higher.

Well, the scholarship reduction actually has some historical success that can be pointed to. Once the NCAA put a scholarship limit for football in 1973, parity started to develop in the game that didn't really exist before... and further reduction sin 1978 and 1992 increased parity further.

I don't know if a reduction from 15 to 13 would make any difference, really - but at least that idea has some precedent.

The bigger difference, to me, is that incentive professional ball plays. The men want to get on a team and shine - they are looking to get drafted into the NBA, and make millions, and are looking for the best opportunity to do that. The women have no such millions awaiting them in the WNBA, and only very few are able to make high salaries overseas. In the vast majority of cases, the degree earned is more financially valuable than a professional women's basketball career.

There's also the rule that forces women to stay with a school for 4 years before going pro - which means less turnover among the most elite players. Imagine what Kentucky would look like if Calipari got all the same guys, but they had to stay for 4 years before going pro.

 

[TRU2RU]

Originally posted by ecojew:
I can't say that I find it "troubling," just boring. I've tuned out. Same with the men's side when the NCAA rules evidently permit a group of non-students - essentially an NBA farm team - to compete against college teams. Uninteresting.

This is a NBA players Assoc rule, not a NCAA rule, many kids would go directly to the NBA if allowed but the players assoc will not allow them to, so there is little that the NCAA can or will do.

 

[RUJMM78]

The UConn women are so dominant because Tennessee has taken a step backward with the retirement of Summit and Greiner is no longer at Baylor .Notre Dame is one of the few teams that has been able to defeat UConn fairly consistently the last 5 years but this year was destroyed on their home court.
There should be no elimination of scholarships because a team excels and plays by the NCAA rules.Opponents need to step up their recruiting to become more competitive.Losing by 30 plus points is ridiculous for a ranked team.
This post was edited on 3/29 5:30 PM by RU-JMM78

 

[Doctor Worm]

Just to be clear - I was not suggesting cutting only UConn's scholarships back to 13. I was suggesting it as a rule across the board, as was done in football as a prior poster pointed out.

I guess it comes down to whether you think off-the-charts greatness, as exhibited by UConn, is good or bad for the sport. Clearly, the conventional wisdom in pro sports is that it's a bad thing. That's why teams draft in inverse order.

The problem with one team being dominant is the risk that all other games become viewed as irrelevant. Like in Tiger Woods' heyday, when nobody cared about tournaments in which he was not participating.

 

[RU MAN]

Originally posted by RU-JMM78:

The UConn women are so dominant because Tennessee has taken a step backward with the retirement of Summit and Greiner is no longer at Baylor .Notre Dame is one of the few teams that has been able to defeat UConn fairly consistently the last 5 years but this year was destroyed on their home court.
There should be no elimination of scholarships because a team excels and plays by the NCAA rules.Opponents need to step up their recruiting to become morte competitine.Losing by 30 plus points is ridiculous for a ranked team.

Fine, but what's your solution? How do you step up your recruiting? That's the one million dollar question.

As for the ewecon fan, your analogy is sorry to say, very weak. Completely apples and oranges. As another poster pointed out (RU-Choppin) when football started to reduce the amount of scholarships a school can give out, parity became more of the norm in college football.

As for not scheduling UCONN, I don't believe that's the answer either. There will always be teams that want to play UCONN even if it's just for the exposure or competition. What someone here alluded to however, is the favorable treatment UCONN seems to get every year with the tournament either at their own arena or one close by. As that poster suggested, what if a team like Rutgers got to host the tournament year in and year out? I think what would happen in my humble opinion is Rutgers would get better exposure and therefore may get better recruits to come play for Rutgers.

Also, now that Summit is no longer coaching (I wish her well) there is no longer another behemoth to offset UCONN. Personally, I would like to see at least 10-12 schools year in and year out be equally as competitive. Right now if this continues, who is going to stop Geno from racking up 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 championships? Right now no one. The only thing preventing that is if Geno retires, or is incapacitated to continue coaching. But who wants that? I don't. I just want to see more parity in the women's game.

Lastly, I'm not sure reducing scholarships from 15 to 13 will do much good. I know that's what men's BB has, but in women's BB, it's way too top heavy. So instead of UCONN getting 15 top athletes they'll get 13 and other top performers, who will just walk on and then get a schollie in their sophomore year and beyond.

 

[Cyn38]

UConn could blow out the Knicks, IMHO.

 

[RU old timer]

The quality of basketball they play should be appreciated. As a Rutgers fan, I wish we played like UConn. And now that Rutgers has been eliminated, I wish other teams remaining in the tournament--for example South Carolina which has awesome raw talent and athleticism--played with the same poise,team concept and effectiveness. Yes, UConn has very good players....but they have the best coach since John Wooden.

 

[Doctor Worm]

Originally posted by Cyn38:
UConn could blow out the Knicks, IMHO.

You ARE joking, right?

The Knicks would beat UConn's MEN'S team by 20, which would beat UConn's women's team by 30.

 

[BeKnighted]

Originally posted by Doctor Worm:

Originally posted by Cyn38:
UConn could blow out the Knicks, IMHO.

You ARE joking, right?

The Knicks would beat UConn's MEN'S team by 20, which would beat UConn's women's team by 30.

Well, it's the Knicks, so I wouldn't count on it.

I might actually take Kentucky over the Knicks this year.

 

[MGSA99]

The UConn women would make the WNBA playoffs.

 

[Ewecon]

"power 5 schools need to band together and stop scheduling them"

bac, I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure that's not it. That smacks of sour grapes, to be honest. Like a kid who continually gets his butt kicked on the playground basketball court so he takes his ball and goes home. Now the other kids can't play.

I know that UConn's dominance is boring to most people that are not UConn fans. But how many other teams in the country wouldn't trade places? If Rutgers were as dominant for so many years, would your fans be saying you're ruining the game and look for ways to end your dominance? I think not. It's a different story when you're the one riding the wave, and there's not a program in the country that wouldn't want to be on UConn's surf board.

 

[ecojew]

"

Originally posted by ecojew:
I can't say that I find it "troubling," just boring. I've tuned out. Same with the men's side when the NCAA rules evidently permit a group of non-students - essentially an NBA farm team - to compete against college teams. Uninteresting.

This is a NBA players Assoc rule, not a NCAA rule, many kids would go
directly to the NBA if allowed but the players assoc will not allow them
to, so there is little that the NCAA can or will do."

Thanks for the clarification, TRU2RU. I didn't realize that. Perhaps what the NCAA could do is not allow the drafting of freshmen. That would require the cooperation of the NBA but their players association (is that like a union?) might agree to something like that.

The point that I was trying to make is that situations like the one with UK seems to be corrupting the game. It's not good for the sport. I hope that the press (i.e., not ESPiN) will publicize the departure of the UK players following the FF, if/when it happens so that we can have a broader debate on what this kind of thing means for college basketball specifically but for college sports more broadly.

 

[BeKnighted]

In practical terms, the NCAA can't prevent players from being drafted or leaving school, so it's really up to the NBA and the NBAPA, based on what they're willing to negotiate in their contract. (The NBA can't do it unilaterally, or it would be a violation of antitrust law.) They're starting a new negotiation cycle now, and I think this is one of the issues on the table.

 

[RUChoppin]

Originally posted by BeKnighted:
In practical terms, the NCAA can't prevent players from being drafted or leaving school

Well, they could probably do something along the lines of making a freshman leaving for the draft still count against scholarship totals for the following season, or something... but I doubt the conferences would go for that.

 

[BeKnighted]

Originally posted by RUChoppin:

Originally posted by BeKnighted:
In practical terms, the NCAA can't prevent players from being drafted or leaving school

Well, they could probably do something along the lines of making a freshman leaving for the draft still count against scholarship totals for the following season, or something... but I doubt the conferences would go for that.

Interesting idea. Although of course that couldn't stop someone from leaving if he really wanted to leave, it could affect recruiting decisions.

 

[MGSA99]

I would love for them to do what baseball does. You can drafted into the NBA right out of high school or you can go to college for a minimum of 3 years. Those who choose to forego college can play in the D-league if they do not make an NBA roster.


This would bring a lot of integrity back to the college game and we would actually get to know the kids playing on the top teams.

 

[sammybb]

I think CVS hit the nail on the head in her post UConn presser: There needs to be more talent out there, and coaches need to go after it. Unlike in the men's game, there are usually only 2-3 GREAT players at most that come out every year, and the truly transformative players come only every 1-3 years. It's no surprise that the winners of all the last championships have had, excepting Texas A&M, a "Transformative" player:

UCONN: Stewart, Moore
BAYLOR: Griner
TENNESSEE: Parker

Those players were a part of 7/8 of the last championship teams.

The problem is when those "transformative" players keep picking the same program. Part of it's recruiting, but part of it is it seems recently, the most talented players are content to join UCOnn's all star team instead of taking on the challenge of trying to beat UConn. Part of that is their lack of inclusion in a big power conference: both ND and RU used to get players who were motivated by the chance to play UConn every year and take them down. But when the #1 player in the 2015 class, Katie Lou Samuelson, both of whose sisters went to Stanford, wants to play with Brianna Stewart rather than against her, that becomes a problem.

 

[RUChoppin]

Originally posted by BeKnighted:
Interesting idea. Although of course that couldn't stop someone from leaving if he really wanted to leave, it could affect recruiting decisions.

It would also prevent "once and done" dynasties, like Kentucky, from just getting a new crop every year.

In both 2009-10 and 2011-12, Kentucky had 4 players declare early for the NBA draft... imagine starting the the following seasons with just 9 scholarship players.

If anything, teams would be more reluctant to load up on once and done players - or at least to take more than one of them at a time. It would spread the talent around a bit more.

...

As for dropping the women's schollie limit from 15 to 13... you'd free up 20 players off of the best 10 teams in the country, and spread them around to the next best 10 teams (theoretically)... which would free up 20 more players to trickle down to the next best 10 teams, and so on.

Only problem is that the extra 2 schollies for women's basketball help with Title IX concerns about number of schollies for men vs. women.

 

[Knight Time Fan]

Regarding the reduction in scholarship - that's a non-issue. Virtually no team carries 15 players. If they do, or anywhere close, chances are the players above the 10 count are just practice players, really. Few teams go more than 7 or 8 deep in crunch, 9 and 10th players are insurance against injury, etc.

Some of the blind hating on Geno in my opinion gots to stop. And certainly hating him for being successful. Which is what a lot of it is.

For myself, don't care for his public personality type. Would learn to put up with it if he was my team's coach.

His dynasty will continue as long as he is there, primarily because of recruiting, because his coaching ability / system is really unmatched. As long as he can get players as good as needed to execute his schemes, he will seldom lose.

Unfortunately, the UConn fan answer of other teams stepping up is not really a complete answer, because:

- no one seems able to get the top to bottom talent level that he does
- even his former players / assistants have trouble duplicating his success, even at a lesser level, in spite of their theoretical knowledge of how he does it. Carla Berube, at the DIII level, has been the most successful (at Tufts). No one else has found the magical elixer either.

One thing I have noticed in tournaments is that the very disciplined teams have the best success for their level of talent (Notre Dame, Gonzaga, Dayton among others), which is of course a strong characteristic of UConn teams.

 

[RUChoppin]

Originally posted by Knight Time Fan:
Regarding the reduction in scholarship - that's a non-issue. Virtually no team carries 15 players. If they do, or anywhere close, chances are the players above the 10 count are just practice players, really.

Good observation.

Just checked UConn in particular, and they haven't had over 11 players on their roster since 2008-09, when they had 14. In fact, in the last 15 seasons, they've only had more than 13 players on their roster twice... usually it's 10-12.

So, number of schollies isn't really a thing.

 

[Doctor Worm]

Originally posted by MGSA99:
The UConn women would make the WNBA playoffs.

I agree. Which is an astounding statement when you think of it. On the men's side, the recurring argument is whether a dominant team like Kentucky would avoid finishing last in the NBA.

Today was a great example. Everyone was marveling about UConn being tested, and rightly so. Then you look up and they're up 20.