USA Today has some interesting quotes re Geno's success at UConn. Maryland Coach Brenda Frese, among others, said parity in the women's game is almost non-existent. And it's hurting the sport, big-time. The idea that only a handful of women's programs have a reasonable shot at a national title is harmful. The lack of competition is not healthy. Frankly, the way UConn manhandles the rest of the field has become a huge bore. It's just not watchable.
A dose of reality and UConn
- Thread starter colhenrylives
- Start date
It's not at the fault of the talent. The programs have to do better. There is parity in recruiting, so do better with the recruits you get. Everyone doesn't go to UCONN. But maybe Geno does a better job recruiting the kids that fit what he wants done. I know Brenda Frese ain't complaining.
The debate about UConn's dominance obscures the more important point: The elite talent pool is not as deep as the men's game because so many girls who would do very well in basketball play volleyball instead -- and that trend is accelerating.
If there were more elite players, more teams would be able to challenge UConn.
If there were more elite players, more teams would be able to challenge UConn.
Saying that there are few elite players and that UConn has the edge in recruiting them is a relatively small part of the equation. The way UConn got to its present position is that Auriemma is very good (and probably the best) in evaluating players, recruiting them, training them, and managing them in games. What strikes me about his teams is not their awesome athleticism, but their maturity in managing their possessions (controlling the ball, shot selection) and their consistency in making the shots they ought to make.
The pool is a big factor. There are just not as many women playing basketball as men. And volleyball is not the only answer as men's basketball has to deal with football which syphons off good players.
Second.Title IX hurts women's basketball. The NCAA gives out more scholarships per team to even out the whole number of scholarships per university. So there are 15 on a women's team and 13 on a men's team. So you have a smaller pool supplying more scholarships. If there were 13 scholarships then two would fall down to the lower team on down the ladder. And so on and so on.
I know most of the better teams practice against men players. so those players on the end of the bench don't even get to practice.
Second.Title IX hurts women's basketball. The NCAA gives out more scholarships per team to even out the whole number of scholarships per university. So there are 15 on a women's team and 13 on a men's team. So you have a smaller pool supplying more scholarships. If there were 13 scholarships then two would fall down to the lower team on down the ladder. And so on and so on.
I know most of the better teams practice against men players. so those players on the end of the bench don't even get to practice.
If it weren't for Title 9, there wouldn't be ANY women's basketball scholarships. Or a lot of other things - including this board.
I don't buy it. Title IX has opened the doors for many women and the opportunities for women goes further than the sports world. Soccer and volleyball clubs are whats taking kids away from the game and ultimately, diluting the college girls game. On the boys side, you ALWAYS see a 12 seed advancing in the tourney...when was the last time a really lower seed went deep in the tourney? Talent coupled with good coaching...anything can happen.
I'm probably gonna get grilled for saying this, but the quality of coaching in the girls game is WORSE than on the men's side. You have a lot of AD's that hire unqualified women because it's the PC thing to do. I understand AD's would like women to coach women but why not hire the best person for the job. I'm not saying that women can't coach but I know that there have been some great male candidates for local jobs and have been passed up because of their gender. I think this also hurts the women's game.
I'm probably gonna get grilled for saying this, but the quality of coaching in the girls game is WORSE than on the men's side. You have a lot of AD's that hire unqualified women because it's the PC thing to do. I understand AD's would like women to coach women but why not hire the best person for the job. I'm not saying that women can't coach but I know that there have been some great male candidates for local jobs and have been passed up because of their gender. I think this also hurts the women's game.
You are confusing Title IX with WBB. I am talking about strengthening the pool of women's basketball. Title IX says a university must provide equal number of scholarships for men and women in all sports. Take the two scholarships for WBB and place them somewhere else. then you still have the total scholarships in equal ability. I'm a basketball fan and i want to see better basketball.
Men play soccer too. So that is a wash. i think a college volleyball program has 15 scholarships. But a football team has 85. You don't think that siphons off a few players.
Men play soccer too. So that is a wash. i think a college volleyball program has 15 scholarships. But a football team has 85. You don't think that siphons off a few players.
I am not sure I follow what you are saying. Are you contending that fewer scholarships per team will distribute the talent more evenly among more teams? I guess I see the argument that if players 14 and 15 don't get scholarship offers from one team, they might decide to go elsewhere and make more of a contribution. But I see at least 3 counter arguments:
(1) Take 2 scholarships away from 350 D1 schools and 700 players lose their rides. Not just tough for those kids, but maybe makes the sport that much less appealing for young athletes looking for a path to college.
(2) I don't think bumping down a couple of kids on each of the top teams (and the resulting domino effect) would have much of an effect on the overall level of competition. The top teams would still be the top teams.
(3) UConn only carries 12 players on its roster anyway. So the trickle down effect blows up on you before you even start.
(1) Take 2 scholarships away from 350 D1 schools and 700 players lose their rides. Not just tough for those kids, but maybe makes the sport that much less appealing for young athletes looking for a path to college.
(2) I don't think bumping down a couple of kids on each of the top teams (and the resulting domino effect) would have much of an effect on the overall level of competition. The top teams would still be the top teams.
(3) UConn only carries 12 players on its roster anyway. So the trickle down effect blows up on you before you even start.
Clay is right. Again. The available female hoops talent pool is much, much smaller than the pool on the male side. There are lots of reasons. Volleyball is just one.
Clay is right, but you also have to look at the coaching at a lot of the Universities around. I bet coaches like Geno, Muffet, and Staley could go into almost any college in America and within 3 years have a true national contender. They can evaluate good talent, and recruit players to fit what they're looking for.
I think the point about coaching is valid -- for many D1 programs, the women's team is an afterthought (as are most athletic programs aside from football and men's basketball). If a coach stays around .500, has a good graduation rate and doesn't sleep with the players, that's usually enough to get re-hired, or at least hired somewhere else.
And obviously women have an advantage in the hiring process, just as they do in officiating. There are many excellent female basketball coaches, and officials, but I think it's fair to say the pool of applicants on both areas is much, much smaller on the female side. That means an AD (or supervisor of officials) looking at five female candidates is looking at the best five out of 100, say, while the five male candidates come from a pool of 250. In other words, the female candidates are in the top 5%, and the male candidates are in the top 2% (using those basically random numbers).
And obviously women have an advantage in the hiring process, just as they do in officiating. There are many excellent female basketball coaches, and officials, but I think it's fair to say the pool of applicants on both areas is much, much smaller on the female side. That means an AD (or supervisor of officials) looking at five female candidates is looking at the best five out of 100, say, while the five male candidates come from a pool of 250. In other words, the female candidates are in the top 5%, and the male candidates are in the top 2% (using those basically random numbers).
Nor Cal Fan has some excellent points. As do most on this thread. They don't often hire the best person for the job. And why is it ok to have a .500 win percentage over 15-20 years and keep your job? As long as they don't create headaches for someone...I guess some people get their jobs until death do they part.
Some have kind of skimmed over the fact that Geno is an outstanding coach. Not just a recruiter. I have watched his practices first hand and the detail, demand, precision, and intensity with which they are required to practice are equally heads and shoulders above most in the game. Some schools are getting players near in talent. And sometimes deeper. But there are definitely coaches that develop these players while they are on campus vs. the roll it out and play mentality. His teams get better each year and come March are ready to roll. Collecting talent is one thing. What you do with it is another.
Some have kind of skimmed over the fact that Geno is an outstanding coach. Not just a recruiter. I have watched his practices first hand and the detail, demand, precision, and intensity with which they are required to practice are equally heads and shoulders above most in the game. Some schools are getting players near in talent. And sometimes deeper. But there are definitely coaches that develop these players while they are on campus vs. the roll it out and play mentality. His teams get better each year and come March are ready to roll. Collecting talent is one thing. What you do with it is another.
Great point about Geno's coaching -- but in addition, his players get better. A lot of college coaches take what they get, and you don't see much, if any, improvement.
A girl with aspirations beyond college knows that if she goes to UConn, not only will the team win a lot of games, but she will graduate a much better player than when she arrived.
A girl with aspirations beyond college knows that if she goes to UConn, not only will the team win a lot of games, but she will graduate a much better player than when she arrived.
NorCalFan,
I have to agree with you. The quality of coaching on the girls side is much worse. It seems that only in women's basketball can you find so many coaches who have never played the game. It's especially true at the AAU level. Your daughter didnt make the hotshot local AAU team? No problem, dad or mom will just start the Lady (insert team name here). Doesnt matter that mom or dad never played, and are going to youtube to find drills, plays, and the like. Little Suzy's happy, and the other neighborhood kids get to join in too. Kids play as many minutes as they like, everybody's happy. Suzy's awful fundamentals are ignored. Suzy's not getting coached. And it happens much too often.
The rest of the world has it right in that in order to coach at any level, you have to get certifications that qualify you to coach. Having money and the uniform hookup just shouldnt be enough.
I have to agree with you. The quality of coaching on the girls side is much worse. It seems that only in women's basketball can you find so many coaches who have never played the game. It's especially true at the AAU level. Your daughter didnt make the hotshot local AAU team? No problem, dad or mom will just start the Lady (insert team name here). Doesnt matter that mom or dad never played, and are going to youtube to find drills, plays, and the like. Little Suzy's happy, and the other neighborhood kids get to join in too. Kids play as many minutes as they like, everybody's happy. Suzy's awful fundamentals are ignored. Suzy's not getting coached. And it happens much too often.
The rest of the world has it right in that in order to coach at any level, you have to get certifications that qualify you to coach. Having money and the uniform hookup just shouldnt be enough.
Thanks, but I think it's far worse than that. I remember about 8 years ago, a buddy of mine who was the head coach at Holy Names applied for the head women's coaching job at Humboldt. He had winning seasons every year, made it to the national tournament, did a great job at a little school with no money. They end up hiring the lady from Butte College who was successful but never coached at the 4 year level. My male friend never got an interview (they only interviewed females and 2 finalists never had been a head coach). You look at USF and Jennifer Azzi (granted she did a good job from a W/L point of view this year) she had no coaching experience at all when she got hired.
You see it less and less on the mens side, although Chris Mullin just got hired at St. John's having never been a head coach. I know the bottom line is players win games but winning programs have good players and great coaches.
You see it less and less on the mens side, although Chris Mullin just got hired at St. John's having never been a head coach. I know the bottom line is players win games but winning programs have good players and great coaches.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
The 40th South Tahoe Girls Basketball Jamboree June 21-23, 2024 (Posting for Les)
- Latest: smmustanggirlhoops