It's hardly a secret that the depth of talent on the female side of college basketball isn't close to that of the male game. That's a given. But what UConn did to St. Francis this week was beyond the pale in terms of emphasizing that unfortunate condition. The final score, 140-52, put a glaring spotlight on the biggest problem women's hoops advocates have these days: Only a few high-profile collegiate programs have an abundance of skilled players. The rest make do with leftovers. How many truly quality women's teams are there? Ten? Twelve? Twenty? The vast bulk of the NCAA list (all divisions) is barely mediocre, if that. The imbalance and lack of quality depth is staggering. We see it at the high school level in California as well. Sadly, it's endemic to the sport. The UConn-SF score greatly harms the credibility of the women's game. But it does put matters in perspective. And it's not pretty.
Another black eye
- Thread starter colhenrylives
- Start date
When you look at how well UConn has done in recent memory, you can easily say there's ONE team and then the others. Never in the history of sports (with the expiation of UNC women's soccer or Cal Men's Rugby) has there been a more dominant program in a single sport. Yes you had a team that got upset and that's the beauty of basketball, but lets be real...UConn was still the best last year regardless of that upset.
The women's game in my opinion is being hampered by athletic directors having to hire unqualified coaches because of title IX and because of the whole minority issue (more representation). It really hampers programs when you hire someone, they are successful and leave OR they're unsuccessful and your program is back where it started. Hire the best candidate for the job and don't base it on gender or race. You look at some of the recent hires in CA and you have to scratch your head. Like was this the best hire for this program??? I'd say no...but I don't get paid the big bucks to make those decisions.
Another reason is because a lot of these kids DON'T want to play for Liberty, URI, Reno, St. Francis, Drake, Mercer, FCGU, or even Washington State. Reason? It could be that this generation of kids are so entitled that they think an offer from a good academic D1 school isn't good enough cause it's not Pac 12, ACC, Big 10 or a power conference. Also, that playing D2 or D3 is a slap in the face. I don't know what the answer to this problem is, but you'll always have lopsided victories in the first round and upsets.
I'm unclear on your point about girls not wanting to play for mid-majors, D2 or D3. Are you saying they wind up on the bench at Power 5 schools instead?
I don't think they're any different than boys in that regard, or different from previous generations (of course, the generation we happened to grow up in was better than today's, and the one our parents grew up in was far superior). The biggest difference is the depth of the talent pool, with volleyball and soccer siphoning off many more players at a young age. And of course there are 15 scholarships for women and only 13 for men, so that's 600 D-1 scholarships that must be filled (about 150, potentially, in the Power 5 conferences).
I don't think they're any different than boys in that regard, or different from previous generations (of course, the generation we happened to grow up in was better than today's, and the one our parents grew up in was far superior). The biggest difference is the depth of the talent pool, with volleyball and soccer siphoning off many more players at a young age. And of course there are 15 scholarships for women and only 13 for men, so that's 600 D-1 scholarships that must be filled (about 150, potentially, in the Power 5 conferences).
Those are excellent points. In the end, it probably boils down to the depth of the talent pool. Watching Mitty vs. Pinewood Saturday at SCU, we commented on that topic at some length. If, somehow, Mitty's great 6-2 player would end up at, say, Stanford, not UConn, it would be a step in the right direction. Needless to say, we have our fingers gently crossed on that one.
I don't think coaching boils down to one race or gender being better at it than another. I think like most anything else it is a numbers game. The more opportunities any group or individual gets will increase their chances at being more successful. Especially if you surround them with the type of talent and support guys like Phil Jackson, Geno, and Steve Kerr have been surrounded with. From my view on coaching, while I agree there are some much better than others, I think the common denominator has been the programs with the best or most support i.e. good trainers, assistant coaches, training facilities, staff and players, tends to attract more of the same and increases the odds of success IMO.
How can he reconcile the statement that female coaching candidates are given preferential treatment due to Title IX when the percentage of female coaches has dropped substantially since its implementation (90% to 40%)? It is an amazingly ignorant and lazy argument.
I never said female coaches were given or not given anything. I said support is the key to success. And that it was a numbers game. Any individual or group will benefit if given more opportunities with better support. It has nothing to do with whether or not you pee standing up or sitting down. Or what ethnicity you are. Of course you do have to at least have a clue on what your doing to have a decent starting point to build from. That is far as I wish to get into politics. This is not the forum for me to start speaking the truth on political matters. Many wouldn't be able to handle the truth on politics. So I just keep this on a basketball focus.
Last edited:
It wassn't a direct response to your post it was more to the one you were responding to. Sorry my post was a little vague in that regard.
percentage going down mean LESS female coaches to coach women. So if a female applies, don't you think administrators would look at her as a unicorn, qualified or not? It's not rocket science Mo...supply and demand...and I've seen it happen many of times at the college level.
In short, I won't get political and just say...OK.
You know, this argument supposes that every talented high school player (men or women) will play in college. I've talked to some star high school players who willing chose NOT to play and focus on school. That SURPRISED me because I assumed a lot of these kids who have the opportunity to play at the college level would chose to do so. Now to be fair, the few that I talked to were realistic about their lives post college. They knew the NBA was far fetched and chose pursue studies versus playing in college.
I was never in any of these athlete's shoes so it was interesting to hear some of these folk's perspective. So maybe the talent pool is thin in general, but competition from other sports and some choosing not to play contribute to this as well.
I was never in any of these athlete's shoes so it was interesting to hear some of these folk's perspective. So maybe the talent pool is thin in general, but competition from other sports and some choosing not to play contribute to this as well.
There are a couple of aspects to playing in college ...
1) Money. A college education can cost up to $250,000 when all is said and done, and even a lower-level state university can saddle a young person with tens of thousands of dollars of debt before they graduate. So it's a job, really, and unless the family can absorb the cost of school, a scholarship is very difficult to turn down.
2) Burnout. The flip side is that a lot of these athletes have been playing basketball year-round since they were 10 or 11, and they're just done. It's not fun any more, and it gets harder and harder on the body every year. (For girls, this is especially true -- once you stop growing, you start hurting more, and most girls stop growing around their sophomore year in high school. Senior girls are very often nursing minor injuries throughout their last year.)
What's unfortunate is that parents don't realize there are more D-1 scholarships for girls than there are D-1 players, and that despite what club coaches say, there is zero need to play year round. In fact, it's a lot better if girls play two sports in high school (volleyball and track are good options) than just focusing on basketball.
A girl who's got the physical package to play in college, and has played enough to acquire some skills, will get her ride without playing any travel basketball until high school.
1) Money. A college education can cost up to $250,000 when all is said and done, and even a lower-level state university can saddle a young person with tens of thousands of dollars of debt before they graduate. So it's a job, really, and unless the family can absorb the cost of school, a scholarship is very difficult to turn down.
2) Burnout. The flip side is that a lot of these athletes have been playing basketball year-round since they were 10 or 11, and they're just done. It's not fun any more, and it gets harder and harder on the body every year. (For girls, this is especially true -- once you stop growing, you start hurting more, and most girls stop growing around their sophomore year in high school. Senior girls are very often nursing minor injuries throughout their last year.)
What's unfortunate is that parents don't realize there are more D-1 scholarships for girls than there are D-1 players, and that despite what club coaches say, there is zero need to play year round. In fact, it's a lot better if girls play two sports in high school (volleyball and track are good options) than just focusing on basketball.
A girl who's got the physical package to play in college, and has played enough to acquire some skills, will get her ride without playing any travel basketball until high school.
Clay you've made this claim regarding more D1 spots available than there are girls to fill AND that there is zero need for girls to play year round.
My question to you is, how many current D1 college players did not play outside of high school? How many of the current NCP's top 40 don't play club? I'm sure there is the very rare exception of the 6'4" phenom stud that just plays H.S., but for the other 99.9%, they benefit greatly from outside training and playing. (Just as a very small sampling, I reviewed the rosters of four different mid major programs..every player, including walk-ons played club in high school. )
With that said, I don't advocate players excluding other sports during high school. My daughter was a 3 sport athlete and was recruited in 2, but she still played club basketball and water polo. Playing club is not mutually exclusive to playing other sports; one sport just has a higher priority.
A girl in pursuit of a scholarship does need some exposure on the club circuit -- my apologies for not making that clear.
But a girl does not need to play year-round in middle school to get a scholarship. In fact, a girl with the right physical attributes and skills could get by by only playing during the summer prior to her senior year. Girls who have to prove they have enough skill to overcome their lack of fit with size and athleticism expectations, and girls with size and athleticism who haven't yet demonstrated a sufficient skill level, may want to be out on the circuit prior to their junior year as well.
But remember how important first impressions are. A girl who goes out too soon may get crossed off a lot of lists early on, when if she had waited until she was more prepared, the impression she made would have been much strong.
One other note: Playing year-round for a particular club may help a girl land on an elite team that gets exposure, so there is that advantage. But even if a girl is on the circuit on a lower-level team, and she and her family are actively communicating with college coaches, the offers should still be there.
But a girl does not need to play year-round in middle school to get a scholarship. In fact, a girl with the right physical attributes and skills could get by by only playing during the summer prior to her senior year. Girls who have to prove they have enough skill to overcome their lack of fit with size and athleticism expectations, and girls with size and athleticism who haven't yet demonstrated a sufficient skill level, may want to be out on the circuit prior to their junior year as well.
But remember how important first impressions are. A girl who goes out too soon may get crossed off a lot of lists early on, when if she had waited until she was more prepared, the impression she made would have been much strong.
One other note: Playing year-round for a particular club may help a girl land on an elite team that gets exposure, so there is that advantage. But even if a girl is on the circuit on a lower-level team, and she and her family are actively communicating with college coaches, the offers should still be there.
