SNL skit on Women's ball
Mayzie the Lazy Bird
Did anybody else think the Saturday Night Live skit
about women's basketball was ridiculously misinformed?
Comments like "an overtime thriller - 14-12" etc, indicated to
me that none of the show's writers have seen a women's game for
the last 10 years or so.
--
Carrie Pruett - cm...@darwin.clas.virginia.edu
"I meant what I said and I said what I meant:
An elephant's faithful, one hundred percent"
Mack King
Sarcasm dear, sarcasm.
Not that I'm saying that the skit was prticularly funny or anything.
Mack
--
+-------------------+-----------------------------------+
|Mack King | Blah blah blah... my opinions only|
|coop...@bnr.ca | yadda yadda yadda... not those of |
|ak...@ug.cs.dal.ca | my employer. |
Mars Blackmon
: Did anybody else think the Saturday Night Live skit
: about women's basketball was ridiculously misinformed?
: Comments like "an overtime thriller - 14-12" etc, indicated to
: me that none of the show's writers have seen a women's game for
: the last 10 years or so.
I wonder if Tridelt ever sued NBC...
--
What do you think sirs?
Joe Tseng ___/| aka Mars Blackmon
jr...@wam.umd.edu \O.-| http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jryan
NYYANKEES IN '95!!!!! -------oOO =(___)= OOo------ TERPS BASKETBALL (#10) 26-7
''' U '''
If you want it, you need it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** YooEmDee Class of 1994 ***
#include <disclaimer.h> P: (301) 935-7049
"Push the button, Frank!"
Tom D Meilke
There show lives(dies) off of stereotyping.
Rogue Leader
I was truely dissappointed in the skit! I think Women's
basketball is exciting. It was degrading to women and the women college
sports programs. I think we need to write NBC and tell them that they
were wrong and sexist in showing that skit!!
Matthew
Love mens basketball, but women's basketball is awesome
Ken Bowers
>
> Did anybody else think the Saturday Night Live skit
>about women's basketball was ridiculously misinformed?
I didn't see it, but let me guess: clever, innovative language,
given that Chris Farley's nine year-old brother wrote it (oh, he
didn't? adults were *paid* for that?); a few incredibly
obvious jokes, repeated over and over and over in front of
a restive live audience desperate for places to at least
clap; and an insight into women and female characters that
almost rivals that found in the Power Rangers ("Hi, I'm
Jan Hooks. I used to be The Pink One on SNL").
Ken B.
"'Billy Madison' stars (Adam) Sandler of 'Saturday Night Live,'
an actor so lacking in charm that he can make you feel guilty
for every bad thing you ever thought about Pauley Shore."
--Mick LaSalle, SF Chronicle
Nathan Karnes
I didn't much appreciate the newsitem on SNL the prior week... something
like: "UConn women's basketball team led by Rebecca Lobo... Oh who
cares, its only Women!"
What a thrill to hear the names of players on national TV, how sad it
was ignorant, and well, a dissing.
David Scott Mitchell
: >
: > Did anybody else think the Saturday Night Live skit
: >about women's basketball was ridiculously misinformed?
: >Comments like "an overtime thriller - 14-12" etc, indicated to
: >me that none of the show's writers have seen a women's game for
: >the last 10 years or so.
: I didn't much appreciate the newsitem on SNL the prior week... something
: cares, its only Women!"
: What a thrill to hear the names of players on national TV, how sad it
: was ignorant, and well, a dissing.
I agree that it is insulting, and I have learned to enjoy women's
basketball this year, as the GW women are not only one of the best teams
in the country (Sweet 16), but also 12 extrememly nice people. I must
say, though, that the SNL skit was a JOKE. It was meant to be funny,
which I thought it was. Think of how many SNL jokes do not make fun of
someone or something like this. Not many, but they make people laugh,
and that is what they are trying to do. I guess I'm trying to say, don't
take it so seriously.
Go GW Colonials! Men & Women!
DAVID
Michael Eilman
: I didn't much appreciate the newsitem on SNL the prior week... something
: like: "UConn women's basketball team led by Rebecca Lobo... Oh who
: cares, its only Women!"
: What a thrill to hear the names of players on national TV, how sad it
: was ignorant, and well, a dissing.
Well, first off, I would like to say that I agree that it was rude, but I
would like to add that all of there skits are rude, so you should not be
offended by it. The other thing I would take the time to point out, is
that while it is a great game and I am glad to know that women are
interested in basketball too, I hate it when people try to force women's
basketball on me. I don't like it. I don't appreciate being called
sexist either, because I prefer to watch women over men in a neutral
setting. On the basketball court, I want to see the best game I can
watch. If there is a big south game on the tv, or ann ACC game on the
tv, there is no doubt that I would watch the ACC game, because the play
is much better.
So in conclusion, don't complain about the skit if you want people to
respect women's basketball. If you aren't confident in women's
basketball enough to take some abuse, why would people who don't watch it
want to start watching it?
OINOURNVS
watch the Women's final four this weekend... what they;ll see is GREAT
fundamental basketball - real fast breaks, good defense, precision
passing...
IMHO, the women's game has surpassed the men's...
A COMPLETE KNEEBITER
>fundamental basketball - real fast breaks, good defense, precision
>passing...
>
>IMHO, the women's game has surpassed the men's...
Teehee! Hahaha!
Here at my school all the home games were women/men doubleheaders. My desire
to get a good parking spot and a good seat forced me to endure watching the
women's games.
CLANG! CLANG! CLANG!!
They had to replace the rims between games because they were dented by all the
bricks. I swear more than half of the goals scored were lay-ups. They couldn't
hit a jump shot if their lives depended on it.
Don't talk to me about women's basketball. I've seen it.
---
Patrick Ferrel --> v120...@ubvms.cc.buffalo * GO BILLS! "My team win or lose"
"Withdrawing in disgust is not the same as apathy." - _Slacker_
Kevin Martin Leuthold
>Nathan Karnes (karn...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: I didn't much appreciate the newsitem on SNL the prior week... something
>: like: "UConn women's basketball team led by Rebecca Lobo... Oh who
>: cares, its only Women!"
>: What a thrill to hear the names of players on national TV, how sad it
>: was ignorant, and well, a dissing.
>Well, first off, I would like to say that I agree that it was rude, but I
>would like to add that all of there skits are rude, so you should not be
>offended by it. The other thing I would take the time to point out, is
>that while it is a great game and I am glad to know that women are
>interested in basketball too, I hate it when people try to force women's
>basketball on me. I don't like it. I don't appreciate being called
>sexist either, because I prefer to watch women over men in a neutral
>setting. On the basketball court, I want to see the best game I can
>watch. If there is a big south game on the tv, or ann ACC game on the
>tv, there is no doubt that I would watch the ACC game, because the play
>is much better.
Why would you ever watch an ACC game, when you can watch the NBA? After
all, the play is much better.
--
Kevin Leuthold
Dr. Nick Riviera
: eil...@midget.towson.edu (Michael Eilman) writes:
: >Nathan Karnes (karn...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: I didn't much appreciate the newsitem on SNL the prior week... something
: >: like: "UConn women's basketball team led by Rebecca Lobo... Oh who
: >: cares, its only Women!"
: >: What a thrill to hear the names of players on national TV, how sad it
: >: was ignorant, and well, a dissing.
: >Well, first off, I would like to say that I agree that it was rude, but I
: >would like to add that all of there skits are rude, so you should not be
: >offended by it. The other thing I would take the time to point out, is
: >that while it is a great game and I am glad to know that women are
: >interested in basketball too, I hate it when people try to force women's
: >basketball on me. I don't like it. I don't appreciate being called
: >sexist either, because I prefer to watch women over men in a neutral
: >setting. On the basketball court, I want to see the best game I can
: >watch. If there is a big south game on the tv, or ann ACC game on the
: >tv, there is no doubt that I would watch the ACC game, because the play
: >is much better.
: Why would you ever watch an ACC game, when you can watch the NBA? After
: all, the play is much better.
Depends what NBA team is playing. Also, I find the college game much
more exciting. Each game means more when you only play 20-30 games in a
season. Also, the rivalaries are great, and there are more exciting
upsets in college basketball. When NC State beat UNC earlier this year
it was much better than say if the Bullets beat the Magic. It just can't
compare.
Mike
: --
: Kevin Leuthold
Nathan Karnes
(A COMPLETE KNEEBITER) writes:
So you have seen poor Women's Ball at your school, wherever that is.
Too bad it's lame there.
A lot of people enjoyed two good (although blowout) semifinals today.
If you want to see Women's basketball far superior to what you have seen
at your school, watch the Huskies fend off the Volunteers attempt at
revenge Sunday. Then, tell us women have no talent, and are boring!
The only thing boring about UConn ball this year is the lack of
competition!
A COMPLETE KNEEBITER
>at your school, watch the Huskies fend off the Volunteers attempt at
>revenge Sunday. Then, tell us women have no talent, and are boring!
Actually...My school's team was 20-8, finished third in the conference and lost
in the conference tourney semi-final. They definately weren't the worst
although you would think they were if you watched them.
I'll be watching the hockey game on Fox, thankyouverymuch. If I get too hyped
up and need to calm down, then I'll watch the basketball game. I just hope I
don't lapse into a coma when I do.
Kevin Martin Leuthold
>Kevin Martin Leuthold (leut...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>: eil...@midget.towson.edu (Michael Eilman) writes:
>: >Nathan Karnes (karn...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >: I didn't much appreciate the newsitem on SNL the prior week... something
>: >: like: "UConn women's basketball team led by Rebecca Lobo... Oh who
>: >: cares, its only Women!"
>: >: What a thrill to hear the names of players on national TV, how sad it
>: >: was ignorant, and well, a dissing.
>: >Well, first off, I would like to say that I agree that it was rude, but I
>: >would like to add that all of there skits are rude, so you should not be
>: >offended by it. The other thing I would take the time to point out, is
>: >that while it is a great game and I am glad to know that women are
>: >interested in basketball too, I hate it when people try to force women's
>: >basketball on me. I don't like it. I don't appreciate being called
>: >sexist either, because I prefer to watch women over men in a neutral
>: >setting. On the basketball court, I want to see the best game I can
>: >watch. If there is a big south game on the tv, or ann ACC game on the
>: >tv, there is no doubt that I would watch the ACC game, because the play
>: >is much better.
>: Why would you ever watch an ACC game, when you can watch the NBA? After
>: all, the play is much better.
>Depends what NBA team is playing. Also, I find the college game much
>more exciting. Each game means more when you only play 20-30 games in a
>season. Also, the rivalaries are great, and there are more exciting
>upsets in college basketball. When NC State beat UNC earlier this year
>it was much better than say if the Bullets beat the Magic. It just can't
>compare.
>Mike
I agree. College basketball is exciting and worth watching.
My point was that the previous reason for not watching women's
bball doesn't make sense, unless that person only watches the NBA.
If you only choose to watch games where the play is better, then
you would watch the Bullets-Magic rather than UNC-NC State. The
Bullets and Magic are simply better teams.
--
Kevin Leuthold
Jack Baud
writes:
>
>Kevin Martin Leuthold (leut...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>: eil...@midget.towson.edu (Michael Eilman) writes:
>
>: >Nathan Karnes (karn...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: >: I didn't much appreciate the newsitem on SNL the prior week... something
>: >: like: "UConn women's basketball team led by Rebecca Lobo... Oh who
>: >: cares, its only Women!"
>
>: >: What a thrill to hear the names of players on national TV, how sad it
>: >: was ignorant, and well, a dissing.
>
>: >Well, first off, I would like to say that I agree that it was rude, but I
>: >would like to add that all of there skits are rude, so you should not be
>: >offended by it. The other thing I would take the time to point out, is
>: >that while it is a great game and I am glad to know that women are
>: >interested in basketball too, I hate it when people try to force women's
>: >basketball on me. I don't like it. I don't appreciate being called
>: >sexist either, because I prefer to watch women over men in a neutral
>: >setting. On the basketball court, I want to see the best game I can
>: >watch. If there is a big south game on the tv, or ann ACC game on the
>: >tv, there is no doubt that I would watch the ACC game, because the play
>: >is much better.
>
>: Why would you ever watch an ACC game, when you can watch the NBA? After
>: all, the play is much better.
>
>Depends what NBA team is playing. Also, I find the college game much
>more exciting. Each game means more when you only play 20-30 games in a
>season. Also, the rivalaries are great, and there are more exciting
>upsets in college basketball. When NC State beat UNC earlier this year
>it was much better than say if the Bullets beat the Magic. It just can't
>compare.
The NBA nad the NCAA Division 1 men's programs have one thing in common,
they fill gyms. On the other hand, the women's programs live on the
largesse of the profits from the men's Final Four and kindly judges.
Douglas P Jones
skit on Women's ball by Kevin M. Leuthold@symcom
> My point was that the previous reason for not watching women's
> bball doesn't make sense, unless that person only watches the NBA.
> If you only choose to watch games where the play is better, then
> you would watch the Bullets-Magic rather than UNC-NC State. The
> Bullets and Magic are simply better teams.
I hope you're not implying that the difference in quality of play
between the NBA and NCAA men is comparable to the difference between
NCAA men and NCAA women. Though fans of women's b-ball are out there, a
vast majority of basketball fans hate to watch women's basketball for
simple reasons: lack of jumping ability, lack of grace among big women
(which are often only 6'0), and very few plays you could call
"highlights". As a former successful H.S. basketball player, I see NCAA
DI men's basketball players do things I could only dream about. When
watching a women's game, I see things I could do better. I have nothing
against women's basketball... if there is a market for it, the games
should be broadcast. However, don't try to group women's and men's
basketball in the same "Not as good as the NBA" category. Many future
men's college basketball players will play in the pros... but no women
will.
Defending the vast majority,
Doug
--
Doug Jones
Carnegie Mellon University
dj...@andrew.cmu.edu
Michael Eilman
: Teehee! Hahaha!
: Here at my school all the home games were women/men doubleheaders. My desire
: to get a good parking spot and a good seat forced me to endure watching the
: women's games.
: CLANG! CLANG! CLANG!!
: They had to replace the rims between games because they were dented by all the
: bricks. I swear more than half of the goals scored were lay-ups. They couldn't
: hit a jump shot if their lives depended on it.
: Don't talk to me about women's basketball. I've seen it.
I can't beleive I am suporting women's basketball, but here goes. I
didn't see what school you went to, but it probably isn't a very good
women's school. The problem women's basketball faces it that there just
isn't as much talent to go around, since not every woman that WOULD be a
good basketball player actually plays. Consequently, you get women who
are on the floor only because they are agressive and work hard.
Still, this does make these games sorta boring, but given time, I am sure
they will learn to shoot better, all of them. With a ball that small,
they have to!!
Michael Eilman
: >setting. On the basketball court, I want to see the best game I can
: >watch. If there is a big south game on the tv, or ann ACC game on the
: >tv, there is no doubt that I would watch the ACC game, because the play
: >is much better.
: Why would you ever watch an ACC game, when you can watch the NBA? After
: all, the play is much better.
The NBA is not basketball, it is profesional entertainers!! College ball
is a team game.
OINOURNVS
<<The NBA nad the NCAA Division 1 men's programs have one thing in common,
they fill gyms. On the other hand, the women's programs live on the
largesse of the profits from the men's Final Four and kindly judges.>>
Boy, the stupid people who continue to post on this board continues to
grow....
Let's see, I know of several teams in the Big Ten alone that make a HUGE
profit of women's basketball - Purdue and Iowa even sellout their
respective arenas (so does Penn St, although their fieldhouse only seats
6,000 or so) on occasion. And the same exists in the Pac-10 and SEC
(sorry, don't know about the Big East and ACC). In addition, Minnesota
was sold out last Auguest for this year's Final 4, meaning people want to
see the product regardless of who shows up.
Please, idiots, if you're gonna make a comment on women's hoops, at least
take the time to learn about it.
Douglas P Jones
> profit of women's basketball - Purdue and Iowa even sellout their
> respective arenas (so does Penn St, although their fieldhouse only seats
> 6,000 or so) on occasion. And the same exists in the Pac-10 and SEC
> (sorry, don't know about the Big East and ACC). In addition, Minnesota
> was sold out last Auguest for this year's Final 4, meaning people want to
> see the product regardless of who shows up.
>
> Please, idiots, if you're gonna make a comment on women's hoops, at least
> take the time to learn about it.
Granted, they may sell out every now and then, especially during
tournament time, but how often does it actually happen? My sister's
friend played for Purdue 4 years ago and both games I saw had 2 or 3000
people in attendance at most. And Purdue is supposedly one of the best
women's teams. Moreover, even if they do sell out occasionally, that
doesn't mean profits are being made. Rent for arenas is quite expensive
I hear. My main point is, you need the numbers to determine whether or
not a program is making money. Don't go calling people idiots without
presenting any hard monetary facts yourself.
Later,
Nathan Karnes
writes:
>
>bog...@ix.netcom.com (Jack Baud) wrote:
>
><<The NBA nad the NCAA Division 1 men's programs have one thing in
common,
>they fill gyms. On the other hand, the women's programs live on the
>largesse of the profits from the men's Final Four and kindly judges.>>
>
>Boy, the stupid people who continue to post on this board continues to
>grow....
>
>Let's see, I know of several teams in the Big Ten alone that make a
HUGE
>profit of women's basketball - Purdue and Iowa even sellout their
>respective arenas (so does Penn St, although their fieldhouse only
seats
>6,000 or so) on occasion. And the same exists in the Pac-10 and SEC
>(sorry, don't know about the Big East and ACC). In addition, Minnesota
>was sold out last Auguest for this year's Final 4, meaning people want
to
>see the product regardless of who shows up.
>
>Please, idiots, if you're gonna make a comment on women's hoops, at
least
>take the time to learn about it.
>
AMEN !!
... Lord, thanks for preventing the Foul Whistle Demon from bringing
defeat to the Chosen Ones (Rebecca et. al.) today. Amen.
Nathan Karnes
>> Let's see, I know of several teams in the Big Ten alone that make a
HUGE profit of women's basketball - Purdue and Iowa even sellout their
>> respective arenas (so does Penn St, although their fieldhouse only
seats 6,000 or so) on occasion. And the same exists in the Pac-10 and
>> SEC (sorry, don't know about the Big East and ACC). In addition,
Minnesota was sold out last Auguest for this year's Final 4, meaning
people want to see the product regardless of who shows up.
>> Please, idiots, if you're gonna make a comment on women's hoops, at
least take the time to learn about it.
>
>
>tournament time, but how often does it actually happen? My sister's
>friend played for Purdue 4 years ago and both games I saw had 2 or 3000
>people in attendance at most. And Purdue is supposedly one of the best
>women's teams. Moreover, even if they do sell out occasionally, that
>doesn't mean profits are being made. Rent for arenas is quite
expensive
>I hear. My main point is, you need the numbers to determine whether or
>not a program is making money. Don't go calling people idiots without
>presenting any hard monetary facts yourself.
>
>Later,
>Doug
>
>--
>Doug Jones
>Carnegie Mellon University
>dj...@andrew.cmu.edu
>
>
But Dougie, your information is four years old!
What did Purdue average this year? This is a growing sport, and many of
the fans are very young. UConn had approx four sellouts going into this
year. They probably had four this year BEFORE reaching number one in
the polls in January (not sure).
By the way, a sellout in Gampel is 8,241. There has been a debate for
months now, as to whether the Lady Huskies should play some games in the
Hartford Civic Center (approx 12,500). The question of accomodating
high attendance would be there even if they had gone 33 and 1, it is not
rising only now, after the Championship.
As I have said before, this team does not just bring talented ball to
the community (57 and 1 in its last 58 games). They are scholars. They
reach out to and work with the kids. They have been embraced by people
of all types in southern new england. More than anything else, they are
our terrific Role Models. Before they decided to stay in Minn. tonight,
word was they would be in class tomorrow. That's a lot to ask, but if
Coach said do it, they would have.
:-) :-) :-)
D.F.
dj...@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
>doesn't mean profits are being made. Rent for arenas is quite expensive
Rent? How many division I schools actually RENT their basketball courts?
Jack Baud
>Boy, the stupid people who continue to post on this board continues to
>grow....
>
>profit of women's basketball - Purdue and Iowa even sellout their
>respective arenas (so does Penn St, although their fieldhouse only seats
>6,000 or so) on occasion. And the same exists in the Pac-10 and SEC
>(sorry, don't know about the Big East and ACC). In addition, Minnesota
>was sold out last Auguest for this year's Final 4, meaning people want to
>see the product regardless of who shows up.
>
>Please, idiots, if you're gonna make a comment on women's hoops, at least
>take the time to learn about it.
>
Ok, they play with an undersized ball, but regular rims and they have lost
money hand over fist. The biggest money loser that the NCAA supports is the
women's playoffs. With some exceptions, they draw flies in the PAC-10 unless
they give the tickets away or coerce an alum into buying a block of them.
I'm not against the sport but it should be cut back unless it is
self-supporting or receives donations to cover the losses.
Harley Steven Rothstein
: Excerpts from netnews.rec.sport.basketball.college: 2-Apr-95 Re: SNL
: skit on Women's ball by Kevin M. Leuthold@symcom
: > My point was that the previous reason for not watching women's
: > bball doesn't make sense, unless that person only watches the NBA.
: > If you only choose to watch games where the play is better, then
: > you would watch the Bullets-Magic rather than UNC-NC State. The
: > Bullets and Magic are simply better teams.
: I hope you're not implying that the difference in quality of play
: between the NBA and NCAA men is comparable to the difference between
: NCAA men and NCAA women. Though fans of women's b-ball are out there, a
: vast majority of basketball fans hate to watch women's basketball for
: simple reasons: lack of jumping ability, lack of grace among big women
: (which are often only 6'0), and very few plays you could call
: "highlights". As a former successful H.S. basketball player, I see NCAA
: DI men's basketball players do things I could only dream about. When
: watching a women's game, I see things I could do better. I have nothing
: against women's basketball... if there is a market for it, the games
: should be broadcast. However, don't try to group women's and men's
: basketball in the same "Not as good as the NBA" category. Many future
: men's college basketball players will play in the pros... but no women
: will.
You don't have to think the men's and women's games are in the same
category to enjoy both. They are different games and ones which can both
be enjoyed within the limitations of each game. I personally enjoy
women's ball a lot although I used to only watch men's. I think there is
a lot of great shooting and talent. Just like in tennis, you can love to
watch women play even though the top ranked woman couldn't compete wiht
any of the top men. It's a just a different game-- just like the NBA is
different from college.
HR
JOHN CAPLE
>
>bog...@ix.netcom.com (Jack Baud) wrote:
>
><<The NBA nad the NCAA Division 1 men's programs have one thing in
common,
>they fill gyms. On the other hand, the women's programs live on the
>largesse of the profits from the men's Final Four and kindly judges.>>
>
>Boy, the stupid people who continue to post on this board continues to
>grow....
>
>Let's see, I know of several teams in the Big Ten alone that make a
HUGE
>profit of women's basketball - Purdue and Iowa even sellout their
>respective arenas (so does Penn St, although their fieldhouse only
seats
>6,000 or so) on occasion. And the same exists in the Pac-10 and SEC
>(sorry, don't know about the Big East and ACC). In addition, Minnesota
>was sold out last Auguest for this year's Final 4, meaning people want
to
>see the product regardless of who shows up.
>
>Please, idiots, if you're gonna make a comment on women's hoops, at
least
>take the time to learn about it.
>
Very few womens teams sell out with any regularity at all. The womens
game probably loses a great deal of money and would lose more if they
didn't piggy back on the coverage of the mens game. Its bad enough that
money earned by football and hoop has to go to minor womens sports
instead of being split equally by the men and women. Now we also have
to listen to apologists tell us how good the womens game is. Lets face
it, the game is slow, boring and unathletic. I like some womens sports
such as volleyball and tennis, but womens college hoop isn't even at the
level of a decent mens high school team.
James McNamara Jr.
: By the way, a sellout in Gampel is 8,241. There has been a debate for
: months now, as to whether the Lady Huskies should play some games in the
: Hartford Civic Center (approx 12,500). The question of accomodating
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's 16,000+, and yes, they should play there (they could
easily sell out the biggies like a Stanford or a Virginia. I guess
they'll play _at_ Tennessee next year.--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~G~O~~~U~C~O~N~N~~~H~U~S~K~I~E~S~!~!~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim McNamara Like the story that we wish was never ending
University of Pennsylvania We know that sometime we must reach the
School of Veterinary Medicine final page
mcna...@dolphin.upenn.edu AGB 91
William Keleher
oino...@aol.com (OINOURNVS) writes:
> Amen guys! I wish some people who bash the women's game will sit down and
> watch the Women's final four this weekend... what they;ll see is GREAT
I didn't see real fast ANYTHING. I saw a few slow, plodding breaks.
Yawn.
-Wm.
William Keleher
oino...@aol.com (OINOURNVS) writes:
> Boy, the stupid people who continue to post on this board continues to
> grow....
this brilliant, analytical post from aol.com...
> Let's see, I know of several teams in the Big Ten alone that make a HUGE
> profit of women's basketball...
> Please, idiots, if you're gonna make a comment on women's hoops, at least
> take the time to learn about it.
Thank you, Professor OINOURNVS. Today's wonderword is "anecdotal
evidence." When you get finished helping all the "idiots" on this
newsgroup, perhaps you should look it up.
-Wm.
Lee Cockrell
: Boy, the stupid people who continue to post on this board continues to
: grow....
Well, you make one more.
: Let's see, I know of several teams in the Big Ten alone that make a HUGE
: profit of women's basketball - Purdue and Iowa even sellout their
: respective arenas (so does Penn St, although their fieldhouse only seats
: 6,000 or so) on occasion.
I definitely wouldn't say 'HUGE profit'. Headline News reported that
only 6% of all women's basketball teams break even or better.
LJC
Michael Eilman
: bog...@ix.netcom.com (Jack Baud) wrote:
: <<The NBA nad the NCAA Division 1 men's programs have one thing in common,
: they fill gyms. On the other hand, the women's programs live on the
: largesse of the profits from the men's Final Four and kindly judges.>>
: Please, idiots, if you're gonna make a comment on women's hoops, at least
: take the time to learn about it.
There is a rather rude response, considering that women's program's do
take profits from men's sports. One day women's basketball will stand on
it's own, but it doesn't yet.
Michael Eilman
: Very few womens teams sell out with any regularity at all. The womens
: didn't piggy back on the coverage of the mens game. Its bad enough that
: money earned by football and hoop has to go to minor womens sports
: instead of being split equally by the men and women. Now we also have
: to listen to apologists tell us how good the womens game is. Lets face
: it, the game is slow, boring and unathletic. I like some womens sports
: such as volleyball and tennis, but womens college hoop isn't even at the
: level of a decent mens high school team.
Woah! I am not even a fan of women's basketball, but I have to disagree
here. Women's basketball player's are EXTREMELY athletic, they have to
be to make up for the talent that isn't all there.
Chris Oster
JOHN CAPLE <jca...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <3ln5ug$t...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> oino...@aol.com (OINOURNVS)
>writes:
>
>>
>>
>><<The NBA nad the NCAA Division 1 men's programs have one thing in
>common,
>>they fill gyms. On the other hand, the women's programs live on the
>>largesse of the profits from the men's Final Four and kindly judges.>>
>>
>>grow....
>>
>HUGE
>>profit of women's basketball - Purdue and Iowa even sellout their
>>respective arenas (so does Penn St, although their fieldhouse only
>seats
>>(sorry, don't know about the Big East and ACC). In addition, Minnesota
>>was sold out last Auguest for this year's Final 4, meaning people want
>to
>>see the product regardless of who shows up.
>>
>least
>>take the time to learn about it.
>>
>
>game probably loses a great deal of money and would lose more if they
>didn't piggy back on the coverage of the mens game. Its bad enough that
>money earned by football and hoop has to go to minor womens sports
>instead of being split equally by the men and women. Now we also have
>to listen to apologists tell us how good the womens game is. Lets face
>it, the game is slow, boring and unathletic. I like some womens sports
>such as volleyball and tennis, but womens college hoop isn't even at the
>level of a decent mens high school team.
Were you watching the same game I was yesterday? Or were you even watching
it at all? That game was at least on a par with, if not better than, a lot
of men's games I've seen this year.
BTW, I don't know about the rest of the Big East, but I'm pretty sure UConn
sold out almost all its games this year.
Don't even get me started on Title IX...
--
Chris Oster cos...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
-----------------------------------------------
"If it's nae Scottish, it's CRRRRAP!"
-- Mike Myers, Saturday Night Live
JOHN CAPLE
writes:
>
>JOHN CAPLE (jca...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Very few womens teams sell out with any regularity at all. The
womens
>: game probably loses a great deal of money and would lose more if they
>: didn't piggy back on the coverage of the mens game. Its bad enough
that
>: money earned by football and hoop has to go to minor womens sports
>: instead of being split equally by the men and women. Now we also
have
>: to listen to apologists tell us how good the womens game is. Lets
face
>: it, the game is slow, boring and unathletic. I like some womens
sports
>: such as volleyball and tennis, but womens college hoop isn't even at
the
>: level of a decent mens high school team.
>
>Woah! I am not even a fan of women's basketball, but I have to
disagree
>here. Women's basketball player's are EXTREMELY athletic, they have to
>be to make up for the talent that isn't all there.
>
It is exactly the opposite. Women players are generally more talented
and fundamental basketball players in order to make up for a lack of
athletic ability. Athletic ablitity is generally defined as
leaping ability, quickness and strength. While many women have good
fundamentals, watching these games is like watching a well played high
school JV game.
James Repka
>Very few womens teams sell out with any regularity at all. The womens
>game probably loses a great deal of money and would lose more if they
>didn't piggy back on the coverage of the mens game. Its bad enough that
>money earned by football and hoop has to go to minor womens sports
>instead of being split equally by the men and women...
I guess I'm just ancient, and let me know if this is a total anachronism,
but wasn't there a time when at least lip service was paid to the concept
of sports competition as a builder of character, teaching sportsmanship,
working with a team..? Is it just pure capitalism now? If so, college
sports is capitalism at its worst, with the networks, shoe companies,
coaches, etc, getting rich off of what amounts to slave labor (OK,
sweatshop labor, since the players are given room and board).
How long have the swim, soccer, gymnastics, tennis, baseball, etc. teams
have before they are eliminated from the major universities (men's as well
as the "minor" women's) for being unprofitable? And of course, most
schools in the country would be eliminating sports entirely.
Hell, why don't we just eliminate all of the academic departments that
don't support themselves? I'm tired of half of my grant money being taken
away to support a useless board of studies in literature...
> ... Now we also have
>to listen to apologists tell us how good the womens game is. Lets face
>it, the game is slow, boring and unathletic. I like some womens sports
>such as volleyball and tennis, but womens college hoop isn't even at the
>level of a decent mens high school team.
Then DON'T LISTEN! I don't find hockey or soccer particularly interesting,
but I'd be the last one to argue that any of these are leaching off of the
success of the football or "real" basketball teams. No one says you have
to like it, but don't begrudge them their existence, or their TV contract,
just because you find it dull.
I don't think anyone here has claimed that the women could play with the
men. It's a different game and always will be. I still find it exciting
to watch (but then I also enjoy high school bb, even though the players
aren't as good as college players).
Face it, the mere existence of a women's basketball team is not costing the
men's team or the football team support anywhere in the country. There
will always be teams at some schools that are profitable. The argument in
title XI is going to be about which of the minor (read: unprofitable)
sports get cut when funding becomes scarce.
--jim repka (jl...@earthsci.ucsc.edu)
JOHN CAPLE
cos...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Oster) writes:
>>Very few womens teams sell out with any regularity at all. The womens
>>game probably loses a great deal of money and would lose more if they
>>didn't piggy back on the coverage of the mens game. Its bad enough
that
>>money earned by football and hoop has to go to minor womens sports
>>instead of being split equally by the men and women. Now we also have
>>to listen to apologists tell us how good the womens game is. Lets
face
>>it, the game is slow, boring and unathletic. I like some womens
sports
>>such as volleyball and tennis, but womens college hoop isn't even at
the
>>level of a decent mens high school team.
>
>Were you watching the same game I was yesterday? Or were you even
watching
>it at all? That game was at least on a par with, if not better than, a
lot
>of men's games I've seen this year.
I watched part of the game but kept falling asleep on my coach. If I
want to watch people take jump shots from down by their hip I can go to
thye local junior high, I don't need to watch TV. Maybe the mens games
you are talikng about are in high school, but anyone that has ever seen
men and women play together would know that the games are at a totally
different level.
>BTW, I don't know about the rest of the Big East, but I'm pretty sure
UConn
>sold out almost all its games this year.
>
>Don't even get me started on Title IX...
Shouldn't schools be forced to support both mens and womens sports the
same. In other words, if mens sports payed for themselves, then womens
sports would have to break even. Currently all that is happening is
that minor mens sports are being cut. It is a complete shame.
Harley Steven Rothstein
: jca...@ix.netcom.com (JOHN CAPLE) writes:
: >Very few womens teams sell out with any regularity at all. The womens
: >game probably loses a great deal of money and would lose more if they
: >didn't piggy back on the coverage of the mens game. Its bad enough that
: >money earned by football and hoop has to go to minor womens sports
: >instead of being split equally by the men and women...
: I guess I'm just ancient, and let me know if this is a total anachronism,
: but wasn't there a time when at least lip service was paid to the concept
: of sports competition as a builder of character, teaching sportsmanship,
: working with a team..? Is it just pure capitalism now? If so, college
: sports is capitalism at its worst, with the networks, shoe companies,
: coaches, etc, getting rich off of what amounts to slave labor (OK,
: sweatshop labor, since the players are given room and board).
: How long have the swim, soccer, gymnastics, tennis, baseball, etc. teams
: have before they are eliminated from the major universities (men's as well
: as the "minor" women's) for being unprofitable? And of course, most
: schools in the country would be eliminating sports entirely.
: Hell, why don't we just eliminate all of the academic departments that
: don't support themselves? I'm tired of half of my grant money being taken
: away to support a useless board of studies in literature...
: > ... Now we also have
: >to listen to apologists tell us how good the womens game is. Lets face
: >it, the game is slow, boring and unathletic. I like some womens sports
: >such as volleyball and tennis, but womens college hoop isn't even at the
: >level of a decent mens high school team.
: Then DON'T LISTEN! I don't find hockey or soccer particularly interesting,
: but I'd be the last one to argue that any of these are leaching off of the
: success of the football or "real" basketball teams. No one says you have
: to like it, but don't begrudge them their existence, or their TV contract,
: just because you find it dull.
: I don't think anyone here has claimed that the women could play with the
: men. It's a different game and always will be. I still find it exciting
: to watch (but then I also enjoy high school bb, even though the players
: aren't as good as college players).
: Face it, the mere existence of a women's basketball team is not costing the
: men's team or the football team support anywhere in the country. There
: will always be teams at some schools that are profitable. The argument in
: title XI is going to be about which of the minor (read: unprofitable)
: sports get cut when funding becomes scarce.
: --jim repka (jl...@earthsci.ucsc.edu)
I agree 100%. Universities are a place for people to hone whatever
skills they choose. College basketball as a training ground for future pro
athletes is an exception rather than a rule. It may be imperfect, but
that's how it is.. and most of the other sports are not supossed to be
money making machines. They are part of unversity education, where young
people learn, not make money, and of that I'm glad. If they are also fun to
watch for a lot of us, great.
KR
JOHN CAPLE
>
>jca...@ix.netcom.com (JOHN CAPLE) writes:
>
>>Very few womens teams sell out with any regularity at all. The womens
>>game probably loses a great deal of money and would lose more if they
>>didn't piggy back on the coverage of the mens game. Its bad enough
that
>>money earned by football and hoop has to go to minor womens sports
>>instead of being split equally by the men and women...
>
>I guess I'm just ancient, and let me know if this is a total
anachronism,
>but wasn't there a time when at least lip service was paid to the
concept
>of sports competition as a builder of character, teaching
sportsmanship,
>working with a team..? Is it just pure capitalism now? If so, college
>sports is capitalism at its worst, with the networks, shoe companies,
>coaches, etc, getting rich off of what amounts to slave labor (OK,
>sweatshop labor, since the players are given room and board).
>
>How long have the swim, soccer, gymnastics, tennis, baseball, etc.
teams
>have before they are eliminated from the major universities (men's as
well
>as the "minor" women's) for being unprofitable? And of course, most
>schools in the country would be eliminating sports entirely.
You aren't very far from seeing many minor mens sports eliminated
because of title IX. Pretty soon all you will have is football,
basketball and a bunch of womens sports that no one cares about.
Title IX basicly says that schools must use money they earn from mens
sports to support womens. It doesn't call for equal levels of support,
it calls for equal levels of opportunity. In other words, if schools
want to field teams that students and alumni want to go watch, they must
also fund womens sports that no one cares about. In my mind, schools
should be forced to spend the same amounts of money, not field the same
number of teams.
David Scott Mitchell
College athletics are not in existence to raise funds for the
university. If they do, then great. If not, does that mean that the
sport is unworthy of being played? Certainly not. The U. of Washington
women's basketball routinely outdraws the men's team, and has for quite
some time. Should the men's basketball team be eliminated? No.
If you don't think that women's basketball is worth watching, don't watch
it. I love GW's women's team. I have gone to every single home game,
plus the NCAA tournament games. We don't draw much at the women's games,
but the fans are loyal and our team is terrific. I am sure they lose
money. So what?
DAVID
David Scott Mitchell
Is money the only thing that matters in college athletics? If it was,
all we would have is the top flight men's basketball and football teams.
There are lot more important things than making a profit.
DAVID
Waslab
>
> Very few womens teams sell out with any regularity at all. The womens
> game probably loses a great deal of money and would lose more if they
> didn't piggy back on the coverage of the mens game.
women's team both traveled to Kansas to play a double header. Both games
were televised. As I recall, the womens game was a better game (i.e. in
that it the point total was closer and the outcome of the game was in some
question for a while, as apposed to the men's game) and that the women's
game actually received better TV ratings. I'm not stupid enough to think
that this would happen often, but there is quality play in women's hoops.
It is getting better all of the time.
> such as volleyball and tennis, but womens college hoop isn't even at the
> level of a decent mens high school team.
I'd take the UConn women's team over any high school team and maybe even
over some Div II men's team.
Deanna
UVa '90 Go 'Hoos.
Waslab
Michael Eilman
: I'd take the UConn women's team over any high school team and maybe even
: over some Div II men's team.
Well, since UConn was by far and away the best womens college team, you
set up a game vs the best high school team (maybe even MDs Dunbar) or ANY
Divsion 2 schoool, and I'll give you 2 to 1 odds!
JOHN CAPLE
>
>> >
>>
>> Very few womens teams sell out with any regularity at all. The
womens
>> game probably loses a great deal of money and would lose more if they
>> didn't piggy back on the coverage of the mens game.
>Sorry, I have to amend this. Earlier this season, the UConn Mens and
>women's team both traveled to Kansas to play a double header. Both
games
>were televised. As I recall, the womens game was a better game (i.e.
in
>that it the point total was closer and the outcome of the game was in
some
>question for a while, as apposed to the men's game) and that the
women's
>game actually received better TV ratings. I'm not stupid enough to
think
>that this would happen often, but there is quality play in women's
hoops.
>It is getting better all of the time.
>
>> such as volleyball and tennis, but womens college hoop isn't even at
the
>> level of a decent mens high school team.
>
>I'd take the UConn women's team over any high school team and maybe
even
>over some Div II men's team.
You would lose bad. The tallest womens centers are 6-5 and unathletic.
In the mens game 6-5 is short and these guys can jump out of the gym.
It would also be impossible for women to get of most of those set shots
against the defense you see in the mens game. Talk to people who have
seen men and women play and they would agree.
Paula Slyder
> > Let's see, I know of several teams in the Big Ten alone that make a HUGE
> > profit of women's basketball - Purdue and Iowa even sellout their
> > respective arenas (so does Penn St, although their fieldhouse only seats
> > 6,000 or so) on occasion.
> Granted, they may sell out every now and then, especially during
> tournament time, but how often does it actually happen? My sister's
> friend played for Purdue 4 years ago and both games I saw had 2 or 3000
> people in attendance at most. And Purdue is supposedly one of the best
> women's teams. Moreover, even if they do sell out occasionally, that
> doesn't mean profits are being made. Rent for arenas is quite expensive
> I hear. My main point is, you need the numbers to determine whether or
> not a program is making money. Don't go calling people idiots without
> presenting any hard monetary facts yourself.
Purdue wasn't that great 4 years ago and besides Purdue does not sell out
except on rare occasions. I think we average around 6,000 per game and
we come close to selling out for big games like (Penn State when ranked
#1 and likes). Mackey holds 14,000 and I am not sure the women have sold
it out but have come close before. I honestly believe that Purdue's women's
program is making money though. Their merchandise sells and they are
very popular around here just because they don't sell out every game
doesn't mean they are not profitable. Selling out the arena does not
mean they are a great team! They are up there in attendance for the
nation and the team is getting more popular with each year.
Women's basketball is a little different type of game and many people are
learning to enjoy it and many more will in the future. Purdue is one
of the best and is a lot of fun to watch.
Paula
Go Boilers!!!
Paula Slyder
>Lets face it, the game is slow, boring and unathletic.
Have you even seen a women's game in the past couple of years? In the
past the women's game could be accurately characterized as slower and
less athletic but not now!!! Here at Purdue our women's team is just
as athletic as our men's. Maybe only one player can dunk but otherwise
we can go just as long and fight just as hard. The women's game has
gotten a hell of a lot quicker and more athletic than many people
though it would. Yes, there are still those teams that are slower but
most teams are very athletic. Purdue is very athletic and quick. We
are a fast break oriented team who also loves to press! It makes for
very exciting basketball. Maybe you should check it out before you
make comments about it.
Paula
Go Boilers!!!
Suzi Dorko
> If women's basketball is so exciting, why don't more women support it? If
> you look at the names posting on this board, you will see that 95% or more
> of them are male. In addition, of the few female college basketball fans
> out there (by fan I mean someone who roots for a favorite team and at least
> knows the names of the players and the coach), most of them follow men's
> teams. Also, it appears that the majority of those posting here who are
> fans of women's basketball are male. Part of this may be due to the fact
> that we're on USENet, which is dominated by males in most of the groups, but
> I think the general trends I'm talking about hold for the general public as
> well. I believe the failure of women's college hoops to garner greater fan
> support is mostly a result of women's relative lack of interest in sports
> compared to men.
I think that anyone who goes to women's games will tell you that a
sizable portion of their fans are women and girls. I attended the
Wisconsin-Marquette game this year and the vast majority of the fans were
female. Many diehard fans of women's basketball are not your typical
basketball fans -- there are a lot more women, families, and senior
citizens, a fan base that some, including (allegedly) UConn men's coach
Jim Calhoun, choose to poke fun at.
There are a lot of reasons why some women do not like sports, reasons I
won't go into here. But many do...I myself follow baseball (well, I did
at least), college football, and college basketball (men's and women's).
If anything, the emergence of women's basketball has made fans of many
women who weren't really interested in sports already. And it is
providing girls with athletic role models...I know that in the state of
Connecticut, there are many young girls who see Rebecca Lobo, Jen
Rizzotti, and other UConn players as their heroes, which inspires many to
participate in sports.
I should also tell you that there is a newsgroup devoted to women's
basketball, where both men and women discuss just about everything about
the women's game EXCEPT how it compares to men's hoops, how it's stealing
money from revenue sports, etc, which seems to be the only topic of
discussion here. If anyone is interested, the group is called rec.sport.
basketball.women.
Just my two cents....
Suzi :)
Michael Eilman
: jca...@ix.netcom.com (JOHN CAPLE) wrote:
: >Lets face it, the game is slow, boring and unathletic.
: Have you even seen a women's game in the past couple of years? In the
: past the women's game could be accurately characterized as slower and
: less athletic but not now!!! Here at Purdue our women's team is just
: as athletic as our men's. Maybe only one player can dunk but otherwise
I have yet to see a woman dunk. I saw a couple highlights where the
announcers calledit a dunk, but not what I call a dunk. I'm not talking
about a Shaq rim cruncher either, I mean just a dunk.
OINOURNVS
against both Div III players and top womens players I can assure you
that this is the truth. Have you ever played with both????>>
Well, I use to play with both Div I men and women (Purdue). While I won't
say the women are more athletic, they are damn close in terms of waht the
game of basketball is about - scoring more points than the other team.
Period.
It seems that the only argument I've heard against women's hoops is the
lack of dunking. My question is: do you guys like watching people dunk
because it's exciting, or because it's good basketball? And, if that's
all you guys care about, you're sure missing the best part of hoops. I
don't remember Bird or Magic or Isiah Thomas do many amazing dunks, but
few would argue that they were among the most exciting players to
watch.....
OINOURNVS
shot the ball because they'd get just about every rebound at both ends of
the court.>>
Ah, now I see the problem. People on this board don't understand hoops to
begin with....
Defend your last statement. What is it based on? Height? Jumping
ability? Hmmm, following that logic, I would think Muerson and Bradley
would be leading the NBA in rebounding. But, alas, they don't. Why?
Because rebounding is more about positioning and boxing out than about
size. Ask Charles Barkley. Which is also why women would be able to
compete with men. Women box out better, and, overall, are much smarter
basketball players than the men. The majority of NCAA men have no clue
what a pick or a box out is. Women do.
Anna Marie Stafford
Hate to disagree with ya, but money motivates most of the decisions in
college sports. Why do you think they oppose 13 basketball scholarships,
or extending scholarships to 5 years (no freshman eligible to play). Why
a "limited earning assistant" for the third assistant. If any choice in
a decision for the NCAA means losing money, its the one option they will
reject every time.
: DAVID
--
******************************************************************************
Anna M. Stafford Russian and East European Studies
staf...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu 1st Year
******************************************************************************
Paula Slyder
Our 6'6'' freshman center Michelle VanGorp can "dunk" the basketball. I
have seen her do it numerous times in warm ups and she has done it in
high school games. She even competed in the dunk contest with our
men's team during "Midnight Madness" to kick off the practices. She
has yet to attempt one in a college game because she didn't get a lot
of playing time this year since Stacey Lovelace played so well. When
she dunks you know it because it isn't like that layin-dunk they gave
to Charlotte Smith. She can dunk and hang on the rim - no problem!
Women just have not really incorporated it in the game and probably
won't. Not that dunking is the most important part of basketball but
it does show the increasing athleticism amongst women players. I have
also heard that Freshmen Kristin Folkl of Stanford can also dunk the
basketball - I imagine she can get up there being a Volleyball Star
also. So, yes women can dunk and can do it better than the ones
announcers call dunks. Women just do not have them in their offensive
game plans and don't use it! You most often see them in warmups or
practices. I think the reason less women attempt it in games is for
the very reason that if they miss the media will never really let it
die. I mean look at the "dunk" they gave Charlotte Smith, who in her
own mind didn't really feel it was a dunk or as good of one as she
could really do, so now everyone associates women dunking with that
pitiful dunk she did! There are a lot more women who can dunk than
we realize but it just never happens in the games since it isn't really
part of the offense yet. In time we will probably see some better
highlights of women dunking so everyone will get a chance to see that
some women can do good power type dunks - they aren't as high as men's
but they can be powerful.
Paula
Go Boilers!!!
JOHN CAPLE
<sly...@biochem.purdue.edu> writes:
>
>jca...@ix.netcom.com (JOHN CAPLE) wrote:
>
>>Lets face it, the game is slow, boring and unathletic.
>
>Have you even seen a women's game in the past couple of years? In the
>past the women's game could be accurately characterized as slower and
>less athletic but not now!!! Here at Purdue our women's team is just
>as athletic as our men's. Maybe only one player can dunk but otherwise
>we can go just as long and fight just as hard. The women's game has
>gotten a hell of a lot quicker and more athletic than many people
>though it would. Yes, there are still those teams that are slower but
>most teams are very athletic. Purdue is very athletic and quick. We
>are a fast break oriented team who also loves to press! It makes for
>very exciting basketball. Maybe you should check it out before you
>make comments about it.
Athletic ability is usually defined as quickness, strength, and jumping
ability. In these areas womens hoop is on the level of a decent high
school team but defenetly below Div III mens hoop. Having played
JOHN CAPLE
<sly...@biochem.purdue.edu> writes:
>
>eil...@midget.towson.edu (Michael Eilman) wrote:
>>
>> Paula Slyder (sly...@biochem.purdue.edu) wrote:
>> : jca...@ix.netcom.com (JOHN CAPLE) wrote:
>>
>> : >Lets face it, the game is slow, boring and unathletic.
>>
>> : Have you even seen a women's game in the past couple of years? In
the
>> : past the women's game could be accurately characterized as slower
and
>> : less athletic but not now!!! Here at Purdue our women's team is
just
>> : as athletic as our men's. Maybe only one player can dunk but
otherwise
>>
There is a big difference between dunking in warmups and games. The
reason women don't dunk in games is that they need a perfect wide open
lane to be able to attempt it.
Jazzy J
>Kevin Garnett, BTW, is the best H.S. player in Chicago history
>(talent-wise) since Ben Wilson. He may be more talented than
>Wilson, but Ben will always be the sentimental favorite in this
>city.
I dunno, Marcus Liberty was quite legendary when he was in HS.
People seem to forget how he dominated at the HS level since he
was such an underachiever in college and in the NBA.
Jazzy J
--
Jazzy J v4.0 "'95" (Netcom) | (O):(913) 676-8962
Systems Engineer / Seaboard Corporation | (H):(913) 381-3173
Lewis Rowe RO0LZZZ!!!
Paula Slyder
>
> In <3lrkta$n...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> Paula Slyder
> <sly...@biochem.purdue.edu> writes:
> > >
> >
> >>Lets face it, the game is slow, boring and unathletic.
> >
> >Have you even seen a women's game in the past couple of years? In the
> >past the women's game could be accurately characterized as slower and
> >less athletic but not now!!! Here at Purdue our women's team is just
> >as athletic as our men's. Maybe only one player can dunk but otherwise
> >gotten a hell of a lot quicker and more athletic than many people
> >though it would. Yes, there are still those teams that are slower but
> >most teams are very athletic. Purdue is very athletic and quick. We
> >are a fast break oriented team who also loves to press! It makes for
> >very exciting basketball. Maybe you should check it out before you
> >make comments about it.
>
> Athletic ability is usually defined as quickness, strength, and jumping
> ability. In these areas womens hoop is on the level of a decent high
> school team but defenetly below Div III mens hoop. Having played
> against both Div III players and top womens players I can assure you
> that this is the truth. Have you ever played with both????
Yes athletic ability is quickness, strength, jumping ability and other
such things as agility. And women do possess all of those attributes
listed. Their abilities may not be as good as the men who play the
sport but the abilities of women are nothing to be laughed at either.
Many women are now figuring out what our body limitations are and
working very hard to maximize what are strengths are and can be. The
women will never be as athletic as the men - it just can't happen but
that doesn't mean they are not good basketball players either. I think
UCONN is better than a decent high school team and better than many
Div. III men's teams. I would be interested in what top women's players
you have played against and how you assessed their abilities? I have
played numerous pick up games with average "joe" guys but have never
actually played with members of b-ball teams, does that answer your
question. I have also seen many of our women b-ball players play in
pick up games against guys and they looked better than the guys in
most instances! Every women's team is different and some are better
than others. There are an elite group of women's teams who attract the
very athletic women and then there are those programs which still have
those players who are considered less athletic. It all depends on
which programs you look at. The pool of athletic women is getting
larger thus leading to parity amongst some of the bigger known schools.
It is all a matter of taste and no one is saying that everyone should
enjoy women's basketball just give it the respect it deserves! You
can not spend a great amount time on comparing the women's game to
the men's game because they are 2 different things and they won't ever
be the same.
Paula
Go Boilers!!!
Brian Saunders
>> such as volleyball and tennis, but womens college hoop isn't even at the
>> level of a decent mens high school team.
> I'd take the UConn women's team over any high school team and maybe even
> over some Div II men's team.
I hate to get into these sex-comparison discussions, but you did bring it
up. I doubt UConn's women's team could beat the large-school champion
from any state. Their height advantage probably would help them beat
smaller schools, but faced with equal height, the strength and quickness
advantages are simply too much to overcome.
Perhaps they would beat some of the poorer Division II teams; I don't know.
Why don't you enjoy the women's game for what it is, and quit making these
unnecessary comparisons with the men's game? To me, such comparisons are
an admission of an inferiority complex (something many of the Big 10
bashers seem to have).
--
Brian E. Saunders saun...@castor.che.wisc.edu
JOHN CAPLE
<sly...@biochem.purdue.edu> writes:
>
>jca...@ix.netcom.com (JOHN CAPLE) wrote:
>
>> There is a big difference between dunking in warmups and games. The
>> reason women don't dunk in games is that they need a perfect wide
open
>> lane to be able to attempt it.
>
>Yes, there is a difference between games and warmups but as I said
dunking
>is not an essential part of the offense as it is for men! Women can
>score without dunking and don't put that show boat aspect in their
>games! I believe some women can also dunk without having to have a
>wide open lane - although I am sure that is not the case for many
>women though. Why is dunking so important anyway? Can you do those
>great powerful dunks yourself? John, just because you don't like the
>sport doesn't mean that you are the majority. The women's Final Four
>was sold out way in advance and the game is up and coming.
>If you don't like the game fine - no one is forcing you to watch it.
>There is no need to bash a sport just because you don't like it! I am a
>fan of both women's and men's basketball and the two games are
different.
>If you go to a women's game expecting the same type of game you will
>be disappointed. If you have an open mind and watch a good game you
>can learn to appreciate its worth and respect the women's game also.
>Women aren't asking everyone to say women's b-ball is better they just
>want to be respected for the game they play!
>
>Paula
>Go Boilers!!!!
>
Paula -
There have been two claims made in this thread that I disagree with:
(1) UConn and other top womens teams play at Div II mens level.
This is complete bullshit. Anyone out there that has seen the men and
women play together would know this. UConn women would be losing team
at the mens Div III level. If you like womens basketball that is fine,
but a little reality check is needed here. Check around with people who
know before you start using words like ignorant.
(2) The womens game is very athletic.
Athleticism in basketball is usually defined as quickness, strength and
jumping ability. In the area of athleticism the womens game is below an
average mens HS team. We were talking about dunking as an example. You
can count on two hands the number of dunks in womens college games and
you could probably count on two hands the number of women that could
even dunk in practice. This is a glaring example of the lack of
athleticism in the womens game. The same points could be made for
strength and quickness but there are not as many examples. Once again
it is the womens fans that are claiming this great athletic ability.
As far as I can see, the one redeeming feature of the womens game is
that due to their lack of athleticism they play with great fundamentals.
On a good day with the women you get to watch a well played game
between two high school level teams. Remeber I said on a good day
because there are so few women that can even play on that level that the
games are usually a blow out.
The last thing that pisses me off is Title IX. I am a big fan of
volleyball (where I actually like the womens game better than mens).
But the mens game is about to get kicked out of the NCAA because schools
have to cut back on non-revenue mens sports. As it is mens volleyball
gets 3 scholarships and womens gets 12. In other words, men get
penalized for football which basicly funds the womens programs as it is.
I think that universities should simply be forced to give the same
amount of funding to men and women. Instead, our feminst judiciary has
decided to dictate where schools should spend the proceeds of mens
football and basketball. I think that that is wrong!!!!!
JOHN CAPLE
<sly...@biochem.purdue.edu> writes:
>
>jca...@ix.netcom.com (JOHN CAPLE) wrote:
>>
>> In <3lrkta$n...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> Paula Slyder
>> <sly...@biochem.purdue.edu> writes:
>> > >
>> >jca...@ix.netcom.com (JOHN CAPLE) wrote:
>> >
Lets look at the first statement. You said that the womens game was no
slower or less athletic than the mens game. Now you seem to be
contradicting yourself.
I played with both individual players and groups of players from the
Stanford Womens national champions including Jennfer Azzi. I also
played at Johns Hopkins against the Div II mens team that lost in the
first round of the playoffs. The mens were so much quicker and faster I
can not tell you. 6-5 centers had great leaping ability and could hit
3s consistently. The best womens players still shoot set shots that
they have a hard time getting off against any short of pressure D.
Inside they aren't even close because of the mens quickness and jumping
ability. The women's greatest strength is that the guards understand
the game and usually make intelligent passes.
The key to the comparison is to compare players that play all the time.
I you take a couple of "Joes" off the street of course they aren't
going to be as good as players that play all the time.
Paula Slyder
Paula Slyder
>
> In <3luf4r$f...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> Paula Slyder
> <sly...@biochem.purdue.edu> writes:
> Paula -
>
> There have been two claims made in this thread that I disagree with:
>
> (1) UConn and other top womens teams play at Div II mens level.
>
> This is complete bullshit. Anyone out there that has seen the men and
> women play together would know this. UConn women would be losing team
> at the mens Div III level. If you like womens basketball that is fine,
> but a little reality check is needed here. Check around with people who
> know before you start using words like ignorant.
Excuse me when did I use the word "ignorant"????? That is not my style
and I would never accuse you or anyone of being ignorant. I never once
said that. You can believe it is complete bullshit and I can say
you are wrong, this could go on forever and no one will win so
just forget about it. I think women's basketball is better than you
want to believe and there is nothing to change that. I just would like
for you to see that you look at women's basketball through men's eyes
and don't always see the achievements that we women do.
> (2) The womens game is very athletic.
>
> Athleticism in basketball is usually defined as quickness, strength and
> jumping ability. In the area of athleticism the womens game is below an
> average mens HS team.
Why are you always comparing women's basketball to men's. Why can't you
say something about women's basketball without comparing it. The 2 games
are different and if you constantly compare them you will get no where?
Women are not and can not be as athletic as men therefore women's basketball
can not be as athletic as men's! That is simple and people know that.
You were saying that women's basketball was not athletic at all and that
was what I was refuting! Women's basketball used to be a lot slower
and less athletic but now women are beginning to find their athletic
abilities earlier in life and are training to be more athletic. You
now see future Olympic sprinters playing point guard for women's b-ball
and you also now see star Volleyball players also using their skills in
basketball. You used to not see this in women's basketball and it was
a lot less athletic and thus slow and boring as you stated. If you
look at women's athletic abilities then you have to agree that women's
basketball is athletic in women's terms. We can't get much better
than we are athletically without being "bionic women" or something of
that nature. Women are not going to play like men - can't be done!
>We were talking about dunking as an example. You
> can count on two hands the number of dunks in womens college games and
> you could probably count on two hands the number of women that could
> even dunk in practice. This is a glaring example of the lack of
> athleticism in the womens game.
No that is a glaring example of athleticism in the men's game. You can
not put women's athletic ability on a men's scale. Women don't fit
on a men's scale. Women will not be able to dunk like men therefore
they should not be judged on how many of them can dunk. The fact that
some women can dunk (a male athletic ability) is a testament to the
development of women's athletic ability. See there is an example of
what I was saying before. You judge women's athleticism next to men's
and they are different.
>The same points could be made for
> strength and quickness but there are not as many examples. Once again
> it is the womens fans that are claiming this great athletic ability.
There is a great athletic ability for women on women's terms. You look
at a women's game and compare it to what you or any other man could do
not what the average women can do and then you miss what us women's fans
are claiming as great athletic ability for women. Do you see what I am
talking about? You can't compare women to men - it is apples and oranges.
As a women, I know what many of our athletic limitations are! When I
watch many of our up and coming female basketball stars I consider them
to have great athletic ability because I know what only an average
women can do.
> As far as I can see, the one redeeming feature of the womens game is
> that due to their lack of athleticism they play with great fundamentals.
> On a good day with the women you get to watch a well played game
> between two high school level teams. Remeber I said on a good day
> because there are so few women that can even play on that level that the
> games are usually a blow out.
Women do put a greater emphasis on fundamentals even at an early age
as men used to do also. Men's teams used to be very fundamentally sound
before everyone deciding to start this dunking-playground style. So,
in your mind was men's basketball unathletic when they played fundamental
basketball? I think women who are good at basketball are so dispersed
thoughout the country that you rarely see more than one really good
player at a time on a given high school team, but in college you get
to see sometimes 4 or 5 All Americans on a team and then you see good
basketball!
> The last thing that pisses me off is Title IX. I am a big fan of
> volleyball (where I actually like the womens game better than mens).
> But the mens game is about to get kicked out of the NCAA because schools
> have to cut back on non-revenue mens sports. As it is mens volleyball
> gets 3 scholarships and womens gets 12. In other words, men get
> penalized for football which basicly funds the womens programs as it is.
> I think that universities should simply be forced to give the same
> amount of funding to men and women. Instead, our feminst judiciary has
> decided to dictate where schools should spend the proceeds of mens
> football and basketball. I think that that is wrong!!!!!
Don't get me started on Title IX, because I don't necessarily agree
with how they are implementing this whole thing either. They are starting
in the wrong places in my mind. You can't just make womens sports
suddenly popular to women who have never been given the opportunity to
play them. Many colleges are creating women's sports that don't even
have any participants and that is wrong. They should start in elementary
and junior high schools and create the sports and see if the girls are
going to stick with them before they start creating sports at a college
level. I think what your school did was wrong in many ways. Here at Purdue
our Football program is a big money loss also, but both the men's and
women's basketball teams generate a great deal of money. Our school
created only one new women's sport and that was Softball and have not
gotten rid of any men's sports. They are doing the right thing by
seeing which Club Sports have the most female interest and also looking
at whether it would make any money. Softball was a good choice since
it had huge club participation numbers and is very popular in the midwest
amongst younger girls too. I honestly don't think you can ever achieve
equality in exact numbers because truthfully right now there are many
more men interested in sports then women - and that is a sad but true
fact! If you start in the lower grades and see if girls do retain an
interest when given the opportunity then you have a case for maybe
trying to get things closer to equal but right now there is really no
justification for all of this nonsense. Some people have take things
just a bit too far in my mind.
At any rate, I hope you understand my views and to how I see you comparing
the 2 sports and maybe I will make a little sense to you then.
Paula
Go Boilers!!!!
Paula Slyder
> Lets look at the first statement. You said that the womens game was no
> slower or less athletic than the mens game. Now you seem to be
> contradicting yourself.
I did not mean to contradict myself. I meant at first that women are
just as athletic but on women's terms. Women are probably at their peak
of athletic ability just as men are. Women's peak is always going to
be lower than men's. Sorry to sound as if I was contradicting myself.
I would be stupid to claim that women as a whole are equally athletic
as men!
> I played with both individual players and groups of players from the
> Stanford Womens national champions including Jennfer Azzi. I also
> played at Johns Hopkins against the Div II mens team that lost in the
> first round of the playoffs. The mens were so much quicker and faster I
> can not tell you. 6-5 centers had great leaping ability and could hit
> 3s consistently. The best womens players still shoot set shots that
> they have a hard time getting off against any short of pressure D.
> Inside they aren't even close because of the mens quickness and jumping
> ability. The women's greatest strength is that the guards understand
> the game and usually make intelligent passes.
Don't get me wrong, because I think Jennifer Azzi is a great player but
I think Tara V. would say that her players now are more athletic than
the players on her previous teams. Azzi is athletic but I can think
of numerous current players who have skills that athletically surpass
her. I was hoping you had played some recent members of their team.
Obviously men are going to be somewhat quicker but the best women in
the country could play okay at Division III in my mind. Women centers
can also hit 3's consistently! Women are starting to also get away
from the set shooting as you spoke of and learning to put up runners
and etc. Our women's team with the exception of our point guard are
mostly slasher type players who don't have a lot of set shots. I would
differ on the pressure D thing also because many women's teams are
playing very tight defense in recent years and you are seeing player
like Rebecca Lobo and Anita Kaplan and others who can hit shots with
people in their face and they usually have more than one person in
their face too. Women are not men as I alluded to earlier and they
never will be so they won't be able to play like men either. Women's
basketball can be athletic and exciting though just probably not up
to the standards of the men's game you are used to watching. I think
many of your points are good but you just need to see that you have
to look at women's athletic abilities different than men's. I agree
that women's b-ball used to suck and was slow and boring! If you take
a look at what kind of young talent some of these schools are now
finding you will see much quicker and athletic women on the floors and
they will continue to improve throughout the years. In the past couple
of years the women's game has developed rapidly and today's players
have surpassed even recent stars such as Azzi's skills. That is all
I am saying is that women's basketball is much more athletic and
exciting than you claim it to be.
Paula
Go Boilers!!!!
Nick Martino
>
> Paula Slyder <sly...@biochem.purdue.edu>
>
> and
>
> jca...@ix.netcom.com (JOHN CAPLE)
>
> deleted
I found the NCAA women's games I watched to be highly competitive,
interesting and fundamentally well played. BUT, to say that the women's
game is on a par with DIV II or III men's ball is beyond ridiculous. I
would wager that if you grabbed _one_ decent 6-4 bench-warmer off of any
DIV I men's team and put him on, say, the 20th best women's team, he would
be the POY and the team would be _unbeatable_ in women's competition. A
_team_ of guys at any collegiate level could just about name the score
against UCONN or any other women's team. It wouldn't matter how badly they
shot the ball because they'd get just about every rebound at both ends of
the court.
---Nick
Nathan Karnes
>Go Boilers!!!!
>
Hail! Hail! Amen!
Nathan
Go Huskies!
JOHN CAPLE
<sly...@biochem.purdue.edu> writes:
Let me make a couple of points here responding to both of your posts.
There seem to be two issues:
(1) Is the womens game slow, boring and unathletic?
There is no way to put this question into perspective other than to
compare it to the mens game. You are correct in stating that womens
sports are always going to be slower and less athletic than mens.
However, it took numerous posts to get to that point which is the only
point I am trying to make. The only issue in doubt is wether it is
boring. Several mens sports have become boring because the men are too
athletic. Both tennis and volleyball can be very boring with the men
because there are no rallies due to the sheer athletic ability. In
those sports I enjoy watching the women much more than watching the men.
Basketball is just made better by the sheer athletic ability of the
men. The levels of both defense and offense are raised and we have the
great game as we see it today. Why would I want to watch an inferior
product? You can see better basketball and closer games watching decent
mens HS ball that with the women. Womens hoop reminds me of the dancing
bears story where its nice that they do it at all much less do it well.
(2) At what level would womens hoop compare to mens.
Many proponents of the womens game on this newsgroup claimed it was at
the level of mens Div II. This isn't just a matter of opinion but is
blatantly wrong. Furthermore, I was called ignorant when I made a
correction. While it may not have been you, this is typical of
proponents of the womens game who say if you would just watch it you
would become enlightened. I have seen it and played regularly with
these girls as recently as 1992 and it isn't that great.
I think that the jump shot is a great way to illustrate the difference
in the two games. Most women either shoot from their hip or shoot a
jumping set shot. I have never seen a women knock down 3-pointers with
a true jump shot that is released at the apex of the jump. There may be
a couple of women that do, but the jumping ability makes it tough to
see.
I think that you are right when you say that the best women could play
at the Div III level. I would add however that I would just include the
guards. Big players in the womens game couldn't compete with the
superior athletic ability of the men. The women guards however might be
able to run the team and distribute the ball. They would still be
liability on defense however. You would be shocked at the level of
athleticism that is present even at the Div III level. The guards
especially aren't that far removed from Div I players. Most good Div
III guards could compete at the lover Div I level if given the chance.
On the Title IX issue, it pisses me off every time I think of it. When
I play pickup in the gym guys make up 95% of the participants. I am so
sick of the judiciary telling colleges how to run their programs. No
you have women coaches demanding they get paid as much as the men. The
fact is that you can count on one hand the number of womens programs
that make more money than the men. Remember, you have to include TV
revenue in the picture. How much do you think getting the womens
tournament effected the bidding levels by CBS for the whole hoop
package. I bet they would have paid the same whether they got womens or
not.
I hope that you enjoy watching your version of the game. I just hope
they get it off my god damned TV so I can watch some real hoops!!!
:-)
Steven Kirkwood
> James Repka (jl...@ucsc.edu) wrote:
> : jca...@ix.netcom.com (JOHN CAPLE) writes:
> : > ... Now we also have
> : >to listen to apologists tell us how good the womens game is. Lets face
> : >it, the game is slow, boring and unathletic. I like some womens sports
> : >such as volleyball and tennis, but womens college hoop isn't even at the
> : >level of a decent mens high school team.
I don't know which one of you guys wrote this but I have one important
bone to pick. If you recall an earlier time period, there was another
game that was "slow, boring and unathletic". That sport was MEN'S
BASKETBALL many years back. The only difference is the prevailing
thoughts and rules of the day had to be changed to allow athleticism to
predominate. Women's ball should be allowed to grow and mature as a sport
so that it too can reach a great level of athleticism. If you want
to look at dunking, everyone
seems to forget that no men could dunk when the game started out. But the
level of jumping ability increased and it has become integral in the men's
game. Another thing to remember is a difference in developement. When
the men's game starting producing so many tall players they were the only
ones dunking. If you look at the women's players who are now dunking,
they are much shorter (6-0 to 6-6) and therefore achieving more,
quicker. Sorry to slight Heels fans, but I can't remember is it's Jones
or another player that can dunk, but whoever it is IS ONLY 6 FOOT TALL.
HOW MANY 6 FOOT GUYS CAN DUNK?? I'm 6-2, and jump pretty well, but have a
hard time timing it right. Yet, I'm not out of the ordinary for not
dunking all the time. Realize that the women's game is just behind the
men's accomplishments and as height is less of a stigmatism for them the
taller (and hopefully more athletic) women will get. This will "raise"
the play.
--
Steven Kirkwood "All I know, you got to run to win, and
Mississippi College I'll be damned if I get caught up on the line"
kirk...@mc.edu -Van Halen
(601)925-3864 'Why Can't This Be Love'
Neil Das Gupta
(Nathan Karnes) says:
[someone else]
>>>I'd take the UConn women's team over any high school team and maybe
>>>even over some Div II men's team.
[me]
>>Hmmmmm. While I agree that the UConn women's team could certainly beat
>>*most* men's H.S. teams, I highly doubt that they could beat the best
>>H.S. teams in the country. Teams like, say, Farragut from Chicago
>Your absolutely right. All of the attention paid to the NCAA Women's
>Final Four this year was a waste! Next Year, I propose a fully
>televised Boy's High School Tournament of 512 schools beginning in early
>February and ending by July 1, only a week after most graduation
>ceremonies. ;-}
Thank you so much, Nathan dear, for putting words in my mouth. Nowhere
in my post did I denigrate women's basketball or insinuate that it
doesn't belong on tv. I simply challenged a statement (included above)
that the UConn's women's team would beat any men's HS team. In doing
so, I only addressed the topic presented, and did not editorialize about
the nature or value of women's ball.
Next time, perhaps you should READ a post before your patellar reflex
kicks in.
But I guess that, in this newsgroup, that's a bit too much to ask.
Well, for as long as I've been here, that's always been the case...
>Look, UConn and Tennessee play damn good ball in an exciting
>competition. It was entertaining enough for many people around the
>country to tune in. Advertisers sold space, and some wrote new copy
>tailored to the Women's game.
All true. And totally unrelated to my post.
>I told this newsgroup it would be exciting, and I think they delivered!!
Not as exciting as last year's game...
************************************************************************
Neil Das Gupta "The man that hath no music in himself
u29...@uicvm.uic.edu Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds
Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils."
************No, no. Don't be silly. This won't hurt a bit.************
OINOURNVS
<< Basketball is just made better by the sheer athletic ability of the
men......The levels of both defense and offense are raised and we have the
great game as we see it today. Why would I want to watch an inferior
product?>>
So, why do you even watch NCAA hoops compared to men? After all, NBA has
MUCH better athletes, making NCAA men's an inferior product by YOUR
definition - Seem to be contradicting yourself, John! Trying picking a
VALID reason and defending it.....
Michael Fulbright
: Realize that the women's game is just behind the
: men's accomplishments and as height is less of a stigmatism for them the
: taller (and hopefully more athletic) women will get. This will "raise"
: the play.
There was an interesting comment by one of the announcers at the
womens final this year after on of the tennessee stars hurt her
knee. They mentioned that some people felt the recent flurry of
injuries in women's basketball was due to the weight training programs
that women's team have started to use. In particular they were talking
about torn ACL's I think. I'd be curious what people here know about
this. I don't regularly what women's basketball, I figured I'd watch
the final as long as I could so at least I can say I've watched it
before coming to an opinion.
Something to consider. Women's track is about as old as men's track I
believe. I don't think the women compete at the same level as men in
running and jumping events, though correct me if I'm wrong.
However, women's basketball may not be attracting the best women
athletes yet. As its popularity grows perhaps this would change.
michael fulbright
m...@as.arizona.edu
Paul Dekker
(Neil Das Gupta) wrote:
Hey Neil,
If this newsgroup is sooooo beneath your dignity then why are you
here? Heckfire, most of us slobs don't even know what patellar means.
--
Paul Dekker
Dept of Atmos Sci, Univ of Illinois
dek...@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu
Douglas P Jones
skit on Women's ball by OINO...@aol.com
> MUCH better athletes, making NCAA men's an inferior product by YOUR
> definition - Seem to be contradicting yourself, John! Trying picking a
> VALID reason and defending it.....
The athletes in the NBA are better, but comparable to those in men's
college hoops. Virtually all NBA stars once played the college game for
men. You'd be hard pressed to find a women's college player good enough
to make the cut on any Div III men's college team. If you think the
difference between NBA and NCAA men is comparable to the difference
between NCAA men and NCAA women, you are sadly mistaken. Div I women's
college players on scholarship have come out of my area every now and
then over the past few years and not one that I have seen has shown the
ability to hold their own against the 16 and 17 year old high school
guys at our local open gyms. If some people want to follow women's
college basketball... I can understand that. The top teams are
fundamentally sound and the games can be exciting. But don't compare
the women's game to men's - you will lose all credibility. The physical
differences in the two types of games are unmistakable.
Later,
Doug
--
Doug Jones
Carnegie Mellon University
dj...@andrew.cmu.edu
Eric T. Moore
>There was an interesting comment by one of the announcers at the
>womens final this year after on of the tennessee stars hurt her
>knee. They mentioned that some people felt the recent flurry of
>injuries in women's basketball was due to the weight training programs
>that women's team have started to use. In particular they were talking
>about torn ACL's I think.
After a spate of these in the Texas basketball program, I read an article in
the AAS quoting an orthopedist saying that because women's pelvic bones are
wider, the legs go down at an angle, putting more torque on the knees than
would occur with narrow hips.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Eric T. Moore >> "When you come here to shoot-shoot, don't talk."
>> mo...@econ.unt.edu >> -the Ugly, from The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OINOURNVS
<< Div I women's
college players on scholarship have come out of my area every now and
then over the past few years and not one that I have seen has shown the
ability to hold their own against the 16 and 17 year old high school
guys at our local open gyms.>>
I seriously doubt that, but if you say so, fine. I've seen some division
one women's players (mostly the All-American types) that compete fine with
the NCAA Div I men's. If you want to argue that the depth of the women's
can't compete with a similar level of depth at the men's game, fine. But,
the FACT is that the top women's players can compete with the top men's
players. Ask Reggie Miller. Ask Jalen Rose (cousin of Big Ten POY Stacey
Lovelace). Both are on the record as improving their game by playing
against women.
<< But don't compare
the women's game to men's - you will lose all credibility. The physical
differences in the two types of games are unmistakable>>
If you take the time to read carefully, that was exactly my point - you
can't compare the two games execpt at the "enjoyment" level.
Rob Skrobola
oino...@aol.com (OINOURNVS) writes:
Defend your last statement. What is it based on? Height? Jumping
ability? Hmmm, following that logic, I would think Muerson and Bradley
would be leading the NBA in rebounding. But, alas, they don't. Why?
Because rebounding is more about positioning and boxing out than about
size. Ask Charles Barkley. Which is also why women would be able to
compete with men.
Disclaimer: I enjoy watching women's basketball at the collegiate
level. I appreciate their skill, and there are some damn fine
athletes. This is not a bash of womens ball, *but*:
The claim that womens college teams could compete with men's in
basketball is simply mistaken. I've played in games with Michigan
men's players, and Michigan and Ohio State's womens players. I realize
Michigan has had some very bad women's teams, by the way.
I've been in a game with the best female player I've ever seen, Katie
Smith. She is fantastic. However, there is NO comparison between Smith
and Rumeal Robinson, Gary Grant, Demetrius Calip, or Antoine
Joubert. I've played against all of these people in pickup games, and
it just isn't a contest. Heck, 2 of the 4 men I mentioned didn't ever
make the pros, and a third was a journeyman and is now out of the
league (Rumeal).
The men I've compared Smith to thus far were pretty good college
players. Thing is, I'd say that Rob Pelinka, Garde Thompson, and PJ
Bowman were also superior players to Smith. Each of them were
comparable shooters to Smith, and they were MUCH quicker, and much
stronger. She was probably a better ball handler than Pelinka, but not
better than Thompson or Bowman.
The point is, I'm talking about guys that were not college stars, or
even starters (cept for one year for Thompson). So the athletic
difference I'm talking about isn't just leaping ability, or
dunking. It's strength, quickness, and stamina. While there are some
men's players with problems in the fundamentals, there are many who
are very solid. If there is a skills gap between the women and the
men, I'd say it is just not sufficient to make up the very large gap
in overall athletic ability.
Oh well, I know I won't convince anyone, but these are my experiences,
presented in what I hope is a rational way...
Rob
--
Rob Skrobola - Advanced Network and Services
Network Engineer
Steven Kirkwood
> Something to consider. Women's track is about as old as men's track I
> believe. I don't think the women compete at the same level as men in
> running and jumping events, though correct me if I'm wrong.
BUT, women are competing on the same level as men were a long time ago.
This was my point. Just b/c women start achieving the same things much
later, should we remove the validity of their accomplishments??
> However, women's basketball may not be attracting the best women
> athletes yet. As its popularity grows perhaps this would change.
I think this may be critical. Not only BB attracting the best athletes
but all women's sports attracting great athletes. And many more
"marginal" women's athletes hitting the weights and plyometrics and making
themselves better athletes. I came from a high school that had an amazing
run in FB b/c the coach could take the slow, chubby kids and put them on
weight programs and in 3-4 years...presto, a decent athlete. Our school
didn't have the best athletes---he "made" them. It is also a matter of
bringing the whole level up. All of a sudden the 15th player on the BB
team or 12th player on the VB team is better than the 5th and 6th players
of 10 or 15 years ago. That's where the biggest improvements have been
made and will continue to be made...
JOHN CAPLE
writes:
>
><< It wouldn't matter how badly they
>shot the ball because they'd get just about every rebound at both ends
of
>the court.>>
>
>Ah, now I see the problem. People on this board don't understand hoops
to
>begin with....
>
>Defend your last statement. What is it based on? Height? Jumping
>ability? Hmmm, following that logic, I would think Muerson and Bradley
>would be leading the NBA in rebounding. But, alas, they don't. Why?
>Because rebounding is more about positioning and boxing out than about
>size. Ask Charles Barkley. Which is also why women would be able to
>compete with men. Women box out better, and, overall, are much smarter
>basketball players than the men. The majority of NCAA men have no clue
>what a pick or a box out is. Women do.
Hello there??? What world are you living in???? Rebounding is about
height, strength, quickness and desire. Boxing out is important but if
someone in five inches taller he or she can just go up and get the ball.
Charles is a good rebounder because he has size, strength and
quickness. Rodman, the best rebounder in the world today, doesn't box
out at all.
Most women do have good fundamentals because they don't have the
strength and athletic ability of the men. But to try to compare the two
games is a joke. It isn't even close.
JOHN CAPLE
writes:
>
> jca...@ix.netcom.com (JOHN CAPLE) wrote:
>
><< Basketball is just made better by the sheer athletic ability of the
>men......The levels of both defense and offense are raised and we have
the
>
>great game as we see it today. Why would I want to watch an inferior
>product?>>
>
>So, why do you even watch NCAA hoops compared to men? After all, NBA
has
>MUCH better athletes, making NCAA men's an inferior product by YOUR
>definition - Seem to be contradicting yourself, John! Trying picking
a
>VALID reason and defending it.....
>
I watch NCAA hoops because I enjoy the competition that comes from
playing 30 instead of 80 games and the single elimination tournament. I
also enjoy the college rules and the emphasis on quickness as opposed to
pure size in the NBA. I also think the college game is more athletic
because the players put out more since every game is more important.
The womens game is slower, less athletic, and as a result more boring
than even mens Div III hoop.
Lets see some evidence from your previous post when you said that the
mens and womens Div I games where on the same level. It seems like
someone here needs a reality check.
JOHN CAPLE
writes:
>
>Douglas P Jones <dj...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
><< Div I women's
>college players on scholarship have come out of my area every now and
>then over the past few years and not one that I have seen has shown the
>ability to hold their own against the 16 and 17 year old high school
>guys at our local open gyms.>>
>
>I seriously doubt that, but if you say so, fine. I've seen some
division
>one women's players (mostly the All-American types) that compete fine
with
>the NCAA Div I men's. If you want to argue that the depth of the
women's
>can't compete with a similar level of depth at the men's game, fine.
But,
>the FACT is that the top women's players can compete with the top men's
>players. Ask Reggie Miller. Ask Jalen Rose (cousin of Big Ten POY
Stacey
>Lovelace). Both are on the record as improving their game by playing
>against women.
Of course they are going to say nice things and play lip service to
their relatives. Reggie never got any good untill people started saying
his sister was better than he was. But my question is where are you
getting these FACTS.
Have you ever seen or played with both top mens and womens players.
Just seeing them play together in a pickup game doesn't really count. I
play with women ocasionally and it isn't considered good form to play
too tough against them. Your statement that any women could play on the
Div I level simply shows that you don't really know the game. I have
played with both and let me tell you it isn't even close.
Paula Slyder
[snipped usual jargon]
> Have you ever seen or played with both top mens and womens players.
> I have played with both and let me tell you it isn't even close.
John you said you have played against Jennifer Azzi, right? Who has been
supassed by numerous others by now in skill level and quickness. Have
you played against any current women's players who are considered to be
tops? Let's say maybe Rebecca Lobo, Nikki McCray, Katie Smith, Stacey
Lovelace, Tina Nicholson, Charlotte Smith - I could go on and on. All
of these players have skills that are much better than what players had
2 or even 3 years ago! Until you play these types of players or watch
these types you don't really know how good they are. Not every woman
player or team is up to the level of those players and their respective
teams but the athleticism, strength and skill level has increased
tremendously in the past 3 years alone! As far as the women holding
their own against good male players, many of those listed above can
and do play with their school's men's players and hold their own quite
nicely.
Paula
Nick Martino
> In explaining one reason why men would dominate women in B-ball, I previously
> exaggerated slightly that:
>
> << It wouldn't matter how badly they
> << shot the ball because they'd get just about every rebound at both ends of
> <<the court.
>
>
> Ah, now I see the problem. People on this board don't understand hoops to
> begin with....
>
> Defend your last statement. What is it based on? Height? Jumping
> ability? Hmmm, following that logic, I would think Muerson and Bradley
> would be leading the NBA in rebounding.
If this is your idea of "logic", Mr Johnnie has a seat on the Simpson jury
with your name on it. Are you, by any chance, related to Jeannette Harris?
> But, alas, they don't. Why?
The reason Mureson and Bradley are bad rebounders for their height is
because _they play like girls_. They are (relatively) weak, slow and
awkward, and they can't jump.
> Because rebounding is more about positioning and boxing out than about
> size. Ask Charles Barkley.
To paraphrase one chair-throwing coach, I've forgotten more about boxing
out than you'll ever know.
> Which is also why women would be able to
> compete with men. Women box out better, and, overall, are much smarter
> basketball players than the men. The majority of NCAA men have no clue
> what a pick or a box out is. Women do.
I'll leave it to the reader to determine who the clueless one is.
---Nick
wond...@vax0.gram.edu
> men's accomplishments and as height is less of a stigmatism for them the
> taller (and hopefully more athletic) women will get. This will "raise"
> the play.
> Steven Kirkwood "All I know, you got to run to win, and
> Mississippi College I'll be damned if I get caught up on the line"
> kirk...@mc.edu -Van Halen
> (601)925-3864 'Why Can't This Be Love'
>
>
>
while the men avg. about 2,100; yes people actually leave(i'm one).
one night after a game i heard the father of a young lady coach Bibbs
was after state that, that was the first time he'd ever seen a wmens team
play with more intensity & exitement than the men. if not for our small
booster the wmen would receive almost no support.
Dugay
kidd travis danemon
>tremendously in the past 3 years alone! As far as the women holding
>their own against good male players, many of those listed above can
>and do play with their school's men's players and hold their own quite
>nicely.
I for one do not put down Women's B-ball! I am not as much a fan of women's
as men's, in the same way that I am not as much a fan of baseball as football.
But Kara Wolters is awesome! Rebecca Lobo? She's OK, but not great, IMHO.
However, I don't think that your typical women's team will be nearly as good
as your typical men's team. This is because men's basketball is the money-
maker. When coaches recruit for men's basketball, they know they have to
fight hard to get the best players. Women's basketball coaches don't have
the same duty hanging over their heads. So they get good, but not spectacular
players. Since there is no women's pro b-ball (at least none that I know of),
most women b-ball players play for fun, and don't try to achieve 110%, because
they know it won't get them anywhere. But it is not that women are somehow
less capable of playing basketball, but it is that the drive is not there in
the same way that it is for men. Thus, women's basketball is a different
game. Not better, not worse, just different. I would, though, just once---
JUST ONCE---like to see a girl do a 360 and jam it home.
Anyway, I think the UConn and Tennessee women's team could probably beat
, or at least play a good game with, most of the mediocre men's teams.
And one question: why the 30-second shot clock?
>Paula
-Travis
OINOURNVS
<<Have you ever seen or played with both top mens and womens players.
Just seeing them play together in a pickup game doesn't really count. I
play with women ocasionally and it isn't considered good form to play
too tough against them. Your statement that any women could play on the
Div I level simply shows that you don't really know the game. I have
played with both and let me tell you it isn't even close.>>
Yes, I HAVE played with both, on the same court, at the same time (albeit
pickup ball) at Purdue between 1988-1992. Basketball is MUCH more than
simply height and jumping ability. IT's about seeing the court, setting
picks, boxing out, etc all leading up to scoring more points than the
other team. THAT is where women can compete. Note, I did not say women
would dominate, or are equal, or better, or worse. I said COMPETE.
Meaning it was a challeging game all the way around.
OINOURNVS
<<If this is your idea of "logic", Mr Johnnie has a seat on the Simpson
jury
with your name on it. Are you, by any chance, related to Jeannette
Harris?>>
If YOU took the time to read, you would have noted that I was using John's
logic and showing where it was flawed.
<<I'll leave it to the reader to determine who the clueless one is.
---Nick>>
Thank you for putting a point in my basket....
Christopher Scott Campbell
Paula Slyder <sly...@biochem.purdue.edu> wrote:
>tops? Let's say maybe Rebecca Lobo, Nikki McCray, Katie Smith, Stacey
>Lovelace, Tina Nicholson, Charlotte Smith - I could go on and on. All
>of these players have skills that are much better than what players had
>2 or even 3 years ago! Until you play these types of players or watch
>these types you don't really know how good they are. Not every woman
>player or team is up to the level of those players and their respective
>teams but the athleticism, strength and skill level has increased
>their own against good male players, many of those listed above can
>and do play with their school's men's players and hold their own quite
>nicely.
>
This has gone beyond the question of ability, it's gotten to the
point where we are arguing a matter of respect. It is true that
the women's game has advanced at bacteria's growth rate in the
past few years. In fact, I'd often rather see a women's game in
person, since it's a purer version. Let's not let that get ahold
of our heads when trying to compare the two games. Rebecca Lobo
may be the women's best player this year (debate this somewhere
else) and Joe Smith may be the best men's player (again, debate
this somewhere else) but for you to say that Lobo would "hold her
own" against Smith is ludicrous. Perhaps you've noticed the almost
nearly stupendous growth of the men's game in the last decade.
Even the recent high school all star games contain some tremendous
athletes that would trash the women's college game night in night
out. The men's college game is chock full of 6'10" 230 lb guys
that can run the floor, block shots.... in short *do it all*. Lobo
can box all she wants, ain't now way that she can hold Smith to
below 20 boards, 40 points, 10 blocks (then again, not many men did
that either this year). The women's game simply does not have
this. Cheryl Miller, Nancy _what's her name_, and all the others
are good players. They'd never get off the bench for the men's
team though...
Christopher
--
Christopher Scott Campbell * Laurie got offended that I
csca...@tuba.aix.calpoly.edu * used the word "puke." But
* to me that's what her dinner
ArchE and Math * tasted like. -- Jack Handey
Christopher Scott Campbell
>writes:
>>
>>
>>So, why do you even watch NCAA hoops compared to men? After all, NBA
>has
>>MUCH better athletes, making NCAA men's an inferior product by YOUR
>>definition - Seem to be contradicting yourself, John! Trying picking
>a
>>VALID reason and defending it.....
>>
>
I'm not sure if I edited this thing to attribute it correctly,
but this is not a valid argument. Chances are, we all watch
NBA games too. Maybe you've noticed the disparity of games
played though. While there is a chance to watch say 5 NBA games
in a week, a person can easily find about 30 college games (those
of us with cable) a week. So we watch what we get... But then
I'd also add in that the NBA game is by no means a better or even\
more athletic game than the NCAA. Case in point: compare Derrick
Coleman (a pseudo all star) and Joe Smith (POY). How many people
would admit to wanting to watch Coleman over Smith?
In fact, the NBA gets to a point in almost every game that players
are standing around, making their money the old fashioned way.
(Sitting on it) March Madness simply embodies all that can be good
about a sport. A single elimination tourney that invites as many
teams to compete as is feasible. Almost no argument about who is
number one at the end... Unlike college football, and hell even
the NBA Finals lack...
Paula Slyder
> I for one do not put down Women's B-ball! I am not as much a fan of women's
> as men's, in the same way that I am not as much a fan of baseball as football.
> But Kara Wolters is awesome! Rebecca Lobo? She's OK, but not great, IMHO.
I think Wolters is good and the thing that makes Lobo so good is that with
her size she is still a very polished finesse type of player she can
play inside or out and is a good ball handler. That is very rare in
women's basketball. Wolters is a typical big woman but really finished
her shots. They both are good but have different qualities.
> However, I don't think that your typical women's team will be nearly as good
> as your typical men's team. This is because men's basketball is the money-
> maker. When coaches recruit for men's basketball, they know they have to
> fight hard to get the best players. Women's basketball coaches don't have
> the same duty hanging over their heads. So they get good, but not spectacular
> players. Since there is no women's pro b-ball (at least none that I know of),
> most women b-ball players play for fun, and don't try to achieve 110%, because
> they know it won't get them anywhere. But it is not that women are somehow
> less capable of playing basketball, but it is that the drive is not there in
> the same way that it is for men. Thus, women's basketball is a different
> game. Not better, not worse, just different. I would, though, just once---
> JUST ONCE---like to see a girl do a 360 and jam it home.
I agree about them being different games and have been saying that all
along. It is true about the lack of drive for women - there is not
big $$$$ in the hoop for them. They play for the pure enjoyment of it
yet knowing it will end and they have to pursue something else in reality.
What I like most about women's basketball is that if you get a blue
chip player you are pretty much guaranteed you will have them for 4
years - they can't leave early for the NBA like the men do so often
now. Therefore with women, you can enjoy these players longer and build
very dominating programs like Tennessee has done. It would be pretty
cool to see a 360 jam by a women but I guess we should not get our hopes
up.
> Anyway, I think the UConn and Tennessee women's team could probably beat
> , or at least play a good game with, most of the mediocre men's teams.
I think a group of women all-stars would fare well against mediocre men's
teams and even hang in there against average men's teams but never would
they win unless the men were forced to stay on the ground - no dunking
and etc.
> And one question: why the 30-second shot clock?
Why now, I don't know. They originally did it because the women's game
was very slow and the teams would take forever on offense. So they
lowered the shot-clock to speed up the pace of the game. It has
worked but now I think they could go to 35-seconds and the game would
still remain just as quick as it is. Look how quick the men's game is
and they don't have a 30-second shot clock.
Paula
Paula Slyder
I wasn't saying the women would dominate or win or whatever you are
assuming I am saying. I am just wondering what type of talent you
played against in order to form your opinion. My beef is that the
talent level has sharply risen in women's players over the last 2
years. The players we had here at Purdue in 1988-1992 were good for
their time but with the exception of MaChelle Joseph and Joy Holmes
the rest could not do well against the type of talent we have now.
We were bigger yet slower for the most part! Now we are tall also
but very athletic! You could tell the difference between Donna Gill
(of the above era) and Stacey Lovelace in a matter of seconds. Our
guards are about the same because we have always recruited good guards
but where we are different is in the athleticism that our forwards and
centers now possess. Before we had the typical slow big women but now
we have the quick, agile big women. I am not saying women could win
or even compete against the best men! I am saying that women's athletic
levels have increased and a group of the best women could compete against
good men - not win, not dominate just compete! Our women play our men and
compete! This whole thread started because someone said women are
slow and boring. I am just trying to refute that statement and nothing
more.
Paula
Paula Slyder
> This has gone beyond the question of ability, it's gotten to the
> point where we are arguing a matter of respect. It is true that
> the women's game has advanced at bacteria's growth rate in the
> past few years. In fact, I'd often rather see a women's game in
> person, since it's a purer version. Let's not let that get ahold
> of our heads when trying to compare the two games. Rebecca Lobo
> may be the women's best player this year (debate this somewhere
> else) and Joe Smith may be the best men's player (again, debate
> this somewhere else) but for you to say that Lobo would "hold her
> own" against Smith is ludicrous.
See you misreading me. I never said Lobo or anyother player could play
one on one with Joe Smith or anyother great male player. I was saying
that a group of great women could compete against a group of average
men. Not win but compete. I would be insane to think Lobo or anyother
great women's player could go one on one against the best men's player
and not get blown of the court! Never said it and would have never
even thought something like that. I guess you are right about this
whole thing turning into a matter of respect! When isn't it about
respect. This whole thing began when someone stated that women'
b-ball was slow and boring. I guess many of us got offended and felt
the need to show how much women's athletics has changed and how the
game is not slow and boring anymore. Maybe compared to men's it is
but compared to past women's games it is a vast improvement.
Cheryl Miller, Nancy _what's her name_, and all the others
> are good players. They'd never get off the bench for the men's
> team though...
They were good players for their time but the game has changed and
thus they may not have been that good if they played now. Although
Cheryl Miller would have because she was ahead of her time when she
played. When people think of women's basketball players these are the
names that come up but they don't accurately represent the game as it
is now and therefore a lot of people have the wrong impression of the
game. That really is all I am trying to get across to people. I am
not saying women or better or whatever as some think I am.
Paula
Christopher Scott Campbell
>
>See you misreading me. I never said Lobo or anyother player could play
>one on one with Joe Smith or anyother great male player. I was saying
I was just trying to simplify the argument. Shoot, I'm not sure
what the word is, but I think it's microcosm. Just taking an
example to use to prove a point that no longer (and never really
did, apparently) needs to be proved.
>They were good players for their time but the game has changed and
>thus they may not have been that good if they played now. Although
>
Hmmm, this sounds strangely like the Wilt v Shaq posts over on the
NBA group. But I will say something that seems to be missing... The
men's game has grown in leaps (pardon the pun) and bounds in the
past few years. It is now the case the several players are coming
into the NCAA each year that had (runors mostly) given thought to
going straight to the NBA. Jason Kidd, Chris Webber, and several
kids this year. Though I can't say for sure, I don't think that
was the case five years ago. In any case, I think that the women's
game is a very entertaining brand of ball, and there's no reason for
anyone to bag on it.
Hey everybody lighten up. (not really aimed at you Paula)
Darkwing Duck
>jca...@ix.netcom.com (JOHN CAPLE) wrote:
>[snipped usual jargon]
>> Have you ever seen or played with both top mens and womens players.
>> I have played with both and let me tell you it isn't even close.
>John you said you have played against Jennifer Azzi, right? Who has been
>supassed by numerous others by now in skill level and quickness. Have
>you played against any current women's players who are considered to be
>tops? Let's say maybe Rebecca Lobo, Nikki McCray, Katie Smith, Stacey
>Lovelace, Tina Nicholson, Charlotte Smith - I could go on and on. All
>of these players have skills that are much better than what players had
>2 or even 3 years ago! Until you play these types of players or watch
>these types you don't really know how good they are. Not every woman
>player or team is up to the level of those players and their respective
>teams but the athleticism, strength and skill level has increased
>tremendously in the past 3 years alone! As far as the women holding
>their own against good male players, many of those listed above can
>and do play with their school's men's players and hold their own quite
>nicely.
>Paula
This kind of debate actually brings up a question I have: I know
that in typical university intramural leagues, including
basketball, the categories of competition go something like All-University,
Womens, and Co-ed. The All-University is usually referred to as Mens, but
nothing prevents a woman from playing on a "mens" team.
So my question:
Let's postulate for a moment that Rebecca Lobo, who by all appearances
seems to be the best (or one of the best) current women's college player,
is actually as good as the average male player in Division I
(a necessary condition for "holding her own" when playing the men's
players). If Lobo is this good, is there anything preventing her
from being recruited to play for the men's team? Sure, she might not
make the UConn men's squad, who are excellent in their own right, but
what about a program with little recent basketball success. (Pick your
favorite team that has had a losing record for the last four seasons.
Maybe a struggling team in a small conference, or maybe a team like the
Dayton Flyers, who are currently HEAVILY overmatched in the Great Midwest.)
So, could the Dayton Flyers recruit the next Rebecca Lobo and have her
help shore up their program?
If women are currently permitted to play on the Men's teams, this
would be a fairly sure sign that people like Lobo cannot compete with
the men effectively, as if they could, some team desperate to improve
their program would start recruiting some of these top women performers.
To be honest, I suspect that women are allowed to compete on men's
teams. I agree pretty much with the comments Mr Caple has made
previously in this thread, as the speed and strength differences between
the men's teams and the women's teams make it seem unlikely that
the women would effectively compete with any remotely competent
division I men's team. (And yes, I've actually played against
women who were members of Div I college basketball teams.)
Lec Luthor
Criminal Genius and Cardinal Fan Extraordinaire
l...@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
Paula Slyder
> But I will say something that seems to be missing... The
> men's game has grown in leaps (pardon the pun) and bounds in the
> past few years. It is now the case the several players are coming
> into the NCAA each year that had (runors mostly) given thought to
> going straight to the NBA. Jason Kidd, Chris Webber, and several
> kids this year. Though I can't say for sure, I don't think that
> was the case five years ago. In any case, I think that the women's
> game is a very entertaining brand of ball, and there's no reason for
> anyone to bag on it.
I agree that the men's game has also grown in leaps in bounds in its
own way. I would say the men's games is more athletic but has less
fundamentals e.g. low free throw percentages. I am not sure that the
growth experienced in recent years is good or bad for men's basketball.
These kids are extremely gifted athletically but lack the fundamentals
and maturity that they seem to think they possess. I am also disturbed
by the trend of men leaving their college programs after 2 or 3 years.
It is starting to have a negative affect on these programs because
they don't have a bench to go to if they are constantly recruiting
new players. But on the flip side these kids have brought a great deal
of excitement to the game! I guess it is good and bad in many ways.
I also agree with you on the point that women's ball is very entertaining
yet a different brand of ball not everyone is going to like it but
everyone could atleast respect it.
> Hey everybody lighten up. (not really aimed at you Paula)
I agree with you and it was not taken personally.
JOHN CAPLE
<sly...@biochem.purdue.edu> writes:
>
>jca...@ix.netcom.com (JOHN CAPLE) wrote:
>
>[snipped usual jargon]
>
>> Have you ever seen or played with both top mens and womens players.
>> I have played with both and let me tell you it isn't even close.
>
>John you said you have played against Jennifer Azzi, right? Who has
been
>supassed by numerous others by now in skill level and quickness. Have
>you played against any current women's players who are considered to be
>tops? Let's say maybe Rebecca Lobo, Nikki McCray, Katie Smith, Stacey
>Lovelace, Tina Nicholson, Charlotte Smith - I could go on and on. All
>of these players have skills that are much better than what players had
>2 or even 3 years ago! Until you play these types of players or watch
>these types you don't really know how good they are. Not every woman
>player or team is up to the level of those players and their respective
>teams but the athleticism, strength and skill level has increased
>tremendously in the past 3 years alone! As far as the women holding
>their own against good male players, many of those listed above can
>and do play with their school's men's players and hold their own quite
>nicely.
Let me see if I have this straight. There are numerous players this
year that are head and shoulders above the POY from three years ago.
Anything is possible, but I would suggest that what you really see is an
increase in the hype rather than the skill level. Furthermore, many men
take it pretty easy on womens players. I know that I do because it just
isn't sporting to beat them physically time and again. Azzi and the
rest of the Stanford team that won the title could not have competed on
the Div III level. I would be shocked if players in a sport improved in
three years the amount it would take to make them competitive.
JOHN CAPLE
writes:
>
>jca...@ix.netcom.com (JOHN CAPLE) wrote:
>
><<Have you ever seen or played with both top mens and womens players.
>Just seeing them play together in a pickup game doesn't really count.
I
>play with women ocasionally and it isn't considered good form to play
>too tough against them. Your statement that any women could play on
the
>Div I level simply shows that you don't really know the game. I have
>played with both and let me tell you it isn't even close.>>
>
>Yes, I HAVE played with both, on the same court, at the same time
(albeit
>pickup ball) at Purdue between 1988-1992. Basketball is MUCH more than
>simply height and jumping ability. IT's about seeing the court,
setting
>picks, boxing out, etc all leading up to scoring more points than the
>other team. THAT is where women can compete. Note, I did not say
women
>would dominate, or are equal, or better, or worse. I said COMPETE.
>Meaning it was a challeging game all the way around.
>
I love that word COMPETE. I have played on the same pickup court as NBA
players. I didn't ruin the game and my man didn't score all the points
so you can say that I competed. But the fact is that I wasn't even in
the same world as those players. A word like compete is so vague as to
be meaingless. A number of womens hoop fans have agreed with me that
certain women could at best compete on the Div II level. So I beg of
you all to set this AOL poster straight!!!!!!
JOHN CAPLE
<sly...@biochem.purdue.edu> writes:
>
>oino...@aol.com (OINOURNVS) wrote:
>>
>> jca...@ix.netcom.com (JOHN CAPLE) wrote:
>>
>> <<Have you ever seen or played with both top mens and womens players.
>> Just seeing them play together in a pickup game doesn't really count.
I
>> play with women ocasionally and it isn't considered good form to play
>> too tough against them. Your statement that any women could play on
the
>> Div I level simply shows that you don't really know the game. I have
>> played with both and let me tell you it isn't even close.>>
>>
>> Yes, I HAVE played with both, on the same court, at the same time
(albeit
>> pickup ball) at Purdue between 1988-1992. Basketball is MUCH more
than
>> simply height and jumping ability. IT's about seeing the court,
setting
>> picks, boxing out, etc all leading up to scoring more points than the
>> other team. THAT is where women can compete. Note, I did not say
women
>> would dominate, or are equal, or better, or worse. I said COMPETE.
>> Meaning it was a challeging game all the way around.
>
>I wasn't saying the women would dominate or win or whatever you are
>assuming I am saying. I am just wondering what type of talent you
>played against in order to form your opinion. My beef is that the
>talent level has sharply risen in women's players over the last 2
>years. The players we had here at Purdue in 1988-1992 were good for
>their time but with the exception of MaChelle Joseph and Joy Holmes
>the rest could not do well against the type of talent we have now.
>We were bigger yet slower for the most part! Now we are tall also
>but very athletic! You could tell the difference between Donna Gill
>(of the above era) and Stacey Lovelace in a matter of seconds. Our
>guards are about the same because we have always recruited good guards
>but where we are different is in the athleticism that our forwards and
>centers now possess. Before we had the typical slow big women but now
>we have the quick, agile big women. I am not saying women could win
>or even compete against the best men! I am saying that women's
athletic
>levels have increased and a group of the best women could compete
against
>good men - not win, not dominate just compete! Our women play our men
and
>compete! This whole thread started because someone said women are
>slow and boring. I am just trying to refute that statement and nothing
>more.
>
>Paula
>
>
I appreciate your reasoned response Paula. If I am reading you right
you are claiming that an All-Star womens team could compete against a
decent mens Div I team. Most decent mens teams have front lines with at
least a 6-9 center and 6-7 forwards. Add to that the fact that these
guys can really run and jump. Who guards them? How do you get a
rebound? You use this word compete but I can't see the game being
within 30 points. Its nice that you like the womens game but a little
reality check is needed here.
Paula Slyder
Well John thank you for atleast saying I was being reasonable. Let's
face it you and I have 2 separate definitions on what women competing
means so I am going to let this drop. "Compete" is vague but I don't
no how else to describe it so oh well forget it. We are not going to
see eye to eye as numerous other people won't either. Women's all-star
teams could post 6'6" and 6'7" players also but not as many so it
would not be as horrible as you think. Women are growing up playing
more with men than they ever did before thus allowing them to pick up
on some of the skills/techniques that men use. They are becoming more
physical in their play because of this. I just don't see it being
quite as bad as you do. No big deal, people are not supposed to agree
but as long as you realize that the women's game is not as slow and
boring as people think and respect the game itself as a entirely different
entity then who cares, right? This is a debate that will never be
settled in reality.
Paula