A view on lack of parity in WCBB

[Tidepool]

Lots of mention of UConn, though not at the beginning ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/s...ment-is-no-place-for-underdogs-to-thrive.html

Something to arouse the BY crowd on this day of lull?

 

[Farney]

I always enjoy coaches who want to adjust rules to bring better teams back to the pack. Here's a thought: keep working hard to bring yourself up to the top teams.

 

[j66kicker]

I'm all for more parity (PLEASE!), but it should come from the bad teams getting better. Not from rule changes suggested by Karl Smesko (FGCU coach) to neutralize superior skills. It's like the 'easy' golf courses where the fairways are concave so they are forgiving of bad shots and the ball gravitates toward the middle (vs. 'good' courses where the degree of difficulty separates skilled players from hackers).

One "skill" mismatch I usually do feel badly about though is size. UCONN is so much bigger than most of the cupcake teams we play - it's like, "What's the point?" In our case our other skills are such that we can usually beat teams larger than us, but that's not the norm - especially outside the top 25 or so.

 

[Bonpland]

When opposing coaches say that UCONN has the best players as a way of explaining why they have just been pounded by the Huskies they do a disservice to the craft of coaching as a whole.
Over the last ten years Duke, ND, Stanford, Baylor and now South Carolina have had recruiting classes considered the equal of Uconn's but have not had the same success. It is easy for opposing coaches to say that "We got some good players but we didn't get Maya Moore, or Breanna Stewart." What they don't ask of themselves is what would they have done with them if they did have them?
Baylor recruited Griner and the world expected them to march to four (or at least three) National Championships. It didn't go that way.
Notre Dame got Diggins and a great supporting cast and they have performed exceptionally well without grabbing the ring.
Stewie may now be the considered great but we all remember Geno sitting her as a freshman when we could have used her points, and as beloved as Stephanie Dolson became to us she started at Uconn as a project; (although a very talented one) but in order for her to develop into the star that she became Geno had to break her down and build her back up into an All-American.
Over the last thirty years he's done that with almost all of his great players. He devlopes talent while others often squander it.
If all that it took to win was to put talented players on the court, there would be a different National Champion every year.
College sports is about three things. Coaching, coaching, coaching.

 

[Striper69]

There's another story about the lack of attendance at the regional tournaments:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/s...on=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article

 

[iamcbs]

Parity is a euphemism for mediocrity!!

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

It is impossible to have parity when you have such an incredible disparity in terms of coaching Xs and Os, with Geno Auriemma at the top of that list (which would include Muffet McGraw, Jeff Walz, and others).

When a coach, like Geno, is so much better than anyone else in his profession and has the most incredible tactics as compared to his peers, how can true parity ever be achieved?

Parity will come when coaches work as hard as Geno Auriemma and his staff, from recruiting to offseason development of offensive and defensive schemes to implement to individual player development, etc.

 

[Outside Shot]

One slight adjustment would be to get rid of conference tournaments- especially for smaller conferences. That way you more likely ensure the best team gets the NCAA bid. Granted, they may get blown out too, but it could make a slight difference. It would also save a lot of wasted money.

 

[UcMiami]

iambcbs - absolutely correct.

You want parity in the women's game like they have in the men's game - its simple - start paying women's professional players $10+ million a year and watch the age of one and done come to women's basketball just like it has to the men's game.

What I find so annoying about these yearly stories is that not one of them ever looks at what allows the Butlers of the mens world to compete - they have 21-22 yr olds playing against 18-19 yr olds who don't have a clue about team ball. Butler gets to coach their players for four years - KS gets them for one, maybe two at the most. They have all the talent, but none of the maturity of a Butler. Uconn keeps the talent for four years as does FGCU so FGCU does not have the built in advantage of maturity that Bulter has with the men. I am all for women pros getting lots of money, but until financial interests tempt players, the best thing is for the quality of women's coaching at younger levels to improve so the talent pool expands.

As for those rules changes - just lost a lot of respect for that coach! Lets make hack a shooter a winning strategy - I don't think so - we have enough injuries as it is. And lets change the fundamentals of the game - heck why don't we go back to players only being able to play offense or defense and not cross the center court line, because after all, girls really shouldn't be expected to be athletes! and us coaches can't be expected to coach defensive schemes to handle ball screens! or offenses that can employ them!!!

 

[Huskies Rule]

When opposing coaches say that UCONN has the best players as a way of explaining why they have just been pounded by the Huskies they do a disservice to the craft of coaching as a whole.
Over the last ten years Duke, ND, Stanford, Baylor and now South Carolina have had recruiting classes considered the equal of Uconn's but have not had the same success. It is easy for opposing coaches to say that "We got some good players but we didn't get Maya Moore, or Breanna Stewart." What they don't ask of themselves is what would they have done with them if they did have them?
Baylor recruited Griner and the world expected them to march to four (or at least three) National Championships. It didn't go that way.
Notre Dame got Diggins and a great supporting cast and they have performed exceptionally well without grabbing the ring.
Stewie may now be the considered great but we all remember Geno sitting her as a freshman when we could have used her points, and as beloved as Stephanie Dolson became to us she started at Uconn as a project; (although a very talented one) but in order for her to develop into the star that she became Geno had to break her down and build her back up into an All-American.
Over the last thirty years he's done that with almost all of his great players. He devlopes talent while others often squander it.
If all that it took to win was to put talented players on the court, there would be a different National Champion every year.
College sports is about three things. Coaching, coaching, coaching.

*Excellent post, B. Great points. I was perturbed by the NYTimes article in which the writer denigrates the NCAA tournament because a few teams are dominant (especially that evil empire in the Northeast) and those unfortunate #14, 15 and 16 seeds never ever win and are "not even in the same ballparks their opponents." Isn't that what happens when a mediocre team plays a really good team, in any sport? FGCU coach Smesko wants to address that unfairness in a semi-delirious manner by instituting rules changes, like "reducing fouls shots from two to one and eliminating the ball screen entirely." Yikes! Better yet, no post-season tournament, have a post-season get-together, invite all wcbb teams-great, mediocre, and poor- give every team a trophy, pass out marshmellows, sing kumbaya. FSU's Sue Semrau declared, "We want parity," and for her apparently the best way to achieve that is not by developing her own players right out of high school, but by putting a starting five on the floor composed entirely of D1 transfers, kids who have already had success at other schools.

*Geno, as always, has the answer, which few like, to the thorny issue of parity- Coaches need to do a better job coaching. He is not going to lower the bar at UConn to allow others to catch up. That's their job. It is the job of other coaches to make their teams and individual players better. There has been and continues to be lots of really really talented athletes in the women's game, and several schools regularly bring in recruiting classes rated higher than UConn's, as bonpland points out. [I think Azure Stevens at Duke has the potential to be really great- let's see if her coach brings that out and enables her to reach her full potential. I thought the same when I first saw Elizabeth Williams and the result after 4 years is kind of disappointing. I can't help but wonder how much of a difference top coaching would have made here.] And it isn't just about developing the highly recognized, talented HS kids- what Geno accomplished with a kid of (I think) better-than-average skills but huge heart and determination- Kelly Faris- is another example of the seminal importance of great coaching. I don't believe Kelly would have reached those heights without GA and CD. Same for Stef (stealing from bonpland). Sorry, rambling rambling rambling.....

* UConn is so damn dominant because it has the greatest coaches in the game. Anson Dorrance's UNC women's soccer team won 16 NCAA Championships in a span of 19 years!!! Domination. John Wooden's UCLA team won 10 championships in 12 years!!! Domination. Red Auerbach's Boston Celtics won 11 NBA titles in 13 years!!! Phil Jackson's Chicago Bulls won 6 NBA titles in 8 years!!! All these teams had great players, but they also had THE BEST COACHES of their time, and GREAT COACHES = CHAMPIONSHIPS.

 

[Tidepool]

I wonder if some of the lack of overall parity -- and I'm not talking about UConn vs. everyone else, but about parity up and down the bracket --is the result of what I suspect is a substantially smaller number of girls than boys playing BB in middle school and high-school. With a smaller pool of bb players to draw on, there isn't as much female talent to distribute among the various colleges, and so parity necessarily suffers. This means that the real problem is getting more girls involved before college. That's something that having a dominant, universally recognized team like UConn -- with players ranging in size from MoJet to Stewie -- might actually encourage. (E.g., Mon'e Davis.)

 

[baylorprof]

Forget "parity" in a 64-team tourney. As much as it seemed the agressive and Title IX-kind-of-thing to do when we expanded to 64, there are not 64 women's teams --- regardless of Geno's analysis on better coaching -- available to make up a fair tourney--there are not 65 COACHES capable of leveling up their game to make 64 teams capable of parity.

Either go back to 32, or devise a "play -in" pre-tourney to give say, top 4 finishers in the play in tourney one of the spots in each of the 4 regions (ie. THE tourney qualifies 28 teams and the "pre"-tourney qualifies 4. Gives a chance for 4 really good coaches at 4 really small schools or lesser conferences to have a chance to experience the Dance, and to grow, and perhaps those coaches make careeer moves to larger schools who send teams directly to the Dance of 28 bids.

The tourney as it is is weakened by expecting power 5 conferences to get half of its teams in the Dance. If you can't be better than mid-conference, then come back another year and play your way in to the upper echelon of your conference where you'll more than likely get a bit to the tourney of 28.

Will it escalate the whining of "not enough spots in the tourney"; "we belonged we just missed by one spot in our conference"; etc???? Surely it will, but default at that point to Geno. Stop whining and get better.

And I agree--while we're at it, stop the madness of a long 18 game season against fairly tough competition in most year as in our Big 12, and THEN put them through the ringer of playing 2,3,or even 4 consectutive nights in a conference tourney and and then turn around and 4 nights later be ready for NCAA Tourney play.

Not to mention, finding a way for the ladies to be STUDENT-athletes along the way.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Hard to get aroused over such a poorly done piece, and surprised it's in the NYTimes. The lack of cogency is sweeping. Sounds like a gee-whiz newcomer to the scene trying desperately to recycle old detritus in a feeble attempt to push the "great teams are bad" crap again. The "solutions" to this horrible malady are are unspeakable idiocy, and the writer seems to know little about the game and has a sketchy command of data and context. Though in wifi-less land and bereft of any tools at the moment to check stats, I'll ask:

1. So where is there any evidence to suggest that WCBB finals are less popular now because UConn pounded Louisville in two NCs? The fact that the Cards were in those games is proof of a certain amount of parity in the women's games. Last year's game featured two undefeated teams and was very popular among viewers. But to say that a UConn loss and having lesser name teams in the NC game is good for the sport without a shred of evidence is pathetic.

2. Yes, men get more parity by shipping off many of the best players after a year or two. Is that a good thing? Yes, for financial reasons the women have had to play many of its first two round pods on the top seed's court instead of on semi neutral courts. Also not a great thing. But is there any evidence that America would be slavering for the last four rounds of WCBB if eight of the final sixteen teams were little known programs? Guessing not.

3. Perhaps the most mindless statement is the idea that because only a handful of UConn of UConn's games were postseason games were settled by 3 or less points (remember they have also lost about 17 of them) that 97% were blow out bores from which the fans could leave early. 3 freaking points? Has the writer ever watched a b-ball game, and does the NYTimes have even minimal "stupid check" editorial oversight anymore? How many times have teams blown large leads at the end of games? But hey UConn had a 3 point lead with two minutes to go, so the fans were all running for the exits. Mindless.

4. There have been a lot of exciting games already in the Tourney, though that fact has escaped hatchet guy Czupryn. Not a

 

[EricLA]

Let me be blunt. The author is a bit of a moron. He says "Auriemma is not the only one to blame for the game’s disparity, although his having contributed to 71- and 72-point margins of victory in the round of 64, as he did in 2000 and 2001, made him an easy target"

REALLY? Auriemma is "to blame" for the lack of parity in the game? That might be one of the dumbest comments I've ever read where the author wasn't completely joking.

And maybe I didn't read the article close enough, but what is the solution? Decrease free throws and eliminate the ball screen? How about just play no defense at all and see which team gets to 200 first? Frankly I don't care at all about free throws - UCONN doesn't win because they get more free throws. But how is "tamping down" the better teams good for the game? It would make for closer scores of completely unwatchable basketball. At least UCONN plays aesthetically pleasing hoops...

 

[geneticrex]

I have had it with this notion of parity as somehow being a panacea.

When it comes to recruiting players, it isn't like UConn has an unfair, or institutional lock on the top players. There are numerous universities that routinely attract top level talent and routinely underachieve, including institutions with greater appeal than UConn on a variety of fronts.

This entire "parity" arguement smacks of communism, where an equal OUTCOME is the goal, which quite frankly, makes me a tad unfriendly and I hate it when I get unfriendly.

 

[hussybulldog]

I suggested in another thread, maybe for WCBB, they should use a swiss system, the teams will be playing more or less with the teams at similar level, and all the games could be more competitive. It is pathetic to whine, we do not hear the smaller countries whining during the Olympics for not being able to earn a medal.

 

[Aluminny69]

If you want parity (mediocrity), then go watch the WNIT.

 

[hussybulldog]

If you want parity (mediocrity), then go watch the WNIT.

Great idea! Send this to Karl Smesko (FGCU coach)! He suggested to reduce foul shot from two to one, I think he fantasizes about seeing women oil wrestling on the basket ball court.

 

[Beemer]

It isn't as if Geno has a super secret formula for success. He has been very open about how he coaches- anyone and everyone is welcome to observe.

I don't remember this much whining when Tennessee was so dominant in the 1990s so why all the wailing now? There was no talk about changing the game itself to end their run , it was raise your team's game to their level & beyond.

 

[ctdad]

It isn't as if Geno has a super secret formula for success. He has been very open about how he coaches- anyone and everyone is welcome to observe.

I don't remember this much whining when Tennessee was so dominant in the 1990s so why all the wailing now? There was no talk about changing the game itself to end their run , it was raise your team's game to their level & beyond.

ND alum and parent here, but I second the above. Geno didn't whine when Tennessee and Louisiana Tech were dominating the WBB world in his early years. He saw them as targets, recruited harder and smarter, and built better teams, closing the gap until he got that first special team that beat the titans of the day and could do so consistently. But building the first winner was the easy part. A lot of coaches have been there for a year or 2. The tougher task was maintaining the excellence and that is where Geno has really separated himself from his peers.

McGraw didn't whine at ND. Same formula, this time with UConn (and to a lesser extent, Tennessee) as the targets. Eventually, she got Diggins and McBride, who were the nexus of teams that could take on the Huskies and win their fair share of games. McGraw's weakness has been getting an elite big; the teams they have lost to in the tournamant have had big and good to great post players (Dolson, Griner, etc.) It's not coincidence that her one title came with an elite big in Ruth Riley. It will be interesting to see how Turner develops along those lines..

But as successful as McGraw has been (she has won almost 700 games at ND with 6 final fours), Geno remains the gold (or maybe platinum) standard; the John Wooden of the women's game.

 

[UcMiami]

Just one thing on the 'why everyone is whining now when they didn't in the 1990 with TN domination' - real answer - because no one in national media or in most parts of the country was really paying attention.

Uconn in 1995 lit up national attention and provided one of several teams that seriously challenged TN domination. TN still won their 3 in a row, but it was never easy and they never strung together the 50/70/90 game win streaks.

 

[meyers7]

One slight adjustment would be to get rid of conference tournaments- especially for smaller conferences. That way you more likely ensure the best team gets the NCAA bid. Granted, they may get blown out too, but it could make a slight difference. It would also save a lot of wasted money.

Sorry. Title IX.

 

[iamcbs]

One slight adjustment would be to get rid of conference tournaments- especially for smaller conferences. That way you more likely ensure the best team gets the NCAA bid. Granted, they may get blown out too, but it could make a slight difference. It would also save a lot of wasted money.

Outside~

I would take your concept one step further and get rid of conference tournaments altogether. All that they do is make a mockery of the Regular Season. The best team in a a conference is proven during the season. That team has one off day and loses a bid to the NCAA Tournament, especially in the mid-majors which usually only get one team in anyway. A clear example is St. Francis Brooklyn this season, they finished 9-9 in their conference and 14-15 overall. Was it parity that NEC Regular Season Champ Bryant didn't get the NCAA Tournament bid? The NCAA should do what states around the nation do with High School State Championship Tournaments, eliminate 3 non-conference games and let everyone into the tournament. They'd only need 2 extra days and no one could complain.

 

[cabbie191]

I have had it with this notion of parity as somehow being a panacea.

When it comes to recruiting players, it isn't like UConn has an unfair, or institutional lock on the top players. There are numerous universities that routinely attract top level talent and routinely underachieve, including institutions with greater appeal than UConn on a variety of fronts.

I am tying your response to what C. Viv said in her press conference posted elsewhere on the BY. The lack of parity is not that UConn gets the best players at the expense of other schools.

It's because the UConn staff does a much better job of recruiting excellent players WHO WILL ALSO fit into the system the coaches use. And that system is total TEAM play with solid offense, great defense, and incredible passing, with emphasis on the passing.

 

[ctdad]

Outside~

I would take your concept one step further and get rid of conference tournaments altogether. All that they do is make a mockery of the Regular Season. The best team in a a conference is proven during the season. That team has one off day and loses a bid to the NCAA Tournament, especially in the mid-majors which usually only get one team in anyway. A clear example is St. Francis Brooklyn this season, they finished 9-9 in their conference and 14-15 overall. Was it parity that NEC Regular Season Champ Bryant didn't get the NCAA Tournament bid? The NCAA should do what states around the nation do with High School State Championship Tournaments, eliminate 3 non-conference games and let everyone into the tournament. They'd only need 2 extra days and no one could complain.

I used to think that way. Then I realized that the conference tournaments essentially do allow everyone in; it's just that for the top 30 or so teams, it's a modified form of double elimination.