Aunt Bea is very unhappy over the lack of interest in the UConn women

I was thinking that. He would be a fairly close second.

 

Superb point. The media does not belong to the NCAA. The media has no obligation to boost UConn female basketball. If anything, Geno being the world-class dickhead he is is a detriment.

 

Never interviewed Geno, but I have seen him at his best after a loss. (Emphasis on sarcasm when I say best.)

 

Hahahaha that is fantastic.

 

What the UConn women are doing is impressive. But how many truly good women's teams are out there? I doubt it's even 10. How many times each season is there a realistic chance they could lose? I'm guessing it's about 3-4 times a year, including the tournament.

Even the best men's team this year will play 12-15 games not counting the tournament where there is a very real chance they could lose.

Brennan sucks. I'll bet USA Today would love to cut her loose, but doesn't feel like dealing with a lawsuit or the bad publicity that would come with it.

"They let me go because nobody cares about the sports I write about!!!!"

 

The fatal flaw in her argument: We MUST equate the two because it's "college" and "basketball", but we can ignore the fact that it's "men" and "women."


If I beat Stephen Hawking in 89 consecutive tennis matches, I sure don't consider my run to be "better" than Rafael Nadal winning 88 consecutive matches. "Same sport" doesn't mean shit when you ignore all other variables.

 

There is simply no comparison of the level of competition UCLA faced in its 88 wins and that faced by UConn in its streak. The latter is an amazing record by itself, but it's not as much of an accomplishment. In terms of competition (not overall level of play, as who's to judge), women's ball just does not (and never has) match up. The sport is a history of dynasties who weren't much bothered by peasant uprisings, from Immaculata College until today.
It is, or should be, possible to admire an accomplishment for itself without making ridiculous claims for it which simply don't stand up to objective scrutiny.

 

Brennan is even dumber than I thought. Equitable coverage? Wait until the swimming team hears this.

Meanwhile, UConn football is playing Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl ...

 

If a Division III men's team was on the verge of winning its 89th game in a row, does Christine Brennan write anything about it? Of course not.

 

It bothers me a great deal that she cites a series of typical reactions, but does not attribute these to anyone in particular, then tells us that if we haven't hear them, we just aren't paying enough attention:

It'll always be a women's record, not the real record.

UConn and UCLA are apples and oranges. You can't compare them.

They don't play the same game.

I'm not saying those thoughts are not out there. But she needs to attribute them, or else it's a straw man.

I also have a major issue with the first sentence: "It'll always be a women's record, not the real record." In my view, it is the real women's record.

Isn't that OK?

As far as the substance of the piece, women's sports just seem to be a niche entertainment industry at this point, appealing mostly to young girls, older girls who play basketball, and - I'm sorry if this is politically incorrect, but I think that market research would bear it out - lesbians.

I am not sure if it is the job of ESPN and the rest of the mainstream media to engage in boosterism.

 

Maybe next year she can just link to this thread.