Tennessee/Stanford women's basketball vs. Men

Second Thoughts, I agree with your overall point, but Lobo was extremely overrated. She was really slow. Had good skills for a player her size, but that was it. The game has changed quite a bit since then.

Women's college sports were a joke before Title IX, so the growth and change over the 30-plus years since then has been dramatic, simply because it had so far to go.

And Demo, for a guy that has such a low opinion of women's basketball, Zag sure does spend a lot of time posting about it (cue ridiculous, off-topic post by Zag in 3....2....

 

Not true at all.

I actually enjoy some women's basketball.

What I hate is the (a) preachy, ridiculous attitude demanding that we pay attention by the Christine Brennan's of this world and (b) the incessant need to make claims like "the women's game has better fundamentals" or "women are better shooters" or "women play better team basketball" when in fact, that is just not true.

There is not one area where the women's game is superior to the men's. They are different games and if you can view them as different games, I have no problems with it.

It is just like this notion that the Williams sisters could compete with some men in the top 100 in tennis or the Nike creation will someday win a PGA Tour event -- it is ridiculous to even try and compare the two.

I enjoy women's tennis, I enjoy some women's basketball -- I do so because I don't try to compare them to the men.

I wish more people who are advocates for both could do the same.

 

But there is a difference between saying women are better shooters or have better fundamentals or play more as a team and saying they can beat the men.
The most fundamental, team-oriented, best-shooting high school team in America cannot compete with the worst NBA team. That is about athleticism, strength, etc. But that doesn't mean said H.S. team isn't better than the NBA team in some areas.

 

Horseshit. Look at the turnovers every game. Look at the foul-shooting. It's awful, even at the level of the women's final four. Call me a chauvanist pig, but I don't make up the stats.

The same thing bugs me about women's hoops as the LPGA: why can't the top women's teams make more foul shots and whyy can't the best LPGA players make more putts? They don't, in both cases.

 

I don't think many of you actually answered the question, though -- where would Tennessee rank as a men's team? I would imagine that this state's prep tate champs would beat them. Like I said -- I think they're NAIA or D-III, and probably not even a national championship contender at either of those levels. I just think they would at least be able to hold their own on most nights at those levels.

 

Yeah, I know, I guess you are next going to tell me there are no fundamentals in the NBA.....

Good lord -- do you know how good one has to be to be in the NBA? Have you ever watched an NBA team practice? Have you ever watched guys who are supposedly "not good shooters" sit there and make 14 out of 15 from beyond 3-point line in practice?

Again, there are not better fundamentals in the women's game than the men's game, they do not pass better and they do not shoot better either. In fact, most of them wouldn't have a prayer of getting a shot off in a men's game because their release isn't quick enough.

They generally turn the ball over more, they miss more lay-ups and they generally shoot for lower percentages --even though they are using a smaller ball.

If saying this makes me a chauvinist pig in your eyes, so be it, it is reality.

 

I answered it -- a great high school boys team would beat the Tennessee women by whatever number it wanted to. A good high school boys team would beat them soundly. An average high school boys team in a good basketball area would beat them.

I laughed out loud the other day when I had this same discussion with our shop's resident Christine Brennan as she was pontificating about how far the women's game has come to the point where the Lady Vols would likely make the NCAA Tournament in the men's field.

I told her the boys team that had lost in our district's semifinals would beat Tennessee by at least 25 -- if not more. She of course went ballistic on me and then I said, well let's see -- the center is 7-foot, they have a 6-8 and a 6-6 and a guard who is 6-4 and they are all far quicker, jump higher and are more athletic than Candace Parker. it is an asinine argument to try and make.

But other than that, yeah I can see your point........

 

I'm not saying you're a chauvinist, but you are watching different games than I am.
I see a more pure game when I watch the women. They work together better. They focus on defense more.
I don't have any statistics, but I know they don't have dunks to inflate their shooting percentages.
On average, a male D-I player is the much better athlete and player. The female spends more time working on the things necessary to win, though. She isn't after NBA dollars or SportsCenter highlights as much as he is.
He'll still dominate her every time.

 

Says you! What do you know about basketball?

 

That is all a stereotype and for the most part, fiction.

Again -- do you know how good you have to be to get a Division I scholarship in men's basketball? It is far more competitive than getting a scholarship for women's hoops and the bar is far higher because of that.

And the idea that being a better athlete means you are not as fundamentally sound (again, another silly stereotype) is ridiculous.

It is no different than this mythical notion that is always perpetuated that all-white teams are generally "smarter, more gritty, work harder and are better fundamentally and play better as a team and are better coached" than all-black teams "who just run n gun and can't shoot and can't be controlled."

Those kids from Kansas and Memphis played a lot of great team basketball over the past few weeks and if you think guys like Derrick Rose and Brandon Rush are fundamentally sound (of course, not as fundamentally sound as Tyler Hansbrough and Kevin Love in your book I'm sure) you are on crack.

 

I'm glad Candace Parker can dunk, but so can a lot of 10th grade boys.

Any college mens team would beat a women's team.

More size, plus more strength, plus more speed. It would not be close.

Look at it this way, a girl state champion in the 100 meter dash is a j.v. runner at best for a guy 100 meter runner. So even if this girls team has a bunch of state champion runners, they would still be slower than mens d-3 players.

 

Just curious, Zag. You say you enjoy some women's basketball. Care to expand on that, because from your posts, it appears you despise women's basketball.

I agree with your point, though. It's ridiculous to compare the two.