UConn women win 89 in a row, breaking UCLA men's record

[kristie]

amazing if you ask me, & i watched this game on TV:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/recap?gameId=303550041

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

amazing if you ask me, & i watched this game on TV:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/recap?gameId=303550041

you cannot compare women's records and men's.

 

[kristie]

you cannot compare women's records and men's.

why's that?

 

[casmith07]

you cannot compare women's records and men's.

This. Not very amazing considering the level of competition. Still a feat, but to say that they've "broken the men's record" is quite a bit more than just a stretch, in my opinion.

 

[Reality]

why's that?

Normally, I would be applauding and cheering the accomplishments of women in sports but in this case, I have to agree. The reason is that the number of elite players in women's college basketball is quite small. There are a lot of good women basketball players but there are a limited number of elite female players.

Because the number of elite women players is so limited, they tend to end up at the same universities on the same team. This is the equivalent of comparing an all-star team against other teams and acting like they accomplished something impressive when they win.

In men's basketball, the number of elite players is much larger forcing those players to spread out among many teams in order to get more playing time, especially in their freshmen/sophomore years. This makes it much harder for any team to go undefeated in a season much less win 89 games in a row.

I mean look at Uconn's 89th win .. it was against the 20th ranked team and they absolutely slaughtered them. The final score doesn't even begin to show how one-sided that game was. It was 54-27 at the half ..

Now, if they had played men's teams during those 89 wins, that would be impressive, but playing with several of the elite women's players on your team does not make winning a surprise .. it makes it a given.

-Reality

 

[joseephuss]

Normally, I would be applauding and cheering the accomplishments of women in sports but in this case, I have to agree. The reason is that the number of elite players in women's college basketball is quite small. There are a lot of good women basketball players but there are a limited number of elite female players.

Because the number of elite women players is so limited, they tend to end up at the same universities on the same team. This is the equivalent of comparing an all-star team against other teams and acting like they accomplished something impressive when they win.

In men's basketball, the number of elite players is much larger forcing those players to spread out among many teams in order to get more playing time, especially in their freshmen/sophomore years. This makes it much harder for any team to go undefeated in a season much less win 89 games in a row.

I mean look at Uconn's 89th win .. it was against the 20th ranked team and they absolutely slaughtered them. The final score doesn't even begin to show how one-sided that game was. It was 54-27 at the half ..

Now, if they had played men's teams during those 89 wins, that would be impressive, but playing with several of the elite women's players on your team does not make winning a surprise .. it makes it a given.

-Reality

I get what you are saying, but is that really so different than what UCLA was facing in the 1970s? There were few elite teams back then and tons of players from all over the country went to UCLA to play for Wooden.

 

[BehindEnemyLinez]

Normally, I would be applauding and cheering the accomplishments of women in sports but in this case, I have to agree. The reason is that the number of elite players in women's college basketball is quite small. There are a lot of good women basketball players but there are a limited number of elite female players.

Because the number of elite women players is so limited, they tend to end up at the same universities on the same team. This is the equivalent of comparing an all-star team against other teams and acting like they accomplished something impressive when they win.

In men's basketball, the number of elite players is much larger forcing those players to spread out among many teams in order to get more playing time, especially in their freshmen/sophomore years. This makes it much harder for any team to go undefeated in a season much less win 89 games in a row.

I mean look at Uconn's 89th win .. it was against the 20th ranked team and they absolutely slaughtered them. The final score doesn't even begin to show how one-sided that game was. It was 54-27 at the half ..

Now, if they had played men's teams during those 89 wins, that would be impressive, but playing with several of the elite women's players on your team does not make winning a surprise .. it makes it a given.

-Reality

Good point...

I get what you are saying, but is that really so different than what UCLA was facing in the 1970s? There were few elite teams back then and tons of players from all over the country went to UCLA to play for Wooden.

Better point...

All that said, it's still quite an accomplishment to run off 89 consecutive wins (it'll probably be over 100 when it's all said and done...their talent level is leaps & bounds over anyone else in the NCAA, hell, they'll beat a few WNBA squads)!!

 

[burmafrd]

I am old enough to remember those Wooden years. UCLA was in a class by itself back then; somewhat like UCONN is today. But back then there were NO schools that were real rivals with UCLA. UCONN has had Tennessee and lately Baylor has challenged them. UCLA had their streak snapped by Notre Dame when the Irish were at home and fired up. Baylor this year probably has the best chance to knock off UCONN; it was a toss up in November when they played. But to say it does not compare is BS.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Kirstie, when you compare, you end up having to choose and when you do, the women's team ALWAYS comes out behind. Face it, if UConn played in the men's division, they would never win a game.

Anika Sorenstam dominated women's golf and yet was atrocious in PGA, and before anyone brings up Billie Jean King and Bobbie Riggs, Riggs was an old man when he played her.

Men are stronger and better, nothing wrong with it.

The men's UCLA team would destroy this UConn women's team.

 

[joseephuss]

Kirstie, when you compare, you end up having to choose and when you do, the women's team ALWAYS comes out behind. Face it, if UConn played in the men's division, they would never win a game.

Anika Sorenstam dominated women's golf and yet was atrocious in PGA, and before anyone brings up Billie Jean King and Bobbie Riggs, Riggs was an old man when he played her.

Men are stronger and better, nothing wrong with it.

The men's UCLA team would destroy this UConn women's team.

No one is saying UConn could beat a men's team. They just think the accomplishments are comparable. I think that is a valid discussion and both sides have some good points.

 

[CanuckCowboysFan]

Normally, I would be applauding and cheering the accomplishments of women in sports but in this case, I have to agree. The reason is that the number of elite players in women's college basketball is quite small. There are a lot of good women basketball players but there are a limited number of elite female players.

Because the number of elite women players is so limited, they tend to end up at the same universities on the same team. This is the equivalent of comparing an all-star team against other teams and acting like they accomplished something impressive when they win.

In men's basketball, the number of elite players is much larger forcing those players to spread out among many teams in order to get more playing time, especially in their freshmen/sophomore years. This makes it much harder for any team to go undefeated in a season much less win 89 games in a row.

I mean look at Uconn's 89th win .. it was against the 20th ranked team and they absolutely slaughtered them. The final score doesn't even begin to show how one-sided that game was. It was 54-27 at the half ..

Now, if they had played men's teams during those 89 wins, that would be impressive, but playing with several of the elite women's players on your team does not make winning a surprise .. it makes it a given.

-Reality

Exactly. Thats why it was so impressive when NE went 16-0, only to lose in the SB but still.

 

[CATCH17]

Get back in the kitchen!

 

[peplaw06]

I am old enough to remember those Wooden years. UCLA was in a class by itself back then; somewhat like UCONN is today. But back then there were NO schools that were real rivals with UCLA. UCONN has had Tennessee and lately Baylor has challenged them. UCLA had their streak snapped by Notre Dame when the Irish were at home and fired up. Baylor this year probably has the best chance to knock off UCONN; it was a toss up in November when they played. But to say it does not compare is BS.

It absolutely does not compare. UConn has had what 5-10 games where there was a margin of 10 points or less in this streak? The level of play outside the top few teams in women's basketball is laughable.

They have had a long streak, give that to them. But don't compare it to the men. It's like saying the Harlem Globetrotters winning streak of 8,829 surpasses the Lakers win streak of 33 in 71-72. Or if a WNBA team had some streak like that. It's like comparing apples and duck-billed platypuses (platupi??)

 

[burmafrd]

As regards your problem with the comparison, don't feel too guilty. Its just your nature coming out.

 

[peplaw06]

As regards your problem with the comparison, don't feel too guilty. Its just your nature coming out.

Predictable... anyone who states the obvious -- that there is no comparison -- is sexist.

When you can't argue the point, resort to ad hominem.

And I don't feel guilty. Not in the least. I also wouldn't compare any streaks in women's softball to men's baseball.

 

[locked&loaded]

Get back in the kitchen!

:laugh2:

 

[burmafrd]

Predictable... anyone who states the obvious -- that there is no comparison -- is sexist.

When you can't argue the point, resort to ad hominem.

And I don't feel guilty. Not in the least. I also wouldn't compare any streaks in women's softball to men's baseball.

The funny part is that he actually believes this.

 

[peplaw06]

The funny part is that he actually believes this.

Do you ever say anything of substance on this board?

 

[joseephuss]

It absolutely does not compare. UConn has had what 5-10 games where there was a margin of 10 points or less in this streak? The level of play outside the top few teams in women's basketball is laughable.

They have had a long streak, give that to them. But don't compare it to the men. It's like saying the Harlem Globetrotters winning streak of 8,829 surpasses the Lakers win streak of 33 in 71-72. Or if a WNBA team had some streak like that. It's like comparing apples and duck-billed platypuses (platupi??)

UCLA had 16 games where they won by 10 or fewer points during their streak. Nine of those games came in the 1970-1971 season, which is when the streak began.

Men's basketball during the 1970s was very similar to where Women's basketball is now. I think the two things are comparable. Maybe not exactly equal, but there are some similarities. There are differences, too. UConn gets to play more games during a season. I believe their streak involved 3 different seasons, where as UCLA's crossed over 4 seasons.

I don't see how you can say it absolutely does not compare. That seems a bit extreme. It would also be extreme to say the streaks are identical and mean the exact same thing.

 

[peplaw06]

UCLA had 16 games where they won by 10 or fewer points during their streak. Nine of those games came in the 1970-1971 season, which is when the streak began.

Men's basketball during the 1970s was very similar to where Women's basketball is now. I think the two things are comparable. Maybe not exactly equal, but there are some similarities. There are differences, too. UConn gets to play more games during a season. I believe their streak involved 3 different seasons, where as UCLA's crossed over 4 seasons.

I don't see how you can say it absolutely does not compare. That seems a bit extreme. It would also be extreme to say the streaks are identical and mean the exact same thing.

The NCAA began sanctioning women's basketball in 1982. The NCAA began the men's basketball tournament in 1939. But there had been pre-tournament champions crowned before then.

There have been so many rules changes since UCLA went on its streak. There was no shot clock, no three point line, etc. I don't think men's basketball in the 70s is at all comparable to women's basketball. There were women's teams in the tournament last year who were struggling to make a lay up.

I specifically remember seeing one woman who was all alone attempt to make a layup near the end of a tournament game and fail. She got another shot a few seconds later and failed again. And this was not just a tournament game. This was a regional final, to go to the final four. It was Xavier's women's team, and they were playing Stanford.

Stanford by the way went on to play UConn in the finals... where they held UConn to 12 points in the first half. That's right, 12. The best women's team ever who is supposed to be compared to UCLA's teams of the 70s was held to 12 points in the first half of the title game!!

Sorry... I know it's still called "basketball," but it's two completely different games and levels of athleticism/competition.