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

[IowaCowboyFan]

I will give them credit for streak and not getting beat... but i cannot give them credit for beating a men's winning streak because of the afore mentioned reasons

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

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.

You know, all of this is just sub-plot. In the final analysis, all that is really important is (and this goes for men or women's round ball) if Carolina beats Duke or if Duke beats Carolina.

 

[Stautner]

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.

What in the world does this have to do with anything?

A streak like this isn't related to whether men or women are better athletes, it's related to great recruiting, and dedicated players and great coaching and maintaining great consistency over a long period.

The recruiting, and the dedication and the consistency required for this kind of streak is what makes it amazing, not whether it was men or women that accomplished it.

 

[DFWJC]

Men's basketball during the 1970s was very similar to where Women's basketball is now.

This is just plain false.
No doubt that the Men's game is more competitive now than it was then. But there were MANY powerhouse programs back then (the usual supects of Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Indiana, etc, etc) and the Men's game back than was FAR more competitve than the women's game is now.

I will say this, almost all of the powers outside of UCLA back then were in the Midwest and East. UCLA did not have to face many of those teams until late in the NCAA tourney--which did it's much smaller brackets by geography back then.

I'll also add that UConn achievement is amazing. I just have a very hard time crossing gender when comparing stats or records. I'd almost rather compare UConn's streak to UNC Women's soccer records (which are way more impressive than UConn's feat and if you include titles, more similar to a UCLA-like run) and other women's teams accomplishments.

In any case, hat's off to UConn Women's hoops.

 

[Stautner]

This is just plain false.
No doubt that the Men's game is more competitive now than it was then. But there were MANY powerhouse programs back then (the usual supects of Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Indiana, etc, etc) and the Men's game back than was FAR more competitve than the women's game is now.

I will say this, almost all of the powers outside of UCLA back then were in the Midwest and East. UCLA did not have to face many of those teams until late in the NCAA tourney--which did it's much smaller brackets by geography back then.

I'll also add that UConn achievement is amazing. I just have a very hard time crossing gender when comparing stats or records. I'd almost rather compare UConn's streak to UNC Women's soccer records (whcih are way more impressive than UConn's feat) and other women's teams accomplishments.

Granted women's basketball doesn't have the same history as men's, but so many people are treating this as if women's basketball has just come out of the dark ages. It's not true. This isn't the days where women's basketball at the junior high and high school levels are second class citizens, or wheer there is no basketball available to girls before junior high. Girls grow up playing it everywhere in the country, and it is now a highly competative college sport.

A person might be able to argue that it still is a notch or so short of equalling men's basketball, but we are talking about a notch or so, not a massive chasm that a person can't see across.

And the fact remains that we aren't talking about a slam dunk contest where physical talent level is what matters, the amazing part of the streak is the all the factors it takes to be so good and so consistent for so long. For that it doesn't matter if you are talking about men or women. The factors are recruiting, player character and dedication, coaching etc ....... the ablitiy to maintain a high level game in and game out over and above what other teams are able to do is the impressive part.

 

[Kangaroo]

The real questions that should be asked

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound ?