G. Auremma will surpass all of (UCLA) J. Woodens records.
- Thread starter 12375CAT
- Start date
Not really. When wooden was winning at UCLA the sport wasn't nearly as deep as it is today. Not that much different than the women's game today where you really have 4-5 elite teams. Then a big gap.
there is one elite girls bb team, uconn...girls bb is just awful, unwatchable...imo
I think you will see it continue to get deeper. As the sport gets more national attention and such. I know this. The Horns are on the verge of being one of those elite teams.
Look at the recruiting classes Baylor and UT just signed. The nos.1 and 2 players in the country, the nos. 2 and 3 classes in the country. This is going to get good.
http://espn.go.com/high-school/girls-basketball/recruiting/class-rankings?class=2016
I respect women. I love basketball. But the two are not mutually exclusive.
If stuck in a world with only three channels and one of them happened to be women's basketball-- I would probably opt for either the Grass Growing channel or the Old People Fvcking network.
If stuck in a world with only three channels and one of them happened to be women's basketball-- I would probably opt for either the Grass Growing channel or the Old People Fvcking network.
Take a look at this, then see if you resume your zzzz's! Mulkey alone is worth the price of admission!
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/03/bay...hilariously-throws-her-jacket-into-the-stands
If high schools are 50% boys and 50% girls then why are boys able to field deep talent pools across multiple sports and not girls? Is it the coaching at the girl level just crap because there is no money?
Higher participation rate among males? Just guessing, but -- cheerleading, dance etc. take in a large amount of athletic ladies; then factor in the chauvinistic view that girls aren't ingrained with sports from age 1, allowing a large number to never participate or drop out earlier than their male counterparts. Then drop in the attitude on this board - the females see that the males look down their nose at their efforts.
That last one charges monthly, and can only be obtained by joining the realityporn.com group of websites. Or so I hear. anyway.
Because boys are built differently than girls and can compete in gladatorial sports better. They are faster and stronger, by and large. Watching sports, we want to see great athleticism (like Secretariat blowing away the entire horse racing world at the Belmont or Vince in the 2005 Rose Bowl), and males exhibit such athleticism better than females because they evolved to do that. Girl ball is slower and much less athletic; hence it is less entertaining to watch (unless May's bosoms pop out or something).
I wasn't comparing their ability to compete against each other. I was comparing each gender's ability to develop elite talent. There clearly aren't that many elite girl basketball players. That's evidenced by the domination of the sport by just a few schools. And I mean relatively as no girl is elite at basketball by men's standards.
It makes sense that girls participation in sports is likely well below boys for the reasons diadevic posted, therefore they can't develop talent at the same proportion as boys. Given that I would guess that several girls mainstream sports haven't seen much parity at the college level.
The question is could the UConn womans basketball team as good as they are beat any male college team at any level? Should explain the lack of any male interest. in their sport.
86 looks left....86 looks right.....
86 realizes that his porn hobby might have turned into a porn habit....
Most here know that I don't pull often for the Horns, but I did Monday evening.
And I am of the few who think that Geno is overrated. He had a chance to coach men and turned it down.
He has an interesting dynamics. There is always in any college sport, the rich get richer because everybody wants to go to a place more likely to win. But Geno has the PR machine at ESPN, located btw in Connecticut. I have officiated three decades of basketball and been on the court with some pretty good basketball players. But I don't know enough to coach much higher than 12 year olds. But If I had clearly the best recruits on the floor every season, I'd do all right.
Every NCAA tournament, we watch every minute of every NCAA tournament game that UConn plays, even when they lead 36-4 after the first quarter. And part of every broadcast includes how Geno is a genius and way better than every other coach in the solar system. How can he not get the greatest recruits every year? And with ESPN as your PR firm just down the road, even more attraction.
It is what it is, but we've already seen the effect on recruiting when the ESPN trumpeting of the SEC in football. It's all that focused into one school in women's basketball. I think Geno is a quality coach. But it's like playing roulette with a fixed wheel.
The way things turned out this year, The Longhorn Women likely have given UConn their toughest test of the tournament. So I guess congrats to the Longhorns.
And anybody who thinks Geno could coach like John Wooden ... uh no.
And I am of the few who think that Geno is overrated. He had a chance to coach men and turned it down.
He has an interesting dynamics. There is always in any college sport, the rich get richer because everybody wants to go to a place more likely to win. But Geno has the PR machine at ESPN, located btw in Connecticut. I have officiated three decades of basketball and been on the court with some pretty good basketball players. But I don't know enough to coach much higher than 12 year olds. But If I had clearly the best recruits on the floor every season, I'd do all right.
Every NCAA tournament, we watch every minute of every NCAA tournament game that UConn plays, even when they lead 36-4 after the first quarter. And part of every broadcast includes how Geno is a genius and way better than every other coach in the solar system. How can he not get the greatest recruits every year? And with ESPN as your PR firm just down the road, even more attraction.
It is what it is, but we've already seen the effect on recruiting when the ESPN trumpeting of the SEC in football. It's all that focused into one school in women's basketball. I think Geno is a quality coach. But it's like playing roulette with a fixed wheel.
The way things turned out this year, The Longhorn Women likely have given UConn their toughest test of the tournament. So I guess congrats to the Longhorns.
And anybody who thinks Geno could coach like John Wooden ... uh no.
Joined rivals several years ago mainly to keep up with recruiting news. I have only posted a few times over the years when someone makes a comment that hits a "nerve". I am a retired head high school basketball coach of 30 years- 5 years as a head boys' coach and 25 as a head girls' coach. So Plaino, let me get this straight. Geno Auriemma is over rated. This is because he chose to coach women and turned down a men's job. It seems as if you are implying that people who coach women are not good enough to coach men. What are their deficiencies? Are they lacking in x and 0 knowledge, motivational skills, planning and organizational abilities? Are they not as good in making in game adjustment (bench coaching)? News flash for you Plaino. The coaches of the men's game don't have a monopoly on basketball knowledge and coaching ability. In terms of fundamentals, offensive and defensive systems, and strategy, the men's game is not any more sophisticated than the women's game. After coaching boys for five years in a class 3A school, I decided to take 5A head girls job because it allowed me to be able to coach only basketball - no football, track, and other sports. I stayed on the girls side so that I could coach my daughter. She went to college on a basketball scholarship. Of course the men's game is more athletic and explosive and therefore more appealing to watch. But you know what Plaino? I used more strategy and system coaching in coaching girls than in coaching the guys. When you talk about Geno's success in terms of all the great talent he has had to work with, you seem to dismiss the notion that this talent still has to be motivated and molded into a team system. If you really knew anything about coaching you would know that sometimes getting a group of very talented players to subordinate their egos and play together is a very difficult coaching chore. I have several DVD's of Geno's practice drills. From what I have seen and read about him, he is a tough, hard nosed, no nonsense coach. He pushes his players and demands excellence. What if I said to you that John Wooden was a vastly over rated coach. He won because he had great talent the likes of Kareem Abdul Jabarr and Bill Walton. What if I dismissed the notion that despite all that great talent he had over the years he still had to develop a plan, put them in a system, and motivate them. I have heard him speak at clinics and I used many of his drills. As of this point in time I also believe that Coach Wooden is the greatest coach of all time. When Geno retires we will see what legacy he leaves behind. One more thing, Plaino. You say that you don't know enough about the game to coach past a group of 12 year olds. Yet if you had Geno's recruits you would do alright. In the words of former tennis great John McEnroe, "you can't be serious."
There was something that was said about Bear Bryant, who was probably the best college football coach of the 20th century: He could beat your'n with his'n. And he could be his'n with your'n.
I don't think that's the case with Geno. And I know it wouldn't be the case if he was coaching against the great men's basketball coaches in the country. He's a good coach. And he's created most of the greatness of UConn. But he ain't in Wooden's category. He's five categories below Wooden's category.
I wasn't claiming that I could win NC's with his talent. But I could be a decent women's coach with his talent. And the PR machine at ESPN is as important a factor in his recruiting and he is.
Of all that, I'm absolutely serious.
I don't think that's the case with Geno. And I know it wouldn't be the case if he was coaching against the great men's basketball coaches in the country. He's a good coach. And he's created most of the greatness of UConn. But he ain't in Wooden's category. He's five categories below Wooden's category.
I wasn't claiming that I could win NC's with his talent. But I could be a decent women's coach with his talent. And the PR machine at ESPN is as important a factor in his recruiting and he is.
Of all that, I'm absolutely serious.
Read Why Gender Matters. A pediatrician explains why everything we've been told about girls and boys is wrong. I raised 3 daughters who played elite tennis. Boys are exhilarated by risk. Girls get queasy.
So what you are saying is that the women's game is so inferior that even a limited knowledge guy like you could be a decent women's basketball coach if given enough talent. You and thousands of other people could do a decent job with enough talent. That is not the point . I will try to go slow here so as not to confuse you. Great coaches maximize the talent they have. You with your limited knowledge of basketball as well as not knowing anything about coaching women would be an absolute failure as a women' coach. But you keep deluding yourself into thinking you can coach. You didn't talk about the men. If you had the talent that Wooden had could you be a decent men's coach. A combination of arrogance and ignorance. Don't forget now if OU softball hitters go into slump to post your criticism of their stances as the reason they are not hitting. Also keep non expert fans up to date on pitchers release point as the only cause of their wildness. What a shame that Coach Gasso and Coach Lombardi don't realize what an all knowing resource they have in you. One more thing Plaino. Do you know with absolute certainty that Geno could not be successful coaching against the great men coaches in this country if he had chosen to coach men?
Don't think that's true at all. Women's soccer is more popular than men's and I seriously doubt they could beat the men. Women's tennis is more popular than men's and Serena Williams probably couldn't beat the #1 male. Rohnda Rousey couldn't beat a male fighter but she still draws serious money.
I think there are several things at play.
1 there is a population of this country that just doesn't want women playing sports.
2. As it relates to basketball the two games are different. In men's basketball you get the dunking and high flying and all that. Women's basketball you don't get thst. But it's more of a team game than men's ball.
We also have a double standard going on. Most people don't like women's basketball because they don't see a lot of the athletic ability, but if a woman was dunking and getting above the rim and all that can you imagine the things that would be written about her?
FWIW - women shoot free throws better.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...n-are-shooting-free-throws-better.html?pg=all
Yep. Have to. The men's game would actually be better if they focused on fundamentals more.
No, he is saying give him a near monopoly on the best talent in a sport where talent is hard to find, and he can field a winning team. That is almost certainly a true statement.
If my athletes are substantially better than anyone else's, I will likely field a winning team. As Runyon said, "The race is not always to swift nor the fight to the strong, but that is the way to bet."
In men's basketball or football, talent is available and no one can monopolize it, although Saban is making a pretty good stab at it.
In women's basketball, however, real difference-makers are pretty rare, and if you get the top 4-5 players every year on a single team, that team is going to win a lot of games.
Geno did not choose to coach the men, so we cannot know how he would have done had he made that choice. We can assume he did not think he would be as competitive since he ran from the challenge when it was made available.
While,it is true that Geno wins because he recruits the best talent. He has to be a great coach to. I mean kids started coming and continue to come to,play for him. He had to start by being a great coach. He's not recruiting in California, Texas, or Flordia. It's Connecticut for god sakes.
There is zero doubt in my mind that Geno and Pat Summit for that matter could coach men and be successful. I mean look at how man crappy coaches are out there.
There is zero doubt in my mind that Geno and Pat Summit for that matter could coach men and be successful. I mean look at how man crappy coaches are out there.
Geno makes $2 million a year, and has created a machine. UConn was nothing until he got there. Its possible he gets a little help from ESPN, but he started from scratch. And what is ESPN supposed to do - cover the No. 2 ranked team and skip No. 1? I don't think anyone doubts that great talent makes great teams, but, man, give the guy a break. I get it - you don't like women's hoops. That's ok. But I think its pretty sh*tty to p*ss all over him, his team, and the game because you don't like it. "Ran" from the challenge? Link? Give me $2 million/year and the highest profile job in my industry, and I am in.
FWIW - before there was Geno, there was Pat Summit, and he took her down. And he won a couple of titles while Baylor had Griner and Simms.
FWIW - before there was Geno, there was Pat Summit, and he took her down. And he won a couple of titles while Baylor had Griner and Simms.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Daily Soccer Threat - (1/14/25 - EPL returns/Jesus tears ACL)- Latest: thehornluva
-
-
-
