A Sea Of Red

Sure, it's just women's basketball, but breaking UConn's winning steak is still a pretty big deal.

The streak was great for the sport.

The streak being broiken is great for the sport.

Losing a game is great for this UConn team.

I still have to say winning 90 games straight in women's isn't as impressive as coach wooden's record for men. The fact of the matter is there is much more parody between teams. Such as the 82 to 11 game last night. UConn does play some fairly decent teams OOC however. (Unlike the big 10 men's teams who play upstate michigan panhandle communiity college).

Still an impressive record no doubt. Just not as big as ESPN kept hyping up the thing to be.

"The next time you have a thought...let it go." -Ron White

Jbock, there is quite a bit of "parody" in your brief post.

From their marketing and promotion standpoints, ESPN did exactly what it should have done in handling a series of momentous events taking place within a sport for which it holds a great deal of the TV rights, including all 63 games of the NCAA Tournament.

I only wish ESPN hadn't compared UConn's incredible record so heavily to UCLA's (though I understand why, and that such a comparison is a Catch-22 in that it is the only way in which the feat gains the traction that it does). Such a comparison underscores the problem Women's Basketball has in attracting as a deep a fanbase as men's basketball enjoys nationally. Let me say this as clearly as possible: Women's Basketball and Men's Basketball are two entirely different sports; they are NOT the same sport played by different kinds of people. They are played in very different ways, by very different individuals, and according to an entirely separate set of rules. Furthermore, each sport is governed entirely separately by the NCAA, the NAIA, the NCCAA, and even the NFHS.

When fans begin to realize this (And believe me, I am realistic to the likelihood of that.), then they will be able to enjoy the sport. One must understand a different sport differently before they can hope to fully appreciate its intricacies, and this applies to all sports; its just disappointing that it applies to so few "fans" of collegiate athletics.

I meant that in women's basketball there are few great teams? As opposed to men's basketball? I wasn't attacking ESPN for covering it, just obsessively talking on and on about it.

In women's basketball, there are a few elite teams. Baylor, uconn, stanford, tennessee, I'm sure there are like 4 others. The rest are good teams, but have no chance at beating the 4 teams I just mentioned. This is where you get games such as 82 to 11.

In men's, upsets are more frequent because there is a more level competition. Teams such as davidson of 2008, for example, could play with the like of UNC or Duke.

I'm not saying womens sports aren't as important, in my opinion basketball is basketball no matter who is playing it. But to compare womens and mens sports in basketball is like comparing LU winning 20 straight games in the big south, to duke winning 18 straight in the acc. While both are still impressive, there is much more parody between the teams in the big south than the acc.

Hope that helps clarify what I meant

I think the word you are looking for is parity...not parody...grab a dictionary sometime and look em both up

WBB and MBB are pretty much 2 different sports. However, the parity reasoning for how the streaks are different is inaccurate. UCLA did not run their streak in the 90s. They ran theirs at a time when they won 10 championships in 11 years. Doesn't really sound like there was much parity in men's basketball in the late 60s early 70s. Sounds fairly parallel to the women's basketball of today. Possibly worse.

BJWilliams wrote:I think the word you are looking for is parity...not parody...grab a dictionary sometime and look em both up

Haha oops yeah youre right

UConn was beating the #2 team in the country by 20 points during this streak. They were head and shoulders better than everybody. Parity or not, they were freaking good.

SJ makes a valid point about beating the number 2 team and how they dominated everyone they played...

but then you look at the bottom of the barrel and see games where teams can't even muster 20 points and turn the ball over 40 times against good teams (not great teams like UConn) and you realize that a good portion of UConn's wins were virtually a night off.

For example: Holy Cross, Howard, Sacred Heart, Lehigh. Teams that, if this were Men's Basketball, would have a shot at competing with a top 5 team. In women's basketball, however, games like these are decided when the contract to play the game is signed. None of these games were ever remotely close. Presby can hang with top 5 Kansas State for 3/4 of a game, but if this were women's basketball, that same lowly Big South school would have been run out of the building within 5 minutes of play.

I can't compare to the UCLA streak because, frankly, I wasn't alive and have never really researched. I just know I'm not as impressed with the winning streak as I am with the Championships. It's one thing to beat up every random team you play in the season, It's another to keep not losing under all the pressure in the world and win a title. The winning streak was kinda "eh" to me, I think a lot of the games in it are just cheap filler wins. The rings they've earned during the streak are impressive, tho.

ToTheLeft wrote:SJ makes a valid point about beating the number 2 team and how they dominated everyone they played...

but then you look at the bottom of the barrel and see games where teams can't even muster 20 points and turn the ball over 40 times against good teams (not great teams like UConn) and you realize that a good portion of UConn's wins were virtually a night off.

For example: Holy Cross, Howard, Sacred Heart, Lehigh. Teams that, if this were Men's Basketball, would have a shot at competing with a top 5 team. In women's basketball, however, games like these are decided when the contract to play the game is signed. None of these games were ever remotely close. Presby can hang with top 5 Kansas State for 3/4 of a game, but if this were women's basketball, that same lowly Big South school would have been run out of the building within 5 minutes of play.

I can't compare to the UCLA streak because, frankly, I wasn't alive and have never really researched. I just know I'm not as impressed with the winning streak as I am with the Championships. It's one thing to beat up every random team you play in the season, It's another to keep not losing under all the pressure in the world and win a title. The winning streak was kinda "eh" to me, I think a lot of the games in it are just cheap filler wins. The rings they've earned during the streak are impressive, tho.

I agree with this here.

Even as someone who has an appreciation for the womens game, the streak hype was nauseating. If UConn were located anywhere other than around the corner from the Worldwide Leader we probably wouldn't have had the overkill. But everything in the State of Connecticut is overdone because the producers of Sportscenter live there and get caught up in local hype.

Sly Fox wrote:Even as someone who has an appreciation for the womens game, the streak hype was nauseating. If UConn were located anywhere other than around the corner from the Worldwide Leader we probably wouldn't have had the overkill. But everything in the State of Connecticut is overdone because the producers of Sportscenter live there and get caught up in local hype.

Sly Fox wrote:Even as someone who has an appreciation for the womens game, the streak hype was nauseating. If UConn were located anywhere other than around the corner from the Worldwide Leader we probably wouldn't have had the overkill. But everything in the State of Connecticut is overdone because the producers of Sportscenter live there and get caught up in local hype.

what else in the state is there to get caught up in though?

I disagree that is why they covered them so much. They cover things to better benefit themselves and if they hype it up more people will watch meaning higher ad revenue...

Its all about the money and they have mastered it....they have a Heat segment everyday and that is hardly around the corner from their studio...they just believe it will benefit them.

Could you explain the fixation on Boston & New York sports? Producers are human beings who live in a real world. To believe that they are not heavily influenced by proximity is a leap of faith I am not prepared to make. And for the record, I am friends with many of their producers including a number who worked for me once upon a time when I was in that business.

Sly Fox wrote:Could you explain the fixation on Boston & New York sports? Producers are human beings who live in a real world. To believe that they are not heavily influenced by proximity is a leap of faith I am not prepared to make. And for the record, I am friends with many of their producers including a number who worked for me once upon a time when I was in that business.

Sly, I would argue it's probably the East Coast bias that the media has, especially in the sports world. Secondly, New York's metropolitan market consists of around 20 million people, around 7% of all Americans. Boston has about 5 million, around 2%. Keep in mind by those stats, I'm only counting as what the census considers as a metropolitan market, meaning not every area that feels an affinity to a certain market is counted (for example, I live 150 miles from Washington D.C, however many sports fans have a preference for DC teams).

Of course, there's more to it, but that's just my take on it.

ESPN is a business, and businesses exist to make money. This particular one makes money by selling advertising on its various mediums. If consumers are not watching their networks, listening to their radio station, or reading their magazine - then their advertising sells for less or nothing at all. In order to attract consumers, they report the news most important to the highest volume of consumers. Its simple logic and math. I can't believe I'm having to explain this!

Additionally, they have launched LA, chicago, and Dallas sub-networks for those markets. They would be stupid to NOT have an east coast bias; American citizens have proven they have one as well.

Sly Fox wrote:Could you explain the fixation on Boston & New York sports? Producers are human beings who live in a real world. To believe that they are not heavily influenced by proximity is a leap of faith I am not prepared to make. And for the record, I am friends with many of their producers including a number who worked for me once upon a time when I was in that business.

When they play it equals great ratings for them...that is why. I get annoyed with ESPN just as much as the next guy, but the Boston/New York thing has statistical data to back up why ESPN obsesses over them as opposed to lets say Texas sports...like it or not, that is the truth

Suffice it to say that I have very direct knowledge of this subject matter and I will leave it there.

And for the record, ESPN could throw up color bars for a half hour and still pull numbers. They have no discernible competition.

you don't need to have direct knowledge to know why espn operates the way they do. They are a business and have succeeded where others have failed...your inside info means nothing in this conversation to be honest...

You act as if ESPN is monolithic being ... it is a company made up of individuals who are influenced by many sources.

let's turn this thread into something more interesting, like bashing ESPN. Can you believe the monopoly they've got on bowl games this year? This network has grown into a monster as competition has been snuffed out or made insignificant (FSN, CBS CS, etc). They pretty much own the NCAA at this point.

I love bashing ESPN and Sportscenter in particular.

There hasn't been a legitimate challenger to ESPN except for a brief attempt by Fox Sports Net using their regionals a decade or so ago. The suits in Bristol have played the numbers game perfectly with cable providers to make sure no one really could mount a serious challenge The only real challenge I see on the horizon for ESPN is when the next major paradigm shift occurs in content delivery. When location on satellite/cable/fiber is no longer an impediment to competitors I expect to see localization becoming a factor that might eventually deem national networks as secondary players. But that is still several years down the line.

Sly Fox wrote:You act as if ESPN is monolithic being ... it is a company made up of individuals who are influenced by many sources.

really?? thanks for clearing that up!! haha

but seriously...I can't stand ESPN and avoid watching them as much as I can...but they are very good at what they do and no other organization has been even able to come close to being as successful as they have been. They do what brings them ratings just like any other network...what brings them ratings is what annoys me..