[81alum]

A few thoughts on physicality in the women's game and pretty ball vs. ugly ball...

While I agree that pretty ball is more fun to watch, I do like that the women's game is getting more physical. All you have to do is look at how physical the men's game is (and has been for quite some time) and that's the evolution the women will go through. Long term I think it's a good thing that the women's game is evolving this way. Just like Steph, Ja, et al, there's a premium for guards who can attack, pass, and shoot it from deep, thereby making physical defenses less effective. It will be great fun to see if Clark can get it done against So Carolina, and to watch her and Bueckers next year.

This past season, as many have observed, Tara couldn't figure out a way to effectively compete against this defensive style of play given our personnel. Our natty team had Lexie and Kianna, 2 players who were much harder to contain and could combat the physicality with their skillset. I think Tara would be the first to say she would love to have a bunch of guards who could all shoot the 3, attack the basket and pull up from midrange. But really, the women's game has historically been dominated by bigger players and is still evolving from it. There are so many more hall of fame womens players like Leslie, Parker, Griner, Della-Donne, Stewart, etc etc. than Taurasi. The game is still developing and the pool of these elite guards is quite shallow. Stanford is dealt a much tougher hand when it comes to signing the few players that have these capabilities, so we often don't have them on our roster. But...it's going to change. 10 years from now, there will be many more of these guards because the Clarks and Bueckers will get rewarded and the younger players will model their game accordingly. With more of those type of guards in the game, we'll see less and less teams like Ole Miss. And so it will go...

I also really roll my eyes whenever I read a post about player safety, the refs better get control or someone's gonna get hurt, etc. when it comes to physical play. No one ever says that about a men's game where players are constantly being helped off the court. What would people think if the women's players and coaches whined about the game being "dangerous" at press conferences? "Oh, it's just the sissy women". These players are athletes and competitors and basketball is a contact sport. They aren't scared. They aren't whining. So why do some folks feel like they need to be protected?

You may well be right about the direction the game is going, but I don't believe it is a good thing.  It is a very old debate about WBB that has never really been resolved--because it is fundamentally unresolvable--about whether WBB should strive to close the differences with MBB, or whether WBB should be a distinctive game in its own right.  I'm in the latter camp--I think WBB has more to offer by being different than by being the same.

To that end, I've heard Tara and various WBB analysts over the years speculate about rules changes that might open the game up and make it more  offensive.  The two that sound intriguing are 1) creating a larger, trapezoidal key, and 2) imposing a 3 second rule for all players in the key--not just offensive players.

The former has been done in some basketball leagues, but it would not be possible to do it for the women and not the men, given that they share the same gyms.  The latter, however, seems to have real promise, and I think would be worth one of those "experimental" years.

[81alum]

A few thoughts on physicality in the women's game and pretty ball vs. ugly ball...

While I agree that pretty ball is more fun to watch, I do like that the women's game is getting more physical. All you have to do is look at how physical the men's game is (and has been for quite some time) and that's the evolution the women will go through. Long term I think it's a good thing that the women's game is evolving this way. Just like Steph, Ja, et al, there's a premium for guards who can attack, pass, and shoot it from deep, thereby making physical defenses less effective. It will be great fun to see if Clark can get it done against So Carolina, and to watch her and Bueckers next year.

This past season, as many have observed, Tara couldn't figure out a way to effectively compete against this defensive style of play given our personnel. Our natty team had Lexie and Kianna, 2 players who were much harder to contain and could combat the physicality with their skillset. I think Tara would be the first to say she would love to have a bunch of guards who could all shoot the 3, attack the basket and pull up from midrange. But really, the women's game has historically been dominated by bigger players and is still evolving from it. There are so many more hall of fame womens players like Leslie, Parker, Griner, Della-Donne, Stewart, etc etc. than Taurasi. The game is still developing and the pool of these elite guards is quite shallow. Stanford is dealt a much tougher hand when it comes to signing the few players that have these capabilities, so we often don't have them on our roster. But...it's going to change. 10 years from now, there will be many more of these guards because the Clarks and Bueckers will get rewarded and the younger players will model their game accordingly. With more of those type of guards in the game, we'll see less and less teams like Ole Miss. And so it will go...

I also really roll my eyes whenever I read a post about player safety, the refs better get control or someone's gonna get hurt, etc. when it comes to physical play. No one ever says that about a men's game where players are constantly being helped off the court. What would people think if the women's players and coaches whined about the game being "dangerous" at press conferences? "Oh, it's just the sissy women". These players are athletes and competitors and basketball is a contact sport. They aren't scared. They aren't whining. So why do some folks feel like they need to be protected?

You may well be right about the direction the game is going, but I don't believe it is a good thing.  It is a very old debate about WBB that has never really been resolved--because it is fundamentally unresolvable--about whether WBB should strive to close the differences with MBB, or whether WBB should be a distinctive game in its own right.  I'm in the latter camp--I think WBB has more to offer by being different than by being the same.

To that end, I've heard Tara and various WBB analysts over the years speculate about rules changes that might open the game up and make it more  offensive.  The two that sound intriguing are 1) creating a larger, trapezoidal key, and 2) imposing a 3 second rule for all players in the key--not just offensive players.

The former has been done in some basketball leagues, but it would not be possible to do it for the women and not the men, given that they share the same gyms.  The latter, however, seems to have real promise, and I think would be worth one of those "experimental" years.