[BillBradley]

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?

I think it's possible you missed men's basketball as played in the 90s.  That type of bully ball was rejected by many players and led to the rule changes that ALLOWED for Steph and the more free-wheeling basketball we see now.  Far from allowing laissez-faire officiating, the sport ruling bodies stepped in hard to preserve the beauty of the game.  In fact, a lot of players/coaches think the NBA in particular may have cracked down TOO hard on defense.  

I don't think we support women's advancement in sport by allowing the modern equivalent of the Pat Riley coached 90s Heat.

Hah! My wife only wishes you were correct. I doubt there's anyone on this board who watched more basketball in the 90's than yours truly :>
Sure, the rule changes helped make the men's game more open, but I don't understand what that has to do with anything I posted. 

We all see things differently, and that's OK. But from my perspective, the defenses that Stanford saw this year were "physical" and "packed in", but they were not "bully ball". That term has been thrown around on this board, but I don't agree at all that's what we're seeing in the evolution of the women's sport. I'd really appreciate if someone could show me some clips of what they mean by "bully ball". There aren't players getting clotheslined out there for goodness sake. Colorado is the team that comes up in this discussion a lot. That intimidating lineup of Jaylynn Sherod, Frieda Forman,  Kyndall Wetta, Quay Miller, and Aaronette Vonleh. Really? 

"Physical", in my book, is part of the game, and can be used strategically to take away advantages from other teams. And while it can be very frustrating to all of us to see our players not be able to overcome it, I don't think it's ruining the sport to see physical, packed in defenses. It's an age old strategy. I just wish we would have made more layups through the contact and we would have easily advanced in the tourney.

[BillBradley]

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?

I think it's possible you missed men's basketball as played in the 90s.  That type of bully ball was rejected by many players and led to the rule changes that ALLOWED for Steph and the more free-wheeling basketball we see now.  Far from allowing laissez-faire officiating, the sport ruling bodies stepped in hard to preserve the beauty of the game.  In fact, a lot of players/coaches think the NBA in particular may have cracked down TOO hard on defense.  

I don't think we support women's advancement in sport by allowing the modern equivalent of the Pat Riley coached 90s Heat.

Hah! My wife only wishes you were correct. I doubt there's anyone on this board who watched more basketball in the 90's than yours truly :>
Sure, the rule changes helped make the men's game more open, but I don't understand what that has to do with anything I posted. 

We all see things differently, and that's OK. But from my perspective, the defenses that Stanford saw this year were "physical" and "packed in", but they were not "bully ball". That term has been thrown around on this board, but I don't agree at all that's what we're seeing in the evolution of the women's sport. I'd really appreciate if someone could show me some clips of what they mean by "bully ball". There aren't players getting clotheslined out there for goodness sake. Colorado is the team that comes up in this discussion a lot. That intimidating lineup of Jaylynn Sherod, Frieda Forman,  Kyndall Wetta, Quay Miller, and Aaronette Vonleh. Really? 

"Physical", in my book, is part of the game, and can be used strategically to take away advantages from other teams. And while it can be very frustrating to all of us to see our players not be able to overcome it, I don't think it's ruining the sport to see physical, packed in defenses. It's an age old strategy. I just wish we would have made more layups through the contact and we would have easily advanced in the tourney.