01-25-2018, 10:48 AM
Espn w has a list of their top 10 college prospects including all 4 classes. On the list are 4 on ours:
Clark
Jones
Fudd
Brink
Clark
Jones
Fudd
Brink
OLD WBB Recruiting: With updates
01-25-2018, 11:11 AM
(01-25-2018, 10:48 AM)BobK link Wrote:Espn w has a list of their top 10 college prospects including all 4 classes. On the list are 4 on ours:Thanks, Bob! Here's the link:
Clark
Jones
Fudd
Brink
http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article...basketball
(01-25-2018, 10:48 AM)BobK link Wrote:Espn w has a list of their top 10 college prospects including all 4 classes. On the list are 4 on ours:Thanks, Bob! Here's the link:
Clark
Jones
Fudd
Brink
http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article...basketball
01-25-2018, 12:44 PM
01-25-2018, 06:27 PM
I liked the article by Dan Olson ranking the top 10 prospects in high school regardless of class. I imagine he limited it to just US players because I have to believe that Laeticia Amihere would be a must have on that list. There is a Vice magazine article that calls her the future of women's basketball. If we add Amihere then its 5 potential recruits out of the top 11. This is highly abnormal for us. We usually only have a shot at 1 super top tier recruit across multiple class years. If one or more chooses Stanford, it could be our chance to return to the national championship chase. And yes we did great last year but I am talking about the Ogwumike years where a final four was an expectation and anything less than a national championship was a disappointment.
I liked the article by Dan Olson ranking the top 10 prospects in high school regardless of class. I imagine he limited it to just US players because I have to believe that Laeticia Amihere would be a must have on that list. There is a Vice magazine article that calls her the future of women's basketball. If we add Amihere then its 5 potential recruits out of the top 11. This is highly abnormal for us. We usually only have a shot at 1 super top tier recruit across multiple class years. If one or more chooses Stanford, it could be our chance to return to the national championship chase. And yes we did great last year but I am talking about the Ogwumike years where a final four was an expectation and anything less than a national championship was a disappointment.
01-25-2018, 06:34 PM
(01-25-2018, 06:27 PM)BosCard link Wrote:I liked the article by Dan Olson ranking the top 10 prospects in high school regardless of class. I imagine he limited it to just US players because I have to believe that Laeticia Amihere would be a must have on that list. There is a Vice magazine article that calls her the future of women's basketball. If we add Amihere then its 5 potential recruits out of the top 11. This is highly abnormal for us. We usually only have a shot at 1 super top tier recruit across multiple class years. If one or more chooses Stanford, it could be our chance to return to the national championship chase. And yes we did great last year but I am talking about the Ogwumike years where a final four was an expectation and anything less than a national championship was a disappointment.
Isn't part of this the fact that a lot of them are underclassmen? I think during their sophomore years we would have been among the top schools for KLS, Diggins, Ionescu, etc. I guess I just think given our admissions hurdles, whether or not freshmen and sophomores SAY they want to come here doesn't necessarily mean it'll work out that way several years down the road. I am excited about Amihere because she's a junior, so there's probably more reason to think it's plausible.
But, all that caution aside, it'd be AWESOME if we could even get 2 or 3 of these 11. Could totally change our trajectory. I don't want to jinx it, but I have a weird good feeling about Fudd. It just seems like it's in the stars.
(01-25-2018, 06:27 PM)BosCard link Wrote:I liked the article by Dan Olson ranking the top 10 prospects in high school regardless of class. I imagine he limited it to just US players because I have to believe that Laeticia Amihere would be a must have on that list. There is a Vice magazine article that calls her the future of women's basketball. If we add Amihere then its 5 potential recruits out of the top 11. This is highly abnormal for us. We usually only have a shot at 1 super top tier recruit across multiple class years. If one or more chooses Stanford, it could be our chance to return to the national championship chase. And yes we did great last year but I am talking about the Ogwumike years where a final four was an expectation and anything less than a national championship was a disappointment.
Isn't part of this the fact that a lot of them are underclassmen? I think during their sophomore years we would have been among the top schools for KLS, Diggins, Ionescu, etc. I guess I just think given our admissions hurdles, whether or not freshmen and sophomores SAY they want to come here doesn't necessarily mean it'll work out that way several years down the road. I am excited about Amihere because she's a junior, so there's probably more reason to think it's plausible.
But, all that caution aside, it'd be AWESOME if we could even get 2 or 3 of these 11. Could totally change our trajectory. I don't want to jinx it, but I have a weird good feeling about Fudd. It just seems like it's in the stars.
01-25-2018, 06:41 PM
If indeed all 5 are admittable that is a rare opportunity for Stanford. Tara deserves one more NC before she retires. We have a frosh, two sophs and two jrs on this list, could be absolutely awesome.
01-26-2018, 03:49 PM
2006alum, I think the fact that there are freshman on the list some of whom are very early in their recruiting process certainly is part of it. But I also think we are entering a time when there are quite a few top players who also have strong academics and want that kind of college experience. It isn't always like that. Here is a little experiment. If this was 2015, here are the top 3 players (HoopGurlz) from each of the next 4 recruiting classes:
2015 - Katie Lou Samuelson, Asia Durr, Jessica Shepard
2016 - Lauren Cox, Joyner Holmes, Crystal Dangerfield
2017 - Megan Walker, Evina Westbrook, Rellah Boothe
2018 - Christyn Williams, Charli Collier, Shakira Austin
Of these 12 players, the only one who was strongly considering Stanford was Samuelson. We had one shot at a top top player and we missed. Having 5 shots in the upcoming cycle of recruiting feels much better.
2015 - Katie Lou Samuelson, Asia Durr, Jessica Shepard
2016 - Lauren Cox, Joyner Holmes, Crystal Dangerfield
2017 - Megan Walker, Evina Westbrook, Rellah Boothe
2018 - Christyn Williams, Charli Collier, Shakira Austin
Of these 12 players, the only one who was strongly considering Stanford was Samuelson. We had one shot at a top top player and we missed. Having 5 shots in the upcoming cycle of recruiting feels much better.
2006alum, I think the fact that there are freshman on the list some of whom are very early in their recruiting process certainly is part of it. But I also think we are entering a time when there are quite a few top players who also have strong academics and want that kind of college experience. It isn't always like that. Here is a little experiment. If this was 2015, here are the top 3 players (HoopGurlz) from each of the next 4 recruiting classes:
2015 - Katie Lou Samuelson, Asia Durr, Jessica Shepard
2016 - Lauren Cox, Joyner Holmes, Crystal Dangerfield
2017 - Megan Walker, Evina Westbrook, Rellah Boothe
2018 - Christyn Williams, Charli Collier, Shakira Austin
Of these 12 players, the only one who was strongly considering Stanford was Samuelson. We had one shot at a top top player and we missed. Having 5 shots in the upcoming cycle of recruiting feels much better.
2015 - Katie Lou Samuelson, Asia Durr, Jessica Shepard
2016 - Lauren Cox, Joyner Holmes, Crystal Dangerfield
2017 - Megan Walker, Evina Westbrook, Rellah Boothe
2018 - Christyn Williams, Charli Collier, Shakira Austin
Of these 12 players, the only one who was strongly considering Stanford was Samuelson. We had one shot at a top top player and we missed. Having 5 shots in the upcoming cycle of recruiting feels much better.
02-19-2018, 11:26 AM
(02-19-2018, 11:13 AM)BobK link Wrote:Jenna Brown is now one of the 5 finalist for the HS Naismith award
Awesome to hear! I'm having a hard time finding prior finalists and only finding past winners. Our last one was Chiney. Have we had any finalists since? I'm assuming since Kiana Williams was named to the second team when the final trophy awards were announced last year, that that means she was a semi-finalist but not a finalist? Hopefully this means her #20 ESPNW ranking was an underranking due to her having to sit out last season with an injury. I remember that at one point in time she was a top ten recruit.
(02-19-2018, 11:13 AM)BobK link Wrote:Jenna Brown is now one of the 5 finalist for the HS Naismith award
Awesome to hear! I'm having a hard time finding prior finalists and only finding past winners. Our last one was Chiney. Have we had any finalists since? I'm assuming since Kiana Williams was named to the second team when the final trophy awards were announced last year, that that means she was a semi-finalist but not a finalist? Hopefully this means her #20 ESPNW ranking was an underranking due to her having to sit out last season with an injury. I remember that at one point in time she was a top ten recruit.
02-19-2018, 11:36 AM
(02-19-2018, 11:26 AM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=BobK link=topic=18526.msg224336#msg224336 date=1519063989]
Jenna Brown is now one of the 5 finalist for the HS Naismith award
Awesome to hear! I'm having a hard time finding prior finalists and only finding past winners. Our last one was Chiney. Have we had any finalists since? I'm assuming since Kiana Williams was named to the second team when the final trophy awards were announced last year, that that means she was a semi-finalist but not a finalist? Hopefully this means her #20 ESPNW ranking was an underranking due to her having to sit out last season with an injury. I remember that at one point in time she was a top ten recruit.
[/quote]
Yes, that's fantastic news. Maybe that will mean she can come in next fall and push for a starting role or at least significant minutes early on. A backcourt of Williams and Brown could be spectacular over the next 3 years.
You think in this day and age, looking up past finalists of a national, well-known award would not be so difficult. You think the Atlanta Tipoff Club (I think the organization that gives out the award) would provide that information more readily on their website.
(02-19-2018, 11:26 AM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=BobK link=topic=18526.msg224336#msg224336 date=1519063989]
Jenna Brown is now one of the 5 finalist for the HS Naismith award
Awesome to hear! I'm having a hard time finding prior finalists and only finding past winners. Our last one was Chiney. Have we had any finalists since? I'm assuming since Kiana Williams was named to the second team when the final trophy awards were announced last year, that that means she was a semi-finalist but not a finalist? Hopefully this means her #20 ESPNW ranking was an underranking due to her having to sit out last season with an injury. I remember that at one point in time she was a top ten recruit.
[/quote]
Yes, that's fantastic news. Maybe that will mean she can come in next fall and push for a starting role or at least significant minutes early on. A backcourt of Williams and Brown could be spectacular over the next 3 years.
You think in this day and age, looking up past finalists of a national, well-known award would not be so difficult. You think the Atlanta Tipoff Club (I think the organization that gives out the award) would provide that information more readily on their website.
02-19-2018, 03:44 PM
Naismith High School Girls Player of the Year Finalists along with their ESPN Hoopgurlz ranking in brackets:
2017 - Rellah Boothe (3), Dana Evans (9), Anastasia Hayes (7), Megan Walker (1), Evina Westbrook (2)
2016 - Erin Boley (5), Lauren Cox (1), Crystal Dangerfield (3), Joyner Holmes (2), Jackie Young (11)
2015 - Napheesa Collier (6), Te'a Cooper (12), Asia Durr (2), Lashann Higgs (7), Katie Lou Samuelson (1)
My takeaway is that the finalists are almost always top 10 level players and that ESPN Hoopgurlz has Jenna quite underrated at #20 in the class of 2018.
2017 - Rellah Boothe (3), Dana Evans (9), Anastasia Hayes (7), Megan Walker (1), Evina Westbrook (2)
2016 - Erin Boley (5), Lauren Cox (1), Crystal Dangerfield (3), Joyner Holmes (2), Jackie Young (11)
2015 - Napheesa Collier (6), Te'a Cooper (12), Asia Durr (2), Lashann Higgs (7), Katie Lou Samuelson (1)
My takeaway is that the finalists are almost always top 10 level players and that ESPN Hoopgurlz has Jenna quite underrated at #20 in the class of 2018.
Naismith High School Girls Player of the Year Finalists along with their ESPN Hoopgurlz ranking in brackets:
2017 - Rellah Boothe (3), Dana Evans (9), Anastasia Hayes (7), Megan Walker (1), Evina Westbrook (2)
2016 - Erin Boley (5), Lauren Cox (1), Crystal Dangerfield (3), Joyner Holmes (2), Jackie Young (11)
2015 - Napheesa Collier (6), Te'a Cooper (12), Asia Durr (2), Lashann Higgs (7), Katie Lou Samuelson (1)
My takeaway is that the finalists are almost always top 10 level players and that ESPN Hoopgurlz has Jenna quite underrated at #20 in the class of 2018.
2017 - Rellah Boothe (3), Dana Evans (9), Anastasia Hayes (7), Megan Walker (1), Evina Westbrook (2)
2016 - Erin Boley (5), Lauren Cox (1), Crystal Dangerfield (3), Joyner Holmes (2), Jackie Young (11)
2015 - Napheesa Collier (6), Te'a Cooper (12), Asia Durr (2), Lashann Higgs (7), Katie Lou Samuelson (1)
My takeaway is that the finalists are almost always top 10 level players and that ESPN Hoopgurlz has Jenna quite underrated at #20 in the class of 2018.
02-20-2018, 10:12 AM
I'm adding 2018 to the list. In addition to Brown, Collins seems under-ranked by ESPN HoopGurlz. Another thing I noticed is how concentrated the recruiting of these top players has been to only a handful of schools. It's the same usual suspects and we can expect UConn to continue to be dominant with Texas possibly challenging them (as they did in their game this year). Tennessee seems to have underperformed it's recruiting. It's pretty unbalanced that of the 20 best players coming out of the last 4 recruiting classes, 65% of them went to 3 schools (UConn, Texas and Tennessee)
Number of Naismith finalists from the last 4 years of recruiting (note: lists committed school out of high school and does not reflect transfers):
UConn - 5
Texas - 4
Tennessee - 4
Baylor - 2
Notre Dame - 2
Louisville - 2
Stanford - 1
2018 - Charli Collier (2), Christyn Williams (1), Jenna Brown (20), Aquira DeCosta (4), Amira Collins (69)
2017 - Rellah Boothe (3), Dana Evans (9), Anastasia Hayes (7), Megan Walker (1), Evina Westbrook (2)
2016 - Erin Boley (5), Lauren Cox (1), Crystal Dangerfield (3), Joyner Holmes (2), Jackie Young (11)
2015 - Napheesa Collier (6), Te'a Cooper (12), Asia Durr (2), Lashann Higgs (7), Katie Lou Samuelson (1)
Number of Naismith finalists from the last 4 years of recruiting (note: lists committed school out of high school and does not reflect transfers):
UConn - 5
Texas - 4
Tennessee - 4
Baylor - 2
Notre Dame - 2
Louisville - 2
Stanford - 1
2018 - Charli Collier (2), Christyn Williams (1), Jenna Brown (20), Aquira DeCosta (4), Amira Collins (69)
2017 - Rellah Boothe (3), Dana Evans (9), Anastasia Hayes (7), Megan Walker (1), Evina Westbrook (2)
2016 - Erin Boley (5), Lauren Cox (1), Crystal Dangerfield (3), Joyner Holmes (2), Jackie Young (11)
2015 - Napheesa Collier (6), Te'a Cooper (12), Asia Durr (2), Lashann Higgs (7), Katie Lou Samuelson (1)
I'm adding 2018 to the list. In addition to Brown, Collins seems under-ranked by ESPN HoopGurlz. Another thing I noticed is how concentrated the recruiting of these top players has been to only a handful of schools. It's the same usual suspects and we can expect UConn to continue to be dominant with Texas possibly challenging them (as they did in their game this year). Tennessee seems to have underperformed it's recruiting. It's pretty unbalanced that of the 20 best players coming out of the last 4 recruiting classes, 65% of them went to 3 schools (UConn, Texas and Tennessee)
Number of Naismith finalists from the last 4 years of recruiting (note: lists committed school out of high school and does not reflect transfers):
UConn - 5
Texas - 4
Tennessee - 4
Baylor - 2
Notre Dame - 2
Louisville - 2
Stanford - 1
2018 - Charli Collier (2), Christyn Williams (1), Jenna Brown (20), Aquira DeCosta (4), Amira Collins (69)
2017 - Rellah Boothe (3), Dana Evans (9), Anastasia Hayes (7), Megan Walker (1), Evina Westbrook (2)
2016 - Erin Boley (5), Lauren Cox (1), Crystal Dangerfield (3), Joyner Holmes (2), Jackie Young (11)
2015 - Napheesa Collier (6), Te'a Cooper (12), Asia Durr (2), Lashann Higgs (7), Katie Lou Samuelson (1)
Number of Naismith finalists from the last 4 years of recruiting (note: lists committed school out of high school and does not reflect transfers):
UConn - 5
Texas - 4
Tennessee - 4
Baylor - 2
Notre Dame - 2
Louisville - 2
Stanford - 1
2018 - Charli Collier (2), Christyn Williams (1), Jenna Brown (20), Aquira DeCosta (4), Amira Collins (69)
2017 - Rellah Boothe (3), Dana Evans (9), Anastasia Hayes (7), Megan Walker (1), Evina Westbrook (2)
2016 - Erin Boley (5), Lauren Cox (1), Crystal Dangerfield (3), Joyner Holmes (2), Jackie Young (11)
2015 - Napheesa Collier (6), Te'a Cooper (12), Asia Durr (2), Lashann Higgs (7), Katie Lou Samuelson (1)
02-20-2018, 04:09 PM
This is what is wrong with WCBB - "It's pretty unbalanced that of the 20 best players coming out of the last 4 recruiting classes, 65% of them went to 3 schools (UConn, Texas and Tennessee)." Makes it worse or maybe better, not sure which really, that TN makes such poor use of all the talent they get. Imagine if those players were spread out more. Maybe Geno would have a bit more trouble winning every game.
This is what is wrong with WCBB - "It's pretty unbalanced that of the 20 best players coming out of the last 4 recruiting classes, 65% of them went to 3 schools (UConn, Texas and Tennessee)." Makes it worse or maybe better, not sure which really, that TN makes such poor use of all the talent they get. Imagine if those players were spread out more. Maybe Geno would have a bit more trouble winning every game.
There's a chicken and egg problem here: Geno is probably indisputably the best coach in terms of player development. I actually think Tara out-coaches him in terms of on court strategy, scouting, etc., but I don't think she develops her players' skills and playing abilities to the same degree that UConn does. If you're a top player and you want to go pro, why wouldn't you go to the place where you think you're most likely to develop your playing abilities? Stanford is one of the few places that makes a compelling counter-argument, because Tara is right there with the best, and Stanford is a 40-year decision in a way that UConn is not. But I can hardly blame KLS for choosing UConn when her prospects of being a top professional player were substantially better than Bonnie or Karlie.
There are also several factors specific to women's basketball that make it more difficult to achieve parity:
One is that the talent pool is smaller and shallower for women's basketball, and I think that leads to more clustering at the top. According to this, there are 550,000 boy's high school participants per year compared to 430,000 girls, and yet there are approx. 4,380 men's DI bball scholarships per year as compared to approx. 5,025 women's scholarship. That adds up to 125 high school boys eligible for each DI athletic scholarship as compared to 85 high school girls per scholarship. That means the bottom half of the DI talent pool is shallower, which also means weaker competition against top teams, less parity, more separation between the top of conferences, and clearer perennial blue chip programs.
I suspect, although I have no hard data, that the pool to coach women's programs is also shallower, as all other things equal, the pay would be so much better for coaching men's teams that most top coaches would understandably gravitate there. That leaves a smaller number of coaches like Geno, Tara, and Pat Summitt to distinguish themselves far more than one sees in the men's game. The talent is then going to cluster where the most talented coaches are.
The other problem is a shallower fan base: women's march madness has its Top 16 teams host its first two rounds because it ensures more butts in seats, but that means top teams also get home court advantage through the Sweet Sixteen. This reduces upsets, which in turn reduces perceptions of parity. They used to host at neutral sites for the first two rounds but attendance was so much worse at neutral sites that they abandoned it in favor of the current model. And they often host regional sites in places like Connecticut, Indiana, and Texas because those sites regularly get large turnout, but they also happen to be sites where there are top schools that more or less get a close-to-home-field advantage.
Finally, part of it is inherent in the sport of basketball. You only need two or three superstars to field a top team. It's easier to reload, it takes less work to get a team to gel, and there are so many scoring opportunities that fluke plays are far less significant than in soccer, football, or baseball. Basketball is much more a game of numbers; the more shots taken, the more likely the better team is to prevail over time.
I'm not sure that any of these factors is easily addressed. To some degree, over time I think the professonalization of the sport will help; John Wooden's dominance at UCLA in the 70s was arguably even more lopsided than Geno's has been at UConn or Summitt's was at Tenn in the 90s. The Celtics won 8 in a row in the late 50s and early 60s with Bill Russell, and the Bulls won 6 championships in 8 years with Jordan. Given the increasing $ and talent in the NBA, that kind of dominance seems improbable anymore, even with stacked teams like the Warriors. I think women's basketball will get there eventually, but for now, we'll continue to see a smaller number of perennial contenders.
There are also several factors specific to women's basketball that make it more difficult to achieve parity:
One is that the talent pool is smaller and shallower for women's basketball, and I think that leads to more clustering at the top. According to this, there are 550,000 boy's high school participants per year compared to 430,000 girls, and yet there are approx. 4,380 men's DI bball scholarships per year as compared to approx. 5,025 women's scholarship. That adds up to 125 high school boys eligible for each DI athletic scholarship as compared to 85 high school girls per scholarship. That means the bottom half of the DI talent pool is shallower, which also means weaker competition against top teams, less parity, more separation between the top of conferences, and clearer perennial blue chip programs.
I suspect, although I have no hard data, that the pool to coach women's programs is also shallower, as all other things equal, the pay would be so much better for coaching men's teams that most top coaches would understandably gravitate there. That leaves a smaller number of coaches like Geno, Tara, and Pat Summitt to distinguish themselves far more than one sees in the men's game. The talent is then going to cluster where the most talented coaches are.
The other problem is a shallower fan base: women's march madness has its Top 16 teams host its first two rounds because it ensures more butts in seats, but that means top teams also get home court advantage through the Sweet Sixteen. This reduces upsets, which in turn reduces perceptions of parity. They used to host at neutral sites for the first two rounds but attendance was so much worse at neutral sites that they abandoned it in favor of the current model. And they often host regional sites in places like Connecticut, Indiana, and Texas because those sites regularly get large turnout, but they also happen to be sites where there are top schools that more or less get a close-to-home-field advantage.
Finally, part of it is inherent in the sport of basketball. You only need two or three superstars to field a top team. It's easier to reload, it takes less work to get a team to gel, and there are so many scoring opportunities that fluke plays are far less significant than in soccer, football, or baseball. Basketball is much more a game of numbers; the more shots taken, the more likely the better team is to prevail over time.
I'm not sure that any of these factors is easily addressed. To some degree, over time I think the professonalization of the sport will help; John Wooden's dominance at UCLA in the 70s was arguably even more lopsided than Geno's has been at UConn or Summitt's was at Tenn in the 90s. The Celtics won 8 in a row in the late 50s and early 60s with Bill Russell, and the Bulls won 6 championships in 8 years with Jordan. Given the increasing $ and talent in the NBA, that kind of dominance seems improbable anymore, even with stacked teams like the Warriors. I think women's basketball will get there eventually, but for now, we'll continue to see a smaller number of perennial contenders.
There's a chicken and egg problem here: Geno is probably indisputably the best coach in terms of player development. I actually think Tara out-coaches him in terms of on court strategy, scouting, etc., but I don't think she develops her players' skills and playing abilities to the same degree that UConn does. If you're a top player and you want to go pro, why wouldn't you go to the place where you think you're most likely to develop your playing abilities? Stanford is one of the few places that makes a compelling counter-argument, because Tara is right there with the best, and Stanford is a 40-year decision in a way that UConn is not. But I can hardly blame KLS for choosing UConn when her prospects of being a top professional player were substantially better than Bonnie or Karlie.
There are also several factors specific to women's basketball that make it more difficult to achieve parity:
One is that the talent pool is smaller and shallower for women's basketball, and I think that leads to more clustering at the top. According to this, there are 550,000 boy's high school participants per year compared to 430,000 girls, and yet there are approx. 4,380 men's DI bball scholarships per year as compared to approx. 5,025 women's scholarship. That adds up to 125 high school boys eligible for each DI athletic scholarship as compared to 85 high school girls per scholarship. That means the bottom half of the DI talent pool is shallower, which also means weaker competition against top teams, less parity, more separation between the top of conferences, and clearer perennial blue chip programs.
I suspect, although I have no hard data, that the pool to coach women's programs is also shallower, as all other things equal, the pay would be so much better for coaching men's teams that most top coaches would understandably gravitate there. That leaves a smaller number of coaches like Geno, Tara, and Pat Summitt to distinguish themselves far more than one sees in the men's game. The talent is then going to cluster where the most talented coaches are.
The other problem is a shallower fan base: women's march madness has its Top 16 teams host its first two rounds because it ensures more butts in seats, but that means top teams also get home court advantage through the Sweet Sixteen. This reduces upsets, which in turn reduces perceptions of parity. They used to host at neutral sites for the first two rounds but attendance was so much worse at neutral sites that they abandoned it in favor of the current model. And they often host regional sites in places like Connecticut, Indiana, and Texas because those sites regularly get large turnout, but they also happen to be sites where there are top schools that more or less get a close-to-home-field advantage.
Finally, part of it is inherent in the sport of basketball. You only need two or three superstars to field a top team. It's easier to reload, it takes less work to get a team to gel, and there are so many scoring opportunities that fluke plays are far less significant than in soccer, football, or baseball. Basketball is much more a game of numbers; the more shots taken, the more likely the better team is to prevail over time.
I'm not sure that any of these factors is easily addressed. To some degree, over time I think the professonalization of the sport will help; John Wooden's dominance at UCLA in the 70s was arguably even more lopsided than Geno's has been at UConn or Summitt's was at Tenn in the 90s. The Celtics won 8 in a row in the late 50s and early 60s with Bill Russell, and the Bulls won 6 championships in 8 years with Jordan. Given the increasing $ and talent in the NBA, that kind of dominance seems improbable anymore, even with stacked teams like the Warriors. I think women's basketball will get there eventually, but for now, we'll continue to see a smaller number of perennial contenders.
There are also several factors specific to women's basketball that make it more difficult to achieve parity:
One is that the talent pool is smaller and shallower for women's basketball, and I think that leads to more clustering at the top. According to this, there are 550,000 boy's high school participants per year compared to 430,000 girls, and yet there are approx. 4,380 men's DI bball scholarships per year as compared to approx. 5,025 women's scholarship. That adds up to 125 high school boys eligible for each DI athletic scholarship as compared to 85 high school girls per scholarship. That means the bottom half of the DI talent pool is shallower, which also means weaker competition against top teams, less parity, more separation between the top of conferences, and clearer perennial blue chip programs.
I suspect, although I have no hard data, that the pool to coach women's programs is also shallower, as all other things equal, the pay would be so much better for coaching men's teams that most top coaches would understandably gravitate there. That leaves a smaller number of coaches like Geno, Tara, and Pat Summitt to distinguish themselves far more than one sees in the men's game. The talent is then going to cluster where the most talented coaches are.
The other problem is a shallower fan base: women's march madness has its Top 16 teams host its first two rounds because it ensures more butts in seats, but that means top teams also get home court advantage through the Sweet Sixteen. This reduces upsets, which in turn reduces perceptions of parity. They used to host at neutral sites for the first two rounds but attendance was so much worse at neutral sites that they abandoned it in favor of the current model. And they often host regional sites in places like Connecticut, Indiana, and Texas because those sites regularly get large turnout, but they also happen to be sites where there are top schools that more or less get a close-to-home-field advantage.
Finally, part of it is inherent in the sport of basketball. You only need two or three superstars to field a top team. It's easier to reload, it takes less work to get a team to gel, and there are so many scoring opportunities that fluke plays are far less significant than in soccer, football, or baseball. Basketball is much more a game of numbers; the more shots taken, the more likely the better team is to prevail over time.
I'm not sure that any of these factors is easily addressed. To some degree, over time I think the professonalization of the sport will help; John Wooden's dominance at UCLA in the 70s was arguably even more lopsided than Geno's has been at UConn or Summitt's was at Tenn in the 90s. The Celtics won 8 in a row in the late 50s and early 60s with Bill Russell, and the Bulls won 6 championships in 8 years with Jordan. Given the increasing $ and talent in the NBA, that kind of dominance seems improbable anymore, even with stacked teams like the Warriors. I think women's basketball will get there eventually, but for now, we'll continue to see a smaller number of perennial contenders.
02-20-2018, 05:08 PM
(02-20-2018, 04:09 PM)chimera link Wrote:This is what is wrong with WCBB - "It's pretty unbalanced that of the 20 best players coming out of the last 4 recruiting classes, 65% of them went to 3 schools (UConn, Texas and Tennessee)." Makes it worse or maybe better, not sure which really, that TN makes such poor use of all the talent they get. Imagine if those players were spread out more. Maybe Geno would have a bit more trouble winning every game.
Just not enough top players to go around. Maybe they need a draft! Although I cant think of how that would work. Katie Lou Samuelson to South Dakota State has a nice ring to it. ð
(02-20-2018, 04:09 PM)chimera link Wrote:This is what is wrong with WCBB - "It's pretty unbalanced that of the 20 best players coming out of the last 4 recruiting classes, 65% of them went to 3 schools (UConn, Texas and Tennessee)." Makes it worse or maybe better, not sure which really, that TN makes such poor use of all the talent they get. Imagine if those players were spread out more. Maybe Geno would have a bit more trouble winning every game.
Just not enough top players to go around. Maybe they need a draft! Although I cant think of how that would work. Katie Lou Samuelson to South Dakota State has a nice ring to it. ð
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »