Uconn wins 89 straight

[Rondo2287]

I just don't see them as equal.  I mean if the Bunker hill community college badmitton team won 90 straight matches would you consider it just as impressive? And would you say they broke the Uconn record? 

Absolutely!  Do you know how competitive badmitton is? (no really, do you know?  Because I sure don't)

Nope, I dont, this was hyperbole, just trying to make a point that the games are far to different to lump the uconn record into the same boat as the mens ucla record unless you are going to do the same for every NCAA sport.

[thirstyboots18]

Championships in any sports are still championships. Undefeated in any sport is difficult. Good is Good and Bad is Bad.  If an apple and a steak are rotten, they are not the same, but they are still both rotten.  Mittens and socks both keep your extremities warm, but even though they are knit out of yarn, you know they are different...

Some people prefer baseball to basketball.   Some people even prefer women's sports to men's sports.  I myself prefer women's tennis to men's...but NBA, in particular, the Boston Celtics, is my chosen spectator sport.  (By-the-way, how good are you at billiards or bridge?   )

Men are different than women.  Not better, different.  Accept it.  
 
Ending yet another rant!

Thirsty I 100 percent agree.  They are different.  So to say they hold the NCAA record for most wins in a row is incorrect unless you are willing to say a badmitton team that wins 90 games in a row trumps the uconn womens team.  They are different sports. 

And for the record I also prefer womens tennis, its a much purer form of the game, not as many Aces, much better rally's.  I also prefer watching womens golf to mens golf.

It is much more important to you if you are a member of the badminton team!

[Assassin70]

How did I know this topic was going to spiral out of control like this...sigh 

[bdm860]

I just don't see them as equal.  I mean if the Bunker hill community college badmitton team won 90 straight matches would you consider it just as impressive? And would you say they broke the Uconn record?  

They aren't equal, but the competitive standards that college women face aginst their fellow college women, are just as stringent, just as competitive, as what college men face against their opponents. NCAA women train just as hard, work just as hard, face the same academic challenges as men do.

Their competition, the other schools they face, have no less standards than the mens' programs do. It's not about comparing women to men, it's about comparing women to women, within the same NCAA rules, requirements, and challenges that NCAA men do.

With all due respect Bahku im gonna disagree with you here on two accounts. 

I just don't think the competitive balance is equal.  The reason March Madness is so great for guys is because anything can happen.  In womens basketball the talent gap is so wide that unless the top 3-4 teams are playing eachother the competition isnt there.  The gap between the first ranked team and 25th ranked team in womens bball is mind boggling.  If that same matchup were occuring in mens basketball its reasonable to assume the 25th ranked team has a chance to win. 

My second point that im going to disagree with you on is that I bet that the academic standards women have to live up to are much higher than those of the men.  For many colleges mens basketball is a revenue generator and therefor athletes will be given a free pass.  I doubt the same is true for womens basketball.

I think you’re wrong here.

Only once has a #16 seed beaten a #1 seed.  Was it in the competitively balanced men’s tournament?  Nope.  It was in the women’s tournament.

Once in each the men’s and women’s tournament have all four #1 seeds made it to the Final Four (1989 for women, and 2008 for men).

In the women’s tournament, 3 times has a team beaten three #1 seeds (1987, 1988, 2005).  This has only happen once for the men (1997).

The largest margin of victory in the championship game for the men is 30 points (1990), while the largest margin of victory for the women is only 23 points.

All this kind of points to anything being able to happen in the women’s tournament, not the men’s (or at least shows them being more equal).

Again, the talent gap is nowhere near what you guys are claiming it to be.  And you have to compare it to UCLA’s time.  Because the thing is UCLA went to 13 Final Fours in 15 years, winning 10 championships and you guys want to talk about the women only having a few teams dominating?  The men only had ONE team dominating.

[Fafnir]

I just don't see them as equal.  I mean if the Bunker hill community college badmitton team won 90 straight matches would you consider it just as impressive? And would you say they broke the Uconn record?  

They aren't equal, but the competitive standards that college women face aginst their fellow college women, are just as stringent, just as competitive, as what college men face against their opponents. NCAA women train just as hard, work just as hard, face the same academic challenges as men do.

Their competition, the other schools they face, have no less standards than the mens' programs do. It's not about comparing women to men, it's about comparing women to women, within the same NCAA rules, requirements, and challenges that NCAA men do.

With all due respect Bahku im gonna disagree with you here on two accounts.  

I just don't think the competitive balance is equal.  The reason March Madness is so great for guys is because anything can happen.  In womens basketball the talent gap is so wide that unless the top 3-4 teams are playing eachother the competition isnt there.  The gap between the first ranked team and 25th ranked team in womens bball is mind boggling.  If that same matchup were occuring in mens basketball its reasonable to assume the 25th ranked team has a chance to win.  

My second point that im going to disagree with you on is that I bet that the academic standards women have to live up to are much higher than those of the men.  For many colleges mens basketball is a revenue generator and therefor athletes will be given a free pass.  I doubt the same is true for womens basketball.

I think you’re wrong here.

Only once has a #16 seed beaten a #1 seed.  Was it in the competitively balanced men’s tournament?  Nope.  It was in the women’s tournament.

Once in each the men’s and women’s tournament have all four #1 seeds made it to the Final Four (1989 for women, and 2008 for men).

In the women’s tournament, 3 times has a team beaten three #1 seeds (1987, 1988, 2005).  This has only happen once for the men (1997).

The largest margin of victory in the championship game for the men is 30 points (1990), while the largest margin of victory for the women is only 23 points.

All this kind of points to anything being able to happen in the women’s tournament, not the men’s (or at least shows them being more equal).

Again, the talent gap is nowhere near what you guys are claiming it to be.  And you have to compare it to UCLA’s time.  Because the thing is UCLA went to 13 Final Fours in 15 years, winning 10 championships and you guys want to talk about the women only having a few teams dominating?  The men only had ONE team dominating.

I'll have to go look up a magazine article I read, but there are far less upsets in the Women's tournament IRC if you break down the data when compared to the men as a whole.

The talent gap is incredibly large.

[Rondo2287]

I just don't see them as equal.  I mean if the Bunker hill community college badmitton team won 90 straight matches would you consider it just as impressive? And would you say they broke the Uconn record?  

They aren't equal, but the competitive standards that college women face aginst their fellow college women, are just as stringent, just as competitive, as what college men face against their opponents. NCAA women train just as hard, work just as hard, face the same academic challenges as men do.

Their competition, the other schools they face, have no less standards than the mens' programs do. It's not about comparing women to men, it's about comparing women to women, within the same NCAA rules, requirements, and challenges that NCAA men do.

With all due respect Bahku im gonna disagree with you here on two accounts.  

I just don't think the competitive balance is equal.  The reason March Madness is so great for guys is because anything can happen.  In womens basketball the talent gap is so wide that unless the top 3-4 teams are playing eachother the competition isnt there.  The gap between the first ranked team and 25th ranked team in womens bball is mind boggling.  If that same matchup were occuring in mens basketball its reasonable to assume the 25th ranked team has a chance to win.  

My second point that im going to disagree with you on is that I bet that the academic standards women have to live up to are much higher than those of the men.  For many colleges mens basketball is a revenue generator and therefor athletes will be given a free pass.  I doubt the same is true for womens basketball.

I think you’re wrong here.

Only once has a #16 seed beaten a #1 seed.  Was it in the competitively balanced men’s tournament?  Nope.  It was in the women’s tournament.

Once in each the men’s and women’s tournament have all four #1 seeds made it to the Final Four (1989 for women, and 2008 for men).

In the women’s tournament, 3 times has a team beaten three #1 seeds (1987, 1988, 2005).  This has only happen once for the men (1997).

The largest margin of victory in the championship game for the men is 30 points (1990), while the largest margin of victory for the women is only 23 points.

All this kind of points to anything being able to happen in the women’s tournament, not the men’s (or at least shows them being more equal).

Again, the talent gap is nowhere near what you guys are claiming it to be.  And you have to compare it to UCLA’s time.  Because the thing is UCLA went to 13 Final Fours in 15 years, winning 10 championships and you guys want to talk about the women only having a few teams dominating?  The men only had ONE team dominating.

I'll have to go look up a magazine article I read, but there are far less upsets in the Women's tournament IRC if you break down the data when compared to the men as a whole.

The talent gap is incredibly large.

Im not sayin a 16 seed will beat a 1 seed in the mens game. I am saying that 25th ranked team has a chance to beat the number one team.  This hasnt been the case in the womens game.

[Fafnir]

Im not sayin a 16 seed will beat a 1 seed in the mens game. I am saying that 25th ranked team has a chance to beat the number one team.  This hasnt been the case in the womens game.

There are a lot of cool small probability modeling papers on the NCAA tournament and the probability of upsets. But those were all from the men's tournament, I'm trying to see if anyone has extended that to the women's. I recall reading an article about their being more chalk in the women's but I can't find it online anywhere.

A 16 seed beating a 1 seed is such a low probability event that I don't think its indicative of much.

[Roy H.]

I just don't see them as equal.  I mean if the Bunker hill community college badmitton team won 90 straight matches would you consider it just as impressive? And would you say they broke the Uconn record?  

They aren't equal, but the competitive standards that college women face aginst their fellow college women, are just as stringent, just as competitive, as what college men face against their opponents. NCAA women train just as hard, work just as hard, face the same academic challenges as men do.

Their competition, the other schools they face, have no less standards than the mens' programs do. It's not about comparing women to men, it's about comparing women to women, within the same NCAA rules, requirements, and challenges that NCAA men do.

With all due respect Bahku im gonna disagree with you here on two accounts. 

I just don't think the competitive balance is equal.  The reason March Madness is so great for guys is because anything can happen.  In womens basketball the talent gap is so wide that unless the top 3-4 teams are playing eachother the competition isnt there.  The gap between the first ranked team and 25th ranked team in womens bball is mind boggling.  If that same matchup were occuring in mens basketball its reasonable to assume the 25th ranked team has a chance to win. 

My second point that im going to disagree with you on is that I bet that the academic standards women have to live up to are much higher than those of the men.  For many colleges mens basketball is a revenue generator and therefor athletes will be given a free pass.  I doubt the same is true for womens basketball.

I think you’re wrong here.

Only once has a #16 seed beaten a #1 seed.  Was it in the competitively balanced men’s tournament?  Nope.  It was in the women’s tournament.

Once in each the men’s and women’s tournament have all four #1 seeds made it to the Final Four (1989 for women, and 2008 for men).

In the women’s tournament, 3 times has a team beaten three #1 seeds (1987, 1988, 2005).  This has only happen once for the men (1997).

The largest margin of victory in the championship game for the men is 30 points (1990), while the largest margin of victory for the women is only 23 points.

All this kind of points to anything being able to happen in the women’s tournament, not the men’s (or at least shows them being more equal).

Again, the talent gap is nowhere near what you guys are claiming it to be.  And you have to compare it to UCLA’s time.  Because the thing is UCLA went to 13 Final Fours in 15 years, winning 10 championships and you guys want to talk about the women only having a few teams dominating?  The men only had ONE team dominating.

Eh...  You can selectively use stats to make the opposite case, too.

In the women's tournament:

The #1 seed is 67-1 against the #16 seed (98.53%).
The #2 seed is 68-0 against the #15 seed (100%).
The #3 seed is 68-0 against the #14 seed (100%).
The #4 seed is 63-5 against the #13 seed (92.65%).
The #5 seed is 52-16 against the #12 seed (76.47%).
The #6 seed is 48-20 against the #11 seed (70.59%).
The #7 seed is 45-23 against the #10 seed (66.18%).

The lowest seed to win a title was a #3 seed (UNC '94)

The lowest seed to make the championship game was a #4 seed (LA Tech '94, Rutgers '07)

The lowest seed to make the Final Four was a #9 seed (Arkansas '98)

==========================

As opposed to the men:

   1. The #1 seed is 104-0 against the #16 seed (100%).
   2. The #2 seed is 100-4 against the #15 seed (96.15%).
   3. The #3 seed is 88-16 against the #14 seed (84.62%).
   4. The #4 seed is 82-22 against the #13 seed (78.85%).
   5. The #5 seed is 69-35 against the #12 seed (66.35%).
   6. The #6 seed is 71-33 against the #11 seed (68.27%).
   7. The #7 seed is 62-42 against the #10 seed (59.62%).


In the men's tournament, the 15th seed has made the 2nd round four times, and a #14 seed has made the Sweet Sixteen twice.  A #11 team has made it to the Final Four twice, and a #8 seed has won the title.

There's just no real question about it:  lower seeds do better in the NCAA Men's tournament than they do in the Women's.

[bdm860]

I just don't see them as equal.  I mean if the Bunker hill community college badmitton team won 90 straight matches would you consider it just as impressive? And would you say they broke the Uconn record?  

They aren't equal, but the competitive standards that college women face aginst their fellow college women, are just as stringent, just as competitive, as what college men face against their opponents. NCAA women train just as hard, work just as hard, face the same academic challenges as men do.

Their competition, the other schools they face, have no less standards than the mens' programs do. It's not about comparing women to men, it's about comparing women to women, within the same NCAA rules, requirements, and challenges that NCAA men do.

With all due respect Bahku im gonna disagree with you here on two accounts.  

I just don't think the competitive balance is equal.  The reason March Madness is so great for guys is because anything can happen.  In womens basketball the talent gap is so wide that unless the top 3-4 teams are playing eachother the competition isnt there.  The gap between the first ranked team and 25th ranked team in womens bball is mind boggling.  If that same matchup were occuring in mens basketball its reasonable to assume the 25th ranked team has a chance to win.  

My second point that im going to disagree with you on is that I bet that the academic standards women have to live up to are much higher than those of the men.  For many colleges mens basketball is a revenue generator and therefor athletes will be given a free pass.  I doubt the same is true for womens basketball.

I think you’re wrong here.

Only once has a #16 seed beaten a #1 seed.  Was it in the competitively balanced men’s tournament?  Nope.  It was in the women’s tournament.

Once in each the men’s and women’s tournament have all four #1 seeds made it to the Final Four (1989 for women, and 2008 for men).

In the women’s tournament, 3 times has a team beaten three #1 seeds (1987, 1988, 2005).  This has only happen once for the men (1997).

The largest margin of victory in the championship game for the men is 30 points (1990), while the largest margin of victory for the women is only 23 points.

All this kind of points to anything being able to happen in the women’s tournament, not the men’s (or at least shows them being more equal).

Again, the talent gap is nowhere near what you guys are claiming it to be.  And you have to compare it to UCLA’s time.  Because the thing is UCLA went to 13 Final Fours in 15 years, winning 10 championships and you guys want to talk about the women only having a few teams dominating?  The men only had ONE team dominating.

I'll have to go look up a magazine article I read, but there are far less upsets in the Women's tournament IRC if you break down the data when compared to the men as a whole.

The talent gap is incredibly large.

Hopefully this article compares the recent women's tournament with the early 70's men's tournament.  (Said sarcastically, cuz the tournamnet has definitely gone through changes, but you can't compare current men's basketball to current women's basketball, you need to compare early 70's men's to current women's, and I don't think such accurate comparison really exists).

Stats are on wikipedia (kind of hard to compare, since changes have happened in different years for the men's and women's).

But how could it be that large where a #1 seed loses to a #16 seed?  And only once has all #4 number ones made it to the Final Four (way back in 1987)?  And 3 times has a team beaten three #1 seeds?  You guys are way overestimating the talent gap.

With this huge talent gap you guys claim, all four #1 teams should make it every year.

For the men (per wikipedia):

Since the inception of the 64-team tournament in 1985, each seed-pairing has played a total of 104 first-round games, with the following results:

   1. The #1 seed is 104-0 against the #16 seed (100%).
   2. The #2 seed is 100-4 against the #15 seed (96.15%).
   3. The #3 seed is 88-16 against the #14 seed (84.62%).
   4. The #4 seed is 82-22 against the #13 seed (78.85%).
   5. The #5 seed is 69-35 against the #12 seed (66.35%).
   6. The #6 seed is 71-33 against the #11 seed (68.27%).
   7. The #7 seed is 62-42 against the #10 seed (59.62%).
   8. The #8 seed is 48-56 against the #9 seed (46.15%).

[edit] Second-round games

Since the inception of the 64-team tournament in 1985, the following results have occurred for each pairing:

   1. In the 1/16/8/9 bracket:
         1. The #1 seed is 39-9 against the #8 seed (81.25%).
         2. The #1 seed is 52-4 against the #9 seed (92.86%).
          * Note: As the #1 seed has never lost in the first round, the #8 vs. #16 and #9 vs. #16 pairings have never happened.
   2. In the 2/15/7/10 bracket:
         1. The #2 seed is 44-17 against the #7 seed (72.13%).
         2. The #2 seed is 23-16 against the #10 seed (58.97%).
         3. The #7 seed is 1-0 against the #15 seed (100%).
         4. The #10 seed is 3-0 against the #15 seed (100%).
   3. In the 3/14/6/11 bracket:
         1. The #3 seed is 32-26 against the #6 seed (55.17%).
         2. The #3 seed is 21-9 against the #11 seed (70%).
         3. The #6 seed is 11-2 against the #14 seed (84.62%).
         4. The #11 seed is 3-0 against the #14 seed (100%).
   4. In the 4/13/5/12 bracket:
         1. The #4 seed is 28-27 against the #5 seed (50.91%).
         2. The #4 seed is 16-11 against the #12 seed (59.26%).
         3. The #5 seed is 11-3 against the #13 seed (78.57%).
         4. The #12 seed is 7-1 against the #13 seed (87.5%).

For the women (again, per wikipedia):

Since the expansion to 64 teams in 1994, each seed-pairing has played a total of 68 first round games.

   1. The #1 seed is 67-1 against the #16 seed (98.53%).
   2. The #2 seed is 68-0 against the #15 seed (100%).
   3. The #3 seed is 68-0 against the #14 seed (100%).
   4. The #4 seed is 63-5 against the #13 seed (92.65%).
   5. The #5 seed is 52-16 against the #12 seed (76.47%).
   6. The #6 seed is 48-20 against the #11 seed (70.59%).
   7. The #7 seed is 45-23 against the #10 seed (66.18%).
   8. The #8 seed is 33-35 against the #9 seed (48.53%).

[edit] Second-round games

Since the expansion to 64 teams in 1994, the following results have occurred for each pairing:

   1. A #1 seed has beaten a #8 seed 32 out of 33 times (96.97%).
   2. A #1 seed has beaten a #9 seed 32 out of 34 times (94.12%).
   3. A #2 seed has beaten a #7 seed 36 out of 45 times (80%).
   4. A #2 seed has beaten a #10 seed 21 out of 23 times (91.3%).
   5. A #3 seed has beaten a #6 seed 34 out of 48 times (70.83%).
   6. A #3 seed has beaten a #11 seed 14 out of 20 times (70%).
   7. A #4 seed has beaten a #5 seed 30 out of 47 times (63.83%).
   8. A #4 seed has beaten a #12 seed 15 out of 16 times (93.75%).
   9. A #5 seed has beaten a #13 seed 2 out of 5 times (40%).
  10. A #9 seed has beaten a #16 seed 1 out of 1 times (100%).

I'm saying there is a talent gap, but nowhere near as huge as you guys are claiming, and it's probably VERY comparable to what UCLA faced.

[Amonkey]

Just to add something here, I dont think many people can make the argument that a division woman college basketball player would get beat by an average male player, or a HS player and what not or vice-versa because how can we really make that comparison?  How many times have we seen a real woman's basketball player playing against guys to make a comparison?

At Wang's YMCA they have basketball with some real basketball players. A talent level that would go from few average players to HS senior level and college level (guys that can shoot well, rebound, make tough layups and some can dunk). Anyway, I have seen 1 girl playing with them last summer and I was impressed. They def seemed like college players, very lengthy. What impressed me is that she could shoot, but she could actually take it into the hoop really well, beating a guy on the drive and finishing well on the rims. Defensevily, she could get a few rebounds and maybe some steals on the perimeter but not great.  Overall this girl could consistently score 4-5 points in a 21 point game against some real players(and I saw this girl playing a few time).


Basically, I dont think we can say outright that a woman would lose to men based entirely on our assumption. It's likem saying Superman would lose to Batman and what not.

[bdm860]

I just don't see them as equal.  I mean if the Bunker hill community college badmitton team won 90 straight matches would you consider it just as impressive? And would you say they broke the Uconn record? 

They aren't equal, but the competitive standards that college women face aginst their fellow college women, are just as stringent, just as competitive, as what college men face against their opponents. NCAA women train just as hard, work just as hard, face the same academic challenges as men do.

Their competition, the other schools they face, have no less standards than the mens' programs do. It's not about comparing women to men, it's about comparing women to women, within the same NCAA rules, requirements, and challenges that NCAA men do.

With all due respect Bahku im gonna disagree with you here on two accounts. 

I just don't think the competitive balance is equal.  The reason March Madness is so great for guys is because anything can happen.  In womens basketball the talent gap is so wide that unless the top 3-4 teams are playing eachother the competition isnt there.  The gap between the first ranked team and 25th ranked team in womens bball is mind boggling.  If that same matchup were occuring in mens basketball its reasonable to assume the 25th ranked team has a chance to win. 

My second point that im going to disagree with you on is that I bet that the academic standards women have to live up to are much higher than those of the men.  For many colleges mens basketball is a revenue generator and therefor athletes will be given a free pass.  I doubt the same is true for womens basketball.

I think you’re wrong here.

Only once has a #16 seed beaten a #1 seed.  Was it in the competitively balanced men’s tournament?  Nope.  It was in the women’s tournament.

Once in each the men’s and women’s tournament have all four #1 seeds made it to the Final Four (1989 for women, and 2008 for men).

In the women’s tournament, 3 times has a team beaten three #1 seeds (1987, 1988, 2005).  This has only happen once for the men (1997).

The largest margin of victory in the championship game for the men is 30 points (1990), while the largest margin of victory for the women is only 23 points.

All this kind of points to anything being able to happen in the women’s tournament, not the men’s (or at least shows them being more equal).

Again, the talent gap is nowhere near what you guys are claiming it to be.  And you have to compare it to UCLA’s time.  Because the thing is UCLA went to 13 Final Fours in 15 years, winning 10 championships and you guys want to talk about the women only having a few teams dominating?  The men only had ONE team dominating.

Eh...  You can selectively use stats to make the opposite case, too.

In the women's tournament:

The #1 seed is 67-1 against the #16 seed (98.53%).
The #2 seed is 68-0 against the #15 seed (100%).
The #3 seed is 68-0 against the #14 seed (100%).
The #4 seed is 63-5 against the #13 seed (92.65%).
The #5 seed is 52-16 against the #12 seed (76.47%).
The #6 seed is 48-20 against the #11 seed (70.59%).
The #7 seed is 45-23 against the #10 seed (66.18%).

The lowest seed to win a title was a #3 seed (UNC '94)

The lowest seed to make the championship game was a #4 seed (LA Tech '94, Rutgers '07)

The lowest seed to make the Final Four was a #9 seed (Arkansas '98)

==========================

As opposed to the men:

   1. The #1 seed is 104-0 against the #16 seed (100%).
   2. The #2 seed is 100-4 against the #15 seed (96.15%).
   3. The #3 seed is 88-16 against the #14 seed (84.62%).
   4. The #4 seed is 82-22 against the #13 seed (78.85%).
   5. The #5 seed is 69-35 against the #12 seed (66.35%).
   6. The #6 seed is 71-33 against the #11 seed (68.27%).
   7. The #7 seed is 62-42 against the #10 seed (59.62%).


In the men's tournament, the 15th seed has made the 2nd round four times, and a #14 seed has made the Sweet Sixteen twice.  A #11 team has made it to the Final Four twice, and a #8 seed has won the title.

There's just no real question about it:  lower seeds do better in the NCAA Men's tournament than they do in the Women's.

Do you really think those numbers point to a HUGE talent gap like many are claiming here, or a smaller talent gap than most seem to be claiming?

I agree, overall more upsets for the men, but not by a lot.  I mean the only place there appear to be big differences is the #3 and #4 seeds.  Everything else is relatively close (that is taking a quick look, I might be missing something, 2nd round gets harder to do a quick look).  I agree a larger talent gap exists between men and women, but nowhere near the size most seem to be claiming to discredit the women.  When I look at the NCAA tournament numbers I see what appears to be a much smaller talent gap.  And those are numbers as of today.  We're talking about a mens team from almost 30 years ago.

(Lol I like how we quote from the same spot though, wikipedia rules  )

[Roy H.]

Just to add something here, I dont think many people can make the argument that a division woman college basketball player would get beat by an average male player, or a HS player and what not or vice-versa because how can we really make that comparison?  How many times have we seen a real woman's basketball player playing against guys to make a comparison?

At Wang's YMCA they have basketball with some real basketball players. A talent level that would go from few average players to HS senior level and college level (guys that can shoot well, rebound, make tough layups and some can dunk). Anyway, I have seen 1 girl playing with them last summer and I was impressed. They def seemed like college players, very lengthy. What impressed me is that she could shoot, but she could actually take it into the hoop really well, beating a guy on the drive and finishing well on the rims. Defensevily, she could get a few rebounds and maybe some steals on the perimeter but not great.  Overall this girl could consistently score 4-5 points in a 21 point game against some real players(and I saw this girl playing a few time).


Basically, I dont think we can say outright that a woman would lose to men based entirely on our assumption. It's likem saying Superman would lose to Batman and what not.

Here's a long thread with some links to experts, as well as subjective anecdotes like yours:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=33460.0

Here's an article that cites several female players and coaches saying that women can't compete with men:

http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/12/07/experts-women-in-the-nba-long-way-off/

EDIT:

What Phil Jackson had to say:

When Jackson ran a youth basketball camp in Montana early in his coaching career, he recalls pitting a state champion high school girls team against a group of middle-school boys who had never played together. The outcome of the game was so one-sided in favor of the boys that it has stuck in Jackson's mind ever since.

"(The girls) were all four to six inches bigger than these boys, and they got beat by 40 points," Jackson said. "It was one of those things that opened my eyes to the differences. Even though the girls had skill and knowledge as a group and the boys hadn't played together, they just trapped and pressed and did all kinds of things that changed the game."

Link

[CelticG1]

Just to add something here, I dont think many people can make the argument that a division woman college basketball player would get beat by an average male player, or a HS player and what not or vice-versa because how can we really make that comparison?  How many times have we seen a real woman's basketball player playing against guys to make a comparison?

At Wang's YMCA they have basketball with some real basketball players. A talent level that would go from few average players to HS senior level and college level (guys that can shoot well, rebound, make tough layups and some can dunk). Anyway, I have seen 1 girl playing with them last summer and I was impressed. They def seemed like college players, very lengthy. What impressed me is that she could shoot, but she could actually take it into the hoop really well, beating a guy on the drive and finishing well on the rims. Defensevily, she could get a few rebounds and maybe some steals on the perimeter but not great.  Overall this girl could consistently score 4-5 points in a 21 point game against some real players(and I saw this girl playing a few time).


Basically, I dont think we can say outright that a woman would lose to men based entirely on our assumption. It's likem saying Superman would lose to Batman and what not.

Were the guys playing against that girl really bumping on defense and playing all out?

I played in a coed soccer league this summer. I would get in as little contact as possible when I was up against the girls. Basically try and toe poke the ball away from them. Girls would sometimes run in to tackle a guy and would just bounce off like they were a brick wall.

There's a reason why U-16 boys soccer clubs are beating the Boston Breakers by 5 goals. I know it's a different sport but same idea.

[dpaps]

I mean it's not like men and women have NEVER played basketball together!

 I play at my college all the time, and sometimes girls from the team run with us. None of them can really hang in the game, even considering that as a guy you have to go lightly. I'm not gonna be nearly as physical with a girl as with any other guy we play with.

[Finkelskyhook]

It's sad that because of the ways men and women approach the game are different that anybody would diminish the UCONN accomplishment compared to the UCLA accomplishment.  

The women aren't competing against men and the men aren't competing against women.  UCONN's games aren't competitive because Auriemma, through his program's success, recruits the best players.  His teams are clearly more prepared, more motivated, and better coached.  Just like Wooden's were.