We didn't lose because of a lack of parity in WCB
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:45 am
Upon reading this for the first time it dawned upon me that I should have expected it. There are simply some among us that like to take everything very literally and to make generalizations based upon knee-jerk reactions. This is what I am addressing.
If you think we lost this game today because of a lack of parity in women's college basketball, in my opinion, you are just plain wrong. Now, I'm sure that some of you are going to just stop reading after this statement and try to rip me a new one, but screw it - there is no doubt in my mind, even after today's early exit from the tourney, that the Ladie Falcons are one of the very best teams in the country.
What happened today was the result of a combination of things. First, we ran into a team that was hotter than hell. Although UCLA finished thrid in the regular season in the PAC-10, they rode a hot streak into the PAC-10 tourney and won it. After witnessing today's game, there is no doubt in my mind that this only continued right on into the NCAA's. Mad, mad props to them. I had seem them play on a couple of occasions earlier in the year and they were not nearly as impressive (one of the few benefits of living out West - getting to do some early scouting). That being said, thinking back on it, it is pretty shitty that a 28-2 team, regardless of their conference affiliation, was rewarded for their hard work with a first-round matchup against a team that had just won their conference tournament. I would argue that both BG and UCLA were better than their seeds, and unfortunately, BG got bit by it first. I'm not convinced that UCLA won't get burned by being seeded low before the tournament is through.
Additionally, this game was a tale of shooting. UCLA was lights out and BG struggled. Had shooting percentages for either team have fluctuated as little as 10 or 15 percent, this would have been an entirely different game. It is rare that any team shoots as well as UCLA did, or equally, as poor was BGSU did. Because of this, there is very little that anyone can say to convince me that UCLA is such a superior team to our ladies.
I guess what I'm saying is, don't use this game as an excuse to broadly generalize either our team or our conference. If you insist on doing so, in my opinion, it only shows your lack of insight on the game - both the singular game in question and women's basketball in general. Someone said to me today that there is a distinct line between the power teams and everyone else in women's basketball. That, in my opinion, is simply not true. Yes, there are a few teams like Tennessee, Oklahoma and LSU that have some vastly superior individual talent, and in a few cases, superior coaching, but across the board, that is not true. To believe so, it seems to me, seems to be very naive.
I can't really think of a great way to end this rant, I suspect because of fatigue (New Mexico will do that to you), but I hope it makes some sense. This team will be back next year and better than ever. Don't write them off because you may think we are so vastly inferior to so many other programs. We most certrainly are not.
If you think we lost this game today because of a lack of parity in women's college basketball, in my opinion, you are just plain wrong. Now, I'm sure that some of you are going to just stop reading after this statement and try to rip me a new one, but screw it - there is no doubt in my mind, even after today's early exit from the tourney, that the Ladie Falcons are one of the very best teams in the country.
What happened today was the result of a combination of things. First, we ran into a team that was hotter than hell. Although UCLA finished thrid in the regular season in the PAC-10, they rode a hot streak into the PAC-10 tourney and won it. After witnessing today's game, there is no doubt in my mind that this only continued right on into the NCAA's. Mad, mad props to them. I had seem them play on a couple of occasions earlier in the year and they were not nearly as impressive (one of the few benefits of living out West - getting to do some early scouting). That being said, thinking back on it, it is pretty shitty that a 28-2 team, regardless of their conference affiliation, was rewarded for their hard work with a first-round matchup against a team that had just won their conference tournament. I would argue that both BG and UCLA were better than their seeds, and unfortunately, BG got bit by it first. I'm not convinced that UCLA won't get burned by being seeded low before the tournament is through.
Additionally, this game was a tale of shooting. UCLA was lights out and BG struggled. Had shooting percentages for either team have fluctuated as little as 10 or 15 percent, this would have been an entirely different game. It is rare that any team shoots as well as UCLA did, or equally, as poor was BGSU did. Because of this, there is very little that anyone can say to convince me that UCLA is such a superior team to our ladies.
I guess what I'm saying is, don't use this game as an excuse to broadly generalize either our team or our conference. If you insist on doing so, in my opinion, it only shows your lack of insight on the game - both the singular game in question and women's basketball in general. Someone said to me today that there is a distinct line between the power teams and everyone else in women's basketball. That, in my opinion, is simply not true. Yes, there are a few teams like Tennessee, Oklahoma and LSU that have some vastly superior individual talent, and in a few cases, superior coaching, but across the board, that is not true. To believe so, it seems to me, seems to be very naive.
I can't really think of a great way to end this rant, I suspect because of fatigue (New Mexico will do that to you), but I hope it makes some sense. This team will be back next year and better than ever. Don't write them off because you may think we are so vastly inferior to so many other programs. We most certrainly are not.
