Im just tired of people comparing Geno Auriemma's Conneticut team to John Wooden's UCLA Team

Originally Posted by jawnyquest

Originally Posted by SIR KYLE

Take any D-2 mens team or Any of the top 10 mens highschool teams and they will beat those girls....

sike.
Word
laugh.gif


Maya Moore will light these fools up and let them have 2 points out of sympathy

30t6p3b.gif
@ underestimating
 
Originally Posted by jawnyquest

Originally Posted by SIR KYLE

Take any D-2 mens team or Any of the top 10 mens highschool teams and they will beat those girls....

sike.
Word
laugh.gif


Maya Moore will light these fools up and let them have 2 points out of sympathy

30t6p3b.gif
@ underestimating
 
What are these "what if" posts about?

Its pointless.
laugh.gif
 That's like saying the Nets of last season could beat any team boys team in high school. What does that prove? They should only be worried about the teams on THEIR level. Same with women's basketball.

They can't help it that the other teams they play can't compete with them. They are just THAT good.
 
What are these "what if" posts about?

Its pointless.
laugh.gif
 That's like saying the Nets of last season could beat any team boys team in high school. What does that prove? They should only be worried about the teams on THEIR level. Same with women's basketball.

They can't help it that the other teams they play can't compete with them. They are just THAT good.
 
Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

eh, it's kind of impressive (moreso that they haven't hit variance of any sort) but the dude who said it displays the sorry state of affairs in women's college basketball is correct as well.
When the Bulls went 72-10 was that a reflection of the sorry state of affairs in the NBA?

Or how about only 8 teams winning NBA CHampionships in the last however many years. What does that say about the NBA?

Or what about NOW in the NBA where we have seen 5 different double digit winning streaks before XMAS? What does that say?

How is women's basketball in any sadder state than any other form of basketball?

For one, going 72-10 within 1 season, where all factors are equal (say 1 season  =1 controlled environment; extremely little change within the season vis-a-vis players/coaches/overall dynamic) is statistically possible and probable. Even then, if you ask any of those Bulls players, they'll tell you that more things went "right" that season than in others, i.e. variance was on their side.

What you have with the Uconn team is a statistically improbable outcome over a number of seasons where the overall dynamic changes with players and coaches changing.

The double digit winning streaks are in 1 season and are both possible and probable over 1 season. How do they compare to, say, the past 50 years? How much of an outlier is this season as compared to the past 50?

As for the 5 out of 30 teams winning the past 10 championships, that does reflect on the competitiveness in the NBA. How does it not?

I'm no math or stats genius but even rudimentary knowledge says that the competitiveness level is pretty bad when 5 teams win the last 10 championships even if you posit that those 5 teams are 2x as good as the rest.

Maybe there is  stats guy on NT who can run the numbers and show us. I'd be interested in that.
 
Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

eh, it's kind of impressive (moreso that they haven't hit variance of any sort) but the dude who said it displays the sorry state of affairs in women's college basketball is correct as well.
When the Bulls went 72-10 was that a reflection of the sorry state of affairs in the NBA?

Or how about only 8 teams winning NBA CHampionships in the last however many years. What does that say about the NBA?

Or what about NOW in the NBA where we have seen 5 different double digit winning streaks before XMAS? What does that say?

How is women's basketball in any sadder state than any other form of basketball?

For one, going 72-10 within 1 season, where all factors are equal (say 1 season  =1 controlled environment; extremely little change within the season vis-a-vis players/coaches/overall dynamic) is statistically possible and probable. Even then, if you ask any of those Bulls players, they'll tell you that more things went "right" that season than in others, i.e. variance was on their side.

What you have with the Uconn team is a statistically improbable outcome over a number of seasons where the overall dynamic changes with players and coaches changing.

The double digit winning streaks are in 1 season and are both possible and probable over 1 season. How do they compare to, say, the past 50 years? How much of an outlier is this season as compared to the past 50?

As for the 5 out of 30 teams winning the past 10 championships, that does reflect on the competitiveness in the NBA. How does it not?

I'm no math or stats genius but even rudimentary knowledge says that the competitiveness level is pretty bad when 5 teams win the last 10 championships even if you posit that those 5 teams are 2x as good as the rest.

Maybe there is  stats guy on NT who can run the numbers and show us. I'd be interested in that.
 
Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

eh, it's kind of impressive (moreso that they haven't hit variance of any sort) but the dude who said it displays the sorry state of affairs in women's college basketball is correct as well.
When the Bulls went 72-10 was that a reflection of the sorry state of affairs in the NBA?

Or how about only 8 teams winning NBA CHampionships in the last however many years. What does that say about the NBA?

Or what about NOW in the NBA where we have seen 5 different double digit winning streaks before XMAS? What does that say?

How is women's basketball in any sadder state than any other form of basketball?

For one, going 72-10 within 1 season, where all factors are equal (say 1 season  =1 controlled environment; extremely little change within the season vis-a-vis players/coaches/overall dynamic) is statistically possible and probable. Even then, if you ask any of those Bulls players, they'll tell you that more things went "right" that season than in others, i.e. variance was on their side.

What you have with the Uconn team is a statistically improbable outcome over a number of seasons where the overall dynamic changes with players and coaches changing.

The double digit winning streaks are in 1 season and are both possible and probable over 1 season. How do they compare to, say, the past 50 years? How much of an outlier is this season as compared to the past 50?

As for the 5 out of 30 teams winning the past 10 championships, that does reflect on the competitiveness in the NBA. How does it not?

I'm no math or stats genius but even rudimentary knowledge says that the competitiveness level is pretty bad when 5 teams win the last 10 championships even if you posit that those 5 teams are 2x as good as the rest.

Maybe there is  stats guy on NT who can run the numbers and show us. I'd be interested in that.
you're wrong.

college women's basketball has a small turnover as far as players leaving early/coaches coming and going.  for the most part it's been the same group of players beating the same competition over that period of time.
 
Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

eh, it's kind of impressive (moreso that they haven't hit variance of any sort) but the dude who said it displays the sorry state of affairs in women's college basketball is correct as well.
When the Bulls went 72-10 was that a reflection of the sorry state of affairs in the NBA?

Or how about only 8 teams winning NBA CHampionships in the last however many years. What does that say about the NBA?

Or what about NOW in the NBA where we have seen 5 different double digit winning streaks before XMAS? What does that say?

How is women's basketball in any sadder state than any other form of basketball?

For one, going 72-10 within 1 season, where all factors are equal (say 1 season  =1 controlled environment; extremely little change within the season vis-a-vis players/coaches/overall dynamic) is statistically possible and probable. Even then, if you ask any of those Bulls players, they'll tell you that more things went "right" that season than in others, i.e. variance was on their side.

What you have with the Uconn team is a statistically improbable outcome over a number of seasons where the overall dynamic changes with players and coaches changing.

The double digit winning streaks are in 1 season and are both possible and probable over 1 season. How do they compare to, say, the past 50 years? How much of an outlier is this season as compared to the past 50?

As for the 5 out of 30 teams winning the past 10 championships, that does reflect on the competitiveness in the NBA. How does it not?

I'm no math or stats genius but even rudimentary knowledge says that the competitiveness level is pretty bad when 5 teams win the last 10 championships even if you posit that those 5 teams are 2x as good as the rest.

Maybe there is  stats guy on NT who can run the numbers and show us. I'd be interested in that.
you're wrong.

college women's basketball has a small turnover as far as players leaving early/coaches coming and going.  for the most part it's been the same group of players beating the same competition over that period of time.
 
[h3]"a bunch of women are threatening to break a men's record"[/h3]
After win No. 88 in a row was in the books, Geno Auriemma finally let loose: He thinks some people are rooting against his record-setting players because of their gender.


ncw_u_geno_65.jpg

Auriemma
"I just know there wouldn't be this many people in the room if we were chasing a woman's record," the Connecticut coach said Sunday near the end of his postgame news conference. "The reason everybody is having a heart attack the last four or five days is a bunch of women are threatening to break a men's record, and everybody is all up in arms about it."
For the rest of the story, go here.

I am hopeful that they will break the record, and receive the abundance of recognition and praise they deserve for their sustained display of excellence.
 
[h3]"a bunch of women are threatening to break a men's record"[/h3]
After win No. 88 in a row was in the books, Geno Auriemma finally let loose: He thinks some people are rooting against his record-setting players because of their gender.


ncw_u_geno_65.jpg

Auriemma
"I just know there wouldn't be this many people in the room if we were chasing a woman's record," the Connecticut coach said Sunday near the end of his postgame news conference. "The reason everybody is having a heart attack the last four or five days is a bunch of women are threatening to break a men's record, and everybody is all up in arms about it."
For the rest of the story, go here.

I am hopeful that they will break the record, and receive the abundance of recognition and praise they deserve for their sustained display of excellence.
 
The streak is impressive in context, but the comparison is a joke. I can't believe the coach would even bluff like he would be interested in coaching a mens team like he did in his interview.
 
The streak is impressive in context, but the comparison is a joke. I can't believe the coach would even bluff like he would be interested in coaching a mens team like he did in his interview.
 
Originally Posted by Nako XL

you're wrong.

college women's basketball has a small turnover as far as players leaving early/coaches coming and going.  for the most part it's been the same group of players beating the same competition over that period of time.

You want to put forth the numbers for this? How many seniors play on each team (on average) as a percentage? The coach turnover (I'm sure it ain't 0) Even small amounts in overall change decrease the likelihood of this sort of winning streak exponentially.

Are we really arguing that an 88 game winning streak is statistically probable barring such factors as garbage competition and extreme positive variance?

I'm no math or stats genius. Maybe you are. Run a  regression. See how probable this is.
 
Originally Posted by Nako XL

you're wrong.

college women's basketball has a small turnover as far as players leaving early/coaches coming and going.  for the most part it's been the same group of players beating the same competition over that period of time.

You want to put forth the numbers for this? How many seniors play on each team (on average) as a percentage? The coach turnover (I'm sure it ain't 0) Even small amounts in overall change decrease the likelihood of this sort of winning streak exponentially.

Are we really arguing that an 88 game winning streak is statistically probable barring such factors as garbage competition and extreme positive variance?

I'm no math or stats genius. Maybe you are. Run a  regression. See how probable this is.
 
Originally Posted by TraSoul82

The streak is impressive in context, but the comparison is a joke. I can't believe the coach would even bluff like he would be interested in coaching a mens team like he did in his interview.

I understand where he 's coming from. It's a defense mechanism.He knows that the winning streak is not just because they're a good team. However, he probably believes that if he does admit that then it takes away from the accomplishment or that he'd be "shorted" in some way.  In reality it wouldn't.
 
Originally Posted by TraSoul82

The streak is impressive in context, but the comparison is a joke. I can't believe the coach would even bluff like he would be interested in coaching a mens team like he did in his interview.

I understand where he 's coming from. It's a defense mechanism.He knows that the winning streak is not just because they're a good team. However, he probably believes that if he does admit that then it takes away from the accomplishment or that he'd be "shorted" in some way.  In reality it wouldn't.
 
Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by Nako XL

you're wrong.

college women's basketball has a small turnover as far as players leaving early/coaches coming and going.  for the most part it's been the same group of players beating the same competition over that period of time.

You want to put forth the numbers for this? How many seniors play on each team (on average) as a percentage? The coach turnover (I'm sure it ain't 0) Even small amounts in overall change decrease the likelihood of this sort of winning streak exponentially.

Are we really arguing that an 88 game winning streak is statistically probable barring such factors as garbage competition and extreme positive variance?

I'm no math or stats genius. Maybe you are. Run a  regression. See how probable this is.
uconn hasn't lost since april 2008.  last year's team had 4 seniors.  this year all eligible players returned.  the coaching staff is exactly the same. there are 5 freshman this year, but the the team that went undefeated the past two seasons was exactly the same.

how many underclassmen left d1 basketball to declare for the wnba draft last year?

i never purported to be a statistician, you're the one who introduced the idea of their win streak being a statistical impossibility/anomaly because of all the player and coaching changes, and i'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic: last year's uconn team had 8 upper-classmen. women's players don't leave college early. there really isn't much coaching turnover of note.  the uconn team that dominated last season was the same team that did so the year before, and against the same competition.  of course they kept winning.

if anything it's of note this year since so many under classmen and freshmen are playing for the team.
 
Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by Nako XL

you're wrong.

college women's basketball has a small turnover as far as players leaving early/coaches coming and going.  for the most part it's been the same group of players beating the same competition over that period of time.

You want to put forth the numbers for this? How many seniors play on each team (on average) as a percentage? The coach turnover (I'm sure it ain't 0) Even small amounts in overall change decrease the likelihood of this sort of winning streak exponentially.

Are we really arguing that an 88 game winning streak is statistically probable barring such factors as garbage competition and extreme positive variance?

I'm no math or stats genius. Maybe you are. Run a  regression. See how probable this is.
uconn hasn't lost since april 2008.  last year's team had 4 seniors.  this year all eligible players returned.  the coaching staff is exactly the same. there are 5 freshman this year, but the the team that went undefeated the past two seasons was exactly the same.

how many underclassmen left d1 basketball to declare for the wnba draft last year?

i never purported to be a statistician, you're the one who introduced the idea of their win streak being a statistical impossibility/anomaly because of all the player and coaching changes, and i'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic: last year's uconn team had 8 upper-classmen. women's players don't leave college early. there really isn't much coaching turnover of note.  the uconn team that dominated last season was the same team that did so the year before, and against the same competition.  of course they kept winning.

if anything it's of note this year since so many under classmen and freshmen are playing for the team.
 
Other sports have some amazing accomplishments, and bottom line, People just dont care. Maybe thats how it is here. They will never get their due because the vast majority won't recognize it as anything special. Maybe theres some ignorance there but many sports, like Womens volleyball where Penn State just won their 4th straight national Title (with two undefeated seasons wedged in between) getting blown off. It's just a whatever moment.
 
Back
Top Bottom