Women's NCAA B-Ball

[BigTiger72]

I hate to sound totally sexist, but in both final four games I watched....
I have gathered the following information......

1) Most women have zero ball control
2) Can't make a layup
3) Zero body control
4) can't dunk
5) Can't hit the front end of a one & one
6) And can only hit a 3-pointer playing a round horse

Did I leave anything out?

Am I wrong guys? Help me out here.......

[Rupturedduck]

but they sure are fun in the bedroom !!!!!

[Doc]

You have to be kidding. Most of the girls playing basketball are either gay or bigger than the average guy. For every Stacey Dales there's about 10 Jessica Davenports and Courtney Paris'.

[Blue Hen]

I'm really enjoying the Women's championship and looking foward to tonight. Can Rutgers great 'D' do it one more time against Pat Summit's collection of HS All Americans ????
These games have just as much competitiveness and fire as the men's games.

[BossTalker]

1) Most women have zero ball control
2) Can't make a layup
3) Zero body control
4) can't dunk
5) Can't hit the front end of a one & one
6) And can only hit a 3-pointer playing a round horse



Ahem...that pretty ass gal, Candace Parker is an exception...

[Don]

Most of the girls playing basketball are either gay or bigger than the average guy.

I'm surprised, Doc. You have a problem with either of these types?

For every Stacey Dales there's about 10 Jessica Davenports and Courtney Paris'.

Your stats are probably accurate for the female population as a whole.

[H.I.]

just up until a few years ago the women's game was much more fundamentally sound than the guys game. good team basketball. nice passing. knock down the mid range jumper. etc. but the last few years it seems to me the girls game is going straight down the crapper to the depths of the men's game. i guess the ladies finally figured out if you jump around, holler and point and whatnot the camera will find you and the talking heads will babble about you.

[Blue Hen]

yeah, She's from Illinois and the rest of 'Tennessee's' starters seem to be from New York.

[Hail to the Victors Valiant]

Looks as if the one voter who selected Tenn s #1 ahead of Duke late in the season is the only one smiling after she had received criticism for her vote.

By the way, it's athleticism that has changed the game for the men and women. And athletes aren't always the most fundamentally sound players but they are a needed weapon. As an example, people wonder how Duke won in 1991 and 1992 but can't win the nat'l title today with the same style of pay and players. My response is that 15 years ago, the overall level of athleticism was less than it is today. I'm not sure if the Duke teams of the early 1990s would win the tourney this year. BTW, the landlord Shelden Williams have brought home a nice-looking woman to roost in Candace Parker.

[H.I.]

As an example, people wonder how Duke won in 1991 and 1992 but can't win the nat'l title today with the same style of pay and players. My response is that 15 years ago, the overall level of athleticism was less than it is today. I'm not sure if the Duke teams of the early 1990s would win the tourney this year.

are you smoking crack? the 1992 duke team would beat florida or osu by 40 pts. this year. that duke team had one of the top five college point guards to ever play the game. one of the top five players in college basketball history. and grant hill among many other talented players. if you remember that team beat your wolverines by 20 with quite of few future NBA all-stars on it. and i'd go as far and say nobody on either of uf's or osu's roster this year will have a career in the NBA as good a chris webber's.

[Hail to the Victors Valiant]

If you're such a genius, explain why the great Duke teams in 1999, 2004 and 2006 failed to win the national title. Had they won it all, people would be talking about their achievement and not about their underachievement as they do now.

[H.I.]

If you're such a genius, explain why the great Duke teams in 1999, 2004 and 2006 failed to win the national title. Had they won it all, people would be talking about their achievement and not about their underachievement as they do now.

you can't win the all. IMO, the 2006 wasn't all it was cracked up to be. the 1999 lost to a very good UCONN team. that's the way the cookie crumbles. that's nothing new to duke. they lost the in the title game in '86 with better players. that's 21 years ago if you're counting at home. the 2004 team ended up losing to the eventual national champs in 2004. the only real times i consider duke choking in the past ten year would be '98, '02, and maybe 2000. and each of those years the team that defeated them ended up at least playing for the national title. not too bad if you ask me.
i don't think some people really understand the history of sports. the NCAA tournament has been around for close to 70 years and UCLA leads trips to the Final Four at 17. that's an avg. of 1 trip to the Final Four every 4 years. think about that to a second. if the best can only avg. one trip the Final Four every four years, why do some fans think their crappy basketball program should make the Final Four every couple of years?

Chew on this - 10 Final Fours, 3 National Titles, and played in 7 National Title games the past 21 years. if you consider this underachieving, i don't know what to say about that. just think what they could do with some "athletes.":D

[Hail to the Victors Valiant]

You make some good points. By the way, I am also a Duke alum and have been one of the few to defend their accomplishments as some people who are reading this post know for sure.