Fan in San Diego Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Don't forget "Modest"! Is that an alien on your face ?
Ramius Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Why, because they play a purer version of the game that is about teamwork, discipline, and fundamentals? thats a good one. IF their game is so purer, why do women's teams regularly put up less than 40 points during games? and shoot 5% from the field? womens basketball is terrible. wake me up when a non-tennessee/duke/uconn/lsu/unc team scores more than 70 points.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 thats a good one. IF their game is so purer, why do women's teams regularly put up less than 40 points during games? and shoot 5% from the field? womens basketball is terrible. wake me up when a non-tennessee/duke/uconn/lsu/unc team scores more than 70 points. Or actually play above the rim?
Sketch Soland Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Oh brother. thats a good one. IF their game is so purer, why do women's teams regularly put up less than 40 points during games? and shoot 5% from the field? womens basketball is terrible. wake me up when a non-tennessee/duke/uconn/lsu/unc team scores more than 70 points. that got a reaction!
Sketch Soland Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 thats a good one. IF their game is so purer, why do women's teams regularly put up less than 40 points during games? and shoot 5% from the field? womens basketball is terrible. wake me up when a non-tennessee/duke/uconn/lsu/unc team scores more than 70 points. I tried to post the links but they won't go directly to the stats, but if you look at the 50 Division 1 Women's Basketball teams, the 50th team shoots 43.1 % as a team from the field and the 1st ranked team shows 50.7 % from the field. Also, all 50 teams average at least 70 points a game in scoring offense. The 50th team averages 70.3 and the 1st team averages 83.7. You can go look it up. 2006-2007 Division 1 Women's Basketball Statistics. I was joking about it being "purer" but you underrate women's basketball, obviously. http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/rankings?sportCode=WBB
RuntheDamnBall Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 thats a good one. IF their game is so purer, why do women's teams regularly put up less than 40 points during games? and shoot 5% from the field? womens basketball is terrible. wake me up when a non-tennessee/duke/uconn/lsu/unc team scores more than 70 points. "so purer"? Hmmmm?
Alaska Darin Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 I wonder what men would shoot if they played with a ball that's about the size of a kickball? I'll agree, that if you want to watch 1940s men's hoops, tune in to women's college ball. They got the set shot down, baby. Of course, I don't watch men's hoop anymore either. For obvious reasons.
Sketch Soland Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 I wonder what men would shoot if they played with a ball that's about the size of a kickball? I'll agree, that if you want to watch 1940s men's hoops, tune in to women's college ball. They got the set shot down, baby. Of course, I don't watch men's hoop anymore either. For obvious reasons. Have you seen Candace Parker play?
Alaska Darin Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Have you seen Candace Parker play? No. I also don't watch American Idol, yet I'm pretty sure that sucks too. She's likely a fine basketball player, just as "insert one named Brazilian kickballer here" is great at running around dodging urine bombs while diving at the first threat of contact, but that doesn't mean I'm going to waste one second of my life watching either of them do their "thing". I did see a highlight of one of the games as I was flipping. Some little chic tossed up a three using "set shot" form. Nothing but net. Hence the comment.
Sketch Soland Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 No. I also don't watch American Idol, yet I'm pretty sure that sucks too. She's likely a fine basketball player, just as "insert one named Brazilian kickballer here" is great at running around dodging urine bombs while diving at the first threat of contact, but that doesn't mean I'm going to waste one second of my life watching either of them do their "thing". I did see a highlight of one of the games as I was flipping. Some little chic tossed up a three using "set shot" form. Nothing but net. Hence the comment. For someone who seems to pride himself on cutting through the BS, ignorance and stupidity on this board, it's odd that you would make a stark generalization and blanket judgment about something when you've never taken the time to watch it or experience it. That doesn't seem to be consistent, does it?
Alaska Darin Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 For someone who seems to pride himself on cutting through the BS, ignorance and stupidity on this board, it's odd that you would make a stark generalization and blanket judgment about something when you've never watched it. That doesn't seem to be consistent, does it? I wouldn't say I never watched it. I remember Cheryl Miller's Trojans (how dated is that?), caught some of Taurasi at UConn, and actually went to a game at Stanford while Azzi was leading them (I lived out there) just to see what the hype was about. Not my cup. It's cool if you like it, just understand that I'm going to act like a neanderthal where it's concerned (and kickball as well) because it amuses me.
Sketch Soland Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 I wouldn't say I never watched it. I remember Cheryl Miller's Trojans (how dated is that?), caught some of Taurasi at UConn, and actually went to a game at Stanford while Azzi was leading them (I lived out there) just to see what the hype was about. Not my cup. It's cool if you like it, just understand that I'm going to act like a neanderthal where it's concerned (and kickball as well) because it amuses me. Fair Enough. I certainly understand it not being someone's cup of tea. Candice Parker is a new breed of player, however, that's why I mentioned her. She's 6'3", quick, athletic, can dunk, blocks shots like any male player, has the body control on the court that only male players have had, and has a comparable skill set in terms of variety of shots etc. that male players have. She dispels the old myth of the woman's player.
Alaska Darin Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Fair Enough. I certainly understand it not being someone's cup of tea. Candice Parker is a new breed of player, however, that's why I mentioned her. She's 6'3", quick, athletic, can dunk, blocks shots like any male player, has the body control on the court that only male players have had, and has a comparable skill set in terms of variety of shots etc. that male players have. She dispels the old myth of the woman's player. They've already progressed a long way from Miller's era, since there are more than 2 or 3 teams every year with a chance to win the whole thing.
smokinandjokin Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 It's cool if you like it He's talking to you, state of Connecticut.
Sketch Soland Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 They've already progressed a long way from Miller's era, since there are more than 2 or 3 teams every year with a chance to win the whole thing. Very true. But the women's game has never seen a player like Parker. She represents the next step and the type of player that will elevate the women's game to a whole new level, imo.
The Dean Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Very true. But the women's game has never seen a player like Parker. She represents the next step and the type of player that will elevate the women's game to a whole new level, imo. And, she's a babe. I think it is important to mention that.
The Big Cat Posted April 5, 2007 Author Posted April 5, 2007 Very true. But the women's game has never seen a player like Parker. She represents the next step and the type of player that will elevate the women's game to a whole new level, imo. which is why she must marry me.
UConn James Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 He's talking to you, state of Connecticut. Woo Hoo! I actually sat among about half of the women's team (and next to Sue Bird, who looks a lot nicer in person w/o her hair all slicked back ) in a gen-ed class. That said, I don't watch the games; don't like to watch too much TeeVee and I just have the networks via antenna. If you don't like doing or watching something --- this is America and that's a perfectly fine choice.
keepthefaith Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Very true. But the women's game has never seen a player like Parker. She represents the next step and the type of player that will elevate the women's game to a whole new level, imo. I live in the town where she went to high school. Saw her play then. Even saw her workout one night with a trainer which included her putting on full hockey goalie equipment and taking shots for about 20 minutes. I assume this was reflex training cause it didn't have much to do with basketball. She comes from a good family, is a good student and she'll finish her degree at Tennessee. She's a great player, well spoken, attractive and has a heck of a career in front of her.
Pete Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 He's talking to you, state of Connecticut. CT in the house
Recommended Posts