(there may be a more recent thread dedicated to the NCAA tournaments.)
It was a great first weekend! Not a lot of chaos in either bracket, but a lot of great games. Yesterday's men's games in Memphis both went down to the wire, with the nightcap needing a period of OT for Houston to nip Texas A&M. Other OT games on the men's side as well. All the 1's and 2's advanced.
The women's bracket had lots of great action, too, but a few unexpected results. Yesterday, Duke bounced second seed Ohio State, and Iowa State took Stanford to OT before the Cardinal could advance.
Yes, as Buzz notes, lots of GREAT games, including the above mentioned big-boy-pants-only, almost frightful, Wild West tussle between the (College Station) Aggies and Houston; the Elis "smart kids" over Sir Charles's Plainsmen; the squawking Fighting Warren Buffetts over the quacking Fighting Phil Knights; the "T for Texas, T for Tennessee" Rick Barnes Reunion special; both Oakland games, esp. the latter one vs. the Wolfpack; also esp. the former one (the Jack Gohlke coming-out party) vs. UK; and the Buffaloes over the Gators are just some of the noteworthy events.
Sad to see Samford robbed by the blown call at the end of their remarkable comeback vs. Kansas, but those kinds of things happen (all too much, unfortunately). They've just GOT to institute a challenge system for such - but they've needed that for 30+ years, too.
And the Wolfpack, as I noted in the "Interesting sports tid-bits" thread, continue to win in the post-season. Their win streak is now 7, after losing their final 4 regular-season games. Quite the story.
An interesting twist in the NIL/transfer portal saga emerged in this phase of the tournament. One of the more noted coaches who adapted nicely to the one-and-done mess (freshmen turning pro) was John Calipari at Kentucky. However, after their first-round loss to Oakland, Coach Cal complained that the Oakland team was more mature and outplayed them. Most talking heads agreed. The feeling is that one-and-done specialists who spend their energy (and money) recruiting only incoming freshmen must walk away from that model and turn to the transfer portal to find more experienced players.
A totally different story was Bill Self at Kansas. In his presser after KU was obliterated by Gonzaga, Self stated flatly that his players simply didn't have the "fire power" (i.e., talent) to win that game. I have seen coaches take their team to task after a game (for example, Coach K criticizing his team after losing to UNC for his last regular season game at Cameron), but not this. Maybe with some time to reflect, Self might walk it back and put some (most) of the loss on him, but throwing his players under the bus was poor form.
KU ran out of gas, we had no bench, the starters were gassed in the second half
Yeah, was gonna bring up the KU injuries, but you all beat me to it. That said............I'm certainly no fan of Self - altho by some accounts he seems to have mellowed out some after recent health scares.
I also meant to point out that all 22+ million brackets on ESPN were busted by Friday night. I think that's the earliest ever. There were only 1,825(?) after Thursday night.
Also.............as to Calipari...........post-loss he also had some comments that put a different spin on things. He was making the point that his 'method' allowed him to immediately help out needy families. Whether that's in the *long-term* interests of said families and players is, I guess, a case-by-case situation. And whether that's his *real* motivation is unjudgeable, perhaps. But he truly sounded sincere. And you know, it *has* done that for some of his players and their families.
Saban made similar comments after his retirement.
So, isn’t the big news on the Women’s side of this?
The rematch game between Iowa and LSU (featuring Caitlin Clark vs. Angel Reese, respectively) just became the most watched Women’s basketball game in the US ever.
but, more amazing, it had a bigger audience than all but 3 men’s college football games; every single baseball game; and every single NBA basketball game from last season except for game 5 of the finals!
Caitlin reminds me of Larry Bird. I’d have to look it up but I think the NCAA basketball tournament with Larry Bird vs. Magic Johnson is still (and likely forever) most viewed NCAA basketball game ever. If Iowa wins their next game, I think the Women’s final will get a huge viewership.
No. Or...............if one is into the entertainment aspects of 'sports' moreso than the actual "sport" ideal, then one can say "it depends".
To clarify..........."most watched" does not equate to biggest news - at least imo. Iowa h.s. (both men's and women's), and Indiana h.s. hoops (both again) have traditionally been HUGE draws, often out-drawing college teams (altho that might not include IU; not likely?) Does that make them more important, or bigger news? No. Personal interest, civic pride, etc., draw folks in that might otherwise not be 'pure' fans. The higher levels of hoops are simply more "important" in the grand scheme of things -- WHEN ONE IS LOOKING AT THE "SPORT" ASPECT. With few exceptions (and I'm sure there are some (Olympics, back when they were (more) amateurish?)), the higher the level of comp, the higher the level of import. Is March Madness more fun than the NBA playoffs? Yes, by a long shot. But that doesn't make them more "important". And basketball is an aberrant example because the college game is relatively highly followed - therefore closer in importance/news to the pro games. Compare college golf, tennis, baseball, or T&F for example, to the pro versions.
While I think it's AWESOME that this phenomenon is drawing in new fans, and inspiring thousands of girls across the country to get into the game, or sports in general, I see it as almost a cousin to the Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce-fication of the Chiefs, Super Bowl, etc. Nigh unto a personality cult fandom. Which IN NO WAY detracts from Clark's skill. She's indeed a generational player, and the Bird comparison (the Larry one, not the Kim one) is pretty apt (with dabs of Curry and Stockton, let's say). She's a treat to watch. But because the general athletic ability, speed, and skill levels pale in comparison to the men's game, it's just a lesser product. I'll probably catch grief for that, but it's the truth, empirically.
All that said.........I fully realize these are just my personal opinions, and clearly others see it differently. I think it comes down to how 'pure' one wants their sports to be. Can anyone realistically make the case that this Iowa/LSU game was more important than that Indiana St./Mich. St. game? No way. Same for that '68 Astrodome game. So this wimmens tournament is a big deal, for sure. But not as big a deal as the men's tournament, *even if* by chance there's less viewership. IMO.
There are two aspects to TN's reply that caught my eye:
1) The women's game is a lesser product. I watch a lot of sports, mostly without sound to avoid being told how to digest the game. I watch a lot of the women's games, and nearly all of the televised championships. And, I generally watch them without comparing the women's game to the men's or the NCAA to the pros. Competitive games played at a high level of skill and thought make for amazing drama. The Iowa/LSU rematch was much anticipated for a ton of reasons -- Clark was part of it, but the "bad guy" image of LSU fed that, too. It was an exciting game. I am looking forward to the women's Final Four.
The idea of watching fantastic competition being the key to sports watching applies to all sports. I have no idea if Serena Williams could beat any of the pro men, and I honestly don't care.
That being said, our town housed a first round series in the women's game, and I attended. For the second night, I sat in a packed arena with enthusiastic fans cheering on the hometown team. (In the women's tourney, the top four seeds in each bracket host the first weekend of games.) Have watched a ton of live women's game before, I knew what to expect, but this game frustrated me by the nature of the play: not only do the women play "beneath the rim", they seldom jump on defense or when putting up for a contested shot inside. The game around the rim is played on the floor. Women shoot jump shots from midrange and distance, but the lack of jumping while in the key was strange. Many blocked shots are accomplished simply by reaching while standing on tiptoe. Not great. The television angles seem to mask that, but there was no getting away from it from my vantage in the arena.
2. Sports entertainment versus quality/importance. I don't watch the NBA at all until the playoffs. Ditto NHL and baseball. I'll keep track of a few players, but I won't watch highly paid athletes coasting through the first 90% of the game (and the season) strictly with their eyes on the playoffs and their next contract. The same holds for women's pro sports with high profiles -- soccer and basketball particularly. The difference with the women is they are paid very little for their efforts compared to the men. That's simple economics -- why pay somebody a lot of money when no one is watching/paying? And that is exactly why the LSU/Iowa game was important. Just as in women's soccer, the tide is turning. People like the product the women are putting out there. They will watch, and they will pay.
Buzz: "The idea of watching fantastic competition being the key to sports watching applies to all sports."
That probably codifies the crux of our difference. To me, that's almost exactly half of it, if not slightly less. I can (and have) watch(ed) fantastic competition in high school games, or even church league games. What elevates (pun intended, of course) the men's game is pure athletic ability. One just isn't going to see a Dr. J throwdown, much less one from the foul line (or pick your favorite hard-to-believe J (or MJ) shot), or a Maravich deal (altho yes, some of Clark's are superb, they ain't Pete-level). One isn't going to see Willis Reed block Wilt's shot 18-24 inches above the goal. One isn't going to see The Greek Freak (or whoever), stride down the court in 4 strides. One isn't going to see female versions of Mugsy Bogues or Spud Webb dunking at 5'7" or less. One isn't going to see Chocolate Thunder tear down a goal. I/we could go on. The point, obviously, I hope, is that part of the men's game that the women's game can never(??) have are those extraordinary feats.
Buzz notes that in the women's game he watched, there was no action above the rim; there was hardly any jumping in the paint. True dat. When I first tried to get into the women's game, decades ago, it was immediately obvious that rebounds were problematic. Their arms are shorter, their hands are smaller, and it just seemed like the ball would bounce around in the lane almost like a pinball machine until somebody could grab it. That's an exaggeration, of course, but not by much. There's no Dennis Rodman in the women's game, and very likely never will be. Please don't misunderstand me -- the women work just as hard, play just as hard, and are very, very skilled - but just can't perform the amazing, creative, twisting-in-mid-air, acrobatic, almost gravity-defying daring-dos that the men can. And altho the talent pool is not nearly as deep, it's growing. But that difference will remain on into the foreseeable future.
I can't shoot like Caitlan Clark (I wish), but I can do probably 95+% of the specific actions the other women can do - or at least I used to - not counting the high-level shooting that has taken *untold* hours of practice to develop. But I could *never* be able to do 70-80% of what NBA or high-level college players can do. THAT'S why it's so fascinating and enjoyable to watch those things. It's like a circus; a hi-wire act; a magician's tricks. Almost superhuman abilities. A hundred years ago.......some of those things *would* likely be considered superhuman. To me, and I'm sure to many others, that makes a very clear demarcation. You know, I enjoy seeing people do things I can't, nor ever could.
The Serena example is an interesting, partial counterpoint (pun again intended; sorry). But, ultimately, Serena falls a tad short in trying to do what Rafa, Roger, or Joker does. In tennis, there isn't as much leaping ability to matter, and the court is smaller than a basketball court, so the differences between the sexes is partially mitigated; but only partially. I could elaborate further on different sports, but I think I've made my point, whether others agree or not. But to be extremely clear................I'm not being dismissive of womens' sports - only pointing out the unmistakable difference in capabilities.
Well, FWIW, the latest headline is that scalped ticket prices for the Women’s semifinals is slightly higher than for the Men’s. To be fair, it’s not an apples to apples 🍎 comparison because the venue for the Women’s semifinal only seats just around 20,000 while for the Men it is 63,000. Still, two years ago, if you’d have played a bet on this happening, you’d have gotten odds of something like 20-1 or 50-1.
Yesterday's men's Final Four games were fascinating. Purdue/NC State played solid defense at a a slower pace. Rhythms and shooting were a bit off, but otherwise a fun game to watch. Burns for NC State was not as stellar as in previous games, but Edy remained dominant as Purdue advanced.
The UConn/Alabama was played like a pro game -- high speed and above the rim. The coaching for UConn was also high level. Huskies had answers for the Tide's high-flying offense and eventually prevailed, again by double digits. Monday's game should be interesting, but I'm not sure that Purdue has the guns to slow down UConn's total game.
On the women's side, if Clark and the Hawkeyes are as cold as they were on Friday, the game will be over quickly. South Caroline is deep in talent, and they want to bury Iowa.
Well, Iowa got close at times down the stretch but South Carolina was just way too deep and way too balanced to lose. The most telling stat was that the SC bench outscored the Iowa bench by 30+ points to zero. Dawn Staley was very happy in her post game interview about how well the whole SC team played tag team defense on Caitlin Clark even though she thought Clark must have scored 30-something points (30 exactly as it turned out).
I still think comparing Clark to Larry Bird is the closest comparison out there. Both were great shooters, but also great at passing and rebounding. I’ve read TN’s post about the shortcomings of Clark vs. Pistol Pete but I really think Clark is a much better all-around basketball player. Clark is almost as good as Maravich in scoring, and, she’s better at shooting, rebounding, and especially passing, than Maravich.
My final comment/opinion is that I think much of the appeal for Clark, and Women’s college basketball in general is that the game they play is much aligned with what Naismith had in mind when he invented basketball. It’s played entirely differently than Men’s basketball, especially at the NBA level. Almost better to think of them as two different sports. Maybe if the NBA courts were 40 meters by 18 meters with baskets 3.5 meters high would it look more like the Women’s game.
My first reaction to your belief that Clark is a better shooter and passer than Maravich is that seems ludicrous, but those are really hard things to define quantitatively. We'll never know what Pete would have shot with a 3-pt. line. Certainly his range, unbelievable as it sounds, was even more than Clark's, but that's not surprising, with more strength and leverage. And we have to remember the defenses he was going up against, in general, would have been more difficult to get shots off against. His passing was *far* more creative, even if he took chances at times when perhaps he shouldn't have. He was well aware that customers wanted to see him be creative and be a showman. Clark's dealing is more standard, calculated, and impressively, extremely precise. So in that aspect, the definition would be key. As to rebounding........yes, I'd agree that Clark is better, but Pete was extremely aware that management didn't want him banged up by battling inside, and they wanted him to be free to roam down the court. I.e., he didn't normally even try to rebound - with exceptions due to his position on the court and the game situation.
Another way to attempt to 'measure' that is the level or performance of each vs. their competition, albeit also hard to quantify. But remember, the womens' game has a much shallower talent pool. Pete was going against top 50 players in the world every single game with, in general, each of them having a talent level reasonably close to his own. I don't know how that equation would work out, but my gut feeling is that it would favor Pete - while not denying that Clark's level is also elevated vs. her comp. We may just have to agree to disagree on this.
I've repeatedly made the point to others that, indeed, womens' basketball *is* a different sport than the mens' game. I think I've even made it on this forum, but can't say when or where. Your thought experiment wondering which version Naismith would have imagined is interesting - and I suspect your guess isn't wrong. But does that mean it's a "better" game? I would argue no, and after watching for 15 minutes, Naismith would agree - but of course that's speculation. The modern game is just so far outside what his imagination could have conjured up. Relatedly, do you remember the extensive testing the NBA did decades ago ('70s?) with an 11-ft. goal? As I recall, *nobody* liked them. Which is also not to challenge your point. But no, there would still be ga-ga rebounding, blocked shots, greater speed, etc. So....more similar, but still radically different. Seems to me it would be just like it was when dunking was banned.
Final note on the women's championship game -- peaked at 24 million viewers with an average of 18+ million. It's the fifth highest viewership of any NCAA championship game.
The men's game went according to form. Connecticut let Edey get his points but shut down the rest of the team. Edey's single tournament point total puts in the rare air of all-timers and hall of famers. But, Connecticut was too deep and eventually ran circles around Purdue. The final score did not full represent the lopsidedness of the game.