The Official College Football/College Sports Thread!

[SawuScimitar74]

Congratulations to Villanova for winning their first championship since 1985! biggrin

[Agent Fox William Mulder]

I want to preface this post by saying I am in no way intending for it to be misogynistic in any form.

But, to be blunt, UCONN is the reason almost no one cares about women's basketball compared to men's.

I understand men's sports have had legendary dynasties. As an example, the Celtics of the late 50s-late 60s who won 11 titles in 13 years, with 8 straight in between. Or John Wooden's UCLA teams that won 10 titles.

The difference?

You wouldn't hear the word "Celtics" and immediately expect them to win every game by 30+, nor would you hear the same about UCLA. In fact, both teams quite frequently had games where they were challenged. People actually knew they -could- be beaten, because multiple times they were.

Whether it's men's sports or women's, dominance to the point of being picked to win by 30 every single game is bad for the particular sport. People respected the Celtics dynasty and UCLA's because like I said, they knew they could be beaten since they weren't flat-out drubbing teams night after night.

I am in no way saying UCONN shouldn't try to keep dominating, but to say it doesn't hurt the sport is ludicrous. At this point, if you're not UCONN, you might as well disband your school's women's basketball program.

Since 1994, the year the Women's Tournament expanded to 64 teams, three teams have won 17 of the last 22 titles, those being UCONN, Tennessee, and Baylor. So you're lucky to even make the title game, let alone win it, unless you're one of those teams.

[SailorGreenSparkles]

Agent Fox William Mulder

I want to preface this post by saying I am in no way intending for it to be misogynistic in any form.

But, to be blunt, UCONN is the reason almost no one cares about women's basketball compared to men's.

I understand men's sports have had legendary dynasties. As an example, the Celtics of the late 50s-late 60s who won 11 titles in 13 years, with 8 straight in between. Or John Wooden's UCLA teams that won 10 titles.

The difference?

You wouldn't hear the word "Celtics" and immediately expect them to win every game by 30+, nor would you hear the same about UCLA. In fact, both teams quite frequently had games where they were challenged. People actually knew they -could- be beaten, because multiple times they were.

Whether it's men's sports or women's, dominance to the point of being picked to win by 30 every single game is bad for the particular sport. People respected the Celtics dynasty and UCLA's because like I said, they knew they could be beaten since they weren't flat-out drubbing teams night after night.

I am in no way saying UCONN shouldn't try to keep dominating, but to say it doesn't hurt the sport is ludicrous. At this point, if you're not UCONN, you might as well disband your school's women's basketball program.

Since 1994, the year the Women's Tournament expanded to 64 teams, three teams have won 17 of the last 22 titles, those being UCONN, Tennessee, and Baylor. So you're lucky to even make the title game, let alone win it, unless you're one of those teams.

Im just glad its over.