ADVERTISEMENT

Lack of parity in women’s basketball

HeismaNole

Senior
Nov 29, 2023
4,080
17,751
113
It’s crazy that there’s such a massive gap in talent and parity with the women’s game.

There’s no reason to even have a 68 team tournament with them. Check this out, the lowest seed to ever win the women’s tournament is a three seed and it has only happened three times- 1994, 1997, and 2023.

In the men’s game, you could be stacked like 2010 Kentucky or 2010 Kansas and still lose to lesser teams. That rarely happens in women’s basketball. That’s why teams like UConn and South Carolina can dominate is they simply got all of the good players to join on one team. It’s basically 2017 Warriors with KD.

That’s why all of the talk about “coaching genius” and citing championships is faulty logic. If you get all of the talent in a league that’s short on it, of course you should win. You could be the biggest coaching genius in the women's game but unless you get the recruits, no one will ever praise you.

Any theories on why the women’s game suffers from this?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cowtown Cat
The womens game kind of resembles the mens game of 60 years ago. A handful of programs hoard talent and the rest can’t keep pace.

My biggest takeaway from women’s basketball is there are basically three tiers:
3. Scrub teams - these teams are bad and can’t compete with most other team
2. Good teams - UK’s women are here - these are teams ranked 6-60. Capable of beating bad teams and other teams in their tier
1. Elite teams - There are about 5 of these each year and they can beat the brakes off anyone in tiers 2-3.

You don’t often see a top 5 mens team beat a top 15 team by 50. Has happened many times in the womens game.
 
It’s crazy that there’s such a massive gap in talent and parity with the women’s game.

There’s no reason to even have a 68 team tournament with them. Check this out, the lowest seed to ever win the women’s tournament is a three seed and it’s only happened three times- 1994, 1997, and 2023.

In the men’s game, you could be stacked like 2010 Kentucky or 2010 Kansas and still lose to lesser teams. That rarely happens in women’s basketball. That’s why teams like UConn and South Carolina can dominate is they simply got all of the good players to join on one team. It’s basically 2017 Warriors with KD.

That’s why all of the talk about “coaching genius” and citing championships is faulty logic. If you get all of the talent in a league that’s short on it, of course you should win. You could be the biggest coaching genius in the womens game but unless you get the recruits, no one will ever praise you.

Any theories of why the women’s game suffers from this?
The women's game doesn't get hit with early entrants into the WNBA like the men do so players stay longer with their teams. This just allows the best teams to keep stacking talent. The NIL might change that some but not likely to be a lot because I can't imagine huge NIL for most female players to be honest.

For instance the #1 player in last years WNBA draft made $76,535 for the first year. They could stay in college, get a degree and make more than that doing their chosen profession and not have to worry about damage they are doing to their bodies playing basketball.
 
The womens game kind of resembles the mens game of 60 years ago. A handful of programs hoard talent and the rest can’t keep pace.

My biggest takeaway from women’s basketball is there are basically three tiers:
3. Scrub teams - these teams are bad and can’t compete with most other team
2. Good teams - UK’s women are here - these are teams ranked 6-60. Capable of beating bad teams and other teams in their tier
1. Elite teams - There are about 5 of these each year and they can beat the brakes off anyone in tiers 2-3.

You don’t often see a top 5 mens team beat a top 15 team by 50. Has happened many times in the womens game.
I think part of it is due to their just being only so many top tier female players to go around. Like every Men's team has 2-3 guys who are 6'-9" or taller. There's very very few women players over that 6'-5" threshold that are coveted. Those type players make a difference and they usually wind up at those top programs. I think the Portal is making a little bit of headway in spreading the talent around a little more. we saw how it helped Kentucky this year alone. I think a few more years of the portal might expand that top tier group out some, but its going to be at the expense of those lower tier schools losing their best players.
 
I think many of the top female athletes are just interested in other sports too. Basketball is #4 in popularity from HS participation, in some stats I found.

Soccer, Track, and Volleyball are all more popular.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrimsonCats
The women's game doesn't get hit with early entrants into the WNBA like the men do so players stay longer with their teams. This just allows the best teams to keep stacking talent. The NIL might change that some but not likely to be a lot because I can't imagine huge NIL for most female players to be honest.

For instance the #1 player in last years WNBA draft made $76,535 for the first year. They could stay in college, get a degree and make more than that doing their chosen profession and not have to worry about damage they are doing to their bodies playing basketball.
Caitlyn Clark's WNBA salary is her play money. Her real money is in her endorsements.
 
It’s crazy that there’s such a massive gap in talent and parity with the women’s game.

There’s no reason to even have a 68 team tournament with them. Check this out, the lowest seed to ever win the women’s tournament is a three seed and it has only happened three times- 1994, 1997, and 2023.

In the men’s game, you could be stacked like 2010 Kentucky or 2010 Kansas and still lose to lesser teams. That rarely happens in women’s basketball. That’s why teams like UConn and South Carolina can dominate is they simply got all of the good players to join on one team. It’s basically 2017 Warriors with KD.

That’s why all of the talk about “coaching genius” and citing championships is faulty logic. If you get all of the talent in a league that’s short on it, of course you should win. You could be the biggest coaching genius in the women's game but unless you get the recruits, no one will ever praise you.

Any theories on why the women’s game suffers from this?
You alluded to it. There's not much granularity in women's ability overall. The elite players are way fewer and far between than in the men's game and the top schools get most of them. Even when a lesser school get s a top player. they don't have the surrounding talent to make a true impact Don't see this changing more than very gradually.
 
Can we please just get rid of women’s college basketball and the WNBA? Sports fans need to quit pretending this is alright from fear of scorn from purple hair lesbians.

I dont have an issue with it. I just don't watch.

If I happen to have espn on and they start talking about it i just quickly turn it off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flacat22
Can we please just get rid of women’s college basketball and the WNBA? Sports fans need to quit pretending this is alright from fear of scorn from purple hair lesbians.
It’s very telling in every women’s basketball ad they have to say the name of the player so viewers know who it is. State Farm, “Juju Watkins?”
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT