Freeman is right

One of the earlier messages raised a good point - we like to see things that we cannot do.  The only problem is that most viewers don't know enough to KNOW that they cannot do what the ladies are doing. 

OK, the ladies don't dunk, and there are fewer acrobatic plays.  But where the women's game catches up is sub-plot. 

For the fan, it is great to watch a player grow up over four years, and play for the same team year after year.  Parker-vs-Fowles does not have an equal in men's ball.  It is literally the equivelant of LeBron-Anthony if they LeBron would have choosen to go to a Big East power - say UConn, and they played every year.

WOMEN'S BASKETBALL HAS REAL RIVALRIES.   Yeah, the men have Duke-UNC, etc., but none with the mix of bad-blood between coaches like Gino Auriema and Pat Summit.

Finally, the extremety of skill sets for women makes every match-up unique.  Some might say this is a deficiency in women's hoops, but the debate as to whether the "powerful" girls in Oklahoma's front court could run over the "athletic" women for LSU makes that game much more intriguing to me, than say a Memphis-vs-Michigan State matchup.  Among the men, the difference in much more subtle.  The contrast in styles and skill sets among women make for a lot more interesting conversation.

Great Rivalries...

When I was in Junior High, my neighbor and I had a great rivalry. We played one-on-one almost everyday on my 8 foot hoop. We must have played at least 200 times, and every game was intense, but for some reason we did not have a lot of fans come and watch us (sometimes my little brothers would watch). And the reason is that we were not very good. Rivalry only matters when the rivals are talented.

Guthrie...

I admire your courage in trying to stand up for the game but it is futile. 

A few comments:

• The Tennesse/UCONN thing is part of what makes the game so boring.  Every year you can count on UCONN/Tennessee/North Carolina/LSU being the Final Four.  Maybe occasionally mix in a Maryland, Duke, or Rutgers.  That is weak.
• The player matchup thing is also because 5-8 teams meat in the Final Four every year.  Wow...how exciting.
• "Powerful"---Is that a substitute word for FAT?
• "Athletic"---seriously?  We are talking about the women's game right?  I guess you could say "athletic" compared to the "powerful" (read fat, slow) girls on other teams.

While it is agreed that the skill level of the women's game is improving, most of the teams still have to play team ball because the collective athleticism and one-on-one skill level is still deficient in women's basketball.

I think the best analogy may be that the good women college teams might equate with the elite boys high school teams. Nevertheless, I feel that Candace Parker and her UT team would probably get blown out by California's Mater Dei High and would probably struggle with Dominguez High, too.

That said, I think that Cheryl Miller's USC team of yore-or even her high school team where she scored her 105 points would get thoroughly whipped by today's women's teams. So, women's basketball next generation has a bright future if they continue to work hard and sharpen their skills to a razor's edge.

TheDude4211 says: The Tennesse/UCONN thing is part of what makes the game so boring.  Every year you can count on UCONN/Tennessee/North Carolina/LSU being the Final Four.  Maybe occasionally mix in a Maryland, Duke, or Rutgers.  That is weak.

You also just described the men's game when UCLA was winning all those championships.  It was a yawner, and no one watched, maybe partly because many people felt like on a really good day, they could play also.

Athletics, and the broad depth of athletic players across the nation, have made basketball much more fun.  This is where college women's basketball still has a long way to go.  And to say it's as good now as men's basketball is just kind of, well, stupid.

But for a change, at least Freeman is not being childishly racist.   There's lots of exciting things to write about women's basketball.  But Freeman as usual misses them.

But for a change, at least Freeman is not being childishly racist.   There's lots of exciting things to write about women's basketball.  But Freeman as usual misses them

like what?the games arent nearly as exciting as the mens or athletic