Iowa Women's Team is the real deal..

[WegsBabyUnk]

Yes it is. It isn't there house.

It was theres last night, thats for sure.

 

[DodgerHawki]

The Iowa women have a nice team and have had a nice season. That being said, there is a HUGE difference in Big 10 women's basketball versus teams out East. While Iowa has had a good season I truly expected Louisville to roll us tonight. There is not nearly as much parity in women's basketball as there is in men's bball. Hope I am wrong but I think the Iowa women have peaked.

The women's game has gotten a lot better, but there exists a huge disparity between the top rung of women's college BB and the rest of the teams. A canyon-sized hole, as evidenced by Louisville against Iowa tonight. It's why Tennessee has made 32 of 33 Sweet 16's and UConn has had 5 undefeated seasons or whatever Auriema has done. The gap between the very best women's players and the good women's players is way bigger than on the men's side.

Look at the Sagarin rankings as an example. On the men's side, Louisville is the top team in Sagarin's rankings, with a rating of 94.58. The 20th team is Syracuse at 87.50, and the 50th team is Providence at 82.20. Just a 12-point difference between teams 1 and 50.

On the women's side, the top team (uConn with 110.90) is ranked 22 points higher than the 20th team (Penn State). And if you go down to the 50th team (Fordham) the gap is nearly 30 points. Iowa was playing Louisville, who was way underseeded as a 3. Sagarin has them as the 3rd-best team in the country. Iowa could have made the game closer by making more shots, but Iowa would have needed so many things to go right against Louisville as to make victory next to impossible.

If you compare the top 10 teams in the men's and women's rankings and look at their records against Top 50 teams, you can see how this plays out. Louisville men have a record of 7-5 against Top 50 teams, Arizona is 12-3, Wisconsin is 10-4, and so on. On the women's side, UConn is 15-0 against Top 50 women's teams, Notre Dame is 19-0. Stanford is 14-2, Baylor is 14-3, Tennessee is 16-5. Would be a rather large upset if it's not Notre Dame and UConn in the finals. When you combine the talent disparity with the homecourt issues on the women's side for the tournament, you end up with the favorites winning almost all of the time. In the men's tournament, Stanford as a 10 seed was able to get Kansas on a neutral floor in St. Louis. Think the result isn't different if the game is at Allen Fieldhouse? Or the Wichita State/Kentucky game if played in Wichita?

To illustrate, in the women's tournament this year there were 13 first-found sites with a clear home team hosting. 10 of those 13 host teams advanced to the Sweet 16 (the 3 who didn't were Iowa, Purdue and Iowa State). In two of those cases (Iowa and ISU) both the Cyclones and Hawks were severe underdogs (ISU lost to FSU, but would have had to beat Stanford) and Iowa to Louisville. Purdue lost at home in a 4-5 game to Oklahoma State, two competitively matched teams. Of the top teams who didn't get to host the first two rounds (Notre Dame, Stanford and Louisville) they get rewarded by now getting to host the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 games. I understand the reasons why the women's tournament is structured this way, but with this set-up you are going to have more of the favorites showing up in the Sweet 16 and Final 4 every year.

I would guess that this will dissipate over time as the depth of basketball talent on the women's side expands. It may take another generation for this to happen, but it will be good for the game if/when that does happen.

 

[tm3308]

The women's game has gotten a lot better, but there exists a huge disparity between the top rung of women's college BB and the rest of the teams. A canyon-sized hole, as evidenced by Louisville against Iowa tonight. It's why Tennessee has made 32 of 33 Sweet 16's and UConn has had 5 undefeated seasons or whatever Auriema has done. The gap between the very best women's players and the good women's players is way bigger than on the men's side.

Look at the Sagarin rankings as an example. On the men's side, Louisville is the top team in Sagarin's rankings, with a rating of 94.58. The 20th team is Syracuse at 87.50, and the 50th team is Providence at 82.20. Just a 12-point difference between teams 1 and 50.

On the women's side, the top team (uConn with 110.90) is ranked 22 points higher than the 20th team (Penn State). And if you go down to the 50th team (Fordham) the gap is nearly 30 points. Iowa was playing Louisville, who was way underseeded as a 3. Sagarin has them as the 3rd-best team in the country. Iowa could have made the game closer by making more shots, but Iowa would have needed so many things to go right against Louisville as to make victory next to impossible.

If you compare the top 10 teams in the men's and women's rankings and look at their records against Top 50 teams, you can see how this plays out. Louisville men have a record of 7-5 against Top 50 teams, Arizona is 12-3, Wisconsin is 10-4, and so on. On the women's side, UConn is 15-0 against Top 50 women's teams, Notre Dame is 19-0. Stanford is 14-2, Baylor is 14-3, Tennessee is 16-5. Would be a rather large upset if it's not Notre Dame and UConn in the finals. When you combine the talent disparity with the homecourt issues on the women's side for the tournament, you end up with the favorites winning almost all of the time. In the men's tournament, Stanford as a 10 seed was able to get Kansas on a neutral floor in St. Louis. Think the result isn't different if the game is at Allen Fieldhouse? Or the Wichita State/Kentucky game if played in Wichita?

To illustrate, in the women's tournament this year there were 13 first-found sites with a clear home team hosting. 10 of those 13 host teams advanced to the Sweet 16 (the 3 who didn't were Iowa, Purdue and Iowa State). In two of those cases (Iowa and ISU) both the Cyclones and Hawks were severe underdogs (ISU lost to FSU, but would have had to beat Stanford) and Iowa to Louisville. Purdue lost at home in a 4-5 game to Oklahoma State, two competitively matched teams. Of the top teams who didn't get to host the first two rounds (Notre Dame, Stanford and Louisville) they get rewarded by now getting to host the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 games. I understand the reasons why the women's tournament is structured this way, but with this set-up you are going to have more of the favorites showing up in the Sweet 16 and Final 4 every year.

I would guess that this will dissipate over time as the depth of basketball talent on the women's side expands. It may take another generation for this to happen, but it will be good for the game if/when that does happen.

As far as why the women's tournament has teams in the field host games, I'd imagine it's because they can't secure the same kind of neutral site facilities. The men's tournament rakes in a ton more money, and I'd guess a chunk of that pays for the use of facilities. The women's tournament doesn't have the same kind of revenue stream coming in.

 

[trj]

The women's game has gotten a lot better, but there exists a huge disparity between the top rung of women's college BB and the rest of the teams. A canyon-sized hole, as evidenced by Louisville against Iowa tonight. It's why Tennessee has made 32 of 33 Sweet 16's and UConn has had 5 undefeated seasons or whatever Auriema has done. The gap between the very best women's players and the good women's players is way bigger than on the men's side.

Look at the Sagarin rankings as an example. On the men's side, Louisville is the top team in Sagarin's rankings, with a rating of 94.58. The 20th team is Syracuse at 87.50, and the 50th team is Providence at 82.20. Just a 12-point difference between teams 1 and 50.

On the women's side, the top team (uConn with 110.90) is ranked 22 points higher than the 20th team (Penn State). And if you go down to the 50th team (Fordham) the gap is nearly 30 points. Iowa was playing Louisville, who was way underseeded as a 3. Sagarin has them as the 3rd-best team in the country. Iowa could have made the game closer by making more shots, but Iowa would have needed so many things to go right against Louisville as to make victory next to impossible.

If you compare the top 10 teams in the men's and women's rankings and look at their records against Top 50 teams, you can see how this plays out. Louisville men have a record of 7-5 against Top 50 teams, Arizona is 12-3, Wisconsin is 10-4, and so on. On the women's side, UConn is 15-0 against Top 50 women's teams, Notre Dame is 19-0. Stanford is 14-2, Baylor is 14-3, Tennessee is 16-5. Would be a rather large upset if it's not Notre Dame and UConn in the finals. When you combine the talent disparity with the homecourt issues on the women's side for the tournament, you end up with the favorites winning almost all of the time. In the men's tournament, Stanford as a 10 seed was able to get Kansas on a neutral floor in St. Louis. Think the result isn't different if the game is at Allen Fieldhouse? Or the Wichita State/Kentucky game if played in Wichita?

To illustrate, in the women's tournament this year there were 13 first-found sites with a clear home team hosting. 10 of those 13 host teams advanced to the Sweet 16 (the 3 who didn't were Iowa, Purdue and Iowa State). In two of those cases (Iowa and ISU) both the Cyclones and Hawks were severe underdogs (ISU lost to FSU, but would have had to beat Stanford) and Iowa to Louisville. Purdue lost at home in a 4-5 game to Oklahoma State, two competitively matched teams. Of the top teams who didn't get to host the first two rounds (Notre Dame, Stanford and Louisville) they get rewarded by now getting to host the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 games. I understand the reasons why the women's tournament is structured this way, but with this set-up you are going to have more of the favorites showing up in the Sweet 16 and Final 4 every year.

I would guess that this will dissipate over time as the depth of basketball talent on the women's side expands. It may take another generation for this to happen, but it will be good for the game if/when that does happen.

They tried in the past to set it up exactly like the men, but the attendance to these games was awful ,especially the first two rounds for financial reasons they had no choice, but to go back to the way they were doing it.

 

[trj]

After Angie Lee resigned, was let go(can't remember how exactly that went down) I thought Bluder was the perfect hire to replace her. I thought every 2 or 3 years there would be a sweet 16, elite 8 run in the tournament similar to what Fennelly has going at Iowa st. Imo, it feels like Bluder has underachieved a bit, but I do not follow the program or women's hoops close enough to know if that is a accurate opinion to even have.

 

[HaydenHawk56]

The women's game has gotten a lot better, but there exists a huge disparity between the top rung of women's college BB and the rest of the teams. A canyon-sized hole, as evidenced by Louisville against Iowa tonight. It's why Tennessee has made 32 of 33 Sweet 16's and UConn has had 5 undefeated seasons or whatever Auriema has done. The gap between the very best women's players and the good women's players is way bigger than on the men's side.



Look at the Sagarin rankings as an example. On the men's side, Louisville is the top team in Sagarin's rankings, with a rating of 94.58. The 20th team is Syracuse at 87.50, and the 50th team is Providence at 82.20. Just a 12-point difference between teams 1 and 50.

On the women's side, the top team (uConn with 110.90) is ranked 22 points higher than the 20th team (Penn State). And if you go down to the 50th team (Fordham) the gap is nearly 30 points. Iowa was playing Louisville, who was way underseeded as a 3. Sagarin has them as the 3rd-best team in the country. Iowa could have made the game closer by making more shots, but Iowa would have needed so many things to go right against Louisville as to make victory next to impossible.

If you compare the top 10 teams in the men's and women's rankings and look at their records against Top 50 teams, you can see how this plays out. Louisville men have a record of 7-5 against Top 50 teams, Arizona is 12-3, Wisconsin is 10-4, and so on. On the women's side, UConn is 15-0 against Top 50 women's teams, Notre Dame is 19-0. Stanford is 14-2, Baylor is 14-3, Tennessee is 16-5. Would be a rather large upset if it's not Notre Dame and UConn in the finals. When you combine the talent disparity with the homecourt issues on the women's side for the tournament, you end up with the favorites winning almost all of the time. In the men's tournament, Stanford as a 10 seed was able to get Kansas on a neutral floor in St. Louis. Think the result isn't different if the game is at Allen Fieldhouse? Or the Wichita State/Kentucky game if played in Wichita?

To illustrate, in the women's tournament this year there were 13 first-found sites with a clear home team hosting. 10 of those 13 host teams advanced to the Sweet 16 (the 3 who didn't were Iowa, Purdue and Iowa State). In two of those cases (Iowa and ISU) both the Cyclones and Hawks were severe underdogs (ISU lost to FSU, but would have had to beat Stanford) and Iowa to Louisville. Purdue lost at home in a 4-5 game to Oklahoma State, two competitively matched teams. Of the top teams who didn't get to host the first two rounds (Notre Dame, Stanford and Louisville) they get rewarded by now getting to host the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 games. I understand the reasons why the women's tournament is structured this way, but with this set-up you are going to have more of the favorites showing up in the Sweet 16 and Final 4 every year.

I would guess that this will dissipate over time as the depth of basketball talent on the women's side expands. It may take another generation for this to happen, but it will be good for the game if/when that does happen.

Great post....makes a lot of sense. The rich get richer, the poorer get poorer. The only way to reverse this trend is to start getting those top recruits to go else where, but that is just like anything else. Top talent usually wants to play for the blue blood programs. For example, Stokes would rather sit on the bench at UConn (I really don't know how much is playing) than play major minutes and be a star at Iowa.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Great post....makes a lot of sense. The rich get richer, the poorer get poorer. The only way to reverse this trend is to start getting those top recruits to go else where, but that is just like anything else. Top talent usually wants to play for the blue blood programs. For example, Stokes would rather sit on the bench at UConn (I really don't know how much is playing) than play major minutes and be a star at Iowa.

And this is what I don't like about college sports. It's the traditional programs.. And everyone else. Same teams year in and year out. I don't follow women's hoops that closely, but I know enough to see that UConn is basically THE team every year, with teams like ND and Tennessee always right there, so it sounds like this is an even worse problem than it is in men's hoops.

 

[Hawknick]

This problem is also there in college football looking at the disparity in 4 and 5 star recruits from school to school. This also seems to be getting worse. Both sports have their hoarders.

 

[kicker22]

Not trying to sound sexist, but IMO, I think the big difference is there is such a disperity between the number of truly elite female players vs. the number of elite male players. In the men's game in almost every game you see a player on the floor with a skill set that appears to be far superior then the rest of those on the floor. I watch very little women's basketball, but I simply don't see that on a game to game basis. What I see is those that I would consider to truly be elites all end up playing at elite programs.

 

[tm3308]

Not trying to sound sexist, but IMO, I think the big difference is there is such a disperity between the number of truly elite female players vs. the number of elite male players. In the men's game in almost every game you see a player on the floor with a skill set that appears to be far superior then the rest of those on the floor. I watch very little women's basketball, but I simply don't see that on a game to game basis. What I see is those that I would consider to truly be elites all end up playing at elite programs.

I wouldn't say there are more truly elite players in the men's game, but I think the median talent level for men's players is higher than that of women's players.

To put it in like Madden ratings, there aren't more 95+ players in the men's game, but there are more in the 75-89 range. The tier below the elite is where the biggest gap between the two sports lies, IMO.

 

[judzeehawk]

All of you are correct with what you are posting. One other thing that also hurts girls sports is a lot of talented players just give up playing after high school. There really isn't the pro incentive to go to college like the men do. Yeah there's a pro league but you must admit it doesn't pay off like the men's league. Iowa has only had 5on5 for 25 years. The college level has improved vastly the last 10 years. The ladies will never have wing spans of 8ft. Or have a vertical jump of 36 in' but there are getting up and down the floor pretty good and can shoot pretty darn good and scrap like crazy. I can really appreciate what they are able to do and not expect them to play like the men. Just will never happen. Love the Lady HAWKS and what the accomplished this year and am looking forward to next year.

 

[kicker22]

I wouldn't say there are more truly elite players in the men's game, but I think the median talent level for men's players is higher than that of women's players.

To put it in like Madden ratings, there aren't more 95+ players in the men's game, but there are more in the 75-89 range. The tier below the elite is where the biggest gap between the two sports lies, IMO.

Very good point in response to my original comment. As one that doesn't follow the women's game I think you're probably spot on.

 

[1hawkeye1]

I'm pleased with the job Bluder has done. It's a mistake to compare Iowa to the elite women's programs and say all we need to do is fire Bluder and hire someone else then we too will win multiple national titles.

We can't make our head coaches positions into revolving doors.

The women's program is a success. No need for heads to roll.

 

[trj]

I'm pleased with the job Bluder has done. It's a mistake to compare Iowa to the elite women's programs and say all we need to do is fire Bluder and hire someone else then we too will win multiple national titles.

We can't make our head coaches positions into revolving doors.

The women's program is a success. No need for heads to roll.

Not saying she should be fired......When she was hired I expected a little bit more than what she has delivered, but i get it.....it is on me. I expected what Fennelly has going on at Iowa St. i realize Iowa isn't a blue blood program, but i thought maybe the occasional Sweet 16, elite 8 run would come. Attendance at the 8-10,000 a game average.....Maybe catch lightning in a bottle like the '03 Maryland team.

 

[ICHAWK]

Not saying she should be fired......When she was hired I expected a little bit more than what she has delivered, but i get it.....it is on me. I expected what Fennelly has going on at Iowa St. i realize Iowa isn't a blue blood program, but i thought maybe the occasional Sweet 16, elite 8 run would come. Attendance at the 8-10,000 a game average.....Maybe catch lightning in a bottle like the '03 Maryland team.

In 2013 the Iowa women ranked 19th in the country averaging 4,567 per game. Iowa State ranked 2nd in the country averaging 9,970 per game.

Iowa State is closer to DSM and the DSM metro area so they have a way larger population base.

I would think if Iowa could average 6,000 per game that would be pretty darn good. The Coridoor population base is not that big and there are so many other things going on.

The womens team COULD be better but it is not guarantee. Nor is there a guarantee of better attendance if Iowa wins a few more regular season games a year and makes a few sweet 16 runs.

I think I would be more than happy if I were Barta at this point.

 

[trj]

In 2013 the Iowa women ranked 19th in the country averaging 4,567 per game. Iowa State ranked 2nd in the country averaging 9,970 per game.

Iowa State is closer to DSM and the DSM metro area so they have a way larger population base.

I would think if Iowa could average 6,000 per game that would be pretty darn good. The Coridoor population base is not that big and there are so many other things going on.

The womens team COULD be better but it is not guarantee. Nor is there a guarantee of better attendance if Iowa wins a few more regular season games a year and makes a few sweet 16 runs.

I think I would be more than happy if I were Barta at this point.

Not trying to be a hater or anything after Angie Lee left I thought Bluder was the perfect fit to come and do some special things, she has been okay. After her Drake run I thought there would be a little bit more, but as I stated earlier that is on me for not understanding the women's college bball landscape.

 

[HaydenHawk56]

Here is an article about Angie Lee's resignation.......does anyone know/remember why did she resign? I remember her teams struggled at the end of her coaching career at Iowa.

CONTACT: ANN RHODES
307 E College
Iowa City IA 52242
(319) 335-0293
email: ann-rhodes@uiowa.edu

Release: Feb. 28, 2000
Hawkeye women's basketball coach Angie Lee announces her resignation
IOWA CITY, Iowa -- Angie Lee, University of Iowa's head women's basketball coach for the last five seasons, announced her resignation at a press conference today (Monday, Feb. 28). Lee, affiliated with the University of Iowa for 20 years, will leave her post effective May 1.
Since taking the helm of the women's basketball program in 1995, Lee has led the Hawkeyes to two Big Ten regular season championships and one Big Ten tournament championship. In her first year as head coach (1995-1996), Lee led the Hawkeyes to a 27-4 record that included a Big 10 conference championship and an appearance in the NCAA Regional Semifinal. As a result, Lee was named Associated Press Coach of the Year, Converse/WBCA District IV Coach of the Year, Big Ten Coach of the Year, and College Sports Magazine Coach of the Year. In 1996-1997, Lee's team won the Big Ten Tournament championship and advanced to the second round of the NCAA Tournament.
The following year her team again won the Big 10 title, advanced to the finals of the Big Ten Tournament, and the second round of the NCAA Tournament. In addition to guiding the Hawkeyes, Lee has been actively involved in United States Basketball. In 1998, Lee was an assistant for the United States Jones Cup Team and a scout for the United States National Team at the World and European Championships.
"Over the last 10 seasons, it has been my privilege to share a vision of excellence with outstanding young women who are determined to excel both on and off the court," said Lee.
Lee first came to Iowa as a freshman in 1980 and except for a brief two-year hiatus at Western Illinois University, never left. For nearly 20 years Lee has donned the black and gold and shaped the lives of student-athletes, coaching peers, and teammates and vice versa. "The University of Iowa has shaped me as a person," said Lee. "I love the university and its commitment to excellence in education, and in my heart I will always be a Hawkeye.
"It is my affection and respect for Iowa that has led me to this decision. Change is needed in order for Hawkeye women's basketball to resume its rightful position as one of the leading programs in the nation. At a time like this, you either try harder or you walk away. I am confident my decision will, indeed, prompt change," she said. "I thank God for helping me close this door, and I look forward to the ones He will help me open in the future."
Dr. Christine H. B. Grant, director of women's athletics, said, "It was heartwrenching for me to accept the resignation of Angie Lee as our basketball coach because Angie has been an integral part of our family for twenty years…. as a student-athlete, as a graduate assistant, as an assistant coach and as head coach. To all positions, she brought her unquenchable enthusiasm, her fiery drive and her indefatigable work ethic. No one could have given more than Angie, especially in her role as head coach. She will be so sorely missed by all in the department, but most critically by her student-athletes who love her for everything she values and stands for.
"Angie is a wonderful young woman with many talents, and we all should be very proud of her accomplishments thus far in her young career. We are particularly proud that she is a graduate of the University of Iowa and proud that she is our friend. We are all blessed for having known and worked with her."
Ann Rhodes, vice president of university relations, said, "I think the world of Angie. She is enormously talented and it has been my privilege to know her and to work with her."

another old article I found:

05/24/2001 - Updated 05:07 PM ET

Angie Lee returns to coaching at Virginia Tech IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — Angie Lee is getting back into coaching with a job that will reunite her with a former assistant. Lee, the women's basketball coach at Iowa from 1995-2000, has been named an assistant coach at Virginia Tech. The head coach there, Bonnie Henrickson, was an assistant to Lee at Iowa. They also worked together at Western Illinois. "Bonnie and I have a long history and the opportunity to work with her again was one of the most attractive aspects of the position," Lee said. Lee resigned as Iowa's coach on Feb. 28, 2000. She was 84-60 with the Hawkeyes and was The Associated Press national coach of the year in 1996, but her last two teams went 12-15 and 9-18. For the past year, Lee has worked in the sports promotions department at the University of Denver. Lee will be in charge of Virginia Tech's recruiting. She had been Vivian Stringer's top recruiter at Iowa before becoming the head coach but had been criticized for failing to land top recruits during her final years at Iowa. "I feel very fortunate to have someone with Angie's experience at the highest level join our staff," Henrickson said. "Her enthusiasm and ability to recruit and relate to high school athletes and coaches is second to none." Virginia Tech was 22-9 this past season and tied for fourth in the Big East at 11-5. The Hokies lost to Texas Tech in the second round of the NCAA tournament. Former Iowa player Karen Clayton, now Karen Lange, is starting her fifth season as an assistant at Virginia Tech. Henrickson also is adding former Tennessee player Kyra Elzy to her staff.

 

[DDThompson]

I'm pleased with the job Bluder has done. It's a mistake to compare Iowa to the elite women's programs and say all we need to do is fire Bluder and hire someone else then we too will win multiple national titles.

We can't make our head coaches positions into revolving doors.

The women's program is a success. No need for heads to roll.

If only this though process were carried over to say, oh, ..... ......football.

Not saying you don't because I don't know where you stand with Ferentz, but the same philosophy should hold true for every sport by Hawkeye fans. Iowa is not an elite school in any sport so the philosophy should be true for every sport.



By the way, when is Brands going to win a championship finally?

 

[DDThompson]

Here is an article about Angie Lee's resignation.......does anyone know/remember why did she resign? I remember her teams struggled at the end of her coaching career at Iowa.

Don't know.

But I'd be willing to bet that three of her four best years were the three years following Stringer. (i.e. with Stringer's players).

 

[RushTogether]

By the way, when is Brands going to win a championship finally?

He's won 3...in 8 years.