Geno Auriemma

Blue Man · Unread post by **Blue Man** » 11 years ago

So let's start a firestorm debate to take away from URI for a second.

Geno is looking like the greatest coach in women's basketball ever. I have a bone to pick however, now that he is drawing comparisons to Wooden.

Coach men, Geno. You want to prove you're the best, or be compared to the best? Coach men.

Show me that your tactics and basketball IQ will work at a level where you don't automatically have the most talented team on the floor by default - and it's not even close.

Show me you can do more than simply putting your team on the floor because that's the level of talent discrepancy in women's basketball.

Coach men, then talk to me about John Wooden.

Until then, you're a trout in a puddle.

twisted3829 · Unread post by **twisted3829** » 11 years ago

He said himself last night after the game he's not in the discussion as Wooden, Coach K or Rupp. He compared himself to Summit which is fair. The comparing him to Wooden et al is ESPN and the media

URI_05 · Unread post by **URI_05** » 11 years ago

He was at a table next to me several months ago at Max's Downtown in Hartford. I've never seen someone be so rude to waitstaff and more obnoxious in general.

It's hard to judge his coaching abilities but his recruiting abilities are pretty much unrivaled. Who knows if either would translate to men's bball.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 11 years ago

It's not even a discussion. I don't know who is the greatest softball manager ever, but nobody would compare that person to Connie Mack. Lets be real. When ranking every great coach ever, you have to start with every coach who has ever coached a men's basketball game, then you can start discussing everybody else.

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 11 years ago

To me, the difference between men's and women's basketball is like the difference between fast- and slow-pitch softball. Same basic game with the same basic rules, but totally different in terms of style of play.

No real need to compare, in my mind. It's like asking if Lombardi was better than Wooden. Different sports, apples and oranges.

ramfan85 · Unread post by **ramfan85** » 11 years ago

I've always liked Pat Summit more than Gino. I don't know who's better.
Over the past decade (before Dan), I wanted her as our men's coach.
By the way, we recently had a coach who was considered rude by waitstaff in a poular East Greenwich restaurant.

Rhody74 · Unread post by **Rhody74** » 11 years ago

URI_05 wrote:He was at a table next to me several months ago at Max's Downtown in Hartford. I've never seen someone be so rude to waitstaff and more obnoxious in general.

It's hard to judge his coaching abilities but his recruiting abilities are pretty much unrivaled. Who knows if either would translate to men's bball.

One of my best friends, a long-time UConn booster, said that Auriema and Calhoun had one thing in common: personally, they're both assholes.

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 11 years ago

sf2010 wrote:To me, the difference between men's and women's basketball is like the difference between fast- and slow-pitch softball. Same basic game with the same basic rules, but totally different in terms of style of play.

No real need to compare, in my mind. It's like asking if Lombardi was better than Wooden. Different sports, apples and oranges.

To me, I could care less about the style of play (below the rim vs above for men).

It's ALL about the lack of parity in women's athletics. Unlike in men's NCAA hoop, women's hoop regularly has teams that flirt with perfect seasons or even achieve consecutive perfect seasons. Look at the score differential last night between a #1 seed and a #5. 30pts in a championship game?

Geno and other top women's coaches have to win less truly challenging games in the regular season and more importantly, in the NCAA Tournament, due to the massive talent inequity present in women's sports. Talk about Have's and Have-Not's. It's worse than BCS vs FBS football.

twisted3829 · Unread post by **twisted3829** » 11 years ago

I do give UCONN and other women's team credit, they play anyone especially the top teams every year. Besides Notre Dame who is in their conference they played 7 top 25 teams outside of their conference (11 overall not counting the NCAA tournament)

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

Look, Geno said he never coached agianst Wooden and never beat Coach K, so he thinks the comparison of invalid.
He's a great basketball coach, who like Summit, could cross over and be successful.
I'd always rather deal with men than women in the workplace.
For Geno to get 13 women with big egos to work at championship levels for so long
means he has something amazing going for him.
As for being an asshole, there aren't too many successful coaches or managers, who are
warm, cuddly types.

Iggy1979 · Unread post by **Iggy1979** » 11 years ago

I agree you can't compare. But while Geno has great players, this year Notre Dame and Baylor were supposed to be better. You can't question 8 championship; I don't care what the sport is. And if you think he can't coach, you should attend one of his practices.

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 11 years ago

Iggy, it's not about his ability to coach, but it's the way he can collect most of the national talent. What's left is spread across a relatively small number of schools. The women's top 25 is not too competitive for the teams in the top 3.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

Calipari does the same thing, but he's only won once.
Plus, nobody ever said Geno was dirty.
As Iggy said, nobody picked UConn this year.
I thought they lacked the killer instinct they had with
players like Taurasi and Moore.
They had trouble finishinng the few close games they had.

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 11 years ago

There is much more talent to go around on the men's side -- the effect of generations of suppression of women's competition in athletics. Calipari gets the top talent, and even so, there are many more difficult games to trip him up especially once the Dance starts.

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 11 years ago

It's always about the competition level of the league, and I mean that in a general way. When there is less talent and less attention in any field, it's always easier to dominate, whether you're the only team using advanced stats in baseball, or if you're the best coach in women's basketball. Typically, when you look at most leagues, you see more streaks of dominance and lopsided results in the earliest years - Certain teams, players or coaches put the bar at a certain place, then the rest of the league adapts. If it's a highly competitive league, it might take only a year, or even less than a year. I think the NFL is probably the most highly competitive league out there right now, and as a result, the Dolphins' wild cat went from being really hot to a gimmick in the span of two months.

ramfan85 · Unread post by **ramfan85** » 11 years ago

Geno built the program to the point where they now can get the best players. UCONN wasn't getting them before he got there. As a "wise" man once (or maybe a million times) said: "Ya gotta give 'em credit..."

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

Doris Burke said, when she got to PC, UConn was a doormat
and considered a sure win.
Look at URI women against UConn before Geno.
Nowadays, the URI women can't beat anyone.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 11 years ago

I think the only way the URI women's BB program will ever get off the ground, is if they try to ride the coattails of the men. And not just by recruiting better players.

That is, schedule some games as part of a doubleheader at the RC, whenever possible.

Otherwise, the women's game will continue to draw the usual 100 or so diehards, and nobody else.

Even if they get better, a stand alone women's game just won't draw here.

UCH21377 · Unread post by **UCH21377** » 11 years ago

Wooden generally had a huge talent advantage during his tenure at UCLA. That does not mean he wasn't a great coach. He surely was. I don't think Geno should be compared to Wooden but he is an all-time great coach for his sport.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 11 years ago

Both Wooden and Gino are great coaches in their respective times.

Both great recruiters too. Both had talent advantages that they did not fritter away.

They took advantage of their talent, and won many titles. That doesn't always happen. You don't just roll the balls out, and expect to win.

The bottom line is what counts.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 11 years ago

People can say what they want about the two UConn coaches, but if Hurley was a douchebag like they are, but URI won a national title, would anybody care?

We know Dan's a nice guy, but he's demanding of his players. A coach has to be, in order to win.

Personally I like that combination better, don't you?

ramfan85 · Unread post by **ramfan85** » 11 years ago

rambone 78 wrote:I think the only way the URI women's BB program will ever get off the ground, is if they try to ride the coattails of the men. And not just by recruiting better players.

That is, schedule some games as part of a doubleheader at the RC, whenever possible.

Otherwise, the women's game will continue to draw the usual 100 or so diehards, and nobody else.

Even if they get better, a stand alone women's game just won't draw here.

They used to play doubleheaders all the time. Guess who thought that the women's program didn't need the men to draw? Rod, want to take this one?

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 11 years ago

The biggest issue with women's basketball is the draft structure --- WNBA requires four years removed from high school to be eligible for the draft, so these schools like Geno get to stockpile top recruit after top recruit, and rather then having to worry about them going pro (like in men's hoop), they get 4 great years out of them. You see this all the time, the Maya Moore, the Britney Griner, the Candace Parker, girls who are dominant as freshman who have to play three more years.

While it is good that the women's structure places an importance on education since they know their salaries are not going to be enough to live on forever, it definitely creates a competitive disadvantage where the top coaches usually get most of the top players.

EricRueb · Unread post by **EricRueb** » 11 years ago

Men's college hoops during Wooden's era and women's college hoops during Geno's time are remarkably similar. There wasn't a lot of parity. Big name schools had a huge advantage and there wasn't really a limit as to how many stars you could get.
I'd love to see the women's game finally adapt a) the 10-second rule; and b) the rest of the rules from the men's games as how scholarships go.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

Ellie LeMaire didn't like the double headers.
When I spoke to her about keeping Tom Penders after the Sweet 16
run, she said,"I don't ever want to be a part of a program, where winning is
top priority."
I'm seldom at a loss for words, but that statement did it for me.

reef · Unread post by **reef** » 11 years ago

Baylor and Griner losing was a complete shock

UCONN vs Baylor would have been a classic

Bos8 · Unread post by **Bos8** » 11 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:Ellie LeMaire didn't like the double headers.
When I spoke to her about keeping Tom Penders after the Sweet 16
run, she said,"I don't ever want to be a part of a program, where winning is
top priority."
I'm seldom at a loss for words, but that statement did it for me.

She would have loved the Baron era!

Ramulous · Unread post by **Ramulous** » 11 years ago

Who will compete with UConn in the new AAC ? A lot of their most intense rivals are leaving for other conferences....

twisted3829 · Unread post by **twisted3829** » 11 years ago

Pretty much no one but they'll still play Stanford, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Baylor, Louisville, etc

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 11 years ago

Rod, I remember that now.

That was amazing. They should have fired her on the spot for saying that.

That was the mentality of a lot of URI AD's and presidents, or so it seems.

Ramulous · Unread post by **Ramulous** » 11 years ago

Those were the days when many colleges felt that the big business of college sports was tacky and beneath them....it was prevalent at a lot of schools.....look at Holy Cross and their decision not to join the big east because they did not want athletics to overshadow their academics....a lot has changed since the advent of big time money....

...espn, cable television, and the internet have fueled the fire of the growth of big time big money big business college sports to the point where most schools now whore themselves out for the most money....tradition and academics be damned....

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 11 years ago

I think Geno is a hypocrite. He cries equality between the men and women, but then suggests things like lower the basket. While I can agree with the point that lowering the basket might trigger more excitement (via more girls can dunk, play around the rim as opposed to under it), how can you want equality and then suggest that? How about uniform the rules?

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

I think women's equality has more to do with opportunity
than rule changes.
That doesn't make him a hypocrite, he's just looking to make his game more
fan friendly.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 11 years ago

I agree with that Rod, but when a guy like Geno makes suggestions like "If we lower the rim it would make the women's game more exciting and more people would watch," does that jive with the equal opportunity message?

Idk, to me it would be like asking to shorten the field in football for more touchdowns or shorten the fences in baseball for more home runs.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

The women's basketball is already smaller than the men's.
MLB teams are constantly shortening fences for offense.
See Mets, Tigers and mariners.

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 11 years ago

Chicks dig the long ball.

ramfan85 · Unread post by **ramfan85** » 11 years ago

Maybe baron was right when he said that LaSalle used a different ball when they beat us there a few years ago. Maybe it was a ball from the woman's team.

Ramblinrose · Unread post by **Ramblinrose** » 11 years ago

The two are different sports. I don't watch a lot of women's basketball but I appreciate that people like it and what UCONN is accomplishing. Geno has done a terrific job and is right where he belongs. He can stay as long as he liked and rack up some more titles.
He is a great recruiter. At the same time, how many great programs is he competing with? I always found it amusing that his biggest detractor was Calhoun and vice-versa.
Now Mark Cuban wants to give Brittany Greiner a tryout with the Mavs. I doubt she would last long ... just in terms of size, strength and athleticism. Is Cuban that hard-up for attention?

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 11 years ago

Ramblinrose wrote: Now Mark Cuban wants to give Brittany Greiner a tryout with the Mavs. I doubt she would last long ... just in terms of size, strength and athleticism. Is Cuban that hard-up for attention?

To answer the question, yes Mark Cuban is that desperate for attention. He said they would take her if "she was the best player available." However, I doubt that he believes that a 6'8" post player who is not strong enough to bang down low in the NBA, can dunk sometimes, and has no outside game would be the "best player available." Complete publicity stunt by Cuban, and I actually give Geno credit for coming out and saying how absurd the idea is.

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 11 years ago

rjsuperfly66 wrote:The biggest issue with women's basketball is the draft structure --- WNBA requires four years removed from high school to be eligible for the draft, so these schools like Geno get to stockpile top recruit after top recruit, and rather then having to worry about them going pro (like in men's hoop), they get 4 great years out of them. You see this all the time, the Maya Moore, the Britney Griner, the Candace Parker, girls who are dominant as freshman who have to play three more years.

While it is good that the women's structure places an importance on education since they know their salaries are not going to be enough to live on forever, it definitely creates a competitive disadvantage where the top coaches usually get most of the top players.

I don't really have a problem with the WNBA's draft thing, just because if they weren't around, it's questionable whether most of the college superstars would be getting American jobs anyway. The league basically exists as a PR subsidiary from the NBA, and salaries are rigidly controlled, if I remember correctly. It's a way to keep some NBA arenas semi-warm during the off-season, and to provide a local outlet for some American players to make some small bank, before they go to Europe to make some actual money. (I can't remember if it was ESPN proper or Grantland that had the article pointing out that, for example, Sue Bird's Euro contract was about five times the size of her WNBA one.)

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 11 years ago

sf2010 wrote:
Ramblinrose wrote: Now Mark Cuban wants to give Brittany Greiner a tryout with the Mavs. I doubt she would last long ... just in terms of size, strength and athleticism. Is Cuban that hard-up for attention?
To answer the question, yes Mark Cuban is that desperate for attention. He said they would take her if "she was the best player available." However, I doubt that he believes that a 6'8" post player who is not strong enough to bang down low in the NBA, can dunk sometimes, and has no outside game would be the "best player available." Complete publicity stunt by Cuban, and I actually give Geno credit for coming out and saying how absurd the idea is.

Yeah, ESPN actually had one of their scout guys write up a profile on her, and said it was probably impossible for her to hang in the league except as a publicity stunt because she's not good enough on offense. Her defense value would be negligible as a 6'8" person in a league of seven-footers. The scout argued that if a woman was going to play in the NBA, the best chance at it would be someone like Diana Taurasi, someone around 6'1" to 6'4" with a great handle, who you could hide at the point guard spot and stretch defenses out with. He basically said that the ceiling of that type of player would be Steve Blake though, so why bother?

EasyEdBrown · Unread post by **EasyEdBrown** » 11 years ago

Because I'd certainly watch a Veeckian wet dream of a each team having female Steve Blake on them.

Oh no I wouldn't, the same way I wouldn't watch LaBron play for the NY Liberty for a game, or a man in a bear suit play 3rd for the Astros.

Which would improve their situation there, both as a talent upgrade and the awesomeness of men in bear suits, I grant you, but it's bad baseball. And women's playing in the NBA as a sideshow is both misogynist and bad roster management in basketball.

ramfan85 · Unread post by **ramfan85** » 11 years ago

I'm glad I read this post. I misunderstood mark Cuban's statement. i thought he wanted to bring in Britany Spears...

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 11 years ago

She could ref... or something.. She can't be any worse than existing NBA refs.

ramfan85 · Unread post by **ramfan85** » 11 years ago

Just as long as she doesn't sing (lipsync).

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

I think Brittany Griner is a guy, anyway, so
it wouldn't be breaking new ground if she were drafted.

reef · Unread post by **reef** » 11 years ago

Britt would get eaten alive in the NBA !!!

Ramblinrose · Unread post by **Ramblinrose** » 11 years ago

I think LeBron a 6-8 and 260 would flatten her .. and most of us. She's great in her league. But the physical differences are vast. I agree maybe a Nancy Lieberman type might hold her own at the point for a while.
I will say women basketball players have evolved greatly since I was in high school (1975). A lot of them were gangly, gawky girls on a team for mere height. Now they are tall and strong and athletically coordinated. Just not for the NBA, though.

ramfan85 · Unread post by **ramfan85** » 11 years ago

They seem to work more on fundamentals, while the men work on nice looking dunks

EasyEdBrown · Unread post by **EasyEdBrown** » 11 years ago

It's that true? I mean, do women's teams shoot better, or turn the ball over less, or anything like that?

I mean, I hear it mentioned a bit, but I've never really seen anything beyond anecdotal that this is a true statement, and I watch a fair amount of women's basketball.

Login • Register