There was a year, I think it might have been my first or second one up here, when Kenny's team was more of a "two-fer" with Jaz and P.Hall, and then the year after, I think, with Ashley Perez and Jaz, but looking back, I think you are right about his teams. Sean's have been more balanced and I think that's intentional. I don't think the lack of bench points from VT was so much intentional as the fact that JMU's defense was killing them. Back to the drawing board, Brooks!

Incidentally, I saw Jaz after the game. She blew by me going the other way. She looks pretty good.

I joked last night that the first time to call timeout would lose. I'm glad I was wrong! (first TO was mid/late 4th by JMU)

(03-29-2019 11:25 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:24 AM)orange-to-purple Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 10:50 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 10:26 AM)orange-to-purple Wrote:  As for the teams who made the S16 in the 80s and early 90s, I would argue that it's not even the same game we're talking about now, let alone the same number or kind of teams. Anyone who thinks it is, is deluding themselves. I've been watching WBB since 1973 and the women who played then could NOT by any stretch of the imagination even get into a game now (allowing for age difference, of course). Most of them will tell you that.

The level of athleticism and the overall quality of women's play has improved since the early days. There's no doubt about that, and is the product and intended impact of Title IX. But your statement (and I quote) "could NOT by any stretch of the imagination even get into a game now" is absolutely insane. Early players like Sheryl Swoopes (played 1989-93) or Nancy Lieberman (1976-80) would definitely play, and I would bet still dominate.

But you're the same poster who thinks playing in the AAC would be a bad move for JMU, so let's consider the source of your opinion.

Just can't resist being snotty, can you?

If the shoe fits your opinion...own it.

You cherry picked the two most dominant women's hoops players you could think of, and cite that as proof of something? (I'm not sure what you're arguing.)

I think you two are arguing different points, actually. Look at it another way: Jim Brown ran behind an offensive line in 1963 that averaged 245 lbs. He ran for 1800+ yards and averaged 6.5 YPC. Could any of those linemen play in the NFL today? Not at 245 lbs, they couldn't. If they had access to the training, nutrition, supplements (?!?), conditioning, etc, athletes have today starting in high school, maybe they could play today. I suspect they could, in fact, But it's unknowable. It's an apples and oranges comparison in any case.

(03-29-2019 03:48 PM)91Alum Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:25 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:24 AM)orange-to-purple Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 10:50 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 10:26 AM)orange-to-purple Wrote:  As for the teams who made the S16 in the 80s and early 90s, I would argue that it's not even the same game we're talking about now, let alone the same number or kind of teams. Anyone who thinks it is, is deluding themselves. I've been watching WBB since 1973 and the women who played then could NOT by any stretch of the imagination even get into a game now (allowing for age difference, of course). Most of them will tell you that.

The level of athleticism and the overall quality of women's play has improved since the early days. There's no doubt about that, and is the product and intended impact of Title IX. But your statement (and I quote) "could NOT by any stretch of the imagination even get into a game now" is absolutely insane. Early players like Sheryl Swoopes (played 1989-93) or Nancy Lieberman (1976-80) would definitely play, and I would bet still dominate.

But you're the same poster who thinks playing in the AAC would be a bad move for JMU, so let's consider the source of your opinion.

Just can't resist being snotty, can you?

If the shoe fits your opinion...own it.

You cherry picked the two most dominant women's hoops players you could think of, and cite that as proof of something? (I'm not sure what you're arguing.)

I think you two are arguing different points, actually. Look at it another way: Jim Brown ran behind an offensive line in 1963 that averaged 245 lbs. He ran for 1800+ yards and averaged 6.5 YPC. Could any of those linemen play in the NFL today? Not at 245 lbs, they couldn't. If they had access to the training, nutrition, supplements (?!?), conditioning, etc, athletes have today starting in high school, maybe they could play today. I suspect they could, in fact, But it's unknowable. It's an apples and oranges comparison in any case.

My point exactly. And they'd probably tell you the same thing.

(03-29-2019 03:48 PM)91Alum Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:25 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:24 AM)orange-to-purple Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 10:50 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 10:26 AM)orange-to-purple Wrote:  As for the teams who made the S16 in the 80s and early 90s, I would argue that it's not even the same game we're talking about now, let alone the same number or kind of teams. Anyone who thinks it is, is deluding themselves. I've been watching WBB since 1973 and the women who played then could NOT by any stretch of the imagination even get into a game now (allowing for age difference, of course). Most of them will tell you that.

The level of athleticism and the overall quality of women's play has improved since the early days. There's no doubt about that, and is the product and intended impact of Title IX. But your statement (and I quote) "could NOT by any stretch of the imagination even get into a game now" is absolutely insane. Early players like Sheryl Swoopes (played 1989-93) or Nancy Lieberman (1976-80) would definitely play, and I would bet still dominate.

But you're the same poster who thinks playing in the AAC would be a bad move for JMU, so let's consider the source of your opinion.

Just can't resist being snotty, can you?

If the shoe fits your opinion...own it.

You cherry picked the two most dominant women's hoops players you could think of, and cite that as proof of something? (I'm not sure what you're arguing.)

I think you two are arguing different points, actually. Look at it another way: Jim Brown ran behind an offensive line in 1963 that averaged 245 lbs. He ran for 1800+ yards and averaged 6.5 YPC. Could any of those linemen play in the NFL today? Not at 245 lbs, they couldn't. If they had access to the training, nutrition, supplements (?!?), conditioning, etc, athletes have today starting in high school, maybe they could play today. I suspect they could, in fact, But it's unknowable. It's an apples and oranges comparison in any case.

I’m not writing a thesis, but there are many other examples of outstanding women basketball players that I could have cited during the time period she completely dissed as being not even able to crack a starting lineup today. That’s pure hogwash, and you and any reasonably knowledgeable sports fan knows that.

I’ve already stated that in general players today are better (and likely for many of the same reasons you’ve touched on), that stipulated it doesn’t negate that many athletes from past eras would not only play and compete for playing time. they’d likely star.

That said, players from past eras (and we’re not talking about the Stone Age here) still competed against the best players of their era, and if they and their teammates prevailed as winners in that time period the accomplishment they earned is no less impressive than players and teams beating the best players and teams of the more recent era.

This debate has engulfed sporting fans forever, and it always will. Would Jim Brown be a star RB in today’s NFL? Would Rocky Marciano or Joe Louis defeat Muhammad Ali (all in their primes)? Could Wilt Chamberland or Julius Irvin be a force in today’s NBA? Would Nolan Ryan’s fastball or Sandy Koufax’s curve ball be any less unhitable? Yes, these are unaswerable questions if intended to be established as scientific fact, however, any sport fan than forgets or dismisses the accomplishments of great athletes (or coaches) of an earlier generation as undeserving of serious consideration and respect for their skills and what they accomplished, and who arrogantly assumes the current players are best have come to the same kind of doltish conclusion that FBS players always > FCS players, and so on as so forth down the line.

At the rate today's MLB players strike out I think Ryan and Koufax would be even more dominant.



Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

(03-29-2019 05:48 PM)JMU85 Wrote:  At the rate today's MLB players strike out I think Ryan and Koufax would be even more dominant.



Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

My childhood hero, Pistol Pete Maravich, who averaged scoring 44 a game at LSU over his 3 years, would've scored closer to 55 a game if he had a 3-point line. And, already unstoppable as-is, if he could've played in today's era where the carrying/palming rule is extremely relaxed compared to his era, there is absolutely nobody who could have stopped him. You could've triple teamed him only to play into his greatest skill of all which was passing.

Ahhhhh the memories...

(03-29-2019 05:26 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 03:48 PM)91Alum Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:25 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:24 AM)orange-to-purple Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 10:50 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  The level of athleticism and the overall quality of women's play has improved since the early days. There's no doubt about that, and is the product and intended impact of Title IX. But your statement (and I quote) "could NOT by any stretch of the imagination even get into a game now" is absolutely insane. Early players like Sheryl Swoopes (played 1989-93) or Nancy Lieberman (1976-80) would definitely play, and I would bet still dominate.

But you're the same poster who thinks playing in the AAC would be a bad move for JMU, so let's consider the source of your opinion.

Just can't resist being snotty, can you?

If the shoe fits your opinion...own it.

You cherry picked the two most dominant women's hoops players you could think of, and cite that as proof of something? (I'm not sure what you're arguing.)

I think you two are arguing different points, actually. Look at it another way: Jim Brown ran behind an offensive line in 1963 that averaged 245 lbs. He ran for 1800+ yards and averaged 6.5 YPC. Could any of those linemen play in the NFL today? Not at 245 lbs, they couldn't. If they had access to the training, nutrition, supplements (?!?), conditioning, etc, athletes have today starting in high school, maybe they could play today. I suspect they could, in fact, But it's unknowable. It's an apples and oranges comparison in any case.

I’m not writing a thesis, but there are many other examples of outstanding women basketball players that I could have cited during the time period she completely dissed as being not even able to crack a starting lineup today. That’s pure hogwash, and you and any reasonably knowledgeable sports fan knows that.

I’ve already stated that in general players today are better (and likely for many of the same reasons you’ve touched on), that stipulated it doesn’t negate that many athletes from past eras would not only play and compete for playing time. they’d likely star.

That said, players from past eras (and we’re not talking about the Stone Age here) still competed against the best players of their era, and if they and their teammates prevailed as winners in that time period the accomplishment they earned is no less impressive than players and teams beating the best players and teams of the more recent era.

This debate has engulfed sporting fans forever, and it always will. Would Jim Brown be a star RB in today’s NFL? Would Rocky Marciano or Joe Louis defeat Muhammad Ali (all in their primes)? Could Wilt Chamberland or Julius Irvin be a force in today’s NBA? Would Nolan Ryan’s fastball or Sandy Koufax’s curve ball be any less unhitable? Yes, these are unaswerable questions if intended to be established as scientific fact, however, any sport fan than forgets or dismisses the accomplishments of great athletes (or coaches) of an earlier generation as undeserving of serious consideration and respect for their skills and what they accomplished, and who arrogantly assumes the current players are best have come to the same kind of doltish conclusion that FBS players always > FCS players, and so on as so forth down the line.

Not sure where you got that. The 63 Browns line was one of the best in history. Period. That was my entire point. But if you are at all intellectually honest, you will see (if not necessarily agree with) the point I'm trying to make - today's athletes are so unrecognizably better trained and conditioned than those of 20 years ago. There are exceptions to be sure (Swoopes), but by and large I would agree that a female basketball player of 20+ years ago would find it very, very difficult to compete in today's game (with the caveats of a time warp and training, conditioning, etc).

By the way, "arrogantly" and "doltish" in one sentence? In response to what I wrote? Your new Delta Tau Chi name is Trollhorn. It sounds better than AcademicBloatHorn. Do you work, by the way?

(03-30-2019 12:21 AM)91Alum Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 05:26 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 03:48 PM)91Alum Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:25 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:24 AM)orange-to-purple Wrote:  Just can't resist being snotty, can you?

If the shoe fits your opinion...own it.

You cherry picked the two most dominant women's hoops players you could think of, and cite that as proof of something? (I'm not sure what you're arguing.)

I think you two are arguing different points, actually. Look at it another way: Jim Brown ran behind an offensive line in 1963 that averaged 245 lbs. He ran for 1800+ yards and averaged 6.5 YPC. Could any of those linemen play in the NFL today? Not at 245 lbs, they couldn't. If they had access to the training, nutrition, supplements (?!?), conditioning, etc, athletes have today starting in high school, maybe they could play today. I suspect they could, in fact, But it's unknowable. It's an apples and oranges comparison in any case.

I’m not writing a thesis, but there are many other examples of outstanding women basketball players that I could have cited during the time period she completely dissed as being not even able to crack a starting lineup today. That’s pure hogwash, and you and any reasonably knowledgeable sports fan knows that.

I’ve already stated that in general players today are better (and likely for many of the same reasons you’ve touched on), that stipulated it doesn’t negate that many athletes from past eras would not only play and compete for playing time. they’d likely star.

That said, players from past eras (and we’re not talking about the Stone Age here) still competed against the best players of their era, and if they and their teammates prevailed as winners in that time period the accomplishment they earned is no less impressive than players and teams beating the best players and teams of the more recent era.

This debate has engulfed sporting fans forever, and it always will. Would Jim Brown be a star RB in today’s NFL? Would Rocky Marciano or Joe Louis defeat Muhammad Ali (all in their primes)? Could Wilt Chamberland or Julius Irvin be a force in today’s NBA? Would Nolan Ryan’s fastball or Sandy Koufax’s curve ball be any less unhitable? Yes, these are unaswerable questions if intended to be established as scientific fact, however, any sport fan than forgets or dismisses the accomplishments of great athletes (or coaches) of an earlier generation as undeserving of serious consideration and respect for their skills and what they accomplished, and who arrogantly assumes the current players are best have come to the same kind of doltish conclusion that FBS players always > FCS players, and so on as so forth down the line.

Not sure where you got that. The 63 Browns line was one of the best in history. Period. That was my entire point. But if you are at all intellectually honest, you will see (if not necessarily agree with) the point I'm trying to make - today's athletes are so unrecognizably better trained and conditioned than those of 20 years ago. There are exceptions to be sure (Swoopes), but by and large I would agree that a female basketball player of 20+ years ago would find it very, very difficult to compete in today's game (with the caveats of a time warp and training, conditioning, etc).

By the way, "arrogantly" and "doltish" in one sentence? In response to what I wrote? Your new Delta Tau Chi name is Trollhorn. It sounds better than AcademicBloatHorn. Do you work, by the way?

You apparently have reading comprehension problems. Reread my post.

This isn’t a debate about the Browns offensive line of nearly 60 years ago. It’s about three points: 1) Orange to Purple’s incredibly silly statement that not a single woman player of 20 years ago would play for a team today; 2) The accomplishments of great teams, individual players and coaches of yesterday can not be diminished, nor should they be denegrated, simply because we think they wouldn’t (in general) be able to compete successfully with today’s athletes, and 3) Alwatys compare apples to apples...teams, players and coaches of any era competed against the best of their era, and their accomplishments stand on their own.

To those three points we are in agreement, no? But don’t let philosophic agreement stand in the way of you misconstruing what I shared and jumping in front of verbal arrows not intended for you.

Last thought, you really need to work on your Animal House “nicknames” if you’re trying to insult or be cute.

Magarity picked in WNBA draft by Conn. Sun in 3rd Round. Kenny and Jennifer must be proud.

(04-11-2019 05:29 AM)Jeremyboz Wrote:  Magarity picked in WNBA draft by Conn. Sun in 3rd Round. Kenny and Jennifer must be proud.

You know they are. Of course a third round pick does not guarantee a spot on the roster and Regan will have to work her butt off. She may end up going back to Sweden to play professionally, which is not a totally bad thing either. The pay is probably better there, TBH.

(04-11-2019 10:22 AM)orange-to-purple Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 05:29 AM)Jeremyboz Wrote:  Magarity picked in WNBA draft by Conn. Sun in 3rd Round. Kenny and Jennifer must be proud.

You know they are. Of course a third round pick does not guarantee a spot on the roster and Regan will have to work her butt off. She may end up going back to Sweden to play professionally, which is not a totally bad thing either. The pay is probably better there, TBH.

Gotta think Kenny and Jennifer gonna be squarely on the hot seat next season.....I don't think VT paid Kenny like they did to stay in the lower half of the ACC and get beat by JMU 3 years after hiring him. And give me a break about how hard it is to compete in the ACC (Buzz Williams showed it can be done if you are a good coach at VT on the men's side). Four years is a full recruiting cycle at to date Kenny has been a dud in Blacksburg.

Where was VT in the years before Kenny got there? The ACC is not the CAA. It's cutthroat over there and VT was a sink. Only Boston College prevented it from being completely in the basement. Things will shift considerably next year with Notre Dame losing its entire starting 5 to the WNBA, GA tech coach being fired, and Louisville not being completely reloaded, just to mention a few things. If you don't follow women's basketball really closely you might not know about those things.

(04-11-2019 01:19 PM)orange-to-purple Wrote:  Where was VT in the years before Kenny got there? The ACC is not the CAA. It's cutthroat over there and VT was a sink. Only Boston College prevented it from being completely in the basement. Things will shift considerably next year with Notre Dame losing its entire starting 5 to the WNBA, GA tech coach being fired, and Louisville not being completely reloaded, just to mention a few things. If you don't follow women's basketball really closely you might not know about those things.

One could argue with VT losing Emery and Magarity, they will take a step back as well. Guess a lot could depend on development of Mabrey, Shepherd, and Baptiste, plus whoever they have coming in. Relying on Freshman in a pressure year isn't necessarily a good recipe for success. We aren't talking one and done type Freshman. Notre Dame has one of those "instant star" freshman coming in in Sam Brunelle. I feel like Kennys systems have always been built around a high volume shooter, and without Emery, not sure who that is next year.

(04-11-2019 01:19 PM)orange-to-purple Wrote:  Where was VT in the years before Kenny got there? The ACC is not the CAA. It's cutthroat over there and VT was a sink. Only Boston College prevented it from being completely in the basement. Things will shift considerably next year with Notre Dame losing its entire starting 5 to the WNBA, GA tech coach being fired, and Louisville not being completely reloaded, just to mention a few things. If you don't follow women's basketball really closely you might not know about those things.

Well sure the ACC is not the CAA.......but the same principles apply. If you get hired to the ACC for example that does not mean you get 8 years (2 recruiting cycles) to fix the issue. IMO the greater the pay the shorter the hook to fix. It seems to me that Buzz Williams turned that sink around pretty dang quick on the men's side to be competitive with the top half of the league.

Kenny's got to quit recruiting his children to play ACC ball.

(04-11-2019 01:42 PM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 01:19 PM)orange-to-purple Wrote:  Where was VT in the years before Kenny got there? The ACC is not the CAA. It's cutthroat over there and VT was a sink. Only Boston College prevented it from being completely in the basement. Things will shift considerably next year with Notre Dame losing its entire starting 5 to the WNBA, GA tech coach being fired, and Louisville not being completely reloaded, just to mention a few things. If you don't follow women's basketball really closely you might not know about those things.

Well sure the ACC is not the CAA.......but the same principles apply. If you get hired to the ACC for example that does not mean you get 8 years (2 recruiting cycles) to fix the issue. IMO the greater the pay the shorter the hook to fix. It seems to me that Buzz Williams turned that sink around pretty dang quick on the men's side to be competitive with the top half of the league.

That is a different story entirely and you can't compare the women's side with it at all. VT women's ball has been a sink for as long as I can remember. It was a joke when I was at Tennessee, which was awhile back. so for them to have improved this much is good. I can't remember who he has coming in next year, but it could keep things going up.

Coach Kenny Brooks and Va. Tech against Maryland Eastern Shore on Tuesday 6:30 PM on ACC Network.