Geno Auriemma: Lower the rims

[vick]

Coach Auriemma thinks a good way to make women's basketball more fan-friendly would be to lower the rims about seven inches (http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8543879/geno-auriemma-uconn-huskies-coach-thinks-rims-lowered-women-basketball):


"Let's say the average men's player is 6 foot 5 and the average woman is 5 foot 11," Auriemma told the Courant. "Let's lower the rim seven inches; let's say 7.2 inches to honor Title IX (instituted in 1972). If you lower it, the average fan likely wouldn't even notice it.

"Now there would be fewer missed layups because the players are actually at the rim (when they shoot). Shooting percentages go up. There would be more tip-ins."

He notes that the net in womens' volleyball is lower. I'd also point out that this is true across a number of sports (for example, in track womens' hurdles are lower).

Logistical challenges aside--I really have no idea how expensive this would be to implement--I think he's got a decent case. I went to a lot of womens' games when I was at Duke and nothing frustrated me more than the low percentages on layups leading to ugly rebounding battles. It might be because I watch those sports far less than basketball, but I never get the feeling watching womens' volleyball or track that I'm watching almost a different sport that I occasionally do when watching womens' basketball (I get the same feeling watching womens' tennis, although I actually preferred the women's version at least before the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic era, and that's another sport where men and women play on the same court).

Some people over the years have proposed instead raising the men's rims (e.g. Pete Newell in 1967 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1080641/index.htm), his son Tom Newell in 2007 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2906707)), but I like the men's game more or less as it is (although I'd prefer a longer three point line in college). But I think they do illustrate that the optimal style of play depends a lot on the relationship between the height of the players and the rim, and I wonder if Geno's right that the women's game might be more popular if it played more like men's basketball by adjusting the rims.

[tommy]

Coach Auriemma thinks a good way to make women's basketball more fan-friendly would be to lower the rims about seven inches (http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8543879/geno-auriemma-uconn-huskies-coach-thinks-rims-lowered-women-basketball):



He notes that the net in womens' volleyball is lower. I'd also point out that this is true across a number of sports (for example, in track womens' hurdles are lower).

Logistical challenges aside--I really have no idea how expensive this would be to implement--I think he's got a decent case. I went to a lot of womens' games when I was at Duke and nothing frustrated me more than the low percentages on layups leading to ugly rebounding battles. It might be because I watch those sports far less than basketball, but I never get the feeling watching womens' volleyball or track that I'm watching almost a different sport that I occasionally do when watching womens' basketball (I get the same feeling watching womens' tennis, although I actually preferred the women's version at least before the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic era, and that's another sport where men and women play on the same court).

Some people over the years have proposed instead raising the men's rims (e.g. Pete Newell in 1967 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1080641/index.htm), his son Tom Newell in 2007 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2906707)), but I like the men's game more or less as it is (although I'd prefer a longer three point line in college). But I think they do illustrate that the optimal style of play depends a lot on the relationship between the height of the players and the rim, and I wonder if Geno's right that the women's game might be more popular if it played more like men's basketball by adjusting the rims.

Don't the women already play with a smaller ball?

And if the relationship between the height of the players and the rim is going to be deemed critical, then wouldn't the rim have to be lowered for junior high, for high school, and even for college games? The average height of the players at each of those levels is less than the average height of NBA players.

It seems to me that Geno's proposal is primarily a way to get the women's game to be played above the rim, like the men's game, and I suspect the reason is because then there would be more dunks and more ESPN highlights. I'm not moved by that. Especially since the men's players being so obsessed with the dunks and the fancy stuff above the rim has largely come at the expense of basketball fundamentals and midrange shooting. I don't like that trade at all. It would coarsen the game, and make me less likely to watch, not more.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Don't the women already play with a smaller ball?


Yup. I understand Geno's points, but I don't agree, if only for the fact that would mean that women could only practice in women-ready gyms. Could you imagine going out and playing a fun pick-up game in a local park and gym and then have to go get used to new rims for practice or a game? A fair idea but a completely impractical one.

[moonpie23]

the progression of playing above the rim MIGHT come for women at the standard height, however, not anytime soon.......


i agree with geno......if the women were playing above the rim it would make it more fun to watch (for me)......just like when the men were allowed to dunk finally....


the long forgotten idea of "sport" has been run into the ditch by the mega-humvee of television and pay per view.

[subzero02]

Griner would be able to dunk from the foul line at that proposed height..........

[mo.st.dukie]

Don't the women already play with a smaller ball?

And if the relationship between the height of the players and the rim is going to be deemed critical, then wouldn't the rim have to be lowered for junior high, for high school, and even for college games? The average height of the players at each of those levels is less than the average height of NBA players.



It's not just about the player's height. Ty Lawson may be 5'11 but there is no way that a 5'11 woman can do the same things he can as far as getting close to the rim. Ty Lawson can probably dunk just as effectively as Brittney Griner. At the men's college level the heights are very similar to the NBA, not the average height as you see more 6'6+ guards in the NBA but overall the players height is not that different. Same can be said in high school as many boys who are good enough to make varsity are going to be tall enough and athletic enough to where the height of the goal doesn't matter. And besides, boys are going to get taller at each level of play, chances are the women won't. But I do remember in elementary school and earlier the goals would be lower for the boys. But once you get to that junior high level it shouldn't matter even if you are 5'11 or shorter because chances are in a year or two the average height of your basketball team is going to be much taller.

I like this idea. As it's already been said, this kind of thing can be seen throughout sports. The logistics of it would be tough but the idea is great and would indeed make the women's game more interesting to watch. It's not just about dunking either, if you watch they sometimes have a tough time with regular layups and short range shots in the paint that makes the game tough to watch.

[dolver]

Yup. I understand Geno's points, but I don't agree, if only for the fact that would mean that women could only practice in women-ready gyms. Could you imagine going out and playing a fun pick-up game in a local park and gym and then have to go get used to new rims for practice or a game? A fair idea but a completely impractical one.

This was my first thought - the great thing about basketball is that you have parks and playgrounds across the country where it is free. Now, girls will either be playing on 10-foot baskets anyway on those playgrounds, or will have less incentive to play basketball there because it isn't the same. Either way, you stunt the development of female players.

[ricks68]

the progression of playing above the rim MIGHT come for women at the standard height, however, not anytime soon.......


i agree with geno......if the women were playing above the rim it would make it more fun to watch (for me)......just like when the men were allowed to dunk finally....


the long forgotten idea of "sport" has been run into the ditch by the mega-humvee of television and pay per view.

I know you already know this, but for those who have not been around that long, men were always allowed to dunk until Lew Alcindor appeared on the scene. The rule not allowing dunks was put in just for him, and was changed back not that long (relatively) after he left college ball.

ricks

[mgtr]

Lowering the rims might be expensive. I think the little tramps (as used by the Bud Light daredevils) would be a lot cheaper, allow the women to do amazing things. And no, I am not saying the women are little tramps -- I'm not Don Imus, after all!
Of course, some argue that women's basketball, as now played, is a purer form of the game than the current men's game.;)

[dukeofcalabash]

Coach Auriemma thinks a good way to make women's basketball more fan-friendly would be to lower the rims about seven inches (http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8543879/geno-auriemma-uconn-huskies-coach-thinks-rims-lowered-women-basketball):



He notes that the net in womens' volleyball is lower. I'd also point out that this is true across a number of sports (for example, in track womens' hurdles are lower).

Logistical challenges aside--I really have no idea how expensive this would be to implement--I think he's got a decent case. I went to a lot of womens' games when I was at Duke and nothing frustrated me more than the low percentages on layups leading to ugly rebounding battles. It might be because I watch those sports far less than basketball, but I never get the feeling watching womens' volleyball or track that I'm watching almost a different sport that I occasionally do when watching womens' basketball (I get the same feeling watching womens' tennis, although I actually preferred the women's version at least before the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic era, and that's another sport where men and women play on the same court).

Some people over the years have proposed instead raising the men's rims (e.g. Pete Newell in 1967 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1080641/index.htm), his son Tom Newell in 2007 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2906707)), but I like the men's game more or less as it is (although I'd prefer a longer three point line in college). But I think they do illustrate that the optimal style of play depends a lot on the relationship between the height of the players and the rim, and I wonder if Geno's right that the women's game might be more popular if it played more like men's basketball by adjusting the rims.

Calling it like it is here. Lower the rims all he wants, he still has a game that is inferior to men's hoops! Women are much slower moving, have many more poor players on the court, and it's simply not nearly as exciting to watch as men's hoops from a fan's perspective.

[camion]

One word.


Flubber! :)

[CameronBornAndBred]

Calling it like it is here. Lower the rims all he wants, he still has a game that is inferior to men's hoops! Women are much slower moving, have many more poor players on the court, and it's simply not nearly as exciting to watch as men's hoops from a fan's perspective.

Wow...you are of course entitled to your opinion but I would never call the women's game "inferior" to the men's game. I wouldn't even call it slower; I think you should watch a few games in person. I also strongly disagree with the "many more poor players" statement...I'm shaking my head over that one. The women do not have the physical abilities the men have, but they are excellent players. The ones that aren't excellent don't play for the best schools and the best programs...just as it is with the men.
As far as the excitement level, I also disagree. There is less ENTHUSIASM for the women's game, but it is no less exciting. I've yelled at my tv and jumped off my couch plenty caught up in the drama of women's games, just as with the men. You will find more less exciting games with the women because the lack of parity, I will give you that. Most of this season will result in lopsided victories for Duke's women this year, but there will also be several tight games that will be well worth watching. But I am sure you will see several blowouts by the men this year as well..are you going to turn off your tv at halftime or leave your seats in Cameron?

[Cameron]

Have no comment on this ridiculous idea -- it is ridiculous due to the extreme logistical problems it would create, as others have already pointed out -- but since Don Imus is now a part of this conversation, I thought I should stop by.

[Turtleboy]

Women's and men's basketball should be evaluated, understood, and appreciated based on their own merits, not as compared to each other. I have been following Duke/college basketball for over 50 years, so I think it's safe to say that I am a huge fan of the men's game. I get just as excited, upset, saddened, overjoyed, nauseated, etc. by watching the women as I do the men. It is really a great game, and Duke consistently fields wonderful teams.

Many of the best women hone their games competing against men. They would lose that, I suspect, if the rims were lowered; making the transition back and forth between the two heights would be very difficult.

[tele]

I've often wondered if playing with a smaller ball actually makes it more difficult to shoot from the perimeter. If you were going to lower the rims to add more dunks and above the rim play, wouldn't you need to factor in the vertical leap average and not just average height? I would guess there is a difference there too.

If I remember correctly, women's basketball was at one time played with 6 players, only 3 were allowed on each half of the court court, so you truly had exclusive front court and backcourt players. I'm not sure when this changed, maybe in the 50's or 60's? But they did still used the same height rims and I think the same size ball then. Maybe shortening the court would be another possibility, could be more effective although less feasible in practice.

[hq2]

Basketball is one of those sports where the difference between men and women is very pronounced.
A number of other sports are much closer (I mean how many men on this planet can beat Venus Williams in tennis? Not many!). It has to do with the obvious height difference, but also hand size and upper body strength; ever noticed that a lot of women shoot with their arms, rather than their wrists,
like men? I'm not sure whether lowering the rim is right, even though they may be shorter; I mean, a lot of them can still shoot lights out on a 10 foot rim, and a few can even dunk, especially as their average height gets taller. Still think it ought to stay at 10 feet where it is now; makes a dunk in the women's game pretty special.

[throatybeard]

Even if this is a good idea, I've got to think it's just too hard to operationalize simply because basketball is a sport that depends so so heavily on recruiting its talent base from high school. (Unlike, say, tennis, where these people quit school at 11 and go to Nick Bolliteri's compound, or something, or Gymnastics, where the Chinese government kidnaps lithe five year olds).

So now you're talking about every HS in the nation--a nation where we can barely even come up with money to pay teachers in the first place--having to do...what? You can't have a whole nother basketball arena. So either you install some sort of hydraulic set-up that lowers the goal on a Cameron-style drop-down goal, or you wheel in a Dean Dome-style goal unattached to the roof. Or you have a Dean Dome-style goal that can somehow droop and stay level. I guess that's the answer. Anyway, it costs money.

Oh, BTW, All this for a women's sport, in a country that consistently disrespects women's sport. Remember the howls of contempt when Pat Summitt passed the existing men's win totals? The local sports radio guys here, on 101.1, an ESPN affiliate, openly speculated today whether the host would be more humiliated by having to sit though a soccer game (and Saint Louis is a relatively pro-soccer market) or an WNBA game. His "slam" on soccer was to say it would be the WNBA. Most sports fans are male, and most males are still misogynists. I can't see this happening in such a climate.

When the 2020 bond referendum for Title IX basketball goal compliance in the SLPS District comes down, I'll say I was wrong. But this isn't the same issue as two different balls.

[AZLA]

Always thought lowering the rim would be an idea worth researching and testing out. Not saying it's the answer, but it's worth testing. Regarding the logistics question. C'mon. There are multiple heights in the playgrounds, plus honestly, are there not adjustable backboards in the world? It's a non issue if it naturaly creates more interest and funds to pay for it. The point to his suggestion is that it's worth exploring ways to make for a more dynamic and enjoyable game experience for both the fans and the players. Bascially, make it more exciting, but it would also add a dimension that the women's game simply doesn't have -- above the rim play. It's not a matter of creating different standards due to men's and women's natural abilities -- so let's drop the politically correct b.s. and look at the current women's game as it is. I don't see a lot of fans clamoring for WNBA tickets and by optimizing aspects of the game on an individual league level, which is what all leagues have done since their inception, leagues like WNBA MAY be enhancing its brand and ensuring its survival. Having women play with a smaller ball was simple -- they have smaller hands -- but introducing this difference made the game more accessible and more enjoyable for those whom play it. Or a shorter three point line. What's wrong with doing that? Why does it have to exactly compare to the men's game if it makes it less accessible. In golf the sports creates multiple levels of skill -- based on quantifiable skill level. Yet, I can go play a match with people of all levels, ages and genders and we all have equal enjoyment and competitiveness. And isn't it interesting that the PGA is promoting play it forward in an attempt to change the misnomer that you have to play the tips in order to be a serious golfer, which we know is bunk. I'm not saying a women's game is handicapping, I'm saying it's organically making adjustments to make the game more accessible and enjoyable on both sides of the sidelines. And as a guy, I've played volleyball with women on a shorter women's net and on a men's net. Both times were fun. And I can tell you that I much more enjoyed watching Walsh and Treanor win the Gold two Olympics in a row than their male counterparts. Granted, the skimpy two pieces added that extra flair, but I was drawn in to the competition. If women had the opportunity to develop an above-the-rim dimension in the WBNA it will create highlights. Highlights get on Sports Center. People get more interested. And let's just remember that there was a time there was "No Dunking" in men's basketball or a three point line. If they didn't have those elements, the NBA would be a shell of its current product. Yet they evolved. Why can't women's basketball evolve too if the league and players want it to?

[Philsfan]

Somewhat related to the overall discussion, I did feel pretty embarrassed for the women's team during CTC when Coach P. and some of the players came out and were all but begging fans to come out and support them this season. I've tried watching women's hoops both live and on TV over the years and just can't get into it. I wish them success in generating more interest.

[darthur]

Calling it like it is here. Lower the rims all he wants, he still has a game that is inferior to men's hoops! Women are much slower moving, have many more poor players on the court, and it's simply not nearly as exciting to watch as men's hoops from a fan's perspective.

I assume you bring out the same arguments when comparing Duke men's basketball to the NBA?

[greybeard]

Women have 11 times the incidence of men playing the great game. Eleven is a pretty big number. Playing more like men has never been the answer for the woman's game, the cost is too unseemly, disgusting in my view. Until someone discovers some technique or training regimen that will lower that number (the number for men is obscene itself) every effort should be made to make the game much safer. Dunking will do the opposite.

The woman's game is greatly enhanced by the smaller ball, as anyone who has ever shot around with one of them knows. Outside shooting and the passing game are featured in the woman's game but, imo not nearly enough. I'd like to see Princeton derivates rule. Should such rules be mandated? Impose a defensive three second rule and they won't need to be.

Lowering the rim might improve percentage on drives to the basket and inside finishes (I doubt that, by the way, except for the very elite players) but at what cost. The more women players attack the basket at speed and with fancy finishes the more at risk they are. The canard that the pros don't care don't hunt. These women have survived the thicket of injury that is high school and college basketball and want to get paid, and willing to take the risk of paying for it with their bodies. Were they just acting for themselves that would be one thing, but they are not. What happens at the pro level sets how the game is played by youngsters though college players, and making it more dangerous for them is unconscionable.

We need to start making changes that make women's basketball more, rather than less, safe. Making rims lower might increase the saleability of big time college basketball and the pro game and it will also serve the interests of those who are hell bent on proving that women can do anything that men can and do it equally well. Lowering the rim is a bad idea.

[sagegrouse]

Women have 11 times the incidence of men playing the great game. Eleven is a pretty big number. Playing more like men has never been the answer for the woman's game, the cost is too unseemly, disgusting in my view. Until someone discovers some technique or training regimen that will lower that number (the number for men is obscene itself) every effort should be made to make the game much safer. Dunking will do the opposite.

.

Greybeard: "11 times the incidence" of what? -- sage

[RepoMan]

Greybeard: "11 times the incidence" of what? -- sage

I am guessing knee injury

[aro24]

Wait....they haven't already raised the rims for men????? I can't get anywhere near above it when I play now. I was hoping this was the reason. Guess I have just gotten older and fatter :D

ARo24

[Cameron]

Greybeard: "11 times the incidence" of what? -- sage


I am guessing knee injury

I was thinking he meant of being killed by Brittney Griner.

[killerleft]

I've often wondered if playing with a smaller ball actually makes it more difficult to shoot from the perimeter. If you were going to lower the rims to add more dunks and above the rim play, wouldn't you need to factor in the vertical leap average and not just average height? I would guess there is a difference there too.

If I remember correctly, women's basketball was at one time played with 6 players, only 3 were allowed on each half of the court court, so you truly had exclusive front court and backcourt players. I'm not sure when this changed, maybe in the 50's or 60's? But they did still used the same height rims and I think the same size ball then. Maybe shortening the court would be another possibility, could be more effective although less feasible in practice.

The smaller ball very much is an advantage for the women, just like it would be for most men. The smaller ball is easier to handle, shoot, and dribble. Smaller hands can cover more (percentage-wise) area of the ball. I believe the ball is lighter, also, and that's a big help, too.

[killerleft]

Somewhat related to the overall discussion, I did feel pretty embarrassed for the women's team during CTC when Coach P. and some of the players came out and were all but begging fans to come out and support them this season. I've tried watching women's hoops both live and on TV over the years and just can't get into it. I wish them success in generating more interest.

I have heard this argument more times than I care to remember, and it is still one large headscratcher for me. Of course, I came to the women's game EXPECTING to be entertained, and I've been hooked for almost 20 years. You get Duke Basketball at 1/10th the cost (whole FAMILIES can often afford to see a game), vastly increased skill level from years ago, nationally prominent program, female role models, etc. And the big advantage? The players NOT being able to rely on JUST athletic ability (dunking may be exciting, but the skill is usually tallness). I really don't see the point in having ANOTHER sport dominated by outsized people at the expense of smaller players with mad skills. Women's b-ball puts more of a premium on team play.

Which means, getting back to the subject of the thread, I emphatically disagree with Geno's suggestion. And, as others have mentioned, the logistics involved in setting up the goals at the high school level and below would be both expensive and a nightmare.

[tommy]

I am guessing knee injury

If Greybeard was referring to knee injuries, he's correct that women suffer more ACL injuries in basketball than do men, but it's by a factor of about three, not eleven. There are a lot of studies out there on this, with two of them (if anyone's interested) here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18063176) and here (http://www.udel.edu/PT/PT%20Clinical%20Services/journalclub/sojc/99_00/nov99/ireland.pdf).

Nevertheless, his point remains. The question then becomes whether lowering the rims would or would not cause even more such injuries. It's not like the women would be jumping higher, but maybe they'd be jumping more often to try to get to the rim??? Not sure about that, really. Aren't they still jumping as often as they can to try to get as close to the rim as possible even with 10 foot rims? Wouldn't outside shooting -- like shots closer to the basket -- also become easier with lower rims, thereby incentivizing outside shooting, not just getting to that lower rim? I don't know. The whole idea is pretty silly anyway, for a number of reasons already being discussed on the thread.

[vick]

Look, the logistical arguments are reasonably persuasive (I think it wouldn't be that much of a problem in organized basketball, but it would impact recreational games more), but some of these arguments just seem separated from empirical reality to me.


The players NOT being able to rely on JUST athletic ability (dunking may be exciting, but the skill is usually tallness). I really don't see the point in having ANOTHER sport dominated by outsized people at the expense of smaller players with mad skills.

Except, top-level women's basketball teams are just as physically distinct from the average woman as men's teams are from the average man. Just to pick what I think everyone can agree is top-level basketball, the 2012 Olympic USA men's and women's teams, here are the players listed by height in cm (sourced from Wikipedia):




Men's
Women's


183
175


191
175


191
183


196
183


198
183


198
185


203
185


203
185


206
191


208
193


208
193


216
198



Now, taking American height distributions from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/percentile_data_files.htm) (using 20 year olds, since that's the most they have, but height change after age 20 is very small), here are the standard deviations away from the mean for men and women, and the difference between the two:



Men
Women
Difference


0.86
1.81
-0.94


2.00
1.81
0.19


2.00
3.06
-1.06


2.71
3.06
-0.35


2.99
3.06
-0.06


3.71
3.37
0.34


3.71
3.37
0.34


3.71
3.37
0.34


4.14
4.31
-0.17


4.42
4.62
-0.20


4.42
4.62
-0.20


5.58
5.41
0.17



The average is -0.19--in other words, the women on the national team were more distinct from average women than the men's team from average men. Now this is just one example, but as far as I can tell the notion that women's basketball devalues height is a complete myth, and frankly just seems to defy common sense--anyone who played basketball growing up knows what an enormous advantage the kid who hit his growth spurt early had, even if he couldn't dunk, because most everyone was a bad shooter, making rebounding ability even more valuable than otherwise. Lower shooting percentages make larger players hugely valuable.

I can be persuaded by the logistical arguments, but the idea that the current rims help smaller female basketball players...I just don't see that in the data.

[killerleft]

Look, the logistical arguments are reasonably persuasive (I think it wouldn't be that much of a problem in organized basketball, but it would impact recreational games more), but some of these arguments just seem separated from empirical reality to me.



Except, top-level women's basketball teams are just as physically distinct from the average woman as men's teams are from the average man. Just to pick what I think everyone can agree is top-level basketball, the 2012 Olympic USA men's and women's teams, here are the players listed by height in cm (sourced from Wikipedia):




Men's
Women's


183
175


191
175


191
183


196
183


198
183


198
185


203
185


203
185


206
191


208
193


208
193


216
198



Now, taking American height distributions from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/percentile_data_files.htm) (using 20 year olds, since that's the most they have, but height change after age 20 is very small), here are the standard deviations away from the mean for men and women, and the difference between the two:



Men
Women
Difference


0.86
1.81
-0.94


2.00
1.81
0.19


2.00
3.06
-1.06


2.71
3.06
-0.35


2.99
3.06
-0.06


3.71
3.37
0.34


3.71
3.37
0.34


3.71
3.37
0.34


4.14
4.31
-0.17


4.42
4.62
-0.20


4.42
4.62
-0.20


5.58
5.41
0.17



The average is -0.19--in other words, the women on the national team were more distinct from average women than the men's team from average men. Now this is just one example, but as far as I can tell the notion that women's basketball devalues height is a complete myth, and frankly just seems to defy common sense--anyone who played basketball growing up knows what an enormous advantage the kid who hit his growth spurt early had, even if he couldn't dunk, because most everyone was a bad shooter, making rebounding ability even more valuable than otherwise. Lower shooting percentages make larger players hugely valuable.

I can be persuaded by the logistical arguments, but the idea that the current rims help smaller female basketball players...I just don't see that in the data.

You compared one elite men's team and one elite women's team and want to use it as some norm? Numbers can be used to back up lots of stuff if you sample the right group.

Here's a list of how many players under 5 ft. 10 in. will play for five different women's teams for this coming year. Duke, Elon, State, FSU, & WF.

5'2"-1 5'3-1 5'4"-1 5'5"-2 5'6"-1 5'7"-3 5'8"-5 5'9" 4 So, while your data shows that talller players, of course, are more prevalent than shorter ones, I believe that the numbers I noted do show a much higher incidence of shorter players in women's ball than on men's teams. Shorter rims will make better shooters of every player regardless of height.

[Turtleboy]

If Greybeard was referring to knee injuries, he's correct that women suffer more ACL injuries in basketball than do men, but it's by a factor of about three, not eleven. There are a lot of studies out there on this, with two of them (if anyone's interested) here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18063176) and here (http://www.udel.edu/PT/PT%20Clinical%20Services/journalclub/sojc/99_00/nov99/ireland.pdf).

Nevertheless, his point remains. The question then becomes whether lowering the rims would or would not cause even more such injuries. It's not like the women would be jumping higher, but maybe they'd be jumping more often to try to get to the rim??? Not sure about that, really. Aren't they still jumping as often as they can to try to get as close to the rim as possible even with 10 foot rims?Aren't a significant number of ACL tears caused by cutting moves, rather than jumping?

[vick]

You compared one elite men's team and one elite women's team and want to use it as some norm? Numbers can be used to back up lots of stuff if you sample the right group.

Here's a list of how many players under 5 ft. 10 in. will play for five different women's teams for this coming year. Duke, Elon, State, FSU, & WF.

5'2"-1 5'3-1 5'4"-1 5'5"-2 5'6"-1 5'7"-3 5'8"-5 5'9" 4 So, while your data shows that talller players, of course, are more prevalent than shorter ones, I believe that the numbers I noted do show a much higher incidence of shorter players in women's ball than on men's teams. Shorter rims will make better shooters of every player regardless of height.

Number of players on a roster at a given size is essentially a useless statistic at the college level, though. I mean, who cares whether a team has a 5'7" walk on on their men's basketball team?

Anyway, I picked the Olympic teams because they're the best--I don't doubt that you can "get away with" being shorter in the women's game the farther down you go, in the same way you might be able to get away with being a 5'10" quarterback in college but it's far more difficult in the NFL. But let's just take the four ACC teams in your sample. Instead of this upcoming year, though, I used last year, because I wanted to weight it by minutes played for the reason above--walk-ons and low-minutes players aren't really important. With appropriate caveats that I did this quickly, here are the figures:


Men Weighted Avg. Height Women Weighted Avg. Height Men z-score Women z-score
Duke 197 185 2.9 3.4
NCSU 198 178 3.0 2.3
FSU 199 184 3.2 3.2
WF 198 179 3.0 2.5

Average 198 182 3.0 2.8


So, the men are very slightly more "irregular." If the men were 1.2 cm shorter on average--less than half an inch!--they would be equal. I think it's pretty safe to say that the idea that the women's game as currently constructed helps shorter players is, at best, unproven.

[turnandburn55]

A number of other sports are much closer (I mean how many men on this planet can beat Venus Williams in tennis? Not many!)..

Oh how quickly we forget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Braasch

[greybeard]

Greybeard: "11 times the incidence" of what? -- sage

That would help, wouldn't it? ACL tears, they have 11 times the incidence of CL tears in basketball and soccer as compared to men and boys. Nearly every year for the past 10 at least, so-called experts put out different bizzare theories about the reasons for the alarmingly larger numbers such as the widness of female hips relative to the placement of their feet, wearing healed shoes, and others put forth training regimens that they say have great promise in reducing the problem--learning to land more "softly" was my fav. No one has even suggested that the game needs to change to stop the mayheem will a solution is actually found (not goint to happen, imo). The NY Times has at least two Sunday Magazine's with front page articles on the issue of injuries in Woman's soccer. The most recent, sagegrouse, concerned the girls high school team right here in the DC suburbs that is perenially in the hunt for the county championship, and almost all of whom play on a Bethesda Club team that in different age groups that are also in the hunt for a national title. The description of the devistation wrought on the girls playing for Whittman High School through a season playing a sport was chilling. The author of the article pulled no punches in condemning the game for producing the number of significant injuries, mostly, but limited to multiple concussions and ACL tears, but remarkably the author did not even suggest that the game's rules be altered to make it safer.

I know that college scholarships are there to be had, but the college game is even more dangerous for the best of the best women players than it is for their younger counterparts. What the pros do drives the bus for what goes on in the ranks below them. Women train harder, so they can play with greater speed, push with greater force, cut on sharper angles and jump higher. They fashion their games ever more like the men, so do the kids. This is insane.

You can barely watch a women's high school or high-end club basketball or soccer game without seeing at least two, usually four, players wearing one of those god-awful braces that actually do nothing to inhibit a recurrance, which often occur. Just the other week, I went to the Boys and Girls club down the roadto meet with the man in charge of rec basketball. Afterwards, I stopped to watch a very well organized practice of a club team comprised of what looked like 15 year old girls/young women, all of whom had talent. One was practicing, if you could call it that, with one of those braces on. She could barely put pressure on that leg, even walked gingerly without putting her heal to the ground. How could she be out there? How could her parents allow it? The coach? The player herself, who had to know that she was doing herself and her team no good by participating in her condition.

This goes on all the time, and it is top-down driven. The famous 99ers, I think they were called, were lead by a woman with a serious brain issue; in the World Cup finals, which she wasn't supposed to play, her headaches and disorientation became so bad that she literally fell to the ground and could not rise. Then, and only then, did the coach take her out.

Godell reportedly has been attending pee-wee league practices and giving lectures on the need to teach kids at the youngest ages good techniques and not return them to the field without a doctor's clearence, blah, blah, balah. Godel is a hipocrite and he is trying to legitimatize the continued propigation of a sport that needs reformation, not just band aids, on the highest levels, reformation that won't happen because it will substantially reduce revenues. Parents have been pulling their sons out of pee wee football, the rates of participation have been falling, but the ranks of players keeps growing. It will keep growing until one of these leagues, until one school district, gets sued for creating a game that young people cannot resist but that is beyond way to dangerous for adult institutions to support, in particular, institutions whose mission is to serve the public good, the well being of students committed to their charge. When those suits start flying, reform will happen, and it won't be band aides this time. The GAME will be changed, the industry that is big time football, college and pro, will no longer be so big.

Change will happen from the ground up, the science with respect to brain damage is just in it's infancy but it is proceeding now at great speed, and the costs to health of other major injuries to limbs and torsos, spines and nerves, has got to be coming right behind.

Where I think it will end is not with the elimination of these sports but with a dramatic de-emphass in strength, speed, and agility training, reforming rules that address the types of play that now are within the rules but are doing great harm, and bringing these games back down to the ground of real sports. Some people will always get hurt playing the games they love, G-d knows that I have. But, sports should not require that people, children on up, but their bodies and brains on the line simply to play a game that should be fun. They do now, but not for long.

Let me say a word about an organization that purports to hold itself out as the champion of player well being in Youth Sports, the Positive Coaching Alliance. The organization began with two famous coaches, Phil Jackson and Larry Brown, as its out-front promoters, whose mission was to support the emotional and psychological development of all participants in youth sports while also supporting competition and winning. Its executive director is an exceptional man, who books on double-goal coaching are must reads for anyone with young children, sports participants or not. But, as I wrote to Mr. Thompson in our not infrequent exchanges on the subject, there is no way for his organization can be integrity with its mission of serving the interests of the kids who particpate in kids sports without addressing the issue of injury. NONE. To date, that organization, which has attracted the best of the best athletes to give on-line free clinincs, has not said one word on the subject of injury. That is beyond sad.

[tommy]

Aren't a significant number of ACL tears caused by cutting moves, rather than jumping?

I assume so, yes. So what would be the effect of lowering the rims on the cutting-related ACL tears? I can't really think of any. Can you?

[AZLA]

This goes on all the time, and it is top-down driven. The famous 99ers, I think they were called, were lead by a woman with a serious brain issue; in the World Cup finals, which she wasn't supposed to play, her headaches and disorientation became so bad that she literally fell to the ground and could not rise. Then, and only then, did the coach take her out.

You're talking about Michelle Akers, widely regarded as the greatest defensive women's soccer player in history and was considered the greatest all around women's soccer player at her prime (and just before the rise to international prominence of Mia Hamm out of CH). Yes the game was the Wold Cup Finals held at the Rose Bowl against the technical favorites -- and tough team -- China. I was at that game. It was in the 90s, blazing hot for a bowl, and completely sold out. Attendance exceed 90k. Unbelievable! The US women's offense couldn't set up good looks against China's defense. And the Chinese team's offense was incredible. The only thing that held them back from winning, and they would have won big, was that the US Team Captain -- Akers. She was a force on defense, despite the heat and the fact she was previously diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome. She simply was the hardest working player on the field and got exhausted. And she WAS supposed to play. It was her decision and she was refusing to come off the pitch out of fear Sun Wen (the co-women's player of the Century and Golden Boot winner in that World Cup) might capitalize on Akers being out and pull out the win. Which the Chinese almost did if not for a miracle header out of the posts by Lilly. Anyhow, point is, Akers played one of the gutsiests games of any I've seen live in any sport. In no way was she forced to play. She knew the stakes and her effort was intsrtumental in U.S. Women winning the 99 World Cup. There's not a men's game out there where a player wouldn't have done the same.

[Turtleboy]

I assume so, yes. So what would be the effect of lowering the rims on the cutting-related ACL tears? I can't really think of any. Can you?Nope.

[killerleft]

That would help, wouldn't it? ACL tears, they have 11 times the incidence of CL tears in basketball and soccer as compared to men and boys. Nearly every year for the past 10 at least, so-called experts put out different bizzare theories about the reasons for the alarmingly larger numbers such as the widness of female hips relative to the placement of their feet, wearing healed shoes, and others put forth training regimens that they say have great promise in reducing the problem--learning to land more "softly" was my fav. No one has even suggested that the game needs to change to stop the mayheem will a solution is actually found (not goint to happen, imo). The NY Times has at least two Sunday Magazine's with front page articles on the issue of injuries in Woman's soccer. The most recent, sagegrouse, concerned the girls high school team right here in the DC suburbs that is perenially in the hunt for the county championship, and almost all of whom play on a Bethesda Club team that in different age groups that are also in the hunt for a national title. The description of the devistation wrought on the girls playing for Whittman High School through a season playing a sport was chilling. The author of the article pulled no punches in condemning the game for producing the number of significant injuries, mostly, but limited to multiple concussions and ACL tears, but remarkably the author did not even suggest that the game's rules be altered to make it safer.

I know that college scholarships are there to be had, but the college game is even more dangerous for the best of the best women players than it is for their younger counterparts. What the pros do drives the bus for what goes on in the ranks below them. Women train harder, so they can play with greater speed, push with greater force, cut on sharper angles and jump higher. They fashion their games ever more like the men, so do the kids. This is insane.

You can barely watch a women's high school or high-end club basketball or soccer game without seeing at least two, usually four, players wearing one of those god-awful braces that actually do nothing to inhibit a recurrance, which often occur. Just the other week, I went to the Boys and Girls club down the roadto meet with the man in charge of rec basketball. Afterwards, I stopped to watch a very well organized practice of a club team comprised of what looked like 15 year old girls/young women, all of whom had talent. One was practicing, if you could call it that, with one of those braces on. She could barely put pressure on that leg, even walked gingerly without putting her heal to the ground. How could she be out there? How could her parents allow it? The coach? The player herself, who had to know that she was doing herself and her team no good by participating in her condition.

This goes on all the time, and it is top-down driven. The famous 99ers, I think they were called, were lead by a woman with a serious brain issue; in the World Cup finals, which she wasn't supposed to play, her headaches and disorientation became so bad that she literally fell to the ground and could not rise. Then, and only then, did the coach take her out.

Godell reportedly has been attending pee-wee league practices and giving lectures on the need to teach kids at the youngest ages good techniques and not return them to the field without a doctor's clearence, blah, blah, balah. Godel is a hipocrite and he is trying to legitimatize the continued propigation of a sport that needs reformation, not just band aids, on the highest levels, reformation that won't happen because it will substantially reduce revenues. Parents have been pulling their sons out of pee wee football, the rates of participation have been falling, but the ranks of players keeps growing. It will keep growing until one of these leagues, until one school district, gets sued for creating a game that young people cannot resist but that is beyond way to dangerous for adult institutions to support, in particular, institutions whose mission is to serve the public good, the well being of students committed to their charge. When those suits start flying, reform will happen, and it won't be band aides this time. The GAME will be changed, the industry that is big time football, college and pro, will no longer be so big.

Change will happen from the ground up, the science with respect to brain damage is just in it's infancy but it is proceeding now at great speed, and the costs to health of other major injuries to limbs and torsos, spines and nerves, has got to be coming right behind.

Where I think it will end is not with the elimination of these sports but with a dramatic de-emphass in strength, speed, and agility training, reforming rules that address the types of play that now are within the rules but are doing great harm, and bringing these games back down to the ground of real sports. Some people will always get hurt playing the games they love, G-d knows that I have. But, sports should not require that people, children on up, but their bodies and brains on the line simply to play a game that should be fun. They do now, but not for long.

Let me say a word about an organization that purports to hold itself out as the champion of player well being in Youth Sports, the Positive Coaching Alliance. The organization began with two famous coaches, Phil Jackson and Larry Brown, as its out-front promoters, whose mission was to support the emotional and psychological development of all participants in youth sports while also supporting competition and winning. Its executive director is an exceptional man, who books on double-goal coaching are must reads for anyone with young children, sports participants or not. But, as I wrote to Mr. Thompson in our not infrequent exchanges on the subject, there is no way for his organization can be integrity with its mission of serving the interests of the kids who particpate in kids sports without addressing the issue of injury. NONE. To date, that organization, which has attracted the best of the best athletes to give on-line free clinincs, has not said one word on the subject of injury. That is beyond sad.

The only point I'd add is that the list of hypocrites should include the parents of these kids, most of whom have encouraged, and in some cases, cajoled their kids to play at the highest level. It would take a special kind of ignorance to deny the danger inherent in almost any sport that includes running, changing direction, and jumping.

What I would be interested in knowing is just what one could do short of ending virtuallly every team sport for men AND women? How would one even start to govern the physical conditioning that allows players to get the most out of their bodies in order to be the best? I can see where certain rules, especially in football and other so-called contact sports, would help some. I remember that school buses back in the day had governors on them that supposedly controlled the amount of speed one could attain. Are the refs gonna call penalties on players for "cutting too hard", "jumping too high", "running to fast", or the dreaded "being excessively agile"? I jest, but what does one do to legislate athleticism out of athletics?

And, a larger question, would anyone want to play or watch it happen?

[Cameron]

That would help, wouldn't it? ACL tears, they have 11 times the incidence of CL tears in basketball and soccer as compared to men and boys. Nearly every year for the past 10 at least, so-called experts put out different bizzare theories about the reasons for the alarmingly larger numbers such as the widness of female hips relative to the placement of their feet, wearing healed shoes, and others put forth training regimens that they say have great promise in reducing the problem--learning to land more "softly" was my fav. No one has even suggested that the game needs to change to stop the mayheem will a solution is actually found (not goint to happen, imo). The NY Times has at least two Sunday Magazine's with front page articles on the issue of injuries in Woman's soccer. The most recent, sagegrouse, concerned the girls high school team right here in the DC suburbs that is perenially in the hunt for the county championship, and almost all of whom play on a Bethesda Club team that in different age groups that are also in the hunt for a national title. The description of the devistation wrought on the girls playing for Whittman High School through a season playing a sport was chilling. The author of the article pulled no punches in condemning the game for producing the number of significant injuries, mostly, but limited to multiple concussions and ACL tears, but remarkably the author did not even suggest that the game's rules be altered to make it safer.

I know that college scholarships are there to be had, but the college game is even more dangerous for the best of the best women players than it is for their younger counterparts. What the pros do drives the bus for what goes on in the ranks below them. Women train harder, so they can play with greater speed, push with greater force, cut on sharper angles and jump higher. They fashion their games ever more like the men, so do the kids. This is insane.

You can barely watch a women's high school or high-end club basketball or soccer game without seeing at least two, usually four, players wearing one of those god-awful braces that actually do nothing to inhibit a recurrance, which often occur. Just the other week, I went to the Boys and Girls club down the roadto meet with the man in charge of rec basketball. Afterwards, I stopped to watch a very well organized practice of a club team comprised of what looked like 15 year old girls/young women, all of whom had talent. One was practicing, if you could call it that, with one of those braces on. She could barely put pressure on that leg, even walked gingerly without putting her heal to the ground. How could she be out there? How could her parents allow it? The coach? The player herself, who had to know that she was doing herself and her team no good by participating in her condition.

This goes on all the time, and it is top-down driven. The famous 99ers, I think they were called, were lead by a woman with a serious brain issue; in the World Cup finals, which she wasn't supposed to play, her headaches and disorientation became so bad that she literally fell to the ground and could not rise. Then, and only then, did the coach take her out.

Godell reportedly has been attending pee-wee league practices and giving lectures on the need to teach kids at the youngest ages good techniques and not return them to the field without a doctor's clearence, blah, blah, balah. Godel is a hipocrite and he is trying to legitimatize the continued propigation of a sport that needs reformation, not just band aids, on the highest levels, reformation that won't happen because it will substantially reduce revenues. Parents have been pulling their sons out of pee wee football, the rates of participation have been falling, but the ranks of players keeps growing. It will keep growing until one of these leagues, until one school district, gets sued for creating a game that young people cannot resist but that is beyond way to dangerous for adult institutions to support, in particular, institutions whose mission is to serve the public good, the well being of students committed to their charge. When those suits start flying, reform will happen, and it won't be band aides this time. The GAME will be changed, the industry that is big time football, college and pro, will no longer be so big.

Change will happen from the ground up, the science with respect to brain damage is just in it's infancy but it is proceeding now at great speed, and the costs to health of other major injuries to limbs and torsos, spines and nerves, has got to be coming right behind.

Where I think it will end is not with the elimination of these sports but with a dramatic de-emphass in strength, speed, and agility training, reforming rules that address the types of play that now are within the rules but are doing great harm, and bringing these games back down to the ground of real sports. Some people will always get hurt playing the games they love, G-d knows that I have. But, sports should not require that people, children on up, but their bodies and brains on the line simply to play a game that should be fun. They do now, but not for long.

Let me say a word about an organization that purports to hold itself out as the champion of player well being in Youth Sports, the Positive Coaching Alliance. The organization began with two famous coaches, Phil Jackson and Larry Brown, as its out-front promoters, whose mission was to support the emotional and psychological development of all participants in youth sports while also supporting competition and winning. Its executive director is an exceptional man, who books on double-goal coaching are must reads for anyone with young children, sports participants or not. But, as I wrote to Mr. Thompson in our not infrequent exchanges on the subject, there is no way for his organization can be integrity with its mission of serving the interests of the kids who particpate in kids sports without addressing the issue of injury. NONE. To date, that organization, which has attracted the best of the best athletes to give on-line free clinincs, has not said one word on the subject of injury. That is beyond sad.

So, just to be clear, you were talking about knee injury? Lol.

To your point on there being way too many young girls wearing braces, I agree completely. It's an alarmingly widespread occurrence. My little sister is in her senior year of high school and there are two or three girls on her basketball team who are so bandaged up every time they take the floor that it looks as if they did a stretch in Nam as DNA. One of them has a brace so elaborate that I think it was built out of an erector set. If she goes on to play ball in college, she will probably need a Hoveround. It's crazy.

And just as an side, I enjoy your lengthy posts. They are never dull. And full of unique information.

[MartyClark]

[
(I mean how many men on this planet can beat Venus Williams in tennis? Not many!).

You have captured my attention on a slow Saturday afternoon. I would guess that that the top 1000 male players could easily beat Venus Williams. I'm not claiming any expertise on tennis, so someone who knows something can disagree. I would guess that any professional male player could beat Venus Williams. Am I wrong?

[JNort]

I am in favor of lowering the rims. I saw a few people said it would cost to much but I don't know if you realize this but almost all basketball goals from middle school up are adjustable so price shouldn't be to much of an issue. Also if they did want to lower the rims I doubt the change would take off right away. That is something that would happen 4 or 5 years after it is made official so schools could prepare.