First off this is not a slight at the programs involved but rather a basic commentary of a personal opinion.

As I look across the scope of wbb what thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is the fact that interest in wbb (as measured by a variety of parameters mainly media driven) has been dwindling. Here is one authors perspective on this.

www.fullcourt.com/clay-kallam/...sturbing-trends

With changes to hoopgurlz it occurred to me something is going on here. What it is is very reminescent of the late sixties and early seventies with mens basketball. UCLA was the dominant power then and with players like Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Bill Walton it was in a word understandable. The NCAA for their part tried even to change the rules ie no dunking to counteract players like Jabbar and help parity.

Now recruiting lists were not as available back then as they are now but when looking at wbb it is easy to see where most of the top 5 players tend to flock. Statistics bear out the fact that getting the number 1 player almost guarantees a final four and getting more than one almost assures a natty.

Now this is not about denegrating a program it is more about what as happened with interest in the game. Over the last decade wbb interest has become centered for the most part in certain geographic regions.... and the reasons for this is varied. One reason is that for the most part top tier recruits have a history of picking certain teams assuring those teams are the ones in final fours, the ones on TV, and the ones that the media writes about. One fact that is evident more than any other and cannot be disputed.... top talent leads to success.

This past Olympic team won the gold but it was argued, not here btw, that favortism was given to certain players because of the school they attended and who the coach was. I really dont know if any truth is in this contention I am just relaying some of the comments I have seen. Mostly by said teams rivals but by some who I consider more neutral.

For whatever reason the glass ceiling has been hard to break. Baylor by virtue of a basketball phenom has been pushing at it but it is interesting that they were given a penalty for recruiting violations in regards to infractions in the recruitment of this player. If you look with what happened with BG she developed into this phenom before anyone knew about her. First I saw or heard of her was a YouTube video. She grew like 7 inches or something in a year. And she lived in Baylors backyard.

Each reader needs to make of his/her own mind about this. From a UNC perspective it has been easy for most fans to see. The general bias in the media is easy to see though it may be because where interest in the sport is most evident.

Now to us and our part to play. I was taken aback by the backlash we received when got the verbals from the May 5th announcements. I soon realized at least in my mind what might be happening and the argument I could put out really would have some teeth. You see classes like this one has a real chance to be a threat to this glass ceiling.

What I see if I was independent observer who has followed wbb for years would be it is good for the game. It is also a threat to those who feel that every ff and every natty is their destiny. Hence the backlash.

From a UNC and ACC fans perspective it is really good to see the type of talent coming into the league. It makes for good games and builds interest.

I am sure I will get some dissent from certain programs and if the role was reversed I may feel as they do but the fact remains parity is the one thing in my mind that will generate true interest in the game. And really these new recruits of ours may have a big role to play in it. Maybe they saw something that everyone missed and if they did well...they and others will have a bigger impact than most imagine now.

I want to make a couple of comments about this, although I don't want to make this into a "Moderator's Forum".

I respect Clay Kallam, who I think is a good and knowledgeable writer, and I agree with much of what he says. I'm not sure to what degree players choose volleyball because of "cuter uniforms" (which I suppose is code for tight-fitting short shorts) but without question, under Title IX there are far more options for women athletes today. I think overall this is a good thing.

The WNBA has made many of its own problems. The coaching, IMO, is mediocre at best. The salary scale does not match what is the norm in the overseas market, and that has caused players to commit to playing year round to maximize their income. WNBA franchises have shut down or moved. Rosters, for financial reasons, are limited to 11 players. TV coverage is pitiful, and I know in some cases home games are blacked out in the local market. And, no matter what the original reasons for it were, summertime basketball has yet to really capture the public imagination. I have grave reservations about the future of the WNBA, and I can only hope that it can find a way to survive and grow.

As to the Olympic Team, I think it reasonable to argue that Sue Bird, Diana Taurasi, and Tina Charles would have been on the team no matter who was coaching. This argument could also be extended to Maya Moore, and while I did not think she had a great Olympics she certainly is the future of the USA program. The question is, of course, about Cash and Jones. Both are experienced professionals, but it could be argued that those slots would have been better given to younger players like Nneka Ogwumike. But the team's job was to win the gold medal, and they did that.

It should also be noted that while Geno Auriemma certainly had input into the roster, the team selections were made by USA Basketball.

I have noted on this board in the past that there is no question that top HS players tend to migrate towards a small number of schools. Of the players who have been selected for McDonald's AA rosters, 56% of them have selected from among just 10 schools. Fully 80% have chosen from among 20 schools, and those schools represent a lion's share of the Top-25 rankings, conference and NCAA championships. Connecticut and Tennessee lead the way, but three ACC schools - Carolina, Maryland and dook - are also in the top 10.

Some of the reasons for this are obvious. The 20 schools noted are where the best coaches are. They all have records of success, and perhaps most importantly, they have strong fan bases that put people in the seats.

In recent years, UNC attendance has not been what it was during the Latta-Little-Larkins era. In my mind, there is NO QUESTION that this has hurt our recruiting. It is hard to sell a top recruit on the idea that it will be better to play in front of 2,000 in Carmichael rather than 10,000 in Storrs or 12,000 in Knoxville. I know we will hear the familiar refrain that "if the scheduled games were better, we would come". I'm not buying. If you are a UNC fan, get your behind into a seat and never mind who's the opponent. Get into the habit of doing it now, for the 2013 team. I guarantee you that if we do not support this team - particularly with the group that committed back in May - we will see no more classes like that one.

I wish we could count on more media support. It isn't there, and isn't likely to be. There are very few writers like Kallam or Mechelle Voepel, who cover women's basketball in depth. Most newspapers (the ones still in business) and electronic media outlets simply cannot justify the expense when compared to readership. Even our own "parent", Inside Carolina, cannot justify the expense of increased recruiting coverage of women's sports, even if the editorial direction were inclined to do it.

I don't know what will happen over in Knoxville, as Pat Summitt's role diminishes over the next few seasons. Up at Storrs, I don't get the sense that Auriemma is going anywhere. Stanford, dook, Maryland and Notre Dame will continue to recruit well. There is an opportunity now for Carolina to make a major move. We have the talent committed, or at least we will have once they sign their LOIs. Now we need to support it. If we don't, then those programs that recruit against us will be saying, "See? We told you, UNC is all about men's basketball and the women's program doesn't get the support." If we want championships, we need championship fan support.

The IH fully supports informed punditry, with no strings but no attacking kids, only evaluating systems and situations.

For example, why can't Stanford win anymore Natties, and why won't the Tar Heels or The Duke win any Natties in this decade...

Re: UNC and this topic, I've always felt like UNC is one of the bluebloods of women's basketball. An enormous amount of elite talent has been through Chapel Hill for many, many years. Even in recent years, UNC has had "highly regarded" classes enter the program. To me, it's the exception when UNC is not in the national argument. Even when the team hasn't been so great the last few seasons, ESPN still has made it a featured part of "rivalry week" and other national games. It's as if ESPN was still planning on the Heels being an elite program each year.

No big Monday this year for UNC and no rivalry week. BTW as far as espn goes it is the general feeling here imo that UNC wbb is not one of their favorites. I agree it is an exception when UNC is not in the National argument if you are talking top 10. That should remedy itself soon enough.

Yes we have recruited in region the best of any ACC school imo. Our recruiting fortunes have often been tied to what was within a 6 hour drive of Chapel Hill. Maryland sits in the middle of talent rich DMV and has done very well there. Duke has the best nationwide recruiting of talent but probably devotes the most money to recruiting and has the inflated value of a scholly to attract its recruits.

Heres the problem with the ACC in general. We have not as a conference got that uber elite recruit. ie Chamique Holdsclaw Diana Taurasi Candace Parker Tina Charles EDD Maya Moore Britany Griner. Statistics bear out that landing a recruit like this almost guarantees ff and nattys.

In 2006 the ACC had 3 teams loaded in talent and the strength of these teams line ups made up for the lack of a no 1 ranked recruit.


There is a huge difference in wbb in the top 10 class and the no 1 class. Any team in its right mind would take 1 Britany Griner over their choice of any 5 players in her high school graduating class imo.

Allysa Thomas Elizabeth Williams and maybe 1 or 2 of our 2013s are waiting to see if they can become that uber special player that the ACC has yet to attract. By that I mean leading their team to at least to 1 natty.....and as far as attracting that uber special player if your team is not Tenn, Uconn, or Baylor you havent either.

I guess the argument I am trying to make is that parity will generate interest in the game. Thats all. That is why I, not from a UNC fans perspective, but from a wbb fans perspective a class like our 2013s is good because everyone knows that only the most elite teams can counteract what is up in storrs for the next 4 years or so. And from the response to the 2013 class commits, from some of these elites, that somebody thinks that what was certain perhaps in their minds is a little less certain. And I just cant see how this is not good for the game. And for everybodys info none of this came from our biggest competitors in the ACC....and imo the ACC will again be the dominant wbb league in the next year or two.

---------------------------------------------
--- KnoxJox wrote:

Re: UNC and this topic, I've always felt like UNC is one of the bluebloods of women's basketball. An enormous amount of elite talent has been through Chapel Hill for many, many years. Even in recent years, UNC has had "highly regarded" classes enter the program. To me, it's the exception when UNC is not in the national argument. Even when the team hasn't been so great the last few seasons, ESPN still has made it a featured part of "rivalry week" and other national games. It's as if ESPN was still planning on the Heels being an elite program each year.

---------------------------------------------

Nicole Teasley was regarded by many as the #1 recruit coming out of HS in 1997--a deep and uber talented class. She was Parade's co-POY.

Some thought this. If todays recruiting services were available back then she would definitely probably be top 3. Maybe 1 in one service and 2 in another etc. As much as I would like to she would not make the list of recruits who would be super star game changers. The list from previous decades might include Anne Donovan Nancy Lieberman Lisa Leslie and Cheryl Miller though. Dawn Staley might be one considered for the list and has an argument for best ACC player ever. She did not win a natty though. Alana Beard might get some votes too.

One fact about Niki Teasley is she is widely regarded as the highest ranked recruit UNC has got to commit. That is up until 2013.

Before that Erlana Larkins and Italee Lucas held the honor as far as I know. Both of these players were ranked 6th. As we go back to the last decade it becomes a little more difficult to determine what a recruits ranking is because no one really did rankings back then.

What I will say is that in this decade the only top 10 recruits that I know of is Erlana Larkins Italee Lucas and Tierra Ruffin-Pratt. If you include the 2013 class depending on service used that number doubles. UNC has a ton of Top 20s though. Ivory Camille Jessica Breland Rashanda McCants Cetera D come to mind right off the top of my head. Tracy Reid is definitley top 20 and I believe might of been top 10 but that is time when my memory fails me.

One fact of note of the players on our roster now only Tierra Ruffin-Pratt (9th) Xylina McDaniel (25th) and Erica Johnson (20th) come in under 30 with the majority of our players come in between 60 and 30. That is good by a lot of teams standards but is hard to make a case for top 10 talent like some seem to think. I will say that imo some of our players were definitely underranked but that is my UNC perspective.

One footnote to all this is a players health and injury status. As with Niki Teasley Jessica Gsspar Ivory Latta Jessica Breland and Tierra Ruffin-Pratt to name a few. And the effect this had on their legacy. For example TRP played with a dislocated shoulder for 2 years and came back last January after surgery for her 3rd. That is why what she does this year may be more accurate of what she is as a player assuming she stays injury free. Just like Ivory's Junior year until the ff may be a better reflection of her as a player. Maybe Jessica Brelands games against Ohio State and Oklahoma prior to her hodgkins diagnosis may have been the norm and not the exception had she not been sick. Something to think about.

Diamond can be great, but she's nowhere as good as Nikki, who was changing entire gyms in college by accident...

Nikki was exceptional offensively. Appears that Diamond might be a better all-around player.

Tennessee sure wanted Teasley even though it was courting such players as Tamika Catchings, Semeka Randall, and Kristen Clement in the same class. Seems maybe Teasley had a long list and perhaps the Lady Vols focused efforts on players with a shorter list.

As far as rankings go, those are someone's subjective opinion too/anyway. Parade had been publishing a 4-team postseason All-America list since 1977. Street & Smith's provided a preseason AA Team for many years (now it's The Sporting News). Look at either publication ('96 S&S, '97 Parade) and you'll see Teasley's name at the top on 1st Team. She was "the stuff" coming out of HS--very coveted.

Injuries are ubiquitous.

I'm usually one of the people leading that refrain, and it has merit, but here are the hard facts. UNC fans have excuses for everything. We had a football crowd generously estimated at 50,500 last Saturday, and the excuses for why the crowd wasn't bigger were almost endless... poor opponent (sound familiar), holiday weekend, too hot, noon kickoffs (actually 12:30) are too early... I could go on and on.

The bottom line is the football team hasn't won consistently for 15 years, and our fans will only support big winners. It's amazing how quickly the excuses disappear when you win big. The last time we sold all of our football season tickets was in 1998, coming off back-to-back 10 and 11 win seasons. All it took was a 7-5 season in 1998 for people to jump off the football bandwagon.

The same applies for women's hoops, and it probably applies even more, because like it or not, it is not a sport that appeals to the masses. Crowds started to pick up after the first Final Four appearance in 2006, and interest grew even more after the second consecutive trip to the FF in 2007. We won 30+ games for four consecutive seasons, and were ranked in the top 5 for most of those years, including a decent amount of time at #1.

The disappointment of not winning a national championship, coupled with early NCAA tourney exits in 2009 and 2010 killed all of the momentum that had built up, just like the 7-5 season did for football. IMO, moving from intimate Carmichael to the cavernous Smith Center for 1.5 seasons also played a part.

Here is where the schedule becomes more of a factor. If we don't field a world class team, our fans aren't interested in coming to the games, and they definitely won't come out to watch an average UNC team play a mediocre opponent.

While I won't be happy if we play another non-conference schedule like last year, as a long-time season ticket holder, I'll complain less if our team returns to national prominence, and also returns to playing the ultrafast-paced games we all grew to love just a few short years ago.


---------------------------------------------
--- ZinfanHeel wrote:

I know we will hear the familiar refrain that "if the scheduled games were better, we would come".

---------------------------------------------

Will Ms. Diamond and her mob bring in da crowdz to dem gyms, especially if UNC ain't immediate cotenders for the Nattie?

It's a bit harsh to judge them by national championship or bust standards. UNC had a run of being exceptionally good and they got very close. So many variables can play into a team's fate. I will say that Larkins was one of the most amazing college players I've ever seen. Crazy to think that Camille Little was at best the 3rd option on those teams and probably not even that. Long term, she's probably had the best pro career. I always thought she was terrific.

I agree with you Knox.

Camille was my favorite from the 1st tip her freshman year.

I have to say, I saw Erlana Larkins play yesterday here in Atlanta against the Dream for the Fever and she is playing superb. It has taken her a little longer but I was VERY impressed which is hard for me to be.

But, I heart Camille Little!!


---------------------------------------------
--- KnoxJox wrote:

It's a bit harsh to judge them by national championship or bust standards. UNC had a run of being exceptionally good and they got very close. So many variables can play into a team's fate. I will say that Larkins was one of the most amazing college players I've ever seen. Crazy to think that Camille Little was at best the 3rd option on those teams and probably not even that. Long term, she's probably had the best pro career. I always thought she was terrific.

---------------------------------------------