Where I commonly write about sports, in an uncommon way.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Geno Auriemma

Issue: Did every person who saw the title of this post either react by 1) skipping the post entirely; or 2) saying, "who?"

Short Answer: Yes.

Disclaimer: I know women athletes are good at what they do.  I know any woman on UConn's team could smoke me in one-on-one, HORSE, around-the-world, or whatever.  The following post is not an indictment on women athletes, just the place women's athletics hold in our society.

Reasoning: Let's get something straight first - Geno Auriemma is one of the best coaches, period, ever.  I don't care if you coach women's little league softball for a bunch of 7 year olds, if you win as much as he does, you are good.  But let's be honest, he is also one of the most irrelevant coaches ever.

Looking back at the original issue - who are the people that thought about skipping over this post entirely?  Men.  And men don't give a crap about women's sports, college or pro (yes, the WNBA STILL exists; how or why I am not sure).  Alright, that is not completely true.  I do like some women's sports, i.e., those which have hot women dressed scantily.  I have watched enough women's basketball in my day (about 7 minutes and 23 seconds in over 32 years of life) to know that women's basketball does not fall into said "hot women dressed scantily" category.  At all.  Beach volleyball does.  Tennis does.  Soccer kind of does (if they started wearing less clothes, it might).  Basketball does not.  So, in order to be a relevant coach you either need to 1) coach men; or 2) coach hot chicks.  Sorry Geno.  Oh for two.

Looking back at the original issue - who are the people who said, "who?"  Women.  Yes, that's right, if a woman is telling you the truth, even she will admit that women's sports are irrelevant.  They exist only because of political correctness and Title IX (Sidenote: Title IX was the worst piece of legislation, maybe ever.  For those who don't know, Title IX stated that all athletic departments must have the same number of women scholarship athletes as men (excluding football).  Ouch.  When I was on a recruiting trip to Mississippi State in the fall of 1996, I got the chance to sit across from, and converse with, one of the greatest college baseball coaches ever, Ron Polk.  He was lamenting Title IX because schools had to either add sports (which costs a lot of money) or cut sports (which no university wants to do).  He told me a story about his niece, who went to the University of Iowa.  She was standing in line to register for classes (remember life before the Internet?) when she was approached by someone from the athletic department who asked if she wanted to join the women's rowing team (a sport that was added in order to comply with Title IX).  She had never rowed in her life, but she was a thicker, powerful looking girl.  The nearest lake to the University of Iowa is 45 minutes away.  What would they give her to join the team?  A full scholarship.  Ladies and gentlemen, Title IX!).  Women's sports make zero money.  In fact, they make negative money (to be fair, almost all collegiate sports, other than football and men's basketball, actually lose money).  The biggest thing that has happened in women's college basketball in the last 25 years is Brittney Griner - a woman (I think - seriously, type her name into google and one of the autocompletes google comes up with is "Brittney Griner man") who can dunk.

I know this is not politically correct, but women's sports are, and always will be, irrelevant.  When I watch sports I want to watch the best of the best, and men are bigger, faster, and stronger, so they put on a better show.  Let's put it this way: if you were going to go watch a high school football game, would you go watch the freshman team play, or the varsity?  Exactly.  So, what does this all mean to Geno Auriemma?  He will always be really, really, really far down the list of "best coaches ever" (maybe even behind Tennessee coach Pat Summit, the coach that women's basketball seems to love the most).  If he could have put up the same numbers (735-122, 7 National Championships) in the men's game, he may be considered the best coach ever.  But he didn't, so he won't.  Sorry Geno.

No comments:

Post a Comment