I was fine with Adelman.
The rumor is that the Maloofs are going to choose John Whisenant, head coach for the Monarchs, for the open head coach position with the Kings. What little I know of the story leaves me disappointed. Whisenant apparently interviewed for the position; it makes me sad that Whisenant would take the job.
I myself am more of a Kings fan than a basketball fan. I didn’t like to watch basketball until I started playing a team sport and I still can’t work up much of an interest in games that don’t involve my boyfriends in purple. If people say basketball is different in men’s and women’s (and collegiate) games, I’ll defer to them. I haven’t watched enough of it to form a solid opinion. I know that Ultimate is played differently in women’s, mixed and open games, so I’ll believe it about basketball. I won’t think you’re sexist for liking one type over another. I will think it is bullshit if you think the amount of skill and training and competitiveness and spectacular playmaking is different in high level women’s and men’s games.
I would have hoped that the man who just coached the Monarchs to a national championship would be coaching women’s basketball because that is where he wants to be. I wish that he, of all people, would rather be working with women athletes to play women’s basketball because that’s the game he likes better. There must be lots of reasons for him to switch over to coaching the Kings (more money, more exposure, more support, all of which I wish didn’t apply -- or maybe just to experience a new facet of a sport he loves), so I can’t know his motives. I only hope that people in general, and Whisenant in particular, don’t feel like he is being promoted up to ‘real’ basketball.
I myself am more of a Kings fan than a basketball fan. I didn’t like to watch basketball until I started playing a team sport and I still can’t work up much of an interest in games that don’t involve my boyfriends in purple. If people say basketball is different in men’s and women’s (and collegiate) games, I’ll defer to them. I haven’t watched enough of it to form a solid opinion. I know that Ultimate is played differently in women’s, mixed and open games, so I’ll believe it about basketball. I won’t think you’re sexist for liking one type over another. I will think it is bullshit if you think the amount of skill and training and competitiveness and spectacular playmaking is different in high level women’s and men’s games.
I would have hoped that the man who just coached the Monarchs to a national championship would be coaching women’s basketball because that is where he wants to be. I wish that he, of all people, would rather be working with women athletes to play women’s basketball because that’s the game he likes better. There must be lots of reasons for him to switch over to coaching the Kings (more money, more exposure, more support, all of which I wish didn’t apply -- or maybe just to experience a new facet of a sport he loves), so I can’t know his motives. I only hope that people in general, and Whisenant in particular, don’t feel like he is being promoted up to ‘real’ basketball.
posted by Megan at 11:37 AM
5 Comments:
I'm not a fan of basketball. Tall athletic women are great though.
I've only dated one woman who didn't make me feel absurdly tall, she was 6'4".
It's hard out there for a viking.
As a Laker fan, I'm actually really glad that the Kings dumped Adelman. I think he's a damn good coach. Probably not good enough to bring y'all a title up in Sacto, but damn good.
Women's basketball definitely has a different vibe than men's basketball, and I don't think that being good at coaching women necessarily translate into being good at coaching men (and vice-versa).
If they do hire Whisenant, I think the Maloofs (mid-level buffoons, not quite the major league buffoonery of Mark Cuban of the Mavericks) may be making a big mistake (which actually, I'm all in favor of).
Why would it be bullshit to think that the amount of skill is different? It is fairly trivial to show that they probably are given that the "job" of playing basketball has different compensation levels (salary, fame, health benefits, etc) depending on whether you are a man or a woman. This will obviously result in them drawing different pools of applicants. Whichever one pays more will have a larger pool of applicants and can then afford to be choosier about who is selected. This results in a higher level of talent.
There is nothing sexist or bullshit about this -- they are the same exact reasons that the NFL is better than the CFL and NFLE. It simply means that completely rational women who might, for instance, be Michael Jordan caliber players, look at the low pay in the WNBA and decide to become managers at the Albertson's deli counter instead.
"The league said WNBA players average $55,000 for a four-month season, with top players earning a base salary of $79,500. In contrast, the men in the NBA average close to $4.5 million per season."
There is no gender stipulation for the NBA. It is technically an "open" field, and yet we have yet to see any women playing in that league, despite the fact that she would get a greatly improved salary. A case could certainly be made that discrimination and/or player preference is overriding a fair sorting mechanism.
We do, however, have one in-game objective measure to go by in cross-comparison. Free-throw percentage seems to run about 5% lower in WNBA than NBA, and they are using a smaller ball. There is also the fact that nearly all players in the NBA can dunk, whereas few in the WNBA can.
You are living the "League of Their Own" fantasy.
The monarchs are great, but they're practically invisible. If he wants accolades and recognition, the Kings are the way to go.
Don't hold it against the Maloofs.
Post a Comment
<< Home