AHC: Co-Gender NBA

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
EOVmQ04R6iLBu4dIcxbuuf24F9tsM_nzCQWHahTAlAzdSbcBxJDr5RX9ldtWQHaGbbZxjxHco5iZ4nO2j7isWjiKRsgeojgTdmR0VgBuj-ZSC6qR8QVdWwl3FIPDM7sx28eVPbu5XGJCsRykFv3Q79iDJHzcRdJb-MHwrrN1G3xKksO-z3KSPKY9Dw

Notice in this one, the women “on average” are better then the men. For example, maybe women are slightly better in college chemistry class. But also notice of course that there’s a ton of overlap between the two curves.

Now, with elite athletes all the action is on the far advanced end of the curve. And among the few bona fide differences is that males are “on average” bigger, stronger, taller, faster. Some of this might be, for example, the case that males don’t have a hip pelvis that has to “compromise” for the sake of childbirth.

—————————————

graph of height:

usmenandwomenheight.png
 
Last edited:

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
I think just make it a rule that each team on the court has to have a 3 - 2 split at all times.

Most of the time, this will mean 3 men and 2 women. But every so often, for various strategic reasons, maybe a team runs for a couple of minutes with three women and two men.
 

DougM

Donor
So basically you are suggesting a game of 3 on 3 with some obstacles on the court? Not trying to be sexist but I stand 6-4 and for the most part I am to short compared to most basketball players. And yes you can give me exceptions. But in general in all stick and ball sports we are talking the extreme pointy edge of the athletic ability and women can’t compare to men on that level.
So you will basically be trying to make rules to compensate.
Frankly this is going to make basket ball less popular.
And yes I am sure we would find one or two females that are better then a lot of the men in the sport but the best 5 women basketball players are not going to be as good as the top 5 men. But the top 5 women will do very well and will be very popular.
But in general it will not be as popular as it is IRL
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
. . But the top 5 women will do very well and will be very popular.
But in general it will not be as popular as it is IRL
How about mixed doubles in the tennis Grand Slams? Not the TV event singles is, but it’s a crowd pleaser.

Basically, because of interesting personalities among coaches and players, women’s college basketball would get big in the 1970s, maybe even a little bit bigger than the men’s game. For example, dad’s with daughters are all in favor of women’s sports.

A coed pro league would spring up and eventually outcompete the NBA.
 
At my university, the women's basketball team, which was nationally ranked usually in the top 10, had a group of guys mostly who played a bit of high school ball or did alright in intermurals, as their practice squad that the team played against. When I was a sophmore, I was on this squad for a few weeks as I had played in high school and saw it as a good extracurricular to have on record, and we would scrimmage the women's team as part of their practices and routinely thrash them. Often it wasn't even close, and this was a team that made the Final Four at least once while I was there. Our practice squad team would usually have no plans except if the coach wanted us to do a specific kind of defensive set (like doing a 2-3 zone to incentivize the team to take more long range shots), and usually we would do crazy iso stunts or dumb contested long range shots and it wouldn't matter.

I don't say this to be a jerk or anything, and I know that dunking isn't the if all and be all of basketball, but even if we were to completely ignore the issues of fan interest in coed sports, I am just not seeing this end up being viable from a competition standpoint. Having a mixed doubles style rule on minimum female representation likely means the game just turns into an exercise in trying to get a mismatch of guy on girl, and drive past or dunk over her.

Now, what could work is simply an approach where the NBA is open for females (which may already be the case) and you get superstars here and there qualify for a team because the WNBA doesn't exist or something like that. So perhaps someone like Britney Griner or Diana Taurasi could have had a shot at making a roster at some point.
 
Last edited:
No way in hell. Men just outperform women too much in the sport, its not even close.

Take one metric alone: dunking.

There have been 20 slam dunks in all of WNBA history. That's 20 dunks TOTAL.

Shaquille O'Neal, meanwhile, literally dunked the ball do hard, they had to change the kind of rim used BECAUSE HE LITERALLY BROKE THE BASKETS.

There isn't a woman alive who could be an equal to an NBA player... the sport is too fast, too physical.
 
In intermural play at my wife's alma mater, you always had to have at least 3 women on the floor AND women's 2 pointers were worth 3 and 3 pointers worth 4.
The group of graduate students whooped all the fraternities and undergrad groups for several reasons - 1, both the point guard and center were women who'd played on the NCAA team as undergrads, (2) the students were physical prime 22 and 23 year olds instead of still developing teens and 21, and 3 the women had some deadly 3 point shooters and my wife who was the epitome of a pest on defense.

Change any of these variables, and it's a slaughter. Because all 3 were in place, plus the favorable rules, it was great fun to watch my wife's team obliterate a bunch of undergrad bros, week in and week out.

The other problem is that post players like Tuasari would have to adapt to being small off-guards in the NBA.

For that reason, the single best skill that could translate would be Curry-like 3 point range and accuracy. Even then, it'd be hard to avoid being like Jimmer Freddette, who's a superlative 3 point shooter that gives much of it back with terrible defense.
 
Last edited:

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
At my university, the women's basketball team, which was nationally ranked usually in the top 10, had a group of guys mostly who played a bit of high school ball or did alright in intermurals, as their practice squad that the team played against. When I was a sophmore, I was on this squad for a few weeks as I had played in high school and saw it as a good extracurricular to have on record, and we would scrimmage the women's team as part of their practices and routinely thrash them. Often it wasn't even close, and this was a team that made the Final Four at least once while I was there. Our practice squad team would usually have no plans except if the coach wanted us to do a specific kind of defensive set (like doing a 2-3 zone to incentivize the team to take more long range shots), and usually we would do crazy iso stunts or dumb contested long range shots and it wouldn't matter. . .
I bet that was quite an experience. I always think it’s cool shit to see someone on TV that I know from real life (even if I knew this is entirely irrational on my part, but that’s kind of part of the fun!).

I can only say that many women do the most athletic thing any human being can do, and that is to carry a baby to term, and to do that, the body has to make some compromises.
 
Last edited:

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
In intermural play at my wife's alma mater, you always had to have at least 3 women on the floor AND women's 2 pointers were worth 3 and 3 pointers worth 4.
The group of graduate students whooped all the fraternities and undergrad groups for several reasons - 1, both the point guard and center were women who'd played on the NCAA team as undergrads, (2) the students were physical prime 22 and 23 year olds instead of still developing teens and 21, and 3 the women had some deadly 3 point shooters and my wife who was the epitome of a pest on defense. . .
On first glance, seems unfair that some players score more than others, but . . .

Being asymmetrical seems to add a strategic dimension to sports, so even with all-men’s and all- women’s teams, if there were a rule that each team had two players whose scores counted one more, this would mean that you’d have to guard them somewhat more closely but not hugely so. And that would make the game just a little more interesting.

And I’d say male athletes at age 21 often have bodies which are still developing. But females at age 16 are often fully developed physically which is which tennis pros this age can readily compete with women in their late 20s. Another interesting asymmetry. :)
 
Last edited:

DougM

Donor
Basically you are putting in place a rule that is the same as saying that’s fine 5 men on the floor 2 players have to be 6-2 or less.
You instantly know that you are not putting the best you could on the floor to play. And in general folks don’t like to watch things they beluev to not be the best,

In general in most athletic events men are just going to dominate. Even in auto racing men tend to dominate in the longer more physically demanding races. Women do well in drag racing because it is a reaction sport. But in longer races that require a lot of effort at the wheel they tend to not do as well. And those that do better tend to be very muscular for women. There is a reason that Danica won only on one oval and gave up IndyCar with no power steearring and a lot of road races to go to an all oval race searies and preformed so badly that if she was a guy she would have been gone after two years.

That being said pair skating they are absolutely needed as they are small enough to be picked up and do the throws. And in gymnastics they can do things guys could not dream of.

If you want women to be taken seriously then you need to create a sport (either a new invention or one that is advantageous to women) that is based on things that physically women are better at. The problem is that most spirts fans are men (yes that is changing but it is still more common for sports fans to be men) and are based on things that men enjoy doing are are gen better at then women. You want a womans sport to be popular then it needs to be something that men can’t do better then women.

Ever notice that with very few exceptions when you have men and women in seperate versions of the same sport the men’s sport tends to be more popular and the guys tend to be willing to spend more to see it so the men’s version makes more money? This is true if Soccer (football) basketball, boxing and anything else you can think of. Even professional bowling is much more popular for the men then the women. Except possibly beach volleyball (and let’s be honest here that is for reasons that are obvious if you watch it).
The reason for this is that when watching a competition people want to see the best at whatever it is.
And a mixed NBA is a compromised NBA and everyone will know it.
 
Basically you are putting in place a rule that is the same as saying that’s fine 5 men on the floor 2 players have to be 6-2 or less.
You instantly know that you are not putting the best you could on the floor to play. And in general folks don’t like to watch things they beluev to not be the best,

In general in most athletic events men are just going to dominate. Even in auto racing men tend to dominate in the longer more physically demanding races. Women do well in drag racing because it is a reaction sport. But in longer races that require a lot of effort at the wheel they tend to not do as well. And those that do better tend to be very muscular for women. There is a reason that Danica won only on one oval and gave up IndyCar with no power steearring and a lot of road races to go to an all oval race searies and preformed so badly that if she was a guy she would have been gone after two years.

That being said pair skating they are absolutely needed as they are small enough to be picked up and do the throws. And in gymnastics they can do things guys could not dream of.

If you want women to be taken seriously then you need to create a sport (either a new invention or one that is advantageous to women) that is based on things that physically women are better at. The problem is that most spirts fans are men (yes that is changing but it is still more common for sports fans to be men) and are based on things that men enjoy doing are are gen better at then women. You want a womans sport to be popular then it needs to be something that men can’t do better then women.

Ever notice that with very few exceptions when you have men and women in seperate versions of the same sport the men’s sport tends to be more popular and the guys tend to be willing to spend more to see it so the men’s version makes more money? This is true if Soccer (football) basketball, boxing and anything else you can think of. Even professional bowling is much more popular for the men then the women. Except possibly beach volleyball (and let’s be honest here that is for reasons that are obvious if you watch it).
The reason for this is that when watching a competition people want to see the best at whatever it is.
And a mixed NBA is a compromised NBA and everyone will know it.

What about extreme aeronautical racing/acrobatics and horse-racing?
 
In general in most athletic events men are just going to dominate. Even in auto racing men tend to dominate in the longer more physically demanding races. Women do well in drag racing because it is a reaction sport. But in longer races that require a lot of effort at the wheel they tend to not do as well. And those that do better tend to be very muscular for women. There is a reason that Danica won only on one oval and gave up IndyCar with no power steearring and a lot of road races to go to an all oval race searies and preformed so badly that if she was a guy she would have been gone after two years.

I'm gonna have to call you on this one for a few reasons:

1) Drag racing is indeed a reaction sport, but it also gives the heaviest G-Forces of any sport, Formula One included. Launching off the line in a cFunny Car like that of Ashley or Courtney Force puts between 5 Gs and 6 Gs on the body, and the force is still at nearly 1 G when they cross the finish line - and before the distances of the events were pulled back in 2008, that was at speeds of nearly 300 mph. Any body must be immensely strong to handle G-forces of that nature, and male or female means nothing in this regard.

2) Indycars DO have power steering, they've had it since slick tires and ground-effect aerodynamics massively increased their G-forces in the 1970s.

3) Danica Patrick just wasn't the best driver - there have been several since (Sarah Fisher, Katherine Legge, Pippa Mann, Cyndie Allemann and Simona de Silvestro in particular) who if given equal equipment would absolutely dust Danica. I've never understood why Danica didn't go to sports car racing rather than NASCAR - she was legitimately good at it in the times she did it, and even if she wasn't the absolute best having great driving partner(s) could make a big difference. Milka Duno found that out for herself multiple times. And long-time fans of sports car racing probably remember that when Prodrive built Ferrari 550 Maranellos to chase down the factory-backed Corvette team in top GT category in sports car racing in 2003, Danica was one of the drivers, and she did well at it....

Female racing drivers DO have the ability to race on and equal footing with their male counterparts. It's happened many times. The day of a female champion in a major racing series is just a matter of when, not if. And, let's not forget, Michele Mouton nearly won the championship in the World Rally Championship in 1982, and she did that in a Group B Audi Quattro....
 
Size matters too much in basketball.

UConn is the Evil Empire of women's college basketball. They have one player over 6'2", and she's only 6'5".

UConn roster

Duke has only one player UNDER 6'2" on its roster.

Link

Individual players can be good with a height disadvantage but you can't compete with that much of a difference across the board.

Among current players, Seimone Augustus is 6'1" which is tall enough to be a guard (her position), and she has elite ballhandling skills, but she's too skinny for the NBA.
 

DougM

Donor
Your argument about female race drivers would hold more water, but Indycars DONT have power steering.
 
Your argument about female race drivers would hold more water, but Indycars DONT have power steering.

Oh, so the G-forces argument and the fact that Danica isn't exactly the best race car driver in the world can be ignored as a result? Nice. I'm out of this conversation.
 
Last edited:
Top