As the whiners suddenly concerned about the future of women's basketball continue to come out of the woodwork (ummm, where the hell were you when we were complaining that the coverage of women's basketball sucks?), a response to the question: Is UConn too good?

The real answer, of course, is we should do what they did after they wiped out competitive girls high school basketball ('cause, of course, competition is bad for girls): have "Play Days." If your mom participated in sports in college in the mid-50's and 60's, she may remember them.

That's when nearby colleges would gather together and form inter-college teams to play against each other. If one team was "too good," they'd simply dissolve it and reform the groups so everyone "competed" equally.

Fun times.

You know -- as an educator, I'm all for full, quality participation. There's a pedagogical reason behind having that sort of athletics in our schools. There's also a strong pedagogical reason for having competition and excellence.

What you have here in UConn is excellence. What you've had in Tennessee is excellence (and still have - remember who won two in a row recently?). What you had with LaTech, with Delta State, with the Mighty Macs, with Nashville Business College, with Des Moines American Institute of Business, with Wayland Baptist, with Dallas Cyclones is excellence.

You know what is bad for women's basketball? That so many will find the names mentioned above unfamiliar.

If people are really concerned about women's basketball (imagine me putting on my serious face), then what they'd be writing about is what made those programs so dominant. Was it just players? Or was it money. Effort. Coaching philosophy. Innovations in training. Creative play design. A pursuit of excellence no matter what your skill level.

Then, maybe, current players and coaches and ADs could study the articles and figure out a way to save women's basketball from excellence. By being excellent themselves.