Skylar Diggins Will Save the World

Just one tweet, that's all it took. If Shakespeare were alive, he himself might tweet in response, "Oh brave new world that has such social media in it."

The tweet that sent Skylar Diggins from a great basketball player with a twitter account to a social media supernova came the day before the women's NCAA championship game when Lil Wayne tweeted to Diggins, "Kongrats to @skydigg4,my wife. Now bring it home baby."

Her twitter account blew up. As of this posting, she now has 68,640 followers and is nothing short of a cultural phenomenon, likely to break into Justin Bieber or Jersey Shore territory for recognizability. Only, unlike Bieber and Snookie, Skylar Diggins might actually have something to say worth paying attention to.

Based on her performance throughout the NCAA tournament, including Notre Dame's losing effort in the final game last night (76-70 to Texas A&M), she is ready to assume the mantle of the best player in the game. Through six games in the tournament, she averaged nearly 20 points per game and she's on the floor constantly, rarely sitting down for more than a minute. When her team needs her to score, she drops 28, as she did against UConn. When they need her to distribute the ball, she has 12 assists, as she did against Tennessee. And while her stats are impressive, she's more than that. She's explosive, compelling, a charismatic person, but also a charismatic player.

Though a point guard, she's not content to just sit outside the stripe and try to hit three-pointers. She is both fast and quick, will put the ball on the floor, dribble-drive to the bucket, and lay in a beauty of an underhanded shot. Or she'll pull up and hit three. Or, she'll make a great pass to somebody in the paint. She can do it all, and because she can do it all, you don't know what Diggins is going to do next.

She also has good model looks. Let's face it, Diggins is a stunner. But unlike other female athletes who were long on looks and short on game, Diggins can flat out play.

And you know what? If people tune in to see Notre Dame women's basketball because Lil Wayne tweets to Diggins and calls her wifey, or if they tune in because they think she's hot, they have just tuned into a basketball game wherein they will see a great basketball player.

And what's wrong with that?

Skylar Diggins will save the world.

Of Leviathans and Cinderellas, the Women's Final Tips Tonight

For the last several years, I've heard it said that the problem with women's basketball is the hegemony of UConn (and Tennessee and Stanford, to a lesser degree.) Suddenly, yesterday, after Texas A&M knocked off Stanford and Notre Dame took down mighty UConn (you know what they say -- fourth time's a charm), I heard it said that nobody will watch tonight's final because, wait for it -- UConn and Stanford aren't playing.

Huh? Too much UConn? Too little UConn? I'm confused. So now David felling Goliath is a bad thing? Are dynasties good? Or bad? Are we supposed to want a visit from Cinderella or not, for crying out loud?!

We need UConn (and Tennessee and Stanford). Cinderella is just another obscure, unknown housewench without the evil step-mother and make no mistake, the Huskies and the Vols and the Cardinal are the evil stepmothers in this tale. We need them because underdogs don't exist in a vacuum. They require opposition, are reliant on tyranny (or at least overwhelming odds.)

David disappears into the vapor without Goliath.

But it's also no fun if Goliath always win. Who wants to tune in if David never ever notches a victory? We watch because of the possibility of Cinderella dancing with Prince Charming. So we need UConn (and Tennessee and Stanford). And we also need them to get knocked down every now and again because what compels us, what grabs our attention is the push-pull, the tug of war between big and little, the battle of expected against unexpected, the dynastic and scrappy.

Without the diametrical opposition of the underdog versus leviathan paradigm laying over it, the 1985 Villanova men's team is just another champion. Which is my high-falutin' way of saying, had 'Nova beaten any team other than Georgetown, nobody remembers that game. But given what Georgetown was, Villanova's victory is considered one of the greatest upsets in men's tournament history. Everybody remembers it, everybody refers to it; heck, 25 years have passed and that game is as relevant, as present, as though it happened yesterday.

So what does this women's final mean, given that the titans have already been toppled, knocked from their exalted perches on high?

It means that this is a Final Four we'll be talking about for a long time to come because it's a harbinger of the development of the game.

It means that depth of field is developing over time. These things don't happen overnight. What we are watching, and I find it fascinating to have a front row seat for this, is a sport mid-stride in a massive growth spurt. For now, the underdogs are teams from power conferences (the Big East and Big 12 are the two best in the women's game, by far in my opinion), but we're on the road to seeing a team from a lesser conference or a mid-major break through.

It means that there is no substitute for good basketball, which is what all four teams gave us Sunday night. That the outcomes of both Final Four match-ups turned out differently than most anticipated is of little consequence. Those were great games and both Notre Dame and Texas A&M made their way to this stage the hard way.

And isn't that a good thing for any sport?