RebKell's Junkie Boards

[ASWAD AMANDLA]

It's disgusting how many of these athletic major-D-1 teams play no damn defense, and don't attack the offensive and defensive glass...

Even more disgusting, is how few of these major-D-1 teams have been prepared to play, compared to their mid-level- and low-level-D-1 opponents.
Most of these majors who've been losing, or have been barely winning, have been out-coached, to be blatantly honest...

Most of these majors are so much more talented than the mid-levels and low-levels, that it ain't even fair.
The seeming parity comes from this lack of defense and rebounding with these major-D-1 teams, and the lack of preparation, motivation, and inspiration from these major-D-1 coaches.

Having said this, I would also say that Gonzaga is better than at least as many as 7-8 PAC-10 teams. In fact, a strong argument could be made that Gonzaga is one straight baller away from dominating anything west of the Rockies, not named Stanford.

_________________
"Miles Davis. John Coltrane. Jimi Hendrix. Joe Zawinul. Jaco Pastorius. Tony Williams. That's MY rotation of six, when the game gets tight." - the Intelligent Hoodlum

[stats47]

[ASWAD AMANDLA]

[FS02]

The major teams usually have a size advantage, not necessarily an execution advantage... so there is parity in everything but one aspect. But I think that's a good thing. Maybe some of these hot mid-major coaches will get hired by the big schools.

And there's a reason why Stanford, UConn and Tennessee are so far ahead, and even Nebraska can go undefeated in the Big 12. There are holes on all the other teams.

_________________
@dtmears2

[mekanos]

The whole idea of "major teams" is becoming archaic.
Witness overall #1 seed Kansas on the men's side, going down.

As more teams get a chance to dance, they show what they can do.

Meanwhile those who continue to bash all other conferences except theirs, keep getting surprised that other teams can play the game ... and very well.

[RedEqualsLuck]

sorry - your subject heading makes no sense... if the "power" teams are so disgustingly bad and the mid-major teams are so much better then parity is no illusion.

That being said, nothin' pisses Pat or Geno off more than when they win simply because they have better athletes.

But, that's how it is -- you develop a rep, and the best go to you... IIRC, a poster dismissed Geno's ability to coach because he's relied on getting stars (unlike any other top coach - 'cause Parker wasn't a star <g>).

If you can get the top talent to play offense AND defense (which UConn does play this year) more power to you. But I think it's harder and harder. Mid-majors are not "as" talented, so the top teams are forced to play team defense. Mid major coaches often say, "Oh, if only I had the talent and resources a *fillintheblank Notre Dame* had....

Of course, Geno and other top D1 coaches have related the story of a coach who came up to him and said, "Went to your clinic, watch the dvd, implemented the plays." "How'd it go?" asked Geno. "We got killed." Geno - "The plays work better when you have the best players..."

_________________
When Jefferson wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," he didn't include the word "except."

[p_d_swanson]

[ClayK]

Talent wins basketball games, and so the focus of any college coach is to recruit, recruit, recruit and recruit some more.

You can win a lot of games just recruiting the best players, and then letting them play without too much structure or instruction.

But, the WNBA helped lift the level of female basketball players in America substantially, so that the gap between the talented elite and the group just behind them is less than ever before. Which means that the strategy of just recruiting great athletes and letting them out-athlete teams that might be better coached and more skilled doesn't work as well any more because the athletic gap isn't great enough to overcome coaching and skill.

Of course, a coach who recruits well and then develops players in a well thought-out system designed for 2010 will still do much better than the coach who recruits adequately and then develops players in a well thought-out system designed for 2010.

Recruiting is still by far the most important factor in collegiate success, but the playing field has leveled a bit, to the point that just recruiting isn't nearly as good a plan as it was five or ten years ago.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[pilight]

[PRballer]

I'd group Ceal Barry into that early group of pioneer women's coaches, she won a lot at Colorado, but recruiting become way too intense. Changed the game.

Here's her perspective from 2005 when she stepped away from the game:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/sports/sportsspecial/27barry.html

[shadowboxer]

[CBiebel]