View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ASWAD AMANDLA
Joined: 19 Sep 2007 Posts: 162
Back to top |
Posted: 03/22/10 10:32 pm ::: PARITY IS AN ILLUSION |
Reply |
|
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
Joined: 18 Jan 2010 Posts: 538 Location: the Pacific Northwest
Back to top |
Posted: 03/22/10 10:58 pm ::: Re: PARITY IS AN ILLUSION |
Reply |
|
ASWAD AMANDLA wrote: |
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. |
Yeah, I'd say if Gonzaga had a 6'4'' true center who could hold her own, they'd be a top 4 team in the country. No joke.
_________________ "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
|
|
ASWAD AMANDLA
Joined: 19 Sep 2007 Posts: 162
Back to top |
Posted: 03/22/10 11:00 pm ::: Re: PARITY IS AN ILLUSION |
Reply |
|
stats47 wrote: |
ASWAD AMANDLA wrote: |
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. |
Yeah, I'd say if Gonzaga had a 6'4'' true center who could hold her own, they'd be a top 4 team in the country. No joke. |
I don't know about top four--maybe top 10-12...
_________________ "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
|
|
FS02
Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 9699 Location: Husky (west coast) Country
Back to top |
Posted: 03/22/10 11:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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
Joined: 21 Mar 2009 Posts: 756
Back to top |
Posted: 03/23/10 5:09 am ::: |
Reply |
|
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
Joined: 28 May 2005 Posts: 4781
Back to top |
Posted: 03/23/10 6:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
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
Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 9713
Back to top |
Posted: 03/23/10 6:42 am ::: |
Reply |
|
RedEqualsLuck wrote: |
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..." |
Van Chancellor and Phil Jackson could attest to this...
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11157
Back to top |
Posted: 03/23/10 11:52 am ::: |
Reply |
|
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
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66937 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 03/23/10 12:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
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. |
I think that's why we've seen so many old coaches getting out recently. Conradt, Sharp, Barmore, Ciampi, and so on weren't able to stay on top by just recruiting anymore.
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
PRballer
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 2544
Back to top |
|
shadowboxer
Joined: 18 Jul 2008 Posts: 2126
Back to top |
Posted: 03/23/10 7:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
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. |
Agree regarding recruiting and would add that the option of overseas playing for women has increased the no# and quality of recruits, also. We have one senior planning on going to Europe, and will probably make it at a certain level. We have a few past players there now, in Italy and Germany, and a player recruited from overseas who will be on her national team at home. Networking;not at the level of WNBA players, but as role players.
The need for scholarships for school added incentive for players, and their families, to invest in Summer traveling teams and enrolling their kids at better bball schools in the Fall. And also, although not everyone on a team, club etc... is a Miss BBall for her state, many girls are practicing with and learning from these top players, programs, and coaches.
IMO, the girls are practicing harder, earlier, and believe they can make it.
It may be incremental, but the level of play is rising.
|
|
CBiebel
Joined: 23 Dec 2004 Posts: 1055 Location: PA
Back to top |
Posted: 03/23/10 10:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
RedEqualsLuck wrote: |
That being said, nothin' pisses Pat or Geno off more than when they win simply because they have better athletes.
|
This is why I think that the Big East has done so well generally in the NCAAs lately. Their blueprint is whatever you can do to try to stop UConn. That leaves 2 basic models (or a combination of the two):
1. Rutgers: Sell out on defense. This is why so many Big East games have low scores. Look at even the UConn games. It was Big East teams holding them to their lower scoring games this year.
2. Villanova: Play ball control to slow down the game. This also results in low scoring games.
McGraw learned long ago (back in 2000) that you can't try to beat UConn in a shootout. In 2001 she emphasized defense (and since her team was originally built for shootouts, that mean that she had both offense and defense).
As the saying goes "Defense wins championships." What many announcers forget is that while UConn is scoring a lot of points, many of them come from their defense.
|
|
|
|