| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/09/14 1:57 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| lvf08 wrote: |
| I doubt next year will be much different either. |
They still have Stewart, but I think that assumption dramatically understates the importance that Stephanie Dolson has had to this team the last three years.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66941
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 2:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| lvf08 wrote: |
| I doubt next year will be much different either. |
They still have Stewart, but I think that assumption dramatically understates the importance that Stephanie Dolson has had to this team the last three years. |
UConn will go undefeated again. They may not have a game closer than 15 points all year.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 2:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| lvf08 wrote: |
| I doubt next year will be much different either. |
They still have Stewart, but I think that assumption dramatically understates the importance that Stephanie Dolson has had to this team the last three years. |
I agree. The question for UConn is who ends up being the #2 and/or or #3 star and whether those players will contribute enough. One-star teams are vulnerable.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 2:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Solve the boring imbalance in WCBB by having more schools throw a lot more money into it to catch UConn?
|
Where would that money be spent and how would it change things?
I don't really see money as the issue. Sure, there aren't a lot of schools spending a ton of money, but plainly there are more than two or three. We're not ever going to get 100 schools to spend as much as UConn and Tenn spend, any more than 100 schools will ever spend what Texas and Alabama and OhSt spend on football. I expect there are at least 20 schools today spending enough money on WCBB that any difference in spending compared to UConn would not explain the difference in results. So I think the difference has to be attributable to other things.
As just one example, a recent list I saw on spending on WCBB listed Boston College in the top 15 or so in money spent. If that's true, that sort of belies any direct correlation between money and results.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66941
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 2:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| lvf08 wrote: |
| I doubt next year will be much different either. |
They still have Stewart, but I think that assumption dramatically understates the importance that Stephanie Dolson has had to this team the last three years. |
I agree. The question for UConn is who ends up being the #2 and/or or #3 star and whether those players will contribute enough. One-star teams are vulnerable. |
Mosqueda-Lewis will be the #2 star, just as she was this season when she was healthy.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
HistoryWomensBasketball
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1435
Location: CT
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 2:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| readyAIMfire53 wrote: |
I must also confess that this was the last year I will attend Duke wbb games after 32 straight years. If I thought the NC game was a snoozer (and I did), then Duke wbb games are downright coma-inducing - even in person. Really the only thing that had me come back for this past season was Chelsea Gray as she is the #1 most exciting player I've ever had the opportunity to see in person multiple times. When she went down, I attended a couple more games, including Notre Dame, but that finished me off for good with the current coach.
When a team puts you to sleep while you're AT THE GAME, you know it's really, truly over. For those of you who have questioned displeasure with Coach McCallie at Duke, all I have to say is she just killed my pleasure in watching this team play. It has nothing to do with whether I like her as a person or any debate of her relative success as a coach. Bottom line is I no longer enjoy being at the games and I'd rather spend that time doing virtually anything else.
I will be here waiting to return when they finally bring back a coach who creates a team that is fun and/or exciting to watch. So, this just makes my experience of getting bored watching the NC game all the sadder for me. There really is nothing left as far as wcbb goes. I sure as heck hope the WNBA season is fun to follow. At least the closest team to me geographically - the Mystics - have a good coach at the helm again. Last year was fun to see a really great coach turn a team around as fast as he has and especially finding a gem of a player (Tierra Ruffin-Pratt) who didn't get drafted plus a euro player (Meesseman) who didn't play wcbb.
I like coaches who are not only knowledgeable and smart, I like the coaches who seem to see themselves as artists - taking fairly "normal" looking things and turning them into things of beauty. Anybody who can turn me into a person who actually likes watching Ivory Latta play is an ultimate genius. I never saw that coming. And that's part of what I like as a fan. With Chelsea Gray, you have a player who can do that all by herself. I will become an instant fan of whateve team drafts her, at least when she's playing.
Please note that nowhere in this description of me as a fan do I mention National Championship. I'm sure that would be astronomically fun to experience, but that's not the essence of what draws me. I just don't like being bored. I'll go find something else to do. Right now, watching seeds sprouting is way more exciting than what I experienced at wcbb this season. |
I can say I relate to your feelings very much. not totally sure why but have found watchingthe birds and rabbits in my back yard has been very enjoyable as is walking the beach. maybe priorities changing in my old age |
|
RP
Joined: 17 Jul 2010
Posts: 1299
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 2:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| The question for UConn is who ends up being the #2 and/or or #3 star and whether those players will contribute enough. One-star teams are vulnerable. |
I expect KML to be an All-American again. Remember, she was the leading scorer on the 2013 championship team by a sizable margin.
I think the Carolinas might be able to challenge UConn next season, but that's it.
|
|
leelyn
Joined: 11 Aug 2013
Posts: 16
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 2:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
if the NCAA wants a more interested fan growing fan base, maybe they should think of ways of NOT favoring the same schools each year and stop letting the same favored schools play tournements in their backyard year after year......not saying all the time, but MOST of the time they get to go deep in the tournement because of the schedule.....
that and the reffing...
_________________
that's life!
|
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 3:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
There are many schools that put tons of money into WBB. But here's the other thing, what is in it for the school? Only a handful of WBB teams break even, let alone bring in any money at all. When you are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a coaching staff and have budgets over a million dollars and hardly bringing in any money to offset those expenditures, I don't see why a school would want to invest more in a sport that loses money as it is right now. The ONLY sports that actually bring in revenue are football and men's basketball.
With so many states and thus schools have budget issues, I'm not sure where this money to invest in the sport is going to come from other than maybe cutting other sports, but is that really worth it? |
It's the #1 rule of business. You have to spend money to make money. The few that break even or make a profit are those that spend the most on their programs. |
There's also the phrase "if you build it, they will come". And also a basic principle of economics that you "don't throw good money after bad." There is a long history of programs losing money on women's basketball and it has come to be expected. To invest even more money into it seems to be pretty fiscally irresponsible. Especially, when you consider the amount that other costs are skyrocketing, I really don't see how more money can be poured into WBB.
In a perfect world, this would happen...but it would be very hard to justify pumping more money into a program that is already losing it and has a tradition of losing money every year, regardless of success. |
and success breeds success. UConn will continue to get the top players. It helps too that UConn has east coast media and ESPN in their backyard. Also, having a charismatic male coach helps because the sports media (male dominated) love him too. And listening to Doris rave about UConn is one big free ad campaign for them. Geno should give Doris some of his recruiting budget $.
There are many schools who spend the $, and Stanford did it before UConn, and continues to recruit nationally, but they simply cannot get the top player year after year due to admissions. If the #1 h.s. player go to UConn every year, their success will continue. zzzzzzzzzzzz
|
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 3:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| norwester wrote: |
Even with the numbers of soccer and volleyball rising and basketball falling, I don't buy that it's necessarily affecting the talent pool. I think it's just separating those who are committed from those who like basketball as a hobby. The game is changing, and as it becomes more serious or professional (?) I can see that discouraging some, even if they have great natural talent. But then, those young women probably would not experience long-term success anyway.
And it seems contradictory to complain about UConn always getting the best players, but then describe their incoming class as solid, but not spectacular. Why do the schools with the best recruiting classes not experience more success?
I really feel like you hit the nail on the head with Geno just knowing how to run a program. I think there are those with similar xs and os knowledge, but there's more that goes into it, and it's not all on court stuff. I really think Chris Dailey probably deserves a lot of the credit as well. It's like it's not just the coach that needs to learn, but the athletic departments. And it's not about more money, but about using it properly.
But I do think that there are some up and coming programs. Those that were mentioned, and also Ohio State, once the coach gets a couple seasons in.
It's frustrating to me too that no one has stepped up to actually compete with UConn. But Baylor got close with Griner. And ND hasn't been doing horribly, despite a couple of sound defeats in the title game. I don't know why Stanford can't take that last step forward. It's all very puzzling. |
easy. UConn gets the #1 h.s player way more than other any school, and year after year. Stanford has signed 2 h.s #1 players, both O sisters. UConn has signed about 10-12 number 1 h.s players in last 20 or so years. Stewie, KML, Maya, Taurasi, Charles, to name of few. Each one of those players gave UConn 1-2 NCs.
I've always thought the women need to reduce the number of scholies from 15 to 13, or even 12, to spread the talent.
|
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6368
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 3:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| norwester wrote: |
Even with the numbers of soccer and volleyball rising and basketball falling, I don't buy that it's necessarily affecting the talent pool. I think it's just separating those who are committed from those who like basketball as a hobby. The game is changing, and as it becomes more serious or professional (?) I can see that discouraging some, even if they have great natural talent. But then, those young women probably would not experience long-term success anyway.
And it seems contradictory to complain about UConn always getting the best players, but then describe their incoming class as solid, but not spectacular. Why do the schools with the best recruiting classes not experience more success?
I really feel like you hit the nail on the head with Geno just knowing how to run a program. I think there are those with similar xs and os knowledge, but there's more that goes into it, and it's not all on court stuff. I really think Chris Dailey probably deserves a lot of the credit as well. It's like it's not just the coach that needs to learn, but the athletic departments. And it's not about more money, but about using it properly.
But I do think that there are some up and coming programs. Those that were mentioned, and also Ohio State, once the coach gets a couple seasons in.
It's frustrating to me too that no one has stepped up to actually compete with UConn. But Baylor got close with Griner. And ND hasn't been doing horribly, despite a couple of sound defeats in the title game. I don't know why Stanford can't take that last step forward. It's all very puzzling. |
easy. UConn gets the #1 h.s player way more than other any school, and year after year. Stanford has signed 2 h.s #1 players, both O sisters. UConn has signed about 10-12 number 1 h.s players in last 20 or so years. Stewie, KML, Maya, Taurasi, Charles, to name of few. Each one of those players gave UConn 1-2 NCs.
I've always thought the women need to reduce the number of scholies from 15 to 13, or even 12, to spread the talent. |
How would that change getting the #1 hs player every year?
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 3:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| norwester wrote: |
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| norwester wrote: |
Even with the numbers of soccer and volleyball rising and basketball falling, I don't buy that it's necessarily affecting the talent pool. I think it's just separating those who are committed from those who like basketball as a hobby. The game is changing, and as it becomes more serious or professional (?) I can see that discouraging some, even if they have great natural talent. But then, those young women probably would not experience long-term success anyway.
And it seems contradictory to complain about UConn always getting the best players, but then describe their incoming class as solid, but not spectacular. Why do the schools with the best recruiting classes not experience more success?
I really feel like you hit the nail on the head with Geno just knowing how to run a program. I think there are those with similar xs and os knowledge, but there's more that goes into it, and it's not all on court stuff. I really think Chris Dailey probably deserves a lot of the credit as well. It's like it's not just the coach that needs to learn, but the athletic departments. And it's not about more money, but about using it properly.
But I do think that there are some up and coming programs. Those that were mentioned, and also Ohio State, once the coach gets a couple seasons in.
It's frustrating to me too that no one has stepped up to actually compete with UConn. But Baylor got close with Griner. And ND hasn't been doing horribly, despite a couple of sound defeats in the title game. I don't know why Stanford can't take that last step forward. It's all very puzzling. |
easy. UConn gets the #1 h.s player way more than other any school, and year after year. Stanford has signed 2 h.s #1 players, both O sisters. UConn has signed about 10-12 number 1 h.s players in last 20 or so years. Stewie, KML, Maya, Taurasi, Charles, to name of few. Each one of those players gave UConn 1-2 NCs.
I've always thought the women need to reduce the number of scholies from 15 to 13, or even 12, to spread the talent. |
How would that change getting the #1 hs player every year? |
wasn't talking about #1 players, just in general that it spreads more talent around. It has worked for the men.
|
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 3:36 pm ::: Re: Well, that was a snoozer |
Reply |
|
| readyAIMfire53 wrote: |
I'm just being honest here. BIG wbb fan. That was just boring. I actually turned the channel. I'm sure it was fun and exciting for Husky fans in attendance. But it was just pure zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz for me. PLEASE can SOMEBODY PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE put together a team? I'm not making any statements about this being bad for women's bball. Really I'm not. I'm just saying it was boring as HELL for me. Time to clean lint off my sweaters or something. I really don't understand what the draw is for all these great young players to be the latest cog in the machine. It just creates one giant snoozefest for non-UConn fans. For me, it was hard to imagine becoming so disinterested in a Championship game. And yet, there it was. The biggest drama by a VERY LONG SHOT was "will they just shake hands?" It went straight to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz from there.
So hurray for all wbb fans in one tiny little state. Have another grand parade. The entire rest of the country is just zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
It sucks Achonwa was hurt. I'm not saying ND would have won, but it would have been a much, much better game.
|
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7385
Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 3:47 pm ::: Re: Well, that was a snoozer |
Reply |
|
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| readyAIMfire53 wrote: |
I'm just being honest here. BIG wbb fan. That was just boring. I actually turned the channel. I'm sure it was fun and exciting for Husky fans in attendance. But it was just pure zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz for me. PLEASE can SOMEBODY PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE put together a team? I'm not making any statements about this being bad for women's bball. Really I'm not. I'm just saying it was boring as HELL for me. Time to clean lint off my sweaters or something. I really don't understand what the draw is for all these great young players to be the latest cog in the machine. It just creates one giant snoozefest for non-UConn fans. For me, it was hard to imagine becoming so disinterested in a Championship game. And yet, there it was. The biggest drama by a VERY LONG SHOT was "will they just shake hands?" It went straight to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz from there.
So hurray for all wbb fans in one tiny little state. Have another grand parade. The entire rest of the country is just zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
It sucks Achonwa was hurt. I'm not saying ND would have won, but it would have been a much, much better game. |
Agree. As a Duke fan, I'm just sick and tired of hearing the injury excuse year after year. INJURIES ARE NOT THE REASON THIS TEAM (Duke) HAS DONE WORSE THE LAST 7 YEARS THAN IT DID THE 7 YEARS BEFORE THAT. And it's certainly not the reason the team is boring as crap (although Chelsea was more exciting by herself than any Duke wbb team without her on the court).
_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
sammieee
Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 608
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 4:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
easy. UConn gets the #1 h.s player way more than other any school, and year after year. Stanford has signed 2 h.s #1 players, both O sisters. UConn has signed about 10-12 number 1 h.s players in last 20 or so years. Stewie, KML, Maya, Taurasi, Charles, to name of few. Each one of those players gave UConn 1-2 NCs.
I've always thought the women need to reduce the number of scholies from 15 to 13, or even 12, to spread the talent. |
Was Nneka even a #1 on any service? Remember she's in the same class at EDD, and I remember EDD pretty much rated #1 everywhere. Nneka did win one of those POY awards (I think).
|
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 4:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| sammieee wrote: |
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
easy. UConn gets the #1 h.s player way more than other any school, and year after year. Stanford has signed 2 h.s #1 players, both O sisters. UConn has signed about 10-12 number 1 h.s players in last 20 or so years. Stewie, KML, Maya, Taurasi, Charles, to name of few. Each one of those players gave UConn 1-2 NCs.
I've always thought the women need to reduce the number of scholies from 15 to 13, or even 12, to spread the talent. |
Was Nneka even a #1 on any service? Remember she's in the same class at EDD, and I remember EDD pretty much rated #1 everywhere. Nneka did win one of those POY awards (I think). |
as I said above, Stanford signed two #1 h.s. players, both O sisters. So in 29 years under Tara, Stanford got 2, Geno in same time, got a lot more. Good for him. Put him at Stanford, he gets the same number as Tara.
In college, Nneka did not get any POY awards. She was robbed like Chiney. I'm not bitter, at all.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 4:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| HistoryWomensBasketball wrote: |
I certainly agree you have to spend money to make money. yet with my taxes going thru the roof I would not be in favor of big increases to get better coaches etc to possibly make some money.
As much as I Love women's basketball I feel it is a niche sport. even with UConn winning 9 championships they do not pack gample every game like they did 10 to 15 years ago.
I would rather see schools have a limit of 1 recruited player ranked.. Say in top 35 each year 1 in top 75. spread it out some. maybe it would create more parity at some point and the cost to taxpayers a lot less |
Who is going to do the ranking, since recruiting rankings are all over the lot. And are you really proposing to tell two women who want a Stanford education that one of them can't go because they both are ranked in the top 35?
This is completely unworkable, and I doubt anyone - schools, players, parents, or fans - would find it acceptable.
|
|
insidewinder
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 240
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 5:52 pm ::: the current state of WCBB |
Reply |
|
I confess I stopped watching the game a bit after the half. The TV was on in the background, I hardly looked, I could tell the lead was growing... I have seen some comparisons to the old UCLA men's teams. I don't think the comparison holds as far as how having such a dominant team affects fans. After two decades as a fan, I now think WCBB will never grow much beyond where it is now. The NBA and men's college games draw those who watch to see the most amazing athleticism, all the crazy shots and the dunks. Those fans will probably never have more than a passing interest in WCBB. The old saw about the women's game being more fundamentally sound doesn't mean much. Fans are not going to flock to the women's game because they think they will see better screening and cutting, and besides, all the TOs in the women's game counter the argument that the women play a cleaner, more fundamental game. And the officiating, which lets players wrestle for position in the post, makes for some ugly basketball too often. I think most fans enjoy their own team and get excited about great match-ups, like what we hoped would happen last night. Way too often the hype is big but the game is bad. Blow-outs do not draw in fans. Excellence by one team is not exciting and without the aerial moves of the men's game, not dynamic enough to draw in the more casual fans.
Given all that, is UConn's excellence overall good for the game? I'd say no. The lack of competitiveness of even the biggest of games bores many diehards and does not attract enough casual fans to grow the game. I know the ratings were supposedly the best since 2004 but those were based on the hype, which the game did not deliver. Did that game leave fans wanting more of the same? UConn fans, sure. The rest, I don't think so. If having a dominant team sitting there for all the others to knock off was good for the game, why is there now so much effort being made to figure out what is wrong with the sport? We've got meetings, white papers, etc. about a crisis in the sport. Selling a dominant team is not helping.
I think the only way to draw in new fan blood is for more teams to have a shot at winning. A really good team draws in fans from that school, who may get engaged and stick around. The more teams with a shot to win the title, the better if that is correct, which is the opposite of now. Just my relatively ignorant opinion...
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 5:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Put me down on the side of those who say it's not UConn's fault they are better than everyone else. It's up to everyone else to step up their game.
And these things are cyclical. There have been college teams in various sports that went through extended periods of extraordinary excellence before. It ultimately comes to an end.
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14110
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 6:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I actually enjoyed watching the game, I was more disappointed that some of Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis' shots weren't falling than with the final score. I mean I enjoy watching Connecticut at times more this year than in years past. Really the only reason I liked Connecticut in the past was because Tamika Williams was my favorite player, and this year because I like watching Kaleena play. I mean I do enjoy watching Breanna Stewart play and I've liked seeing the improvement Stefanie Dolson has made the past few years, but they aren't the reasons why I watch Connecticut play now.
It's unfortunately that Natalie Achonwa had to go down with and ACL, I would have loved to see this match up with Natalie playing, I believe she would have made a difference because she is a big scoring threat, but she is also one of the big reasons the Notre Dame offense works so well, when it goes through her. Last night they rarely went into their post, and when they did Notre Dame didn't have the same flow, and of course they were forcing a lot of shots because they didn't have that inside option. Now I'm not saying Notre Dame would have won, but I do think that had more to do with Notre Dame's play than what Connecticut did.
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14110
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 6:12 pm ::: Re: Conference flaws |
Reply |
|
| Stephen Shirley wrote: |
The changing landscape of the AAC will certainly hurt UConn in the next few years. Losing BCS money from football and dramatically increased travel expenses will take a sizeable bite out the athletic budget. Fan enthusiasm will suffer further when confronted with matchups against teams like Tulane and Tulsa. And if top programs decline to schedule UConn in OOC play, even the ESPN connection will dry up because no one will care about matchups between #1 and #170 and #230.
But UConn will remain relevant as long as Geno is there. If he can channel the Tiger Woods mentality of chasing championships only and gloss over everything in between, top players will continue to go to UConn for the title chase. But the day Geno leaves... UConn could very easily drop back to the likes of LaTech, ODU and W. Ky. -- once dominant programs who now toil away in relative obscurity in a one bid mid-major conference. |
I was thinking about that how Connecticut will change with the new conference realignment last night, but then when they were talking about the undefeated teams, I wondered how many people would want to go to Connecticut still because if they are still getting all the top players they will probably still go undefeated (a better chance with a weaker schedule) and win a national championship, Breanna Stewart said her goal was to win 4 national titles, I'm sure there are many people who would want that goal as well, and if you add in never losing a game in 4 years, that appeal might be something that gets more people to go there than decide not to go there. In the past when Tennessee and Louisiana Tech and USC, even Old Dominion, went through their fall from the top periods, there were teams right there waiting to dethrone them, I don't see that happening anytime soon if Connecticut continues to get the top players and the selling point of never a losing a game in your college career would be a big selling point, and there is really no one who can counter that, sure you can play a whose who of the top 25, but if you finish 4-10 against top 25 teams, that may not appeal to many players either.
|
|
PhillyCat
Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Posts: 226
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 6:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| sammieee wrote: |
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
easy. UConn gets the #1 h.s player way more than other any school, and year after year. Stanford has signed 2 h.s #1 players, both O sisters. UConn has signed about 10-12 number 1 h.s players in last 20 or so years. Stewie, KML, Maya, Taurasi, Charles, to name of few. Each one of those players gave UConn 1-2 NCs.
I've always thought the women need to reduce the number of scholies from 15 to 13, or even 12, to spread the talent. |
Was Nneka even a #1 on any service? Remember she's in the same class at EDD, and I remember EDD pretty much rated #1 everywhere. Nneka did win one of those POY awards (I think). |
as I said above, Stanford signed two #1 h.s. players, both O sisters. So in 29 years under Tara, Stanford got 2, Geno in same time, got a lot more. Good for him. Put him at Stanford, he gets the same number as Tara.
In college, Nneka did not get any POY awards. She was robbed like Chiney. I'm not bitter, at all. |
Put Tara at Storrs and she gets 2 fewer than she has at Stanford. Geno recruited kids to a school next to a cow pasture and with bad weather. Each faced challenges in building their programs. What Calhoun and Auriemma were able to build in Storrs, CT has been nothing short of remarkable.
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14110
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 6:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| HistoryWomensBasketball wrote: |
I certainly agree you have to spend money to make money. yet with my taxes going thru the roof I would not be in favor of big increases to get better coaches etc to possibly make some money.
As much as I Love women's basketball I feel it is a niche sport. even with UConn winning 9 championships they do not pack gample every game like they did 10 to 15 years ago.
I would rather see schools have a limit of 1 recruited player ranked.. Say in top 35 each year 1 in top 75. spread it out some. maybe it would create more parity at some point and the cost to taxpayers a lot less |
Who is going to do the ranking, since recruiting rankings are all over the lot. And are you really proposing to tell two women who want a Stanford education that one of them can't go because they both are ranked in the top 35?
This is completely unworkable, and I doubt anyone - schools, players, parents, or fans - would find it acceptable. |
I was just thinking that would be so impossible to keep track of because of the difference rankings, but it would also not make much sense because as you mentioned you can't really tell two people who both want to go to a school, sorry only one of you can come, it's a first come first serve basis. I mean that is kind of how it is now because scholarship numbers, but is a bit different because the coaches control how much scholarship to give out every year or how many they want to offer.
And also what if say a player wants to wait like Aja Wilson, should Connecticut, South Carolina, North Carolina and Tennessee really have to wait until April 16 before signing anyone because if they signed someone in the top 75 then she would not be eligible to go to that school.
|
|
PhillyCat
Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Posts: 226
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 6:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| lvf08 wrote: |
| I doubt next year will be much different either. |
They still have Stewart, but I think that assumption dramatically understates the importance that Stephanie Dolson has had to this team the last three years. |
Dolson was at the center of everything UConn did, offensively and defensively. The offense will be different next year, though clearly Stewart and KML will be the featured offensive players. Without Dolson those two players will need to become more than just catch-and-shoot players on the perimeter. Geno has already mentioned that about Stewart. KML needs to reshape her body and become a better ball-handler.
There are going to be schools with a lot of young talent, including the Carolinas, ND, Tenn, UCLA.
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14110
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 6:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| sammieee wrote: |
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
easy. UConn gets the #1 h.s player way more than other any school, and year after year. Stanford has signed 2 h.s #1 players, both O sisters. UConn has signed about 10-12 number 1 h.s players in last 20 or so years. Stewie, KML, Maya, Taurasi, Charles, to name of few. Each one of those players gave UConn 1-2 NCs.
I've always thought the women need to reduce the number of scholies from 15 to 13, or even 12, to spread the talent. |
Was Nneka even a #1 on any service? Remember she's in the same class at EDD, and I remember EDD pretty much rated #1 everywhere. Nneka did win one of those POY awards (I think). |
as I said above, Stanford signed two #1 h.s. players, both O sisters. So in 29 years under Tara, Stanford got 2, Geno in same time, got a lot more. Good for him. Put him at Stanford, he gets the same number as Tara.
In college, Nneka did not get any POY awards. She was robbed like Chiney. I'm not bitter, at all. |
According to the Stanford press release about her signing Nneka was the #6 overall prospect in "Hoopgurlz Hundred"
|
|
|
|
