| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/11/14 10:26 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Phil wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
And the numbers should have been that high as it was a matchup of 2 undefeated rivals for the national title. It was also hyped and pre-hyped for practically the entire year...the powers to be at ESPN probably would have spontaneously combusted if those 2 didn't make it to the final. The media machine was in full effect for quite some time.
I would like to know how many of those viewers changed channels before halftime. I have never liked TV numbers (much like attendance figures) as they never tell the real story. |
Lest we forget, it was an 8-point game at the half, and there was a lot of scoring, so 8 points didn't seem insurmountable, particularly to a casual fan. |
Nit police, it was seven which merely strengthens the point.
UConn has a 12 point lead at halftime over Notre Dame in 2001 and lost by a lot. |
It *seemed* like 8.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/11/14 12:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Dennis1361 wrote: |
| In men's basketball the explosion of interest took place after UCLA became mortal |
It did, but I don't think those two event are correlated. Basketball was big in the ACC, at places like Ohio St and Ky. And at a ton of independent Northeast and Midwest schools (largely Catholic schools) like Marquette and SJU and Notre Dame and St. Bonaventure, and the like. I don't think anyone lost interest because UCLA was winning a lot of consecutive championships. And frankly, hardly anyone in the East played or even saw UCLA until the tournament. And I certainly don't think there was ever the same sense that they were out of reach.
The subsequent explosion in Men's basketball was 95% attributable to television.
But then again, at that time there was no ESPN telling everyone else 24/7 that they were wasting their time because they can never in a million years hope to compete with UCLA the way they do today with UConn.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/11/14 1:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
Nit police, it was seven which merely strengthens the point.
UConn has a 12 point lead at halftime over Notre Dame in 2001 and lost by a lot. |
It strengthens nothing...UConn relaxed a little at the end of a half that they pretty much dominated and Notre Dame hit some 3's. Everything I watched during that first half indicated that Notre Dame had ZERO answer for Dolson, Stewie and KML.
There are no similarities you can draw between previous UConn/Notre Dame matchups other than the names on the front of the jerseys...other than that, nothing similar.
|
|
Homyonkel
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/11/14 2:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
"I wanted to tear my hair out when I saw our backcourt standing around the perimeter, just looking at each other. No passing, no movement away from the ball;they didn't know what to do. To me, it showed a lack of preparation."
That's a very kind way of saying that Brenda is a lousy coach. I've been listening for several years to a couple of Terp fans (on another board) complain about her coaching. This year, I've seen them twice in person;the semi-final blow-out and the UCONN game at MD. (UCONN was playing for the first time without KML and Tuck). In the 2nd. half UCONN had about an 8 or 9 point lead and began to take the air out of the ball. Slowly but surely the lead began to increase yet MD never saw the need for possession. No pressure. No fouling. And the lead just kept increasing. Thank you, Brenda.
Against a ND team without Anchowa, MD attacked properly by passing into the lane to your big. Worked for 2 easy baskets. Didn't see it again until late in the 2nd. half.
ND was playing so beautifully they would have won anyhow, but even so.....
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/11/14 2:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| Phil wrote: |
Nit police, it was seven which merely strengthens the point.
UConn has a 12 point lead at halftime over Notre Dame in 2001 and lost by a lot. |
It strengthens nothing...UConn relaxed a little at the end of a half that they pretty much dominated and Notre Dame hit some 3's. Everything I watched during that first half indicated that Notre Dame had ZERO answer for Dolson, Stewie and KML.
There are no similarities you can draw between previous UConn/Notre Dame matchups other than the names on the front of the jerseys...other than that, nothing similar. |
In retrospect, there was nothing Notre Dame could have done, but Muffet is pretty clever, so halftime adjustments certainly seemed possible, and of course if someone gets hot from 3, that changes a lot. Also, you easily could say just as well that Notre Dame figured out what to do at the end of the first half, which is why they closed the gap. A 7 (see, I got it right this time) point lead, no matter what the first half looks like, is not secure.
|
|
btharner
Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Posts: 109
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/11/14 2:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| UCLA's dominant period ended in 1975 (although they still made the FF in 76). 1975 was the 37th edition of the men's championship. The women's tournament just concluded its 33rd edition. Does this mean we can't expect the UConn domination to stop until 2019?
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/11/14 3:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm more and more inclined to think it has to do with the lack of top-notch coaches/CEO's. UCLA dominated because of the greatness of Wooden, how he recruited, treated all the guys the same, knew the game and knew how to teach the game. What then happened is that more and more guys "went to school" and figured it out. Now, when you look at the state of coaching in MBB, you have dozens of excellent coaches, teachers and CEO's that know how to handle and run the ship. There is no shortage of tremendous coaches from Coach K to Coach Izzo, Coach Calipari to Coach Self, Coach Donovan to Coach Boeheim, Coach Williams to Coach Pitino...and preceding them you had a fairly strong group of guys in Dean Smith, Bobby Knight, Denny Crum, Gene Keady, Digger Phelps, etc. The more and more guys that come from those "coaching trees", the more and more balance the men's game has and is getting.
I think women's basketball has seen Pat Summitt and then Geno Auriemma. I guess we could put Tara Vanderveer, Joe Ciampi and maybe a couple others on that list. However, the shocking and concerning thing to me is that the people that leave those coaching trees don't seem to be able to replicate what those 2 were able to do.
I will say, maybe Summitt's coaching tree is doing ok with Jody Adams at Wichita St, Nikki Caldwell at LSU, Matthew Mitchell at Kentucky, Sylvia Hatchell at UNC.
However, for each of those, there's a Niya Butts at Arizona, Kellie Harper at Missouri State (couldn't get it done at NC State), Semeka Randall at Ohio and Sharon Fanning at Miss State.
Former Huskies that have had any success were Jen Rizzotti at Hartford, Cardoza some at Temple while others have struggled. To be fair, many former players are still playing so if any of them decide to jump into the coaching profession, this may improve a great deal. But as for former assistants that have left, it really hasn't worked.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7848
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/11/14 3:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
I'm more and more inclined to think it has to do with the lack of top-notch coaches/CEO's. UCLA dominated because of the greatness of Wooden, how he recruited, treated all the guys the same, knew the game and knew how to teach the game. What then happened is that more and more guys "went to school" and figured it out. Now, when you look at the state of coaching in MBB, you have dozens of excellent coaches, teachers and CEO's that know how to handle and run the ship. There is no shortage of tremendous coaches from Coach K to Coach Izzo, Coach Calipari to Coach Self, Coach Donovan to Coach Boeheim, Coach Williams to Coach Pitino...and preceding them you had a fairly strong group of guys in Dean Smith, Bobby Knight, Denny Crum, Gene Keady, Digger Phelps, etc. The more and more guys that come from those "coaching trees", the more and more balance the men's game has and is getting.
I think women's basketball has seen Pat Summitt and then Geno Auriemma. I guess we could put Tara Vanderveer, Joe Ciampi and maybe a couple others on that list. However, the shocking and concerning thing to me is that the people that leave those coaching trees don't seem to be able to replicate what those 2 were able to do.
I will say, maybe Summitt's coaching tree is doing ok with Jody Adams at Wichita St, Nikki Caldwell at LSU, Matthew Mitchell at Kentucky, Sylvia Hatchell at UNC.
However, for each of those, there's a Niya Butts at Arizona, Kellie Harper at Missouri State (couldn't get it done at NC State), Semeka Randall at Ohio and Sharon Fanning at Miss State.
Former Huskies that have had any success were Jen Rizzotti at Hartford, Cardoza some at Temple while others have struggled. To be fair, many former players are still playing so if any of them decide to jump into the coaching profession, this may improve a great deal. But as for former assistants that have left, it really hasn't worked. |
I also might remind you that the men's coaching tree is at least a good 50 years older than the women's, if not 75. It's apples and oranges again. Many of Pat's AND Geno's former assistants are still only in their mid-30s, especially the ones you specifically named. Consider that before you get your knickers in a bunch. 
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
|
geeceem
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/11/14 8:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Homyonkel wrote: |
"I wanted to tear my hair out when I saw our backcourt standing around the perimeter, just looking at each other. No passing, no movement away from the ball;they didn't know what to do. To me, it showed a lack of preparation."
That's a very kind way of saying that Brenda is a lousy coach. I've been listening for several years to a couple of Terp fans (on another board) complain about her coaching. This year, I've seen them twice in person;the semi-final blow-out and the UCONN game at MD. (UCONN was playing for the first time without KML and Tuck). In the 2nd. half UCONN had about an 8 or 9 point lead and began to take the air out of the ball. Slowly but surely the lead began to increase yet MD never saw the need for possession. No pressure. No fouling. And the lead just kept increasing. Thank you, Brenda.
Against a ND team without Anchowa, MD attacked properly by passing into the lane to your big. Worked for 2 easy baskets. Didn't see it again until late in the 2nd. half.
ND was playing so beautifully they would have won anyhow, but even so..... |
She's not lousy; rather, what I'm missing is a sense that she's able to make of her teams something more than the more-or-less simple sum of the parts. I want to see her take her people to the next level by seeing her build teams that play consistently like teams, not just like groups of talented individuals.
She recruits extremely well, not only bringing in terrific players, but also spotting the proverbial diamonds in the rough, e.g., Tianna Hawkins, who nobody else even recruited. But that's only part of the job.
Alyssa did so much to make her teammates better, but it didn't seem like there were strategies in place for reciprocation. How many times did we see Maya Moore's teammates setting up a little screen for her just past the corners. She'd curl around the screen, the ball would be there for her, and with her quick release, the ball was up and many times in. You could argue that Geno built that just for her, because you didn't see it very much after she graduated. As good as she was, he and the team did things to make her better. I wanted to see Brenda do that kind of thing for Alyssa more than I saw it. It seemed like Alyssa had to create her own scoring opportunities so often--and she is so strong that she of course could deliver. (Bearing in mind of course that we were decimated by injuries last year, so Alyssa had to do even more. And did.)
Next year is going to really show us some things about our coaching: our guards will be good, but our bigs are slow. (You can't teach speed....) Brionna Jones doesn't run fast or jump high, but she does know how to position herself and how to back up defenders. I frankly don't know what to make of Tierney and Malina: only that they haven't yet shown the kind of domination underneath that one hopes for from big forwards. And of course we won't have Alyssa or anybody close to her in skill, strength and determination. What kind of strategies will the coaching staff come up with to capitalize on our strengths and compensate for our weaknesses?
|
|
Homyonkel
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/11/14 8:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| If "lousy" was too harsh I apologize. But she's not a newbie. And, as you point out she is a good recruiter. How many years does a coach get to use that talent productively? At best, MD has been going sideways. And I'm thinking next year will show slippage.
|
|
geeceem
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/11/14 9:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Homyonkel wrote: |
| If "lousy" was too harsh I apologize. But she's not a newbie. And, as you point out she is a good recruiter. How many years does a coach get to use that talent productively? At best, MD has been going sideways. And I'm thinking next year will show slippage. |
Slippage next year seems almost a given--although the change in scenery may make it harder to see.
But one might ask of the entire ACC--"Wha hoppen?" The last time an ACC team was in the championship game was 2006. Maybe Duke made it back to the Final Four in 2007, but since then, nothing. Nobody. The whole conference seems to be treading water.
NC probably has the best talent on the floor for next year, but whether all that brilliant raw material can be turned into a consistent team remains to be seen. John Thompson, Jr. used to say that the best thing about freshmen is that they become sophomores.....
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/11/14 9:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| geeceem wrote: |
| Homyonkel wrote: |
| If "lousy" was too harsh I apologize. But she's not a newbie. And, as you point out she is a good recruiter. How many years does a coach get to use that talent productively? At best, MD has been going sideways. And I'm thinking next year will show slippage. |
Slippage next year seems almost a given--although the change in scenery may make it harder to see.
But one might ask of the entire ACC--"Wha hoppen?" The last time an ACC team was in the championship game was 2006. Maybe Duke made it back to the Final Four in 2007, but since then, nothing. Nobody. The whole conference seems to be treading water.
NC probably has the best talent on the floor for next year, but whether all that brilliant raw material can be turned into a consistent team remains to be seen. John Thompson, Jr. used to say that the best thing about freshmen is that they become sophomores..... |
Notre Dame is in the ACC now and they just played in the title game...
|
|
Homyonkel
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/11/14 9:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
"Slippage next year is a given--although the change in scenery may make it harder to see."
True. I forgot about the move to the BiG.
|
|
geeceem
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/11/14 9:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| geeceem wrote: |
| Homyonkel wrote: |
| If "lousy" was too harsh I apologize. But she's not a newbie. And, as you point out she is a good recruiter. How many years does a coach get to use that talent productively? At best, MD has been going sideways. And I'm thinking next year will show slippage. |
Slippage next year seems almost a given--although the change in scenery may make it harder to see.
But one might ask of the entire ACC--"Wha hoppen?" The last time an ACC team was in the championship game was 2006. Maybe Duke made it back to the Final Four in 2007, but since then, nothing. Nobody. The whole conference seems to be treading water.
NC probably has the best talent on the floor for next year, but whether all that brilliant raw material can be turned into a consistent team remains to be seen. John Thompson, Jr. used to say that the best thing about freshmen is that they become sophomores..... |
Notre Dame is in the ACC now and they just played in the title game... |
It might be a shortcoming on my part, but I don't think of ND as part of the ACC and probably never will--any more than I'll be able to think of Maryland as part of the Big Ten. There's just something so wrong with both of those affiliations. Beating Penn State and Ohio State or whoever will never be as satisfying as grinding the Dukies and Tarheels into the dust.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
|
geeceem
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 123
Back to top |
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11151
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/12/14 8:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Just a note on John Wooden: He started coaching at UCLA in 1948 and won his first NCAA title in 1964. If we're going to use him as a measuring stick, then every coach should get a 16-year honeymoon ...
Which means, I think, that McCallie has another decade to go.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
geeceem
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/12/14 8:32 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| Not that the Big Ten is awesome right now, but it's still a pretty good league and from top to bottom, it's definitely one of the toughest conferences in the country. You really can't take a day off. |
This is the problem in a nutshell: the ACC is also pretty good right now--but ND and UConn are great. What does it take to move from "pretty good" to "great"? What does Geno--and to a slightly lesser extent Muffet--know that the others--the "pretty goods"--don't seem to have grasped?
I wonder if anyone has asked Pat Summitt this question--and if they did, what her answer was?
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9629
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/12/14 8:56 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Isn't UConn losing two All Americans?
One of whom is going to be replaced by a freshman, and the other by one of two people, each of whom is much shorter than Dolson, one of whom has shown no particular ability to score, and the other that is coming off of a very serious knee injury?
And all of that is not supposed to matter at all? |
Their closest game all year was a 11 point win at Baylor. Baylor loses two starters, one of whom is going #2 or #3 in the draft. #2 NCAA tournament seed Stanford lost to them by 19 points twice. Stanford loses two starters as well, one of whom is a #1 pick in the WNBA draft. Notre Dame was the second best team in the country, and loses two starters, both expected to be drafted in the WNBA. So UConn loses something, but so do other teams. Maybe there is a top 10 team returning everyone, but even if they were, I would bet that the remaining UConn players, plus the four incoming UConn players (rated #3 recruit class by HoopGurlz), is still more talent than any team in the country.
They had 7 high school national team players this last year. They are losing two. Which leaves five high school national team players, if none of the incoming recruits has been one. Five is probably the highest in the country. And they are also getting the top player out of Canada. The other thing is that in addition to Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis being a national player of the year in high school, I think that Stewart was everybody's national player of the year, she was at the Diana Taurasi, Candace Parker, Maya Moore level in high school.
|
|
geeceem
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/12/14 9:59 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
Just a note on John Wooden: He started coaching at UCLA in 1948 and won his first NCAA title in 1964. If we're going to use him as a measuring stick, then every coach should get a 16-year honeymoon ...
Which means, I think, that McCallie has another decade to go. |
According to Wiki, Wooden had been coaching for 18 years--2 at Indiana State and 16 at UCLA--before winning his first NCAA title. (I don't know what to make of his NAIB runner-up in his second year at Indiana State.)
Coach P has been coaching for 22 years, albeit only 7 at Duke, and has reached the championship game once--with Michigan State. No other appearances in the Final Four.
Of course, time will tell. In the meantime, isn't Elizabeth Williams a puzzle?
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7848
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/12/14 10:28 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
I'm more and more inclined to think it has to do with the lack of top-notch coaches/CEO's. UCLA dominated because of the greatness of Wooden, how he recruited, treated all the guys the same, knew the game and knew how to teach the game. What then happened is that more and more guys "went to school" and figured it out. Now, when you look at the state of coaching in MBB, you have dozens of excellent coaches, teachers and CEO's that know how to handle and run the ship. There is no shortage of tremendous coaches from Coach K to Coach Izzo, Coach Calipari to Coach Self, Coach Donovan to Coach Boeheim, Coach Williams to Coach Pitino...and preceding them you had a fairly strong group of guys in Dean Smith, Bobby Knight, Denny Crum, Gene Keady, Digger Phelps, etc. The more and more guys that come from those "coaching trees", the more and more balance the men's game has and is getting.
I think women's basketball has seen Pat Summitt and then Geno Auriemma. I guess we could put Tara Vanderveer, Joe Ciampi and maybe a couple others on that list. However, the shocking and concerning thing to me is that the people that leave those coaching trees don't seem to be able to replicate what those 2 were able to do.
I will say, maybe Summitt's coaching tree is doing ok with Jody Adams at Wichita St, Nikki Caldwell at LSU, Matthew Mitchell at Kentucky, Sylvia Hatchell at UNC.
However, for each of those, there's a Niya Butts at Arizona, Kellie Harper at Missouri State (couldn't get it done at NC State), Semeka Randall at Ohio and Sharon Fanning at Miss State.
Former Huskies that have had any success were Jen Rizzotti at Hartford, Cardoza some at Temple while others have struggled. To be fair, many former players are still playing so if any of them decide to jump into the coaching profession, this may improve a great deal. But as for former assistants that have left, it really hasn't worked. |
I also might remind you that the men's coaching tree is at least a good 50 years older than the women's, if not 75. It's apples and oranges again. Many of Pat's AND Geno's former assistants are still only in their mid-30s, especially the ones you specifically named. Consider that before you get your knickers in a bunch. |
Yeah, well, YOU were the one who said "maybe Pat's coaching tree was doing OK" and named several coaches who are doing well, all of whom are products of the 80s and early 90s. Then your "well, but" paragraph mentions some others, who, with the exception of Sharon Fanning, are quite a bit younger (Kellie Harper, 1999; Niya Butts and Semeka Randall, 2000) and by comparison just getting their feet under them. Kind of damning with faint praise, wouldn't you say? If it took Wooden 16 years, or 18, isn't your yardstick a little short?
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
RP
Joined: 17 Jul 2010
Posts: 1299
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/12/14 4:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| I disagree that UNC isn't ready. They were capable of beating anyone already this year. They were also capable of losing any time. With six months to work on improving, they are going to be very formidable and maybe, just maybe, they'll be more consistent. If they are, they'll contend. |
I agree. This UNC team is close in talent to the Ivory Latta-led teams that were 3-0 against UConn and made two Final Fours (as legitimate championship contenders, unlike some teams since).
If someone steps up and seizes the starting point guard spot, I can see UNC winning a national championship. But the "point guard by committee" approach will not due it.
|
|
leelyn
Joined: 11 Aug 2013
Posts: 16
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/12/14 10:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
make ND or Uconn travel clear across the country and then see how they hold up....the truth is the womens NCAA really doesn't want other teams....they are happy with their 4-5 teams......and who the hell cares about Green Bay or Gonzaga or South Dakota anyway? /sarcasm/
if they cared to increase the fan base country wide, they would be open to more than just the same old team playing in Storrs Conn or ND playing in South Bend ...
_________________
that's life!
|
|
|
|
