| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9663
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/20/15 9:42 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Well, since poor Katie Lou seems to have been jilted and abandoned in favor of strategies to hobble UConn, why not entertain the thought simply as an off season mind game.
| tfan wrote: |
| If the other top 25 coaches were smart, they wouldn't schedule any non-conference games with UConn |
This strategy has been suggested more than once on this board and in other venues, and may go back to Muffet McGraw's statement two years ago to the effect that UConn needs Notre Dame more as an out-of-conference opponent than Notre Dame needs UConn. |
I agree with her, but only to an extent as UConn doesn't need Notre Dame that much if it has Duke, DePaul, Stanford and South Carolina. It needs to be a united boycott of the AAC powerhouse.
| Quote: |
Just for discussion's sake, why not propose a complementary hobbling strategy for UConn's in-conference AAC opponents: They all should forfeit every game with UConn by refusing to play and accept a 2-0 defeat. That would amount to 21 non-played games for UConn.
Why not? These AAC opponents lost to UConn by an average of 50 points per game this season. An ant has more of a chance against the boot, a fly against the swatter, a Christian against the lion. These one-sided AAC borefests were not sporting contests; they were genocides.
None of these AAC teams has any chance of winning the conference and getting an auto bid as long as Genghis UKahn is rapaciously ravaging the landscape. Losing by two points in a forfeit is better than losing by 50 in a slaughter.
And the forfeit strategy should have the effect of destroying UConn's recruiting within four years. Would Katie Lou have signed with UConn if she knew she would never play in any of the 21 conference games per year . . . plus never against a top 25 opponent out of conference? I doubt it. |
I have more doubts that she would let not playing any games during the conference season deter her from the best chance at the moment to kiss the NCAA trophy at the end of the year. After all, Kiah Stokes didn't play much basketball at UConn. 7 starts and a measly 15.5 minutes per game for four years on a team that wins most games by blowouts. But I think all the UConn fans, every last one, would agree that she made the right decision to ride the bench most of the time for the Huskies. This immensely talented high school player - so talented she played for USA Basketball in high school (squad of only 12) and also was drafted in the first round of the WNBA (only 12 selected). The argument would certainly be that she made the right decision to not play most of the time, because, while she wasn't a key piece of the puzzle, she got to do this:
So your suggestion is not as sure-fire as you might think in deterring Katie Lou. We already have an example of a elite high school player who forfeited playing minutes in college, for "trophy kissing". And we also have Saniya Chong, who, while not as talented as Stokes, could be starring in college somewhere rather than getting UConn garbage minutes.
But the conference would not allow a season of forfeits. So instead, I propose that all AAC teams play only the deep bench and walk-ons against UConn, unless fouls or injuries require them to play a few mid-bench players. Instead of 50 point average victories, let's have them win by a triple digit average. Let's get every scoring record in the book set by UConn players. But of course, the coaches won't admit they are playing their scrubs. Their line will be that they went with the lineup that they thought would best combat UConn, but the basketball maestro Auriemma found a way to counter their counter.
|
|
Homyonkel
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/20/15 10:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ridor wrote: |
No, homyonkel, you have to stop shoving words into my mouth when I never said such a thing on my previous comments. I never said that UConn refused to do home-home games with Vermont Catamounts because he "feared" being replaced by UVM. I said that Geno does view UVM as a threat, not feared.
If UConn played against UVM at Burlington - they would have lost a couple of games there. Geno cannot afford to lose any game to any D! schools in New England states. He knew they were good, he knew they were a threat, he chose not to schedule them primarily because he does not see any benefit for UConn to play in Burlington and lose a game or two between 1990 and 1998. He knew by losing to UVM in Burlington presented a backyard threat.
I never said he was afraid of UVM - I'm saying that he was no better than other schools who chose not to play different teams that may present them as a threat and not beneficial to their programs. So hence the idiom: People who lives in glass houses should not throw stones! So you cannot defend UConn by going after Baylor, Virginia, Duke and Tennessee for doing the same thing that Geno did on UVM back then. Capisce? |
"I never said that UCONN refused to do home-home games with Vermont Catamounts because he "feared" being replaced by UVM. I said that Geno does view UVM as a threat, not feared."
I know you like to play games with words. In my book a threat is something to be feared. You have already expressed that you consider me stupid so be kind and in as simple terms as possible please explain under what circumstances a threat is not something to be feared.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5424
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/20/15 12:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ridor wrote: |
Linkster, you said: "So what does a coach say to a prospective recruit when they ask her why she won't play UConn? Does the coach admit "they are too good so we are attempting to destroy them through a shunning?"
You need to wake up and face the reality - THIS is how it works in THIS SPORT. In fact, others had done the same thing for many years prior to the Debacle.
When Sue Gunter left Stephen F. Austin to be the Head Coach of LSU Tigers, Sue stopped the annual games between Louisiana Tech and LSU. It sets off the fiercely recruiting between two schools in Louisiana, Gunter noticed that Louisiana Tech has enormous advantage back then so Gunter curbed Leon Barmore's firm hold in Louisiana by rarely playing LSU. La Tech refused to play Arkansas and Mississippi State. When they saw Memphis & Ole Miss doing well in recruiting the region in east Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana - Louisiana Tech then abruptly stopped playing them for a long time.
Same thing happened to Long Beach State and Stanford. Coach Vanderveer arrived in Palo Alto in 1985, the very first thing she did was to discontinue the series against one powerful team in a weak conference: Long Beach State. Long Beach State was able to recruit in Southern California along with USC. Stanford terminated the series in order to build a new program - when the team is much stronger 5 years later, Tara resumed the series only to destroy and annihilate Long Beach State so much and so often enough for Joan Bonvinci to leave for Arizona.
So yes, many schools in CWB do practice this for many decades. So I know they will turn its back on UConn eventually. Just wait and you'll see that I was right all along. |
My point had more to do with how the recruit interprets the shunning. IMO just about every elite athlete wants to be tested against the best. When I played more golf I relished the opportunity to play the club champion, knowing full well that the chances of winning were slim.
I also remember a certain coach saying that to be the best you have to play the best. Now I guess you would say that to be the best you need to destroy the best?
One difference between then and now is the TV factor. Today, at a time where ESPN is trying to promote wcbb with a huge financial investment, they certainly want to feature the preeminent program. Given the status that wcbb has with most AD's, if ESPN calls the dozen or so elite programs in the country, explains that they want to schedule national TV games and offers a chance to put their wbb team on national TV with the stipulation that one of those games must be against UConn, and that the first 4 or 6 teams to agree will get the national exposure (and the added revenue), I doubt many of those AD's would refuse due to the coach's desire to destroy the UConn program.
TV money drives college sports today and no AD is going to antagonize the golden goose (ESPN) over wbb. It just isn't that important to them.
|
|
ridor
Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 1055
Location: Frederick, Maryland
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/21/15 4:30 am ::: |
Reply |
|
FYI, I won't be surprised to see Tara Vanderveer announcing that the series between Tara's Stanford and UConn won't be renewed as Stanford claimed that they wanted to go in a different way. Perhaps this coming winter or next year or whenever the contract ended.
It will be very obvious to see the reason behind Tara's decision to terminate - it has so much to do with Katie Lou Samuelson. I bet that in private, Tara would be pissed off with UConn for snatching the national player of the year literally out from Tara's backyard so she will retaliate. Tara already had 2 Samuelson sisters and was expecting Katie Lou to join Stanford, not UConn. So Tara will stop the series and turn its back on UConn.
It is not a matter of 'ifs', it is a matter of WHEN.
Cheers,
R-
|
|
ridor
Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 1055
Location: Frederick, Maryland
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/21/15 4:56 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Homyonkel, if you do not believe me that UConn viewed UVM as a threat, that is fine with me. Why don't you ask Cathy Inglese, Pam Borton & Keith Cipliecki about it? They WILL confirm what I said - how did I know about this debacle?
Well, these coaches were interviewed about their frustrations in asking UConn to start the series repeatedly but to no avail. Go ahead, ask these coaches - they will tell you what I already knew.
ClayK: Just go to Stanford media guide, you'll see that Long Beach State played each year against Stanford until Tara arrived in 1985, the series abruptly stopped for next 5 years before it resumed. It was such a smart move on Tara's part: She did not want to let her team play Top 10 teams and got annihilated. And Long Beach State often was in Top 10 between 1985 and 1990.
Cheers,
R-
|
|
ridor
Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 1055
Location: Frederick, Maryland
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/21/15 5:08 am ::: |
Reply |
|
tfan, when you said this line: And they can also mention that they can play them in the Final Four.
It immediately brought me a flashback back in early 1990s. Tennessee was a longtime rival of Virginia Cavaliers, they frequently met each other in NCAA Tournament. I asked Virginia Coach Debbie Ryan on why not she schedule Tennessee during the regular season? She responded the exact thing you just commented. She said, "There is no need to play Tennessee during the regular season because we always will face Tennessee in NCAA Tournament."
So yes, you're right - I know Debbie said so herself.
|
|
ridor
Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 1055
Location: Frederick, Maryland
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/21/15 5:20 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Homyonkel: When tfan said the vast majority of Top 25 teams refused to play UConn, he was not saying that UConn having all Top 25 teams on its OOC schedule in a YEAR. He was talking about several seasons - UConn would contact many Top 25 teams who would decline his request for the home-home games repeatedly as of late. That is what he was talking about.
|
|
ridor
Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 1055
Location: Frederick, Maryland
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/21/15 5:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Homyonkel: I like to play words? Excuse me, English is not my first language, it is second language. I am fluent in ASL so sometimes my words do confuse folks from time to time but to assume that I was playing with words? Oh, please.
No, a threat does not mean that someone feared the others. Not necessary. For example, we do not fear Cubans but we consider Cuba as a threat due to several factors. USA considers China a threat to the world economy, but we are not afraid of China. You need to realize that some threats can be based on different perspectives without fear itself.
|
|
Homyonkel
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/21/15 9:08 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ridor wrote: |
Homyonkel: I like to play words? Excuse me, English is not my first language, it is second language. I am fluent in ASL so sometimes my words do confuse folks from time to time but to assume that I was playing with words? Oh, please.
No, a threat does not mean that someone feared the others. Not necessary. For example, we do not fear Cubans but we consider Cuba as a threat due to several factors. USA considers China a threat to the world economy, but we are not afraid of China. You need to realize that some threats can be based on different perspectives without fear itself. |
Whew!!! That clears that up. Now I can feel secure knowing that if I'm ever threatened I have nothing to fear. Bring on those mad dogs!
|
|
|
|
