RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Charlie Creme's way-too-early preseason top 25.
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Fighting Artichoke



Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/18/16 4:26 pm    ::: Charlie Creme's way-too-early preseason top 25. Reply Reply with quote

He has a history of underranking Notre Dame, but not this year!

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15230529/notre-dame-fighting-irish-lead-way-way-too-early-preseason-top-25-rankings


linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5408



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/18/16 5:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

1. Notre Dame
2. Louisville
3. S Carolina
4. Connecticut
5. Baylor
6. Texas
7. Maryland
8. Ohio State
9. UCLA
10. Stanford
11. Tennessee
12. Mississippi State
13. Kentucky
14. Oklahoma
15. Florida State
16. Arizona State
17. Florida
18. Miami
19. Missouri
20. Syracuse
21. DePaul
22. Washington
23. Indiana
24. Oregon State
25. North Carolina State

Conference breakdown:

ACC 2 top 10 6 top 25
SEC 1 top 10 6 top 25
B1G 2 top 10 3 top 25
B12 2 top 10 3 top 25
P12 2 top 10 5 top 25
BE 1 top 25
other 1 top 10 1 top 25



Edited to give the BE the love they deserve. Cool




Last edited by linkster on 04/19/16 2:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63713



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/18/16 5:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

1. BAY
2. SC
3. ND
4. MD
5. CON
6. OH ST

TEN in top 10
MIZ & WAS in top 15



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
purduefanatic



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/18/16 7:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm surprised Ohio State is #8...if they are kept under control a little bit, this group has the potential of a Final Four/Championship game run. Mitchell is very hard to contain and those 3 transfers are all very capable of making major impacts at both ends of the court.

I think they could be scary good this year.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/18/16 8:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

purduefanatic wrote:
I'm surprised Ohio State is #8...if they are kept under control a little bit, this group has the potential of a Final Four/Championship game run. Mitchell is very hard to contain and those 3 transfers are all very capable of making major impacts at both ends of the court.

I think they could be scary good this year.


History suggest that integrating a bunch of transfers is rarely as smooth as all that. I think that reality is being conveniently ignored with SCar too.

I was more surprised that he had Baylor at 5. They'd be in the top 2 on my list.

With the loss of Graves, and no significant recruits, 11 seems pretty high for Tenn too.


Fighting Artichoke



Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/18/16 11:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
1. Notre Dame
2. Louisville
3. S Carolina
4. Connecticut
5. Baylor
6. Texas
7. Maryland
8. Ohio State
9. UCLA
10. Stanford
11. Tennessee
12. Mississippi State
13. Kentucky
14. Oklahoma
15. Florida State
16. Arizona State
17. Florida
18. Miami
19. Missouri
20. Syracuse
21. DePaul
22. Washington
23. Indiana
24. Oregon State
25. North Carolina State

Conference breakdown:

ACC 2 top 10 6 top 25
SEC 1 top 10 7 top 25
B1G 2 top 10 3 top 25
B12 2 top 10 3 top 25
P12 2 top 10 5 top 25
other 1 top 10 1 top 25


Just so you know, DePaul is not the SEC, so the SEC only has 6 teams in the top 25, and the Big East has 1 (not top 10), and the AAC has 1 (top 10).


PickledGinger



Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 1350



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/16 12:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm betting on Cal being the most improved team in the country next year and finishing in the top 4 of the PAC. And I'm saying this as one of the few people who did not have them in my Top 25 coming in to this year. If they land Ionescu, they shoot straight up into my Top 10, TBH.


Fighting Artichoke



Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/16 12:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PickledGinger wrote:
I'm betting on Cal being the most improved team in the country next year and finishing in the top 4 of the PAC. And I'm saying this as one of the few people who did not have them in my Top 25 coming in to this year. If they land Ionescu, they shoot straight up into my Top 10, TBH.


Cal was a disappointment this season, but injuries, transfers and mysterious absences (Green) decimated their team. But with no great help on the way in the 2016 recruiting class (unless Sabrina picks them), you think they will finish 4th in the PAC12?

The way I see it, UCLA and Stanford have to be considered the favorites. Are the Bears in the next tier with Washington (sans Walton), ASU, Oregon State, and Oregon? Is only one of those teams likely to beat them out?

Then the non-competitive teams would be USC, Wash St., Utah, Colorado and Arizona. Is that right?


PickledGinger



Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 1350



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/16 12:55 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Fighting Artichoke wrote:
PickledGinger wrote:
I'm betting on Cal being the most improved team in the country next year and finishing in the top 4 of the PAC. And I'm saying this as one of the few people who did not have them in my Top 25 coming in to this year. If they land Ionescu, they shoot straight up into my Top 10, TBH.


Cal was a disappointment this season, but injuries, transfers and mysterious absences (Green) decimated their team. But with no great help on the way in the 2016 recruiting class (unless Sabrina picks them), you think they will finish 4th in the PAC12?

The way I see it, UCLA and Stanford have to be considered the favorites. Are the Bears in the next tier with Washington (sans Walton), ASU, Oregon State, and Oregon? Is only one of those teams likely to beat them out?

Then the non-competitive teams would be USC, Wash St., Utah, Colorado and Arizona. Is that right?


Yeah, those are good points. I think next year might be down years for OSU and ASU but with those two coaches I could very well be wrong. I guess I'm just not used to the Pac-12 being so deep. It'll be a really competitive conference once again.


FollowtheCardinalRule



Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/16 1:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PickledGinger wrote:
I'm betting on Cal being the most improved team in the country next year and finishing in the top 4 of the PAC. And I'm saying this as one of the few people who did not have them in my Top 25 coming in to this year. If they land Ionescu, they shoot straight up into my Top 10, TBH.


I dunno, there were people proclaiming that Cal would be the top of the Pac-12 this year with Anigwe. I think that the trio of Green, Anigwe, and Cowling is a solid core; however, IMO the issue for Cal lies in their weaker guard play which I don't necessarily see being solved next season. Hopefully their depth will be better next season which will allow them to continue to compete with more rest day in and day out. I think that there will certainly be improvement, but, I'm not convinced that they will be Top 4 in the Pac--let alone Top 25 in the nation. I'd be curious to hear why you think that Cal will be the most improved in the country. Certainly, when you consider the standard that they set this season when you compare it to their recent history, it's hard not to improve upon that.

As for the rest of the Pac-12? I think I agree with Charlie that Bruins and the Trees are the early favorites for the conference. I'm slightly chagrined that a team that beat Notre Dame this year in the tournament--while returning all of its players doesn't get more respect. Sure, Stanford had a wonderful shooting night in knocking off the Irish--but Stanford only gets better next season with the arrival of Fingall, Carrington, and Wilson. Alanna Smith should continue to develop--and the Cardinal IMO should exorcise the demons of the past few seasons. (Hello, Santa Clara....I wanna forget you....(congrats anyway.)).

For the Bruins, yes, Nirra Fields and Kacy Swain are gone--but the cupboard is still brimming. Monique Billings would be my early pick for the POY if a certain force of nature who takes her name from a tasty fruit wasn't around. Jordin Canada, Monique Billings, and Kari Korver will keep the Bruins moving forward--and I expect greatness--I will be disappointed in an ordinary season for them.

After those two teams? There are a lot of questions that have yet to be answered. Washington obviously has established themselves as a force to be reckoned with; however, it remains to be seen how they deal with the departure of key players in Talia Walton and Alexus Atchley. Kelsey Plum attempted a staggering 299 FT's last season Shocked. Chantel Osahor returns--but apart from the departures, the health of Katie Collier will be key next season. The arrival of Aarion McDonald will be a welcome sight--but it'll be interesting to see how this team moves forward.

Oregon State still has the reliable services of Syndey Weise for at least another season. Gabriella Hanson, Katie McWilliams, and Marie Gulich return to form a solid core for this team that has to replace stalwarts Hamblin, Weisner, and Hunter. Obviously, there were times this season that Gulich helped Oregon State look a lot more cohesive on the floor when Hamblin was benched--so it'll be interesting to see how they move forward. Hanson and Weise combined for 251 assists between them--so obviously the players who make the team tick are still around--it's merely a matter of finding a way to get shots to fall and having a playmaker who can attempt to fill the shoes left by Weisner.

I agree that Arizona State faces questions with their guards--but I still have nightmares about Quinn Dornastauder playing Stanford. I think that the Sun Devils posts will make them a tough out--and given the nature of CTT coaching--I expect them to be prepared for this season and to be tough as nails. This is a team that can make games ugly--and I would be shocked if they moved away from that trademark as they fight to maintain their place in the PAC.

As for the rest? Oregon loses Alleyne, Petersen, and Cooper--but the return of Carzola, Bando, Vandenberg, and the arrival of Campasiano makes it an exciting time to be a Duck fan--this is going to be a fun team to watch and see how they grow over the course of the season. Utah has the imposing duo of Crozon and Potter returning--but there are still questions with the departure of Danielle Rodriguez--but I think that there's reason to be optimistic. Arizona hired Barnes--but the rebuild should take time--but I'm excited to see how the program changes its direction. USC? I just give up trying to figure out what they're going to do. Wazzu? Colorado? I'll check back in with them next season.

Okay. Rant over. I obviously care too much about the PAC. I don't know what to do if I move to SEC Country.


FollowtheCardinalRule



Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/16 1:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Fighting Artichoke wrote:
PickledGinger wrote:
I'm betting on Cal being the most improved team in the country next year and finishing in the top 4 of the PAC. And I'm saying this as one of the few people who did not have them in my Top 25 coming in to this year. If they land Ionescu, they shoot straight up into my Top 10, TBH.


Cal was a disappointment this season, but injuries, transfers and mysterious absences (Green) decimated their team. But with no great help on the way in the 2016 recruiting class (unless Sabrina picks them), you think they will finish 4th in the PAC12?

The way I see it, UCLA and Stanford have to be considered the favorites. Are the Bears in the next tier with Washington (sans Walton), ASU, Oregon State, and Oregon? Is only one of those teams likely to beat them out?

Then the non-competitive teams would be USC, Wash St., Utah, Colorado and Arizona. Is that right?


If I had to go ahead and make a prediction right now I'd say this. It's hard to keep Washington out of the top tier because they obviously have the best player--but Walton's absence makes it much easier to focus on her.)

UCLA
Stanford

XXXXX

Washington
Arizona State
Oregon (I think their guard play and three point shooting is great--they'll be good--the emergence of Vandenberg is key.)
Oregon State

xxx

Utah (I'm a sucker for Potter and Crozon--also this is a team that managed to beat the Coyotes this season as well as Washington. I think good things are happening.)
Cal

xxx

USC (I'll admit. I have no idea what's going on here apart from the departure of Fagbenle.)
xxx

Arizona
Colorado
Wazzu


Stephen Shirley



Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 787



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/16 9:56 am    ::: Love the mid-major Reply Reply with quote

It's hard to rank teams in the 20-30 range as they are largely interchangeable. But I wish C-USA rival Western Kentucky could have gotten some recognition. From a squad that went 27-7, they return their top-6 performers from last year and get their starting PG back who went down in the 2nd game of the season with an ACL injury.

Depending on how they schedule (gotta be better than 2015) and perform in OOC play, I think the Lady Toppers will be ranked by Thanksgiving.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/16 10:02 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Sadly, he probably has UConn too low



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
FollowtheCardinalRule



Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/16 11:17 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Sadly, he probably has UConn too low


I think it remains to be seen how UConn will gel together next season. Katie Lou, Gabby, and Kia are a good start--but I think that there will certainly be growing pains for this team--but by the end of the season, they may very well be the best. It remains to be seen how healthy Nat Butler is, and the development of Katie Lou into a tour de force will be crucial to their year. I almost wish that Jenkins and Williams had another year in the AAC cause I think that there'd be a real battle for the title.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/16 12:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FollowtheCardinalRule wrote:
pilight wrote:
Sadly, he probably has UConn too low


I think it remains to be seen how UConn will gel together next season. Katie Lou, Gabby, and Kia are a good start--but I think that there will certainly be growing pains for this team--but by the end of the season, they may very well be the best. It remains to be seen how healthy Nat Butler is, and the development of Katie Lou into a tour de force will be crucial to their year. I almost wish that Jenkins and Williams had another year in the AAC cause I think that there'd be a real battle for the title.


Hmmm? That certainly seems contradictory. Not sure how you can say the next year's UConn team may be the best in the country and at the same time say that if Jenkins and Williams were back there would be a battle for the AAC title, because with or without Jenkins and Williams USF would be no where near the dozen teams at the top of the rankings.


PickledGinger



Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 1350



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/16 1:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Regarding Cal: This year they started 2 freshmen, 2 sophomores and a junior. That is not a recipe for success, even if one of those Freshmen is a top player in the conference.

IF Anigwe consistently dominates like she did against ASU in the Pac-12 tournament, IF they can take more advantage of their size on defense, IF they stay healthy, IF Cavanaugh returns as another option at point guard, IF Cowling settles into her game and becomes a real scoring threat then yes, I believe that Cal can have a drastically improved season next year. It's a lot of ifs, but with the graduations of players like Fields, Hamblin, Weisner, Alleyne, Hempen and Davis, there are a lot of teams with a lot of questions to answer.

Any way it pans out, it should be a fun season. At the very least I'm looking forward to seeing my girl Kelsey obliterate some conference records (hopefully while helping to integrate a talented Freshman class into another Tournament-ready team.)


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/16 4:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I believe Cavanaugh is playing for Rutgers ...

Cal has some issues, I think, as the pieces don't quite fit. Gabby Green's shooting issues are a problem, and neither Mikayla Cowling nor Courtney Range are really power forwards. Both are tweeners, I'd say, and need to be surrounded by the right combination of talent to maximize their abilities.

That said, if point guard Asha Thomas makes a leap forward, and Green, Cowling, Range and Anigwe mesh their undoubted talents, the Bears could be pretty good.

But the time is now ...



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14102



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/16 4:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
I believe Cavanaugh is playing for Rutgers ...

Cal has some issues, I think, as the pieces don't quite fit. Gabby Green's shooting issues are a problem, and neither Mikayla Cowling nor Courtney Range are really power forwards. Both are tweeners, I'd say, and need to be surrounded by the right combination of talent to maximize their abilities.

That said, if point guard Asha Thomas makes a leap forward, and Green, Cowling, Range and Anigwe mesh their undoubted talents, the Bears could be pretty good.

But the time is now ...


The played well the beginning of the season, and the issues seemed to be fatigue than chemistry. Next year with more players fatigue shouldn't be an issue, and if they mix up their play like they did more towards the end of the season to throw off teams I think they should bounce back to the upper half of the Pac-12 standings next season.


patsweetpat



Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2306
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/16 7:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FollowtheCardinalRule wrote:
For the Bruins, yes, Nirra Fields and Kacy Swain are gone--but the cupboard is still brimming. Monique Billings would be my early pick for the POY if a certain force of nature who takes her name from a tasty fruit wasn't around. Jordin Canada, Monique Billings, and Kari Korver will keep the Bruins moving forward--and I expect greatness--I will be disappointed in an ordinary season for them.


I love my Bruins and I think they'll have a very good year next year, but I fear that greatness will depend upon improvement in their half-court offense, which itself will depend upon better efficiency and production from the perimeter. Last year (for the last several years, actually) UCLA was too easy to defend in the half-court: play full-denial on Korver and sag off the rest of the backcourt... go under screens, fill passing lanes, clog the paint, yer golden. If Bruin guards and wings can be a more consistent perimeter threat in 2016-17, MoMo and Laj will have a much easier time down below, and JC3 will have lanes aplenty to drive. Points will be scored. Wins will be won. Barring improved perimeter production... well, again, I still think UCLA will have a very good season, but breaking into that next level may be a challenge for them.

Fingers crossed that Nic Kornet may be helpful re: the above.

In any event, I'm already excited for the 2016-17 Pac-12 season!


bcdawg04



Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Posts: 562
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/16 11:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

UCLA and Stanford are safe picks when projecting the conference--the top teams with the fewest personnel losses. The other top teams lose significant players. Most do have highly regarded freshmen coming in--but freshmen can be very unpredictable.

PickledGinger wrote:
Regarding Cal: This year they started 2 freshmen, 2 sophomores and a junior. That is not a recipe for success, even if one of those Freshmen is a top player in the conference.

IF Anigwe consistently dominates like she did against ASU in the Pac-12 tournament, IF they can take more advantage of their size on defense, IF they stay healthy, IF Cavanaugh returns as another option at point guard, IF Cowling settles into her game and becomes a real scoring threat then yes, I believe that Cal can have a drastically improved season next year. It's a lot of ifs, but with the graduations of players like Fields, Hamblin, Weisner, Alleyne, Hempen and Davis, there are a lot of teams with a lot of questions to answer.


Cal didn't play at UW this year, so I only saw them at the Pac-12 tourney. I saw them survive a good Utah team and handle an ASU team that was obviously not peaking at the right time, before falling to UCLA.

Cal played some very unorthodox ball. They just continually lobbed the ball into the post. Their super athletic post players with the amazing, soft hands got to any of the halfway decent lobs. I don't remember much in the way of bounce passes. Definitely not much in the way jump shooting. It was basically just toss some 50-50 balls into the post and leave it to the athleticism of their forwards to make something happen. If they had some guard play, they could be pretty dangerous.

FollowtheCardinalRule wrote:
USC (I'll admit. I have no idea what's going on here apart from the departure of Fagbenle.)


Does anyone know what is going on with USC? I read that they had two players suspended for academic reasons, which seemed to derail their season. Did that get sorted out and will Jordan Adams return next year, or is she finished?

And seriously, who measured Courtney Jaco at 5'8"? Laughing

patsweetpat wrote:
In any event, I'm already excited for the 2016-17 Pac-12 season!


ME TOO! I know the odds of UW repeating this past season's success are small, but then again so were the odds of achieving what we ultimately did.


PRballer



Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 2535



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/20/16 12:17 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Syracuse is too low. Their leading scorer/playmaker returns as do three other starters.

Q's system is guard heavy and he has four guards coming in.

They will be dangerous in the ACC!


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1258



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/20/16 9:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PRballer wrote:
Syracuse is too low. Their leading scorer/playmaker returns as do three other starters.

Q's system is guard heavy and he has four guards coming in.

They will be dangerous in the ACC!


My problem is that my immediate reaction to several is "too low"
With the exception of UConn, none struck me immediately as "too high".


patsweetpat



Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2306
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/20/16 3:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Phil wrote:
My problem is that my immediate reaction to several is "too low"
With the exception of UConn, none struck me immediately as "too high".


I, myself, am not so sure about Louisville at #2, and I'm also not convinced about Oklahoma at #14, or NC State being ranked at all. I think those 3 teams may be too high. But what do I know?


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/20/16 3:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Sadly, he probably has UConn too low


I look to UConn's 2016-2017 team with the expected transition to Samuelson and Collier as akin to 2004-2005/2005-2006, when Strother (a wing, like KLS) and Turner (an undersized post with a developing perimter game).

The 2004-2005/2005-2006 teams struggled, in some respects. The 2004-2005 team had difficulty finding a point guard. Highly touted/ranked guard Ketia Swaner started the season at the point, but would only end up starting five games all season, as UConn employed a "point guard by committee approach," with Ann Strother having to balance scoring and with some playmaking as a wing.

And that 04-05 team lacked players who really could consistently create their own shots, with the exception of Charde Houston, who, as a freshman, had her blindingly quick spin move to free her up for a short jumper or to drive to the basket and her pull up jumper from ten feet that she would take on the run with her leaping ability. UConn finished 25-8.

For 2005-2006, UConn had highly touted/regarded/ranked PG Renee Montgomery as a freshman to add speed and stability to the PG position in the starting lineup. Strother provided assists from the wing, with Mel Thomas as the starting shooting guard.

But there really was no "go to" player, as Strother, Turner, and Thomas all averaged between 11 and 13 points (with a solid 9 ppg each from Houston and Montgomery) and took turns being the first option/leading scorer. There was no "alpha dog," if you will pardon the impression.

Now Crystal Dangerfield is coming in that the PG position and is ranked much higher than either Swanier or Montgomery was in their respective classes (IIRC, Montgomery was a solid top 20, with some having her higher, while Swanier had a mix between top 20/30; Dangerfield comes in as a consensus top five player). And UConn still has Kia Nurse and Gabby Williams; Nurse was a solid scorer with over 100 assists and a good A/TO ratio, while Williams is an athletic marvel who contributed 9 points and 5.6 rebounds as an undersized forward and part-time starter.\

That being said, UConn has to adjust to having players who were 4th, 5th, and 6th options who were able to contribute (score, rebound, garner assists, etc.) and be effective playing next to three all-time greats and legends (at both UConn and in WCBB) to becoming the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd options. Arguably, this may be a tougher adjustment than 2004-2005, as the only major loss (and it was a MAJOR loss) was Taurasi (with no disrespect intended to Maria Conlon or Morgan Valley, but they were not of the same caliber as Jefferson and Tuck). Not to mention, 2004-2005 was also an odd year because so many programs had lost great players to graduation besides UConn (e.g., Duke, Stanford, Minnesota, Kansas State, Purdue, Texas, Penn State, etc.).

I think UConn will have a "difficult" time in 2016-2017, but "difficult" is a relative term. In other words, I would not be surprised if UConn lost 4-5 games (or maybe six games) and "only" made the Elite Eight, instead of the Final Four. Remember, even the 2013 national championship team lost 4 games.

But that is the standard that Geno Auriemma and the UConn women's basketball program have set. When "difficult" means an "Elite Eight" finish instead of a national championship or making the Final Four, it demonstrates an incredible standard of excellence that is simply awesome to behold.


SDHoops



Joined: 09 Nov 2007
Posts: 1183



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/20/16 6:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm surprised that South Dakota State didn't at least receive votes! Returns all 5 starters from a team that was a bucket away from the Sweet 16. Boever and Cornemann will be missed off the bench but they combined to average like 7 ppg.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin