UConn vs So. Carolina prediction thread

[UConn2SF]

i think tlaw and pulido play alittle....maybe the last 5,6 mins of the game when the games is far far outa USC's reach

 

[Bigpetunia]

Dawn is doing a fine job of building a program at SC, but in no way can one compare the "early" years between her and Geno.

Geno, an unknown coach, took over a national doormat, from an afterthought conference, in a town that doesn't appear on most maps, playing in an out house with a leaky roof. In basically one recruiting cycle, he built a Final Four team and since then, they've stood atop the basketball world for 2 straight decades, poised to win a 10th title in 20 years, despite absorbing numerous career and/or season ending injuries to 1st team AAs.

Unprecedented and likely to be unduplicated.

It's not that I disagree with you...I don't. But, as UConn fans, in our collective zeal to see our favorite team standing alone at the top of the heap, we sometimes forget, I think, to be sufficiently concerned about the structural health of "the heap" itself. In that regard, I think we are often too reluctant to give credit where it is fully due, for no reason other than it is allegedly merited by a "pretender." So Dawn should not be compared to Geno? Fine...I'll go along with that. But what she has accomplished in her own relatively brief tenure is pretty terrific, and great for the game. And, if she did it with a little "attitude," so much the better, in my opinion....gets everybody stirred up a bit...also good for the game!

 

[VA Huskie]

Well said Big. But what most forget when comparing the two is that Dawn was in the Final Four multiple times, an All American, an Olympian, and developed Temple into a tourney team - all prior to SC. Other than coming from UVA, Geno had none of that background pre UConn.

 

[Woof 101]

Do you not find predictions of 30 point victories to be arrogant?

You should realize that some fans used to winning by 50 a lot mean 30 as a compliment! To find all our fans as arrogant is like doing the same for the weather man or woman. Nobody knows what they are getting until the event takes place. It's a speculation conversation backed by statistics and team loyalty on both sides. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

They'll be playing the 9 time National champion and the two time defending champion while defending their No. 1 ranking at Storrs on national TV with most people anticipating a UConn win and there won't be any jitters???? I'm not inclined to believe that. We aren't Duke and it's not like SC has had an awful lot of exposure to this scenario. Have they? They may play out of their minds and fool us all but I'm inclined to think there is far more likelihood that the scope of the game will more likely have them quite anxious. It's also amazing that people have Dawn Staley as the second coming. She's obviously a good coach and a good recruiter but her teams have been good teams, not great teams as of yet and this team totally underachieved last year in the tournament despite being a number one seed. Did they choke then??? They may be facing the same type self induced pressure to perform that resulted in that loss. Time will tell.

The 2014-15 UCONN team has not won a national championship. Last year's team will not be playing on February 9th, it will be this year's team.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

People don't realize how little was at UConn when Geno arrived. He even said in last night's show that UConn becoming a nationally known school and brand is a relatively new thing, as in the last couple of decades. Geno built something from nothing. Staley will certainly never be able to say that, because as was said, she benefits "from the riches of the SEC." I bet Staley has more than one rotary phone from which to do her recruiting.

 

[hoophuskee]

One solid example may be the Duke game: at their place, a top-10 opponent that USC doesn't play very often. USC played 10 players.

USC has it's system, and UConn has it's. Coach Staley prefers to give her reserves of mostly younger, inexperienced players (only one senior among them) as much experience as possible and learn how to become contributors in tight game situations, while Auriemma prefers to rely more on his veteran starters to dictate the game outcomes - even against lesser opponents who are greatly out-matched before the 1st halves are decided - rather than let his reserves use the moot periods late in games to hone their craft.

But could this be a reason why UConn's offense seems so explosive, while USC's doesn't appear to be so? Could be. The question is this: USC isn't chopped liver as a defensive team in it's own right, and USC has great depth in the paint where 4 of the 5 (including F Welch) are very experienced now and major contributors. USC's bench has played a ton. How long will UConn's starting 5 hold out before y'all have to go to the bench? Against Notre Dame they gave y'all 12 points. Versus Duke they added 13. They scored 2 vs St. Johns...

Just started watching UCONN last year, have you? Ahhhh- just kidding.

But I see what you mean when you speak of "honing their craft." Geno doesn't do a good job of that at all for his players. After all Kiah Stokes hasn't honed her craft. She is just as good now as she was her 1st mintue in practice as a frosh. All those few mintus as frosh has really worn on her mentally as a sr. And don't YOU believe all the hype that she has a future pro career - no sireee In addition - if I recall one year Geno had prior year all-american Bria Hartley came off the bench- she didn't hone her craft much. Overrated hype. And of course when we won the championship 2 years prior players like MoJeff and Tuck didn't hone their craft much- they were just lucky coming off the bench. And of course Stewie was in the doghouse a lot - she didn't hone her craft much that year before she stepped in as a starter. Nor did Kelly Faris -- yep Kelly Faris-- by her sr year she shot 41.5% from 3. She struggled to hone her craft too from her frosh year too.

And of course- you're identifying the importance of a bench by using "points scored." Sureeeee---- our bench (i.e Kiah Stokes) was near useless especially vs Notre Dame -- because as you defined the productivity of a bench - she only scored 6 points. I guess those 18 rebounds and 4 blocks weren't that important. And of course us huskyfans know that Kelly Faris bench play was defined not by her defense and ball-handling and decision-making but by her ppg.

Ahhh- I was just having fun with you. You got a good team. IMO you'll learn as you have the pleasure to watch A'ja Wilson grow as a player that teams that aren't as good as yours - they aren't going to wear her down no matter how many inferior players they throw at her. Just as you're not going wear us down. We'll lose only if your stars play like stars - though other things need to break right too. UCONN had 4 players to throw at Candace Parker but she still scored 30 on 12-22 shooting and dunked on us. Your team should start Wilson or Coates or both. Your bench is nothing more than a pretty pearl face hiding behind a mask. You need to rip off the mask of one or both and stop pretending that wearing down a team is more important than playing your best.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

So, according to you, taking a team from 10-18 to number one in the country is "doing nothing". How many championships did Geno win in his first 6 years?

cockhrnleghrn- - -1st on Jan. 29th is different than 1st on April 8th!

 

[Buzzyboy]

Dawn is doing a fine job of building a program at SC, but in no way can one compare the "early" years between her and Geno.

Geno, an unknown coach, took over a national doormat, from an afterthought conference, in a town that doesn't appear on most maps, playing in an out house with a leaky roof. In basically one recruiting cycle, he built a Final Four team and since then, they've stood atop the basketball world for 2 straight decades, poised to win a 10th title in 20 years, despite absorbing numerous career and/or season ending injuries to 1st team AAs.

Unprecedented and likely to be unduplicated.

I feel almost as if I'd written your remarks myself. Your thoughts on this and mine are so in tune, it's scary and you said them so eloquently. Great job!!!

 

[Buzzyboy]

The 2014-15 UCONN team has not won a national championship. Last year's team will not be playing on February 9th, it will be this year's team.

Well, I'm sure you're hoping that the 2013-2014 South Carolina team isn't playing this year because though they looked good on paper, getting the #1 seed in the NCAA tournament, they fell VERY EARLY in the tourney, never sniffing the Final Four. Will this years team fare any better??? Who knows? A lot of people had a lot of faith in their abilities last year and they choked. Have they learned anything? Maybe they'll be better but maybe the pressure of a big game or big games is something they can't conquer. We shall see. By the way, Geno had a Final Four team in his sixth season after taking over a program who had only one WINNING season on his arrival. Your coach came into a much better environment that Geno did, with much better facilities and in a better conference, at least at the time that he first started coaching. Staley has a lot of catching up to do to even sniff where Geno has brought the Huskies.

 

[geneticrex]

I feel almost as if I'd written your remarks myself. Your thoughts on this and mine are so in tune, it's scary and you said them so eloquently. Great job!!!

I've always considered myself far more abrasive than eloquent, but thanks.

 

[geneticrex]

It's not that I disagree with you...I don't. But, as UConn fans, in our collective zeal to see our favorite team standing alone at the top of the heap, we sometimes forget, I think, to be sufficiently concerned about the structural health of "the heap" itself. In that regard, I think we are often too reluctant to give credit where it is fully due, for no reason other than it is allegedly merited by a "pretender." So Dawn should not be compared to Geno? Fine...I'll go along with that. But what she has accomplished in her own relatively brief tenure is pretty terrific, and great for the game. And, if she did it with a little "attitude," so much the better, in my opinion....gets everybody stirred up a bit...also good for the game!

I routinely give credit where credit is due simply because I value my credibility above all else. Hence my appreciation of the fine job Staley is doing at SC.

This is why I always strive to avoid telling it like it ain't.

 

[hoophuskee]

Reading comprehension much? The only reason I brought up the prospect of a team wearing down another, was as a response to Tonyc bringing up the possibility to begin with. I even quoted his post in mine that you're quoting now, to help the needy. Your last paragraph that I bolded would be better utilized being posted in response to HIM, not me. It's HIS argument, not mine....

Nice try. But from the below post where does tony mention anything about "honing their craft" as you had suggested?

I see where you are coming from now about ppg -- sorry.

No need for me to talk to tony. He and I are on the same page. Both he and I think we are going to win. I don't know point spreads - for me it doesn't matter. I agree with the concept that I think many like tony feel too- that USC's lineup isn't going to wear us down. That's the concept I agree with tony and quite a few others when he says "I keep reading that SC has a deep bench. So what you can only play 5 players at a time."

I don't know your team well enough about who will be worn down so there is no point for me to go further on that. I just don't see your team able ot wear us down. Other than Wilson - I don't believe in your freshmen.

By the way, do you think your team can press us hard to push tempo with the hopes in the 2nd half to "wear down" Jefferson or get her in foul trouble?

 

[rvwsleep]

One solid example may be the Duke game: at their place, a top-10 opponent that USC doesn't play very often. USC played 10 players.

USC has it's system, and UConn has it's. Coach Staley prefers to give her reserves of mostly younger, inexperienced players (only one senior among them) as much experience as possible and learn how to become contributors in tight game situations, while Auriemma prefers to rely more on his veteran starters to dictate the game outcomes - even against lesser opponents who are greatly out-matched before the 1st halves are decided - rather than let his reserves use the moot periods late in games to hone their craft.

UConn does play all their available players (Ekmark missed some games early to injury, while USC's White has missed half the season to injury, and Duckett half the season to "Coach'es Decisions"), and they have started pulling the starters earlier in recent blow-out AAC gms and let the reserves play more. But if you look at the average minutes played for each team, you'd see a noticeable disparity there as well.

The following are the breakdown for conference games for each USC and UConn regarding the average of contributions of bench points (BP) scored in each game:


USC:
AU: 12 players, 39 BP
LSU: 13 players, 47 BP
UA: 13 players, 55 BP
UK: 11 players, 15 BP
MO: 11 players, 23 BP
UF: 14 players, 47 BP
TAMU: 12 players, 41 BP

USC has averaged 12.3 players seeing game time in SEC gms, and it's bench has averaged 38.1 ppg during that stretch. USC is beating it's SEC opponents by an average of 22.6 points per game.


CT:
SMU: 10 players, 22 BP
ECU: 11 players, 15 BP
Tulsa: 11 players, 23 BP
SMU: 11 players, 33 BP
Temple: 11 players, 18 BP
USF: 11 players, 19 BP
UCF: 11 players, 31 BP
Cinn: 11 players, 30 BP
ECU: 11 players, 28 BP


UConn has averaged 10.9 players seeing game time in AAC gms, and it's bench has averaged 24.3 ppg during that stretch. UConn is beating it's AAC opponents by an average of exactly 50 points per game.

So USC is beating it's conference foes by less than half of what UConn is beating it's AAC rivals, but USC's bench is contributing so much more to their cause than what UConn's bench contributes?

What can one conclude here? I doubt that even the most biased UConn fans here would argue much that the AAC (minus UConn) is on the same competitive level of the SEC. The games are more physical, with more fouls called, in the senior league compared to the younger. USC plays it's bench more and gets more contributions from it's reserves. As a result veteran starters like Welch and Ibiam are recording career lows in ppg and rpg, despite averaging 59.0 and 58.8 FG %s, the top 2 on the team. Is it because they struggle to score? No. They just don't stay on the floor as much these days, and they don't take as large a % of the team's total shots as they used to. There's much more depth and fewer shot attempts to go around.

With all the minutes the Gamecock reserves play, do you think the team overall is tired? That they will get tired in the game versus UConn? Nope. But could this be a reason why UConn's offense seems so explosive, while USC's doesn't appear to be so? Could be. The question is this: USC isn't chopped liver as a defensive team in it's own right, and USC has great depth in the paint where 4 of the 5 (including F Welch) are very experienced now and major contributors. USC's bench has played a ton. How long will UConn's starting 5 hold out before y'all have to go to the bench? Against Notre Dame they gave y'all 12 points. Versus Duke they added 13. They scored 2 vs St. Johns...

Yes, in most games the USC bench does play a lot. But let's take a closer look at the Duke game since you mentioned it specifically.
"One solid example may be the Duke game: at their place, a top-10 opponent that USC doesn't play very often. USC played 10 players." Solid example ?
In the Duke game, Gaines played 1 minute, Cuevas played 3 minutes and Roy played 7 minutes ! So essentially, the rotation consisted of only 7 players.
In the other close game that USC played in, the one against Syracuse, again only 7 players recorded double figures in minutes played.
So in the 2 closest games that USC has played in this year, they went with, for all practical purposes, a 7 player rotation.
I'm curious, how many players do you think USC will play for more than 10 minutes in the game against UConn ?

 

[connboy77]

The smartest move Dawn ever made was scheduling UCONN in the regular season. The first time a team plays UCONN its a culture shock. They in all probability have never played a team like UCONN. Dawn does not realistically expect to win in February. She wants to give her team the best chance to win the National Championship in April.

 

[EricLA]

Yes, in most games the USC bench does play a lot. But let's take a closer look at the Duke game since you mentioned it specifically.
"One solid example may be the Duke game: at their place, a top-10 opponent that USC doesn't play very often. USC played 10 players." Solid example ?
In the Duke game, Gaines played 1 minute, Cuevas played 3 minutes and Roy played 7 minutes ! So essentially, the rotation consisted of only 7 players.
In the other close game that USC played in, the one against Syracuse, again only 7 players recorded double figures in minutes played.
So in the 2 closest games that USC has played in this year, they went with, for all practical purposes, a 7 player rotation.
I'm curious, how many players do you think USC will play for more than 10 minutes in the game against UConn ?

Very well said! But sometimes other posters don't like messy facts getting in the way of a good rant!!

The other thing I'd like to address is the delusion that UCONN somehow doesn't "develop its' bench" or that if you aren't a star you won't get PT at UCONN. For the purposes of this little example, I'm leaving Lawler and Pulido out because no matter how much they may be scholarship players, are great kids and teammates, they started out as walk ons and are not going to be part of big games.

First on the playing time issue. Courtney Ekmark has only played in 10 games but is averaging over 14 minutes per game. Yes over 14. And this is a kid who has been brought back slowly because she had an injury that derailed her for about 10 games. Next up on the MPG chart is Williams at 16.5 MPG. Probably the most efficient Husky, she's averaging over 8 PPG in her "limited" minutes.

So the crap opposing fans (and coaches) like to spew about "going to UCONN and sitting on the bench" is just that - a big fat load of crap. Getting back to SC, if you don't count White who is injured, they have 9 players who average over 14 minutes per game. Freshman Cuevas, juniors Roy and Dozier, and senior Gaines all get under 17 MPG for SC, so I guess we should be talking about how SC doesn't give PT or develop their upper classmen since Roy and Dozier don't get the PT of the other players and on top of it, both average less than 5 PPG - and Gaines is even lower - a senior who only averages 9 MPG and 1.3 PPG - stats worse than UCONN's own Ekmark, who is only a freshman coming off an injury.

So now let's address the ridiculousness of UCONN "developing" players, including those on the bench. Does anyone seriously believe this or is it just the "company line" that they spew? There is not a single program in the history of women's basketball that develops their players as well as UCONN does - from the time they set foot on campus to the time they leave as seniors. Some kids come to UCONN and will ALWAYS come off the bench - role players who play sometimes a huge role (Battle and Swanier almost always came off the bench), yet they were developed so well they had solid pro careers.

Jess Moore, Ashley Battle, Ketia Swanier, Renee Montgomery, Kalana Greene, Stef Dolson, and Sue Bird were ALL players ranked outside the top 15 coming out of high school - several of them well out of the top 25 (Dolson and Moore). And yet every single one of those players not only had great success at UCONN, but went on to have solid to phenomenal pro careers. Even a player like Charles (a #1 kid) was so raw coming out of HS that it took the staff time to develop out of her the bad habits and turn her in to an Olympian.

Some will say "well UCONN gets the best recruits so obviously they will have the most success in the pros and beyond. Another load of crap. I use Tennessee as an example because I'm most familiar with them. Elzy, Randall, Snow, Pillow, Jackson, Robinson, Ely, Zolman, Hornbuckle, Wiley-Gatewood, Bjorkland, Cain, Baugh, Spani, and probably several others were all kids who were top 15, many of them top 5, but aside from Snow, not a single one had a pro career even as good as Swanier's. So who really develops players better than UCONN? .... crickets.... exactly.

The comments critical of UCONN are all fantasy comments, and IMHO used by fans and coaches to try to make UCONN look "less than", so potential recruits will take a pass on the greatest program in WCBB. It's unfortunate if anyone parent or player is fooled by these misrepresentations, but given UCONN's success it's not surprising others will resort to almost anything...

 

[Buzzyboy]

Very well said! But sometimes other posters don't like messy facts getting in the way of a good rant!!

The other thing I'd like to address is the delusion that UCONN somehow doesn't "develop its' bench" or that if you aren't a star you won't get PT at UCONN. For the purposes of this little example, I'm leaving Lawler and Pulido out because no matter how much they may be scholarship players, are great kids and teammates, they started out as walk ons and are not going to be part of big games.

First on the playing time issue. Courtney Ekmark has only played in 10 games but is averaging over 14 minutes per game. Yes over 14. And this is a kid who has been brought back slowly because she had an injury that derailed her for about 10 games. Next up on the MPG chart is Williams at 16.5 MPG. Probably the most efficient Husky, she's averaging over 8 PPG in her "limited" minutes.

So the crap opposing fans (and coaches) like to spew about "going to UCONN and sitting on the bench" is just that - a big fat load of crap. Getting back to SC, if you don't count White who is injured, they have 9 players who average over 14 minutes per game. Freshman Cuevas, juniors Roy and Dozier, and senior Gaines all get under 17 MPG for SC, so I guess we should be talking about how SC doesn't give PT or develop their upper classmen since Roy and Dozier don't get the PT of the other players and on top of it, both average less than 5 PPG - and Gaines is even lower - a senior who only averages 9 MPG and 1.3 PPG - stats worse than UCONN's own Ekmark, who is only a freshman coming off an injury.

So now let's address the ridiculousness of UCONN "developing" players, including those on the bench. Does anyone seriously believe this or is it just the "company line" that they spew? There is not a single program in the history of women's basketball that develops their players as well as UCONN does - from the time they set foot on campus to the time they leave as seniors. Some kids come to UCONN and will ALWAYS come off the bench - role players who play sometimes a huge role (Battle and Swanier almost always came off the bench), yet they were developed so well they had solid pro careers.

Jess Moore, Ashley Battle, Ketia Swanier, Renee Montgomery, Kalana Greene, Stef Dolson, and Sue Bird were ALL players ranked outside the top 15 coming out of high school - several of them well out of the top 25 (Dolson and Moore). And yet every single one of those players not only had great success at UCONN, but went on to have solid to phenomenal pro careers. Even a player like Charles (a #1 kid) was so raw coming out of HS that it took the staff time to develop out of her the bad habits and turn her in to an Olympian.

Some will say "well UCONN gets the best recruits so obviously they will have the most success in the pros and beyond. Another load of crap. I use Tennessee as an example because I'm most familiar with them. Elzy, Randall, Snow, Pillow, Jackson, Robinson, Ely, Zolman, Hornbuckle, Wiley-Gatewood, Bjorkland, Cain, Baugh, Spani, and probably several others were all kids who were top 15, many of them top 5, but aside from Snow, not a single one had a pro career even as good as Swanier's. So who really develops players better than UCONN? .... crickets.... exactly.

The comments critical of UCONN are all fantasy comments, and IMHO used by fans and coaches to try to make UCONN look "less than", so potential recruits will take a pass on the greatest program in WCBB. It's unfortunate if anyone parent or player is fooled by these misrepresentations, but given UCONN's success it's not surprising others will resort to almost anything...

I would say another program that has had a massive amount of top ten talent and is right up there with Tennessee and may have actually had more top ten kids in the past 20 years than has Connecticut. It seems almost every other year Duke has a number 1 ranked recruiting class or at least is in the running to have one. I'm not as familiar with their names and I don't follow the WNBA too much but I can assure you that there's not nearly the amount of Duke players who've played in the WNBA and elsewhere, who have had the successful professional careers that have UConn kids. Not even close!

 

[EricLA]

I would say another program that has had a massive amount of top ten talent and is right up there with Tennessee and may have actually had more top ten kids in the past 20 years than has Connecticut. It seems almost every other year Duke has a number 1 ranked recruiting class or at least is in the running to have one. I'm not as familiar with their names and I don't follow the WNBA too much but I can assure you that there's not nearly the amount of Duke players who've played in the WNBA and elsewhere, who have had the successful professional careers that have UConn kids. Not even close!

Great point on Duke, I didn't use them as an example though for 2 reasons -

1. I'm not as familiar with their program and past players
2. Their fans have never gone on and on like SOME Tennessee fans about UCONN blah blah (altho lately it's all about cheating and not developing players, but that's a whole separate discussion!)

Of course, the amount of top kids who transfer FROM Duke probably skews any stats one could put together... (sorry Triad and Cam! )

 

[hoophuskee]

See? This is what I mean. I posted this:



And you respond with this:



I see this:





What we have here.....is a failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach.....

You're right. You suggest "honing their craft" -- and you say you can't reach me. You're right. It sureeee sounded like you were saying USC's style hones the bench player's craft" as if implied Geno's style doesn't. And I didn't see where that had anything to with the reply tony made to you.

 

[hoophuskee]

I did say the honing their craft part. It was my contribution to the thread discussion - I didn't imply that tonyc stated anything that had to do with honing the craft. I compared the HCs of each program, and the "systems" they seemed to employ, IMO. The honing their craft part regarded my observations there. Had nothing to do with wearing a team down, as you implied it did. The wearing a team down part was contributed by tonyc, and I responded to him about that point alone...


And then you responded with a multi-paragraph post, . . .

Of course you don't....

I understand the point you made about the bench. I also understand you are trying to get out of “honing their craft”comment observation which tony never made and tried to say it was all in reply to tony until your last post to me. That’s why I said “Nice try.”


My multi paragraph post was two parts. One part was about your “honing their craft” comment. That was the first paragraph. The second and third were about ppg from the bench. I conceded the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs but still stand by my initial question to you if you just started watching wcbb or UCONN in the past year?

In italics below is what I said: To paraphrase I think when you say “I compared the HCs of each program, and the "systems" they seemed to employ” and as far as that being YOUR observation, I felt your observations/ evaluation as misguided. My initial 1st paragraph(in italics below) reply to you had nothing to do with wearing down the opponent either. But it was in regards to your observation about “the differences between the coaches.” Your posts seem to imply YOUR coach “hones the bench” while Geno doesn’t. When you make comments like in below bold when you refer to Geno's style:

. . . even against lesser opponents who are greatly out-matched before the 1st halves are decided - rather than let his reserves use the moot periods late in games to hone their craft.

I think the ending statement “rather than . . . hone their craft” is crazy / or misleading or a flat out misinterpretation of what “hone their craft” really means. The below statement in italics that I initially made to you certainly indicates six players from the past two years that came from Geno’s bench certainly HAD/HAVE “honed their craft” extremely successfully. Thus I disagree with YOUR evaluation/comparisons between the two coaches. That’s why I asked you the question if you’ve watched UCONN other than last year.

But I see what you mean when you speak of "honing their craft." Geno doesn't do a good job of that at all for his players. After all Kiah Stokes hasn't honed her craft. She is just as good now as she was her 1st minutes in practice as a frosh. All those few minutes as frosh has really worn on her mentally as a sr. And don't YOU believe all the hype that she has a future pro career - no sireee In addition - if I recall one year Geno had prior year all-american Bria Hartley came off the bench- she didn't hone her craft much. Overrated hype. And of course when we won the championship 2 years prior players like MoJeff and Tuck didn't hone their craft much- they were just lucky coming off the bench. And of course Stewie was in the doghouse a lot - she didn't hone her craft much that year before she stepped in as a starter. Nor did Kelly Faris -- yep Kelly Faris-- by her sr year she shot 41.5% from 3. She struggled to hone her craft too from her frosh year too.

 

[FairView]

Man, this thread is fun to read!

 

[PalPa]

Man, this thread is fun to read!

I agree, but I do find the posts from some non UCONN fans to be arrogant and boorish.

 

[rvwsleep]

Please understand: the point presented is that against tough opponents in tight games, the bench plays less to almost nothing, and the starters play more. In not so tight games against lesser opponents, the bench plays more minutes and the starters play less.

What's wrong with this scenario? Nothing. You present USC's game against Duke to illustrate that scenario, and that's OK. It's actually a logical approach to those difficult games against difficult opponents.

Does it addrress my point? Not really. Because in UConn's case - which I was pointing out earlier - UConn keeps it's starters in games against the lesser opponents in not so tight games. If UConn was keeping it's top 5 in games where the score always stayed within 10 points, no one here would ever read a post from me about that. They haven't yet. WHY? Because I don't have any issue with that, and probably never will. I have never tried to make any case against that scenario. So why the confusion.

I was simply pointing out that UConn plays it's starters more than USC does on average, and that it's bench plays less and contributes less than USC's bench does, on average. THEN I pointed out that UConn typically beats it's opponents more decisively than USC beats it's opponents. The not so tightly contested type of games. Does that have anything much to do with your response to me above, or to your observation about the USC-Duke game?


No, not really....

YOU brought up the Duke game as a "solid example" in your response to Tony C. Here is your quote:

"One solid example may be the Duke game: at their place, a top-10 opponent that USC doesn't play very often. USC played 10 players.
USC has it's system, and UConn has it's. Coach Staley prefers to give her reserves of mostly younger, inexperienced players (only one senior among them) as much experience as possible and learn how to become contributors in tight game situations, while Auriemma prefers to rely more on his veteran starters to dictate the game outcomes - even against lesser opponents who are greatly out-matched before the 1st halves are decided - rather than let his reserves use the moot periods late in games to hone their craft."

Clearly, you specifically use the Duke game as an example of USC using 10 players in a tight game and then go on to explain the different philosophies each coach has in tight games. What escapes you is that in close games they really have the same philosophy. They shorten the bench as much as possible. Using the Duke game as an example of playing 10 in a close game is ridiculous when 3 of those bench players COMBINED for only 10 minutes of play. Does UConn's starters play more than USC's ? Yes, about 3 minutes a game on average but here are a couple of other points. Sagarin has UConn's schedule so far as higher rated than USC's. As UConn's schedule gets easier and USC's more difficult, I expect the minutes played by each teams starters to even out. Did you know that Mitchell and Stewart are playing the same amount ? (27.7 mins a game). So you see, there really isn't that much difference between how the teams use their personnel.

 

[JoePgh]

Man, this thread is fun to read!

I assume that was meant sarcastically.

Other than the comparative data about bench playing time, most of the posts here in recent days seem more appropriate for the Cesspool.

 

[CTyankee]

I would say another program that has had a massive amount of top ten talent and is right up there with Tennessee and may have actually had more top ten kids in the past 20 years than has Connecticut. It seems almost every other year Duke has a number 1 ranked recruiting class or at least is in the running to have one. I'm not as familiar with their names and I don't follow the WNBA too much but I can assure you that there's not nearly the amount of Duke players who've played in the WNBA and elsewhere, who have had the successful professional careers that have UConn kids. Not even close!

I think the ones who did not make the WNBA are waiting on tables...