Did Geno Really Say That To Kevin?

[cockhrnleghrn]

Mint Juleps.

They drink those in Kentucky.

 

[PalPa]

They drink those in Kentucky.

Why do they go all the way to Kentucky to drink them?

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

Why do they go all the way to Kentucky to drink them?

Because they serve them at the Kentucky Derby?

I can't really think of an alcohol that South Carolina is particularly known for.

 

[j66kicker]

Because they serve them at the Kentucky Derby?

I can't really think of an alcohol that South Carolina is particularly known for.

I googled "South Carolina traditional drink" and learned that they have an official state drink: Milk

 

[DobbsRover2]

On the call at the end of the first half, where Cuevas drove into Stewie near the baseline, the original call was a charge on Cuevas, but during the timeout it was changed to a simple out-of-bounds call on Cuevas with no foul, but with UConn possession. I thought that was a make-up situation -- there was enough contact on the play that there had to be a foul call against either Stewie or Cuevas. I thought Stewie was late (still moving) and it should have been a block. You could argue that Cuevas lowered her shoulder, but I did not see that distinctly on replay. I think the SC fans had a case on that one.

But early in the second half, there was a bogus offensive foul call on KML when she went to set a screen for Stewie. I thought (both live and on replay) that she had clearly stopped her motion before contact, so it was a good screen. It was the same play that Stewie had scored on at the end of the first half, and it would have worked that time for another layup if the call had not been made.

I agree that in general, despite the inevitable questionable calls, the referees did not have a significant impact on the game or on the margin of victory.

Basically looked like a charge, though agree that seeing whether Cuevas "lowered the shoulder" when she dived into Stewie is hard to see. Not sure what you mean that Stewie might have been "late" or "still moving" as she was certainly near the baseline as Cuevas approached and was not moving forward, which would be a blocking foul. If you're saying that the defender has to be set and not moving, that's just not true. She cannot be moving forward into the ball handler's path, but she can definitely be moving backward at an angle like Stewie was and have legal defensive position. A ball handler cannot simply run into any moving defender to pick up a blocking foul.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I googled "South Carolina traditional drink" and learned that they have an official state drink: Milk

But what's in the milk? I'm guessing a lot of that Palmetto moonshine.

 

[j66kicker]

But what's in the milk? I'm guessing a lot of that Palmetto moonshine.

We can only hope

 

[Hongster]

Guys, here's the reason why Mitchel fell down. You know when someone is pulling you and all you have to do is just jerk it forward using that same force and that person will fall on the butt? That was what happened.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

I googled "South Carolina traditional drink" and learned that they have an official state drink: Milk

I don't think fermented milk would be popular, however.

 

[OldAlum]

Well I think there was a phantom foul on Stewie earlier. When Mitchell drove by KML and Tuck and Stewie came from the weak side, a foul was called on her for an "and one". On the replay from two different angles it appeared that Stewie didn't touch her with hand or body!
There were several other questionable calls that UConn fans could point to. But even when the game was still close it seemed like the "mistakes" from the refs were pretty randomly distributed.

 

[JSB60]

I don't think fermented milk would be popular, however.

It's popular in Mongolia but not many other places.

 

[meyers7]

I call this BS. He is right sometimes that people make too much of games but first - if he didn't care then why was he jumping pumping his fist in an aggressive manner during his game whne we made a huge play? Secondly, he used to spek of his conference when he said "he didn't care." Now his conference is Godawful and we are in a constant search of top teams that want to play us.

Our conference is God-awful. These games against top ten - top 20 to 30 teams are far less - in conference. Thus the big games of 1 vs 2 means a lot more.

Nah, the OOC games don't mean that much in whether you win or lose. But, sure in how you play. And they are more exciting for the players and coaches. But that doesn't mean they have a lot of meaning win/loss. I mean he's said this for as long as I've watched him. Now all of a sudden he has a complete change of mind??? I doubt it.

 

[cabbie191]

They drink those in Kentucky.

And in Massachusetts. My aunt and uncle liked to have mid-day mint juleps on their veranda (porch) from their Cape Cod plantation (summer home), especially when I was visiting and sweating a lot from doing yard work for them.

 

[BigBird]

Not sure what you mean that Stewie might have been "late" or "still moving" as she was certainly near the baseline as Cuevas approached and was not moving forward, which would be a blocking foul. If you're saying that the defender has to be set and not moving, that's just not true. She cannot be moving forward into the ball handler's path, but she can definitely be moving backward at an angle like Stewie was and have legal defensive position. A ball handler cannot simply run into any moving defender to pick up a blocking foul.

At last! Somebody gets this right. A defender does not have to be motionless. Example: player A is driving full speed to the basket, while player B, 20 feet straight in front of her, slowly back-pedals. Player A then piles into B. It isn't a block. Broadcasters get this wrong constantly. Thanks Dobbs.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Both in live action and in the later replay, it looked to me as if both Mitchell and KML had their hands on the ball, and KML jerked it, causing Mitchell to go to the floor rather than let go.

In civilized basketball, a jump ball should have been whistled. But the refs were in SEC mode last night (or so it seemed), so they let it be a takedown followed by a 3-point basket. Oh well.

KML has a lot of strength in those hands and arms, as she has repeatedly demonstrated.

When I watched the play in slo-mo it looked as if Mitchell's hand slid off the ball and up KML's arm. Kaleena yanked her arm away contributing to Mitchell losing her balance and falling backward.

 

[hoophuskee]

Nah, the OOC games don't mean that much in whether you win or lose. But, sure in how you play. And they are more exciting for the players and coaches. But that doesn't mean they have a lot of meaning win/loss. I mean he's said this for as long as I've watched him. Now all of a sudden he has a complete change of mind??? I doubt it.

I don't agree.
I think he was on Thursday night on WTIC - but whatever night - he referenced this game as "the biggest game of the year." Obviously he wasn't including the NCAA's. But he said it - if anyone has the playback. He wouldn't say it arbitrarily. And he wasn't being funny or sarcastic imo.

Back in the old Big East - sure conference games were huge. But that's because there was usually one tough team each year. Between Rutgers and ND - and then you trickle in WVA and Louisville seemed o do well vs everyone not named UCONN (and ND). At least nationally. UONN had something to compete forint he conference which is hwy it was important. There is nothing to compete for at the moment.

And I can't think of anything more helpful; for Dawn recruiting against UCONN to be able to SHWO recruits she could take down juggernaut UCONN in UUCONN's home building when UCONN was a pretty decisive favorite.

You really don't think a kid such as Tiffany Mitchell - celebrating on a national scene in UCONN's house - as she was the most dominant player in the game (if they were ot have won. Who else would it have been if USC were to win? Anyhow whoever it was - their name has the possibility of being larger than life. Because if they could have beaten UCONN at UCONN then who is going to beat them before the final four. Could you imagine all the ink Dan an their superstar and their team would get?) US UCONN fans would have to hear how awesome USC was. And if you don't think a young kid WATCHING THAT game wouldn't have a higher respect for USC- I disagree 100%.

In addition, they'd be playing their celebration on UCONN's home court leading up to the final four. There would be talk of their great grit and how Dawn had outfoxed Geno. IMO Dawn would be able to use that in recruiting even if she got beat by UCONN in the finals. Her team was inferior - playing away from home - and still managed to beat UCONN who was on an incredible roll. IMO there is no way that wouldn't be a recruiting tool Dawn would be able to use that big upset victory (the line was what 10 points?) to take a few players away from us that we wanted that she otherwise wouldn't have gotten. That's what happens when you win like we did.

Now that is mute. Anyhow if they didn't play the game and never had a chance at UCONN while another school beat us or gave us a tussle - then she could lose her current recruiting footing.

 

[DobbsRover2]

You may be right that Mitchell and the Gamecocks celebrating a win at Gampel would have helped them significantly instead of casting them down into the usual group of top pumped-up-kicks teams that get slaughtered by UConn, but you are completely off-base if you are thinking that a loss would have had any significant effect on UConn.

Okay, for those who are new to all this, UConn and Geno have gone through numerous tough games and losses in the past, and they keep on ticking and putting together a run during the Tourney when it counts. Other teams like ND and LSU can chortle over those knockdowns during the regular season and maybe occasionally during the Tournament, but in the end you have to put it all together for that final run to the NC. UConn can shrug off an occasional disappointment because it is focused on the final result. And that has led them to 9 NCs.

And again we shouldn't moisten our undergarments too much about that "godawful" conference it is in because it's not that much worse than the "Selection Committee godchild" SEC and is not too different than the early BEast that UConn won some championships in. All is fine, and we don't need to hyperventilate more than is necessary.

 

[hoophuskee]

You may be right that Mitchell and the Gamecocks celebrating a win at Gampel would have helped them significantly instead of casting them down into the usual group of top pumped-up-kicks teams that get slaughtered by UConn, but you are completely off-base if you are thinking that a loss would have had any significant effect on UConn.

Okay, for those who are new to all this, UConn and Geno have gone through numerous tough games and losses in the past, and they keep on ticking and putting together a run during the Tourney when it counts. Other teams like ND and LSU can chortle over those knockdowns during the regular season and maybe occasionally during the Tournament, but in the end you have to put it all together for that final run to the NC. UConn can shrug off an occasional disappointment because it is focused on the final result. And that has led them to 9 NCs.

And again we shouldn't moisten our undergarments too much about that "godawful" conference it is in because it's not that much worse than the "Selection Committee godchild" SEC and is not too different than the early BEast that UConn won some championships in. All is fine, and we don't need to hyperventilate more than is necessary.

It may have an effect on UCONN for example if USC were to get say -- Cox then Walker. One player in the game means so much. We might still win - but it certainly could.

What does "keep on ticking" mean if you don't win titles for Geno/UCONN? If we don't win that game - I'm not saying we go down the toilet. It just bumps Dawn up. It opens the door a bit wider for her. Reduce the threat.

Yes UCONN has been able to shrug off an occasional disappointment but they haven't been in such a lousy conference in a long long time. Not saying they can't overcome if it were to happen but this beat down eliminated some risk.

The conference UCONN is in is a joke no matter how hard we try to justify it. Part of the reason why the win was so necessary is this win may help our league members get better faster just like we were the driving force for the old Big East. We didn't build up that league by "splitting" with every top 5 school. We went back and forth with Tennessee a bit then they stopped playing us when were about to rule. Everyone else we beat them down hoguh Stanford does an occasional number on us.. A stretch Duke gave us big problems. They were getting the recruits we wanted.

Back then our conference was pretty good. Matter of fact it was RU taking down number 1 Duke one year. We have to build up our conference again the same way we did before. And the way to get ti done is to win games vs other eltie programs when you are a clear and decisive better team. Tell me anyone who wathced the UCONN USC game didn't see the beauty and pheneomonal play we showed? For any of you - you don't think a top recruit doesn't see that beauty and execution? Do any of you think if we lost this game but looked so special vs USF that the USF game would leave an impression with that top recruit? Or do you think the USC game?

Stewart told Geno she was coming to UCONN after watching UCONN vs Duke. We all don't think that only UCONN can influence a kid, do we? IF IF IF USC beat us in our house and they weren't at our talent and were such a big underdog- imo you can't close your eyes to the possibility that they would become a greater threat to get some of the elite recruits.

 

[JoePgh]

At last! Somebody gets this right. A defender does not have to be motionless. Example: player A is driving full speed to the basket, while player B, 20 feet straight in front of her, slowly back-pedals. Player A then piles into B. It isn't a block. Broadcasters get this wrong constantly. Thanks Dobbs.

The defender doesn't have to be motionless, but if they are both racing for the same spot on the floor (ball handler en route to the basket; defender trying to get in her path), and if they get there at the same time while both are still moving in different directions, a block should be called. The defender must establish her position in the path of the ball handler before contact (and before the ball handler leaves her feet if she is in a shooting motion) for it to be a charge.

Normally that would be done by the defender setting her feet in the path of the ball handler. If the defender is actually moving backwards (so that both players are moving toward the basket), then it's true that a charge could properly be called.

That is unusual, and it didn't happen on the play in question. Cuevas was moving along the baseline towards the basket, and Stewie was moving sideways towards the baseline, at about a 70-degree angle to Cuevas's path. When they collided, Stewie was trying to stop but was still in motion toward the baseline. If nothing else happened (such as a pushoff or the use of a shoulder), that should be a blocking call on the defender.

 

[hoophuskee]

The defender doesn't have to be motionless, but if they are both racing for the same spot on the floor (ball handler en route to the basket; defender trying to get in her path), and if they get there at the same time while both are still moving in different directions, a block should be called. The defender must establish her position in the path of the ball handler before contact (and before the ball handler leaves her feet if she is in a shooting motion) for it to be a charge.

Normally that would be done by the defender setting her feet in the path of the ball handler. If the defender is actually moving backwards (so that both players are moving toward the basket), then it's true that a charge could properly be called.

That is unusual, and it didn't happen on the play in question. Cuevas was moving along the baseline towards the basket, and Stewie was moving sideways towards the baseline, at about a 70-degree angle to Cuevas's path. When they collided, Stewie was trying to stop but was still in motion toward the baseline. If nothing else happened (such as a pushoff or the use of a shoulder), that should be a blocking call on the defender.

IMO it was a tough call. The thing is - Stewie may have got there 1st. Otherwise how do you explain she was hit in the chest? I'm not sure you can say Stewie didn't have establishment if the player with the ball runs into her chest.

I'm not certain - just sayin if you are dribbling and - not jumping through air wheel someone tries to establish position after the offensive player jumped- and you're as quick as Cuevas and you run into a big's player's chest/middle area- more often than not, that's an offensive foul.

 

[DobbsRover2]

The defender doesn't have to be motionless, but if they are both racing for the same spot on the floor (ball handler en route to the basket; defender trying to get in her path), and if they get there at the same time while both are still moving in different directions, a block should be called. The defender must establish her position in the path of the ball handler before contact (and before the ball handler leaves her feet if she is in a shooting motion) for it to be a charge.

Normally that would be done by the defender setting her feet in the path of the ball handler. If the defender is actually moving backwards (so that both players are moving toward the basket), then it's true that a charge could properly be called.

That is unusual, and it didn't happen on the play in question. Cuevas was moving along the baseline towards the basket, and Stewie was moving sideways towards the baseline, at about a 70-degree angle to Cuevas's path. When they collided, Stewie was trying to stop but was still in motion toward the baseline. If nothing else happened (such as a pushoff or the use of a shoulder), that should be a blocking call on the defender.

That is all very interesting about your interpretation of how the rule should be enforced if you were out on the court reffing the game, but it is not how the officials called it, or for that matter how most officials would see it.

Again, read the rules. First you stated that Stewie's feet were not set as a reason that a block should have been called on her. Then, when that is plainly pointed out as incorrect, you go to this theory of the ball handler having some divine right to a place on the floor. No again, read the rules. Stewie was not cutting over "sideways" even as you describe it, but mainly moving backward in the standard defensive move to guard the baseline and make the ball handler go out of bounds if she continues. Again the rule is that the defender cannot move forward into the path of the ball handler to impede their progress. The ball handler does not have the right to the baseline if the defender has established herself in the proximity and is moving backward and cutting off the angle a little to the side. In that case, the ball handler can either go out of bounds or stop her progress and shoot a jumper or dribble back. Running over the defender is not a legal option, and it either results in a charge or a simple out-of-bounds call.

If you were the ref, a ball handler would have free reign and the defender could do almost nothing. Wisely, the refs don't call the action that way.
----

On a different note, as to the AAC, no one needs to "justify" it; it just is. If it is a "joke" than so are almost all of the conferences in the WCBB and most of the teams in the P5. Not sure it's really helpful to the WCBB scene to look at things that way. USF has established itself as a top 20 team, and a number of other teams have made huge progress this year with Tulane and East Carolina moving into the top 50. There have been years when a number of the P5 conferences had worse situations than that (not to mention the BEast in the 1990s and 2000), so maybe they too were jokes. But the more that UConn fans sneer at the rest of the AAC teams as jokes (and by extension the vast majority of the rest of the teams in WCBB), the more that other fans will see them as arrogant rose thorns. That is an option, but it is an unfortunate one.

 

[Bestiarius]

Nah, the OOC games don't mean that much in whether you win or lose. But, sure in how you play. And they are more exciting for the players and coaches. But that doesn't mean they have a lot of meaning win/loss. I mean he's said this for as long as I've watched him. Now all of a sudden he has a complete change of mind??? I doubt it.

In general, I'd agree a OOC loss doesn't mean much to Geno. But, in this case, the win as it played out was huge. It was a game on the national stage and had great symbolic meaning. To many, it was the dawning (no pun intended) of a new age. The toppling of the king of the hill. A loss to SC would have damaged the stature of UConn's program and bolstered SC's. It also would have given SC more confidence going into the Tournament, and it would have helped their recruiting and Dawn's stature as a coach. All that has now come crashing down because of the magnitude of the loss.

As was said by the announcers during the game, UConn beat SC the same way they beat AAC opponents. That fact raised the stature off all AAC teams and had the reverse effect on SEC teams. So, to Geno, this game was more than just a meaningless contest against an OOC opponent. It helps with his quest to raise the stature of the AAC and gives teams the incentive to improve in the future. Plus, the students who were able to get seats because of the vagaries of the weather, created an environment at Gampel that was of great benefit to the program's stature. Yes, the game was hugely important for many reasons and Geno knows it.

 

[hoophuskee]

In general, I'd agree a OOC loss doesn't mean much to Geno. But, in this case, the win as it played out was huge. It was a game on the national stage and had great symbolic meaning. To many, it was the dawning (no pun intended) of a new age. The toppling of the king of the hill. A loss to SC would have damaged the stature of UConn's program and bolstered SC's. It also would have given SC more confidence going into the Tournament, and it would have helped their recruiting and Dawn's stature as a coach. All that has now come crashing down because of the magnitude of the loss.

As was said by the announcers during the game, UConn beat SC the same way they beat AAC opponents. That fact raised the stature off all AAC teams and had the reverse effect on SEC teams. So, to Geno, this game was more than just a meaningless contest against an OOC opponent. It helps with his quest to raise the stature of the AAC and gives teams the incentive to improve in the future. Plus, the students who were able to get seats because of the vagaries of the weather, created an environment at Gampel that was of great benefit to the program's stature. Yes, the game was hugely important for many reasons and Geno knows it.

Can I give your post 10 likes?

 

[meyers7]

In general, I'd agree a OOC loss doesn't mean much to Geno. But, in this case, the win as it played out was huge. It was a game on the national stage and had great symbolic meaning. To many, it was the dawning (no pun intended) of a new age. The toppling of the king of the hill. A loss to SC would have damaged the stature of UConn's program and bolstered SC's. It also would have given SC more confidence going into the Tournament, and it would have helped their recruiting and Dawn's stature as a coach. All that has now come crashing down because of the magnitude of the loss.

As was said by the announcers during the game, UConn beat SC the same way they beat AAC opponents. That fact raised the stature off all AAC teams and had the reverse effect on SEC teams. So, to Geno, this game was more than just a meaningless contest against an OOC opponent. It helps with his quest to raise the stature of the AAC and gives teams the incentive to improve in the future. Plus, the students who were able to get seats because of the vagaries of the weather, created an environment at Gampel that was of great benefit to the program's stature. Yes, the game was hugely important for many reasons and Geno knows it.

But not so much he is going to "rest" his posts in order to win the game.