This calls to mind several topics that have been debated. Short or long rotation? Despite what some think Auriemma has actually used both on championship teams. Practice determines playing time? Not always, though not by choice if this principle is disobeyed. Develop the end of the bench in close games? Again, Auriemma has gone both ways depending on how well he could tolerate the product towards the end of games.
The investment into the end of the bench comes at the expense of the game repetitions that nurtures chemistry for the main rotation. How many repetitions for the main rotation are really needed to maximize chemistry? How much investment in players outside that rotation will pay off? There’s no definitive equation, it’s up to the intuition of the coaches. Fortunately, we have the best, but even they won’t have the right intuition 100% of the time.
I love the saying “Play for more than you can afford to lose and you will learn the game.” (Churchill I believe). Sometimes a player will not truly learn the game unless they are placed in a situation that demands that, and that can make all the difference between what happens to Bent or Bettencourt over the course of their UConn careers. For Bettencourt the call came much sooner than anyone would expect.
As much as fans would like to see every contingency under control, like having a full roster of 15 with every position covered by multiple five star options, maintaining perfect chemistry with such a large roster, much of what happens comes down to luck. The team’s unlucky misfortunes may have provided the lucky opportunity to place DeBerry into the situation she needed to “learn the game.”
