Championship Commonalities

[diggerfoot]

Previous threads led me to reflect on what our championship teams have in common. There were four factors that jumped out at me; I hope others add different commonalities that come to their mind. Out of 11 championship teams:

4 had multiple bigs of 6'4" or taller.
8 had at least one big 6'4" or taller. (Which means we won almost as many championships with no bigs as with multiple bigs)
9 had a transcendent player on the team (Taurasi, Moore or Stewart).
9 had multiple All-Americans on the team, including the two who did not have a transcendent player.
10 had the best point guard at the time (I treat Taurasi as a PG for this, as she was the assist and floor leader).
11 had at least one All-American

While either a transcendent player or multiple All-Americans have been necessary, the most important position appears to be point guard. It is revealing that all championships won without a big had both a transcendent player and the best point guard (by a country mile), and for two of those years they were one and the same.

I regret saying I doubt we are a championship team next year, as it always depends on the context. However, the context next year is that Ionescu is likely transcendent, assumes point guard roles and may be on a team with multiple All-Americans (but even without that I like Oregon's chances). Dangerfield is great, but Ionescu is better. My only reservation with Ionescu is she apparently does not endear herself to teammates like a Taurasi or a Bird.

However, the year after that Ionescu is gone and Bueckers is in. Though she only will be a freshman she may be on a team with multiple All-Americans (Williams, Walker, Westbrook and ONO all have that potential, perhaps others) and at least one legitimate big. I don't know how well Muhl's game translates to college basketball but if it translates well I see a Taurasi/Rizzotti like combo by their sophomore years (too much talent for Muhl to be a starter her freshman year), with Muhl being the best point in the nation, Bueckers being a transcendent player and multiple All-Americans on the team.

 

[hoopsfan22]

We don't win championships without DT, Maya, or Stewie. If we don't have that type of player on our team, we don't win. Pretty simple. It makes me wonder how other teams who don't or never have a Stewie or Maya or DT win it all.

 

[UcMiami]

We don't win championships without DT, Maya, or Stewie. If we don't have that type of player on our team, we don't win. Pretty simple. It makes me wonder how other teams who don't or never have a Stewie or Maya or DT win it all.

For the most part they do not. Griner for Baylor, Aja for SC, Parker for TN, Catch for TN. Very few teams without a super star win the NCAA.
2000 was just a loaded team, 2001 ND was pretty loaded, ND's last one as well was a loaded team Baylor's first had Young (though that and the TX A&M NC might be a bit 'aberrational')

 

[willtalk]

In the WNCAA's there are multiple factors that can influence the outcome. It isn't just how solid your team is, but how many other solid teams are competing against you and how well do you match up against them. Luck and the draw do play a part. The better your team is the less the effect the later factors will have.

For example, last season Baylor appeared to be the best team. They did not have difficulty with any team except ND and Oregon. Oregon was a hard matchup for them, but what eventually killed their chances was their lack of depth ( via injuries). Especially Hebert who never recovered from her earlier injury. ND was being dominated until Cox went out due to injury. Had the game been a few minutes longer ND probably would have won. We can go back in history to recognize that timing ( luck ) and matchups have always played a major factor in the results. Except if a team is so much more superior than those other factors do not really matter.

The best team does not always win, because they, due to a combination of factors, can certainly get knocked off if they face the wrong team at the wrong time.