Dominance shift

[Zorro]

Paragraphs are your reader’s friends.

But, I do not consider us dominant over Stanford at the present time. I do not consider us above UConn during a normal year - like next year.

Considering that we are dominant - Boston only has one year after this one.

Or maybe like the finish of THIS year IF we get all our players well and playing.

 

[skilz]

Um, you may not be aware we don’t need the Grammar and Spelling Police. Many of us are on phones or tablets and are victims of autocorrect. A simple transposition of letters in a word can change the meaning of a sentence completely, like yours.

Exactly what happened. Thanks Nan!

 

[KingKong139]

SO we should expect injuries like we have had this year for every year?
Yet in the last 15+ we haven't had 1 ever like it?

It’s not about what to expect. Hence why neither I nor you were talking about expectations in our original posts. It’s about not making excuses. Even with all the injuries, I promise you we had far more ‘talent’ and coaching on the floor against Villanova and GT at all points of the game. We didn’t get it done.

Injuries suck and affect everything but you went deeper than that. You listed a player leaving early. Sure IF we had Megan awalker, maybe things go different. IF we had Azura, maybe we win 4 years ago. IF Jackie Young, Candace Parker, Morgan Tuck, Chennedy Carter, and countless other players used all their eligibility, things are different.

The point is at some point, you can’t keep saying IF. You need to look at the facts.

 

[visitingcock]

Or maybe like the finish of THIS year IF we get all our players well and playing.

It could happen.

 

[Blueballer]

There was no more dominant post player in recent memory than B. Griner and she won exactly ONE NC. She had a good coach and a good team around her as well. A little premature for the A. Boston/SC "dominance" talk.

 

[Baylorfan]

2016 and before, the season started assuming the natty was UCons to lose. They might lose, but Vegas wouldn’t have bet against UConn. Now, UConn would be a long shot. And I hate injuries as much as you do. Our BU men were number one again for a long time, looking for a repeat of last year’s natty until injuries took out three of our best players, including our top scorer. I get it! But last year we had the depth, and it was next man up! This year the depth is not there. Injuries Should be next up, but BU wbb plays only seven players with only a walk on left on the bench! new coach, I know, tranfers followed to Kim, I know, but a deep team can have as many as 15 scholarship—-next up! UConn and BU have to get busy building a strong bench. Geno’s play just a few philosophy has a price tag, and a UConn conference loss is part of it.

 

[hoophuskee]

It’s not about what to expect. Hence why neither I nor you were talking about expectations in our original posts. It’s about not making excuses. Even with all the injuries, I promise you we had far more ‘talent’ and coaching on the floor against Villanova and GT at all points of the game. We didn’t get it done.

Injuries suck and affect everything but you went deeper than that. You listed a player leaving early. Sure IF we had Megan awalker, maybe things go different. IF we had Azura, maybe we win 4 years ago. IF Jackie Young, Candace Parker, Morgan Tuck, Chennedy Carter, and countless other players used all their eligibility, things are different.

The point is at some point, you can’t keep saying IF. You need to look at the facts.

I don't agree. Read my 1st post on this thread. Yes I spoke of having Walker vs Arizona. That is an inferred expectation that UCONN would have won. Why wouldn’t I have mentioned that? The OP was talking about the last few years too, wasn’t he? And he is sort of writing UCONN off, isn’t he? So what makes this comment I made not appropriate vs the OP sort of writing us off when his thread is about about setting expectations?

And my subsequent comments are expectations too if we had these players that have been hurt. (If you want to discuss who would've stayed or gone and create another thread or do a PM I'll be happy to go back and forth on that. Let's see who has been burned the worst.

And to go back above regarding the OP and expectations- this was one of his major focal points, wasn’t it? Setting expectations? He said; "It’s not as awful as you imagine, but you do have to shift your expectations and be willing to take a rebuilding journey."

And as far as "talent." IMO it's sometimes overused and sometimes irrelevant. You need both fundamentals and talent. I've made this comment many times. Before this Nova game and after Paige got hurt the fundamentals of shooting for this UCONN team was not good. So the "talent" they have gets minimized because they don’t have the complimentary fundamentals.

For example, how much of a triple-threat are individual players if they can’t face up and hit a jumper/shot facing the basket? Yet there will be screams that the player has all this “talent.” But talent without good enough fundamentals is what?

 

[KingKong139]

I don't agree. Read my 1st post on this thread. Yes I spoke of having Walker vs Arizona. That is an inferred expectation that UCONN would have won. Why wouldn’t I have mentioned that? The OP was talking about the last few years too, wasn’t he? And he is sort of writing UCONN off, isn’t he? So what makes this comment I made not appropriate vs the OP sort of writing us off when his thread is about about setting expectations?

And my subsequent comments are expectations too if we had these players that have been hurt. (If you want to discuss who would've stayed or gone and create another thread or do a PM I'll be happy to go back and forth on that. Let's see who has been burned the worst.

And to go back above regarding the OP and expectations- this was one of his major focal points, wasn’t it? Setting expectations? He said; "It’s not as awful as you imagine, but you do have to shift your expectations and be willing to take a rebuilding journey."

And as far as "talent." IMO it's sometimes overused and sometimes irrelevant. You need both fundamentals and talent. I've made this comment many times. Before this Nova game and after Paige got hurt the fundamentals of shooting for this UCONN team was not good. So the "talent" they have gets minimized because they don’t have the complimentary fundamentals.

For example, how much of a triple-threat are individual players if they can’t face up and hit a jumper/shot facing the basket? Yet there will be screams that the player has all this “talent.” But talent without good enough fundamentals is what?

Is shooting not ‘talent’? If we want to debate what is and isn’t ‘talent’ or ‘fundamentals’ we can. End of the day, the boohoo UConn excuses hold no value. We’re all fans, of UConn or Basketball in general.

 

[hoophuskee]

Is shooting not ‘talent’? If we want to debate what is and isn’t ‘talent’ or ‘fundamentals’ we can. End of the day, the boohoo UConn excuses hold no value. We’re all fans, of UConn or Basketball in general.

If shooting is talent then can you explain how much "talent" UCONN had as a team without Paige and without Azzi? Last year Geno said his team's weakness was shooting. This year Wattz referred to how his team defended UCONN by sagging inside. If UCONN had all this shooting talent why would he do it?

The only other one is Ducharme. But as a frosh and and how much she has to carry the scoring load how much of talent can you expect (when she is healthy enough to play) game over game as a freshman? We don't expect her to be Paige, Clark or Azzi, do we? And yet she has been tremendous.

Anyhow which of these players were recruited / brought in because of their shooting talent? CWill, Evina, Nika, Liv, Edwards and Dorka? (Dorka had 1 very good year from 3 and two miserable shooting years from 3 at Ohio State. And shooting poorly this year from 3.). In addition her ft shooting is awful.

So where is the shooting talent compared vs overall good teams?

 

[Alydar]

The question most often asked in wbb (post Tenn era) was can anyone beat UConn, next it was can anyone beat Baylor? (especially in Griner years with undefeated season). I fear now, for both our sakes, that SC and Dawn have stolen the spotlight. Her product is superior right now. That has not yet translated in to multiple nattys (3 for Baylor, countless for UConn), but it is still hard to deny SC dominance.

They seem to be a tier above the rest of us, sitting on an untouchable perch. I’m most happy, of course, when BU sits in that position, but could tolerate Uconn’s position on the throne as most likely. most of the time, but now the once predictable plates have shifted. I don’t see Tenn ever returning to more than a partial season of flashes like this year.

Baylor has a new coach with moments of brilliance and other moments lack luster motivation. UConn seems to have gotten itself into single player dependence and, thus, a very vulnerable position. And while Geno still has a quarter tank of gas left, he and his bball schemes aren’t getting any younger.

As a Baylor fan, I used to avoid even thinking of shifting plates and a post Mulkey era, reality however has made BU fans look to a new coach with new schemes and time to rebuild. That reality will soon be at your door Step. It’s not as awful as you imagine, but you do have to shift your expectations and be willing to take a rebuilding journey. I don’t think it matters much when Tara V leaves Stanford, but it did matter much when Kim left Baylor, and it will matter much when Geno steps away. BU spends more money on WBB than any school in the country and has a new river front arena in its future, but will it be enough without Kim? Until stability returns to BU and UConn, we can only sit and watch SC mop the floor, with us! Change is both difficult and inevitabLe.

Great post. SCar is indeed the obvious frontrunner. But regular season excellence isn't what is remembered. UConn went into the 2008 NCAA's undefeated and no 1. All that people remember about that "failed" season was the loss to Stanford.

 

[FridaFriend]

There are no more Dominant teams, only recessive teams.

 

[TeamFirst!]

It's complicated. Maybe full implementation of title 9 and the gradual exposure of women's basketball have increased the pool of young girl players and now there are so many of them that they are spread around to the top 5 teams generally, rather than 1. It's a tripartite world now maybe, rather than a bipolar world. Or a Multilateral world rather than unipolar.

In addition, sometimes even the strongest programs are going to miss. For example, Boston. South Carolina had what it took to attract Boston and her ability alone was enough to skew additional recruiting ability ergo at least temporary success in SC. Of course South Carolina has had additional great players and the more you add and develop the easier future recruitment can be. Staley may well also have created a style of play which will dominate going forward. She has focuses on big, strong, athletic girls especially in the paint and they out muscle and out defend the competition in ways other teams cannot currently match. That approach may well be the future and Geno probably sees it. Ergo Ice Brady and Ayanna. He needs to attract a different sort of recruit in order to compete. Staley doesn't always get the top prospect but it seems she gets her share of extremely athletic and strong talent. Saxton and Amihere are very important components to her team currently and that is not to mention many other large and athletic girls in many slots on that team. No wonder they rebound and defend extremely well. They are bigger, stronger, faster.

Uconn has done a lot of things well and since I'm a new women's basketball fan of only about a year's vintage, I can only speculate but I can see a number of approaches that appear to be a part of their success. One area that is pretty clear is the ability to attract some of the very best talent. The top talent like CW, Azzi, Paige etc... that know they can play anywhere and their plan is just to become a great WNBA talent and they see Geno as the messiah in that regard. The NYC media market, the historic exposure of Uconn's success, the population density of the Northeast etc...are probably factors as well. Uconn is to a degree the best opportunity for that sort of player. The management is a proven commodity and the environment is part of a major media market. It's a launching pad for top talent.

Baylor, Tennessee etc... attract a different type of player which may be more risky but sometimes also has an advantage sometimes. To a degree recruitment is all cultural right? There is a fit for everyone. Teams like Arizona may emerge simply because they have an emerging coach with talent and ability to relate to players, and that enables them to both get a lot out of their players and over time build a strong recruiting program. We may see UCLA emerge in part from the impact of NIL for example and media exposure. LA is a huge media and advertising market which in part dominates the entire nation and that may skew recruiting going forward. I can't think of many other reasons for Kiki to go there, for example, as compared to Stanford or Uconn.

I think it's probably a tripartite world though overall. Stanford obviously also has a historic dominance in a number of sports , and many women's sports especially. The academics and the culture is great also. I loved visiting that school. The academics might intimidate a lot of players but it's also a niche for a lot of top achievers as well. For example, Lexie and Lacey Hull. From studying their program some it appears that Lexie keeps trim by eating a lot of fruit. She's a smart player who has gotten every ounce of ability out of herself. Those are the sort of people who often are champions in a lot of things. Intelligence is kind of important in any endeavor, especially in achieving excellence. It may also preclude them from some recruits but even Stanford has attracted some great athletes. I think Lauren Betts might skew their recruiting going forward, in similar ways that Boston might have. It may be that she is good enough to put them over the top in comparison to Uconn and SC the next few years. I see Stanford as our biggest competitor going forward for recruitment.

Or not also right? Each of those teams have an incredible amount of talent and coaching ability.

 

[visitingcock]

It's complicated. Maybe full implementation of title 9 and the gradual exposure of women's basketball have increased the pool of young girl players and now there are so many of them that they are spread around to the top 5 teams generally, rather than 1. It's a tripartite world now maybe, rather than a bipolar world. Or a Multilateral world rather than unipolar.

In addition, sometimes even the strongest programs are going to miss. For example, Boston. South Carolina had what it took to attract Boston and her ability alone was enough to skew additional recruiting ability ergo at least temporary success in SC. Of course South Carolina has had additional great players and the more you add and develop the easier future recruitment can be. Staley may well also have created a style of play which will dominate going forward. She has focuses on big, strong, athletic girls especially in the paint and they out muscle and out defend the competition in ways other teams cannot currently match. That approach may well be the future and Geno probably sees it. Ergo Ice Brady and Ayanna. He needs to attract a different sort of recruit in order to compete. Staley doesn't always get the top prospect but it seems she gets her share of extremely athletic and strong talent. Saxton and Amihere are very important components to her team currently and that is not to mention many other large and athletic girls in many slots on that team. No wonder they rebound and defend extremely well. They are bigger, stronger, faster.

Uconn has done a lot of things well and since I'm a new women's basketball fan of only about a year's vintage, I can only speculate but I can see a number of approaches that appear to be a part of their success. One area that is pretty clear is the ability to attract some of the very best talent. The top talent like CW, Azzi, Paige etc... that know they can play anywhere and their plan is just to become a great WNBA talent and they see Geno as the messiah in that regard. The NYC media market, the historic exposure of Uconn's success, the population density of the Northeast etc...are probably factors as well. Uconn is to a degree the best opportunity for that sort of player. The management is a proven commodity and the environment is part of a major media market. It's a launching pad for top talent.

Baylor, Tennessee etc... attract a different type of player which may be more risky but sometimes also has an advantage sometimes. To a degree recruitment is all cultural right? There is a fit for everyone. Teams like Arizona may emerge simply because they have an emerging coach with talent and ability to relate to players, and that enables them to both get a lot out of their players and over time build a strong recruiting program. We may see UCLA emerge in part from the impact of NIL for example and media exposure. LA is a huge media and advertising market which in part dominates the entire nation and that may skew recruiting going forward. I can't think of many other reasons for Kiki to go there, for example, as compared to Stanford or Uconn.

I think it's probably a tripartite world though overall. Stanford obviously also has a historic dominance in a number of sports , and many women's sports especially. The academics and the culture is great also. I loved visiting that school. The academics might intimidate a lot of players but it's also a niche for a lot of top achievers as well. For example, Lexie and Lacey Hull. From studying their program some it appears that Lexie keeps trim by eating a lot of fruit. She's a smart player who has gotten every ounce of ability out of herself. Those are the sort of people who often are champions in a lot of things. Intelligence is kind of important in any endeavor, especially in achieving excellence. It may also preclude them from some recruits but even Stanford has attracted some great athletes. I think Lauren Betts might skew their recruiting going forward, in similar ways that Boston might have. It may be that she is good enough to put them over the top in comparison to Uconn and SC the next few years. I see Stanford as our biggest competitor going forward for recruitment.

Or not also right? Each of those teams have an incredible amount of talent and coaching ability.

Outstanding!

“Talent” comes in at least two or three categories.

1. Exceptional skills development. Usually an offensive trait. Let’s use Caitlin Clark as an example. However, let’s use UConn as the example of a team oriented that way with Azzi. Geno generally recruits the best prospects in this group.

2. Exceptional athleticism: usually a defensive trait. let’s use Latecia Amihere as an example. Let’s use SCar as a team that’s oriented that way. Dawn generally recruits the best prospects in this group.

3. Blended: high level of athleticism AND skills development. Paige would be an example. She has athletic ability and great skills.Boston is too as was evident in Her ability to score right out of the gate as a frosh. Perhaps as a team, Tara is getting a lot of this type of player. I fear Bett’s soft shooting touch and physical ability (wingspan) in the future.

 

[Baylorfan]

The big girl in the paint is actually a Baylor scheme from long ago, or should I say Mulkey scheme. Griner and undefeated season and natty, Brown, another Natty etc. BU, under Kim, was known as the big girl place to go. They had a coach, best in the business, who developed bigs. But it can also backfire. Why follow Boston and play in a shadow you can’t replicate. All bigs not wanting to get on that dead end train. Took a while to replace Griner, because who could compare. Brown eventually came along. Heck, we had WNBA quality bigs that transferred out because the were in the bench at Bu, Beatrice M. But the three point teams better take focus. If you live by the three….

 

[KingKong139]

If shooting is talent then can you explain how much "talent" UCONN had as a team without Paige and without Azzi? Last year Geno said his team's weakness was shooting. This year Wattz referred to how his team defended UCONN by sagging inside. If UCONN had all this shooting talent why would he do it?

The only other one is Ducharme. But as a frosh and and how much she has to carry the scoring load how much of talent can you expect (when she is healthy enough to play) game over game as a freshman? We don't expect her to be Paige, Clark or Azzi, do we? And yet she has been tremendous.

Anyhow which of these players were recruited / brought in because of their shooting talent? CWill, Evina, Nika, Liv, Edwards and Dorka? (Dorka had 1 very good year from 3 and two miserable shooting years from 3 at Ohio State. And shooting poorly this year from 3.). In addition her ft shooting is awful.

So where is the shooting talent compared vs overall good teams?

As multiple people have since posted, ‘talent’ is not an end all be all that lives or dies with one skill. I’m sorry you are unable to see that but perhaps you should read VisitingCock’s breakdown of talent to help shed some light.

In addition, you do realize in that group of ‘talentless’ players, you listed 3 first team all conference players, 6 who made some variation of a conference post season team, and 1 specific player who posters on this forum were advocating to be on the PoY watchlist. So if you define them as talentless, then oh well.

 

[hoophuskee]

The big girl in the paint is actually a Baylor scheme from long ago, or should I say Mulkey scheme. Griner and undefeated season and natty, Brown, another Natty etc. BU, under Kim, was known as the big girl place to go. They had a coach, best in the business, who developed bigs. But it can also backfire. Why follow Boston and play in a shadow you can’t replicate. All bigs not wanting to get on that dead end train. Took a while to replace Griner, because who could compare. Brown eventually came along. Heck, we had WNBA quality bigs that transferred out because the were in the bench at Bu, Beatrice M. But the three point teams better take focus. If you live by the three….

You usually need both - outside and in. Your Baylor team also had a tremendous guard in the Griner years. In 17-18 you had Kristy Wallace, Alexis Morris, and Juicy Landrum all shot well. As a team you shot 37% from 3. That's pretty good. You won because of balance.

 

[HopJim]

Appreciate the civil post by the Baylor fan but there seems to be amnesia regarding UConn finishing in the Final 4 last year, having a Top 10 team this year even without their best player, and having one of the top 3 recruiting classes for next year (and likely the year after).

 

[Charliebball]

"dominant" should be preceded by "the" - not "a."

There is no dominant team this year. There are a number of very good ones.

Plus, the OP's opinion implies that her is discussing programs more than individual, one year teams.

I'd say South Carolina has been the dominant team so far this season...........they have their weaknesses with outside shooting but a team that can really rebound and play solid defense is rarely going to lose close games.........I expect them to be in the NC finals this year.....