Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="jonson, post: 3436708, member: 6034"] Great post (as always)! I'd also go with "transcendent/transformative" as fuzzy as those terms are. There are far too many problems attending "generational," despite its popularity (sort of like the ever present "existential" this's and that's in politics). I also find the use of #1 and #2 recruiting rankings not as helpful as it should be (other than to limit possibilities) since--to me, at least-- the biggest takeaway from the chart is their hit or miss nature, no matter how carefully done, with the former not much more frequent (if at all) than the latter. I also believe that making a team accomplishment (national championship) an in or out criterion pushes what is supposed to be a measure of individual recognition too far in the direction of team accomplishments . If Stewie, for instance, had played on a team other than UCONN while in college, would she have won 4 National Championship? 3? Even 1? Probably? Maybe? I think the best answer would be "it depends," with "depends" being a function of the quality of the other players on the team of which she was part, the quality of potential competitors, and, even, luck (Louisville upsetting one of the Griner teams, SC not having to face UCONN a second time due to a last second shot, etc.). (And this doesn't even take into account coaching.) But Stewie would still be Stewie and, to me, still one of the very best players to play the college game. [/QUOTE]