Grind for 9 ground to a halt... | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Grind for 9 ground to a halt...

Status
Not open for further replies.
UcMiami said:
I know everyone focuses on wins but for a #1 seed ... the issue is who did they lose to. Yes Baylor had one bad loss and one loss to KY which I would classify as maybe not a bad loss but not one you expect from a top four team. And I would classify the WV loss the same way. WV had two borderline bad losses to Baylor and a bad loss to OSU in their first game. LSU was a bad loss - the ONLY teams LSU beat away from home were Ol Miss, La Tech, UALR, Missouri, Tulane and oh yes, Tennessee. They lost to every decent team they played on the road except TN. They had a glorious 7-9 conference record to boot. Stanford had one bad loss, Louisville had that one loss to KY, SC had the loss to TN, and to TA&M on the road and to KY and UNC on neutral courts. And finally TN couldn't get to the elite eight let alone a FF.
Yes - the SEC has a lot of teams in that 10-20 range, we will see how many end up being in the top eight standing. We already know the AAC has two, the Big 12 has 1, the SEC may get two in, the ACC may get 3 in and the Pac or Big10 will get 1
Expand ...


West Virginia lost to LSU in the NCAA Tournament. Yes, they lost on the road but if you consider LSU a bad loss, then you have to consider a loss to West Virginia a bad loss as well (Baylor). Kentucky isn't a bad loss when you factor in how many good teams they've beat this year.

South Carolina didn't have any bad losses. No signature wins either (Kentucky wins were good but not great) but even so, I'd give the edge to South Carolina over Louisville because their losses were to all tight games to top 4 seeds and they had a couple quality wins as well. Louisville was throttled three times by UCONN and lost a tight game at Kentucky. That said, you simply can't give Louisville a #1 seed when they were 0-4 vs. ranked teams and had 0 quality wins. They've looked fantastic in the tournament and I do believe they are a top 4 team, but based on what they accomplished in the regular season, they didn't deserve to get a #1 seed over Tennessee/South Carolina/Baylor/Stanford.
 
UConnCat said:
bballnut90, a few questions:

What do you think Holly should do with the post rotation next year? Do you think she'll move Russell in to the starting lineup with Harrison at the 4 and have Graves come off the bench? Neither Harrison nor Graves is ideally what you'd want at the 4 spot, particularly with Russell who is most comfortable in the lane. Neither is very comfortable stretching the floor and prefer to score near the basket. I actually think Burdick is better suited for the 4 but that would create additional playing time issues. Floor spacing has been an ongoing issue for the LVs and I don't see it being resolved easily next year.

What is Massengale's future with the program? Do you think Carter and Reynolds will start in the backcourt and how do you think Massengale will respond to that. I was surprised to hear today that Massengale has been medically cleared to play and that she has opted not to play. She must not be feeling right.
Expand ...


Not sure what will happen next year with the posts. If Russell makes big off season improvements and develops her game, I think each post will log 25+ minutes a game and we might see Graves being the 6th man off the bench who still gets 25 minutes a night. If Graves performs like she did as a frosh, Tennessee will be a hard team to compete with inside. Harrison could be good at the 4, she is more of a center but she can hit a face up jumper from 15 feet. Also worth noting, Harrison has drastically improved every year, so I wouldn't be surprised if she comes in next year with a stronger mid range game so she'll be more skilled as a 4.

Burdick starts at the 3. If Massengale is healthy there's no question she's the starting point. She was averaging 12.5 points, 5.6 assists and had a 2.3:1 A/TO ratio. No way she doesn't start. I'd rather see Carter/Massengale both starting and sharing point guard duties. Both are pass first guards who take care off the ball but can stretch the defense from long range (38% and 39% for 3). With these two starting, Tennessee's posts would get more looks compared to this year (where Simmons took 6 shots for every assist she had.)

I also wouldn't read too much into Massengale opting not to play. Tennessee was 15-1 since Massengale went down, including 7 straight wins against NCAA tournament teams so I'm assuming the mentality of her/Holly was that if they brought her back into the lineup, it might shake up the rhythm/momentum of Tennessee (even though in hindsight, it probably would have helped considering how poorly Tennessee executed yesterday.)
 
bballnut90 said:
West Virginia lost to LSU in the NCAA Tournament. Yes, they lost on the road but if you consider LSU a bad loss, then you have to consider a loss to West Virginia a bad loss as well (Baylor). Kentucky isn't a bad loss when you factor in how many good teams they've beat this year.

South Carolina didn't have any bad losses. No signature wins either (Kentucky wins were good but not great) but even so, I'd give the edge to South Carolina over Louisville because their losses were to all tight games to top 4 seeds and they had a couple quality wins as well. Louisville was throttled three times by UCONN and lost a tight game at Kentucky. That said, you simply can't give Louisville a #1 seed when they were 0-4 vs. ranked teams and had 0 quality wins. They've looked fantastic in the tournament and I do believe they are a top 4 team, but based on what they accomplished in the regular season, they didn't deserve to get a #1 seed over Tennessee/South Carolina/Baylor/Stanford.
Expand ...
BUT ... there is also just the basic ... did you watch these teams play and what do your eyes tell you. TN looked very average against very average teams, SC looked pretty good until their last two weeks. Kentucky looked below average with a slight uptick at the end of the year, LSU ... 1-7 to close the year looked bad.
Baylor looked very good, Stanford looked very good until their last month, Louisville looked very good except when they played Uconn. You can spend hours pouring over stats and coming to all sorts of conclusions, but if you just open your eyes and look at the games these teams were playing you could see that TN was not one of the top 4 teams in the country and SC probably wasn't either seeing as they couldn't handle either TN or KY.
Heck if all you are doing is looking at Stats and RPI it was obvious ND should have been the #1 overall seed and clearly Stanford and Duke should have been the third and fourth #1 seeds. That didn't happen because people actually took their heads out of the books and looked at the teams. And then they went back to the books and came up with a 'Stanford was the only team that lost to another team ranked between 87 and 90 in the RPI' as a bogus excuse not to make them a #1 seed so obviously the fact that their RPI was better than TN or SC and they had fewer losses and more good wins didn't mean anything.
 
UcMiami said:
BUT ... there is also just the basic ... did you watch these teams play and what do your eyes tell you. TN looked very average against very average teams, SC looked pretty good until their last two weeks. Kentucky looked below average with a slight uptick at the end of the year, LSU ... 1-7 to close the year looked bad.
Baylor looked very good, Stanford looked very good until their last month, Louisville looked very good except when they played Uconn. You can spend hours pouring over stats and coming to all sorts of conclusions, but if you just open your eyes and look at the games these teams were playing you could see that TN was not one of the top 4 teams in the country and SC probably wasn't either seeing as they couldn't handle either TN or KY.
Heck if all you are doing is looking at Stats and RPI it was obvious ND should have been the #1 overall seed and clearly Stanford and Duke should have been the third and fourth #1 seeds. That didn't happen because people actually took their heads out of the books and looked at the teams. And then they went back to the books and came up with a 'Stanford was the only team that lost to another team ranked between 87 and 90 in the RPI' as a bogus excuse not to make them a #1 seed so obviously the fact that their RPI was better than TN or SC and they had fewer losses and more good wins didn't mean anything.
Expand ...

Louisville played cupcakes all year, of course they'll look good on the eye test compared to a team that plays a stronger schedule. They have looked great in the NCAA tournament thus far, but they still have yet to beat a top 5 seed this season. Tennessee had moments where they looked very good this year, ie. at home vs. Vanderbilt, vs. South Carolina, at Texas A&M, etc.

Stanford having more quality wins? They beat 1 Sweet 16 team: Tennessee in a close win at home and were throttled by UCONN. Tennessee? 6 wins against Sweet 16 opponents. And Stanford had 1 less loss, but lost to a team that didn't make the tournament (Washington) and another one who wouldn't have made the tournament without that win against Stanford (USC.) I understand the argument that Stanford deserved it over South Carolina, but based on what they accomplished in the regular season, no way did they deserve a 1 seed over Tennessee.
 
I disagree. Tennessee struggled against a lot of cupcakes this year, and even lost to a few. Louisville didn't. And right now, with the way they are manhandling teams (including a 20+ point win that Tennessee lost to AT HOME) I think they are proving that they deserved the #1 seed. Oh well, doesn't seem to matter. They've already outplayed their seed and are in a position to get to their second straight Final Four. I guess maybe then people will admit they are a good team?
 
.-.
Tennessee proved where they should have ranked a 3 at best.
 
sarals24 said:
I disagree. Tennessee struggled against a lot of cupcakes this year, and even lost to a few. Louisville didn't. And right now, with the way they are manhandling teams (including a 20+ point win that Tennessee lost to AT HOME) I think they are proving that they deserved the #1 seed. Oh well, doesn't seem to matter. They've already outplayed their seed and are in a position to get to their second straight Final Four. I guess maybe then people will admit they are a good team?
Expand ...


Tennessee lost to 4 Sweet 16 teams and Vanderbilt who was in the NCAA tournament. No cupcakes there. Louisville was taken to overtime by Oklahoma and Florida State, not to mention struggling against Colorado, at Rutgers, and nearly losing in the AAC tournament to South Florida. Right now Louisville is playing great basketball and looks like a top 4 team in the country. However, were not this consistently good throughout most of the season. If you looked at Tennessee's body of work from the regular season/conference tournament and compare it to Louisville's, Tennessee's was much stronger and more deserving of a #1 seed. Do I think Tennessee is a better team than Louisville? No way..but they did deserve a higher seeding than Louisville.
 
Susie on the mens side at The Garden. An obvious shot at the ACC.
Susan Herbst interviewed on TV responding to a reporter saying there was a lot of blue and white around the Garden responded "I don't see any orange"

This has me playing a song a friend wrote and recorded. This titled Deja Vu All Over Again...
 
Tennessee lost to 4 Sweet 16 teams and Vanderbilt - that about says it ... and two of those teams aren't playing in the elite eight (plus of course Vanderbilt who got into the tournament based on their beating TN)
Louisville lost 5 games to sweet sixteen teams and 4 of those losses came to a team headed to the FF where Louisville may join them.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,951
Messages
4,546,054
Members
10,428
Latest member
CarloPFF


Top Bottom