Irish up by only 3

[BroadwayVa]

I totally agree with you and have been thinking the same thing all season long. The refs are totally falling for it time and time again, to the point that they often look stupid and it's reinforcing the offending behavior.

I believe the NCAA should make it an official point of emphasis for next season.

Couldn't that be considered: UNSPORTSMAN LIKE BEHAVIOR? TECHNICAL.. That would stop that farce. The other, of which ND is the master, jumping into another player and the call goes against the one jumped into ??? How can that be>

 

[Carnac]

Another one bites the dust. Texas A&M gave it all they had, but fell under the pressure of the Irish's smothering defense in the waining moments of the game. With the game tied in the 4th, A&M took some bad and ill advised shots, ND did not. A 7-0 ND run in the last 3 minutes sealed the deal for ND. ND does not wilt down the stretch. You can't count on them to turn it over or take bad shots late in the game. You have to get stops, and make shots on the other end.

Stanford can beat ND, so can Baylor. Stanford will get by Missouri St, and will have a regional final show down with the Irish on Monday night. If UConn fails to win the NC, I want any team EXCEPT ND to win it.
I didn't like seeing them win it last year. A repeat would be unbearable. Somebody send them home
p-l-e-a-s-e!!!

 

[Checkmate 2.0]

The NCAA must do something to address flopping. It’s become epidemic. I firmly believe that some coaches teach their players to hit the deck whenever possible. It’s way past time to make “flopping” a personal foul.

There is more contact getting on the subway than most of the offensive foul calls...... when someone falls down.

 

[Robin]

I agree that call when AO went down there was no foul. AO sold it and it worked. But the refs did not win the game due ND. Aggies were not getting in good position and were blocking. Refs called AO for the tech but let Carter jaw all game long. ND doesn't win because of the refs. They win because they are a veteran team who doesn't foul. Drives me crazy when our bigs let a player drive because they are scared to foul.

 

[Geesworld]

They could have been a tough team this year except their two seniors decided they didn't want to be part of the CC show.

CC reminds me quite a bit of AI, except AI played a little D in college. What they have in common is AI never won anything, college or pro.

I think CC is a phenomenal talent but she seems a bit selfish and I don't see her making others better. I'm sure Coach Blair finds it difficult getting her to play well with others.

 

[HopJim]

Refs are helping the Irish now. All the calls going ND's way.

Irish very adept at using hands, similar to UCLA versus UConn. All the subtle off ball pushing and holding they do reminds me of a physical soccer game where hand/arm strength as important as speed.

 

[dtbtbtb]

I think CC is a phenomenal talent but she seems a bit selfish and I don't see her making others better. I'm sure Coach Blair finds it difficult getting her to play well with others.

For me CC represents a great player who could never play for Geno

 

[Purduke]

For me CC represents a great player who could never play for Geno

Not being able to play for Geno is a given, but I think I agree more with Geesworld's description of her being a phenomenal talent vs calling her a great player. I think the "make players better" is the key, both on the court and in the locker room.

There was an interesting article written by the local A&M sports writer in Texas when Howard and Williams transferred, citing how many different things Blair had done last year to try to keep the team together. It was pretty harsh on Howard and Williams overall for "quitting" on a winning team that had the chance to be special this year, but even he cited how "suffocating" Carter could be on the court and how Blair tried to compensate with the team's other key players. One citation stands out to me. After TAMU beat DePaul in the NCAAs last year to get to the Notre Dame game, Blair gave the game ball to Howard after the win. She put up 18 pts and 19 rebs. Strong game, but Carter had put up 37 pts and hit the game winning three. Maybe no real big deal. Except the reporter indicated the it was the first time EVER that Blair had given a game ball to a player in his entire 30+ year coaching career. There were other things cited about trying to elevate Howard and Williams too in press conferences etc.

When you consider that neither Howard nor Williams went someplace where they would be the prima donna or likely star, but both went somewhere they thought would provide a chance to win large (but also chose to leave a program that was offering the same thing, where they had been successful for 3 years already), I just get the impression Ms Carter is not the type of player that really values team success unless it comes off of her shooting wrist.

So to me, phenomenal talent? That's a yes. Great player? Not the way I understand the term.

 

[Robin]

Couldn't that be considered: UNSPORTSMAN LIKE BEHAVIOR? TECHNICAL.. That would stop that farce. The other, of which ND is the master, jumping into another player and the call goes against the one jumped into ??? How can that be>

You can't call that against AO but let Carter run her mouth all night, even pointing to the scoreboard when her and Mabrey were mixing it up. That didn't really make sense because ND was winning but Carter is a me first player and the commentators said she was doing that to show how many points she had vs Mabrey. Even when one of ND'S starters isn't making baskets they still score over 80, crazy since she's the 3 point shooter on the team. I think Mabrey is okay with her stats since she still gets to play and Carter gets to take her 35 points home with her.

 

[uconnell]

I totally agree with you and have been thinking the same thing all season long. The refs are totally falling for it time and time again, to the point that they often look stupid and it's reinforcing the offending behavior.

I believe the NCAA should make it an official point of emphasis for next season.

Why? The refs are not calling hand checking etc which was a point of reference this year.

 

[HopJim]

Why? The refs are not calling hand checking etc which was a point of reference this year.

I've seen a whole new level of not calling fouls in 2019's women's basketball playoffs. In addition to not calling hand checking, refs also not calling off the ball holding.

 

[Sven23]

Why? The refs are not calling hand checking etc which was a point of reference this year.

Freedom of movement was suppose to be emphasized for the last 3 years. If the refs even called 10% of the freedom of movement rules schools like Miss St, Baylor, etc.. would have have 3 or starters foul at every game. There are a bunch of teams that their entire defense strategy is to hold, grab, bump on cuts, etc... stuff freedom of movement rule was suppose to reduce. The new catchphrase for the announcers is saying how physical the game is being played, it's called continuous following off the ball. The college game is like how the NBA used to be until they cleaned a lot of it up, which has allowed the skilled players not to get murdered every game. In the current cleaned up era Jordan or Bird would score 45 every night, when they played they were largely allowed to be manhandled, the Pistons won 3 championships mauling people.

 

[biobioprof]

Not being able to play for Geno is a given, but I think I agree more with Geesworld's description of her being a phenomenal talent vs calling her a great player. I think the "make players better" is the key, both on the court and in the locker room.

There was an interesting article written by the local A&M sports writer in Texas when Howard and Williams transferred, citing how many different things Blair had done last year to try to keep the team together. It was pretty harsh on Howard and Williams overall for "quitting" on a winning team that had the chance to be special this year, but even he cited how "suffocating" Carter could be on the court and how Blair tried to compensate with the team's other key players. One citation stands out to me. After TAMU beat DePaul in the NCAAs last year to get to the Notre Dame game, Blair gave the game ball to Howard after the win. She put up 18 pts and 19 rebs. Strong game, but Carter had put up 37 pts and hit the game winning three. Maybe no real big deal. Except the reporter indicated the it was the first time EVER that Blair had given a game ball to a player in his entire 30+ year coaching career. There were other things cited about trying to elevate Howard and Williams too in press conferences etc.

When you consider that neither Howard nor Williams went someplace where they would be the prima donna or likely star, but both went somewhere they thought would provide a chance to win large (but also chose to leave a program that was offering the same thing, where they had been successful for 3 years already), I just get the impression Ms Carter is not the type of player that really values team success unless it comes off of her shooting wrist.

So to me, phenomenal talent? That's a yes. Great player? Not the way I understand the term.

Well, you know that Howard and Williams couldn't play for Geno because they both came to look at UConn during the transfer tour and I recall reading here that neither got an offer. I put Danni and Anriel in different categories, fwiw.

One of the reasons I switched from lurking to contributing here is that I found it annoying how Anriel Howard's selfishness has set the national narrative about Chennedy Carter being a selfish bad teammate.

 

[Fightin Choke]

By reading these comments one might think that the officiating was biased tremendously in favor of Notre Dame, but a dispassionate analysis of the stats do not bear that out.

1. Total fouls:
A&M: 17
ND: 12

But remember that A&M intentionally fouled ND twice in the last 30 seconds of the game, so the real difference is 15 to 12. Not a large difference at all and probably easily explained by the difference in paint points (52-42 ND) and the difference in 3pt shots (17-10 A&M).

2. Free Throws:
A&M: 10
ND: 15

But removing the 4 FT's that ND got after intentional fouls in the last 30 seconds, it's 11 to 10. When you factor in that the game was basically a home game for Notre Dame, the refs typically favor the home team in foul calls but it seems the game was called pretty fairly.

Were there fouls committed by ND that weren't called? Absolutely. There were also calls committed by A&M that weren't called. If you don't like a team, you'll notice the bad calls in their favor far more often than the bad calls that were not in their favor. It's called selective attention and confirmation bias, types of logical fallacies.

 

[biobioprof]

By reading these comments one might think that the officiating was biased tremendously in favor of Notre Dame, but a dispassionate analysis of the stats do not bear that out.

1. Total fouls:
A&M: 17
ND: 12

But remember that A&M intentionally fouled ND twice in the last 30 seconds of the game, so the real difference is 15 to 12. Not a large difference at all and probably easily explained by the difference in paint points (52-42 ND) and the difference in 3pt shots (17-10 A&M).

2. Free Throws:
A&M: 10
ND: 15

But removing the 4 FT's that ND got after intentional fouls in the last 30 seconds, it's 11 to 10. When you factor in that the game was basically a home game for Notre Dame, the refs typically favor the home team in foul calls but it seems the game was called pretty fairly.

Were there fouls committed by ND that weren't called? Absolutely. There were also calls committed by A&M that weren't called. If you don't like a team, you'll notice the bad calls in their favor far more often than the bad calls that were not in their favor. It's called selective attention and confirmation bias, types of logical fallacies.

I agree on the selective attention and confirmation bias points, but looking at numbers for parity ignores the way calls are affected by style of play and which team is being more aggressive at any given point.

And you kind of undermine your point by bringing up bias toward the home team.

 

[Robin]

I agree on the selective attention and confirmation bias points, but looking at numbers for parity ignores the way calls are affected by style of play and which team is being more aggressive at any given point.

And you kind of undermine your point by bringing up bias toward the home team.

I did the same and went back and watched the game to see if I could see this "bias" for ND by the refs and came to the same conclusion. I only saw 1 foul that went against ATM that shouldn't have been called (AO was the recipient of said foul) and I saw 2 very ticky tacky fouls called against ND. Other than that, and Carter not even being given a warning for her taunting, it was a pretty decently officiated game. Refs are human and will not always get everything right. My daughter is a soccer referee and it's harder than we realize.

 

[Fightin Choke]

I agree on the selective attention and confirmation bias points, but looking at numbers for parity ignores the way calls are affected by style of play and which team is being more aggressive at any given point.

And you kind of undermine your point by bringing up bias toward the home team.

I don't think I undermined my point. My point was that the fouls were pretty even despite the home court advantage. Any difference in fouls could have been easily explained by the difference in paint points and 3-pt shots.

As another example of the these logical fallacies, posters were once again complaining about ND getting calls in the Stanford game last night, but fouls were even before Stanford was forced to foul in the last minute. And the only player who was in foul trouble in the third quarter was Arike, who had to sit.

And yes, there were bad calls (or lack thereof). Jackie's kick that led to a fast break bucket was an egregious miss by the officials, but the refs did not appear to favor ND in this game either. But don't tell that to the posters.