Is next year's roster too small?

[vtcwbuff]

Given what we're seeing this year with players missing games due to nagging injuries and now Banks out for the year, next year's short roster (9?) could put the team in the same short bench situation as a couple of years ago. Here's hoping Auriemma has a couple of recruiting surprises to pull out of his sleeve.

 

[Icebear]

I really think it is and I think it is smaller than Geno and staff want. I think 11-13 is needed to get through the chaos of injuries and illness and the demands of the current college season as designed.

 

[meyers7]

Given what we're seeing this year with players missing games due to nagging injuries and now Banks out for the year, next year's short roster (9?) could put the team in the same short bench situation as a couple of years ago. Here's hoping Auriemma has a couple of recruiting surprises to pull out of his sleeve.

I think it will be 10 with Pope and Banks. Have to see when Banks gets back. Still pretty small. I agree Geno would probably prefer 11-12.

 

[pinotbear]

In addition to being short for game play, there's the effect it has on practice. When you remember that injuries cost more practice minutes than game minutes, as well as the occassional academic conflict - exams, labs, etc. - there may be many days when the team struggles to have a "critical mass" to run a good practice, even with male practice players.

 

[Icebear]

I think it will be 10 with Pope and Banks. Have to see when Banks gets back. Still pretty small. I agree Geno would probably prefer 11-12.

Remind me, Pope was the expected walk on?

 

[Icebear]

In addition to being short for game play, there's the effect it has on practice. When you remember that injuries cost more practice minutes than game minutes, as well as the occassional academic conflict - exams, labs, etc. - there may be many days when the team struggles to have a "critical mass" to run a good practice, even with male practice players.

Exactly, that is all part of the wear and tear of the season.

 

[meyers7]

Remind me, Pope was the expected walk on?

Yea, had a problem with her leg/knee, something. I read somewhere she has been at practice (watching) and there was a possibility she could get back this year. Geno and Co wanted her and she wanted them this year except for the injury. So I would expect her to be back next year.

 

[Stray Cat]

...I think it is smaller than Geno and staff want. I think 11-13 is needed...

Really?! I think it's disrespectful of to speak of Geno's roster size like this. We all know it's not the size of the roster that counts, it's how he uses it!

 

[meyers7]

Really?! I think it's disrespectful of to speak of Geno's roster size like this. We all know it's not the size of the roster that counts, it's how he uses it!

Come on now.

This is WBB. Size matters.

 

[magical2]

I think it will be 10 with Pope and Banks. Have to see when Banks gets back. Still pretty small. I agree Geno would probably prefer 11-12.

Of course it is too small We had hoped for a class of at least 3 DD,Reimer,Harper
Who would want a roster of 9 scholarship players How many of us
were thinking to ourselfs What if someone gets hurt
prior to BB's ACL or someone transfers prior to or during next season
I am not saying who I have wondered about,but
it is living on the edge
The roster numbers for NC,ST,DUKE,TEXAS A AND M,for next season
are on the other hand crazy
Thank god we got CHONG and the walk on Pope for next season
It is still posible that a player for 2013 gets out of her verbal/signed
LOI due to change in coaching etc
IRA

 

[MilfordHusky]

Let's see. Stef is 6'5". Bree is 6'4". Oh, you mean in terms of numbers.

I think do, but not necessarily. The problem is that there is little margin for error. Injuries, illness, slow development, etc. make it better to have more players, rather than fewer. Last year, CD said 14 (4, 3, 4, 3 by class) would be ideal. I believe Geno said 12. In a money-making operation, I'd go to the max of 15.

I may be overreacting, but with more depth in 2010, Maya would have won a 3rd title. Lack of depth has bitten us in the past. I hope it does not in the future. This is why I think we need at least 4 studs in 2014.

 

[HGN]

Nine(9) scholarship players is just too small of a roster to compete, day in and day out, at the Elite Level that UConn competes.. With the grind of practice and games , nagging pain and injuries are bound to have a negative impact over the course of a season. Even though UConn has the cream de la cream of talented players on that roster , if that talent is injured it can't play. You need quality depth to go the long haul. Nine players is disaster waiting for the injury bug, or foul trouble, to bite it in the rear. Practice players are ok to have at practice , but they don't suit-up on Game Day.

IceBear said it best........11-13 players assures quality depth , practice experience , and insurance against injury.

 

[jplotinus]

9 is cutting it close, as many have said. There is, however, something that hasn't been said that might be an advantage.

Smaller is better in at least one important respect:

With 9, there's much less chance of angst over PT. I often think teams with 13-15 players are at risk of bad chemistry and internal, often hidden, discord. Sure, all the kids are likely to say all the right things to the press about wanting what's best for the team and so on; but, at the end of the day, kids want to play.

With a roster of 11 and up, I'm afraid the chances of not enough playing time to go around become greater, along with the potential for bad chemistry.

12 might easily be too many and 9 might be onviously be too few.

But, if they have to make do with 9 for one season, it might not be the end of the world, Maya's last season notwithstanding. I'd say if the choice were limited to having either 9 or 15, 9 would be the better choice.

 

[vtcwbuff]

I disagree Kib. A larger roster doesn't have to mean dissension over PT. You just need the right mix of players. In the past UConn has been able to pick up some role players and has turned them into major contributors. Williams, Conlon and Gardler come to mind. I doubt if any of the 3 worried too much about their PT.

UConn has averaged a 12 player roster over the last 10 years. That's dropped to 10 the last 4 years. That makes one wonder if some of it is based on finances.

I can't remember a 15 player roster but the team started with 14 in 09 and ended up with 11 after the defections and injuries. Imagine having only 9 to start with and losing 2-3 during the year.

 

[jplotinus]

I disagree Kib. A larger roster doesn't have to mean dissension over PT. You just need the right mix of players. In the past UConn has been able to pick up some role players and has turned them into major contributors. Williams, Conlon and Gardler come to mind. I doubt if any of the 3 worried too much about their PT.

UConn has averaged a 12 player roster over the last 10 years. That's dropped to 10 the last 4 years. That makes one wonder if some of it is based on finances.

I can't remember a 15 player roster but the team started with 14 in 09 and ended up with 11 after the defections and injuries. Imagine having only 9 to start with and losing 2-3 during the year.

Kib has not yet opined on this topic. I, however, will take it as a compliment if you think I sound like Kib. ;-p

It is quite true a larger roster doesn't guarantee dissension. But that wasn't really the point. It was only ever that the more players there are, the more likely some would feel left out. And, that is not the only issue. Coaches are also pressured. They want to keep everyone happy, but they're obliged to put the best combinations on the floor. Those decisions aren't automatic.

There's even the possibility with large rosters that the fan base will get at 6s and 7s with the team, the coaches and, heaven forbid, each other. This comes about when fans stake out claims that the reason why a game didn't go according to plan or Hoyle is because player 9 should have been subed in for player 6 at such and such time, along with this player, that one or another one. Controversy over who should start also becomes more likely. Fans could end up splitting into factions, requiring separate meeting places at halftime. I'm talking ugly turns of events all because there are too many players.

Finally, not sure why you think Conlon would have had pt issues? She was a 2 year starter on back to back NC teams. She had the presence of mind to be Dee's classmate :-o

In order to lessen risk of misunderstanding, I am here posting this largely in jest, or good naturedly, in any event. I do not have a vested interest in being right and I'm not seeking to assert large team proponents are wrong. I have clearly said if I were forced to choose between two options, 9 or 15, I'd take 9.

 

[trisailin]

UConn has averaged a 12 player roster over the last 10 years. That's dropped to 10 the last 4 years. That makes one wonder if some of it is based on finances.
.

Finances? What part of finances. Geno has said more than once that the "extra" scholarships have gone to the team managers. The team appreciates all that the managers do for the team and so the team thinks they too should benefit. I do not know though how those scholarships are distributed.

 

[trisailin]

I think you need to read the Boneyard more to consider what the fans will say. With all the sarcasm I can muster, I know you'll never hear here how the team would do better if player 9 were subbed in for 6 at a different time or if some player were used differently.
I can assure you what the fan base will say has NOTHING to do with roster size.

 

[vtcwbuff]

First an apology to Kibitzer. I promise to never, ever confuse the two of you again. Sorry Kib.

Whatever reaction the fans have to too many or too few players has zero relevence. My point was that a small roster size might affect a season's outcome.
Consider that in the last 10 seasons at least five players have gone down with ACL injuries. So you get a 50-50 shot that a 9 player roster becomes 8 due to a blown knee and that doesn't take into account the missed games due to tweaked ankles, concussions, stress reactions, bone bruises and creamed spinach.

Giving an unused scholly to a team manager is a nice gesture. But I would rather see one go to a player. I wonder how much the cost difference is between managers and players?

 

[jplotinus]

First an apology to Kibitzer. I promise to never, ever confuse the two of you again. Sorry Kib.

Whatever reaction the fans have to too many or too few players has zero relevence. My point was that a small roster size might affect a season's outcome.
Consider that in the last 10 seasons at least five players have gone down with ACL injuries. So you get a 50-50 shot that a 9 player roster becomes 8 due to a blown knee and that doesn't take into account the missed games due to tweaked ankles, concussions, stress reactions, bone bruises and creamed spinach.

Giving an unused scholly to a team manager is a nice gesture. But I would rather see one go to a player. I wonder how much the cost difference is between managers and players?

Well, ok, I will here assume an apology to Kib doesn't automatically result in an insult in my general direction. No need to clarify.

Your concerns about the vulnerabilities of a small roster weren't overlooked or under appreciated. You place some emphasis on roster size and season outcome. In the event, UCONN hasn't won a national championship in well over 2 long years. However, uconn is one of the two teams that has gone to the last 5 final fours, which is a stunningly successful outcome. The other team to have done so has -0- NCs in that stretch. UCONN -2- albeit, none recently enough for some.

If this discussion advances further, it might be useful to compare Stanford's roster size with ours as a point of information, not as a claim about who's right and who's wrong.

Yes, a more numerous roster helps in the event of injury, assuming the subs are talented. And, yes, a small roster size could negatively impact a season's outcome.

Is there a willingness to acknowledge that a more numerous roster could also negatively impact a season's outcome; or, are you asserting that it is axiomatic and darn near certain that more is better and fewer is worse, always and forever, hands down no question about it?

I, on the other hand, say that there are advantages to a 9 size roster as well as the obvious disadvantages. The advantages of 9, together with the disadvantages, outweigh those of a 15 player roster. 15 is too many. Give some to the managers. That is a good thing to do.

 

[semper]

In my view, it's ridiculously small. Reading the top 20 made me very nervous...but we've known this for several months, and let's just hope that some of those beautifully overstocked teams will not be such a draw and that we will because our tank is half full...great players, just not enough of them.

 

[Harry Mangurian]

It is unfortunate (but desirable) that UCONN has a much smaller recruiting base of top players than many schools.
There are talented players that Geno & CD will not recruit because they don't meet team standards in non-basketball respects. Duke, ND, and Stanford have, I believe, similar standards, but (no stones please) far more cachet than UCONN at this point and thus an easier time recruiting exceptional, well rounded women. It is remarkable that Geno & co. have done as well as they have in attracting young women we would be proud to have as daughters.

 

[Bestiarius]

What we need is a farm team. Problem solved.

 

[Icebear]

It is unfortunate (but desirable) that UCONN has a much smaller recruiting base of top players than many schools.
There are talented players that Geno & CD will not recruit because they don't meet team standards in non-basketball respects. Duke, ND, and Stanford have, I believe, similar standards, but (no stones please) far more cachet than UCONN at this point and thus an easier time recruiting exceptional, well rounded women. It is remarkable that Geno & co. have done as well as they have in attracting young women we would be proud to have as daughters.

Every one wants to be wait staff in the best restaurants.

 

[Wonkster]

What we need is a farm team. Problem solved.

And just which animals will we have in the corral for our farm team, besides bears and dogs?

 

[Wbbfan1]

I've written a number of critical posts and have deleted all of them without posting them. So, I'll just say Geno and the coaching staff should not have allowed the roster to be so small next year. IMHO there is no excuse for it. I believe there were players that would have welcomed the opportunity to play for a demanding coach like Geno that would help next years team more then any potential walk-on will, even if it meant coming off the bench for a year or two.