Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="pinotbear, post: 2502418, member: 258"] On one hand, I think you're right: she'd be a more dominate, prominent, and significant player in a weaker conference. On the other, as I've discussed before, somebody's gotta be the depth, the 8th/9th/10th+ player on a powerful team. The downside is, as you suggest, playing time will be less. The upside is, big crowds, good travel, television time, conference titles, Final Fours, and, quite possibly, National Championship rings. Not everybody values playing time over these other positives; some do, some don't. I guess what I'm saying is, the decision to be a "supporting actor" for UConn instead of a "lead actor" for a Richmond, or George Mason, or whomever, isn't necessarily a poor reflection on the heart or fire of the player. It's certainly to UConn's advantage, to have quality, motivated depth that accepts and embraces the role. [/QUOTE]