Losing A'ja Good for UConn & Sport

[hoophuskee]

Who did that? Please know that I am not trying to attack you or doubt what you are saying; I just do not recall seeing anyone pick Notre Dame to win after Achonwa's injury.

The McDoanld's High School game. If you have a tape of it- whoever the woman analyst was - she said during the All-Star game that either Notre Dame (wihout Achonwa) or Stanford will beat UCONN.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

The McDoanld's High School game. If you have a tape of it- whoever the woman analyst was - she said during the All-Star game that either Notre Dame (wihout Achonwa) or Stanford will beat UCONN.

Thank you. I actually did not record the game.

Notre Dame, with Achonwa, would have pushed UConn, but would still have lost by 10-12 points in a game that would have been closer throughout the contest.

As it was, Notre Dame played a very strong first half, given the team was down big early. The Irish fought hard and competed well, but was facing a UConn juggernaut with scoring from all five positions on the floor. Notre Dame relied primarily on three scorers, and when one was done for the year, so was Notre Dame.

 

[hoophuskee]

Thank you. I actually did not record the game.

Notre Dame, with Achonwa, would have pushed UConn, but would still have lost by 10-12 points in a game that would have been closer throughout the contest.

As it was, Notre Dame played a very strong first half, given the team was down big early. The Irish fought hard and competed well, but was facing a UConn juggernaut with scoring from all five positions on the floor. Notre Dame relied primarily on three scorers, and when one was done for the year, so was Notre Dame.

I hear you. Technically I'm wrong when I said "analysts" (just one I heard) but after I heard her say it- and maybe someone can help out with the name- we all spoke about it on here beforehand about the all-american college kids being on tv- I thought she was crazy.

She wouldmention how Stanford got better too. And I thought---what - UCONN didn't? Though they didn't play so hot in S16 or E8 game imo. If any are reading this post and saw that game they could cite her name. That was the only person I heard making that claim. I've assumed there are/were others. Maybe she was the only one. I was just tryin' to tell a joke though . . . at my own expense.

 

[cohenzone]

As a long-time UConn fan, I have to confess that I breathe a sigh of relief when the number 1 rated hs player doesn't come here, and am pretty much disappointed when we get anyone in the top 50 or so. I mean, I live for watching to see how Geno can coach up a bunch of role players into a steady force for parity. I can only dream of the delight of watching with bated breath to see if Drexyl's' star guard swishes that buzzer beating 3 to crush our tourney hopes in the thrilling 39-38 contest. Maybe we can even do ND a favor and see if they can handle what would be their 3rd string (our paritized favorites) in a stirring game in the round of 64 as our 16th seed women give the Fighting Nebishes a run for their money. Would no doubt keep our venues full and fans from all over the country flocking to see the toothless Huskies. Better hope South Carolina doesn't become the new UConn. It will mess up their recruiting.

 

[intlzncster]

I know they came around in the torunament, but what supreme player did the UCONN frontline go against? The freshman Randle was overall the best talent-wise. Maybe him. Could Kentucky have matched up against Phi Slamma Jamma? I say not a chance. My point is mentioning that type of team - THAT is greatness. The UCONN women - THEY are greatness. Ths men's team comparing to other champions was just "Good enough" to win. You're mentioning in your reply to me that they were rare -the team I happen to pick - Houston - THAT is my point. You could see unbelievabe greatness at times back then just like now with UCONN (and Baylor for a short term). . And if I ever am to believe Sims is a tremendous player going forward and imo is right now, wouldn't that Baylor team be similar to Phi Slamma Jamma?

Another unreal game - I even had an old VHS tape UNC- Vs Georgetown (may have lost it). You had James Worthy and Sam Perkins up front. Worthy was junior. Do you know what he would have done to us- especially with a guy like Perkins to support along with freshman Michael Jordan? Again- if Kentucky's Young would looked as good vs. UCONN as he did just being a freshman, what would Jordan have done? We'd never see that great game now. Worthy would have been long gone. Maybe Perkins too.

And at the other end- Georgetown. They had Sleepy Floyd. He probably would haveleft as a junior too - so we would have missed. Sleepy Floyd as a senior would be a beast nowadays. Just look at how well the Michgan State FRESHMAN off-guard played vs UCONN. And GTOWN's defense anchored by freshman Ewing- light years ahead of our posts. Not to mention just TWO years later you get a matchup Ewing (jr) vs Olajuwon (jr) in the NCAA finals. The talent far, far superior because kids stayed longer. Our boys never had to face THAT - whether it be posts or wings or guards that great.

We saw how Okafor dominated because in genral the big men leave early. Wouldn't it have been great if Okafor went against the freshman Howard? What about a year or two later with Howard potentially going against Bynum? Again it's pipe dream nowadays. The talent doesn't stay. Imagine if Anthony Davis stayed, and if they are right about Nerlens Noel, you could have had a potential classic matchup- again assuming projections are correct. And just think a few years earlier of Houston/NC State you had Magic and Bird going at it.

Our guard play was great relatively speaking- but haven't we seen sophomores far superior such Magic, Isiaah, and Chris Paul? These are all-time greats that you had a chance to see for more than 1 year that had impacted the college game. You just see a small window now. BUT NOT with the UCONN women. Evey few years - like this past year- we are witnesses to all-time greatness. Not just a champion. But a TEAM filled with greatness. It can be breathtaking.

The problem in the analogy is on the women's side imo. You don't get to see a ton of these 'greatness' matchups in WCBB because there aren't enough great players to go around. You say the Men play watered down teams, well it's even WORSE in a sense on the women's side, but for different reasons. The opposition is basically JV most of the time. It's practically a scrimmage. There's usually 3 or 4 potentially good games a year.

You would be witnessing greatness if Maya Moore & Breanna Stewart was going up against Diana Taurasi and Candace Parker. That sort of spectacle rarely exists in women's bball. The problem is there is not enough great players.

I'd also argue that the girls who come in aren't as dominant as freshman coming in. There are a couple of players who were great from the start. Parker, Maya, DT. But most, not so much. Moriah Jefferson was #2 in the country and she looked pedestrian her freshman year (which is fine btw); but that player would be an absolute stud on the men's side. Even Breanna wasn't phenomenal as a freshman until late in the year.

 

[Scotter]

You would be witnessing greatness if Maya Moore & Breanna Stewart was going up against Diana Taurasi and Candace Parker. That sort of spectacle rarely exists in women's bball. The problem is there is not enough great players.

Candace Parker played regularly against Sylvia Fowles over 4 year period. Maya Moore and Angel faced each other a number of times over a 2 year period. Maya did face Griner twice and Charles faced her one. UConn regularly played against a team like Stanford with a number of future WNBA 1st round draft picks and two players that would be drafted #1 overall. And there are the numerous UConn and Notre Dame matchups. Those are just a few examples. Those repeat matchups between players that among the best in the world not just college don't happen on the men's side.

I'd also argue that the girls who come in aren't as dominant as freshman coming in. There are a couple of players who were great from the start. Parker, Maya, DT. But most, not so much. Moriah Jefferson was #2 in the country and she looked pedestrian her freshman year (which is fine btw); but that player would be an absolute stud on the men's side. Even Breanna wasn't phenomenal as a freshman until late in the year.

I'm not sure how much you actually pay attention to the men's side, but the struggles you describe Moriah and Breanna are typical on the men's side and not at all uncommon for the #1 overall player let alone the #2. The typical season is full of NBA draxt experts debating what the struggles of highly ranked players means. Many come out of it at the end of the season like Moriah and Breanna did. Women's players are for more reliable to be counted as an impact players as freshman.

 

[intlzncster]

Candace Parker played regularly against Sylvia Fowles over 4 year period. Maya Moore and Angel faced each other a number of times over a 2 year period. Maya did face Griner twice and Charles faced her one. UConn regularly played against a team like Stanford with a number of future WNBA 1st round draft picks and two players that would be drafted #1 overall. And there are the numerous UConn and Notre Dame matchups. Those are just a few examples. Those repeat matchups between players that among the best in the world not just college don't happen on the men's side.

I was only speaking to multiple elite players facing off, but yes, the best players face off more often on the women's side. That said, my point was, the 'witness to greatness' factor is mitigated by the overall top heavy disparity in talent among the women.

I'm not sure how much you actually pay attention to the men's side, but the struggles you describe Moriah and Breanna are typical on the men's side and not at all uncommon for the #1 overall player let alone the #2. The typical season is full of NBA draxt experts debating what the struggles of highly ranked players means. Many come out of it at the end of the season like Moriah and Breanna did. Women's players are for more reliable to be counted as an impact players as freshman.

I follow men's basketball more than women's and again, in general, the top few freshman are studs. This year:

Name Pts Reb Asts Stls Blks
Julius Randle 15 10.4 1.4 0.5 0.8
Andrew Wiggins 17.1 5.9 1.5 1.2 1
Jabari Parker 19.1 8.7 1.2 1.1 1.2

Those are good numbers. Your Kevin Durants, your Anthony Davis's, etc. Most of the big players put up really good numbers. There was only hand ringing because the media thought they score 30pts per game and were shocked when they did not.

MoJett, the #2 recruit, averaged less than 5 pts per game. Breanna averaged a good 14.8 and 6.3. But remember, Breanna is supposed to be the most transcendent player to ever step on the court. A comparable talent, Kevin Durant, averaged 18.5pt, 11.1reb, 1.3/1.9/1.9. And that didn't even reflect how dominant he was.

I have no idea where you got that last statement from. What is that based on?

 

[Scotter]

I was only speaking to multiple elite players facing off, but yes, the best players face off more often on the women's side. That said, my point was, the 'witness to greatness' factor is mitigated by the overall top heavy disparity in talent among the women.



I follow men's basketball more than women's and again, in general, the top few freshman are studs. This year:

Name Pts Reb Asts Stls Blks
Julius Randle 15 10.4 1.4 0.5 0.8
Andrew Wiggins 17.1 5.9 1.5 1.2 1
Jabari Parker 19.1 8.7 1.2 1.1 1.2

Those are good numbers. Your Kevin Durants, your Anthony Davis's, etc. Most of the big players put up really good numbers. There was only hand ringing because the media thought they score 30pts per game and were shocked when they did not.

MoJett, the #2 recruit, averaged less than 5 pts per game. Breanna averaged a good 14.8 and 6.3. But remember, Breanna is supposed to be the most transcendent player to ever step on the court. A comparable talent, Kevin Durant, averaged 18.5pt, 11.1reb, 1.3/1.9/1.9. And that didn't even reflect how dominant he was.

I have no idea where you got that last statement from. What is that based on?

This men's freshman class is considered one of the best in years and yet there was still plenty of debate over the performance of Andrew Wiggins for example during the season. There's not many people claiming his freshman year to be an unqualified success given his talent level. Kevin isn't any more typical of a highly ranked incoming freshman than Maya Moore is. Even great players that were impact players like Derrick Rose had struggles through a big chunk of his freshman season like Breanna. And you then you have struggles like Harrison Barnes were he had moderate success but still did enough damage to his NBA draft stock that he had to stay another season and only ended up going 7th in that draft. And then you have the John Henson types that really truly struggled.

 

[ASweet3781]

I love how people throw the 1980s as an example of "greatness" in MCBB compared to today.

Several champions that decade were lower seeded "cinderellas". NC State. Villanova. Kansas. All lower seeds who won. Several cinderellas made the Final 4 like Georgia, LSU, Providence, etc.

There was also no 3 point shot or shot clock for much of the decade either. Let's not over look that little fact.

This year men's tournament was fantastic and had great play level of play. Feel bad for anyone so jaded they couldn't enjoy it. Especially when our school ended up winning.

 

[doggydaddy]

will return it's top 9 scorers from last season. Montout was the 10th...

This reminds me of when one of the Notre Dame fan post this at the beginning of last year.

Of course it comes down to the top players when determining how well a team will do. Not the 7th, 8th and 9th best scorers who averages 3.6, 2.4 and 2.1 ppg. USC has several top players coming back. Those will be the difference makers.

You know your team better, but which two of the nine will see less time with the addition of a Wilson and Cuevas?

 

[doggydaddy]

I've already stated it here before that PG Sessions and SF Dozier were weaknesses to the team last season. PG Cuevas and W Wilson would fit into those roles perfectly. Both Sessions and Dozier were highly rated prep players (not as high as the youngsters of course) and will each have 2 seasons in the program. Last season was the first for each as predominant starters. They could continue to develop this off-season and fight for their positions on the depth charts. But they better get to work...

In either case we'll probably just see a lot more rotation at the positions, at the least. I expect to see Wilson rotated often at the SF/3 spot that's Dozier's and at /4 spot that's Aleighsa Welch's position. Also Welch could get a rest at times and let a combo "Big Girl" package between Ibiam/Coates/White at times. Having them on the floor however along with Wilson - who's big girl herself - at the 3 would be pretty intimidating to say the least for opponents, but it would also make our team fairly slow, and they better make their shot attempts or get the caroms or they will be left behind a lot of fast-break transitions to other way. But it'll be a way to give Wilson more minutes while giving Welch some rest.

Beyond them we have reserves PG Tiffany Davis, PG Olivia Gaines, and SG/SF Tina Roy who probably were going to be reserves no matter what...

Sorry, I didn't see your earlier post on this. Can't read everything.

Your last statement was my point. I thought your comment saying you had your top 9 scorers back a little silly. Your success will come from your top players.

 

[hoophuskee]

The problem in the analogy is on the women's side imo. You don't get to see a ton of these 'greatness' matchups in WCBB because there aren't enough great players to go around. You say the Men play watered down teams, well it's even WORSE in a sense on the women's side, but for different reasons. The opposition is basically JV most of the time. It's practically a scrimmage. There's usually 3 or 4 potentially good games a year.

You would be witnessing greatness if Maya Moore & Breanna Stewart was going up against Diana Taurasi and Candace Parker. That sort of spectacle rarely exists in women's bball. The problem is there is not enough great players.

I'd also argue that the girls who come in aren't as dominant as freshman coming in. There are a couple of players who were great from the start. Parker, Maya, DT. But most, not so much. Moriah Jefferson was #2 in the country and she looked pedestrian her freshman year (which is fine btw); but that player would be an absolute stud on the men's side. Even Breanna wasn't phenomenal as a freshman until late in the year.

There aren't that many "great" players around ("great" being a relative term) because the few that establish themselves as supremely great are going to win when you give them at least very good players. SO the lsoers don't seem so great. When you give Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan and LeBron James very good talented teammates (they don't have to be the best) they are going to make other great opponent players look much smaller. One player in hoop can have an enormous impact. The one that loses - all his or her warts are exposed. In college you even have a Bird or a Griner still emerge as all-time great even if they lose. Were anyKentucky player's this year - considered "all-time great?" Nope.

I agree with your analogy of Paker/DT vs Moore/Stewie to a point. But I disagree in that --THIS YEAR"S UCONN team was among all-time greatest in women's basketball without DT/Parker or Moore/Stewart (I know you never said UCONN wasn't-but my point is.--- The UCONN men were not all-time great the women were. Thus you see greater quality from the UCONN women than the men. This year's women's team is one of the greatest wcbb teams' ever.

I'll mention again the Louisville/Baylor game. A supreme all-time great game similar to Houston/NC State. Because it doesn't happen every year these supreme games, in no way means other games (the men) are high quality. The level UCONN women play at every so often- IS all-time great. Not so with the men. They can have an all-time great "moment" but overall all-time great play? Nah.

There is one common denomitor to these all-time great teams. They have a " supreme quality catalyst" the mens's game can no longer have. You get the rare player in DT, Maya and now Stewie. They are going to go down as among the all-time greatest wcbb player's ever. Is Shabazz going down like that?

 

[hoophuskee]

I love how people throw the 1980s as an example of "greatness" in MCBB compared to today.

Several champions that decade were lower seeded "cinderellas". NC State. Villanova. Kansas. All lower seeds who won. Several cinderellas made the Final 4 like Georgia, LSU, Providence, etc.

There was also no 3 point shot or shot clock for much of the decade either. Let's not over look that little fact.

This year men's tournament was fantastic and had great play level of play. Feel bad for anyone so jaded they couldn't enjoy it. Especially when our school ended up winning.

You are missing the point. A supreme great team can lose in a super basketball game. That's my point. Which is why I not only brought up the NC State/Houston game but the womens's game of Louisville/Baylor. That was an all-time great game because of the quality and the surprise. Stanford lost as a number 1 seed one year to a 16-seed I believe. THAT was not an all-time great game. Suprise outcomes alone don't make a great game. You need quality too. The mens game was NOT super quality compared to Georgetown/UNC. . To think Nolan and Brimah are part of an all-time great team that could have matched up with Worthy and Perkins imo is wrong. What they did was play against lower quality front line and held up. That was remarkable and exciting. That's different than being all-time great. Which you get every so often when you watch the UCONN women. All-time greatness like we were witnesses to this year.

Kind of like what NC State did with Phi Slamma Jamma. I'll take the Houston frontline all-day any day over the freshmen Kentucky frontline.

As far as the 3 point shot- it makes NC State winning even more remarkable.

By the way- if you were talking about me- again you missed the point. All I said is their quality isn't as great as the women's quality. That means I didn't enjoy the men winning? I was jumpin' up and down yelling at the tv the whole time. I couldn't be happier OR MORE PROUD!!!

 

[Henry]

What will the experts say when we win again next year? What would be good for WBB is promoting coaches based on their ability and not their connections or genes, ie Tyler Summitt.

 

[HoopsFan21]

What will the experts say when we win again next year? What would be good for WBB is promoting coaches based on their ability and not their connections or genes, ie Tyler Summitt.

The same thing they say every year: UConn wins because they get all the top players and Geno can pretty much hand pick his roster of all-stars.

 

[ASweet3781]

You are missing the point. A supreme great team can lose in a super basketball game. That's my point. Which is why I not only brought up the NC State/Houston game but the womens's game of Louisville/Baylor. That was an all-time great game because of the quality and the surprise. Stanford lost as a number 1 seed one year to a 16-seed I believe. THAT was not an all-time great game. Suprise outcomes alone don't make a great game. You need quality too. The mens game was NOT super quality compared to Georgetown/UNC. . To think Nolan and Brimah are part of an all-time great team that could have matched up with Worthy and Perkins imo is wrong. What they did was play against lower quality front line and held up. That was remarkable and exciting. That's different than being all-time great. Which you get every so often when you watch the UCONN women. All-time greatness like we were witnesses to this year.

Kind of like what NC State did with Phi Slamma Jamma. I'll take the Houston frontline all-day any day over the freshmen Kentucky frontline.

As far as the 3 point shot- it makes NC State winning even more remarkable.

By the way- if you were talking about me- again you missed the point. All I said is their quality isn't as great as the women's quality. That means I didn't enjoy the men winning? I was jumpin' up and down yelling at the tv the whole time. I couldn't be happier OR MORE PROUD!!!

Not missing the point. I could understand if you said Villanova-Georgetown. That was a terrific game. Houston-NC State was a slop fest made memorable by the final dunk. The coaching by Houston in that game was so incompetent that it kept Guy Lewis out of the Hall of Fame until just this past year. He allowed Clyde Drexler to pick up 4 fouls...in the first half! He slowed the game down with 10 minutes to go despite having a huge advantage in quickness and when Houston was starting to pull away. And there was certainly no "greatness" in Houston's foul shooting. Which allowed NC State to win. Back than a team could hold the ball for up until a minute because there was no shot clock.

I wouldn't say there's greatness in men's college basketball. But there were far more great games and moments in the men's tournament than the women's. I enjoyed both for obvious reasons.

 

[hoophuskee]

[
Not missing the point. I could understand if you said Villanova-Georgetown. That was a terrific game. Houston-NC State was a slop fest made memorable by the final dunk. The coaching by Houston in that game was so incompetent that it kept Guy Lewis out of the Hall of Fame until just this past year. He allowed Clyde Drexler to pick up 4 fouls...in the first half! He slowed the game down with 10 minutes to go despite having a huge advantage in quickness and when Houston was starting to pull away. And there was certainly no "greatness" in Houston's foul shooting. Which allowed NC State to win. Back than a team could hold the ball for up until a minute because there was no shot clock.

The game was NOT a slop fest. It was great defense with very few turnovers. And yes Guy Lewis blundered. THAT has nothing to do with talent however. John Calipari blundered by not playing zone earlier and his late minute or so execution/timeout and the freshman foul-ups for KY to boot. But here is the box score. Very few turnovers.

http://www.gopack.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/040408aac.html


To speak of foul shooting and then to try to draw some type of conclusion that Phi Slamma Jamma wasn’t great imo is just trying to be argumentative for argument’s sake.

I wouldn't say there's greatness in men's college basketball. But there were far more great games and moments in the men's tournament than the women's.

This to me has NOTHING to do with my argument or you are agreeing with me in some manner.- which is it? Here is what I said in italic in my 1st post:

I became less of a men's fan because overall quality of the men's game isn't very good. In a mens game you can never watch team greatness (quality greatness I'm talking of here). Individual greatness sure. But not team greatness.

You can see by MY preference, I said as of now you can never watch team greatness in men’s basketball. That seems to be what YOU are saying with the underline in bold. Thus YOU HAVE missed my point. Because we agree in men's college basketball no more team greatness, right?

Because your 1st sentence IS my point as to why I like the women’s game better. A reply was made to me BEFORE you posted to me was- to paraphrase -- “didn’t I watch the men’s defense in the NCAA’s this year?” I did. But while we saw them defend with a ton of heart and hustle incredibly- but on the women’s side I just envision the women guarding one of the all-time greats in Stanford history - Chiney Ogwumike-- and make her look ordinary. The men made Randle look ordinary but imo there is HUGE difference between the two. The men of course were more exciting because the game was so close/in doubt. But THAT doesn’t make them great in comparison to all-time greats from the women., does it?

And to summarize if you don’t think that the NC State-Houston game was not a great game and speak of these games as great – then we can agree to disagree. These games this year were fun and exciting. In the Houston game Olajuwon takes away any paint play – his defense phenomenal. Seven blocks as we were witness to one of the all-time greats continue to grow before our eyes. . NC State still wins the game without the benefit of a three-point shot to boot. It’s not only exciting and fun as the games were this year, but better quality. NC State had NO inside game because of Olajuwon. Despite having jr Michael Young. Sr Larry Micheaux. Freshman Olajuwon even w/o Drexler they couldn’t overcome the Wolfpack. These combination types of players from Houston were not there in this NCAA tourney. And as stated Thurl Bailey would have long bolted before this game too.


I’m not arguing excitement. But let’s not go over-the-top with guys like Brimah and Nolan. And I couldn't be mroe proud of them. Their heart, effort and detrmiantion was amazing. Unbeleivably amazing.

And with your comment - I wouldn't say there's greatness in men's college basketball –

but---- are you saying Phi Slamma Jamma wasn’t a great basketball team? Do you think they were?

Maybe you think they weren’t great because they didn’t win a title and their foul shooting?