Meg Culmo and The Game

[hoophuskee]

I want to start off with I love Meg Culmo - love her demeanor / style of how she calls the game. So much I love about her. And look forward to hearing her for many more years to come. Now with that said . . .

I think she is WRONG. IMO she is looking at the game with a way-too-much post bias. The same with Rebecca. Rebecca had mentioned after watching Maryland play UCONN that the new formula was to pound UCONN with a big center. - ie Coates. For me I love to see UCONN push pace. I love wing play and guard play. I like to see bigs able to pass the ball. Thus when I hear Meg and Rebecca - sometimes I disagree with them completely because of my wing/guard bias vs their post bias.

The game vs Cinci imo too often Meg complained about quick shots. I was thinking it was more their defense. Geno said so at halftime. I think Meg's bias of preferring post play aggravated her a bit so she overlooked the overall sub-par defense. She mostly spoke of "quick shots" and yet they had 25 points in 1st qtr.

IMO the shots taken overall are NOT bad shots. Taking quick 3's is NOT bad as often as Meg says. I love the style of playing at a quick pace. Interested if others agree or disagree. I want UCONN pushing the ball - and yes I do want them taking quick 3's at times. If you are playing fast pace - shouldn't you take some quick 3's? With 2:25 left UCONN took 3 quick shots and two were 3's they went in. Not one word about a quick shot. When Stewie hit a 3 in that time period, it was one pass and then her shot. Meg asked "you can't leave Stewart that wide open." -- --- I agree!! That's the point sometimes why they are talking quick 3's. They ARE wide open and also trying to push pace. In order to push pace not every time are you going to make "5" passes. Sometimes it will be one or two passes and then a 3. I get the feeling she is going to beat the drum of quick shot 3 is bad for a long time now that KML is gone and the super, super super, supreme shooting may not be there. When she does this- if I think the UCONN shooters are capable- I'm gonna keep saying MEG IS WRONG.

What do others think? I'm not saying all quick shots are good. But it seems Meg is focused on the quick shot too much - as this past game- the main issue was the defense and she totally overlooked it in favor of quick shots. Push pace!! Push pace!! Let the kids play!! It's okay early to take some quick 3 point shots with one or two passes! I love you Meg- you're great!!! But in this case as to how UCONN takes 3's . . .

 

[bags27]

Couldn't agree more. That's what John Wooden figured out too (okay, admittedly, he did also have 2 all-universe centers, but one of them was amazingly agile). why Geno brought in 3 wings this year (2 stuck). Athletic, agile, great conditioning. The women's game, because of height compression, especially favors the 5'11"-6'1" wing who can drive, shoot the jumper, change direction, transition quickly from O to D and back to O. Push the pace, as you say.

 

[FairView]

I think she is wrong about a lot of stuff.
She often appears unprepared for the games she is broadcasting.
She often makes careless errors.
She has an attitude and she knows how to do everything on the court.
How much better is the Geno show without her? It's really, really, really, really, really better.
It appears as though she knows she can do whatever she wants as long as Geno is coach.

 

[Goodgood]

I think she is wrong about a lot of stuff.
She often appears unprepared for the games she is broadcasting.
She often makes careless errors.
She has an attitude and she knows how to do everything on the court.
How much better is the Geno show without her? It's really, really, really, really, really better.
It appears as though she knows she can do whatever she wants as long as Geno is coach.

I disagree. That is a bit harsh. She does talk too much but there are much worse.

 

[bags27]

This thread is beginning to be a judgment of her general knowledge and style, and not of her--and Rebecca's--basketball philosophy, as hoophuskee originally suggested.

 

[Wally East]

I think she is WRONG. IMO she is looking at the game with a way-too-much post bias. The same with Rebecca. Rebecca had mentioned after watching Maryland play UCONN that the new formula was to pound UCONN with a big center. - ie Coates. For me I love to see UCONN push pace. I love wing play and guard play. I like to see bigs able to pass the ball. Thus when I hear Meg and Rebecca - sometimes I disagree with them completely because of my wing/guard bias vs their post bias.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but I think their critique isn't that they want UConn to play a certain style but they believe UConn's opponents would do best by playing with a post-oriented offense that included a big center. So, I'm not sure how to connect what they're saying with what you're saying.

 

[Kibitzer]

I hear Meg speak often and adoringly of the glory of "the extra pass!"

 

[hoophuskee]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but I think their critique isn't that they want UConn to play a certain style but they believe UConn's opponents would do best by playing with a post-oriented offense that included a big center. So, I'm not sure how to connect what they're saying with what you're saying.

Meg was saying in this Cinci game (and others this year) that they take too quick of a shot. Meg has said tis year on tv that she is bias and/or likes low post player. That thought has carried in my mind every time she critiques "the quick 3."

I've tied her and Rebecca in - as for Rebecca she claimed UCONN as vulnerable after the Md game and mentioned Coates would be the one to give them fits. Rebecca, like Meg, has also said she likes "the big girl" game. And IMO Rebecca as wrong at the time to claim "the formula" to beat UCONN was Coates. That comment is coming from an expert that has a bias. --- I have a bias too - I prefer the guard/wing game. That's why I started this thread- wondering how others view things. DO you/they have bias? You think like Meg - UCONN is not being patient enough? Meg didn't mention at all about defense which I thought was obviously sub-par - instead she mentioned "the quick shot." At the end of the 1st quarter UCONN had 25 points. But gave up 19. How is it that the offense irritated her so much that even though UCONN got 25 points, that she went after the offense? IMO it is because she has a low post bias, just like Rebecca. It seems to me, she loves post play. Otherwise why so critical of the offense that put up 25 points in the 1st quarter? IMO anyone on here that prefers the big girl game is going to agree with Meg. And they have major fears of someone like Coates/ big girl player's going forward. My bias is more toward guard play and shooting.

 

[hoophuskee]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but I think their critique isn't that they want UConn to play a certain style but they believe UConn's opponents would do best by playing with a post-oriented offense that included a big center. So, I'm not sure how to connect what they're saying with what you're saying.

I hear Meg speak often and adoringly of the glory of "the extra pass!"

1-- If you have the Cinci game at end of 1st half - 2:25 left- MoJeff came down the court without passing and took a three and nailed it. I didn't hear anything about "making the extra pass. Only praise for MoJeff. My issue at times with Meg is that she will criticize a three like that when it misses. But when it goes in-- nothing. I think one time this year she criticized a three that went in.

2-- Meg often criticizes one or two passes then a quick 3. As you suggest she prefers the team make "the extra pass." But right after the play above, the very next play, MoJeff comes down the court, comes off a pick from Stewie, passes it to Stewie at the 3pt line and Stewie hits the 3. That was ONE pass and a shot. Meg said "How can you leave Stewie that wide open?" So she was okay with Stewie taking the shot. Why? This is one pass and a shot. Where is the "extra pass" in this instance? If being wide open is the parameter, then why criticize others when they are wide open as much as she does after one pass and a shot?

3-- IMO if MoJeff missed her shot and or Stewie did, she would have beat the drum about making "the extra pass." UCONN wants to push pace. On a fastbreak when is it okay to fire up a 3 on a fastbreak or delayed fastbreak? How many passes should there be? For example, MoJeff is flying upcourt, she passes to Nurse or KLS at the three point line, they are open, is it okay for either to shoot the 3? If you say yes it is okay, then what does "make the extra pass" mean in this scenario? It is one pass and shoot. If it is such a bad shot to take the 3, then why doesn't Geno immediately pull the player after "not making the extra pass?"

 

[Jonathan Husky]

I think she is wrong about a lot of stuff.
She often appears unprepared for the games she is broadcasting.
She often makes careless errors.
She has an attitude and she knows how to do everything on the court.
How much better is the Geno show without her? It's really, really, really, really, really better.
It appears as though she knows she can do whatever she wants as long as Geno is coach.

I couldn't agree more !!! Without her personal Geno connection there is no chance she would be the SNY analyst. She is better with Eric than with Bob Picozzi who made her even worse. But she is still mediocre at best. Kerith Burke has made the Geno show more professional and enjoyable.

 

[cabbie191]

If I recall from the Cincy game, didn't Meg amend her statement at one point to say that if a quick shot was made, then it wasn't too quick?

This speaks to how we often interpret events post-mortem from the prism of success versus failure. Notable case in point: If Wilson's pass in the final seconds of the Super Bowl loss to the Patriots had been completed and the Seahawks won instead, then I doubt many people would have described it as the most boneheaded call in football history.

 

[ricky]

Como will wear the drum out next year due to a significant amount of missed three's between KLS and Kia. Hopefully she praises Collier when she swoops in like a mother bird of prey to clean up their mess. Collier will come back stronger next year and make everyone look better. Como will see the wing on defense as the key to next season.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

I want to start off with I love Meg Culmo - love her demeanor / style of how she calls the game. So much I love about her. And look forward to hearing her for many more years to come. Now with that said . . .

I think she is WRONG. IMO she is looking at the game with a way-too-much post bias. The same with Rebecca. Rebecca had mentioned after watching Maryland play UCONN that the new formula was to pound UCONN with a big center. - ie Coates. For me I love to see UCONN push pace. I love wing play and guard play. I like to see bigs able to pass the ball. Thus when I hear Meg and Rebecca - sometimes I disagree with them completely because of my wing/guard bias vs their post bias.

The game vs Cinci imo too often Meg complained about quick shots. I was thinking it was more their defense. Geno said so at halftime. I think Meg's bias of preferring post play aggravated her a bit so she overlooked the overall sub-par defense. She mostly spoke of "quick shots" and yet they had 25 points in 1st qtr.

IMO the shots taken overall are NOT bad shots. Taking quick 3's is NOT bad as often as Meg says. I love the style of playing at a quick pace. Interested if others agree or disagree. I want UCONN pushing the ball - and yes I do want them taking quick 3's at times. If you are playing fast pace - shouldn't you take some quick 3's? With 2:25 left UCONN took 3 quick shots and two were 3's they went in. Not one word about a quick shot. When Stewie hit a 3 in that time period, it was one pass and then her shot. Meg asked "you can't leave Stewart that wide open." -- --- I agree!! That's the point sometimes why they are talking quick 3's. They ARE wide open and also trying to push pace. In order to push pace not every time are you going to make "5" passes. Sometimes it will be one or two passes and then a 3. I get the feeling she is going to beat the drum of quick shot 3 is bad for a long time now that KML is gone and the super, super super, supreme shooting may not be there. When she does this- if I think the UCONN shooters are capable- I'm gonna keep saying MEG IS WRONG.

What do others think? I'm not saying all quick shots are good. But it seems Meg is focused on the quick shot too much - as this past game- the main issue was the defense and she totally overlooked it in favor of quick shots. Push pace!! Push pace!! Let the kids play!! It's okay early to take some quick 3 point shots with one or two passes! I love you Meg- you're great!!! But in this case as to how UCONN takes 3's . . .

I've always enjoyed Megan Culmo's commentary, and lament the loss of her fascinating discussions with the coach on CPTV's Geno Auriemma Show. I enjoy her enthusiasm and enjoyment of the game. She isn't one of these commentators who feel compelled to spew out useless factoids on every player who has just made a basket. And I enjoy her ability to point out fine play by other teams' players, and her admiration for opposing players and teams that fight hard, even when falling behind. She's a down-home type of unaffected commentator who, IMO, adds immensely to the game.

Is she biased towards centers? Perhaps. But I'll let that slip a bit, and just keep in mind that, as a former center, she's, well, biased towards post play.

 

[Adesmar123]

Actually listen to what she says during the game during the entire game. Is it insightful or does she just tell you what happened?
I'm not sure she leaves out any basketball cliches in a game. On a turnover she will say "that was a bad pass" On a missed shot she will say "that wasn't a good shot"

And please stop the hehehehehe laugh.

 

[Bliss]

I sez let the shooters shoot anytime they feel the shot.

 

[hoophuskee]

If I recall from the Cincy game, didn't Meg amend her statement at one point to say that if a quick shot was made, then it wasn't too quick?

This speaks to how we often interpret events post-mortem from the prism of success versus failure. Notable case in point: If Wilson's pass in the final seconds of the Super Bowl loss to the Patriots had been completed and the Seahawks won instead, then I doubt many people would have described it as the most boneheaded call in football history.

1- That's what I mean. She speaks of shots-- and this is my point-- outside 3 point shots mostly- being too quick. IMO on some level it irritates her because she has a low post bias. And imo at times the bias comes out from Rebecca too. I haven't remembered a specific instance from Wolters but I remember one time this year I thought she had said something completely wrong - but I've long forgotten because the next time or two she seemed to encourage shooting. Can' really remember though.

2-- You're right about the football play. If they made the play, it couldn't be called most boneheaded in history, but it would be called still a really stupid play. Their play is like a basketball game in which both teams are scoring a lot - able to run their offense- and in the last 20 seconds in a one point game the pg dribbles around at halfcourt and takes a 45 foot shot at the buzzer and the ball goes in. It was a stupid play but you couldn't call it the most boneheaded ever.

 

[huskyd]

Couldn't agree more. That's what John Wooden figured out too (okay, admittedly, he did also have 2 all-universe centers, but one of them was amazingly agile). why Geno brought in 3 wings this year (2 stuck). Athletic, agile, great conditioning. The women's game, because of height compression, especially favors the 5'11"-6'1" wing who can drive, shoot the jumper, change direction, transition quickly from O to D and back to O. Push the pace, as you say.

Someone like Lexi Gordon perhaps?

 

[uconnfan68]

I couldn't agree more !!! Without her personal Geno connection there is no chance she would be the SNY analyst. She is better with Eric than with Bob Picozzi who made her even worse. But she is still mediocre at best. Kerith Burke has made the Geno show more professional and enjoyable.

Without Meg, we may not have gotten Rebecca to commit (she was her host during her visit), and without Rebecca we probably don't have a single NC, let alone 10. And if you ever saw her play, you'd appreciate her even more.

 

[bleeckerhusky]

I think that Meg does a better job than any other play-by-play color commentator that covers UConn. She knows the coach and his philosophy, she knows the players past and present and she knows the game. Biases, if that's what they are, and an occasional "heh heh" are easily overlooked.

 

[Adesmar123]

Without Meg, we may not have gotten Rebecca to commit (she was her host during her visit), and without Rebecca we probably don't have a single NC, let alone 10. And if you ever saw her play, you'd appreciate her even more.

Her place in UConn WBB history is cemented. But tonight listen to her words. How many times does she just describe what you just saw ie That was a bad shot or that was bad pass" And how many times does she actually add something to it? ie When players are overplaying the passing lanes, you can't try to force a pass. Or that play is designed to force a back door cut that never came. Or UConn is overplaying the lane trying to get a shot from so and so who is a weaker shooter. Or the 3-2 zone is intended to stop the outside shot while the 2-3 is primarily intended to stop play down low. Or Uconn will mostly play a zone when Butler is in the line up for these reasons...

That's what I want from the color person, not play by play.

 

[Kibitzer]

If Meghan (note the "H") Culmo has a UConn bias and a connection to Geno, she has earned it -- first as a player and then as an assistant coach. Makes it easy for me to indulge her little idiosyncrasies.

 

[uconnfan68]

Her place in UConn WBB history is cemented. But tonight listen to her words. How many times does she just describe what you just saw ie That was a bad shot or that was bad pass" And how many times does she actually add something to it? ie When players are overplaying the passing lanes, you can't try to force a pass. Or that play is designed to force a back door cut that never came. Or UConn is overplaying the lane trying to get a shot from so and so who is a weaker shooter. Or the 3-2 zone is intended to stop the outside shot while the 2-3 is primarily intended to stop play down low. Or Uconn will mostly play a zone when Butler is in the line up for these reasons...

That's what I want from the color person, not play by play.

Sounds like you don't need anything from the color person. If that's the case, just enjoy the game with the sound off. I'd much rather listen to Meg than Carolyn Peck.

 

[Papa33]

OK, who does a "perfect" job as a game commentator for women's college basketball? Who analyzes and assesses team strategy and particular plays during live play (without, of course, intruding themselves too far into the action)? Who does a complete and timely reporting on play and events (fouls-- which, who, why) and substitutions (who, why). Could any of us do it?-- self-nominations encouraged.

What are the most common and irritating lapses: being slanted toward teams or conferences, nattering and chattering about off-court matters, reiterating-- ad nauseum-- widely repeated clichés about players, omitting on-court plays and events, etc. Should we be grateful to those who manages to avoid excesses in any of those areas of sin?

 

[Adesmar123]

Sounds like you don't need anything from the color person. If that's the case, just enjoy the game with the sound off. I'd much rather listen to Meg than Carolyn Peck.

I wrote an entire comment about the type of things I want from a color person? And you add C Peck? I guess you like Dick Vitale too.

 

[Adesmar123]

OK, who does a "perfect" job as a game commentator for women's college basketball? Who analyzes and assesses team strategy and particular plays during live play (without, of course, intruding themselves too far into the action)? Who does a complete and timely reporting on play and events (fouls-- which, who, why) and substitutions (who, why). Could any of us do it?-- self-nominations encouraged.

What are the most common and irritating lapses: being slanted toward teams or conferences, nattering and chattering about off-court matters, reiterating-- ad nauseum-- widely repeated clichés about players, omitting on-court plays and events, etc. Should we be grateful to those who manages to avoid excesses in any of those areas of sin?

Thank you Father for I have sinned.