Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="hoophuskee, post: 2052316, member: 3535"] I like Meg and wish we get her over ESPN though I love Kara Lawson. I prefer listening to Meg. I think I understand the OP's concern however and most probably don't feel this way but I think Meg is "post-centric" ie has "post play bias." Some things she says in my view are bizarre. For example when Lou got smacked in the eye - she said she was acting when she fell to the ground. The next game with the black-and-blue only then did she say she was wrong. I can remember watching it thinking she got hit. I thought Meg went very overboard in saying Lou acted. Similar to either tonight or another recent game Lou took a charge. Meg made the comment to paraphrase "acting on Lou's part too." What if you thought Lou got hit hard enough that it was a charge regardless whether she acted or not? IMO because I think Lou got hit hard enough that it shouldn't have been a question whether she acted. You can hear during games in which she'll make a comment they need to work the ball inside rather than take a 3 on the 1st pass or two. Then after Lou drills a 3 after the 1st pass or two - she remains quiet. What if you think she is wrong? What if you think overall it is okay for Lou to shoot 3's on the 1st pass or two? In this game -- I thought she was wrong a few times so maybe if the OP and others feel the same way - that is where some frustration of her calling the game is coming in. For example, after Collier got her 2nd foul (in which I'd like to look at the replay again on foul number 2. Was the player that drew the charge moving or had her foot in the lane? Maybe- but just saying.), a short time later she caught a pass on a fastbreak near the basket and drew a foul. Meg said to paraphrase "that could have gone the other way." What if you thought no way in hell that could have gone the other way? What about the play late in which Gabby grabbed the rebound and they called a foul on Tulane? meg said to paraphrase and also Gabby could have been called for a foul on that play." I think I know what she was talking about. There was a slight bump by Gabby at halfcourt. Earlier meg had mentioned a foul shouldn't have been called because it didn't affect the play. Now she is suggesting a slight bump could have been called a foul vs a play in which Gabby grabbed a rebound between two Tulane player's and at least one was reaching in and there appeared to be some body contact and she questioned that while mentioning Gabby might have gotten away with one? I thought Tulane fouled Gabby. What if I don't agree with Meg on this or the Gabby implication in addition I believe Meg was giving some form of positive vibes that Lisa Stockton was arguing the questionable call which Meg basically felt it shouldn't have been called. I think Meg was wrong. And when I played, I was a guard. On the flip side we know Meg was a physical player. So in this game Tulane got a few early calls in the 4th quarter that went against them. She spoke of the game was allowed to be physical and now all of a sudden you are going to call it tight?" YES Meg--- YES!!!!!!! One thing is -- you don't want the game to be even MORE physical. And secondly, if I'm the guard and someone like Meg who was a physical player fouling me all game when I run through the lane- she should be allowed to KEEP FOULING ME THROUGHOUT THE GAME??????? Are you kidding???????? However when I take a step back- I understand -- Meg was a physical player. She appreciates more of the physical style of play. What if you think Meg is entirely wrong in her saying the refs should have swallowed their whistles for those early fouls called on Tulane? So in summary what if you think in tonight's game she was wrong about Lou? While also being wrong about Collier? While also being wrong about Gabby? While also being wrong about letting go the foul by Tulane on Gabby? While also being wrong about the 3 early 4th quarter fouls? These are things from memory- so what else might there be? I don't agree with the OP implying Meg should change what she believes just because she is SNY color analyst. We don't want a homer nor do we want an anti-UCONN fan. For example can you imagine if Candace Parker did UCONN games? Anyhow, nor do I think as fans we need to agree with everything that Meg says. we can at times decide for ourselves if someone else is correct, right? With all that said I love Meg. Wouldn't trade her. love hearing her call games even if I disagree which tends to be more over the last year or 2 or maybe 3. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,558

Messages: 4,401,228

Members: 10,213

Latest member: illini2013