ND formidable roster. | Page 2 | The Boneyard

ND formidable roster.

hoophuskee said:
Wow-

"he stood by them"

Yeah that means "everything."

I just find it mind-boggling that some of you get so stubborn and dig in on such illogical points. Nowhere did you specifically tell me I'm wrong. Well that's just great - he ":stood by them."
Expand ...

At this point I’m not even sure what your argument is anymore....
 
jumpstart said:
The November 19th game was when they were truly freshmen that would have exposed their tendencies to fold under pressure. It is the perfect analogy for my argument. They were playing their second game together on a national stage. If they were going to falter...don't you think that would have been the time. To dismiss an early season, under pressure, national televised game as "it didn't mean anything" is disingenuous at best...They played like seasoned players even that early on. You people can be as jealous of that team last year as you want...but my argument stands...and it stands tall !!!!....again...I am not a South Carolina fan, I am not a Baylor fan, or an Oregon fan, and am not a UCONN fan. I am a fan of women's basketball...graduate of Elon in North Carolina......I have said that about a thousand times also....so get that through your head....
Expand ...

I watched that game and the win was more due to MD ineptitude than any brilliance from SC. MD was ranked 4th because ESPN touted them as a FF team and the AP writers who cover the B1G wanted something to write about.
It's one thing to prepare freshmen for a big game when you have weeks to teach them and a bunch of weak teams to practice against in between. It's another to win when you have 24 hours to prepare, and in the NCAA's that happens twice, in the E8 game and the final. That's one reason UConn has lost so many semi final games and no finals. Give an elite coach a week and they can get their team good enough to compete against UConn, but when they have 24 hours they fall short. Any team starting 3 freshmen would have a hard time getting through those two games.
 
Alydar said:
I watched that game and the win was more due to MD ineptitude than any brilliance from SC. MD was ranked 4th because ESPN touted them as a FF team and the AP writers who cover the B1G wanted something to write about.
It's one thing to prepare freshmen for a big game when you have weeks to teach them and a bunch of weak teams to practice against in between. It's another to win when you have 24 hours to prepare, and in the NCAA's that happens twice, in the E8 game and the final. That's one reason UConn has lost so many semi final games and no finals. Give an elite coach a week and they can get their team good enough to compete against UConn, but when they have 24 hours they fall short. Any team starting 3 freshmen would have a hard time getting through those two games.
Expand ...

Have to agree that trumpeting Maryland as the #4 team is gilding the lily a bit. Always overrated. Always under perform.
 
Alydar said:
I watched that game and the win was more due to MD ineptitude than any brilliance from SC. MD was ranked 4th because ESPN touted them as a FF team and the AP writers who cover the B1G wanted something to write about.
It's one thing to prepare freshmen for a big game when you have weeks to teach them and a bunch of weak teams to practice against in between. It's another to win when you have 24 hours to prepare, and in the NCAA's that happens twice, in the E8 game and the final. That's one reason UConn has lost so many semi final games and no finals. Give an elite coach a week and they can get their team good enough to compete against UConn, but when they have 24 hours they fall short. Any team starting 3 freshmen would have a hard time getting through those two games.
Expand ...

I do not disagree with you main point, but I do think your way of getting there is weak.

Maryland, you imply, was not worthy of being 4th. However, they did prove to be worthy of that rank by end of year (or very, very close) - weren't they. In the early season, the team with 3 freshmen beat the more experienced team (on the road) that was ranked 4th due to what they were expected to and did do.

Maryland thought they could handle Boston straight up and got pounded. By the time, they adjusted to focus on shutting her down, it was too late. UConn had the much better plan and focused on her early. They did a good defensive job early, but their offense couldn't take advantage of the good defensive effort.

So, was SCar's potential tournament run with 3 freshmen questionable? Of course. As were the potential runs of Baylor, UConn and Maryland whom the freshmen had beaten.

Alas, the tournament never happened,:(
 
visitingcock said:
I do not disagree with you main point, but I do think your way of getting there is weak.

Maryland, you imply, was not worthy of being 4th. However, they did prove to be worthy of that rank by end of year (or very, very close) - weren't they. In the early season, the team with 3 freshmen beat the more experienced team (on the road) that was ranked 4th due to what they were expected to and did do.

Maryland thought they could handle Boston straight up and got pounded. By the time, they adjusted to focus on shutting her down, it was too late. UConn had the much better plan and focused on her early. They did a good defensive job early, but their offense couldn't take advantage of the good defensive effort.

So, was SCar's potential tournament run with 3 freshmen questionable? Of course. As were the potential runs of Baylor, UConn and Maryland whom the freshmen had beaten.

Alas, the tournament never happened,:(
Expand ...

I think more posters would be inclined to praise S Car if their coach hadn't crowned herself national champion.
 
.-.
I have to say I am not overly impressed with the ND roster. From the Junior and Senior class, who can you point to and say "All-American"? No one. Sam Brunelle was not good this year. Mick Vaughn is a steady player but to say she's a force on the inside, not true. Anaya People's showed some skills but on a 13-18 team, someone has to score so it happened to be People's. I also don't buy into Mabry III being such a stud either. She's a nice spare part (necessary but still a spare part) and not a force on a VT squad. If you want to point to the some of the untested talent coming in, sure they have some accolades but College is a different ball game than the ranking services. Just look at the top 10 or even 15 from the 2018 HG rankings-no one looks like a lock for All-American. Arguably the best player in that class is #55 Elisa Cunnane. My point is just because you are a top 10 doesn't transcend into WCBB All-American and now add in a new coach and who knows what these young women could be/will be. To rely on underclassmen is not a recipe for championships. I will take our roster and it's proven coach way, way more than the ND team. I would not even count that ND team in the top 10 in the country the next 2 years. Stanford, Arizona, UCLA, Baylor, NC State, Louisville, SC Gamecocks, UConn, Oregon State, Kentucky all come to mind as better (and in no particular order) for these next two years.

Sorry Miss St fans, your new coach has much to prove to me before I can think of the Bulldogs as top 10 as well.
 
Alydar said:
I watched that game and the win was more due to MD ineptitude than any brilliance from SC. MD was ranked 4th because ESPN touted them as a FF team and the AP writers who cover the B1G wanted something to write about.
It's one thing to prepare freshmen for a big game when you have weeks to teach them and a bunch of weak teams to practice against in between. It's another to win when you have 24 hours to prepare, and in the NCAA's that happens twice, in the E8 game and the final. That's one reason UConn has lost so many semi final games and no finals. Give an elite coach a week and they can get their team good enough to compete against UConn, but when they have 24 hours they fall short. Any team starting 3 freshmen would have a hard time getting through those two games.
Expand ...
Ha ha ha....yea right.....Maryland had all their players back.....they were ranked No.4...at home...on national television.....and it was their fault they lost to the team of freshmen ? That is the dumbest thing I have heard in a while...and I have heard some dumb things....
 
.-.
jumpstart said:
Ha ha ha....yea right.....Maryland had all their players back.....they were ranked No.4...at home...on national television.....and it was their fault they lost to the team of freshmen ? That is the dumbest thing I have heard in a while...and I have heard some dumb things....
Expand ...

The turtles shot 31% in that game, 12% from 3. They had 24 pts in the 1st half & 54 pts for the game. S Car shot 32% (with Boston going 6-10). H-Harrigan was 4-12 and the 3 frosh were a combined 5-29. S car was 1-9 from 3. You call that great basketball between highly ranked teams? I guess dumb has a different meaning in your reality.

Maryland went on to play much better against JMU, Delaware, G Washington, Quinnipiac, Clemson and Belmont before losing to NCSt and padded their record more vs Loyola-MD & GaSt.


www.espn.com

South Carolina 63-54 Maryland (Nov 10, 2019) Box Score - ESPN

Box score for the South Carolina Gamecocks vs. Maryland Terrapins NCAAW game from November 10, 2019 on ESPN. Includes all points, rebounds and steals stats.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 
I had season tickets to the Terps this year and went to the SC game and quite a few others. SC dominated Maryland who simply did not have a good game plan.

In the world of WCBB, the top 3-5 teams are usually far ahead of the next grouping and then the 6-10 teams are far ahead of the 11+ ranked teams. Maryland is clearly a top 10 team, nearer 10 than 5.

They played a very good schedule this year and the Big Ten Conference was finally strong, so many teams Maryland beat were in that 11+ range (good for them) however to say Maryland was really a top 4 team (hence a #1 seed) was an optical illusion. Yes, the committees process would have put them as #1 as they did probably deserve it due to those top wins and they were playing better at the end.

I do not believe for 1 minute that Maryland could beat Oregon, SC, Baylor, UConn or Stanford. They would be competitive with Louisville, NC State, Miss State and Arizona in the next set of 6-10 teams. There is significant tiering and while losing to lesser teams can happen (Oregon to Louisville/Arizona; SC to Indiana; Baylor to ISU), when well known teams do face off, I do think logical coaching favorites will win. In other words, Brenda, with this team would lose to all the top 5 teams. She would be a toss up against the 6-10 range and would probably win the vast majority of the 11-25 teams as her team is/was good. But as we know, she had/has chemistry issues and those cracks show in big games.

BTW-as stated I went to many games and saw GW vs. Maryland and I am sad to say, Jen needs to rethink, re-exhort and reconfigure her coaching as she is regressing as a coach. :oops:
 
Alydar said:
The turtles shot 31% in that game, 12% from 3. They had 24 pts in the 1st half & 54 pts for the game. S Car shot 32% (with Boston going 6-10). H-Harrigan was 4-12 and the 3 frosh were a combined 5-29. S car was 1-9 from 3. You call that great basketball between highly ranked teams? I guess dumb has a different meaning in your reality.

Maryland went on to play much better against JMU, Delaware, G Washington, Quinnipiac, Clemson and Belmont before losing to NCSt and padded their record more vs Loyola-MD & GaSt.


www.espn.com

South Carolina 63-54 Maryland (Nov 10, 2019) Box Score - ESPN

Box score for the South Carolina Gamecocks vs. Maryland Terrapins NCAAW game from November 10, 2019 on ESPN. Includes all points, rebounds and steals stats.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Expand ...
I did not say it was great basketball....I said to say it's Maryland's fault that they lost is idiotic. They shot 31%...why ???? To just say...."well the whole team was off and that's why they lost." and not to admit that South Carolina plays defense and beat the season ending No. 3, 4, and 5 ranked teams along with the No. 9, 16 (3 times), 18 (2 times), 24 (3 times)....was because not because of South Carolina's defense but because they all "just had an off night" is again....dumb....Maryland lost to a team at the start of the season that was better than anyone else at seasons end with the exception of Oregon....and we will never know what that match up might have been. South Carolina nor Oregon may have made it to the championship game who knows...but...odds were that it was going to happen and these freshmen...they were no longer freshmen and had proven in high stakes games they were not winning ugly...but winning big. There was plenty of room in the scores for "a freshman error" per game.
 
jumpstart said:
I did not say it was great basketball....I said to say it's Maryland's fault that they lost is idiotic. They shot 31%...why ???? To just say...."well the whole team was off and that's why they lost." and not to admit that South Carolina plays defense and beat the season ending No. 3, 4, and 5 ranked teams along with the No. 9, 16 (3 times), 18 (2 times), 24 (3 times)....was because not because of South Carolina's defense but because they all "just had an off night" is again....dumb....Maryland lost to a team at the start of the season that was better than anyone else at seasons end with the exception of Oregon....and we will never know what that match up might have been. South Carolina nor Oregon may have made it to the championship game who knows...but...odds were that it was going to happen and these freshmen...they were no longer freshmen and had proven in high stakes games they were not winning ugly...but winning big. There was plenty of room in the scores for "a freshman error" per game.
Expand ...

You sound like the talking heads on TV, praising the winner, giving them all the credit for the victory and pointing out their outstanding players. But the reality of sport is that it's often the bad play of the loser that led to the loss more than the great play of the winner. Go look at the box score and pay attention to S Carolina. If someone showed me the SC box score and not Maryland's I would think that SC lost the game. They were just as pathetic shooting as MD, with the exception of Boston, who Brenda had no answer for.

Now MD went on to win the B1G but IMO the B1G has been a paper tiger in recent years. When was the last time a B1G team made a FF? And how many EE games have they even played in during the last 10 years? The B1G has been walking around naked for years but the media and their fans pretend it is dressed in a fine suit. Denial is an amazing thing.
 
Alydar said:
You sound like the talking heads on TV, praising the winner, giving them all the credit for the victory and pointing out their outstanding players. But the reality of sport is that it's often the bad play of the loser that led to the loss more than the great play of the winner. Go look at the box score and pay attention to S Carolina. If someone showed me the SC box score and not Maryland's I would think that SC lost the game. They were just as pathetic shooting as MD, with the exception of Boston, who Brenda had no answer for.

Now MD went on to win the B1G but IMO the B1G has been a paper tiger in recent years. When was the last time a B1G team made a FF? And how many EE games have they even played in during the last 10 years? The B1G has been walking around naked for years but the media and their fans pretend it is dressed in a fine suit. Denial is an amazing thing.
Expand ...
The whole thing is...they were suppose to lose the game (South Carolina) against a team rated 4th...and finished 4th in the nation with all of their starters back and playing at home against a group of mostly freshmen playing their first game on the road...and on national television.......that is it, plain and simple.....It's facts...facts...do you not understand facts ?
 
.-.
jumpstart said:
The whole thing is...they were suppose to lose the game (South Carolina) against a team rated 4th...and finished 4th in the nation with all of their starters back and playing at home against a group of mostly freshmen playing their first game on the road...and on national television.......that is it, plain and simple.....It's facts...facts...do you not understand facts ?
Expand ...

Where are these facts you talk about? "they were supposed to lose"? Is that one of your facts? In fact the only "facts" you mention are the rankings, which ironically are opinions, not facts.


That was a preseason ranking which is based mostly on reputation and very few FACTS. MD always gets a nice pre-season ranking, mostly because Brenda is an excellent recruiter and the team is loaded with talent. However MD never seems to produce to their talent level and along with Tenn has been overrated in the preseason more years than not.
All those wins against B1G teams ranked 15-25 got them a 4 ranking late in the season but they also lost to 2 unranked teams and lost to two of the ranked teams they beat at home.
 
Last edited:
jumpstart said:
I have read this over and over. It's not "senior" leadership so much as upper class players with talent. This could have happened with two talented juniors....or Sophomores. The "senior" is not the key element as much as experience. The 3 starting freshmen will have the experience of "that" season of No.1...and beating numerous ranked teams along the way. Those girls are now seasoned. I would expect them to be as good if not better in 2020-21....and then even better with the 21-22 team. Don't underestimate that South Carolina team just because Harris and Herbert-Harrington have moved on. That team has young "experience" in very crucial games. The South Carolina/UCONN series will be an awesome one for several more years.
Expand ...

Harris and Herbert-Harrigan both had the best seasons of their career.

there is more to it than talent.
 
jumpstart said:
They went into play No.4 Maryland the second game of the season...seriously...you're joking right. This team never got rattled with the exception of the Indiana game when Boston was dealing with the loss of her teacher that she was very close to. It effected the entire team....but the NCAA tournament would not produce heartache and they performed under pressure all year...and as I said....they were no longer freshmen at that point. They had already player the best....so they would have no extra pressure anymore than any other team....Geno even said.."these girls don't play like freshmen"....
Expand ...

Boston was dealing with touch fouls she didn't see called the rest of the year, but that's besides the point.

South Carolina didn't put a whole lot of scoring pressure on any of the freshmen aside from Zia Cooke.

Cooke improved dramatically over the course of the season, but I did think that her play might be the difference in a late round tournament game.

I think she had some of her better moments in bigger games, so I don't know how that would have gone.

In general, my guess is that this USC team won't be quite as good as the last one. I think it will be very good and has as big a ceiling as anyone, but I'd be a little surprised if they were as dominant.
 
Alydar said:
Where are these facts you talk about? "they were supposed to lose"? Is that one of your facts? In fact the only "facts" you mention are the rankings, which ironically are opinions, not facts.


That was a preseason ranking which is based mostly on reputation and very few FACTS. MD always gets a nice pre-season ranking, mostly because Brenda is an excellent recruiter and the team is loaded with talent. However MD never seems to produce to their talent level and along with Tenn has been overrated in the preseason more years than not.
All those wins against B1G teams ranked 15-25 got them a 4 ranking late in the season but they also lost to 2 unranked teams.
Expand ...
Me thinks your biasness against the Terps is showing. If you want to use facts, which are out there for gathering, you will see Brenda made the FF in 2 consecutive year in 2013 and 2014. To say she can just recruit is not completely accurate. You can't just roll the ball onto the court and say "play" and expect your team to naturally make it to a Final Four.

As far as the Big10 goes, yes, they had been down and many times overrated as a conference due to moderate success of Purdue in the 90's. After all the Big10 has won only 1 NCAAT. However this past year, the Big10 was arguably the 2nd best conference and deeper than any others. The real issue is the "elite teams of the Big10" are not equal to Oregon, Stanford, Baylor, SC, MSU, Louisville or ND who DOMINATE their conference. So other than the PAC-12 who had 6 quality teams, most other conferences had MAJOR drop offs after 1, 2 or 3 teams.

Let's be a bit more analytical in our assessments and note we all have biasness. I AM NOT A BRENDA fan by any regard however she has had remarkable success when compared to all but 7-10 coaches including the beloved Doug Bruno, Wes Moore, Scott Rueck, Vic Schaefer and some other noted strategists. Humbly submitted,
DefenseBB
 
JonathanXIV said:
Have to agree that trumpeting Maryland as the #4 team is gilding the lily a bit. Always overrated. Always under perform.
Expand ...

The biggest takeaway from the Maryland game was that South Carolina had a damn good defense.

By the end of the season, it had a hell of an offense too.

But see my other posts and realize this not pure cheerleading.
 
Alydar said:
Where are these facts you talk about? "they were supposed to lose"? Is that one of your facts? In fact the only "facts" you mention are the rankings, which ironically are opinions, not facts.


That was a preseason ranking which is based mostly on reputation and very few FACTS. MD always gets a nice pre-season ranking, mostly because Brenda is an excellent recruiter and the team is loaded with talent. However MD never seems to produce to their talent level and along with Tenn has been overrated in the preseason more years than not.
All those wins against B1G teams ranked 15-25 got them a 4 ranking late in the season but they also lost to 2 unranked teams and lost to two of the ranked teams they beat at home.
Expand ...
The facts are...Maryland was favored (not my opinion)...South Carolina was a team of mostly freshmen (not my opinion)...it was a home game for Maryland (not my opinion)..Maryland had all 5 starters returning (not my opinion)...it was a nationally televised game (not my opinion)...it was the second game of the season for those freshmen....(and again, not my opinion)...do I need to go on...or do you get it ?
 
.-.
jumpstart said:
The facts are...Maryland was favored (not my opinion)...South Carolina was a team of mostly freshmen (not my opinion)...it was a home game for Maryland (not my opinion)..Maryland had all 5 starters returning (not my opinion)...it was a nationally televised game (not my opinion)...it was the second game of the season for those freshmen....(and again, not my opinion)...do I need to go on...or do you get it ?
Expand ...

Here's a thought. Now that this argument has been beaten into the ground, we can get back to the original thread. I know, I'm dreaming.:rolleyes:
 
CocoHusky said:
View attachment 57701
And you have the nerve to accuse posters of having no clue!
Experience (freshmen) home court and playing in front of a National TV audience definitively have an outcome on the final score. These are human beings your talking about not a game in your basement fantasy league.
Expand ...

Try reading my post again. My "no clue" comment was clearly about setting lines for games (predicting winners) only.

Favored? Lines are opinions, not facts. Let me explain that point since you don't seem to have a clue.
Expand ...

But go ahead and continue to respond to things you invent in your mind instead of what I actually say.
Calling a team the favorite for any reason is subjective. Sure, lots of facts are usually used to support the opinion but they are usually cherry-picked facts that support the prediction. And when facts are cherry-picked then the conclusion is an opinion, not a fact. While some are better than others at predicting outcomes, all predictions are opinions.
 
Alydar said:
Try reading my post again. My "no clue" comment was clearly about setting lines for games (predicting winners) only. But go ahead and continue to respond to things you invent in your mind instead of what I actually say.
Calling a team the favorite for any reason is subjective. Sure, lots of facts are usually used to support the opinion but they are usually cherry-picked facts that support the prediction. And when facts are cherry-picked then the conclusion is an opinion, not a fact. While some are better than others at predicting outcomes, all predictions are opinions.
Expand ...
shaking.gif
 
jumpstart said:
Why don't you do some more dancing around the "fact" that you are wrong. The "fact" is...they were favored. I would absolutely hate to have you on an assessment team. You have no skills that anyone could rely on...If you make an assessment from facts or data...it's not an opinion...it's a conclusion based on facts or data. Can they be wrong...yes...but they are more reliable that the "nilly willy" approach you seem to use. You could make any argument about anything being or not being a factor....there are factors and to ignore that is blatant foolishness or a total disregard for the truth...which you seem to not understand. It's OK for Maryland to have an off night...but not OK for South Carolina to have caused it....? Wow...like talking to a wall...
Expand ...

The only line I was able to find was Massey and they had it a one pt game so it was essentially a pick-em game. That is a fact. What is your source for the turtles being favored? You are obviously a huge Gamecock fan who sees things with tinted glasses on. You need to believe that your girls were huge underdogs and pulled off a miracle win against the odds. Well my friend, it wasn't that way.
 
Alydar said:
The only line I was able to find was Massey and they had it a one pt game so it was essentially a pick-em game. That is a fact. What is your source for the turtles being favored? You are obviously a huge Gamecock fan who sees things with tinted glasses on. You need to believe that your girls were huge underdogs and pulled off a miracle win against the odds. Well my friend, it wasn't that way.
Expand ...

All the poster said was that Maryland was favored. Which they were. They were ranked higher with a more veteran team and playing at home.

Citing Massey for an early season game is probably pretty useless but even so Massey had Maryland favored.

I'm not sure he claimed that South Carolina was a huge underdog or that it was a miracle win. That doesn't really make sense to me at all.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,278
Messages
4,561,119
Members
10,454
Latest member
Uconn84


Top Bottom