ND/TENN - Who Do You Want To Win?

[RadyLady]

We know that the denizens of the Summitt don't. She was to be the latest savior. They really believe in magic over there.

They are foolish and irresponsible, to ask so much of a young player.

 

[EricLA]

She is a freshman and a post. we all know that it takes a year, maybe more for posts to develop to the level of college play. Unfortunately for Mercedes, she picked Tennessee who appears to not develop players, they just throw them into games to use their talent to get the job done. We rarely see any development or expansion of their game, and that also includes conditioning. I feel bad for her...

Far be it for me to ever defend Tennessee, but even I can acknowledge that Izzy Harrison has turned into a terrific post player. Or at least I should say she puts up terrific numbers as I've not watched a Tennessee game yet this year. But she certainly was not a highly rated recruit coming out of HS - more Stef Dolson like. Maybe even lower than Stef. Having said that, I don't disagree that players who go through that program generally don't see the improvements that they do at other programs. Cierra Burdick - perfect example. Top 5 kid - about equivalent to Tuck. But they can't seem to figure out if they want her to be a forward or wing. And she's a non factor in most games.

One thing I didn't see mentioned after UCONN played RU is that RU put up 64 points on UCONN - the most by any team not named Oregon this season. More than Duke, more than Baylor. If Stringer can completely revamp her offense, then it seems possible that you CAN teach an old dog new tricks. No reason why the Tennessee staff can't do the same. It's not like all their asst coaches came from the Pat Summitt school of "defense first, O-boards 2nd, and defense third". Law was a HC herself. Klzy was an asst at Kansas and Kentucky before coming back to Tenn. Lockwood was an asst on the men's team before stints at Central Michigan and Saginaw State. So it's not like these people have never seen offense before...

 

[DobbsRover2]

There's a lot of interesting sides to the Holly question. Her team does have a decent record, she's only in her second official year of head-coaching, and the Vols did win the SEC championship last year and were briefly favored to get to the FF.

But clearly a lot has changed from Pat's day, and even if the SEC does still somehow manage to get high rankings and many selections for the NCAA tourney, it is mediocre level strength and UTenn is fading back as a mediocre team in the midst of mediocrity. Someone who spent so many years being the yes-woman to Pat doesn't have the steely guts and the social commonsense to deal with her players or deal with the press in any kind of adequate way. It's easy to let players drift along in a mess when the Vols are winning just enough games to keep things respectable enough for the AD. But the direction is gone there, and when the AA's stop thinking that UTenn is an okay place to play, it will be time for the Summitt to change its name to the Pit.

And I also wonder if Pat really wants a successful coach following her or whether she'd prefer to have everyone just posting, "It's not like when Pat was in charge."

 

[msf22b]

The new-style Rutgers offense may very well be predicated on the strengths and affinities of its two outstanding young guards
rather than any pronounced coaching alteration.

 

[Icebear]

I am not sure Pat is capable of such reflections.

 

[Phil]

One thing I didn't see mentioned after UCONN played RU is that RU put up 64 points on UCONN - the most by any team not named Oregon this season. More than Duke, more than Baylor. I

I guarantee that RU fans know this, they were discussing it in the stands after the game.

Frankly, I was in the camp of those expecting that this would be C. Viv's swan song year, but I'm reassessing my thoughts. She is doing a better job of designing a game plan to match the available talent than I had expected. I had pegged her as a "I have a vision on how the game should be played, and you will attempt to execute that plan, whether you have the skills to do so or not". I think that assessment was wrong. Despite a 30 point margin, the team played well.

I didn't see the Memphis game, so maybe I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion based upon a single observation, but this team has potential.

 

[Phil]

I am not sure Pat is capable of such reflections.

I didn't see this until after I posted, but a couple days ago, I would have agreed whole-heartedly. Now I'm not so sure.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I guarantee that RU fans know this, they were discussing it in the stands after the game.

Frankly, I was in the camp of those expecting that this would be C. Viv's swan song year, but I'm reassessing my thoughts. She is doing a better job of designing a game plan to match the available talent than I had expected. I had pegged her as a "I have a vision on how the game should be played, and you will attempt to execute that plan, whether you have the skills to do so or not". I think that assessment was wrong. Despite a 30 point margin, the team played well.

I didn't see the Memphis game, so maybe I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion based upon a single observation, but this team has potential.

I like watching the new Rutgers better than the old one, but clearly there's some issues when you team gives up 90+ points at home for the first time in three decades. Substituting a nice uptick on offense for a big deficit on defense is problematic. On the good side, maybe with a young team the defensive toughness can be taught while preserving most of the more high-powered offense.

 

[UcMiami]

On the Rutgers question - when playing a running style offense and giving up fast break after fast break it increases the number of possessions so the score is likely to rise. Oregon is the classic example - yes they shot quickly, but they also seldom put up much defense so the other team doesn't have to work hard to get lay ups at the other end. Against Rutgers, the first 10 minutes of the game Uconn got about 10 fast break opportunities even after made baskets so our time of possession per shot attempt was probably about 7 seconds - that in turn gives both teams more offensive possessions in the game.
As for Rutgers running a different offense ... didn't really see that. What I saw was two good players creating their own shots. I agree that Cviv is letting those players play at their pace and that hasn't always been the case but as I remember it seems similar to what she allowed Carson, Ajevon, and CP to do. The surprising thing was the porous defense.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Man has this thread gone off course.

But while we're on the subject of Rutgers, this year's team is averaging 7-12 points better than any of their teams in the last 6 years going back even to EP, while the defensive scoring level is pretty close to those teams. The caveat is that this year's team's stats are incomplete and their first half SOS is not at the same level as many of those past teams. We'll just have to wait and see how it all turns out for the Knights. It does seem to me that the passing is a little better this year than in recent times.

 

[RadyLady]

I guarantee that RU fans know this, they were discussing it in the stands after the game.

Frankly, I was in the camp of those expecting that this would be C. Viv's swan song year, but I'm reassessing my thoughts. She is doing a better job of designing a game plan to match the available talent than I had expected. I had pegged her as a "I have a vision on how the game should be played, and you will attempt to execute that plan, whether you have the skills to do so or not". I think that assessment was wrong. Despite a 30 point margin, the team played well.

I didn't see the Memphis game, so maybe I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion based upon a single observation, but this team has potential.

I was going to post something to this point after the Rutgers game, but my hand kept cramping....saying something nice about Rutgers is not easy for me, but yes, Stringer appears to be making changes to keep Rutgers competing.

 

[rocky rococo]

when the AA's stop thinking that UTenn is an okay place to play, it will be time for the Summitt to change its name to the Pit.

Folks in New Mexico see nothing wrong with playing in The Pit.

 

[doggydaddy]

Agree. She is so streaky and very hard to determine if she will be a positive or negative player on the floor. When ND started to make their run, Simmons was a disaster. I would have put in Carter. I thought she gave them some real good energy and love the way she plays. Much more disciplined then Simmons.

Carter was the defender that lost Mabrey for several 3's.

 

[Fightin Choke]

I disagree that the Tennessee zone was the cause of ND's offensive woes in the first half. It was the Irish running up the court like their pants were on fire and driving into the paint willy-willy, sometimes into three defenders, that caused their problems. No patience, no tempo, just a streetball game. It was uncharacteristic of ND and even Pam Ward saw that the Irish needed to slow down and run some offense.

And while ND definitely played better in the second half both offensively and defensively, the LVs went into some sort of funk all by themselves starting at the end of the first half. They heaved up the craziest shots, most of which had no prayer of going in. The LV "offense" in the first half looked better because their one-on-one shots went in (yes, I saw the nice pass by Simmons. I almost fell off the couch when I saw Tennessee actually get an assist) but, really, they don't play offense. Honestly, it looked like an AAU game and that's just sad for a program with Tennessee's pedigree.

I'm sorry for being unclear, but I meant that Tennessee offense feasted on the Notre Dame zone. The Notre Dame offense had no trouble scoring on Tennessee, and certainly not due to a zone, as they lit it up from outside. The poster to which I responded was puzzled why Muffet waited so long to go to man-to-man defense, so I was pointing out the personnel and the foul issues to explain why Muffet waited until the second half to go back to man-to-man.