Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="newfrontier, post: 4498037, member: 8141"] it is annoying, if not frustrating, that almost every time I read comments reviewing the UCLA loss to Oregon State at Oregon State, the author not so subtly suggests or implies that if not for UCLA being without Charisma Osborne, the result would have been quite different. In other words, OSU was very fortunate Charisma did not play and her absence was a key or even the major factor explaining the outcome. End result: the stature and importance of OSU's win over UCLA is significantly diminished in size, scope, and meaning. Yet, the authors always fail to mention how OSU was also missing a key player, ie. missing the great skill and contributions of the highest ranked recruit in the entire history of its women's basketball program. Yes, Osborne is obviously the more experienced, proven commodity but I find it hard to believe that a player with the resume of a Timea Gardiner would not have been a factor in game. And since speculation on both sides is part of the story, maybe Osborne is fully healthy and plays but has a bad day? Would an OSU upset win over UCLA be diminished in this case as well? [/QUOTE]