So when is Jeff going to Walz off with his first NC?

[Vowelguy]

fyi, Louisville has 3 top 50 recruits in the 2014 class.

Given his lack of top recruits, the two runner up finishes are all the more impressive.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Did Louisville win the game or did Baylor give the game to them. I say its the latter. Baylor played dumb for three fourths of the game. Mulkey didn't respond to how Louisville was playing until approx 10 minutes left in the game. Walz had a game plan that shouldn't of worked against any of the #1 seeds. He went for broke, his players hit an unlikely number of three point shots. It shouldn't have worked against Baylor, except Kim kept expecting the refs to bail her out and her players never guarded Slaughter.

Wasn't a top 10 team? Do tell about any team that could knock off Baylor (followed to a lesser degree by UTenn and Cal) that doesn't deserve to be called a top 10 team. And some teams give their best during the regular season and are happy to pick up maybe a conference title, and others see it all as preparation and the testing ground for where it matters, in the six rounds of the national championship. It's ridiculous to say a team "plays over its head" (whatever that means) when they go on a six game run that ends at the NC. Louisville played exactly at their head level, with the smarts and effort and hunger to beat teams that had hoisted up better credentials when it didn't count as much, in the regular season. The fact that they've done it twice in recent years shows it's not a fluke, and that's just how the Cards approach the season.

So unlike the Walz tsk-tskers who start peddling out the list of Cardinal failures before the season starts, I'm going to wait until the season ends to bury him and consign him back to his dish-washing job at Geno's.

 

[DriveLH]

Walz had a game plan to stop Baylor's "plan A" office. It worked and Mulkey had no "plan B". Geno has said that coaches can lose games. Mulkey did.

 

[Icebear]

Duh. I also don't think she was eating bon and bons either.

It's called sarcasm.

Yes, but throwing in the pregnancy thing diminishes it since it is well known she was on the sidelines in a chair coaching just about as you describe making it plausible rather than sarcasm. Plus I hear she has a thing for bon bons. Throwing in an emoticon would have helped.

 

[ctfjr]

And Geno without Chris Dailey?

Sorry but I don't recall, as valuable as she is, CD taking over the coaching during any game.

 

[Icebear]

Sorry but I don't recall, as valuable as she is, CD taking over the coaching during any game.

She has and she has even coached whole games when Geno was unavailable.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

Not trying to single out or attack anyone in this thread. But some of the criticism of Jeff Walz seems a bit silly to me.

1) He took a team with Angel McCoughtry, but not much else (in terms of elite recruits or future WNBA players), to the 2009 Final Four, losing to UConn in the national title game. Remember, as great as Elena Delle Donne was in college, she only made the Sweet 16 once.

2) McCoughtry graduated, but Louisville was back in the Final Four in 2013, again losing to UConn in the national title game. Along the way, the Cardinals beat a Baylor team at full strength (something that had not happened in two years) and a talented (though young) Tennessee team. In both games, Louisville was severely outmatched in terms of height and talent in the post, yet Walz and his staff devised a game plan to defeat both opponents.

3) Recruiting is a part of coaching. Has Walz had a top five class the past two years? No. But Louisville was in the final two for Mercedes Russell, who picked Tennessee. And Louisville has been on the final lists for several top recruits. It is only a matter of time.

4) Even without a roster of McDonald's All-Americans, Walz has taken his team to two Final Fours in the last five years. By contrast, Duke's Joanne P. McCallie has had rosters full of McDonald's and WBCA All-Americans and has yet to make a Final Four in her first six seasons at Duke.

5) Walz has dealt with his share of, shall I say, "mercurial" players (Angel McCoughtry, Shoni Schimmel), but has managed to inspire each of them in his own way and has not only had them each buy into the "team" concept, but has made tremendous improvements in their respective individual games. As many on this board know, motivating a player and getting the most out of the player can be a difficult process. What works for some players will not work for others. This individualized attention to a star player, but balancing the star within the team concept, and getting everyone to play in such a way that the sum is always greater than the individual parts is impressive.

6) In 2011-2012, Louisville had a team that lost a lot to graduation and injuries, yet was within a few points of upsetting highly favored Maryland (in College Park, I believe). That is coaching.

I agree that recruiting can be improved. But Walz does with the players he has there is great. And his Xs and Os have been really great. Sure, did Louisville get hot in 2013? Absolutely. But it is one thing to get hot for one game; it is another to get hot for the Sweet 16, Elite Eight, and Final Four semis.

Walz is a still a relatively young coach. He has done great things at Louisville. Lets appreciate him for what he has accomplished, which is pretty impressive so far.

 

[RadyLady]

Angel did a lot for that program

I think that you mean that Walz did a lot for Angel who then in turn did a lot for the program.

 

[John Glass]

Yeah Frese just sat on the sidelines eating bon bons, barefoot and pregnant.

How many Maryland practices have you seen ? if she was eating bon bons it would have been an increase in activity ... Walz ran the practices, Frese was MIA

Have you ever heard Frese when she was wearing a microphone ? her pre-game speeches sound like a rec league coach, and her in game adjustments: "we need more energy " , "we gotta play defense " pure genius

 

[DaddyChoc]

I think that you mean that Walz did a lot for Angel who then in turn did a lot for the program.

nah I meant what I said

 

[Icebear]

nah I meant what I said

Then you would be neglecting the great things that Walz did as Angel's coach.

 

[DobbsRover2]

First of all I did not make any poor remarks about Walz. Quite the contrary. Louisville was a five seed which ranks them between 15 - 20 in the polls prior to the Tournament. So I was referring to their regular season and was not including the tournament. They started playing well when the tourney started and made a great run. Again, just like the 2011 Men's Huskies.

Why is it ridiculous to say a team plays "over their heads." Do you think the best team always wins? The best fighter always wins? The best Olympic hockey team always wins? Teams and individuals sometimes play much better than their norm and beat teams that sometimes play less than their norm. Happens all the time.

I'm guessing that by "playing over their head," you meant that Louisville stepped up their game a notch during the playoffs, which is certainly true. But teams that play well in the playoffs are not magically playing better than they are capable of. They are playing exactly what they are capable of at crunch time, and that often makes them the better team in the situation, just a better team than an opponent that has more season's plaudits but can't pull it all together, as happened to Baylor in the regional semifinal. Louisville was undoubtedly the better team that night, as they again were in disposing of UTenn and Cal and whatever notions that they just got lucky against Baylor and that the Bears handed them the game. I'm just not one of those people who can throw out results and say the better team lost when say the 18-0 Patriots lose a Super Bowl to a 7 loss Giants team. Sorry, but the better team won on that night.

And I'm not really sure what worth any pre-tourney poll has in any kind of discussion of whether Louisville was a top 10 team. Polls are discarded at that point that the real action begins, and they meant nothing to the UConn men in 2010-11. There was a final WCBB Coaches poll in 2013 in which the tourney runner-up finished 3rd in a Big East top trio of UConn, ND, and Louisville, with Baylor at #4. So the Cards finished in the eyes of the voters as not only a top 10 team, but a top 3 team.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Then you would be neglecting the great things that Walz did as Angel's coach.

oh brother

 

[Icebear]

oh brother

If Angel can acknowledge it which she did then so can you. She, particularly, noted his help in teaching her to control her emotions on the court.

 

[meyers7]

It's ridiculous to say a team "plays over its head" (whatever that means) when they go on a six game run that ends at the NC.

It means they were a 5 seed that made it to the NC. And it's not ridiculous, more like a compliment.

 

[meyers7]

I'm just not one of those people who can throw out results and say the better team lost when say the 18-0 Patriots lose a Super Bowl to a 7 loss Giants team. Sorry, but the better team won on that night.

Well you are a bit confused on this point, or you don't watch very much sports. The better team (player) is occasionally beaten by an underdog. That's why they call it an upset.

And I'm not really sure what worth any pre-tourney poll has in any kind of discussion of whether Louisville was a top 10 team. Polls are discarded at that point that the real action begins, and they meant nothing to the UConn men in 2010-11.

There was a final WCBB Coaches poll in 2013 in which the tourney runner-up finished 3rd in a Big East top trio of UConn, ND, and Louisville, with Baylor at #4. So the Cards finished in the eyes of the voters as not only a top 10 team, but a top 3 team.

Really???? Now how "ridiculous" does this sound??? Polls don't count.....unless of course they help make my point. Oh brother.

 

[DaddyChoc]

If Angel can acknowledge it which she did then so can you.

nah...

 

[DobbsRover2]

Well you are a bit confused on this point, or you don't watch very much sports. The better team (player) is occasionally beaten by an underdog. That's why they call it an upset.





Really???? Now how "ridiculous" does this sound??? Polls don't count.....unless of course they help make my point. Oh brother.

Talking about getting ridiculous.

1. If you think a team that busts through to the NC game and in the process knocks off the pre-tourney unanimous pick as champion to have been just lah-lahing along and playing over their heads the whole time against everybody, then I would really love to take advantage of you in a high-stakes poker game. My wallet could use some fattening.

2. On the question of whether the better team always wins, as noted, you can go on saying that the Patriots were the better team in Super Bowl 2011 and should have won, gosh darn it. I simply say that the better team won. If your expectations were upset, my profound apologies. I know that the 1988 LA Dodgers had no right beating Oakland, but they were still the better team in the WS.

3. RT stated that Louisville was not a top 10 team in 2013, and I pointed out that the final poll showed them to be the #3 team. What part of that do you not understand? If you want to go back to early-March polls and say that Louisville was not a top 10 team and that UConn was the #3 team in 2012-13, that's your right. And you might as well cite some November and preseason polls in your future factoids about a team. Personally, in my admittedly strange accounting, UConn finished #1 last year and Louisville was voted #3.

 

[meyers7]

Talking about getting ridiculous.

Ah yep.

1. If you think a team that busts through to the NC game and in the process knocks off the pre-tourney unanimous pick as champion to have been just lah-lahing along and playing over their heads the whole time against everybody, then I would really love to take advantage of you in a high-stakes poker game. My wallet could use some fattening.

1) I don't play poker, silly game. 2) I have found people who do play poker don't know much about sports. 3) you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of upsets.

2. On the question of whether the better team always wins, as noted, you can go on saying that the Patriots were the better team in Super Bowl 2011 and should have won, gosh darn it. I simply say that the better team won. If your expectations were upset, my profound apologies. I know that the 1988 LA Dodgers had no right beating Oakland, but they were still the better team in the WS.

Just a couple small examples of "upsets", there are many, many, many more. That's why they call it an UPSET, the underdog, the lesser team, wins. Concept has been around for a long time. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Upsets are cool things, that's why they play the games. Sometimes the better team does not win. Sometimes luck, sometimes the lesser team just outplays them. If the better team always won, sports wouldn't be much fun.

3. RT stated that Louisville was not a top 10 team in 2013, and I pointed out that the final poll showed them to be the #3 team. What part of that do you not understand? If you want to go back to early-March polls and say that Louisville was not a top 10 team and that UConn was the #3 team in 2012-13, that's your right. And you might as well cite some November and preseason polls in your future factoids about a team. Personally, in my admittedly strange accounting, UConn finished #1 last year and Louisville was voted #3.

Well for one, why were they not #2???? hmmmm? First you say polls don't count, then they do, then they don't even support your position.

RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!

Just for your information, though I'm sure this will go over your head......being the better team on the day, game, inning, 5 minute stretch, etc. is quite different than being the better team.

 

[Vowelguy]

Yes, but throwing in the pregnancy thing diminishes it since it is well known she was on the sidelines in a chair coaching just about as you describe making it plausible rather than sarcasm. Plus I hear she has a thing for bon bons. Throwing in an emoticon would have helped.

If you can't figure out that references to bon-bons and being barefoot are an indication of sarcasm, I can't help you.

 

[Phil]

That's something of a stretch in most fans' opinion, I'd daresay, and I'm no fan of Frese. Has any assistant coach ever been credited with a National Championship?

Perhaps Barmore in 1982.

I thought he was a co-head coach, but I notice that neither the Women’s Basketball Hall of Fame nor the Basketball Hall of Fame mentions him as the coach of the 1982 National Championship team. If he was technically considered an assistant, I think many would agree he deserved a lot of the credit (which is not a slam against Hogg, just a recognition of the relative roles.)

 

[DobbsRover2]

Ah yep.


1) I don't play poker, silly game. 2) I have found people who do play poker don't know much about sports. 3) you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of upsets.


Just a couple small examples of "upsets", there are many, many, many more. That's why they call it an UPSET, the underdog, the lesser team, wins. Concept has been around for a long time. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Upsets are cool things, that's why they play the games. Sometimes the better team does not win. Sometimes luck, sometimes the lesser team just outplays them. If the better team always won, sports wouldn't be much fun.


Well for one, why were they not #2???? hmmmm? First you say polls don't count, then they do, then they don't even support your position.

RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!

Just for your information, though I'm sure this will go over your head......being the better team on the day, game, inning, 5 minute stretch, etc. is quite different than being the better team.

1. Anyone who doesn't play poker at all is clearly subfunctional, and there is little more about that matter to discuss.

2. Polls do count (mainly for poking vicious fun at other teams), but there are many during a season, and the one that I said did count was the final one. But if you love the early-March ones better, that's just peachy. Personally I prefer the results of last year's final poll better, and that's what I use to describe a team. Not "that #1 Baylor team," but that "#4 Baylor team," etc. And no, Louisville was the runner-up in the tournament, but they finished #3 behind UConn and ND in the final poll. If you cannot accept that, please go hash it out with all the coaches who voted it that way.

3. The better team always wins. ND was better than UConn on three of the days they played the Huskies last year, but not on the semifinal night. The better team won all four games. I will allow a small amount of quibble room concerning oddly errant clocks, referees and umpires who seem to have been slipped a little (lot of) cash, any late-season National League games in 1951 in which the NY Giants had their center field bleachers spy stealing signs, and of course that horrendous 1972 US-Russia Olympic basketball game involving the Brit referee who should have been immediately executed, but other than that --- the better team always wins. Was Stanford a better team than Harvard in February of 1998? Most certainly. Was the #1 seeded Cardinal squad a better team than the Crimson after losing stars Nygaard and Folkl in the week before the game? Nope, and again the better team won. Your attempts to spuriously redirect the discussion into irrelevant things like other days, or nanoseconds, or leap years, or whatever it is you are hung up on is just a time-waster. Done and settled.

 

[RadyLady]

nah...

Would you offer an explanation of your view, or are you just stirring the pot?

 

[meyers7]

1. Anyone who doesn't play poker at all is clearly subfunctional, and there is little more about that matter to discuss.

And I would say anyone who does is clearly subfunctional. And would possibly use you as an example.

2. Polls do count (mainly for poking vicious fun at other teams), but there are many during a season, and the one that I said did count was the final one. But if you love the early-March ones better, that's just peachy. Personally I prefer the results of last year's final poll better, and that's what I use to describe a team. Not "that #1 Baylor team," but that "#4 Baylor team," etc. And no, Louisville was the runner-up in the tournament, but they finished #3 behind UConn and ND in the final poll. If you cannot accept that, please go hash it out with all the coaches who voted it that way.

Personally I don't care about the polls (i.e. don't prefer ones over the others). But I'm sure you preferred the final one because it supported your position more than the others. Hence you could disregard the ones that didn't support your position. It's very convenient.

3. The better team always wins.

Well that right there just proves you don't know a damn thing about sports. I really can't help you. Sorry. You'll just have to go on living in your little fairyland.

And then a couple sentences later you go and contradict yourself:

I will allow a small amount of quibble room concerning oddly errant clocks, referees and umpires who seem to have been slipped a little (lot of) cash, any late-season National League games in 1951 in which the NY Giants had their center field bleachers spy stealing signs, and of course that horrendous 1972 US-Russia Olympic basketball game involving the Brit referee who should have been immediately executed, but other than that

You really are not very good at this are you.

3. ND was better than UConn on three of the days they played the Huskies last year, but not on the semifinal night. The better team won all four games.

Ummm NO. You can't have both teams be better than each other. One team is better. Have you no concept of language????

Here, see if you can do this. Which team is better the 2012/13 UCONN or the 2012/13 ND teams. Not any specific night, just who is the better team? That's what we are talking about. Go ahead. I'll wait.

 

[DobbsRover2]

And I would say anyone who does is clearly subfunctional. And would possibly use you as an example.


Personally I don't care about the polls (i.e. don't prefer ones over the others). But I'm sure you preferred the final one because it supported your position more than the others. Hence you could disregard the ones that didn't support your position. It's very convenient.


Well that right there just proves you don't know a damn thing about sports. I really can't help you. Sorry. You'll just have to go on living in your little fairyland.

And then a couple sentences later you go and contradict yourself:


You really are not very good at this are you.


Ummm NO. You can't have both teams be better than each other. One team is better. Have you no concept of language????

Here, see if you can do this. Which team is better the 2012/13 UCONN or the 2012/13 ND teams. Not any specific night, just who is the better team? That's what we are talking about. Go ahead. I'll wait.

In reply,
1. I am hardly hardcore poker fan, but anyone who has such an antipathy toward the game(s) is clearly of the subfunctional type that would prefer say Arsenal over say West Ham. Just neuron-challenged.
2. It's hardly a matter of "convenience" to use the final poll of the season to sum up a team's status on the season, but it is very convenient for me to point out that your logic is sadly fractured.
3. One team wins and one team loses. The loser cries in many cases that it was "the better team" because, well you know if they had played like they were capable of, they would have won. Crying gets you nowhere, except maybe some penalty kicks in soccer that hopefully misfire to the left. My fairyland does include the possibility of corrupt officials, but unless you're a totally ugly cynic (please don't take that as a complete statement of your character, even if it is really meant that way), you will not say that I am contradicting myself when I acknowledge that there are a few rare cases of evildoing that do not invalidate the general true principle that you so foolishly ignore.
4. Obviously you have no sense of time or an awareness that things change. One team is dominant and plays like a world beater the first time they play a team and are the better team, but then its top two stars suffer ACLs and the team also just decides to gun like crazy and goes down in a second meeting with the team, and its opponent is clearly the better team. So both ND and UConn were the better team at different times last season, and you should get yourself a watch.

 

[diggerfoot]

There are two different concepts being bantered here: better team potentially or overall and better team when it counts. The better team when it counts might not be the better team potentially or overall, they might not be able to win on less than A+ performance, but they call forth that performance when it counts. The better team potentially or overall can win on subpar performances, but might lose as well on a B performance or lower. Baylor is an example of a team that did not draw upon an A+ performance when it counted most; UConn is an example of a team that did.

 

[DobbsRover2]

There are two different concepts being bantered here: better team potentially or overall and better team when it counts. The better team when it counts might not be the better team potentially or overall, they might not be able to win on less than A+ performance, but they call forth that performance when it counts. The better team potentially or overall can win on subpar performances, but might lose as well on a B performance or lower. Baylor is an example of a team that did not draw upon an A+ performance when it counted most; UConn is an example of a team that did.

I will acknowledge that most sports fans do operate on assumptions of good and better regarding the status of two teams which is often based on standings, or betting lines, or polls, or some other concrete number or position. And sports fans see their perceptions blown away each day as the Mets somehow beat the Braves, or Ball State beats UTenn, or the heavy favorite in a high school state championship football game gets destroyed. Humans do believe in a lot of things that have no reality in the real world, as mentioned for instance in a Cracked article. Not all of these deluded people are Arsenal fans, though many surely are. Being that we do not have a full grasp going into all games of which squad has the "better team," I prefer the admittedly strange method of letting the teams decide who is better, unless of course I can monetarily augment a referee's life in a way that will help my favorite team.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Would you offer an explanation of your view, or are you just stirring the pot?

stirring

 

[diggerfoot]

I will acknowledge that most sports fans do operate on assumptions of good and better regarding the status of two teams which is often based on standings, or betting lines, or polls, or some other concrete number or position. And sports fans see their perceptions blown away each day as the Mets somehow beat the Braves, or Ball State beats UTenn, or the heavy favorite in a high school state championship football game gets destroyed. Humans do believe in a lot of things that have no reality in the real world, as mentioned for instance in a Cracked article. Not all of these deluded people are Arsenal fans, though many surely are. Being that we do not have a full grasp going into all games of which squad has the "better team," I prefer the admittedly strange method of letting the teams decide who is better, unless of course I can monetarily augment a referee's life in a way that will help my favorite team.

Pro playoffs are a series. The team that wins game one does not always win the series. You've set up your argument in a way to suggest that, had they played a series, Louisville would have swept Baylor, since winning when it counted was tantamount to proving they were the better team once the playoffs started. So I'll ask you, did you really intend that? Are you confident that if they played a series Louisville would have won every game or at least a majority of the games? If your answer is "yes," what we have is a difference of opinion. I don't think Louisville would beat Baylor in a series. My opinion is not based on numbers or rankings so much as I felt that Baylor had both the best center and best point guard in the game last year. Baylor would have learned from game one and adjusted, while Louisville had less room for adjustments or playing even better. Neither you nor I would "win" that argument, though actually I was trying to be more like a mediator in this. If you genuinely think that by winning that one game Louisville established they would win the majority, we would have to agree to disagree.

If you don't think Louisville would win a continued series, that undermines your claim for "when it counts = better." (my paraphrasing). To me a more incredible "upset" was Villanova over Georgetown. Villanova shot something like 70% in that game, even when well-defended. Ain't no way that was going to continue throughout a series; history provides overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

If you choose a third option, that the question is speculative and irrelevant because there are no series in college basketball playoffs, "what ifs" or potential should not be considered in assessing a team, that's fine up to the point of failing to see that one of the reasons for playoff series professionally (along with other reasons) is that not everyone agrees with your view that one game is sufficient for assessing teams.

 

[meyers7]

In reply,
1. I am hardly hardcore poker fan, but anyone who has such an antipathy toward the game(s) is clearly of the subfunctional type that would prefer say Arsenal over say West Ham. Just neuron-challenged.

At least you are not a ManUre or Chelski fan. I followed the Hammers a little when Spector was there.

In reply,
2. It's hardly a matter of "convenience" to use the final poll of the season to sum up a team's status on the season, but it is very convenient for me to point out that your logic is sadly fractured.

Considering your posts this thread I would stay away from mentioning "logic" if I were you. Not really your wheelhouse.

3. One team wins and one team loses.

Except soccer. And one team is better and one team is worse. And it is separate from who wins and who loses. Although the better team usually wins. The rest of the time they call it an upset. (it's a real word, used in the sporting world although you don't seem to comprehend it)

In reply,
but unless you're a totally ugly cynic (please don't take that as a complete statement of your character, even if it is really meant that way),

I take pride in being cynical. As to ugly....well I ain't no Matthew McConaughey. But I've ok with that.

you will not say that I am contradicting myself when I acknowledge that there are a few rare cases of evildoing that do not invalidate the general true principle that you so foolishly ignore.

Kind of like how you ignore the concept of better teams and upsets???

In reply,
4. Obviously you have no sense of time or an awareness that things change. One team is dominant and plays like a world beater the first time they play a team and are the better team, but then its top two stars suffer ACLs and the team also just decides to gun like crazy and goes down in a second meeting with the team, and its opponent is clearly the better team. So both ND and UConn were the better team at different times last season, and you should get yourself a watch.

Just answer the question. Which team was better. Simple question.