UCLA goes down to Utah | Page 3 | The Boneyard

UCLA goes down to Utah

Cuango said:
This has always been a problem for UCLA. Close is a much better recruiter than she is a coach! She has underachieved over and over with her often very talented roster. Now, she has the aircraft carrier everyone wants and exceptional talent around her. In addition to this, she has yet another monster class coming in next year! Plus, yet another supremely talented big a year later!
It’s going to be very interesting to see if she can finally translate overwhelming talent on the floor into a title! With that much talent, I probably wouldn’t bet against it happening but, I wouldn’t bet on it either. Her players imo, though often very talented, tend to play a lot of individual, one on one style basketball and do not imo grow as much as their talent would warrant.
Expand ...
I believe Betts came out of the game around 3min left in 4th quarter, with UCLA still down 5, and without her they made their move to send it to OT (And almost win). Close made the decision to stick with that lineup in OT, which didn't end up working (in part because UCLA kept sending Utah to the FT line), but it wasn't like Betts was dominating at all beforehand.

I'm interested in the idea that Close has "underachieved" at UCLA. She's been to the Sweet 16 a ton, and to my memory, no one has ever thought of them as final 4 talent at any point. which teams do you think underachieved?
 
bbsamjj said:
I believe Betts came out of the game around 3min left in 4th quarter, with UCLA still down 5, and without her they made their move to send it to OT (And almost win). Close made the decision to stick with that lineup in OT, which didn't end up working (in part because UCLA kept sending Utah to the FT line), but it wasn't like Betts was dominating at all beforehand.

I'm interested in the idea that Close has "underachieved" at UCLA. She's been to the Sweet 16 a ton, and to my memory, no one has ever thought of them as final 4 talent at any point. which teams do you think underachieved?
Expand ...
No opinion on whther she's underachieved, but about 5-10 years ago she had a blockbuster, off-the-charts recruiting class. I thought they'd be final4 contenders from their soph-senior year. I dont recall what happened -- injuries? transfers? -- but dont believe they made a final 8 and not sure how many, if any, sweet 16s.
 
ahh, it was 2014

hs2014.png


Jordin Canada
Lajahna Drummer
Recee Caldwell
Monique Billings
Kelli Hayes

and preceded/followup by decent classes as well
 
Vowelguy said:
No opinion on whther she's underachieved, but about 5-10 years ago she had a blockbuster, off-the-charts recruiting class. I thought they'd be final4 contenders from their soph-senior year. I dont recall what happened -- injuries? transfers? -- but dont believe they made a final 8 and not sure how many, if any, sweet 16s.
Expand ...
You're thinking of her 2014 class with 3 McDonald's AAs plus two other top 40 recruits (per HG), headlined by Jordin Canada.

One of the McDAAs (Recee Caldwell) transferred after freshman year. Another (Drummer) was plagued by injuries most of her college career. Kelli Hayes (#26 HG) was so-so, but Monique Billings (#38) exceeded expectations and became the co-star of the team along with Canada.

This class did make the final 8 in 2018. They also made two Sweet 16s before that.

It was a good class, but not as good as projected when you factor in the loss of Caldwell and the injuries to Drummer. The major problem is that the recruiting before and after 2015 wasn't good enough to support the star duo of Canada-Billings. Kennedy Burke (2015 class) was a solid contributor but they had little else, and virtually no depth.
 
Last edited:
Yeah it seems like that class's first year they were WNIT Champions.

As sophomores: Sweet 16 [#3 seed in NCAA tournament, lost to #2 seed TX]
As juniors: Sweet 16 [#4 seed in NCAA tournament, lost to #1 seed UConn]
As seniors: Elite 8 [#3 seed in NCAA tournament, upset #2 seed TX before losing to #1 seed and national runnerup Miss St]


Defer to our Pac12 fans if any of these seasons UCLA drastically underperformed.
 
bbsamjj said:
Yeah it seems like that class's first year they were WNIT Champions.

As sophomores: Sweet 16 [#3 seed in NCAA tournament, lost to #2 seed TX]
As juniors: Sweet 16 [#4 seed in NCAA tournament, lost to #1 seed UConn]
As seniors: Elite 8 [#3 seed in NCAA tournament, upset #2 seed TX before losing to #1 seed and national runnerup Miss St]


Defer to our Pac12 fans if any of these seasons UCLA drastically underperformed.
Expand ...
In my mind, I don't think Close particularly over or underpeforms. Mostly I just don't think her teams improve much over the season, so by postseason other teams are just much more locked in. (literally think about how UConn is now vs. November when technically they have less personnel available now!)

And I think UCLA under Close stands in contrast to several other Pac-12 programs that overperformed and reached final fours with significantly less recruiting talent (Cal, OreSU, Washington), so she mostly suffers by comparison than against some abstract goalpost.
 
.-.
bbsamjj said:
Yeah it seems like that class's first year they were WNIT Champions.

As sophomores: Sweet 16 [#3 seed in NCAA tournament, lost to #2 seed TX]
As juniors: Sweet 16 [#4 seed in NCAA tournament, lost to #1 seed UConn]
As seniors: Elite 8 [#3 seed in NCAA tournament, upset #2 seed TX before losing to #1 seed and national runnerup Miss St]


Defer to our Pac12 fans if any of these seasons UCLA drastically underperformed.
Expand ...
I'm not a fan of Close as an X's and O's coach, but I don't see those results as significantly under-performing. They hit that “second weekend” ceiling in the NCAA Tournament due to a combination of factors, including lack of roster depth, injuries to key players, and not the greatest coaching.

To be fair, those were two very good teams they lost to in 2017 and 2018.
 
TheFarmFan said:
In my mind, I don't think Close particularly over or underpeforms. Mostly I just don't think her teams improve much over the season, so by postseason other teams are just much more locked in. (literally think about how UConn is now vs. November when technically they have less personnel available now!)

And I think UCLA under Close stands in contrast to several other Pac-12 programs that overperformed and reached final fours with significantly less recruiting talent (Cal, OreSU, Washington), so she mostly suffers by comparison than against some abstract goalpost.
Expand ...
I also think players don't develop or grow much year over year either with Close so I struggle to understand why big time players go there. She gets great talent and then they seem to just stay around the same level all 4 years, which is good solid even great college players but it always feels like there is another level they can tap into that they never reach.
 
UCLA has some pretty good talent still playing in the WNBA: Michaela Onyenwere, Jordin Canada, Monique Billings. Probably more, but these 3 are solid UCLA grads in WNBA
 
Looking at just a few examples, seems like players at UCLA can make big sophomore jumps (see Billings, Onyenwere, a lot of the sophs on this year's team)...but maybe level out after that. Jordin Canada did become a decent shooter by the time she graduated, though who knows who much of that was Close.
 
Bone Dog said:
Could be. Utah with Kneepkens would definitely have been better. But overall team speed at Colorado is too slow to dominate Marquette and Creighton. Yes, Sherrod is very quick. But the rest of the team is not, and especially Miller and Vonleh. And they don't have the size to make up for it. That says to me these would be competitive games.

And come on, @triaddukefan, how is this not serious? I like Utah's chances against Marquette and Creighton just because they have pretty good team speed and Pili is really fierce -- Morrow-level fierce and a better perimeter shooter. I mention Morrow just to remind you that the Big East teams have played that sort of opponent and they weren't simply bowled over by her. What's more, Utah has no size advantage and Creighton and Marquette are very scrappy defensive teams. Karlen probably couldn't contain Pili. But she's a handful to defend in her own right. Viera is very quick, and they shoot the 3 really well. But so does Marquette. And this is even more true of Creighton.

The Pac12 teams tend to play pretty good offense, but defense is not a strength the further down the conference you go.

But I could have this all wrong. My only point is that other than Stanford and UCLA, the Pac12 teams would find the middle of the Big East pretty competitive. And other than Utah, I don't think any of them would have a chance at upsetting UConn.
Expand ...
I don't know that the PAC-12 defense is as bad as you think. Looking at the NCCA.com website, this is what I found when comparing PAC-12 schools vs other power conference schools (TOP 25) by defensive category:

FG % defense: 3 of 7 Power Conference Teams in TOP 25 are PAC-12 schools
Scoring defense: 1 of 5 Power Conference Teams in TOP 25 are PAC-12 schools
3-pt defense %: 0 of 5 Power Conference Teams in TOP 25 are PAC-12 schools
Defensive Rebound/game: 4 of 16 Power Conference Teams in TOP 25 are PAC-12 schools
Steals/game: 1 of 6 Power Conference Teams in TOP 25 are PAC-12 schools
Turnovers forced/game: 0 of 7 Power Conference Teams in TOP 25 are PAC-12 schools

So not consistently top or bottom vs other Power Conference schools, but reasonable representation of PAC-12 in defensive categories
 
LoTrader said:
I don't know that the PAC-12 defense is as bad as you think.
Expand ...
You may be right. I was just going on eyeball assessments of the games I’ve managed to see replays of. I was unimpressed by Colorado and USC and a few other middle of the pack teams. But this was certainly not a scientific analysis.
 
.-.
bbsamjj said:
Looking at just a few examples, seems like players at UCLA can make big sophomore jumps (see Billings, Onyenwere, a lot of the sophs on this year's team)...but maybe level out after that. Jordin Canada did become a decent shooter by the time she graduated, though who knows who much of that was Close.
Expand ...
I don't think the sophmores made much of a jump on this year's UCLA team. They are just more highly rated so people are talking about them more and some are getting more playing time. Eye test wise and state wise they seem about the same to me to be completely honest. I was really high on UCLA early season (similar to last year) but now that we are at the end of January their shooting seems to have gotten worse and everything else is about the same so they aren't quite as impressive to me. But who knows theyll probably end up national champions after I've talked all this nonsense.
 
GamecockFam said:
I find this comment funny now after the South Carolina men's team beat Kentucky last night in part due to pace of play. Kentucky likes to play fast but we made them defend us for 30 seconds each possession which then made them uncharacteristically tired and sloppy on offense, and prevented them from gaining any sense of offensive rhythm. Conversation about pace were the highlight of the halftime report as well as the post game conversations. South Carolina dictating the pace of play led to a better defensive performance.
Expand ...
Okay, I very much oversimplified. Let me try again. The idea is to score more points than your opponent. There are different strategies and different philosophies on how to accomplish this. Getting your opponent to play in a manner that is not how they want to play, and frustrating them, isn't certainly one of those ways.
 
GamecockFam said:
I find this comment funny now after the South Carolina men's team beat Kentucky last night in part due to pace of play. Kentucky likes to play fast but we made them defend us for 30 seconds each possession which then made them uncharacteristically tired and sloppy on offense, and prevented them from gaining any sense of offensive rhythm. Conversation about pace were the highlight of the halftime report as well as the post game conversations. South Carolina dictating the pace of play led to a better defensive performance.
Expand ...

Usually the better team benefits from pace.

But good defensive teams generally don't give up that many points in transition and are generally good on first actions.
 
hoopsnloops32 said:
I don't think the sophmores made much of a jump on this year's UCLA team. They are just more highly rated so people are talking about them more and some are getting more playing time. Eye test wise and state wise they seem about the same to me to be completely honest. I was really high on UCLA early season (similar to last year) but now that we are at the end of January their shooting seems to have gotten worse and everything else is about the same so they aren't quite as impressive to me. But who knows theyll probably end up national champions after I've talked all this nonsense.
Expand ...

UCLA seemed better early than late last season as well.
 
Bone Dog said:
Could be. Utah with Kneepkens would definitely have been better. But overall team speed at Colorado is too slow to dominate Marquette and Creighton. Yes, Sherrod is very quick. But the rest of the team is not, and especially Miller and Vonleh. And they don't have the size to make up for it. That says to me these would be competitive games.

And come on, @triaddukefan, how is this not serious? I like Utah's chances against Marquette and Creighton just because they have pretty good team speed and Pili is really fierce -- Morrow-level fierce and a better perimeter shooter. I mention Morrow just to remind you that the Big East teams have played that sort of opponent and they weren't simply bowled over by her. What's more, Utah has no size advantage and Creighton and Marquette are very scrappy defensive teams. Karlen probably couldn't contain Pili. But she's a handful to defend in her own right. Viera is very quick, and they shoot the 3 really well. But so does Marquette. And this is even more true of Creighton.

The Pac12 teams tend to play pretty good offense, but defense is not a strength the further down the conference you go.

But I could have this all wrong. My only point is that other than Stanford and UCLA, the Pac12 teams would find the middle of the Big East pretty competitive. And other than Utah, I don't think any of them would have a chance at upsetting UConn.
Expand ...

NC just announced today that legalized sports betting starts on March 11th. If Colorado plays either Marquette or Creighton in the NCAA's..... I'm putting at least $100 on Colorado to win... depending on the money line. (actually not sure if WBB is a betting option, but if it is). Vonleh and Miller would combine for at least 40 and 20. I'm probably alone in this thinking, but I think Colorado would give UConn a competitive game. I would take Colorado and the points. (subject to change) Personally I would rank them Colorado, Utah USC, Creighton, Marquette.

I'm not sure how we got on topic about the Pac 12 vs the Big East, but hey....


hatch.jpg
 
triaddukefan said:
NC just announced today that legalized sports betting starts on March 11th. If Colorado plays either Marquette or Creighton in the NCAA's..... I'm putting at least $100 on Colorado to win... depending on the money line.
Expand ...
Lol.

I'm not foolhardy enough to argue Marquette and Creighton are better teams than Colorado, but it's really too bad gambling in NC wasn't already legal in 2022 when Creighton stunned Iowa and Iowa State much to your shock and dismay. Would've been fun to add the financial flop to the cause for celebration


chair dance.gif
 
.-.
Plebe said:
Lol.

I'm not foolhardy enough to argue Marquette and Creighton are better teams than Colorado, but it's really too bad gambling in NC wasn't already legal in 2022 when Creighton stunned Iowa and Iowa State much to your shock and dismay. Would've been fun to add the financial flop to the cause for celebration


View attachment 95599
Expand ...


Come on now,,,, you know I wouldn't be putting any money on any teams from Iowa ( no offense to any fans from the fine state of Iowa)

shoe.gif
 
Yeah, Colorado is so slow they couldn't possibly match up with a team like LSU. What a minute...:rolleyes:
 
I try to avoid weighing on this team vs that team. So I won't until we get to the NCAA Tournament games.
 
nwhoopfan said:
Yeah, Colorado is so slow they couldn't possibly match up with a team like LSU. What a minute...:rolleyes:
Expand ...
Is LSU fast? They are a pretty slow team themselves. Flaujae is really the only starter with speed.
 
.-.
Plebe said:
But you would have put money on Colorado? :p

www.espn.com

Creighton 84-74 Colorado (Mar 18, 2022) Final Score - ESPN

Game summary of the Creighton Bluejays vs. Colorado Buffaloes NCAAW game, final score 84-74, from March 18, 2022 on ESPN.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Expand ...

I'd say that Colorado is a very different team from last year. Maddie Nolan has made a huge impact as to where you can't just guard Frida Formann and sag off anyone else who thinks of shooting it from downtown. I'd also venture that Creighton is a team that can get hot in a tournament and start hitting their offense on all cylinders -- regardless of the defense that's playing against them.
 
So...is Georgetown better than Colorado? Cuz they are giving Creighton more than they wanted at this point.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,227
Messages
4,558,255
Members
10,444
Latest member
Billy Boy


Top Bottom