Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="YKCornelius, post: 4604678, member: 9864"] Veryolddog, you seem to mix a lot of frustration/exasperation in your post - unrealistic expectations towards recruits, languishing development of bench players, and potential physical limitations of current players going forward. A lot to unpack there. Exactly how do those issues correlate to a tough OOC schedule? Are you insinuating - which I believe you are given your second sentence - that if some of the tough OOC games this year were replaced with patsies, then perhaps the injuries wouldn't have occurred, or recovery would have been sooner, or that practices with a limited roster would have been less restricted? On the other hand, perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Rather than replace tough opponents with patsies, perhaps you are simply advocating for a smaller size schedule overall - say 28 games vice 31, and not for switching to weaker opponents. If so, although I would still advocate for the maximum number of games, I wouldn't be strongly opposed to a smaller schedule, provided that whatever OOC opponents were scheduled were also expected to be the most difficult. Either way, I would contend that the toughness of this year's opponents did not contribute to the team wearing down this year. By mid-season UConn struggled with unranked conference opponents as well as with tougher opponents. As Geno noted throughout February, the home-then-away scheduling, an extremely limited bench, and (most importantly?) the decisions to severely restrict/limit practices, were the primary causal factors affecting the Huskies' performance on the court in the latter half of the season. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach