What is a big game?

[diggerfoot]

I've been seeing a lot of references to Williams ALWAYS playing big in big games. Yet, due to circumstances beyond her control, she had her worst game in what I would call our biggest game, the close call against our biggest rival, Notre Dame. In contrast, Stevens takes a back seat to the core four in the South Carolina game, but was the savior in the Notre Dame game. Does that mean she is really the one that always plays big in the big games?

I bring up Stevens because I don't want to make this a battle between everyone's favorite out of the core four. Rather, I just want to question what we are considering big games. When you go in and dominate a team as early as we did SC, to me that's not a big game in the least. I agree with the anticipation of it being a big game, but when it becomes clear early on they can't compete I don't see how you can consider it a big game in retrospect. Yes, Wilson is a superstar, but so was Griner and the Ogwumikes, who played in more games against us that actually were close. So were Diggins and McBride, who actually played on teams that consistently beat us. For that matter, Maryland typically has proved to be a bigger game than match-ups against South Carolina.

From what I've seen, everyone of the core four (plus three) has had their moments when they played big in big games, close games that require players to rise above. Everyone of the core four has faltered at times; that's basketball. However, the litmus test is never a game like the one against South Carolina.

My apologies to our SC visitors, who have shown a lot of class on an opponent's board. Obviously, SC provides big games against some good teams, just not us. Some match-ups are just ill-fated.

 

[msf22b]

Sort of my view, expressed on a different thread
the game wasn't competitive enough to be called a big game

Of course the opposite position could be surely argued...
That our unusual precision and proficiency prevented the game from becoming big.

 

[Sonny44]

When the stands are that full, it's a big game.

 

[Bigpetunia]

With respect, I must strongly disagree with the idea behind the original post, that what constitutes a "big game" and what fails to rise to that level can be determined in retrospect. At the beginning of the season, we were all asked on a separate thread to identify those games on the upcoming calendar that posed the biggest potential threats to an undefeated season. Yes, the games that turned out to be close, like Notre Dame and Texas, drew plenty of responses, but SC was, as expected, right up there. Fans knew it would be a road game in a packed, hostile environment against a traditionally vaunted opponent. So did the coaches and players. That the latter prepared so well in anticipation of what they knew they would face, and that, as a result, they put an old-fashioned beatdown on that opponent, does not, after the fact, diminish the quality of their accomplishment. It was a big game on the calendar, and remains a big game in the rear view mirror. Hats off for a big time victory of a very convincing nature!

 

[meyers7]

Anytime you are playing a top 10 ranked opponent (or a rival) it's a big game. The outcome has nothing to do with that. Tulsa was a closer game, but it wasn't a big game.

 

[diggerfoot]

When games are close there are psychological factors at work that are not there when things are well in hand. True, an anticipated big game should get the adrenaline flowing in all, which enhances performance. However, only when the games occur and are close can they either induce an element of apprehension and tightness, or a relentless determination. A real big game performer to me is one where determination rather than tightness sets in when the going gets tough and that can only be determined when, well, the going gets tough. It's not just that yesterday's game was well in hand, SC never really plays us that close, though last year was perhaps the closest. I just don't see where SC as a foe ever separates those who would get tight from those who are determined in a real big game situation.

On the other hand, Notre Dame is a team that not only increases the adrenaline likely to enhance performance ahead of time, they also are likely to disrupt what the team wants to do. At that point players can get tight or determined, with some players more tight or more determined than others.

 

[diggerfoot]

This is likely an "agree to disagree" discussion. I can see using "top 10" as an empirical measuring stick for a big game from a fan's point of view, thus a "big game" provides "big status." I define a big game instead as one where a well-prepared opponent is capable of disrupting what the team wants to do, thus a "big game" provides a "big test." What might provide "big status" can be known ahead of time; what provides a "big test" is not always known ahead of time (except with Notre Dame it seems).

 

[hoophuskee]

This is likely an "agree to disagree" discussion. I can see using "top 10" as an empirical measuring stick for a big game from a fan's point of view, thus a "big game" provides "big status." I define a big game instead as one where a well-prepared opponent is capable of disrupting what the team wants to do, thus a "big game" provides a "big test." What might provide "big status" can be known ahead of time; what provides a "big test" is not always known ahead of time (except with Notre Dame it seems).

I think the title of your thread has it right. Each person has their own definitions.

For me - I consider the core 4 "Big Game players." I use it as a "general" term that he or she is a "big game" player. When you've won as often as UCONN has and Core 4 has been so successful, I think most of the time they play/show up "big."

As for South Carolina-- I do consider it a big game. I think it comes down to recruiting and the conferences. Teams in the Power Conferences get the most NCAA bids. The top teams such as teh best or 2nd best generally are in the running for the elite recruits. UCONN in general has to hold them down. All of them. Fro example with USC, if they were to have beaten UCONN at any time these last several years Dawn might be able to pitch to recruits 1.) Our conference is stronger, 2.) our conference gives you more exposure, 3) we'll remain an elite team if you come, 4.) you'll play always before a packed house, 5) I can beat UCONN and 6) I can develop USC into a "better-than-UCONN. And 7 is coming.

Right now these elite recruits see 5 and 6 as undeniable plus for UCONN. ****Then number 7-- you are able without a doubt to play in a style that enhances your game. Dawn can't say that. We see what happens with Wilson. She gets swarmed. Wilson is doing exactly what she didn't want to do when she signed up - because her teams needs her to do it. As long as UCONN continues to show the elite recruits that they won't get swarmed thus allowing the kid to show off their talents while UCONN wins the elite recruits will probably keep coming. Start to lose vs the elite Power 5 Conference teams such as best team or 2nd best on the conference it will probably give the elite h/s a/a pause. Stewie committed right after UCONN throttled Duke I believe. Duke was Stewie's 2nd pick I think That game Stewie watched - UCONN vs Duke was a big game.