[treetop11]

Your comment in your first sentence was meant as a personal attack. You could have simply stated that though others disagreed, you still believed that the officiating was good, end of story - but you felt a need to slam me.

Of course, nothing is perfect, but the rules can be substantially better. Newell gave me several suggestions, one of which the NCAA did adopt - the arc in front of the basket. And frankly, I like the changes that the women's game adopted; quarters, 5 fouls to the bonus per qt., and advancing the ball after a timeout under two mins.

BTW, not meant as a shot at you, but rather as a compliment and support for our team, you several times expressed your concern about our team handling quick guards and that it would be our undoing. Against Texas, our team proved that wrong.

First, you can take shots at me - it's nbd.  This is just a fan board to vent/comment/bitch/moan/learn stuff/etc.

Second, you and I have different definitions of "handling quick guards."  20 TOs and Haley being forced to bring the ball up is not ideal.  But we won, and if that's your definition of "handling it," okay.  And I hope we continue to "handle it" under your definition, but I'd also like to see better guard play against pressure D.  

Third, two more games to play yet (hopefully).

I don't believe in taking shots at other posters unless they get nasty. I greatly prefer staying on topic with discussion of the teams, games, etc. It doesn't bother me when people are critical or argue against others' opinions. I just don't like it when there is an attempt to be personal because these fan boards never adequately portray full and accurate context of each poster. The personal attacks just distract.

When I mentioned handling quick guards, my context was that your concern that you expressed in a few posts was, as at least I interpreted it and perhaps you said explicitly, that our team would not be able to handle quick guards and our inability to do so = a loss. I wanted to point out that our team has faced all kinds of opposing styles and I think we agree that high pressure, physical play by quality opponents is our toughest to deal with. Yet, the coaches and players have figured out ways to beat that style and other styles. I was exceptionally happy obviously that we beat Texas, but also that we sent a message that we can handle - by which I meant win - even against perhaps our most significant vulnerability. It's sorta similar to having many weapons on offense where there isn't one or two people you can shut down. From my observations, there is no scheme that we can't defeat. If we lose, it's because we played really bad that game or the opponent was superior.

Also, I don't think that the Texas quick guards were the primary factor for our turnovers. We had a number of unforced turnovers that had little or nothing to do with the Texas defense. We had two long home run passes that were thrown away, several traveling calls of which a few were shuffling feet or sliding their feet, a couple of passes that were frankly just dump, and a few charges. They didn't have that many steals which is why they didn't have any fast break points like in the first game. 

What I do think there quick guards and pressure did to us was affect our three point shooting and penetrating drives to the basket. Our players seldom had space on the perimeter both for outside shots and getting lanes to the basket. Even Haley who usually can find a way to get to the basket often had to stop her drive and dribbling or take shots that were even more difficult than her usual acrobatic ones. And on defense, Texas had one more three than the first game, yet still scored 11 points less. Since the Texas post players in both games were not factors on offense, we clearly figured a way to "handle" their quick guards so they didn't scorre as much mid range, drives, and in transition. From what I could tell, our coaches' strategy was to pack it in more and give them more from 3 point. Although Texas still made a number of pull up mid range shots, overall the strategy seemed to work.

[treetop11]

Your comment in your first sentence was meant as a personal attack. You could have simply stated that though others disagreed, you still believed that the officiating was good, end of story - but you felt a need to slam me.

Of course, nothing is perfect, but the rules can be substantially better. Newell gave me several suggestions, one of which the NCAA did adopt - the arc in front of the basket. And frankly, I like the changes that the women's game adopted; quarters, 5 fouls to the bonus per qt., and advancing the ball after a timeout under two mins.

BTW, not meant as a shot at you, but rather as a compliment and support for our team, you several times expressed your concern about our team handling quick guards and that it would be our undoing. Against Texas, our team proved that wrong.

First, you can take shots at me - it's nbd.  This is just a fan board to vent/comment/bitch/moan/learn stuff/etc.

Second, you and I have different definitions of "handling quick guards."  20 TOs and Haley being forced to bring the ball up is not ideal.  But we won, and if that's your definition of "handling it," okay.  And I hope we continue to "handle it" under your definition, but I'd also like to see better guard play against pressure D.  

Third, two more games to play yet (hopefully).

I don't believe in taking shots at other posters unless they get nasty. I greatly prefer staying on topic with discussion of the teams, games, etc. It doesn't bother me when people are critical or argue against others' opinions. I just don't like it when there is an attempt to be personal because these fan boards never adequately portray full and accurate context of each poster. The personal attacks just distract.

When I mentioned handling quick guards, my context was that your concern that you expressed in a few posts was, as at least I interpreted it and perhaps you said explicitly, that our team would not be able to handle quick guards and our inability to do so = a loss. I wanted to point out that our team has faced all kinds of opposing styles and I think we agree that high pressure, physical play by quality opponents is our toughest to deal with. Yet, the coaches and players have figured out ways to beat that style and other styles. I was exceptionally happy obviously that we beat Texas, but also that we sent a message that we can handle - by which I meant win - even against perhaps our most significant vulnerability. It's sorta similar to having many weapons on offense where there isn't one or two people you can shut down. From my observations, there is no scheme that we can't defeat. If we lose, it's because we played really bad that game or the opponent was superior.

Also, I don't think that the Texas quick guards were the primary factor for our turnovers. We had a number of unforced turnovers that had little or nothing to do with the Texas defense. We had two long home run passes that were thrown away, several traveling calls of which a few were shuffling feet or sliding their feet, a couple of passes that were frankly just dump, and a few charges. They didn't have that many steals which is why they didn't have any fast break points like in the first game. 

What I do think there quick guards and pressure did to us was affect our three point shooting and penetrating drives to the basket. Our players seldom had space on the perimeter both for outside shots and getting lanes to the basket. Even Haley who usually can find a way to get to the basket often had to stop her drive and dribbling or take shots that were even more difficult than her usual acrobatic ones. And on defense, Texas had one more three than the first game, yet still scored 11 points less. Since the Texas post players in both games were not factors on offense, we clearly figured a way to "handle" their quick guards so they didn't scorre as much mid range, drives, and in transition. From what I could tell, our coaches' strategy was to pack it in more and give them more from 3 point. Although Texas still made a number of pull up mid range shots, overall the strategy seemed to work.