[teejers1]

re: your playing time comments - isn't it largely the same at other high profile programs for underclassmen? The bottom few players hardly play at all. Stanford has a of immense proportions roster this year, so it's more than a few who don't play much, but it's pretty much the case at South Carolina, Louisville, NC State, etc. The coach would rather give the minutes to the contributors. And if you read my posts, you know how I feel about this topic - I could give a crap about a player's ranking or stars on their recruiting profile. "But she was a 5-star recruit!" Who cares. If daily practices show you aren't good enough at your position (and the coach gets to make that call), you aren't going to play. It is highly possible that DeBarry is simply not cutting it (physically, emotionally, mentally...), regardless of how many stars she had coming in.

I disagree with the notion that a coach in college should play 6 (or even 7) kids 99% of the minutes, particularly if 5 are playing 80%.  That is especially true at a school, like UConn, that reels in Blue Chip recruit after Blue Chip recruit.  The kids can all play, that's why they are a Blue Chip recruit.   Should they all play an even amount (or even close to that)?  Of course not.  Should practices determine who the lead dogs are at the coach's discretion?  Yes.  But philosophically, the notion of a 6-person playing rotation strikes me as a poor strategy for program development for a variety of reasons.

And yes, I've commented on PT decisions at Stanford and the risks associated with same, but Tara goes pretty far into her bench in most/all games.  That appears NOT to be the case with Geno, and I suspect it will undermine his ability to reel in and retain players.

[teejers1]

re: your playing time comments - isn't it largely the same at other high profile programs for underclassmen? The bottom few players hardly play at all. Stanford has a of immense proportions roster this year, so it's more than a few who don't play much, but it's pretty much the case at South Carolina, Louisville, NC State, etc. The coach would rather give the minutes to the contributors. And if you read my posts, you know how I feel about this topic - I could give a crap about a player's ranking or stars on their recruiting profile. "But she was a 5-star recruit!" Who cares. If daily practices show you aren't good enough at your position (and the coach gets to make that call), you aren't going to play. It is highly possible that DeBarry is simply not cutting it (physically, emotionally, mentally...), regardless of how many stars she had coming in.

I disagree with the notion that a coach in college should play 6 (or even 7) kids 99% of the minutes, particularly if 5 are playing 80%.  That is especially true at a school, like UConn, that reels in Blue Chip recruit after Blue Chip recruit.  The kids can all play, that's why they are a Blue Chip recruit.   Should they all play an even amount (or even close to that)?  Of course not.  Should practices determine who the lead dogs are at the coach's discretion?  Yes.  But philosophically, the notion of a 6-person playing rotation strikes me as a poor strategy for program development for a variety of reasons.

And yes, I've commented on PT decisions at Stanford and the risks associated with same, but Tara goes pretty far into her bench in most/all games.  That appears NOT to be the case with Geno, and I suspect it will undermine his ability to reel in and retain players.