[TonyLima]

Fascinating info re UConn many thanks.

[TonyLima]

Fascinating info re UConn many thanks.

[jad]

Missing 3 former #1 overall recruits due to injuries (2020 BUECKERS and 2021 AZZI) or covid protocol (2018 WILLIAMS) will obviously do that.

But the silver lining is that seniors SG WILLIAMS and post NELSON-ODADA have upped their games while 6'2 freshman SG/SF DUCHARME has become their primary go-to offense in star player BUECKERS' absence since mid-Dec. So when AZZI returns in early Feb and finally BUECKERS in mid- to late Feb, UConn might be more dangerous than ever before, especially during the NCAA Tournament, where they are predicted to be a regional 3-seed or 4-seed in what essentially is a homecourt Bridgeport Regional.

An interesting side note is that despite being down to 8 players for the Oregon game, Geno still only used 6 players while totally relegating post players DEBERRY and GABRIEL to the bench.  With GABRIEL I'm not that surprised, but 6'5 freshman DEBERRY is a 5-star recruit (ranked as high as #3 overall in the Class of 2021) who showed flashes of brilliance in the few games she played for UConn this season.

Thanks for this commentary.  I do not follow UConn that closely (other than knowing Bueckers was out).  Still, I was wrong about UConn hanging with Oregon and am happy BB was correct.  But you answered my most pressing question when I learned that 2 other stars out and UConn only had 8 suited for the game:  how many did Geno play?

It is INSANE that he only played 6 and relegated DeBerry.

I swear, UConn will be formidable when healthy for the Tourney IN SPITE of Geno, not because of him.  The injuries have forced Geno to give more players quality PT and that will make them stronger come March.

This has been a criticism of Geno for many years--that he plays his starters too long and doesn't develop his bench players.  When Bueckers was injured during meaningless minutes of a blowout, the UConn fans were enraged.  But we've commented on his proclivity to keep his starters playing and adding to the lead long after games are decided.  It is one of the reasons we hate him.

Down to 8 players only and he played only 6.  That is just classic Geno.  He is obviously a good coach in certain respects, but I can't see why any player would go to UConn unless they were certain they would start.

I believe two of their players have transferred out this season.  I have to wonder if it is playing time related.  A nationally televised game and a bench player can't even get 1 minute at the end of an already decided game.

[jad]

Missing 3 former #1 overall recruits due to injuries (2020 BUECKERS and 2021 AZZI) or covid protocol (2018 WILLIAMS) will obviously do that.

But the silver lining is that seniors SG WILLIAMS and post NELSON-ODADA have upped their games while 6'2 freshman SG/SF DUCHARME has become their primary go-to offense in star player BUECKERS' absence since mid-Dec. So when AZZI returns in early Feb and finally BUECKERS in mid- to late Feb, UConn might be more dangerous than ever before, especially during the NCAA Tournament, where they are predicted to be a regional 3-seed or 4-seed in what essentially is a homecourt Bridgeport Regional.

An interesting side note is that despite being down to 8 players for the Oregon game, Geno still only used 6 players while totally relegating post players DEBERRY and GABRIEL to the bench.  With GABRIEL I'm not that surprised, but 6'5 freshman DEBERRY is a 5-star recruit (ranked as high as #3 overall in the Class of 2021) who showed flashes of brilliance in the few games she played for UConn this season.

Thanks for this commentary.  I do not follow UConn that closely (other than knowing Bueckers was out).  Still, I was wrong about UConn hanging with Oregon and am happy BB was correct.  But you answered my most pressing question when I learned that 2 other stars out and UConn only had 8 suited for the game:  how many did Geno play?

It is INSANE that he only played 6 and relegated DeBerry.

I swear, UConn will be formidable when healthy for the Tourney IN SPITE of Geno, not because of him.  The injuries have forced Geno to give more players quality PT and that will make them stronger come March.

This has been a criticism of Geno for many years--that he plays his starters too long and doesn't develop his bench players.  When Bueckers was injured during meaningless minutes of a blowout, the UConn fans were enraged.  But we've commented on his proclivity to keep his starters playing and adding to the lead long after games are decided.  It is one of the reasons we hate him.

Down to 8 players only and he played only 6.  That is just classic Geno.  He is obviously a good coach in certain respects, but I can't see why any player would go to UConn unless they were certain they would start.

I believe two of their players have transferred out this season.  I have to wonder if it is playing time related.  A nationally televised game and a bench player can't even get 1 minute at the end of an already decided game.

[teejers1]

While I do agree that if Uconn gets healthy, they will be a different team the end of February/March. It mains to be seen what Bueckers will be like after her injury or how close she will be to her former self the remainder of this season. While Ducharme and others have stepped up in her absence, is she going to play ahead of Bueckers or Fudd when they return? Not sure how the depth will be managed if/when they get everyone back. 

I see them dropping their road game at SC next week.  The Tennessee game seems like a tossup to me with Uconn being at home.

1.  As you noted, not sure if Bueckers will be all that when she returns and those filling the differential have had to 'step up' (to employ and overused term) and are in better position to continue to do so; and 

2.  More generally, PT breeds experience and confidence, which is critical to competitive success.  Even if Bueckers and Fudd come back and reclaim their 38 minutes, the others on the court with them will have had, by then, a lot of PT as bigger impact players.  I think that can only help them.  And if Geno actually goes further down bench to those who played in the stars' absence - perhaps due to foul trouble - then their recent experiences are even more beneficial to team performance.

But fundamentally, I agree with those questioning why a stud player would go to UConn if stud recruits have been buried on Geno's bench.  I mean, Stanford probably faces that to some degree, and Tara gets a lot of her players into games.

[teejers1]

While I do agree that if Uconn gets healthy, they will be a different team the end of February/March. It mains to be seen what Bueckers will be like after her injury or how close she will be to her former self the remainder of this season. While Ducharme and others have stepped up in her absence, is she going to play ahead of Bueckers or Fudd when they return? Not sure how the depth will be managed if/when they get everyone back. 

I see them dropping their road game at SC next week.  The Tennessee game seems like a tossup to me with Uconn being at home.

1.  As you noted, not sure if Bueckers will be all that when she returns and those filling the differential have had to 'step up' (to employ and overused term) and are in better position to continue to do so; and 

2.  More generally, PT breeds experience and confidence, which is critical to competitive success.  Even if Bueckers and Fudd come back and reclaim their 38 minutes, the others on the court with them will have had, by then, a lot of PT as bigger impact players.  I think that can only help them.  And if Geno actually goes further down bench to those who played in the stars' absence - perhaps due to foul trouble - then their recent experiences are even more beneficial to team performance.

But fundamentally, I agree with those questioning why a stud player would go to UConn if stud recruits have been buried on Geno's bench.  I mean, Stanford probably faces that to some degree, and Tara gets a lot of her players into games.

[martyup]

If Buckets and Fudd are back,  no matter how rusty they may play Geno will keep them in and let the 2nd string rot on the bench.  That's just the way he rolls.

[martyup]

If Buckets and Fudd are back,  no matter how rusty they may play Geno will keep them in and let the 2nd string rot on the bench.  That's just the way he rolls.

[crackpot]

Something that kept running through my head while watching the game was that for years UConn players would brag "Our hardest games are in practice." If their own internal scrimmages are supposedly harder than  real games, you'd think the end of the bench would at least be able to make a decent game out if it.

[crackpot]

Something that kept running through my head while watching the game was that for years UConn players would brag "Our hardest games are in practice." If their own internal scrimmages are supposedly harder than  real games, you'd think the end of the bench would at least be able to make a decent game out if it.

[Jskass]

Something that kept running through my head while watching the game was that for years UConn players would brag "Our hardest games are in practice." If their own internal scrimmages are supposedly harder than  real games, you'd think the end of the bench would at least be able to make a decent game out if it.

Probably true relative to their IN CONFERENCE games!

[Jskass]

Something that kept running through my head while watching the game was that for years UConn players would brag "Our hardest games are in practice." If their own internal scrimmages are supposedly harder than  real games, you'd think the end of the bench would at least be able to make a decent game out if it.

Probably true relative to their IN CONFERENCE games!

[teejers1]

Something that kept running through my head while watching the game was that for years UConn players would brag "Our hardest games are in practice." If their own internal scrimmages are supposedly harder than  real games, you'd think the end of the bench would at least be able to make a decent game out if it.

I have to admit that one other thing kept running through my head when watching the part of Q3 that I did on TV:  "Covid must really be a much smaller problem in Eugene than it is in Palo Alto . . ."  [insert sarcasm emoji]. I, for one, was envious of the fans there.

[teejers1]

Something that kept running through my head while watching the game was that for years UConn players would brag "Our hardest games are in practice." If their own internal scrimmages are supposedly harder than  real games, you'd think the end of the bench would at least be able to make a decent game out if it.

I have to admit that one other thing kept running through my head when watching the part of Q3 that I did on TV:  "Covid must really be a much smaller problem in Eugene than it is in Palo Alto . . ."  [insert sarcasm emoji]. I, for one, was envious of the fans there.

[BillBradley]

Something that kept running through my head while watching the game was that for years UConn players would brag "Our hardest games are in practice." If their own internal scrimmages are supposedly harder than  real games, you'd think the end of the bench would at least be able to make a decent game out if it.

I have to admit that one other thing kept running through my head when watching the part of Q3 that I did on TV:  "Covid must really be a much smaller problem in Eugene than it is in Palo Alto . . ."  [insert sarcasm emoji].  I, for one, was envious of the fans there.

I was too. Basketball and football are way more fanatical in Eugene. They won't be stopping fan attendance there - people would go ballistic. In the Bay Area it's "well, I guess I can understand why...". Not taking one side or the other - just saying that's the way it is.

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 brobdingnagian 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.

[BillBradley]

Something that kept running through my head while watching the game was that for years UConn players would brag "Our hardest games are in practice." If their own internal scrimmages are supposedly harder than  real games, you'd think the end of the bench would at least be able to make a decent game out if it.

I have to admit that one other thing kept running through my head when watching the part of Q3 that I did on TV:  "Covid must really be a much smaller problem in Eugene than it is in Palo Alto . . ."  [insert sarcasm emoji].  I, for one, was envious of the fans there.

I was too. Basketball and football are way more fanatical in Eugene. They won't be stopping fan attendance there - people would go ballistic. In the Bay Area it's "well, I guess I can understand why...". Not taking one side or the other - just saying that's the way it is.

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 brobdingnagian 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.

[81alum]

I watched the Adia Barnes' press conference for with she was reprimanded by the Pac 12.  Barnes did indeed keep coming back to the officiating over and over.  She put in the obligatory "but it was on us to adjust" and "we have to know how to deal with it" and "I bet others feel that way when they come to Arizona" but it was abundantly clear that she blamed the loss on officials calling the game too tightly on her bigs.

She came back over and over the the disparity of fouls called on Oregon vs on Arizona.

Here is another theory.  There were way more fouls called on Arizona because that is how Arizona plays, and they deserved it.  There should be a price to be paid for being overly physical.  So my admiration for Adia Barnes took a hit--didn't see her as a whiner before.

Now, on the other side, my estimation of Kelly Graves just dropped a few more notches--more seriously than Barnes.  I thought he was better than his in game behavior suggests.  If you believe what was said about him-and he doesn't deny it other than to say it was "overblown"--he was swearing at Barnes loudly during the game, in earshot of the players on the court.  Absolutely disgusting.  Barnes gave him the finger after the game.  That probably made it worse.

Back when Graves was at Gonzaga I used to think of him as a classy guy.  But perhaps Oregon corrupts everyone it touches now.

Two coaches besmirched by that game.

[81alum]

I watched the Adia Barnes' press conference for with she was reprimanded by the Pac 12.  Barnes did indeed keep coming back to the officiating over and over.  She put in the obligatory "but it was on us to adjust" and "we have to know how to deal with it" and "I bet others feel that way when they come to Arizona" but it was abundantly clear that she blamed the loss on officials calling the game too tightly on her bigs.

She came back over and over the the disparity of fouls called on Oregon vs on Arizona.

Here is another theory.  There were way more fouls called on Arizona because that is how Arizona plays, and they deserved it.  There should be a price to be paid for being overly physical.  So my admiration for Adia Barnes took a hit--didn't see her as a whiner before.

Now, on the other side, my estimation of Kelly Graves just dropped a few more notches--more seriously than Barnes.  I thought he was better than his in game behavior suggests.  If you believe what was said about him-and he doesn't deny it other than to say it was "overblown"--he was swearing at Barnes loudly during the game, in earshot of the players on the court.  Absolutely disgusting.  Barnes gave him the finger after the game.  That probably made it worse.

Back when Graves was at Gonzaga I used to think of him as a classy guy.  But perhaps Oregon corrupts everyone it touches now.

Two coaches besmirched by that game.

[TheFarm07]

Something that kept running through my head while watching the game was that for years UConn players would brag "Our hardest games are in practice." If their own internal scrimmages are supposedly harder than  real games, you'd think the end of the bench would at least be able to make a decent game out if it.

I have to admit that one other thing kept running through my head when watching the part of Q3 that I did on TV:  "Covid must really be a much smaller problem in Eugene than it is in Palo Alto . . ."  [insert sarcasm emoji].  I, for one, was envious of the fans there.

I was too. Basketball and football are way more fanatical in Eugene. They won't be stopping fan attendance there - people would go ballistic. In the Bay Area it's "well, I guess I can understand why...". Not taking one side or the other - just saying that's the way it is.

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 just did a quick look at playing time for the last full, un-Covid-affected season (2018-19) of the Final Four teams and Stanford that year

Here is how much playing time the five players who played the most (by minutes) took as a percentage of the total number of minutes for the entire roster that season:

Stanford - 66.4%
UConn - 79.8%
Baylor - 72.7%
Notre Dame - 73.9%
Oregon - 77.6%


And to your last point, I don't have the data to support it, but I feel like more often than not (but not an absolute guarantee, of course) that higher ranked recruits usually have more significant production. There are always exceptions (both ways) and I don't have the time to do an analysis of players throughout the years and chart their HS star rating and ranking versus their college production, but I feel like there is a definitive correlation.

And there's always other explaining factors. You could be a Top-Five recruit, but if you are sitting behind very productive personnel in your positions, you might not get a chance to play very much, while on the other hand, you may be lowly ranked, but if your team has a need or little depth at the position you play, you might get a chance to play more minutes and therefore contribute sooner and more significantly earlier.

[TheFarm07]

Something that kept running through my head while watching the game was that for years UConn players would brag "Our hardest games are in practice." If their own internal scrimmages are supposedly harder than  real games, you'd think the end of the bench would at least be able to make a decent game out if it.

I have to admit that one other thing kept running through my head when watching the part of Q3 that I did on TV:  "Covid must really be a much smaller problem in Eugene than it is in Palo Alto . . ."  [insert sarcasm emoji].  I, for one, was envious of the fans there.

I was too. Basketball and football are way more fanatical in Eugene. They won't be stopping fan attendance there - people would go ballistic. In the Bay Area it's "well, I guess I can understand why...". Not taking one side or the other - just saying that's the way it is.

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 just did a quick look at playing time for the last full, un-Covid-affected season (2018-19) of the Final Four teams and Stanford that year

Here is how much playing time the five players who played the most (by minutes) took as a percentage of the total number of minutes for the entire roster that season:

Stanford - 66.4%
UConn - 79.8%
Baylor - 72.7%
Notre Dame - 73.9%
Oregon - 77.6%


And to your last point, I don't have the data to support it, but I feel like more often than not (but not an absolute guarantee, of course) that higher ranked recruits usually have more significant production. There are always exceptions (both ways) and I don't have the time to do an analysis of players throughout the years and chart their HS star rating and ranking versus their college production, but I feel like there is a definitive correlation.

And there's always other explaining factors. You could be a Top-Five recruit, but if you are sitting behind very productive personnel in your positions, you might not get a chance to play very much, while on the other hand, you may be lowly ranked, but if your team has a need or little depth at the position you play, you might get a chance to play more minutes and therefore contribute sooner and more significantly earlier.

[natflblue]

What happened to the UCONN updates?  Forced me to look up the score.  Hah

72-59 Ducks final.

It really wasn't that close. Other than at the beginning of the game when the Ducks were down 10-0, the Ducks made UConn look like fools. Oregon eased up he last couple of minutes of the game, but for a while there it was looking like it was going to be a 30-point win.

Wow. Off year for the dawgs.

Missing 3 former #1 overall recruits due to injuries (2020 BUECKERS and 2021 AZZI) or covid protocol (2018 WILLIAMS) will obviously do that.

But the silver lining is that seniors SG WILLIAMS and post NELSON-ODADA have upped their games while 6'2 freshman SG/SF DUCHARME has become their primary go-to offense in star player BUECKERS' absence since mid-Dec. So when AZZI returns in early Feb and finally BUECKERS in mid- to late Feb, UConn might be more dangerous than ever before, especially during the NCAA Tournament, where they are predicted to be a regional 3-seed or 4-seed in what essentially is a homecourt Bridgeport Regional.

An interesting side note is that despite being down to 8 players for the Oregon game, Geno still only used 6 players while totally relegating post players DEBERRY and GABRIEL to the bench.  With GABRIEL I'm not that surprised, but 6'5 freshman DEBERRY is a 5-star recruit (ranked as high as #3 overall in the Class of 2021) who showed flashes of brilliance in the few games she played for UConn this season.

Post players were not a problem so the use of Gabriel and DeBerry would not make sense.  Which one would you put at the 2 position?  With Williams out the team had to play zone, which is not what they prefer to play, but to save their energy, man defense was out.  We had to use Ducharme at guard ( 40 min ), along with Westbrook ( 38 min ), and Muhl ( 40 min ).  Muhl is a pure PG and doesn't shoot much, so with the teams 3 best shooters on the bench Oregon was able to pack it in with a zone.  Not trying to make excuses, but with that line up it was hard for us to watch.  It's funny that it is recorded as an unranked team loss, but Oregon will probably be in the top 15 on the next poll.  We also expect to lose big when we play SC again in 9 days, and of course the one that will really hurt, Tennessee.  We are just hoping to get healthy for the tournament, probably as a 10 seed, but the number 1 team in their region may have to face us in the sweet 16.  Wouldn't that be a hoot!

[natflblue]

What happened to the UCONN updates?  Forced me to look up the score.  Hah

72-59 Ducks final.

It really wasn't that close. Other than at the beginning of the game when the Ducks were down 10-0, the Ducks made UConn look like fools. Oregon eased up he last couple of minutes of the game, but for a while there it was looking like it was going to be a 30-point win.

Wow. Off year for the dawgs.

Missing 3 former #1 overall recruits due to injuries (2020 BUECKERS and 2021 AZZI) or covid protocol (2018 WILLIAMS) will obviously do that.

But the silver lining is that seniors SG WILLIAMS and post NELSON-ODADA have upped their games while 6'2 freshman SG/SF DUCHARME has become their primary go-to offense in star player BUECKERS' absence since mid-Dec. So when AZZI returns in early Feb and finally BUECKERS in mid- to late Feb, UConn might be more dangerous than ever before, especially during the NCAA Tournament, where they are predicted to be a regional 3-seed or 4-seed in what essentially is a homecourt Bridgeport Regional.

An interesting side note is that despite being down to 8 players for the Oregon game, Geno still only used 6 players while totally relegating post players DEBERRY and GABRIEL to the bench.  With GABRIEL I'm not that surprised, but 6'5 freshman DEBERRY is a 5-star recruit (ranked as high as #3 overall in the Class of 2021) who showed flashes of brilliance in the few games she played for UConn this season.

Post players were not a problem so the use of Gabriel and DeBerry would not make sense.  Which one would you put at the 2 position?  With Williams out the team had to play zone, which is not what they prefer to play, but to save their energy, man defense was out.  We had to use Ducharme at guard ( 40 min ), along with Westbrook ( 38 min ), and Muhl ( 40 min ).  Muhl is a pure PG and doesn't shoot much, so with the teams 3 best shooters on the bench Oregon was able to pack it in with a zone.  Not trying to make excuses, but with that line up it was hard for us to watch.  It's funny that it is recorded as an unranked team loss, but Oregon will probably be in the top 15 on the next poll.  We also expect to lose big when we play SC again in 9 days, and of course the one that will really hurt, Tennessee.  We are just hoping to get healthy for the tournament, probably as a 10 seed, but the number 1 team in their region may have to face us in the sweet 16.  Wouldn't that be a hoot!

[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.

[ca245]

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.

So far, his ability in the "reel in" part has not been undermined, but, with the transfer portal essentially offering free agency, we may see some undermining the "retain" part.

[ca245]

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.

So far, his ability in the "reel in" part has not been undermined, but, with the transfer portal essentially offering free agency, we may see some undermining the "retain" part.

[2006alum]

I watched the Adia Barnes' press conference for with she was reprimanded by the Pac 12.  Barnes did indeed keep coming back to the officiating over and over.  She put in the obligatory "but it was on us to adjust" and "we have to know how to deal with it" and "I bet others feel that way when they come to Arizona" but it was abundantly clear that she blamed the loss on officials calling the game too tightly on her bigs.

She came back over and over the the disparity of fouls called on Oregon vs on Arizona.

Here is another theory.  There were way more fouls called on Arizona because that is how Arizona plays, and they deserved it.  There should be a price to be paid for being overly physical.  So my admiration for Adia Barnes took a hit--didn't see her as a whiner before.

Now, on the other side, my estimation of Kelly Graves just dropped a few more notches--more seriously than Barnes.  I thought he was better than his in game behavior suggests.  If you believe what was said about him-and he doesn't deny it other than to say it was "overblown"--he was swearing at Barnes loudly during the game, in earshot of the players on the court.  Absolutely disgusting.  Barnes gave him the finger after the game.  That probably made it worse.

Back when Graves was at Gonzaga I used to think of him as a classy guy.  But perhaps Oregon corrupts everyone it touches now.

Two coaches besmirched by that game.

Color me surprised, all the way around: neither Barnes nor Graves looked as heated in the final minutes of that game as their behavior apparently reflected. Or maybe PAC-12 network just edited it out to avoid anything unseemly being shown on TV.

Having watched the game, I will say this: it was a Missy special, with lots of ticky tacky fouls called. I don't necessarily disagree with 81Alum that some of Arizona's players tend to play pretty aggressively (I actually think their guards moreso than their forwards), but I actually did think some of the calls that went against Arizona's bigs were quite technical and discretionary. (Reese, for example, is hardly what I think anyone could call an overly physical player, and I don't really recall Ware getting dangerously out of control, either.)

Missy has a tendency to call fouls on defenders where they aren't impeding the natural movement of the ball handler and/or the apparent touch is pretty marginal. I think that's more appropriate when, for example, the handler is bringing the ball up the floor and the defending guard is getting handsy, because if you don't call those, the incentive to push the limit to get a steal can get out of hand. (I think the Hulls are often, sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly, called for those kind of tacky fouls.)

But Missy also calls a lot of marginal contact in/around the paint in ways that isn't in any way policing the physicality of the game, and I do think those fouls really hurt Arizona in keeping their bigs on the bench. And I think in general the kinds of bigs that get away with more in those circumstances are the Sabally types who are physically big and can impose their presence with their body rather than their arms, rather than the Reese and Ware types who get more spacing with their limbs. Those kinds of foul calls hurt Alanna Smith a lot in the past and sometimes still hurt Brink. They're not abjectly bad calls, but they're not what I'd call the core (as opposed to penumbra) of what I'd be looking for if I'm reffing a game. And if you call them like Missy does, it will definitely hurt a team like Arizona more than a team like Oregon.

Just my two cents. Either way, neither cussing nor middle fingers are ever warranted by coaches, IMHO. One more reason I'm thankful we have Tara, who always seems to stay cooler and calmer than I do as a mere fan screaming at the TV!

[2006alum]

I watched the Adia Barnes' press conference for with she was reprimanded by the Pac 12.  Barnes did indeed keep coming back to the officiating over and over.  She put in the obligatory "but it was on us to adjust" and "we have to know how to deal with it" and "I bet others feel that way when they come to Arizona" but it was abundantly clear that she blamed the loss on officials calling the game too tightly on her bigs.

She came back over and over the the disparity of fouls called on Oregon vs on Arizona.

Here is another theory.  There were way more fouls called on Arizona because that is how Arizona plays, and they deserved it.  There should be a price to be paid for being overly physical.  So my admiration for Adia Barnes took a hit--didn't see her as a whiner before.

Now, on the other side, my estimation of Kelly Graves just dropped a few more notches--more seriously than Barnes.  I thought he was better than his in game behavior suggests.  If you believe what was said about him-and he doesn't deny it other than to say it was "overblown"--he was swearing at Barnes loudly during the game, in earshot of the players on the court.  Absolutely disgusting.  Barnes gave him the finger after the game.  That probably made it worse.

Back when Graves was at Gonzaga I used to think of him as a classy guy.  But perhaps Oregon corrupts everyone it touches now.

Two coaches besmirched by that game.

Color me surprised, all the way around: neither Barnes nor Graves looked as heated in the final minutes of that game as their behavior apparently reflected. Or maybe PAC-12 network just edited it out to avoid anything unseemly being shown on TV.

Having watched the game, I will say this: it was a Missy special, with lots of ticky tacky fouls called. I don't necessarily disagree with 81Alum that some of Arizona's players tend to play pretty aggressively (I actually think their guards moreso than their forwards), but I actually did think some of the calls that went against Arizona's bigs were quite technical and discretionary. (Reese, for example, is hardly what I think anyone could call an overly physical player, and I don't really recall Ware getting dangerously out of control, either.)

Missy has a tendency to call fouls on defenders where they aren't impeding the natural movement of the ball handler and/or the apparent touch is pretty marginal. I think that's more appropriate when, for example, the handler is bringing the ball up the floor and the defending guard is getting handsy, because if you don't call those, the incentive to push the limit to get a steal can get out of hand. (I think the Hulls are often, sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly, called for those kind of tacky fouls.)

But Missy also calls a lot of marginal contact in/around the paint in ways that isn't in any way policing the physicality of the game, and I do think those fouls really hurt Arizona in keeping their bigs on the bench. And I think in general the kinds of bigs that get away with more in those circumstances are the Sabally types who are physically big and can impose their presence with their body rather than their arms, rather than the Reese and Ware types who get more spacing with their limbs. Those kinds of foul calls hurt Alanna Smith a lot in the past and sometimes still hurt Brink. They're not abjectly bad calls, but they're not what I'd call the core (as opposed to penumbra) of what I'd be looking for if I'm reffing a game. And if you call them like Missy does, it will definitely hurt a team like Arizona more than a team like Oregon.

Just my two cents. Either way, neither cussing nor middle fingers are ever warranted by coaches, IMHO. One more reason I'm thankful we have Tara, who always seems to stay cooler and calmer than I do as a mere fan screaming at the TV!

[triangle2]

Fortunately, there is universal agreement on this board that Missy is capable of driving any coach to complete insanity, even Coach Tara. I may be making this up in my head, but I’m pretty sure that I was in Seattle for a Missy game where Vanderveer picked up a technical after…well, after the usual Missy garbage. Coach in her earlier days didn’t suffer fools gladly.

I don’t excuse the coaches’ bad behavior but can understand it and on some level, sympathize. The Pac-12 is never going to own up to its egregiously poor standard of officiating that has been a national joke since I started following women’s basketball almost 40 years ago.

We can call it being afflicted with Missy-itus, a temporary condition that causes a patient to experience a sudden highly elevated heart rate and blood pressure, resulting in chest pains, shortness of breath and SPO2 dropping below 95%. Those afflicted with Missy-itus suffer from impaired decision making and short-term loss of emotion regulation. A patient can be diagnosed after the fact by the presence of forehead bruising from repeated face palming or mild to moderate muscle soreness where the patient was physically restrained by assistant coaches from leaping onto the court. Most who are afflicted recover within ninety minutes of onset and experience feelings of embarrassment. Unfortunately, that can often mean that complete recovery has not occurred by the time of the post-game press conference. Patients respond well to a short course of benzodiazepines and/or receiving sympathetic text messages from other coaches and former players. Missy-itus has no known cure and patients who have experienced multiple episodes can also be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

[triangle2]

Fortunately, there is universal agreement on this board that Missy is capable of driving any coach to complete insanity, even Coach Tara. I may be making this up in my head, but I’m pretty sure that I was in Seattle for a Missy game where Vanderveer picked up a technical after…well, after the usual Missy garbage. Coach in her earlier days didn’t suffer fools gladly.

I don’t excuse the coaches’ bad behavior but can understand it and on some level, sympathize. The Pac-12 is never going to own up to its egregiously poor standard of officiating that has been a national joke since I started following women’s basketball almost 40 years ago.

We can call it being afflicted with Missy-itus, a temporary condition that causes a patient to experience a sudden highly elevated heart rate and blood pressure, resulting in chest pains, shortness of breath and SPO2 dropping below 95%. Those afflicted with Missy-itus suffer from impaired decision making and short-term loss of emotion regulation. A patient can be diagnosed after the fact by the presence of forehead bruising from repeated face palming or mild to moderate muscle soreness where the patient was physically restrained by assistant coaches from leaping onto the court. Most who are afflicted recover within ninety minutes of onset and experience feelings of embarrassment. Unfortunately, that can often mean that complete recovery has not occurred by the time of the post-game press conference. Patients respond well to a short course of benzodiazepines and/or receiving sympathetic text messages from other coaches and former players. Missy-itus has no known cure and patients who have experienced multiple episodes can also be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

[here4WBB]

Fortunately, there is universal agreement on this board that Missy is capable of driving any coach to complete insanity, even Coach Tara. I may be making this up in my head, but I’m pretty sure that I was in Seattle for a Missy game where Vanderveer picked up a technical after…well, after the usual Missy garbage. Coach in her earlier days didn’t suffer fools gladly.

I don’t excuse the coaches’ bad behavior but can understand it and on some level, sympathize. The Pac-12 is never going to own up to its egregiously poor standard of officiating that has been a national joke since I started following women’s basketball almost 40 years ago.

We can call it being afflicted with Missy-itus, a temporary condition that causes a patient to experience a sudden highly elevated heart rate and blood pressure, resulting in chest pains, shortness of breath and SPO2 dropping below 95%. Those afflicted with Missy-itus suffer from impaired decision making and short-term loss of emotion regulation. A patient can be diagnosed after the fact by the presence of forehead bruising from repeated face palming or mild to moderate muscle soreness where the patient was physically restrained by assistant coaches from leaping onto the court. Most who are afflicted recover within ninety minutes of onset and experience feelings of embarrassment. Unfortunately, that can often mean that complete recovery has not occurred by the time of the post-game press conference. Patients respond well to a short course of benzodiazepines and/or receiving sympathetic text messages from other coaches and former players. Missy-itus has no known cure and patients who have experienced multiple episodes can also be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

this is just too funny - Missy miscalls were one of the first things I started yelling about in my early fan days.  I feel so validated knowing that she drives others fans over the edge!

[here4WBB]

Fortunately, there is universal agreement on this board that Missy is capable of driving any coach to complete insanity, even Coach Tara. I may be making this up in my head, but I’m pretty sure that I was in Seattle for a Missy game where Vanderveer picked up a technical after…well, after the usual Missy garbage. Coach in her earlier days didn’t suffer fools gladly.

I don’t excuse the coaches’ bad behavior but can understand it and on some level, sympathize. The Pac-12 is never going to own up to its egregiously poor standard of officiating that has been a national joke since I started following women’s basketball almost 40 years ago.

We can call it being afflicted with Missy-itus, a temporary condition that causes a patient to experience a sudden highly elevated heart rate and blood pressure, resulting in chest pains, shortness of breath and SPO2 dropping below 95%. Those afflicted with Missy-itus suffer from impaired decision making and short-term loss of emotion regulation. A patient can be diagnosed after the fact by the presence of forehead bruising from repeated face palming or mild to moderate muscle soreness where the patient was physically restrained by assistant coaches from leaping onto the court. Most who are afflicted recover within ninety minutes of onset and experience feelings of embarrassment. Unfortunately, that can often mean that complete recovery has not occurred by the time of the post-game press conference. Patients respond well to a short course of benzodiazepines and/or receiving sympathetic text messages from other coaches and former players. Missy-itus has no known cure and patients who have experienced multiple episodes can also be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

this is just too funny - Missy miscalls were one of the first things I started yelling about in my early fan days.  I feel so validated knowing that she drives others fans over the edge!

[crackpot]

Fortunately, there is universal agreement on this board that Missy is capable of driving any coach to complete insanity, even Coach Tara. I may be making this up in my head, but I’m pretty sure that I was in Seattle for a Missy game where Vanderveer picked up a technical after…well, after the usual Missy garbage. Coach in her earlier days didn’t suffer fools gladly.

I don’t excuse the coaches’ bad behavior but can understand it and on some level, sympathize. The Pac-12 is never going to own up to its egregiously poor standard of officiating that has been a national joke since I started following women’s basketball almost 40 years ago.

We can call it being afflicted with Missy-itus, a temporary condition that causes a patient to experience a sudden highly elevated heart rate and blood pressure, resulting in chest pains, shortness of breath and SPO2 dropping below 95%. Those afflicted with Missy-itus suffer from impaired decision making and short-term loss of emotion regulation. A patient can be diagnosed after the fact by the presence of forehead bruising from repeated face palming or mild to moderate muscle soreness where the patient was physically restrained by assistant coaches from leaping onto the court. Most who are afflicted recover within ninety minutes of onset and experience feelings of embarrassment. Unfortunately, that can often mean that complete recovery has not occurred by the time of the post-game press conference. Patients respond well to a short course of benzodiazepines and/or receiving sympathetic text messages from other coaches and former players. Missy-itus has no known cure and patients who have experienced multiple episodes can also be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Thank you, Triangle. This has to be the first time I've ever read anything about Missy that has made me chuckle. I became unhealthily obsessed with her performance before any of the current players (except perhaps Anna? I'd have to look up her DOB) were born. A good ref is one whose name or face we do not have committed to memory, at the very least.

[crackpot]

Fortunately, there is universal agreement on this board that Missy is capable of driving any coach to complete insanity, even Coach Tara. I may be making this up in my head, but I’m pretty sure that I was in Seattle for a Missy game where Vanderveer picked up a technical after…well, after the usual Missy garbage. Coach in her earlier days didn’t suffer fools gladly.

I don’t excuse the coaches’ bad behavior but can understand it and on some level, sympathize. The Pac-12 is never going to own up to its egregiously poor standard of officiating that has been a national joke since I started following women’s basketball almost 40 years ago.

We can call it being afflicted with Missy-itus, a temporary condition that causes a patient to experience a sudden highly elevated heart rate and blood pressure, resulting in chest pains, shortness of breath and SPO2 dropping below 95%. Those afflicted with Missy-itus suffer from impaired decision making and short-term loss of emotion regulation. A patient can be diagnosed after the fact by the presence of forehead bruising from repeated face palming or mild to moderate muscle soreness where the patient was physically restrained by assistant coaches from leaping onto the court. Most who are afflicted recover within ninety minutes of onset and experience feelings of embarrassment. Unfortunately, that can often mean that complete recovery has not occurred by the time of the post-game press conference. Patients respond well to a short course of benzodiazepines and/or receiving sympathetic text messages from other coaches and former players. Missy-itus has no known cure and patients who have experienced multiple episodes can also be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Thank you, Triangle. This has to be the first time I've ever read anything about Missy that has made me chuckle. I became unhealthily obsessed with her performance before any of the current players (except perhaps Anna? I'd have to look up her DOB) were born. A good ref is one whose name or face we do not have committed to memory, at the very least.

[81alum]

Fortunately, there is universal agreement on this board that Missy is capable of driving any coach to complete insanity, even Coach Tara. I may be making this up in my head, but I’m pretty sure that I was in Seattle for a Missy game where Vanderveer picked up a technical after…well, after the usual Missy garbage. Coach in her earlier days didn’t suffer fools gladly.

I don’t excuse the coaches’ bad behavior but can understand it and on some level, sympathize. The Pac-12 is never going to own up to its egregiously poor standard of officiating that has been a national joke since I started following women’s basketball almost 40 years ago.

We can call it being afflicted with Missy-itus, a temporary condition that causes a patient to experience a sudden highly elevated heart rate and blood pressure, resulting in chest pains, shortness of breath and SPO2 dropping below 95%. Those afflicted with Missy-itus suffer from impaired decision making and short-term loss of emotion regulation. A patient can be diagnosed after the fact by the presence of forehead bruising from repeated face palming or mild to moderate muscle soreness where the patient was physically restrained by assistant coaches from leaping onto the court. Most who are afflicted recover within ninety minutes of onset and experience feelings of embarrassment. Unfortunately, that can often mean that complete recovery has not occurred by the time of the post-game press conference. Patients respond well to a short course of benzodiazepines and/or receiving sympathetic text messages from other coaches and former players. Missy-itus has no known cure and patients who have experienced multiple episodes can also be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Thank you, Triangle. This has to be the first time I've ever read anything about Missy that has made me chuckle. I became unhealthily obsessed with her performance before any of the current players (except perhaps Anna? I'd have to look up her DOB) were born. A good ref is one whose name or face we do not have committed to memory, at the very least.

Stanford fans have hated Missy for decades.  I'm told it began in 2002, when we headed to Boise ranked no. 5 to face no. 12 Colorado in the sweet sixteen.  A young Missy was officiating.  We narrowly lost.  Some fans blame her, although I didn't see the game and I can't find anything specific about Missy's role in it.  But when I started watching more games in the Brooke Smith/ Candice Wiggins era Missy's name was already mud.  I have booed lustily at many of her calls, but I have seen some fans heckling her mercilessly--by name--game after game.  She has to know that Maples is hostile territory for her, and I wonder sometimes about reverse psychology--whether she is harsher on us because we are always on her.

[81alum]

Fortunately, there is universal agreement on this board that Missy is capable of driving any coach to complete insanity, even Coach Tara. I may be making this up in my head, but I’m pretty sure that I was in Seattle for a Missy game where Vanderveer picked up a technical after…well, after the usual Missy garbage. Coach in her earlier days didn’t suffer fools gladly.

I don’t excuse the coaches’ bad behavior but can understand it and on some level, sympathize. The Pac-12 is never going to own up to its egregiously poor standard of officiating that has been a national joke since I started following women’s basketball almost 40 years ago.

We can call it being afflicted with Missy-itus, a temporary condition that causes a patient to experience a sudden highly elevated heart rate and blood pressure, resulting in chest pains, shortness of breath and SPO2 dropping below 95%. Those afflicted with Missy-itus suffer from impaired decision making and short-term loss of emotion regulation. A patient can be diagnosed after the fact by the presence of forehead bruising from repeated face palming or mild to moderate muscle soreness where the patient was physically restrained by assistant coaches from leaping onto the court. Most who are afflicted recover within ninety minutes of onset and experience feelings of embarrassment. Unfortunately, that can often mean that complete recovery has not occurred by the time of the post-game press conference. Patients respond well to a short course of benzodiazepines and/or receiving sympathetic text messages from other coaches and former players. Missy-itus has no known cure and patients who have experienced multiple episodes can also be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Thank you, Triangle. This has to be the first time I've ever read anything about Missy that has made me chuckle. I became unhealthily obsessed with her performance before any of the current players (except perhaps Anna? I'd have to look up her DOB) were born. A good ref is one whose name or face we do not have committed to memory, at the very least.

Stanford fans have hated Missy for decades.  I'm told it began in 2002, when we headed to Boise ranked no. 5 to face no. 12 Colorado in the sweet sixteen.  A young Missy was officiating.  We narrowly lost.  Some fans blame her, although I didn't see the game and I can't find anything specific about Missy's role in it.  But when I started watching more games in the Brooke Smith/ Candice Wiggins era Missy's name was already mud.  I have booed lustily at many of her calls, but I have seen some fans heckling her mercilessly--by name--game after game.  She has to know that Maples is hostile territory for her, and I wonder sometimes about reverse psychology--whether she is harsher on us because we are always on her.

[BobK]

Having yelled at Missy many times over the past 20 years I think she is far better than just 5-6 years ago
Of course there is still “Missy Time” when she stops play and the spot light is on her as we all wonder why

Yes far better is from a low bar

[BobK]

Having yelled at Missy many times over the past 20 years I think she is far better than just 5-6 years ago
Of course there is still “Missy Time” when she stops play and the spot light is on her as we all wonder why

Yes far better is from a low bar

[81alum]

Having yelled at Missy many times over the past 20 years I think she is far better than just 5-6 years ago
Of course there is still “Missy Time” when she stops play and the spot light is on her as we all wonder why

Yes far better is from a low bar

Bob, you are not the only one I have heard from who thinks Missy has gotten somewhat better as of late.  Which raises a question.  Who becomes our "new" least favorite official?

[81alum]

Having yelled at Missy many times over the past 20 years I think she is far better than just 5-6 years ago
Of course there is still “Missy Time” when she stops play and the spot light is on her as we all wonder why

Yes far better is from a low bar

Bob, you are not the only one I have heard from who thinks Missy has gotten somewhat better as of late.  Which raises a question.  Who becomes our "new" least favorite official?