Miscellaneous questions, thoughts, impressions, etc.

[Badlands]

Thanks. I’m not surprised that I got some of the details wrong. But it’s a good example of a coach taking a unique approach to getting the reserves some experience, which BC fans may wish had happened over the last three years.

Also a good example of the committee closing “Gait loopholes.”

[laxorangebookworm]

'Cuse had those massive rosters approaching 50 girls in those days and it was nice that Gary obviously cared that they all got to see at least some playing time, since most coaches don't always seem to.

That was actually one of the issues that the Duke coach brought up in that article way back. You're right, SU had huge rosters (I kinda wonder if they made a rule on team size as well) back then and most teams didn't have that, hence the irritation.

[laxorangebookworm]

Thanks. I’m not surprised that I got some of the details wrong. But it’s a good example of a coach taking a unique approach to getting the reserves some experience, which BC fans may wish had happened over the last three years.

Also a good example of the committee closing “Gait loopholes.”

lol, the only reason why I remember that is because I was following the live stats at the time and getting increasingly concerned about the Orange not being able to pull away or even hold the lead against the Bearcats. I think it freaked Gait out a little too.

[Dr. Tact]

Don't blame Petty for scoring instead of assisting. She's going out and doing her job, fitting into their style of play the way she's supposed to, the way they've practiced and the way her teammates expect. If the coach wants her to play another way, it's up to him to tell her. This kind of thing obviously leaves a bad taste in your mouth but it's not the player's responsibility to change her style of play.

Again, I am not blaming Petty or Lubnow or Crooks or Caskey or Frank for any aspect of their play. That is not where my angst lies....it is squarely on Sung. If he wants to run his starters all game, that is his prerogative. If he wants to try to boost his Watch list girl, that is his prerogative. If he wants to toot his goal differential, that is his prerogative. I just think it is bogus (based on who they have played) and would feel bad if I had a girl on the sideline on that team. There is no reason, other than vanity, or the desire to be considered big time (IMO), to pump up his starters against the competition that they have played. I am Monday recliner quarterbacking this, but that is how I feel.

[wlaxnut]

...it’s a good example of a coach taking a unique approach to getting the reserves some experience, which BC fans may wish had happened over the last three years.

I don’t know what good it would have done BC fans to wish during that period of time. I never gave it a thought. Each one of those three years, they had a good enough team to win it all. It was only right that they played their best players to go for it. There’s nothing irrational about wanting your main players to be in game shape which can only be achieved under game conditions. That is a definite school of thought among coaches. Next year worries about itself.

[laxagainsthumanity]

Don't blame Petty for scoring instead of assisting. She's going out and doing her job, fitting into their style of play the way she's supposed to, the way they've practiced and the way her teammates expect. If the coach wants her to play another way, it's up to him to tell her. This kind of thing obviously leaves a bad taste in your mouth but it's not the player's responsibility to change her style of play.

Again, I am not blaming Petty or Lubnow or Crooks or Caskey or Frank for any aspect of their play. That is not where my angst lies....it is squarely on Sung. If he wants to run his starters all game, that is his prerogative. If he wants to try to boost his Watch list girl, that is his prerogative. If he wants to toot his goal differential, that is his prerogative. I just think it is bogus (based on who they have played) and would feel bad if I had a girl on the sideline on that team. There is no reason, other than vanity, or the desire to be considered big time (IMO), to pump up his starters against the competition that they have played. I am Monday recliner quarterbacking this, but that is how I feel.

Wasn't aimed at you, Doc. I think the vast majority of us here agree this is just another item on a laundry list of reasons not to particularly like Coach Sung. My point was geared more toward the odd poster (or those outside this forum) who tear down players for running up the score. That's their job.

[Dr. Tact]

Wasn't aimed at you, Doc. I think the vast majority of us here agree this is just another item on a laundry list of reasons not to particularly like Coach Sung. My point was geared more toward the odd poster (or those outside this forum) who tear down players for running up the score. That's their job.

[laxagainsthumanity]

There’s nothing irrational about wanting your main players to be in game shape which can only be achieved under game conditions. That is a definite school of thought among coaches. Next year worries about itself.

1. That's a good way to dig yourself into a hole in future seasons. Exhibit A: BC 2020. (Even with the unexpected benefit of two superstar transfers who were getting plenty of coaching and experience elsewhere.)

2. Your starters don't get any better by playing 20 extra minutes against the Little Sisters. If they've gone through the whole gameday routine and gotten to the field and executed the gameplan satisfactorily, they've already gained everything they could from the experience.

3. Not great for culture/morale. You have 14 girls who play consistently and ~20 who can count their minutes for the season on one hand? A successful team understands that it takes every single player on the roster to win. I wasn't in that BC locker room all season so I can't speak to how it was all managed, but feeling like you're not valued by your coach does not inspire your best effort. Sure I'll go hard in practice, but what's my motivation to foam roll, watch practice film, fuel myself right, etc. if I don't matter to the team's success?

4. Depth is ALWAYS a good thing. BC had by far the least depth of any team at the Final Four last year, and it came back to bite them. UNC had more depth than they knew what to do with and they were arguably a better team (beat BC in the ACCT, had multiple chances to ice the Final Four game in OT). BC was forced to rely more on the bench in the National Championship—whether due to injury or because it was their second game in three days, I'm not sure—and there was a clear difference between the starters and the reserves.

Most teams even at BC's caliber try to develop their bench more—having confidence in a kid or two at each position in case of injury is absolutely vital, and looking past this season is also a good idea. Looking at BC's culture of developing players, it's not at all surprising that were 0-3 in the National Championship in three years. By the last Sunday in May, it's hot, everyone is tired and banged up, you may have lost a starter or even two to injury—you need a backup plan. Going into 2019, BC talked a lot about "getting that 1% better" to pull off that last W. Well, maybe that 1% had nothing to do with your starters. Maybe it had to do with the girl you have to bring in off the bench unexpectedly, or that the practice squad kids whose job is to make the starters better are playing at 90% of their potential.

[Dr. Tact]

There’s nothing irrational about wanting your main players to be in game shape which can only be achieved under game conditions. That is a definite school of thought among coaches. Next year worries about itself.

1. That's a good way to dig yourself into a hole in future seasons. Exhibit A: BC 2020. (Even with the unexpected benefit of two superstar transfers who were getting plenty of coaching and experience elsewhere.)

2. Your starters don't get any better by playing 20 extra minutes against the Little Sisters. If they've gone through the whole gameday routine and gotten to the field and executed the gameplan satisfactorily, they've already gained everything they could from the experience.

3. Not great for culture/morale. You have 14 girls who play consistently and ~20 who can count their minutes for the season on one hand? A successful team understands that it takes every single player on the roster to win. I wasn't in that BC locker room all season so I can't speak to how it was all managed, but feeling like you're not valued by your coach does not inspire your best effort. Sure I'll go hard in practice, but what's my motivation to foam roll, watch practice film, fuel myself right, etc. if I don't matter to the team's success?

4. Depth is ALWAYS a good thing. BC had by far the least depth of any team at the Final Four last year, and it came back to bite them. UNC had more depth than they knew what to do with and they were arguably a better team (beat BC in the ACCT, had multiple chances to ice the Final Four game in OT). BC was forced to rely more on the bench in the National Championship—whether due to injury or because it was their second game in three days, I'm not sure—and there was a clear difference between the starters and the reserves.

Most teams even at BC's caliber try to develop their bench more—having confidence in a kid or two at each position in case of injury is absolutely vital, and looking past this season is also a good idea. Looking at BC's culture of developing players, it's not at all surprising that were 0-3 in the National Championship in three years. By the last Sunday in May, it's hot, everyone is tired and banged up, you may have lost a starter or even two to injury—you need a backup plan. Going into 2019, BC talked a lot about "getting that 1% better" to pull off that last W. Well, maybe that 1% had nothing to do with your starters. Maybe it had to do with the girl you have to bring in off the bench unexpectedly, or that the practice squad kids whose job is to make the starters better are playing at 90% of their potential.

Well done LAH

[Badlands]

Totally agree LAH.

[wlaxnut]

There’s nothing irrational about wanting your main players to be in game shape which can only be achieved under game conditions. That is a definite school of thought among coaches. Next year worries about itself.

1. That's a good way to dig yourself into a hole in future seasons. Exhibit A: BC 2020. (Even with the unexpected benefit of two superstar transfers who were getting plenty of coaching and experience elsewhere.)

2. Your starters don't get any better by playing 20 extra minutes against the Little Sisters. If they've gone through the whole gameday routine and gotten to the field and executed the gameplan satisfactorily, they've already gained everything they could from the experience.

3. Not great for culture/morale. You have 14 girls who play consistently and ~20 who can count their minutes for the season on one hand? A successful team understands that it takes every single player on the roster to win. I wasn't in that BC locker room all season so I can't speak to how it was all managed, but feeling like you're not valued by your coach does not inspire your best effort. Sure I'll go hard in practice, but what's my motivation to foam roll, watch practice film, fuel myself right, etc. if I don't matter to the team's success?

4. Depth is ALWAYS a good thing. BC had by far the least depth of any team at the Final Four last year, and it came back to bite them. UNC had more depth than they knew what to do with and they were arguably a better team (beat BC in the ACCT, had multiple chances to ice the Final Four game in OT). BC was forced to rely more on the bench in the National Championship—whether due to injury or because it was their second game in three days, I'm not sure—and there was a clear difference between the starters and the reserves.

Most teams even at BC's caliber try to develop their bench more—having confidence in a kid or two at each position in case of injury is absolutely vital, and looking past this season is also a good idea. Looking at BC's culture of developing players, it's not at all surprising that were 0-3 in the National Championship in three years. By the last Sunday in May, it's hot, everyone is tired and banged up, you may have lost a starter or even two to injury—you need a backup plan. Going into 2019, BC talked a lot about "getting that 1% better" to pull off that last W. Well, maybe that 1% had nothing to do with your starters. Maybe it had to do with the girl you have to bring in off the bench unexpectedly, or that the practice squad kids whose job is to make the starters better are playing at 90% of their potential.

Too cut and dry. Every team, every coach has their own philosophy. These are not universal truths that you lay out here--only theories and mindsets.

[laxagainsthumanity]

I think if you ask the two most successful programs of the last decade they would probably agree. Player development is the reason why UNC consistently peaks in late April, whereas BC was losing steam by then in 2018 and 2019. It's the reason Maryland has made however many straight Final Fours and several times has shocked everyone by rising out of the ashes after graduating incredible classes, whereas BC went from a top-3 team to being out of the top 20 with the loss of one class. Every coach has their own philosophy but some coaches are a hell of a lot better at sustaining success than others. BC was all in on last year and that's fine, but the way they managed personnel did not do them any favors. They have no ACC or NCAA rings and they will likely be fighting for 7th in the ACC this year. Same thing that happened with JMU after winning it all with a terrific senior class in 2018.

[laxorangebookworm]

I think if you ask the two most successful programs of the last decade they would probably agree. Player development is the reason why UNC consistently peaks in late April, whereas BC was losing steam by then in 2018 and 2019. It's the reason Maryland has made however many straight Final Fours and several times has shocked everyone by rising out of the ashes after graduating incredible classes, whereas BC went from a top-3 team to being out of the top 20 with the loss of one class. Every coach has their own philosophy but some coaches are a hell of a lot better at sustaining success than others. BC was all in on last year and that's fine, but the way they managed personnel did not do them any favors. They have no ACC or NCAA rings and they will likely be fighting for 7th in the ACC this year. Same thing that happened with JMU after winning it all with a terrific senior class in 2018.

I think Maryland is an anomaly given their recruiting pipeline and sheer talent as freshman. It's pretty easy to develop players when they're already the cream of the crop, and they've got a good development system to boot. That combo just feeds on itself. As I said in a previous thread (lost to time now), Maryland's reserves could likely beat most teams in the country.

North Carolina is probably closest to having the recruiting that Maryland has, and they also have a good development system. It's a major reason why they're one of the few teams that can face the Terps toe to toe year in year out.

[wlaxnut]

I think if you ask the two most successful programs of the last decade they would probably agree. Player development is the reason why UNC consistently peaks in late April, whereas BC was losing steam by then in 2018 and 2019. It's the reason Maryland has made however many straight Final Fours and several times has shocked everyone by rising out of the ashes after graduating incredible classes, whereas BC went from a top-3 team to being out of the top 20 with the loss of one class. Every coach has their own philosophy but some coaches are a hell of a lot better at sustaining success than others. BC was all in on last year and that's fine, but the way they managed personnel did not do them any favors. They have no ACC or NCAA rings and they will likely be fighting for 7th in the ACC this year. Same thing that happened with JMU after winning it all with a terrific senior class in 2018.

It could also have been coaching philosophy and/or strategy. I don't think JMU is relevant here. JMU won it all. I think any program that hasn't ever won a national championship would trade their "future" for one title, especially if they're not named Maryland or North Carolina. It isn't like professional sports where you want to keep consistently viable. Like the 80's Boston Celtics for instance. They held on to Bird too long and in the end they suffered for it. In college you get a new team every year.

I agree on BC. They'll be battling with Louisville for the 7 seed. But not the same as JMU--JMU won their conference and made The Tournament the year after their Title. BC certainly won't win one round of the ACC and I seriously doubt they make TT.

[wlaxnut]

Draws: Stanford 17 USC 10
Final score: USC 13 Stanford 12

[laxorangebookworm]

I agree on BC. They'll be battling with Louisville for the 7 seed. But not the same as JMU--JMU won their conference and made The Tournament the year after their Title. BC certainly won't win one round of the ACC and I seriously doubt they make TT.

Part of JMU's success in their conference was because the CAA wasn't as strong in 2019 as in earlier years. Towson, who long competed with the Dukes for CAA bragging rights, had a surprisingly off season last year. Now JMU did have a good year last year, going 16-4 with losses to UNC, Maryland, Virginia and in overtime to Stony Brook in the 1st round of the NCAAT. The Dukes beat up on their CAA foes pretty easily with the exception of an OT win over Hofstra, a team they'd face in the CAAT final and win 13-3.

[wlaxnut]

I agree on BC. They'll be battling with Louisville for the 7 seed. But not the same as JMU--JMU won their conference and made The Tournament the year after their Title. BC certainly won't win one round of the ACC and I seriously doubt they make TT.

Part of JMU's success in their conference was because the CAA wasn't as strong in 2019 as in earlier years. Towson, who long competed with the Dukes for CAA bragging rights, had a surprisingly off season last year. Now JMU did have a good year last year, going 16-4 with losses to UNC, Maryland, Virginia and in overtime to Stony Brook in the 1st round of the NCAAT. The Dukes beat up on their CAA foes pretty easily with the exception of an OT win over Hofstra, a team they'd face in the CAAT final and win 13-3.

JMU has taken the CAA conference championship every year since 2017. That hasn't been really challenged in a while. Maybe Hofstra challenges this year. Last time they beat the Dukes was in 2015 having lost 5 straight in the interim.

[laxorangebookworm]

I agree on BC. They'll be battling with Louisville for the 7 seed. But not the same as JMU--JMU won their conference and made The Tournament the year after their Title. BC certainly won't win one round of the ACC and I seriously doubt they make TT.

Part of JMU's success in their conference was because the CAA wasn't as strong in 2019 as in earlier years. Towson, who long competed with the Dukes for CAA bragging rights, had a surprisingly off season last year. Now JMU did have a good year last year, going 16-4 with losses to UNC, Maryland, Virginia and in overtime to Stony Brook in the 1st round of the NCAAT. The Dukes beat up on their CAA foes pretty easily with the exception of an OT win over Hofstra, a team they'd face in the CAAT final and win 13-3.

JMU has taken the CAA conference championship every year since 2017. That hasn't been really challenged in a while. Maybe Hofstra challenges this year. Last time they beat the Dukes was in 2015 having lost 5 straight in the interim.

I was thinking more Towson because the CAA was basically a battle between those two teams. But the Tigers have struggled the last couple of years for whatever reason. Hofstra might challenge them, but I think JMU has a lock on that conference for the time being. My point that I should have been clearer on is that the ACC is a lot different than the CAA.

[wlaxnut]

My point that I should have been clearer on is that the ACC is a lot different than the CAA.

That’s for sure.

[8meterPA]

I agree on BC. They'll be battling with Louisville for the 7 seed. But not the same as JMU--JMU won their conference and made The Tournament the year after their Title. BC certainly won't win one round of the ACC and I seriously doubt they make TT.

Part of JMU's success in their conference was because the CAA wasn't as strong in 2019 as in earlier years. Towson, who long competed with the Dukes for CAA bragging rights, had a surprisingly off season last year. Now JMU did have a good year last year, going 16-4 with losses to UNC, Maryland, Virginia and in overtime to Stony Brook in the 1st round of the NCAAT. The Dukes beat up on their CAA foes pretty easily with the exception of an OT win over Hofstra, a team they'd face in the CAAT final and win 13-3.

JMU has taken the CAA conference championship every year since 2017. That hasn't been really challenged in a while. Maybe Hofstra challenges this year. Last time they beat the Dukes was in 2015 having lost 5 straight in the interim.

IMO, Drexel is the team that may challenge JMU this year, they are playing very well and flying under the radar. 90% sure that JMU wins but Drexel > Hofstra this year.