RebKell's Junkie Boards

[Sass]

They are:

Seimone Augustus
Monique Currie
Jessica Davenport
Janel McCarville
Kendra Wecker

The winner will be announced April 9.

_________________
_________________
More high school team allegiances than can be believed
_________________
He's the greatest of the greater
get it straight - he's great
- Run-DMC

[Four]

I agree for the most part with the final list.
Seimone Augustus of course should be on it.
Monique Currie is a big name at a big school, but I think there are others more deserving.
Jessica Davenport is good but again I think others are more deserving. She was dominating in the regular season but once teams figured her out, she was not as much of a threat. But she was Big Ten player of the year (regular season).
Janel McCarville is deserving, she should have been on the AP All American 1st team. She leads a sweet sixteen team in every major statistical category (points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks). And she averaged a double-double.
Kendra Wecker is deserving. She is good, very good.

I will admit to being biased towards McCarville but it can be backed up.
This year when Minnesota (McCarville) played LSU, she was amazing. Compared to Augustus, McCarville's stats were better, but in the end LSU had the better team.
This year in the Big Ten tourney, McCarville had 21 points, 15 rebounds, 7 assists, 2 key steals, and a couple blocks against Ohio State. She held Davenport to just 12 points.
Last year McCarville's final four bound Minnesota team beat Kendra Wecker's KSU and Currie's Duke.

[CamrnCrz1974]

McCarville also allowed Davenport to explode in previous meetings.

What does last year's performance have to do with this year's performance?


Monique Currie is a big name at a big school, but I think there are others more deserving.
Jessica Davenport is good but again I think others are more deserving

Like?

[pilight]

I would put Sandora Irvin on instead of McCarville

_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home

[Four]

OSU and Minn met twice. Once on OSU's home floor where Davenport scored 30something. McCarville admited to letting her have the ball to easily, and McCarville also sat out about 10 minutes of the second half because of fouls. The next meeting on a nuetral floor in the BT tourney McCarville dominated.

And about the Sandora Irvin comment...Irvin did not get out of the first round in the NCAA tourney. She would not be nearly as good if she played in a league like the Big Ten, ACC, or Big East.

Other players that should have been given consideration in place of Currie and Davenport are:
Sophia Young of Baylor
Cappie Pondexter of Rutgers

I think Currie and Davenport are good, I just would have liked to see some other names.

[Keegan]

Sophia Young deserved to get in over McCarville but seniors do get "precedence". McCarville's statistical dominance says just as much about her team as they do about her. I don't think it's a strong argument for her being on the list.

_________________
Beware of snarky monotremes...

[womens_hoops]

I think it's really tough, because I think there are 7 players who are all sort of tied -- the five listed plus Irvin and Young.

McCarville didn't allow Dav to explode in "previous meetings." She allowed Dav to explode exactly once, and then she turned around and beat her down the next time.

The second game -- neutral floor, Big Ten semis -- was probably more important. But the first was on national TV; the second wasn't; such is life.

Dav also frankly didn't have a good March. Janel didn't have a great March (especially in the two March losses), but her month was better than Dav's. I think people started to figure out how to play Jess better. She slipped in my view a little since the beginning of the month. Her overall performance this year makes her a deserving Kodak top-10, but the top-5 looks a little dicey. Especially giving some edge to seniors.

I have really no opinion about Irvin over McCarville. Just haven't seen Irvin enough to know. She has great numbers; I still question the level of post competition she sees in CUSA; but since I've only seen about 2 CUSA games all year, I'm in really no position to say.

Young has had very good numbers all year, and she's getting better and better through March. She's kicked some serious butt to get her team to Indy. I think you could make a good case that she should be top 5.

Currie's numbers are worse than any of the other 6, but I still give her a pretty big break for playing through the pain.

I put Wecker and Augustus first, I guess, if you made me order. After that... draw straws or something.

[pilight]

[Four]

Those Irvin numbers are impressive...I hope they are impressive enough to the coaches of Indiana Fever so that McCarville can go to Phoenix.

I think it says a lot that McCarville leads her team in every category. She could just sit on the block and score on layups, and then go to the other end of the floor and get some rebounds. But she doesn't do that. She does everything she can for her team and being the returning star, all-american, lone senior, she was the go to player for everything. McCarville was the main game plan for opposing teams and she still came out with the numbers.

[womens_hoops]

[Keegan]

Why is there even a list of finalists anyway? Why not just announce the winner? I suppose to generate media hype but I don't think it's necessary.

I suppose stats are done to death because they're numbers and slightly more tangible than personal preferences. Deep statistical analysis for college is more flawed than for the pros for obvious reasons (schedule issues).

_________________
Beware of snarky monotremes...

[accommodatingly]

[Keegan]

[pilight]

Most people use statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination.


At best, stats tell you only part of the story. They're evidence, not proof.


At worst, numbers can lead you to a wholly preposterous conclusion. I could give you a pretty good statistical case that Samantha Mahoney is the best freshperson in the country, but that wouldn't make it true.

_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home

[womens_hoops]

[Four]

The team award is the final four and the championship.

I think any player would take the final four and/or the championship over any individual award anyday.

I like individual awards. They recognize and reward the players that have put in the extra time, the extra work, and the extra drive to be the best of the best. Of course there are players out there who do work just as hard and are not recognized, but life sucks...


Anyways, I am just waisting my time talking about McCarville because she is probably the last player of the five to win. After watching ESPNs SportCentury on John Wooden, I think he would approve of McCarville's play but not the tattoos, un-uniform hair, and baggy shorts. Wooden is the coach that told Bill Walton to cut his shaggy hair or else. But who knows.

[pilight]

[womens_hoops]

[Four]

I wish I could have seen that.

It gives me a little more hope on McCarville's part.

It took Wooden 13 seasons to get the results that he is now famous for though. Do you think coaches nowadays would be given that much time?

Another thing. You guys were talking about stats...How do these Wooden Award voters get their info on players to make good choices. Do they just see as many games as they can and then look at stats, or do they actually get to see a lot of games and more in-debth info?

[womens_hoops]