RebKell's Junkie Boards

[ClayK]

There are more, of course, but both are teams -- at slightly different levels -- that are confounding and inconsistent.

Cal, to take the less familiar case, doesn't have the raw talent of Tennessee but has more than it record reveals. Like Tennessee, it can rise up and surprise a more highly rated opponent, and like Tennessee, can crumble into dust in games it should win easily.

Watching Tennessee dismantle Mississippi State yesterday, and watching Diamond DeShields look like a No. 1 overall pick, it's hard to fathom how they've lost so many games.

And when Cal is rolling, it's equally hard to figure out how the Bears could get swept by Utah.

Naturally, the criticism is aimed at the coaches, and in both cases, it seems a lack of offensive imagination is really the key -- and for Cal, an inability to excuse high school level fundamentals at crunch time. But it seems to me the easiest kind of assistant coach to find is an Xs and Os savant who can design a system to take advantage of available talent. Or maybe not.

And maybe it's the players, individually and as a group, that just can't seem to get themselves ready to play every game, even though the coaches are trying everything they know. (It's not always the coach's fault -- sometimes there's just a mix of personalities that is negative, if not poisonous.)

Still, Tennessee and Cal are the poster children for these kinds of teams -- you know, the ones that no one wants to play because if Jupiter is aligned with Mars and the talent shows up, they're very good, but if the moon is in the seventh house, they could lose to a D2 team.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[myrtle]

agree.

Definitely won't want to see Tenn in my bracket. I was worried for awhile they might get a 6 seed and then host for Stanford. Now it looks like they will get a 4 or 5, so at least that worry is over.

Cal will have to do something in the P12 tourney to even think about possibly maybe getting in and it's hard to see that happening. They do have so much talent, and actually seem to be ok in terms of meshing...so maybe you are right that a really good X's and O's assistant could make a difference. For me, it's a mixed bag. I don't want to see them good enough to beat my team, yet I really want them to be better than they have shown. They clearly have more talent than many teams, including my Trees, that they lose to. I do blame the coaching, even though I can see that Gottlieb is a nice person and the Cal fans seems to love her....so that goes back to maybe getting the right assistant. They have a couple of players now who can hit threes so if they could try to develop an inside out game rather than all inside, that would be a benefit.

_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman

[ArtBest23]

I'll just throw out there that the opposite mix can seemingly produce similar results.

NCSt beat Notre Dame, FSU, Duke and Louisville, and finished ahead of Louisville, Cuse, and Miami in the ACC, but also lost to UNC, Wake, Tulane and LSU. In their case it might be a result of coaching that outstrips available talent, rather than bad coaching dragging down superior talent.

[GlennMacGrady]

[Howee]

This makes me think of a Geno-ism (and I must paraphrase....): "You practice something until you CAN'T do it wrong."

Now, that's kind of subjective, but it also explains a lot, if you watch UConn. Hard-core consistency is what separates the elites from the wannabes, and is the best antidote for the Mars/Jupiter factors. And even IT is on a sliding scale.....and TN & Cal do a lotta sliding. I see it in my beloved Sooners, too: they can lose to Oral Roberts, and beat TX.

I haven't followed Cal all that closely, but weren't they in the FF a couple of years ago? Have they had a recruiting drought, or what?

_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"

[myrtle]

[22]

[myrtle]

I guess it starts with the ‘eye’ test. Cal is clearly superior in athleticism and I don’t think anyone could disagree with that. As we all know, some players work out, others disappear or transfer. Both schools have some of both. Yes, last year Stanford had a ‘better’ recruiting class according to Hoopgurlz. But since those players, at least on the Stanford side, haven’t really come into play much, I didn’t actually think much about them.

2017
Next year we have a top class coming in with #8, 11, and 44. Cal isn’t too shabby though with #21 and #43. Still this should swing the numbers toward the trees.

2016
I know that #27 Fingall will be an important player for the Trees in the future as we will be post deficient. This year the upperclassmen are getting the time there. Cal’s Brown at #54 has been impressive in the last several games with her athleticism and ability to hit the three. Especially impressive considering she missed her senior year after a severe knee injury. (I’m guessing she would have been ranked much higher otherwise). I expect good things from her in the future.

2015
#8 Anigwe, the real deal for sure, and Chen Yue at #51. Not sure how A. Thomas was so low at #87 as I think she is as good as Stanford’s Sniezek #38. It’s probably again because of an ACL her senior year.

2014
Cal: #10 Cowling and #12 Green. Green transferred after last year for reasons unknown and is clearly a big loss.

Stanford got Rooks #18 who then transferred to Harvard and wasn’t good enough to start for them this year! And McPhee #25 who has been a decent player for the Trees, as well as #30 Johnson, who isn’t great but fills a role.

2013
Stanford got #11 McCall and Karlie Samuelson #77. Cal got Range #38 and Waters #54

so if you look at the numbers for starters this year:
Stanford, #11, #25, #30, #77, unranked (Roberson)
CalBears: #8, #10, #38, #87, unranked because she’s foreign (Davidson)
So the ‘top’ two are better than Stanford’s first player. Down the line it doesn’t look SO lopsided but the results sure have been.

_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman

[22]

[Nixtreefan]

HAHAHA and you can't account for stupidity.

Doesn't matter what the pundits thought of them coming in as the majority didn't in general know whether they could play smart basketball.

After 4 years you kinda figure who the dummies are and believe me it is not like Stanford doesn't have a dummy or 2 but Tara does a better job of hiding them than say a Gottlieb or a Warlick. Why do you think we always have to help one of our particular posts

[22]

[Nixtreefan]

You don't have to argue, stupid is as stupid does. IMO there aren't that many smart players. Stanford used to be able to recruit really smart basketball players, there are just not that many out there any more. Too much selfish one on one me basketball going on. Why do you think USA is starting to lose at the youth level. Passing for example is a lost art. Being able to read the game is a lost art.

If coaches spoke out about the reality of their players and the players who they play against I would bet that the public would be very surprised at what they had to say if they could be truthful and not political about spotlight etc.

[ArtBest23]

I don't think the various recruiting services value or recognize in their rankings basketball IQ very much. They value athleticism and flash and 1-on-1 play.

So you can have a bunch of highly rated recruits who are great athletes and not great team basketball players. It's a big part of why citing class recruiting rankings doesn't mean much.

It seems to me that some coaches value IQ when recruiting and some don't. Many of the same schools and coaches year after year have great looking players who either don't understand the game, don't have the discipline, or don't have the mentality to play as a team. Often that's attributed to poor coaching in college, but I think it starts with who the coach chooses to recruit.

You know who they are.

WBB may be a little behind the men, but the problem isn't much different. Kevin Garnett ripped into AAU ball in an interview last week. The same could be said about the girls:

“Our league now is at a point where you have to teach more than anything. AAU has killed our league. Seriously. I hate to even say this, but it’s real,” Garnett said. “From the perspective that these kids are not being taught anything. They have intentions and they want things but the way they see it is not how our league works. You earn everything in this league. You’re not entitled to anything. And it’s more entitlement than anything."

One conundrum is that often the "smartest" players are those that have had to work hard and study the game for the very reason that they don't have the remarkable size or quickness or athleticism and have to play smarter to compensate. It's not hard to find athletes, and it's not hard to find smart players. What's hard is to find the few really smart disciplined players who are also tall, fast, and tremendous athletes.

[patsweetpat]

[myrtle]

[PlayBally'all]

Everyone's analysis has merit as possible causes for roller coaster performances, but sometimes it boils down to a lack of team chemistry. Divisions within a team can fade to the back of the mind when everyone is hyper focused on the opponent, which happens when the team plays a big game. When the opponent isn't as formidable, some players tend to relax their focus and as a result, those divisions that are present come back to the forefront.

[ArtBest23]

Wrong thread, sorry.