RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Maryland @ Connecticut - 11/19/17

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - Game Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Who will win this game?
Maryland
20%
 20%  [ 1 ]
Connecticut
80%
 80%  [ 4 ]
Total Votes : 5

Author Message
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 45138



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/17/17 8:38 pm    ::: Maryland @ Connecticut - 11/19/17 Reply Reply with quote

Hartford, CT - 1:30 PM ET
TV: ESPN

Video:
http://www.espn.com/watch/ (tvp)

Audio:
https://tunein.com/radio/UConn-IMG-Sports-Network-s230338/

http://www.uconnhuskies.com/collegesportslive/?media=563181 (sub)

Live stats:
http://www.uconnhuskies.com/gametracker/launch/?event=1571818&school=conn&sport=wbaskbl&



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned


Last edited by Shades on 11/19/17 3:37 pm; edited 3 times in total
snlMINAJ



Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 722
Location: Connecticut


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 5:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

any news on KLS?


ripleydc



Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 4530
Location: Washington, DC


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 10:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I predict that the double-digit ranked Terps will upset #1 ranked UConn today . . . in Field Hockey.



_________________
Olga: "I could drink for England."
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 2934



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 1:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

snlMINAJ wrote:
any news on KLS?


The word is has a mid-foot sprain and will be out on a week to week basis.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 20932



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 1:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

where's Lobo?



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55146
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 1:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
where's Lobo?


New Mexico?

Orly County?

Down on the Riverbed?

Czarnia?

Having Happy Days in New York City?



_________________
Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 20932



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 1:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It would be nice if they deigned to actually talk about the game.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
bballjunkie



Joined: 12 Aug 2014
Posts: 377



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 1:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The Terps re bad, slow and not smart, what does that say about SC😳


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 20932



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 2:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

anybody else having trouble with gametracker? I can usually get it to run in IE, but not in chrome because of my adblocker, but today it won't work in either one.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
bballjunkie



Joined: 12 Aug 2014
Posts: 377



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 2:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ouch Geno pissed at Collier seems to be forcing it and as with Miss St game length bothers her.

Ugly quarter but Walker finally gets in the books with O board and lay up.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4164
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 2:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Gabby sculpting a Michaelangelo agony and ecstasy: steals, passes, layups BUT eight turnovers in the 1H.

UConn defense again making life hard for the other team's guards. Stevens and Walker still showing no outside touch, but Nurse on arc fire.
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 45138



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 2:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Gabby with 8 TO at the half is a pretty shocking stat.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 2934



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 2:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
Gabby with 8 TO at the half is a pretty shocking stat.


But the rest of the team having but 1 is just as amazing.


bballjunkie



Joined: 12 Aug 2014
Posts: 377



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 2:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Relying on D but ball movement and flow not very good a lot of Geno shaking his head.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4164
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 3:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Gabby gets triple double . . . with 10 turnovers. Does that count?

I agree with Andy. UConn really isn't playing that well in this game and hasn't been playing as well this season as the same time last.
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 2934



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 3:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Gabby gets triple double . . . with 10 turnovers. Does that count?

I agree with Andy. UConn really isn't playing that well in this game and hasn't been playing as well this season as the same time last.


In the postgame Andy said that he thought UConn's offense isn't as good as at this time last year but that the defense is better. Geno agreed.


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 45138



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 3:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
Shades wrote:
Gabby with 8 TO at the half is a pretty shocking stat.


But the rest of the team having but 1 is just as amazing.


I wasn't watching. What were the nature of the turnovers?
She made up for half of her turnovers with 5 steals.
If 5 of those turnovers were of the illegal screen and charge nature, it's nearly a wash, but yeah, hopefully the high turnovers don't become a thing for her.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Nixtreefan



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 1317



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 3:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I would give her a pass, you could tell the other players were a little tentative and not moving into the right places and Williams was playing at the pace when the usual starters are in the game. She and KLS are usually the ones directing along with Dangerfield. You take out a huge piece and it becomes choppy.

BTW her defense was amazing again.


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 45138



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 3:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Kaila Charles is looking like a baller (who could use some help).
Check out her stat line against Connecticut.

29 pts (13-22, 2-3 3P, 1-3 FT), 12 (7 off) reb, 2 ast, 5 TO, 5 stl, 2 blk in 40 min



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 2934



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 4:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
linkster wrote:
Shades wrote:
Gabby with 8 TO at the half is a pretty shocking stat.


But the rest of the team having but 1 is just as amazing.


I wasn't watching. What were the nature of the turnovers?
She made up for half of her turnovers with 5 steals.
If 5 of those turnovers were of the illegal screen and charge nature, it's nearly a wash, but yeah, hopefully the high turnovers don't become a thing for her.


What I saw were a lot of passes that were either miss-timed or where she miss-anticipated where her teammate was going. After the game Geno said that every time he saw her turn it over he didn't have time to complain to the assistants because she was making a great play at the other end. He chalked it up to her trying to do too much.


Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 707
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 4:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

bballjunkie wrote:
The Terps re bad, slow and not smart, what does that say about SC😳


UConn out-scored a bad, slow, and not smart MD 65-61 in the final 3 qtrs. on their own home court. What does that say about UConn?


Is the gametracker correct that UConn had twenty-five turnovers in the game? Yikes!! And if they had a total of 9 in the 1st half, then they had 16 TOs in the 2nd half? Yikes Yikes!!!


Oldfandepot2



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 891
Location: Northeast


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 5:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
Gabby gets triple double . . . with 10 turnovers. Does that count?

I agree with Andy. UConn really isn't playing that well in this game and hasn't been playing as well this season as the same time last.


In the postgame Andy said that he thought UConn's offense isn't as good as at this time last year but that the defense is better. Geno agreed.
Considering they scored 97 points with for the most part in the 4th quarter the starters on the bench save for Williams in the beginning and Naphessa in there with Erving, Bent and two freshman and MD keeping their starters especially Charles in until the entire game, the score would have been much worse, much much worse. Stil a lot to work on though.

UCONN could have won by 40 but yes the offense is still not the same as last year. LOL and that is with the starters playing three quarters and scoring 97 points. Turn the yacht around we are out of ice.

Walker is a very special player.



_________________
Cave Canem!
We must listen to each other no matter how much it hurts. Bishop Desmond Tutu.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8957
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd be effed up


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 5:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
bballjunkie wrote:
The Terps re bad, slow and not smart, what does that say about SC😳


UConn out-scored a bad, slow, and not smart MD 65-61 in the final 3 qtrs. on their own home court. What does that say about UConn?


That they outscored the Terps 75-41 through the first 3 periods, before the slugs took over?

Or maybe that not having their best/2nd best all-around player had an effect on their performance?

I'm really not sure. What do you think? Razz



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 2934



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 7:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
bballjunkie wrote:
The Terps re bad, slow and not smart, what does that say about SC😳


UConn out-scored a bad, slow, and not smart MD 65-61 in the final 3 qtrs. on their own home court. What does that say about UConn?


Is the gametracker correct that UConn had twenty-five turnovers in the game? Yikes!! And if they had a total of 9 in the 1st half, then they had 16 TOs in the 2nd half? Yikes Yikes!!!


The defending champs were outscored by MD in the final 3 quarters 73-65. Yikes yourself. Smile

Despite playing shitty offense, after 3 periods UConn led 75-41. In their first 3 periods SC outscored MD 72-55. The UConn bench certainly stunk it up in the 4th but that isn't anything we haven't seen from their bench for many years.

MD obviously continued to play hard in the 4th period of both games.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4164
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 7:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The UConn bench are "slugs" who "stunk it up"? The bench shot 8-15 (53%), better than the starters' 30-63 (47%). What they didn't do well is play defense. This may be because they don't get much of a chance to play defense in practice because UConn uses men practice players -- a practice that should be banned.

Maryland, a weak team this year, scored 72 points against UConn, which hardly anyone ever does. They would have been held to 50 by some previous UConn teams.
umbeta1455



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 1883
Location: Maine


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/17 9:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
The UConn bench are "slugs" who "stunk it up"? The bench shot 8-15 (53%), better than the starters' 30-63 (47%). What they didn't do well is play defense. This may be because they don't get much of a chance to play defense in practice because UConn uses men practice players -- a practice that should be banned.

Maryland, a weak team this year, scored 72 points against UConn, which hardly anyone ever does. They would have been held to 50 by some previous UConn teams.


Why should men’s practice players be banned? I haven’t seen this discussed before, so I am curious as to why you think so.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5648



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/21/17 4:10 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

umbeta1455 wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
The UConn bench are "slugs" who "stunk it up"? The bench shot 8-15 (53%), better than the starters' 30-63 (47%). What they didn't do well is play defense. This may be because they don't get much of a chance to play defense in practice because UConn uses men practice players -- a practice that should be banned.

Maryland, a weak team this year, scored 72 points against UConn, which hardly anyone ever does. They would have been held to 50 by some previous UConn teams.


Why should men’s practice players be banned? I haven’t seen this discussed before, so I am curious as to why you think so.


I'd like to see it banned because:

1) it lowers the importance of the non-starters, many of whom won't see any significant playing time the entire season. So they watch at the games and watch at practice. Ultimately, the male practice players would be more deserving of a championship ring than the deep bench players.

2) it introduces non-team members - and of a different sex - into the equation. You don't want one team winning because their male practice players are better at pushing them (without discouraging them) than another team's male practice players. Or one team may have not been able to find a bunch of guys who want to regularly scrimmage women for free and they have to practice against their second team. I would be happier with male practice players if they also got championship rings and were listed on the roster with the women.




Last edited by tfan on 11/21/17 4:17 am; edited 1 time in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5648



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/21/17 4:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i-EEL0ij1jE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12107



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/21/17 10:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:

2) it introduces non-team members - and of a different sex - into the equation. You don't want one team winning because their male practice players are better at pushing them (without discouraging them) than another team's male practice players. Or one team may have not been able to find a bunch of guys who want to regularly scrimmage women for free and they have to practice against their second team. I would be happier with male practice players if they also got championship rings and were listed on the roster with the women.


Why is finding and recruiting from the school's playgrounds and intramural teams the right people to build a male practice team any different than finding the right walk ons, or managers, or employees for that matter? Winning teams do a better job of that and other stuff. That's why they're winning teams. Maybe the others need to try harder. I really don't understand your complaint.

And there's nothing stopping schools from publicizing their practice players. Notre Dame has published pictures and names and bios of its male practice players and the practice squad has its own Twitter feed. That's a matter of choice, not rule. Nor do I believe there are any rules on who can receive rings although I've never heard of a school giving those to practice players. As far as I know they could if they wanted to spend the money.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55146
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/21/17 10:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

umbeta1455 wrote:
Why should men’s practice players be banned? I haven’t seen this discussed before, so I am curious as to why you think so.


We discussed it back in 2006 when the NCAA was considering banning them:

http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=22299

And a few weeks later when Mechelle Voepel wrote on the topic:

http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=22508

It came up again in 2011 when it was discovered that they count as female athletes for Title IX compliance:

http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=65049



_________________
Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5648



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/21/17 10:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
tfan wrote:

2) it introduces non-team members - and of a different sex - into the equation. You don't want one team winning because their male practice players are better at pushing them (without discouraging them) than another team's male practice players. Or one team may have not been able to find a bunch of guys who want to regularly scrimmage women for free and they have to practice against their second team. I would be happier with male practice players if they also got championship rings and were listed on the roster with the women.


Why is finding and recruiting from the school's playgrounds and intramural teams the right people to build a male practice team any different than finding the right walk ons, or managers, or employees for that matter?


The people you mention are paid or part of the team and they all show up on the roster page. If the practice team is the same, why don't they get paid and/or show up on the roster page, either as members of the team, or with the staff? I think the reason is because people don't want to consider how they are actually part of the team. I bet if you had the pictures of the male practice players in the roster section with a bio (son of Albert and Jacqueline Braden), people would freak out. And yet, they are part of the practices. They are just like red-shirt players who practice, but don't play in games, and the red-shirt players show up on the roster page.

Quote:
Winning teams do a better job of that and other stuff. That's why they're winning teams. Maybe the others need to try harder. I really don't understand your complaint.


The main determinant in being a winning team is having the best players and winning teams do a better job of getting the best players to attend their school. Or, we could give credit to the coaches for better coaching as people like to do. I have never heard walk-ons, video coordinators, "team manager" or trainers, given credit for the success of any team (as in "we won more games because of them", that is, beyond the standard "we couldn't have done it without them").

Quote:
And there's nothing stopping schools from publicizing their practice players. Notre Dame has published pictures and names and bios of its male practice players and the practice squad has its own Twitter feed. That's a matter of choice, not rule. Nor do I believe there are any rules on who can receive rings although I've never heard of a school giving those to practice players. As far as I know they could if they wanted to spend the money.


I would accept male practice players if they are on the roster page, either as members of the team or with the coaches. And also, if the sport was renamed to "NCAA men's and women's basketball".




Last edited by tfan on 11/21/17 11:26 am; edited 1 time in total
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12107



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/21/17 11:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
tfan wrote:

2) it introduces non-team members - and of a different sex - into the equation. You don't want one team winning because their male practice players are better at pushing them (without discouraging them) than another team's male practice players. Or one team may have not been able to find a bunch of guys who want to regularly scrimmage women for free and they have to practice against their second team. I would be happier with male practice players if they also got championship rings and were listed on the roster with the women.


Why is finding and recruiting from the school's playgrounds and intramural teams the right people to build a male practice team any different than finding the right walk ons, or managers, or employees for that matter?


The people you mention are paid or part of the team and they all show up on the roster page. If the practice team is the same, why don't they get paid and/or show up on the roster page, either as members of the team, or with the staff? I bet if you had the pictures of the male practice players in the roster section with a bio, people would freak out. And yet, they are part of the practices. They are just like red-shirt players who practice, but don't play in games, and the red-shirt players show up on the roster page.

Quote:
Winning teams do a better job of that and other stuff. That's why they're winning teams. Maybe the others need to try harder. I really don't understand your complaint.


The main determinant in being a winning team is having the best players and winning teams do a better job of getting the best players to attend their school. Or, we could give credit to the coaches for better coaching as people like to do. I have never heard walk-ons, video coordinators, "team manager" or trainers, given credit for the success of any team (as in "we won more games because of them", that is, beyond the standard "we couldn't have done it without them").

Quote:
And there's nothing stopping schools from publicizing their practice players. Notre Dame has published pictures and names and bios of its male practice players and the practice squad has its own Twitter feed. That's a matter of choice, not rule. Nor do I believe there are any rules on who can receive rings although I've never heard of a school giving those to practice players. As far as I know they could if they wanted to spend the money.


I would accept male practice players if they are on the roster page, either as members of the team or with the coaches. And also, if the sport was renamed to "NCAA men's and women's basketball".


Nobody's making them do it. They do it because they like to do it. I'm sure they don't care that you don't. "You would accept." Seriously. Get over yourself. There's nothing broken here. Go find a bona fide problem to complain about.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5648



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/21/17 12:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:


Nobody's making them do it. They do it because they like to do it.


Irrelevant whether they like to do it or not.

Quote:
I'm sure they don't give a shit that you don't.


What they think about people who don't like the idea of male practice players is irrelevant.

Quote:
"You would accept." Seriously. Get over yourself.


.In this case the words "I'd be happy with" did not apply, so I had to go a notch down, even though it is still too high. I would still want them gone, even if they were on the roster page. But I have a feeling if they ever ended up on the roster page, the sacred cow that they have become might start cracking.




Last edited by tfan on 11/21/17 12:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5648



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/21/17 12:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
umbeta1455 wrote:
Why should men’s practice players be banned? I haven’t seen this discussed before, so I am curious as to why you think so.


We discussed it back in 2006 when the NCAA was considering banning them:

http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=22299

And a few weeks later when Mechelle Voepel wrote on the topic:

http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=22508

It came up again in 2011 when it was discovered that they count as female athletes for Title IX compliance:

http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?t=65049


Surprising how much support the male practice players got, including from Voepel. She wrote an entire article justifying male practice players by talking about the benefits it gives the male practice players and what great guys they are:

Quote:
Now, can anyone truly believe the best thing for women's basketball is to ban guys such as Shane, Kirk, Danny, Micah, Brian, David, Matt and Scott? Does that really make any sense?


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12107



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/21/17 1:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:



Irrelevant whether they like to do it or not.


You know whose feelings are even less relevant to the issue? Got a mirror handy?

It's not surprising at all that they are popular. Not many teams have spare 6'3" players sitting around to practice against.


linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 2934



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/21/17 1:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
The UConn bench are "slugs" who "stunk it up"? The bench shot 8-15 (53%), better than the starters' 30-63 (47%). What they didn't do well is play defense. This may be because they don't get much of a chance to play defense in practice because UConn uses men practice players -- a practice that should be banned.

Maryland, a weak team this year, scored 72 points against UConn, which hardly anyone ever does. They would have been held to 50 by some previous UConn teams.


You suggest an interesting reason for the poor defensive play of the freshmen. Maybe some media type who reads this can ask Geno. From reading reports over the years I am pretty sure that the entire squad takes part in scrimmages. That was the reason Geno added a couple of walk-ons about 4-5 years ago, there weren't enough players to scrimmage.

Nearly half of those 72 points you use as evidence were scored in the 4th period. While supporting your opinion of the freshman defensive effort it also says that MD averaged less than 14 points a period against the regular rotation minus KLS. Depleted opponent or not that is a pretty good defensive effort. UConn's historical defensive stats have had a lot to do with how many minutes the bench played in the 4th period which correlated well with how big the lead was stretched in the first 3. If you look at the seasons where UConn held a lot of teams under 50 you'll also see that those were the years when the bench was very short and the starters played long into the 4th period.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4164
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/21/17 3:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
The UConn bench are "slugs" who "stunk it up"? The bench shot 8-15 (53%), better than the starters' 30-63 (47%). What they didn't do well is play defense. This may be because they don't get much of a chance to play defense in practice because UConn uses men practice players -- a practice that should be banned.

Maryland, a weak team this year, scored 72 points against UConn, which hardly anyone ever does. They would have been held to 50 by some previous UConn teams.


You suggest an interesting reason for the poor defensive play of the freshmen. Maybe some media type who reads this can ask Geno. From reading reports over the years I am pretty sure that the entire squad takes part in scrimmages. That was the reason Geno added a couple of walk-ons about 4-5 years ago, there weren't enough players to scrimmage.


I've seen UConn practices. My main reason for opposing male practice players is that they are the primary defensive opponent of the starting team during home practices. The bench players, as a unit, do not as regularly serve as the defenders against the starters, at least from what I saw.

Using males as the primary defensive team is, to me, an obvious disincentive for the coaching staff to train the benchers to be the best defensive unit possible. The following mindset is surely irresistible: "Since we're going to play these mid and lower benchers only in garbage time of massacres -- if ever -- why should we really care how good they are at defending. Why waste our limited time teaching them sophisticated UConn defense against the starters when we can be teaching that defense to the more important male practice players instead."

This diminishes the college basketball experience for these motivated and dedicated bench players during home practices. They go four years without ever being given the responsibility to play in contested minutes, they only play in garbage time, and they aren't even the focus of the best possible coaching during home practices. They must feel like third class, disposable items.

Male practice players can't travel with the team. So, in order to have a five player defensive unit to play against the starters during road practices, the team must have at least 10 players. That's why Geno recruited two walk-ons several years ago.

If there were no male practice players and the benchers all had much more defensive coaching attention, they would surely look much better defensively during garbage time. These are high level, trainable athletes for defense, even though they may not have the offensive skills of UConn's elite top rotation.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12107



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/21/17 3:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yeah, that would be great having Stevens and Samuelson and Collier and Williams practicing against 5'10" guards. I'm sure that would get the starters well prepared. Rolling Eyes


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4164
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/21/17 3:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Yeah, that would be great having Stevens and Samuelson and Collier and Williams practicing against 5'10" guards. I'm sure that would get the starters well prepared. Rolling Eyes


Don't really understand the point. Banning male practice players would obviously have to apply to all schools. Then, it would be part of every WCBB coach's recruiting and teaching responsibilities to get the best play out of their team using only their team during practices.

Probably nothing much would change regarding the performance and success WCBB teams, either absolutely or relatively, except for the coaching staff who is not competent enough to recruit, train and retain vigorous practice teams.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5648



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/21/17 6:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
tfan wrote:



Irrelevant whether they like to do it or not.


You know whose feelings are even less relevant to the issue? Got a mirror handy?


Actually, the feelings of posters are very relevant on a message board when discussing their opinion on various topics.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12107



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/21/17 8:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Yeah, that would be great having Stevens and Samuelson and Collier and Williams practicing against 5'10" guards. I'm sure that would get the starters well prepared. Rolling Eyes


Don't really understand the point. Banning male practice players would obviously have to apply to all schools. Then, it would be part of every WCBB coach's recruiting and teaching responsibilities to get the best play out of their team using only their team during practices.

Probably nothing much would change regarding the performance and success WCBB teams, either absolutely or relatively, except for the coaching staff who is not competent enough to recruit, train and retain vigorous practice teams.


And they all play by the same rules today too. So it's already part of every WCBB coach's recruiting and teaching responsibilities to find some volunteer practice players and get the best play out of their team using their team and practice players during practices.

Same logic applies. No need to rock the boat. Things are just fine the way they are. You have a "solution" in desperate search of a problem.

The only thing that would result is that teams that only fill 10 or 12 roster spots today would have to go 15 deep just to stock practice players so more women would totally rot on the end of the bench without ever getting a chance to play and elite programs would stockpile even more talent. Yeah, that would be just great for the game. Rolling Eyes


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - Game Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin