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

Time to hear from McCallie defenders
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6267



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 12:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

readyAIMfire53 wrote:

LOL. Nice try. Even the dimmest of WNBA scouts knows she'll be a way better player in the WNBA now.


But that, even if true, doesn't help your case. Only one WBB college coach has been deified. Saying that Stevens will be a better pro after practicing with the deity doesn't make a case for McCallie being a poor coach.

And since Stevens scored 18.9 points a game and grabbed 9.6 rebounds per game in the toughest conference in the nation, I don't see her as the player to use to build a case against McCallie. She did not have a "will be best player in ACC as a sophomore" rating coming out of high school.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6267



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 12:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

RavenDog wrote:

If you haven't seen or understood the significant advancements she's made at both ends of the court, I'm certainly not the person to try to enlighten you. Watch all of the UConn games from beginning of the season, the Geno show, the postgame shows and interviews - it's quite easy and clear to see.


I'd also need to watch for the first time her ACC games from when she was the dominant player in the best conference to compare with how she is as a sixth woman two years later in the AAC.


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 975



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 1:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
tfan wrote:
Stanford has declined as well. We may have entered an era where you cannot field as good a team with top students (assuming that you have to be one to get into these two schools) than what you used to be able to do.


Confused

Do mean Stanford that was in last year's Final Four? And 7 of the last 10 Final Fours?


D'oh!!

I guess I am looking only at the Pac-12 season. From 1989 to 2014 Stanford was regular season champion or co-champion for all but 3 years (88%). And the last year in that period that they weren't one or the other was 2000. But now, 4 years in a row, they have not been either. They have done better in recent Pac-12 tournaments versus the regular season, but have gone from winning 10 of the first 12 (83%), and making the championship game the two years they didn't win, to winning 2 of the last 5 (40%) and missing the championship game twice.They may be staying the same, but other Pac-12 teams are getting up to their level.


Everything is relative, but I see a much more as the rest of the Pac 12 getting much better. I don't think Stanford has regressed allow the future doesn't look as bright as it used to.

I don't think anyone has more final four appearances than Stanford (with the exception of Connecticut) in recent years.

Back when there were six power conferences, the pecking order changed but it was almost always the Pac 12 in sixth place. It's a slight overstatement, but the conference was typically Stanford and one of the team, with the one other team not always been the same team. Sometimes Arizona State would be the second team, and the teams from LA would take turns being decent.

All that has changed.

Washington, long a second tier team, had a great run (although that may be on pause at the moment). Washington state typically wasn't even as good as Washington but they've had some decent teams. Both Oregon and Oregon State have been great in recent years, and both teams from Los Angeles especially UCLA have been solid. The conference has moved from cellar dweller of the top 6 to often the best conference in the country.


insidewinder



Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 190



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 7:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Phil wrote:
tfan wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
tfan wrote:
Stanford has declined as well. We may have entered an era where you cannot field as good a team with top students (assuming that you have to be one to get into these two schools) than what you used to be able to do.


Confused

Do mean Stanford that was in last year's Final Four? And 7 of the last 10 Final Fours?


D'oh!!

I guess I am looking only at the Pac-12 season. From 1989 to 2014 Stanford was regular season champion or co-champion for all but 3 years (88%). And the last year in that period that they weren't one or the other was 2000. But now, 4 years in a row, they have not been either. They have done better in recent Pac-12 tournaments versus the regular season, but have gone from winning 10 of the first 12 (83%), and making the championship game the two years they didn't win, to winning 2 of the last 5 (40%) and missing the championship game twice.They may be staying the same, but other Pac-12 teams are getting up to their level.


Everything is relative, but I see a much more as the rest of the Pac 12 getting much better. I don't think Stanford has regressed allow the future doesn't look as bright as it used to.

I don't think anyone has more final four appearances than Stanford (with the exception of Connecticut) in recent years.

Back when there were six power conferences, the pecking order changed but it was almost always the Pac 12 in sixth place. It's a slight overstatement, but the conference was typically Stanford and one of the team, with the one other team not always been the same team. Sometimes Arizona State would be the second team, and the teams from LA would take turns being decent.

All that has changed.

Washington, long a second tier team, had a great run (although that may be on pause at the moment). Washington state typically wasn't even as good as Washington but they've had some decent teams. Both Oregon and Oregon State have been great in recent years, and both teams from Los Angeles especially UCLA have been solid. The conference has moved from cellar dweller of the top 6 to often the best conference in the country.


I think it is a bit of both. Stanford does not have the talent it did in the Wiggins/Appel/Ogwumike days. They still managed to make a Final Four. I don't think they are weak in talent, just currently not quite what they were and most of the best talent is young. I think they should be better in the next two or three years if they recruit well in 2019 and 2020. The academics do limit them. Not to rehash the usual, but no, not most of the players at UConn would get admitted. Some certainly might. Samuelson did but said no. And not a reflection on anyone's smarts, just the way admissions works with grades and test scores. Yes, many recruits cannot apply (never given an application after a review) and some apply but do not get in (not so much anymore, seems like that gets weeded out earlier in the process).

The rest of the conference is overall better, especially at the top with much better coaching at Oregon (and a whole lot more talent) and Oregon State, and the continued good job by Turner-Thorne at ASU. The bottom teams are not as weak as they used to be also. UW collapsed when all the talent left but they have a new coach, who has done well elsewhere. They could rebound if they recruit. UA has a newish coach who is bringing in better talent in the next class so they may improve. The disappointments to me are UCLA, who I feel should have done better this season (and the past few as well) and Cal, who has generally underperformed their talent level, and whose recruiting may be slipping a little. I don't feel Close or Gottlieb are elite coaches. They are not bad, just not getting the most out of what they have.

As for the future of the conference, looks like Oregon might be very good for the foreseeable future. Graves did very well at Gonzaga and has turned the Ducks around. No reason to think he can't keep it going. Same with OSU. ASU will be good because Charli always has them playing her style well. Stanford should stay at least where they are, probably will get better as the young talent matures. USC has Trahk back as coach. He did a pretty good job last time around so they should get better. They did ok with basically just five players this season. The LA schools will always recruit well. Utah and Colorado have been better, are usually decent mid-conference teams and will probably stay that way. I haven't covered everyone, but generally I think the conference is in good shape going forward with generally better coaching and improved talent at many schools.


insidewinder



Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 190



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 7:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Double post. Deleted.




Last edited by insidewinder on 03/10/18 7:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Davis4632



Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 329



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 7:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
Davis4632 wrote:
Queenie wrote:
Wait, Stevens was supposed to be an unheralded recruit? What the? What parallel universe was that in?


I wouldn't said he was unheralded either. She was ranked #25 by Hoopgurlz, #41 by Prospects Nation, and #51 by Blue Star.


Stevens issues at UConn has mostly been of the defensive end because she's adjusting from playing zone to man to man. Everybody knew she was a 6'6 finesse player that loves to take threes.



Waiting for boner outrage... Laughing



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yUSB-_FHOEo" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2viKPjwe600" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


patsweetpat



Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2060
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 8:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

insidewinder wrote:

The rest of the conference is overall better, especially at the top with much better coaching at Oregon (and a whole lot more talent) and Oregon State, and the continued good job by Turner-Thorne at ASU... The disappointments to me are UCLA, who I feel should have done better this season (and the past few as well) and Cal, who has generally underperformed their talent level, and whose recruiting may be slipping a little. I don't feel Close or Gottlieb are elite coaches. They are not bad, just not getting the most out of what they have.


FWIW, in the combined 7 years for which Cori Close has been the Bruin head coach, UCLA has posted a better conference record than has ASU under Turner-Thorne. UCLA's conference record under Close is actually 3rd-best in the Pac-12, behind only Stanford and Oregon State.

UCLA has also, btw, won the last 5 consecutive meetings against ASU.


insidewinder



Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 190



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 11:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

patsweetpat wrote:
insidewinder wrote:

The rest of the conference is overall better, especially at the top with much better coaching at Oregon (and a whole lot more talent) and Oregon State, and the continued good job by Turner-Thorne at ASU... The disappointments to me are UCLA, who I feel should have done better this season (and the past few as well) and Cal, who has generally underperformed their talent level, and whose recruiting may be slipping a little. I don't feel Close or Gottlieb are elite coaches. They are not bad, just not getting the most out of what they have.


FWIW, in the combined 7 years for which Cori Close has been the Bruin head coach, UCLA has posted a better conference record than has ASU under Turner-Thorne. UCLA's conference record under Close is actually 3rd-best in the Pac-12, behind only Stanford and Oregon State.

UCLA has also, btw, won the last 5 consecutive meetings against ASU.


Nobody expected ASU to contend for the conference title. They lost a bunch of really good posts and still managed to be pretty good. UCLA has had much better recruiting over that time than ASU by a wide margin. Recruiting is part of coaching so you can fault ASU for not recruiting as well. They do seem to do a lot with what they do get, however, which was my point.

Wasn't the class that is now seniors at UCLA the #1 class or close to it? Wasn't UCLA picked to win the conference by coaches and media the past two or three years, something like that? Have they lived up to those picks? This year they were 3rd, last season 4th I believe, and the season before that 3rd or tied for third. A few injuries have hurt, but most teams deal with injuries. My aim is not to bash Close. I don't think she is bad, just not that great, and has not had the success with the top recruits she has pulled in to the extent she should have. Are you satisfied with how this season went? Do you think the Bruins achieved what they hoped and expected to achieve so far?


patsweetpat



Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2060
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/11/18 9:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

insidewinder wrote:
Are you satisfied with how this season went? Do you think the Bruins achieved what they hoped and expected to achieve so far?


I don't think the Bruins achieved what they hoped and expected to achieve, because very few Pac-12 teams outside of Oregon did. But I am roughly satisfied with how this season went, in that I think they played and finished roughly at their talent level. Oregon is a better team with a *bit* more talent than UCLA, and especially with more perimeter shooting than UCLA (which only gets more and more important with each passing year) and UCLA played Oregon super-tough each time, but came up just a bit short, and I think that roughly comports with where the two teams are, talent-wise.

The loss at Stanford is understandable: they have lots of talent (5 McDonald's All-Americans) and they went undefeated in conference at home. And the overtime loss at OSU is also understandable: the Bears are tough in Gill, having beaten Oregon there, and every other opponent too, with the exceptions of Stanford (to whom they lost by 3) and Notre Dame (lost by 5).

UCLA won every other Pac-12 game they played, and would've likely finished 2nd (or tied for 2nd) had Oregon and OSU played Stanford twice this season (as the Bruins did). But that's not how the schedule shook out this year. So, thanks to that quirk, UCLA ended up finished tied for 3rd. And yes, since you're asking: I think that's about right.


insidewinder



Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 190



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/11/18 10:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

patsweetpat wrote:
insidewinder wrote:
Are you satisfied with how this season went? Do you think the Bruins achieved what they hoped and expected to achieve so far?


I don't think the Bruins achieved what they hoped and expected to achieve, because very few Pac-12 teams outside of Oregon did. But I am roughly satisfied with how this season went, in that I think they played and finished roughly at their talent level. Oregon is a better team with a *bit* more talent than UCLA, and especially with more perimeter shooting than UCLA (which only gets more and more important with each passing year) and UCLA played Oregon super-tough each time, but came up just a bit short, and I think that roughly comports with where the two teams are, talent-wise.

The loss at Stanford is understandable: they have lots of talent (5 McDonald's All-Americans) and they went undefeated in conference at home. And the overtime loss at OSU is also understandable: the Bears are tough in Gill, having beaten Oregon there, and every other opponent too, with the exceptions of Stanford (to whom they lost by 3) and Notre Dame (lost by 5).

UCLA won every other Pac-12 game they played, and would've likely finished 2nd (or tied for 2nd) had Oregon and OSU played Stanford twice this season (as the Bruins did). But that's not how the schedule shook out this year. So, thanks to that quirk, UCLA ended up finished tied for 3rd. And yes, since you're asking: I think that's about right.


Why does UCLA keep getting picked by coaches to win the conference? I think you are downgrading the talent level of your own team and exaggerating that of other teams. For instance, Stanford does not have any upperclass McD All-Americans. Three of them are sophs, one of whom has been hurt a lot and hasn't played too much, and two are freshmen. UCLA has senior talent at that level. Oregon has a very young team as well. Oregon State has nowhere near the talent UCLA did this season. If you think what UCLA has done the past few years with the talent they had is spot on, I would disagree. But they are your team, not mine so if you are happy with the results, great, makes life nice for a fan when you feel your team has performed to your expectations.


patsweetpat



Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2060
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/11/18 9:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

insidewinder wrote:
patsweetpat wrote:
insidewinder wrote:
Are you satisfied with how this season went? Do you think the Bruins achieved what they hoped and expected to achieve so far?


I don't think the Bruins achieved what they hoped and expected to achieve, because very few Pac-12 teams outside of Oregon did. But I am roughly satisfied with how this season went, in that I think they played and finished roughly at their talent level. Oregon is a better team with a *bit* more talent than UCLA, and especially with more perimeter shooting than UCLA (which only gets more and more important with each passing year) and UCLA played Oregon super-tough each time, but came up just a bit short, and I think that roughly comports with where the two teams are, talent-wise.

The loss at Stanford is understandable: they have lots of talent (5 McDonald's All-Americans) and they went undefeated in conference at home. And the overtime loss at OSU is also understandable: the Bears are tough in Gill, having beaten Oregon there, and every other opponent too, with the exceptions of Stanford (to whom they lost by 3) and Notre Dame (lost by 5).

UCLA won every other Pac-12 game they played, and would've likely finished 2nd (or tied for 2nd) had Oregon and OSU played Stanford twice this season (as the Bruins did). But that's not how the schedule shook out this year. So, thanks to that quirk, UCLA ended up finished tied for 3rd. And yes, since you're asking: I think that's about right.


Why does UCLA keep getting picked by coaches to win the conference? I think you are downgrading the talent level of your own team and exaggerating that of other teams. For instance, Stanford does not have any upperclass McD All-Americans. Three of them are sophs, one of whom has been hurt a lot and hasn't played too much, and two are freshmen. UCLA has senior talent at that level. Oregon has a very young team as well. Oregon State has nowhere near the talent UCLA did this season. If you think what UCLA has done the past few years with the talent they had is spot on, I would disagree. But they are your team, not mine so if you are happy with the results, great, makes life nice for a fan when you feel your team has performed to your expectations.


Stanford had 5 McDonald's AA's this season, compared to 3 for the Bruins. Only one of UCLA's burger gals was a senior, one a junior, and 1 a freshman. Both UCLA and Stanford had very talented teams this season! Yet, for some reason, only one of those two teams was perceived as talented.

Regarding Oregon: they had the best player in the conference, and far more (and better) shooting than UCLA, which ended up making the difference between the two teams.

Regarding OSU: yes, UCLA had better talent than them (though at least one Beav player-- McWilliams-- was someone that UCLA recruited hard and lost out on to OSU). And UCLA was indeed the better team than OSU this season. They only finished tied in the standings because UCLA had to play Stanford twice, and the Oregon schools didn't have to make the Bay Area trip this year.


insidewinder



Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 190



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/11/18 10:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

patsweetpat wrote:
insidewinder wrote:
patsweetpat wrote:
insidewinder wrote:
Are you satisfied with how this season went? Do you think the Bruins achieved what they hoped and expected to achieve so far?


I don't think the Bruins achieved what they hoped and expected to achieve, because very few Pac-12 teams outside of Oregon did. But I am roughly satisfied with how this season went, in that I think they played and finished roughly at their talent level. Oregon is a better team with a *bit* more talent than UCLA, and especially with more perimeter shooting than UCLA (which only gets more and more important with each passing year) and UCLA played Oregon super-tough each time, but came up just a bit short, and I think that roughly comports with where the two teams are, talent-wise.

The loss at Stanford is understandable: they have lots of talent (5 McDonald's All-Americans) and they went undefeated in conference at home. And the overtime loss at OSU is also understandable: the Bears are tough in Gill, having beaten Oregon there, and every other opponent too, with the exceptions of Stanford (to whom they lost by 3) and Notre Dame (lost by 5).

UCLA won every other Pac-12 game they played, and would've likely finished 2nd (or tied for 2nd) had Oregon and OSU played Stanford twice this season (as the Bruins did). But that's not how the schedule shook out this year. So, thanks to that quirk, UCLA ended up finished tied for 3rd. And yes, since you're asking: I think that's about right.


Why does UCLA keep getting picked by coaches to win the conference? I think you are downgrading the talent level of your own team and exaggerating that of other teams. For instance, Stanford does not have any upperclass McD All-Americans. Three of them are sophs, one of whom has been hurt a lot and hasn't played too much, and two are freshmen. UCLA has senior talent at that level. Oregon has a very young team as well. Oregon State has nowhere near the talent UCLA did this season. If you think what UCLA has done the past few years with the talent they had is spot on, I would disagree. But they are your team, not mine so if you are happy with the results, great, makes life nice for a fan when you feel your team has performed to your expectations.


Stanford had 5 McDonald's AA's this season, compared to 3 for the Bruins. Only one of UCLA's burger gals was a senior, one a junior, and 1 a freshman. Both UCLA and Stanford had very talented teams this season! Yet, for some reason, only one of those two teams was perceived as talented.

Regarding Oregon: they had the best player in the conference, and far more (and better) shooting than UCLA, which ended up making the difference between the two teams.

Regarding OSU: yes, UCLA had better talent than them (though at least one Beav player-- McWilliams-- was someone that UCLA recruited hard and lost out on to OSU). And UCLA was indeed the better team than OSU this season. They only finished tied in the standings because UCLA had to play Stanford twice, and the Oregon schools didn't have to make the Bay Area trip this year.


So why has UCLA been picked the last couple of season to win the conference by the coaches, who I presume have some clue about the talent level on the various teams? I don't believe I said Stanford was not talented. I said their McD kids are all frosh and sophs, while UCLA has upperclass McD's. But this is not about Stanford or OSU. Many people thought this would be UCLA's year with a star guard in Canada and a great post in Billings, etc. Not only was it not, at least not in conference, but they were behind probably the least talented, worst Stanford team in years (that pre-season, ick) and tied with an OSU team that was down in talent from their conference winning seasons. The difference - the coaching, IMO. You apparently disagree, which is fine. As I said, not my team. If they were my team I would be ambivalent to somewhat negative about the job Close has done this season and other recent seasons. Since UCLA is not my team I don't have to care too much, except that I want the conference to be good. So good luck to them in the NCAAs.


patsweetpat



Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2060
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/11/18 10:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

insidewinder wrote:
So why has UCLA been picked the last couple of season to win the conference by the coaches, who I presume have some clue about the talent level on the various teams?


I'm not a coach, and I don't know any coaches, so I can't personally speak to why certain coaches picked certain teams above other teams.

But I can say this: UCLA wasn't a bad pick to make! As it happens, when UCLA made its Oregon trip (in the penultimate weekend of the season), it took both opponents to overtime on their respective home courts. Had UCLA made one extra free throw in each of those two games, the Bruins would've indeed won the Pac-12 outright (despite playing a tougher Pac-12 schedule than the conference's next three contenders)... the coach's poll would've thus been prescient, and you wouldn't be sitting here criticizing UCLA's coach. But because UCLA made one fewer free throw in each of those two games (and because UCLA played a tougher Pac-12 schedule than other three contenders), the Bruins happened to finish tied for 3rd and are therefore clearly coached poorly (as compared to, say, the 6th-place finisher which hasn't beaten UCLA in its past 5 tries but whose coach is obviously doing a "continued good job").


insidewinder



Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 190



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 12:08 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

patsweetpat wrote:
insidewinder wrote:
So why has UCLA been picked the last couple of season to win the conference by the coaches, who I presume have some clue about the talent level on the various teams?


I'm not a coach, and I don't know any coaches, so I can't personally speak to why certain coaches picked certain teams above other teams.

But I can say this: UCLA wasn't a bad pick to make! As it happens, when UCLA made its Oregon trip (in the penultimate weekend of the season), it took both opponents to overtime on their respective home courts. Had UCLA made one extra free throw in each of those two games, the Bruins would've indeed won the Pac-12 outright (despite playing a tougher Pac-12 schedule than the conference's next three contenders)... the coach's poll would've thus been prescient, and you wouldn't be sitting here criticizing UCLA's coach. But because UCLA made one fewer free throw in each of those two games (and because UCLA played a tougher Pac-12 schedule than other three contenders), the Bruins happened to finish tied for 3rd and are therefore clearly coached poorly (as compared to, say, the 6th-place finisher which hasn't beaten UCLA in its past 5 tries but whose coach is obviously doing a "continued good job").


I am basing my opinion on Close on several seasons, not just this one. For a variety of reasons I am glad she is not the coach of a team I root hard for. Not that she is a bad person or anything, just the coaching.

The one more FT stuff is a good rationalization, and may be true, but that happens every year to lots of teams, actually probably all teams - one more FT, one more basket, one more stop, and presto chango, more wins! Cal can say the same against UCLA in the P-12 tournament. You want to give them that win? Oregon can say, if we made one more three or one less turnover the UCLA game is never that close. There is always a what if. USC has plenty of what-ifs in Oregon. They lost too. So why not just give Oregon two more losses, because hey, could have happened. Or just call it a tie. I do get what you are saying. Very close losses can come down to a bit of luck, good and bad, and yes, the unbalanced schedule is a pain for some teams every season, I do agree. But again, everyone deals with it and other teams have been in that same boat. Oregon took care of Stanford pretty well at the P-12 tournament. Who's to say they would not have done the same had they traveled to the Bay Area this season?

I said Turner-Thorne does a good job with the talent she has year after year. Her teams generally out-perform the talent on hand. I also said you could criticize her for not bringing in more talent. So this season in the conference tournament UCLA was seeded 4 vs ASU's 6, last season 4 vs 5, 2015-16 4 vs 2, 2014-15 6 vs 2, 2013-14 8 vs 4. I was not intending to compare but just for kicks I did. UCLA has been seeded in the P-12 tournament on average over the past 5 years 5.2 while ASU has been seeded an average of 3.8. In the past five seasons ASU has been seeded 2nd in the conference twice. In that time frame UCLA has never finished that high. Their best is 4th. You probably should check my info. I did nit quickly.


CBiebel



Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 605
Location: PA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 2:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
If true, it would mean that Stanford and Duke don't face that big hurdle getting enough jocks to come there.

One thing I forgot about Stanford is that it is supposed to be both hard to get into, and hard to flunk out of. They are said to try very hard to keep you passing your classes. What I was thinking about with regard to jocks not choosing schools with high academic reputations was that they wouldn't want to have a harder curriculum to deal with. But maybe that isn't even true, particularly for the athletes.



First of all, I remember back around 2002 many people saying that Stanford couldn't win in Football because of the standards. Then they started hiring good coaches and since 2010 they've been ranked in all but one final AP poll, finished in the top 10 four times and in the top 5 twice.

Second, we're talking Women's Basketball here, not Football or Men's Basketball. Yes, there's now a pro league in the US and you can make money overseas, but with few exceptions, it isn't huge money. As such, that academic degree usually means more for female athletes.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6267



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 9:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CBiebel wrote:
tfan wrote:
If true, it would mean that Stanford and Duke don't face that big hurdle getting enough jocks to come there.

One thing I forgot about Stanford is that it is supposed to be both hard to get into, and hard to flunk out of. They are said to try very hard to keep you passing your classes. What I was thinking about with regard to jocks not choosing schools with high academic reputations was that they wouldn't want to have a harder curriculum to deal with. But maybe that isn't even true, particularly for the athletes.



First of all, I remember back around 2002 many people saying that Stanford couldn't win in Football because of the standards. Then they started hiring good coaches and since 2010 they've been ranked in all but one final AP poll, finished in the top 10 four times and in the top 5 twice.


Stanford took only 5% of applicants in 2014. And I would think that given their reputation for tough acceptance standards, the average applicant is above the average college applicant. So the percentage of all college applicants who could get into Stanford is even lower. If they applied these same standards to their student-athletes, I don't think they would be fielding successful teams in major sports. So it must be that they don't apply the same standards to student-athletes. The only question is how far do they dumb it down. If they go down all the way to "as long as you weren't in danger of flunking out of high school", then they end up with a potential recruiting advantage as they have the prestigious education.

Quote:
Second, we're talking Women's Basketball here, not Football or Men's Basketball. Yes, there's now a pro league in the US and you can make money overseas, but with few exceptions, it isn't huge money. As such, that academic degree usually means more for female athletes.


My assumption was that as high school sports like volleyball and basketball have become year-round activities, these kids who want to spend so much of their childhood playing a single sport, will not want a rigorous college curriculum. But I forgot about the "Stanford tries real hard to not let you fail" that I have heard over the years, so maybe Stanford is no more rigorous for the athletes than any school with "State" in the name. Or maybe there is a significant number of "jocks" who still don't mind studying.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2726
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 10:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stanford does have very high admission standards even for its athletes. And while it does give some waivers for athletic performance they are limited both in scope and amount. As for the hard to fail comment, I believe that if you start with the right type of person and provide them the necessary ancillary services (tutoring, mentoring, counseling) most will succeed. It doesn't hurt that a Stanford degree is also among the most valuable.

This is where this whole Stanford - UCLA discussion ties back to Coach McCallie. Duke has had several transfers of late. That would seem to be a bad sign for the type of individual that is being recruited. Either they are high character recruits that don't feel they are getting the experience they expected, they have problems with the coaching staff or they aren't the type of recruits that fit in at Duke.

I don't know enough about Coach McCallie to render any kind of judgment on her. With the exception of Geno it is unfair to measure current coaches accomplishments against those of 10-20 years ago because of the proliferation of very good programs.

As for Tara Vanderveer she might tell you among her greatest successes is the overall competitiveness of the Pac 12 today. The conference got seven teams in the NCAA Tourney last year and will get 6 or 7 again this season, and Tara is still right there.


summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 4788
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 10:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

dtsnms wrote:
It is hard to flunk out of any school that takes the academics seriously. As Geno said they set you up to succeed; you have timed study halls, tutors, etc etc to keep you on the right path


Tell me they don't at UConn....just tell me. Because I know they do other places.....



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 16937
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 4:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
I don't know enough about Coach McCallie to render any kind of judgment on her. With the exception of Geno it is unfair to measure current coaches accomplishments against those of 10-20 years ago because of the proliferation of very good programs.


Part of the reason why those programs became very good is because of the impact of Goestenkors leaving Duke. Had Gail stayed, Nneka Ogwumike (and Chiney Ogwumike) would have headed to Durham, not Palo Alto. That would have certainly changed the course of Stanford's trajectory.


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 16937
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 4:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Getting this back on track, I posted information about McCallie and some statistics on the first page of this thread:

http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?p=1507255&highlight=#1507255
http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?p=1507364&highlight=#1507364

This was information that I prepared regarding the state of the program and McCallie's record vs. her predecessor as of February 23, 2016, before the final regular season game against UNC.

As for the overall direction of the program, comparing predecessor Gail Goestenkors' last seven years at Duke with Joanne P. McCallie's eight-plus years (including this year) at Duke produces the following (again, note that this was as of February 23, 2016):

Overall record:
Goestenkors: 220-25 (89.79 percent)
McCallie: 243-64 (79.15 percent)

ACC record:
Goestenkors: 98-8 (92.45 percent)
McCallie: 107-30 (78.10 percent)

NCAA record:
Goestenkors: 23-7 (one NCAA runner-up, three Final Fours, five years at least making the Elite eight, all seven years at least making the Sweet 16)
McCallie: 18-8 (zero Final Fours, four Elite Eights, six years at least making the Sweet 16, two second round losses)

Against Top 5 Opponents:
Goestenkors: 14-14 (50.00 percent)
McCallie: 7-28 (20.00 percent)

Against Top 10 Opponents:
Goestenkors: 25-14 (64.10 percent)
McCallie: 19-36 (34.545 percent)

Against Ranked Opponents:
Goestenkors: 60-20 (80.00 percent)
McCallie: 58-49 (54.21 percent)

Against UConn:
Goestenkors: 2-1 (2-2 for her career; 2-1 against UConn over her last seven years; both wins in the State of Connecticut)
McCallie: 0-8 (and only one loss was less than 22 points, and that was by 16 points)

Against Tennessee:
Goestenkors: 4-3 (5-4 for her career; 4-3 against Tennessee over her last seven years)
McCallie: 1-1

Some Additional Notes:
-- Coach P inherited a roster with eight high school All-Americans (MCDAA) - Wanisha Smith, Abby Waner, Carrem Gay, Krystal Thomas, Jasmine Thomas, Joy Cheek, Bridgette Mitchell.

-- Since McCallie took over, Duke has had at least five recruiting classes (counting 2015) ranked #1 or #2.

-- Out of 120 MCDAAs from 2010-2014, 12 have gone to Duke - 10 percent.
*Note that this does not include players who were named Parade All-Americans or WBCA All-Americans.

Final Four History
Since Coach P took over for the 2007-2008 season, here is the list of schools to have made the Final Four:

Multiple Appearances in the Final Four (since the fall of 2007)
- UConn (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)
- Notre Dame (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015)
- Stanford (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2017)
- South Carolina (2015, 2017)
- Louisville (2009, 2013)
- Oklahoma (2009, 2010)
- Maryland (2014, 2015)
- Baylor (2010, 2012)
- LSU (2007, 2008)

Single Appearances in the Final Four (since the fall of 2007):
- Mississippi State (2017)
- Syracuse (2016)
- Oregon State (2016)
- Washington (2016)
- California (2013)
- Texas A&M (2011)
- Tennessee (2008)
- LSU (2008)


Joanne P. McCallie is in her 11th year at Duke. She has made the Elite Eight four times (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013), but has not been to the Final Four. Her teams have lost in the second round of the NCAA Tournament (2009, 2014, 2017) and missed the NCAAT entirely on one occasion (2016).

When you look at her overall record on Duke - just the numbers on paper - they look great.

When you evaluate her as a coach based on her predecessor and the current state of the program, she has failed to move the program forward and has led Duke to a significant regression.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15767
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 4:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
dtsnms wrote:
It is hard to flunk out of any school that takes the academics seriously. As Geno said they set you up to succeed; you have timed study halls, tutors, etc etc to keep you on the right path


Tell me they don't at UConn....just tell me. Because I know they do other places.....


I'm acquainted with one of the tutors at St. John's. There's quite the support network there- and while I love my Johnnies, St. John's is not known for its academics (not positively, anyway). The question is whether it gets used.



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
readyAIMfire53



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 5425
Location: Durham, NC


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 7:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

dtsnms wrote:
It is hard to flunk out of any school that takes the academics seriously. As Geno said they set you up to succeed; you have timed study halls, tutors, etc etc to keep you on the right path


Geno would certainly know cases where all the academic assists in the world have been offered but did not prevent an athlete coming up short.

I know what can be done since that's how I was able to graduate with one too many incompletes on the transcript. One of my advisors rode by on his bicycle and, after talking to me, beetled back to campus to submit the waiver so I could graduate. With athletes, I'm quite sure this is not left to chance.



_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.

~rAf
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 4788
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/13/18 11:58 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I know Tennessee has all the academic stuff and with WBB at least it's pretty strictly enforced. There was one year back around 2000 that something like 2/3s of the team was on the Dean's List, and not all of them doing things like Sports Management either.



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 16937
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/13/18 3:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Getting this back on track, I posted information about McCallie and some statistics on the first page of this thread:

http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?p=1507255&highlight=#1507255
http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?p=1507364&highlight=#1507364

And here is the information that I posted about McCallie on the second page of this thread:

http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?p=1507748&highlight=#1507748


In assessing McCallie's performance, there are two diametrically opposing viewpoints:

1) Objective analysis of won/loss percentage and ACC Tournament and NCAA Tournament performances.

2) Comparison of won/loss percentage and ACC Tournament and NCAA Tournament performances with the last decade of her predecessor, Gail Goestenkors, and an analysis of the current state of the program, relative to where it was.


Joanne P. McCallie is in her 11th year at Duke. She has made 10 NCAA Tournaments (this year is the 10th), reached the Sweet 16 six times, and made the Elite Eight four times (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)...but has not been to the Final Four. Her teams have lost in the second round of the NCAA Tournament (2009, 2014, 2017) and missed the NCAAT entirely on one occasion (2016), the first time that has happened to Duke in two decades.

In Gail Goestenkors' last ten years at Duke, she made 10 NCAA Tournaments, 10 Sweet 16s, 7 Elite Eights, 4 Final Fours, and 2 national title games (losing in 1999 to Purdue and losing in 2006 to Maryland).

I have previously posted records against Top 5, Top 10, and Top 25 opponents (see links above). But in the last decade of the Goestenkors era, Duke was a perennial Final Four team/contender. And when great players graduated (2004, the Beard/Tillis/Krapohl class, plus Hunter's transfer and Harding's suspension), Duke kept going (winning 30 games, tying for the ACC regular season crown, and making the Elite Eight the next year, 2005).

There have been a number of significant injuries during McCallie's tenure, moreso than under the Goestenkors years. But even when healthy (or close to healthy), Duke has been blown out by elite opponents under Coach P.

Joe Alleva said he hired Joanne P. McCallie to lead Duke to the national title, the only thing missing (this after Alleva publicly chided Goesntenkors for not winning one when she was being wooed by Texas). In looking at what McCallie has done, there is no real debate that Duke has taken a big step backwards on the national stage. The best years of McCallie's recruiting surpass the best years of Goestenkors' recruiting, yet McCallie's results are not nearly as good as the last ten years of the Goestenkors era.

But if you look - objectively - at the numbers from the past 11 years, you see:
-- Overall record at Duke: 295–79 (.7887)
-- ACC record at Duke: 132–38 (.7764)
-- 4 Elite Eights
-- 6 years in the Sweet 16

In general, winning close to 80 percent of one's games would be enough to declare a coach's tenure "successful."

But cracks are starting to show in the "objective" measures. In the last 5 years, here are the numbers:
-- Overall record at Duke: 121-44 (.7333)
-- ACC record at Duke: 55-25 (.6875)
-- 1 Sweet 16, 2 Second Round losses, 1 year missing the NCAAT (with this year's NCAAT still to be played).

Duke loses Lexie Brown and Rebecca Greenwell (plus Erin Mathias). If Kyra Lambert, Mikayla Boykin, and Haley Gorecki all come back healthy, those three - plus Leaonna Odom and Jade Williams - make a formidable starting lineup. But there is zero quality depth behind them.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
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