WBB vs UT
- Thread starter Tngamecock
- Start date
If the right people are starting, it ought to be the same people at the end as at the beginning if the game gets tight - barring injury or someone fouling out.
Last edited:
How is that a shorter recovery time from a Thursday game followed by a Sunday game?
Oh I don't necessarily disagree with you. Must it's also a rotation and match up thing. I wouldn't be against switching up our starting line up to see if that helps with anything, or at the very least gives a few current starters a kick in the butt to get it going for the crunch time.
It's situational, but if the grip on the game is being lost, the best available people should be out there, which should have been out there to start with.
Yes to an extent. I think our starting lineup should be tweaked a little bit right now because we start extremely slow for the most part. But the blanket statement of that is off. Some players just play better coming off the bench - Manu Ginobili, Jamal Crawford, Marcus Smart all could have been starters for the most part, but have better numbers coming off the bench. I know a different league and all that, but the same sport.
I attend every game and also coached basketball for 10 years. First of all, after the first 13 minutes when clearly UCLA played greatly, and go up to a 19 pt lead, our gils found their footing and the game played back and forth for the rest of that game, given that thety had made a cross country flight after having played Clemson just earlier in the week. UCLA had a week and a half off before our game and clearly spent alot of time in prep. Though Betts is a good player, she is not Aliyah or Kamilla and twice when she played Kamilla, she was woefully overwhelmed with Kamilla athleticism and ended up on the bench and lost. Betts is a great player but struggles away from the basket and does not have a mid range like Boston when teams decide to push her up the paint. UCLA has skilled guards but other than Rice, they are not athletic and need space to make shots. Even with all that said, Saniya Feagin held Betts to 11 points in our game which was one of her lowest outputs of the season and this is when Saniya was still trying to find her footing as a starter with our team.
UCLA shot well from three during that game where all of their guards could not miss. Problem is that before our game and since our game, they have not shot that well again. The way South Carolina is locked in now defensively, especiallly on the perimeter, I and many across the country do not believe they would beat South Carolina again, but that will be settled on the court. UCLA has accomplished some blowouts since our game, but have been in a number of single digit contest and ones where they have won by only 10-12 pts. The issue for UCLA is that the majority of the teams they have played have not been ranked or even remotely talented enough to challenge them, while South Carolinal has played 9 ranked teams and at least 2 teams considered to be final four teams and have dismantled both of them. The next few weeks, will be interesting, when UCLA has to start playing Southern Cal, Ohio State and some of the more prominent Big 10 Teams. I look forward to the commentary after South Carolina plays them again, if both teams get to that point
At the end of the game, it was noted that South Carolina was only the 3rd team in the past 25 years that played 5 straight top 20 ranked teams and finish undefeated. The other two were one of Pat Summitt's Tennesee teams and one of UConn's juggenaught National Championship Teams
Ranked teams have apparently slipped. We aren't as good this year as either of the examples you cited. We are only a suggestion of the team we were a year ago.
I saw a video recently where the Bruins' head MBB coach discussed the excessive travel assiciated with B1G membership. The move, he hinted, was all about football, and the other couple of dozen sports the school sponsors were not even taken into consideration. That has to impact the team. It's bad enough that the SEC now has 5 members located west of the Mississippi River, but at least there are no members (yet?) west of the Central Time Zone.
As long as any schools we add are in states contiguous to states already in conference territory, I'm OK with it. What I'm not OK with is the B1G kicking our @$$e$ all over the football field. The SEC has more egg on its face right now than a million omelets.
Using that logic, you can add schools from states in New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Contiguous, and way too far over the top.
Theoretically, but it would take a long time - if ever - to reach those lengths. We could also add Notre Dame (beyond unlikely) or North Carolina right now. Anything contiguous makes more sense than what the B1G and ACC have done. As I stated, my concern now is how the SEC's hard-earned competitive advantage in football has evaporated in less than two years of the combined unlimited portal and unregulated NIL.
I don't want to ever go there; too much travel hardship on studens, regardless of sport.
Kramer, Slive, and Sankey have kept things pretty concentric. I expect they will. But the SEC has to keep pace by adding clearly better schools and programs than we were when they took us.
I would be thrilled if there was a moratorium on expansion, and a maximum number of schools per conference (8 is an ideal number per conference, but 12 at most, IMO).
That would be great, but there's no way that the conferences or NCAA agree to that. It would be struck down in court so fast for limiting the free market in that case. The NCAA has no power to enforce anything like that.
You are correct. Only a gentleman's agreement adhered to by all would prevent such. And given today's climate, "it ain't gonna happen."
It's as much a fantasy as USC returning to the 8-member ACC we left.
The best you can hope for now is super-conferences that have sub-divisions where schools play mostly each other - mainly to benefit sports scheduling for other than football. The toothpaste is out of the tube on compact conferences.
Wouldn't it be ironic if we eventually see something like a 72 team super league (all of the current P4 plus ND and a few others) with something like 8 "conferences" of 9 teams each based on geography. You know, similar to what we had 40 years ago?
Kind of like professional sports leagues with divisions based on geography, minus the regional automony conferences now enjoy.
Exactly. College football is clearly shifting toward an NFL-like model. So, the largest programs simply break off from the NCAA or create a new division within it, and, like the NFL, negotiate a giant unified TV package while making sure that every network gets a piece of the pie. I could see the TV coverage looking like the NFL's as well with some games being broadcast regionally while others get broadcast nationally. That's a big part of the NFL's incredible ratings - they carefully control the broadcast schedule so they don't cannibalize their own market share by broadcasting 8 or 10 games at once like you see in today's college football.