|
Post by zoney on Apr 11, 2021 11:20:44 GMT -5
I've read some thoughts on the pros and cons of early season tournaments. One of the negatives I've read is the "showing your hand early" concern. I'm just wondering.....so what? In the first quarter of the first game last season everyone knew how good Paige was. Did we have some other secret weapon we had been hiding from WCBB before that game? Who would that have been? Nika? Aaliyah?
There's a lot of criticism of Coach Frese scheduling "cupcakes." Should we play or not play cupcakes too? So our players can score a double double against a cupcake and build confidence? Do we not have the self confidence to start off against a team like Baylor? Why not put the cards on the table for the players and coaches to see right from the start?
It's okay to lose. What we hate is when we lose but could definitely could have won if we could have persevered (or played with maturity as Geno may point out.) Does starting off with cupcakes help out? Is Brenda's cupcake plan right or wrong? When was it? Three years ago that Geno took the girls to Italy for exhibition games? And we lost one of those games as I recall. Did we put our cards on the table too early back then? Did it matter?
Yeah Tyson, "Everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the mouth." Why wait until a FF game to get that punch in the mouth. And I mean a punch in the mouth from a 250lb center, not a 130lb point guard. Learn early what it feels like. Why not "go ahead and hit me with your best shot" right from the opening bell - I can take everything you can dish out and give it right back to you?
Are we - or can we - be that type of team again? We have been in the past. I think we will be again this season.
Rambling thoughts for sure......I trust whatever decision and whatever path Geno takes the team on.
|
|
|
Post by jhusky on Apr 11, 2021 12:05:54 GMT -5
I'd prefer to have that challenge about mid-season when both teams' games may not have gelled. The Arkansas game during mid-season gave Uconn excellent feedback as to the intensity needed to win the challenging games.
|
|
|
Post by radylady on Apr 11, 2021 12:41:01 GMT -5
Early season tournaments are a great time for the coach to put players on the floor in game situations and see how they do against players with whom they are unfamiliar, and to see what's working what's not. The value of this thermometer is a high take for both coach and players. The wins are nice to haves of course, but how things are working on the floor, how they are progressing is a great benchmark to start seasons.
IMO of course
|
|
|
Post by swash on Apr 11, 2021 13:23:21 GMT -5
I've read some thoughts on the pros and cons of early season tournaments. One of the negatives I've read is the "showing your hand early" concern. I'm just wondering.....so what? In the first quarter of the first game last season everyone knew how good Paige was. Did we have some other secret weapon we had been hiding from WCBB before that game? Who would that have been? Nika? Aaliyah?
There's a lot of criticism of Coach Frese scheduling "cupcakes." Should we play or not play cupcakes too? So our players can score a double double against a cupcake and build confidence? Do we not have the self confidence to start off against a team like Baylor? Why not put the cards on the table for the players and coaches to see right from the start?
It's okay to lose. What we hate is when we lose but could definitely could have won if we could have persevered (or played with maturity as Geno may point out.) Does starting off with cupcakes help out? Is Brenda's cupcake plan right or wrong? When was it? Three years ago that Geno took the girls to Italy for exhibition games? And we lost one of those games as I recall. Did we put our cards on the table too early back then? Did it matter?
Yeah Tyson, "Everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the mouth." Why wait until a FF game to get that punch in the mouth. And I mean a punch in the mouth from a 250lb center, not a 130lb point guard. Learn early what it feels like. Why not "go ahead and hit me with your best shot" right from the opening bell - I can take everything you can dish out and give it right back to you?
Are we - or can we - be that type of team again? We have been in the past. I think we will be again this season.
Rambling thoughts for sure......I trust whatever decision and whatever path Geno takes the team on. I prefer the early metal, as long as team psyche can handle it, and UCONN should be a yes to that question. This season with no seniors and a full litter of puppies may have been the exception.
|
|
|
Post by swash on Apr 11, 2021 13:31:08 GMT -5
I'd prefer to have that challenge about mid-season when both teams' games may not have gelled. The Arkansas game during mid-season gave Uconn excellent feedback as to the intensity needed to win the challenging games. We'll never know whether MSST and Louisville would have enured the lessons in this group that much sooner, or made them question themselves. Baylor would have been mid season. I feel like the conditions in WCBB are in favor of loading up the desert tray, but it is an insult to the fans and the game when top teams go that route. So, if we play worthy teams, and win... fantastic ... we benefit everyone, and if we take it on the chin every now and again, well that's our gift to the world.
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on Apr 11, 2021 15:43:05 GMT -5
1. However we fans feel personally, Geno has always hunted for the early season OOC tests, especially after the demise of the original Big East. Playing South Carolina twice in the regular season is no biggie: UConn had to play ND three times before maybe meeting them in the NCAA tournament!
2. If Geno were trying to "protect his product," he wouldn't have open practices.
3. Geno is all about legacy. When UConn rolls into town or gets featured on ESPN2, people pay attention. It helps the women's game.
|
|
|
Post by linkster on Apr 11, 2021 16:20:39 GMT -5
Lots of coaches were eager to stand up and criticize others for the lack of respect for wcbb. I suspect that a lack of respect from the NCAA is the norm for all NCAA sports, (male or female) with the exceptions being football and mens basketball. I'd like to see how the NCAA Lacrosse final four are housed and fed. Do they get a weight room? Swimming? Track and Field? I'd guess that the championship budgets for those tournaments are closer to wcbb than to mcbb. The exceptions make it appear sexist, but while there are sexists associated the main reason is that those 2 sports produce revenue while every other sport eats it. If women want respect for their sport the way is to monetize the sport and then demand it.
At any point in the season there are maybe a dozen elite teams in the country. They need to play each other in showcase games other than those in April. A casual mens fan who puts on Maryland v "some cupcake" in Nov/Dec is likely to never put another game on until April. And the problem isn't just coaches padding their records with cupcake opponents. It's also those same coaches, knowing they can't lose those games who put up with sloppy play and a lack of effort until the conference schedule starts. UConn teams have always come out for game 1 playing sharp, well executed games. It's how you go undefeated for several seasons. Talent of course, but focus and 100% effort game in and game out is a large part of UConn's appeal across the country. TV knows that they may shoot poorly but they will never stink up the screen like so many other supposedly elite programs do prior to MLK Day. The talent is the same but the execution level of far too many teams is poor until they are in the meat of their conference schedules or in some cases not until their conference tournaments. I suppose that with all the importance on the NCAA's it's to be expected but then don't complain because the men make more money. I believe that wcbb could be hugely popular in the US if more effort was put into developing the product into something more entertaining rather than in forming blue ribbon committees to investigate the problem or allowing officials to call games with rugby rules.
The NCAA should sponsor a tournament after finals in December. Bring in 4 top teams* and let them play 3 games in 4 days. Hype it. And have the teams ready to play like it matters. Tell all conferences to not schedule any games in that time period and encourage other inter-conference tournaments. Make it like the tropical tournaments but more focused on basketball than in tourism. And tell coaches who pass on playing that it WILL reflect on their seeding.
* previous season's final four?
|
|
|
Post by knightsbridgeaz on Apr 11, 2021 19:55:20 GMT -5
Lots of coaches were eager to stand up and criticize others for the lack of respect for wcbb. I suspect that a lack of respect from the NCAA is the norm for all NCAA sports, (male or female) with the exceptions being football and mens basketball. I'd like to see how the NCAA Lacrosse final four are housed and fed. Do they get a weight room? Swimming? Track and Field? I'd guess that the championship budgets for those tournaments are closer to wcbb than to mcbb. The exceptions make it appear sexist, but while there are sexists associated the main reason is that those 2 sports produce revenue while every other sport eats it. If women want respect for their sport the way is to monetize the sport and then demand it. At any point in the season there are maybe a dozen elite teams in the country. They need to play each other in showcase games other than those in April. A casual mens fan who puts on Maryland v "some cupcake" in Nov/Dec is likely to never put another game on until April. And the problem isn't just coaches padding their records with cupcake opponents. It's also those same coaches, knowing they can't lose those games who put up with sloppy play and a lack of effort until the conference schedule starts. UConn teams have always come out for game 1 playing sharp, well executed games. It's how you go undefeated for several seasons. Talent of course, but focus and 100% effort game in and game out is a large part of UConn's appeal across the country. TV knows that they may shoot poorly but they will never stink up the screen like so many other supposedly elite programs do prior to MLK Day. The talent is the same but the execution level of far too many teams is poor until they are in the meat of their conference schedules or in some cases not until their conference tournaments. I suppose that with all the importance on the NCAA's it's to be expected but then don't complain because the men make more money. I believe that wcbb could be hugely popular in the US if more effort was put into developing the product into something more entertaining rather than in forming blue ribbon committees to investigate the problem or allowing officials to call games with rugby rules. The NCAA should sponsor a tournament after finals in December. Bring in 4 top teams* and let them play 3 games in 4 days. Hype it. And have the teams ready to play like it matters. Tell all conferences to not schedule any games in that time period and encourage other inter-conference tournaments. Make it like the tropical tournaments but more focused on basketball than in tourism. And tell coaches who pass on playing that it WILL reflect on their seeding. * previous season's final four? Interesting. I think it is very hard to define what might attract the casual fan that doesn't follow WBB. A blow out against a weak opponent might just do it, sadly. Lots of exciting offense, often, including plays that the coach wouldn't allow in a more competitive game, and players that might not play in a more competitive game getting to play and sometimes shine. I agree that fan would also be attracted (perhaps) to a high quality game, but honestly - I watched a lot of games in the tourney and found some of the games difficult to watch. Just because it is competitive doesn't make it appealing. If I was to suggest a way to improve the game - and it probably wouldn't result in it becoming more popular - it would be in improving the refereeing so that it is consistent. It isn't, not from ref to ref and not from game to game (and not from conference to conference). Sometimes not from half to half. As to the comments about equal treatment - did you see that the early rounds of the NCAA Women's Volleyball tournament (at least as of a couple days ago) will not feature locker rooms.
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on Apr 11, 2021 20:08:46 GMT -5
If I was to suggest a way to improve the game - and it probably wouldn't result in it becoming more popular - it would be in improving the refereeing so that it is consistent. It isn't, not from ref to ref and not from game to game (and not from conference to conference). Sometimes not from half to half. +1. Though I think it might actually make the game more popular. I absolutely refuse to blame refereeing for a particular loss for any team (including UConn), especially the question of bias against a particular team. But the overall quality is, indeed, bad to terrible. Remember when the refs actually reviewed the phantom foul on Christyn near the end of the AZ game and confirmed the call, even though the announcers had predicted it would easily be overturned? It's one thing to make a bad call on the court; it's another thing entirely to confirm it on instant replay. This kind of wilfully bad refereeing diminishes the game, and the casual viewer will associate bad refereeing with bad play. That was on view in that game, and, frankly, I felt embarrassed for our sport. Improving refereeing will actually improve the status of the sport.
|
|
|
Post by semper on Apr 11, 2021 20:41:25 GMT -5
It degrades the sport to have such incompetence, and it's not the exception either.
|
|
|
Post by swash on Apr 12, 2021 6:00:45 GMT -5
It degrades the sport to have such incompetence, and it's not the exception either. We can agree that it is a problem. The NCAA, would probably agree... Off the record. But what can be done? Training. But who delivers same and what direction does it take? I've been through a fair bit of referee training across multiple sports, and it is easy to get wrong. The best included game film and examples of handling tough situations, some what not to do, and some exemplary. Raise pay. Increasing the demand to fill the roles is the only way to bring in new blood and weed out the weakest. Consequences. There needs to be a grading system for each game. Bonus pay for a job well done, and reduced opportunity for those who fall short repeatedly. Follow up. Participants and knowledgeable observers should have the ability to question the calling of a game after the fact. Film should be reviewed and used in support of each of the above. Additional eyes in the moment. Reserve referees on the monitor all the time, with the ability to communicate and stop the game for a look. Review rules and enforcement to identify areas of concern. Where should the official have been? What are the most controversial calls? What rules are ignored? Coaches and influence. Etc. consistency of message and partnering with schools about changes and emphasis and such. Got more and or better ideas?
|
|
|
Post by semper on Apr 12, 2021 7:12:01 GMT -5
Two things that have bothered me over the years, and really bothered me in the Baylor game: 1. Lack of consistency 2. Failure to find a balance between preventing injury and serious roughing up by the more thuggish teams, and preserving the flow of the game. That's tough.
I love the idea of mandatory training, and better supervision, and then too better pay. How do the men do it? Someone should write a book about this subject. Is there one? I wonder what Geno thinks?
|
|
|
Post by UConnChapette on Apr 12, 2021 8:05:45 GMT -5
How about providing bonus incentive pay based on the quality of their game performance. Have a point system where every game is scored for each referee. After the game, it is reviewed by referee supervisors. Start with a possible score of 100 per game. Each missed call, whether a real foul that isn't called or a phantom/anticipatory call gets points deducted. Set a percentage of accuracy for the season. If the ref meets or exceeds the threshold (say 90% for sake of argument) they get a season bonus in pay. If they fall below, no bonus pay. Also set a low threshold. If a ref falls below the low threshold, retraining would be required. If they fall below the threshold for consequetive years, say three - time to find another line of work.
Pay for performance, like any other job.
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on Apr 12, 2021 8:31:03 GMT -5
Got more and or better ideas? make swash head of WCBB referees.
|
|
|
Post by swash on Apr 12, 2021 9:50:56 GMT -5
How about providing bonus incentive pay based on the quality of their game performance. Have a point system where every game is scored for each referee. After the game, it is reviewed by referee supervisors. Start with a possible score of 100 per game. Each missed call, whether a real foul that isn't called or a phantom/anticipatory call gets points deducted. Set a percentage of accuracy for the season. If the ref meets or exceeds the threshold (say 90% for sake of argument) they get a season bonus in pay. If they fall below, no bonus pay. Also set a low threshold. If a ref falls below the low threshold, retraining would be required. If they fall below the threshold for consequetive years, say three - time to find another line of work. Pay for performance, like any other job. good, but need to avoid some gotchas. 1. Politics. It's a small community and there's a danger of favoritism in the grading. 2. Letting someone from HR get involved. LOL. How many evaluations- happens in many businesses- where everyone gets an Outstanding rating, or managers are forced to make their team average to average?
|
|
|
Post by swash on Apr 12, 2021 9:52:41 GMT -5
Got more and or better ideas? make swash head of WCBB referees. Gracias, pero no gracias, mi amigo.
|
|
|
Post by knightsbridgeaz on Apr 12, 2021 18:57:28 GMT -5
Two things that have bothered me over the years, and really bothered me in the Baylor game: 1. Lack of consistency 2. Failure to find a balance between preventing injury and serious roughing up by the more thuggish teams, and preserving the flow of the game. That's tough. I love the idea of mandatory training, and better supervision, and then too better pay. How do the men do it? Someone should write a book about this subject. Is there one? I wonder what Geno thinks? One of the things that concerned me when I got to watching games "close up" is the contact when there is not possession. Particularly in the PAC referees definitely let it all go. I'm not sure what rules apply, but I have seen some "almost" and even actual injuries that I don't think should be part of the game. Also, contact under the basket. Our saying is "do any pushing and shoving you want, but don't touch the shooter's hand, gently". Which just isn't right. Don't know (exactly) how it goes in other conferences, but that's the PAC.
|
|
BJ42
Purebred Husky
Posts: 458
|
Post by BJ42 on Apr 12, 2021 20:46:19 GMT -5
Two things that have bothered me over the years, and really bothered me in the Baylor game: 1. Lack of consistency 2. Failure to find a balance between preventing injury and serious roughing up by the more thuggish teams, and preserving the flow of the game. That's tough. I love the idea of mandatory training, and better supervision, and then too better pay. How do the men do it? Someone should write a book about this subject. Is there one? I wonder what Geno thinks? One of the things that concerned me when I got to watching games "close up" is the contact when there is not possession. Particularly in the PAC referees definitely let it all go. I'm not sure what rules apply, but I have seen some "almost" and even actual injuries that I don't think should be part of the game. Also, contact under the basket. Our saying is "do any pushing and shoving you want, but don't touch the shooter's hand, gently". Which just isn't right. Don't know (exactly) how it goes in other conferences, but that's the PAC. Agreed. And that's how it is in most if not all of Baylor's games also.
|
|
|
Post by knightsbridgeaz on Apr 13, 2021 1:17:29 GMT -5
One of the things that concerned me when I got to watching games "close up" is the contact when there is not possession. Particularly in the PAC referees definitely let it all go. I'm not sure what rules apply, but I have seen some "almost" and even actual injuries that I don't think should be part of the game. Also, contact under the basket. Our saying is "do any pushing and shoving you want, but don't touch the shooter's hand, gently". Which just isn't right. Don't know (exactly) how it goes in other conferences, but that's the PAC. Agreed. And that's how it is in most if not all of Baylor's games also. I don't see many Big 12 games. In the PAC it isn't a "team" thing - Tara can complain all she wants about the game being more free-flowing (which is a nice idea) but that isn't the way the conference refs call it. It is a long-standing claim of mine that each conference has their own "style" - not only of the teams that are in the conference, but of the way the conference is refereed. Sure there is variation as we discuss the inconsistency of refs, but still. The 3 features of the PAC that we noticed, particularly as compared to the (old) Big East where we followed Rutgers and attended many games, are the scrums for loose balls, the type of calls in the post, especially the lack of over-the-back calls (which were often called in the oBE) and third, calling the "touch" fouls on the perimeter while letting all the other contact go. And to prove my point (sort of) - many years ago, Rutgers was playing in the NCAA tourney and had north of 10 fouls called before the opposing team had any called on them. It was later reported that at least part of the issue was there was an error made in assigning the referees for the game, it is typical to assign at least one (and often 2) referees that are familiar with the team and style of play. It was not - so much - that Rutgers didn't commit more fouls than the opponent, but that the opponent also committed a number of fouls that were not noticed.
|
|
|
Post by semper on Apr 13, 2021 6:05:35 GMT -5
Why is the reffing so much better in the men's game?
|
|