I got a chance to see Connecticut at Maryland recently.
Before I begin my remarks, there is an important caveat - I don't like to see anyone injured. Period. Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis's injury against Stanford was pretty scary for anyone who saw it live. It looks like nothing was broken and in about four months, she should be all right. Morgan Tuck needed some scoping, and that left Connecticut short-handed in their game against the Terps.
That being said, these injuries actually made Connecticut vs. Maryland - interesting. Could Maryland beat a short-handed Connecticut? Alyssa Thomas carried Maryland on her back for a while, and it looked like the Terps had the chance to shock the #1 Huskies.
But no. Maryland was NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.
There's a play which I think exemplifies part of the reason why UConn can win games. Laurin Mincy pops a long range shot against UConn and pops up her fist in triumph, smiling. A dagger, right?
No. The Huskies act as if they weren't even paying attention, fast break down the other end of the court and catch Maryland's defense asleep. So much for Laurin Mincy's triumphal moment.
There was a comment by USC football coach Pete Carroll that rang in my head:
“We’re not going to do anything different for this game since we’re not treating this game any different than another game. Every game is a championship game for us, so we’ll treat this one, the last one and the next one exactly the same. And that goes for our practices leading up to it as well.”
Connecticut plays every game like it's a championship game.
"It's about us getting ready to play. It's not about the other team. We'll beat ourselves before they beat us. That's always our approach."
Another quote from Carroll. The only team that Connecticut is playing against is Connecticut, it always has been. Connecticut always attacks, always, always wants the perfect play, always wants to play killer man-to-man defense.
Maryland tried to get Stefanie Dolson in foul trouble. That's a mistake. You don't give the enemy rope and hope that she'll hang herself with it. If Dolson had five fouls, it would have been a big benefit for Maryland - but that didn't happen, Dolson continued to exploit Maryland inside, and game over.
My wife - not a basketball fan - watched this game with me. "They must spend a lot of their practices passing," she said. Connecticut can execute and execute quickly. When they speed up a play, there's not much "what am I supposed to do now?" The only player I know who improvised at UConn was Maya Moore, because Auriemma complained once that Moore was invariably out of position on plays, trying to guess where she should be based on instinct and making the right play anyway.
But there's only one Maya Moore.
Given that UConn-Penn State is on in the background - and Connecticut is up 30-18 - I wonder if anyone is going to be able to beat Connecticut this year. Perfection might be the goal for Connecticut, but it doesn't make their dismantlings of the enemy that compelling unless you're a Huskies fan. As Mike Peden said on Twitter, if this is the way that the women's BB season is going to be, I'm already counting the days until the WNBA starts up again.
(* * *)
From RebKell, someone posted a link that Jenny Boucek was talking to both Tulsa and Atlanta about that last open coaching job.
Interesting comments about Boucek's grind-it-out style. As for running with the Dream, well, we Ran with the Dream and we're 0-9 in WNBA Finals play. Maybe we should try something else.
But here's my big prediction - the team that gets Jenny Boucek is the team that is going to eventually relocate to Oakland. The Atlanta experiment or the Tulsa experiment is about to come to an end if either of these teams hires Boucek. If the Dream pick Boucek, McCoughtry should start looking for apartments in Oakland.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Monday, November 11, 2013
The Cobb County Braves
It looks like the Braves are going to pick up shop from Ted Turner Field and travel to Cobb County, of all places. Apparently, the Cobb County Government offered $450 million for the Braves to pick up and git. The Braves have (graciously) offered $200 million. Now of course, if you think that the tab in Cobb County is going to be just $450 million, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, $20, dirt cheap.
Basically, they tried to pressure Kasim Reid into paying a zillion dollars for Liberty Media's new toy. Reid said, "don't let the door hit your asses on the way out". The Braves are trying to spin this as "we simply decided to end our lease" but I don't believe it happened that way. Good for Reid, he's got my vote in the next election. Sports teams bring nothing financially to a community, and I say this as a diehard Dream fan. If Liberty Media wants a new stadium, fine, but I'm not paying a dime for it. Let the billionaires pay for their own stadiums and let not a dime of the public's money be spent. I'm already paying for the @#$@#$ Falcons as it is; I would have rebelled if I were asked to pay for the Braves, too.
Supposedly, the lack of MARTA access to Turner Field was an issue. Well, MARTA isn't even in Cobb County but that wasn't a deal-breaker. My take on things was that the area around Turner Field was "too poor" and "too crime ridden" and if you can read between the lines in the Deep South, you know exactly what they're talking about. I'm surprised they didn't go for the trifecta and claim that Cobb County "has better schools".
Well, the Braves decided to meet their whitebread fans half-way. I don't think it's going to do much for Cobb County. They'll be paying a lot more than $450 million dollars in the end because cost overruns just mysteriously happen when new stadiums are being built. If you have no interest in baseball, you're not going to go to Cobb County to see it. All of the "new revenue" that Cobb County is expecting with their mall will just be cannibalized from other sources - every $ the Cobb County Braves see is one $ that will disappear from some other business in Cobb County. It's not going to be any easier for some Atlanta out of town visitor to see the Braves than it is now. How much transit do you think there is between downtown Atlanta and Cobb County?
Good thing I got out of that circus and into the WNBA. By the time WNBA teams have the clout to extort cities with threats to move, I figure I'll be dead.
Basically, they tried to pressure Kasim Reid into paying a zillion dollars for Liberty Media's new toy. Reid said, "don't let the door hit your asses on the way out". The Braves are trying to spin this as "we simply decided to end our lease" but I don't believe it happened that way. Good for Reid, he's got my vote in the next election. Sports teams bring nothing financially to a community, and I say this as a diehard Dream fan. If Liberty Media wants a new stadium, fine, but I'm not paying a dime for it. Let the billionaires pay for their own stadiums and let not a dime of the public's money be spent. I'm already paying for the @#$@#$ Falcons as it is; I would have rebelled if I were asked to pay for the Braves, too.
Supposedly, the lack of MARTA access to Turner Field was an issue. Well, MARTA isn't even in Cobb County but that wasn't a deal-breaker. My take on things was that the area around Turner Field was "too poor" and "too crime ridden" and if you can read between the lines in the Deep South, you know exactly what they're talking about. I'm surprised they didn't go for the trifecta and claim that Cobb County "has better schools".
Well, the Braves decided to meet their whitebread fans half-way. I don't think it's going to do much for Cobb County. They'll be paying a lot more than $450 million dollars in the end because cost overruns just mysteriously happen when new stadiums are being built. If you have no interest in baseball, you're not going to go to Cobb County to see it. All of the "new revenue" that Cobb County is expecting with their mall will just be cannibalized from other sources - every $ the Cobb County Braves see is one $ that will disappear from some other business in Cobb County. It's not going to be any easier for some Atlanta out of town visitor to see the Braves than it is now. How much transit do you think there is between downtown Atlanta and Cobb County?
Good thing I got out of that circus and into the WNBA. By the time WNBA teams have the clout to extort cities with threats to move, I figure I'll be dead.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
New Historical Coaches File added to blog link
Since the 2013-14 women's college BB season starts tomorrow, I've updated the Historical Coaches Register. The link should be visible to your right.
The new file:
a) corrects a handful of errors
b) adds subtotals by era and conference
c) rearranges the team tabs to reflect current conference alignments
d) adds the Atlantic 10 as a conference
e) adds information about consecutive visits (or non-visits) to the NCAA Tournament.
I'll release this publicly about 5 pm ET - but if you're a visitor to the blog, you get a special treat. Enjoy.
The new file:
a) corrects a handful of errors
b) adds subtotals by era and conference
c) rearranges the team tabs to reflect current conference alignments
d) adds the Atlantic 10 as a conference
e) adds information about consecutive visits (or non-visits) to the NCAA Tournament.
I'll release this publicly about 5 pm ET - but if you're a visitor to the blog, you get a special treat. Enjoy.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
On the Hot Seat
Slightly warm: Joe McKeown, Northwestern: He has a 71-85 record at Northwestern, but his tenure has been the most successful of the three coaches that have followed Don Perrelli. Furthermore, he's gotten the Wildcats to the postseason - when Northwestern went to the WNIT Quarterfinals in 2010 it was the first post-season visit in 13 years. However, in five years the best he's finished in the Big 10 is 8th place. Is Northwestern satisfied with 8th?
Warm: Pam Borton, Minnesota. In her first seven years at Minnesota, Borton went to the NCAA tournament six times. In her last four seasons, she has only a WBI championship and a WNIT first round loss. However, she's also the school's winningest coach - but those last four years included her first two losing seasons and management has to wonder if she can turn her tailspin around.
Warm: Bobbie Kelsey, Wisconsin. Two disappointing years in a row from Kelsey might be causing Wisconsin fans to wonder why it is that they fired a coach that who had five straight post-season appearances for Kelsey? Was it the Stanford pedigree? If Wisconsin makes the move up this year that many expect them to, that seat will get a lot colder but she will need asbestos underwear if the Badgers can't break .500.
Warm: Dennis Wolff, Virginia Tech. Last year was the sixth consecutive year where the Hokies won four games or less in conference. Two of those years were under Wolff, who is 17-43 in two years. He's won 7 and 10 games respectively, and his predecessor Beth Dunkenberger's worst season was an 11-19 finish. The question is whether or not Virginia Tech cares enough about women's basketball for that to make a difference.
Warm: Jamelle Elliott, Cincinnati. I don't think anyone will be happier to leave the Big East than Jamelle Elliot. Her finishes have been 14th, 15th, 10th (tie) and 13th. In four years she has one .500 season and the rest are underwater. I don't know that they really care enough at Cincinnati for it to make any difference. After her first season in the American, management will probably re-access.
Hot: Niya Butts, Arizona. In five seasons at Arizona, four of those are under .500. The last time that happened at Arizona was in the beginning of the Joan Bonvicini years of the early 1990s. Another sub .500 season and the Wildcats might finally run out of patience.
Hot: Charli Turner-Thorne, Arizona State. Unless your leave of absence is for health reasons, leaves of absence usually don't solve much. After a 13-18 season, Arizona State boosters might wonder if she's still got it. This is the season to "get it" whatever it is.
Hot: June Daughtery, Washington State. Six straight losing seasons for Daughtery, but that's okay, as WSU has had 17 straight losing seasons. They're used to it. Even so, about every five or six years even a losing program does some cleaning, and the crystal in Daugherty's palm is starting to blink.
Hot: Todd Buchanan, Houston. He's in trouble. After a undefeated season in Conference USA, he went 3-26 and 13-17. Going from feast to famine will raise eyebrows, and the pressure is on in the AAC.
Boiling Hot: Paul Westhead, Oregon. That 4-27 finish last year and his age make it a question of not if, but when.
Might be gone tomorrow: Sharon Dawley, Massachusetts or Cathy Inglese, Rhode Island. Dawley has had three 20-loss seasons in three years; Inglese has four 20-loss seasons in four years. Then again, no one seems to care about women's BB in Massachusetts or Rhode Island.
Warm: Pam Borton, Minnesota. In her first seven years at Minnesota, Borton went to the NCAA tournament six times. In her last four seasons, she has only a WBI championship and a WNIT first round loss. However, she's also the school's winningest coach - but those last four years included her first two losing seasons and management has to wonder if she can turn her tailspin around.
Warm: Bobbie Kelsey, Wisconsin. Two disappointing years in a row from Kelsey might be causing Wisconsin fans to wonder why it is that they fired a coach that who had five straight post-season appearances for Kelsey? Was it the Stanford pedigree? If Wisconsin makes the move up this year that many expect them to, that seat will get a lot colder but she will need asbestos underwear if the Badgers can't break .500.
Warm: Dennis Wolff, Virginia Tech. Last year was the sixth consecutive year where the Hokies won four games or less in conference. Two of those years were under Wolff, who is 17-43 in two years. He's won 7 and 10 games respectively, and his predecessor Beth Dunkenberger's worst season was an 11-19 finish. The question is whether or not Virginia Tech cares enough about women's basketball for that to make a difference.
Warm: Jamelle Elliott, Cincinnati. I don't think anyone will be happier to leave the Big East than Jamelle Elliot. Her finishes have been 14th, 15th, 10th (tie) and 13th. In four years she has one .500 season and the rest are underwater. I don't know that they really care enough at Cincinnati for it to make any difference. After her first season in the American, management will probably re-access.
Hot: Niya Butts, Arizona. In five seasons at Arizona, four of those are under .500. The last time that happened at Arizona was in the beginning of the Joan Bonvicini years of the early 1990s. Another sub .500 season and the Wildcats might finally run out of patience.
Hot: Charli Turner-Thorne, Arizona State. Unless your leave of absence is for health reasons, leaves of absence usually don't solve much. After a 13-18 season, Arizona State boosters might wonder if she's still got it. This is the season to "get it" whatever it is.
Hot: June Daughtery, Washington State. Six straight losing seasons for Daughtery, but that's okay, as WSU has had 17 straight losing seasons. They're used to it. Even so, about every five or six years even a losing program does some cleaning, and the crystal in Daugherty's palm is starting to blink.
Hot: Todd Buchanan, Houston. He's in trouble. After a undefeated season in Conference USA, he went 3-26 and 13-17. Going from feast to famine will raise eyebrows, and the pressure is on in the AAC.
Boiling Hot: Paul Westhead, Oregon. That 4-27 finish last year and his age make it a question of not if, but when.
Might be gone tomorrow: Sharon Dawley, Massachusetts or Cathy Inglese, Rhode Island. Dawley has had three 20-loss seasons in three years; Inglese has four 20-loss seasons in four years. Then again, no one seems to care about women's BB in Massachusetts or Rhode Island.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
The fate of UConn
On Swish Appeal, a good friend asks the question "How will UConn do in the AAC long-term?" It's such a good question that it deserves an expanded answer.
If things really don't change between now and x number of years down the line, Connecticut bumps into the select mortality problem. Select mortality is an actuarial science concept dealing with life insurance. There is something called a mortality table which is used to set rates for life insurance. However, when you underwrite life insurance, you're not going to sell any to a 40-year old with terminal Stage IV cancer. In general, the group of people to whom you sell life insurance is a select group, with mortality rates slightly better than the average American. This allows you to lower the prices a little bit, and to be competitive in the market, because the probability of a person in the select pool dying in the short term is less than that of the general population.
As a rule, however, after something called the select period, the pool you started out with starts to look more and more like the general population. After this period, the mortality of your starting group is no different from that of the average American. That period could be two years, three years, five years depending on how you underwrite, but after x amount of time you can no longer assume that your underwritten pool members are any healthier than Joe or Jane Six-Pack.
Thus, Connecticut. Connecticut is in the American conference, which I have as a mid-major conference. Will Connecticut be superior this year? Yes. But the forces of being in a mid-major conference - decreased access to money and media attention - will slowly wear Connecticut down and after some given select period, Connecticut will be no different from any good mid-major team. Good for maybe one or two wins in the big tournament, but going no farther.
Geno Auriemma is what, 59? He's good for probaby another decade, if he stays healthy. But you never know. Pat Summitt is only two years older than Geno, and health took her out of the picture at Tennessee. As you get older, your energy flags and health problems which were non-existent at 20 and nagging at 40 become serious at 60. Do you really think that Auriemma can fight being in a mid-major conference single handed? Connecticut won't have the cash for facilities or salaries that the power conferences have. The Huskies will start to fall behind on the athletic side, and if there's another Pat Summitt out there waiting in a power conference, then you can't even confirm that Auriemma can make the American Conference great single-handedly.
Of course, this is all if things stay the same. But they don't.
Zhou Enlai, first premier of the People's Republic of China, supposedly said about the impact of the French Revolution that "It is too soon to tell". That would be the right answer to give, it's too soon to tell.
A lot can happen "in the long term":
SCENARIO ONE
The American Conference is a very poachable conference. By "poachable", I mean that its membership can be picked off for future expansion.
Cincinnati: Could end up either in the ACC or Big 12 someday.
Central Florida: A longshot to ACC if Miami or Florida State leave, but would be behind South Florida.
Houston: Big 12 if Big 12 loses members.
Louisville: Already out the door to the ACC next season.
Memphis: Big 12 if Big 12 loses members.
Rutgers: Already out the door to the Big Ten next season.
South Florida: If either Miami or Florida State leaves the ACC, South Florida could be the replacement.
Southern Methodist: Future Big 12 option.
Temple: Longshot to the ACC, see below.
East Carolina (2014): Probably not going anywhere after they join the American. A great football team without a television market.
Tulane (2014): Really shaky, also glad to have a home somewhere.
Tulsa (2014): Ditto.
So as you can see, many current teams in the American could be snatched if either a) a power conference wants to expand someday, or b) a power conference gets poached by another power conference and the victim needs an emergency replacement.
But what about Connecticut? Connecticut brings ESPN. The problem is that
a) geographically, the team isn't a fit for the Pac-12 or the SEC.
b) the academics at Connecticut aren't good enough for a Big Ten team.
c) the Big Twelve probably doesn't want to expand that far.
The only real fit is the ACC. God knows Connecticut wants to be in the ACC; they'd jump ship in three seconds if given any sort of opportunity. But Boston College doesn't want them in the ACC - there's some bad blood between both schools.
If the ACC gets poached - or wishes to expand - the Huskies could team up with Temple and join the conference in a two-fer. Hey, stranger things have happened. Coming in with UConn would be the only way Temple could ever get into the ACC.
What does this mean for women's basketball if it happens? A lot. Being in the ACC would give Connecticut instant credibility and Geno can be on top of the mountain all he wants to be. On the other hand, if other teams EXCEPT Connecticut get poached and the conference has to replenish itself with the Sun Belt teams of the world, then expect the deceleration to happen sooner rather than later.
SCENARIO TWO
Connecticut gets better at football. Unfortunately, we don't really know if football is expected to be the driving engine of the Connecticut athletic universe. Basketball had that job previously, and I think that Connecticut has only had a D-I team for less than 20 years (and they ain't doing so hot this season).
But if Connecticut could somehow transform itself into a powerhouse - well, a lot of conferences will make a lot of exceptions for a great football team with an ESPN affiliation. A powerhouse football team would bring revenue, which means revenue for women's basketball.
Either that, or the entire conference (including Connecticut) gets better and somehow lifts itself to true automatic qualifier status. I don't see that happening with the current motley crew in the American.
So what are Connecticut's chances of being a Top Four Division I women's basketball team?
Short run: good
Long run: depends on football or conference realignment. And Connecticut shouldn't hang its laundry on either one of those. The chances are better than even that Connecticut will decline. That's just the way things go.
If things really don't change between now and x number of years down the line, Connecticut bumps into the select mortality problem. Select mortality is an actuarial science concept dealing with life insurance. There is something called a mortality table which is used to set rates for life insurance. However, when you underwrite life insurance, you're not going to sell any to a 40-year old with terminal Stage IV cancer. In general, the group of people to whom you sell life insurance is a select group, with mortality rates slightly better than the average American. This allows you to lower the prices a little bit, and to be competitive in the market, because the probability of a person in the select pool dying in the short term is less than that of the general population.
As a rule, however, after something called the select period, the pool you started out with starts to look more and more like the general population. After this period, the mortality of your starting group is no different from that of the average American. That period could be two years, three years, five years depending on how you underwrite, but after x amount of time you can no longer assume that your underwritten pool members are any healthier than Joe or Jane Six-Pack.
Thus, Connecticut. Connecticut is in the American conference, which I have as a mid-major conference. Will Connecticut be superior this year? Yes. But the forces of being in a mid-major conference - decreased access to money and media attention - will slowly wear Connecticut down and after some given select period, Connecticut will be no different from any good mid-major team. Good for maybe one or two wins in the big tournament, but going no farther.
Geno Auriemma is what, 59? He's good for probaby another decade, if he stays healthy. But you never know. Pat Summitt is only two years older than Geno, and health took her out of the picture at Tennessee. As you get older, your energy flags and health problems which were non-existent at 20 and nagging at 40 become serious at 60. Do you really think that Auriemma can fight being in a mid-major conference single handed? Connecticut won't have the cash for facilities or salaries that the power conferences have. The Huskies will start to fall behind on the athletic side, and if there's another Pat Summitt out there waiting in a power conference, then you can't even confirm that Auriemma can make the American Conference great single-handedly.
Of course, this is all if things stay the same. But they don't.
Zhou Enlai, first premier of the People's Republic of China, supposedly said about the impact of the French Revolution that "It is too soon to tell". That would be the right answer to give, it's too soon to tell.
A lot can happen "in the long term":
SCENARIO ONE
The American Conference is a very poachable conference. By "poachable", I mean that its membership can be picked off for future expansion.
Cincinnati: Could end up either in the ACC or Big 12 someday.
Central Florida: A longshot to ACC if Miami or Florida State leave, but would be behind South Florida.
Houston: Big 12 if Big 12 loses members.
Louisville: Already out the door to the ACC next season.
Memphis: Big 12 if Big 12 loses members.
Rutgers: Already out the door to the Big Ten next season.
South Florida: If either Miami or Florida State leaves the ACC, South Florida could be the replacement.
Southern Methodist: Future Big 12 option.
Temple: Longshot to the ACC, see below.
East Carolina (2014): Probably not going anywhere after they join the American. A great football team without a television market.
Tulane (2014): Really shaky, also glad to have a home somewhere.
Tulsa (2014): Ditto.
So as you can see, many current teams in the American could be snatched if either a) a power conference wants to expand someday, or b) a power conference gets poached by another power conference and the victim needs an emergency replacement.
But what about Connecticut? Connecticut brings ESPN. The problem is that
a) geographically, the team isn't a fit for the Pac-12 or the SEC.
b) the academics at Connecticut aren't good enough for a Big Ten team.
c) the Big Twelve probably doesn't want to expand that far.
The only real fit is the ACC. God knows Connecticut wants to be in the ACC; they'd jump ship in three seconds if given any sort of opportunity. But Boston College doesn't want them in the ACC - there's some bad blood between both schools.
If the ACC gets poached - or wishes to expand - the Huskies could team up with Temple and join the conference in a two-fer. Hey, stranger things have happened. Coming in with UConn would be the only way Temple could ever get into the ACC.
What does this mean for women's basketball if it happens? A lot. Being in the ACC would give Connecticut instant credibility and Geno can be on top of the mountain all he wants to be. On the other hand, if other teams EXCEPT Connecticut get poached and the conference has to replenish itself with the Sun Belt teams of the world, then expect the deceleration to happen sooner rather than later.
SCENARIO TWO
Connecticut gets better at football. Unfortunately, we don't really know if football is expected to be the driving engine of the Connecticut athletic universe. Basketball had that job previously, and I think that Connecticut has only had a D-I team for less than 20 years (and they ain't doing so hot this season).
But if Connecticut could somehow transform itself into a powerhouse - well, a lot of conferences will make a lot of exceptions for a great football team with an ESPN affiliation. A powerhouse football team would bring revenue, which means revenue for women's basketball.
Either that, or the entire conference (including Connecticut) gets better and somehow lifts itself to true automatic qualifier status. I don't see that happening with the current motley crew in the American.
So what are Connecticut's chances of being a Top Four Division I women's basketball team?
Short run: good
Long run: depends on football or conference realignment. And Connecticut shouldn't hang its laundry on either one of those. The chances are better than even that Connecticut will decline. That's just the way things go.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Who Needs a Championship Trophy?
We're rolling on into the women's basketball season again. On Twitter, someone quoted a comment from Geno Auriemma (or maybe from an Auriemma fan) that out of the handful of players that have left the Connecticut program, none was ever successful anywhere else.
I countered with two. One was Elena Delle Donne, but both of us agreed that Delle Donne's case comes with a big asterisk. The other case is that of Samarie Walker, now a senior at Kentucky. Walker averaged 6.2 ppg/5.8 rpg during her lone season as a Huskie. At Kentucky, she's slightly better:
2011-12: 8.7 ppg/7.2 rpg
2012-13: 8.7 ppg/8.1 rpg
Maybe Walker was no more successful at UK than at UConn - but you couldn't argue that she was less successful, and she'll probably be a WNBA Draft pick.
The important thing - in Samarie Walker's eyes, anyway, is the following stat:
2010-11: 18.8 mpg
2011-12: 20.7 mpg
2012-13: 26.6 mpg
Walker left supposedly because she had other priorities - lost her passion for basketball, wanted to study design in Chicago, whatever - it looks like Connecticut cut her loose and basically shoved her out the door.
Anyway, the details aren't important to the point I want to make. The point I want to make comes from, of all places, one of those awful Star Trek paperback fiction novels I used to be into. It was about Commander Chekov's career outside of the Enterprise in a book that took place in the (old) movie universe.
Chekov faced a dilemma in his life. He was a talented officer, but he wasn't James T. Kirk. Chekov was never going to command the Enterprise, or a ship even remotely like the Enterprise. He thus faced two choices: he could be a first officer on a so-so ship like the Reliant, or he could be a role-player on a elite ship like the Enterprise. So which one is it going to be?
This is a question that a lot of recruits face. Take a look at the bottom part of Connecticut's bench. That would have been Kiah Stokes and Heather Buck if I'm reading things right. Both of them started a grand total of one game. They averaged 2.8 and 0.8 ppg, respectively.
At a low major program, they probably would have started. But they chose to be role players at Connecticut. They're the Ensign Chekovs of the Huskies.
Why? Well, I assume if you asked them in an unguarded moment, they'd say, "Because Connecticut wins national championships, and I want to win a national championship."
To which - if I'm being perverse here - I might ask, "Why?" (If I were recruiting against Connecticut, I'd ask this question.) What exactly do you get out of being the 10th or 11th bench player on a championship team? Not much, I'd say. You might get to go on a lot of trips and have Obama shake your hand. You might get a ring out of it and the chance to tell some great stories.
You also get a front row view of everyone else playing basketball, while you applaud from your bench seat. You also get to work as hard - even harder, perhaps, than Mosqueda-Lewis or Faris for the privilege of NOT getting to play.
Everyone knows who Diana Taurasi and Sue Bird are? Can you name the 10th or 11th players off the bench on those teams? Ever hear of Kiana Robinson or Stacey Marron? Unless you bleed Connecticut blue, you're probably scratching your heads. (Geno never talks about them.) Diana Taurasi might have heard of them; they were the bench players during the 2003-04 season when UConn beat Tennessee.
Someone recently pointed me to an essay on the movie Glengarry Glen Ross, particulary the famous "motivational" scene from Alec Baldwin. My wife - who is in sales - loved this movie, and I hated it because Baldwin's character was such a preening narcissist. But I finally understood it and appreciated it.
In it, Baldwin has been assigned to light a fire under an under-performing sales staff:
Blake: You certainly don't pal. 'Cause the good news is -- you're fired. The bad news is you've got, all you got, just one week to regain your jobs, starting tonight. Starting with tonights sit. Oh, have I got your attention now? Good. 'Cause we're adding a little something to this months sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anyone want to see second prize? Second prize's a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired. You get the picture? You're laughing now? You got leads. Mitch and Murray paid good money. Get their names to sell them! You can't close the leads you're given, you can't close shit, you ARE shit, hit the bricks pal and beat it 'cause you are going out!!!
In the essay, the author talks about the idea of "prizes" as motivators. You can always work hard to get a set of steak knives. And if steak knives don't motivate you, there's always the negative motivator of being fired. The problem is that Levene and Moss and Aaronow need some kind of motivation, positive or negative.
But the essayists makes the point that guys like Blake aren't even motivated by the first prize - the Cadillac Eldorado. Oh sure, he'll show it off. "That watch cost more than your car". But the Blakes in this world are motivated to be the best. They don't need external motivations to do what they do.
"It takes brass balls to sell real estate," he later says, using an appropriate prop. That's Blake's motivation. To show the world that he has brass balls.
Pete Rose used to say that he'd run through hell in a gasoline suit to play basketball. I think that Diana Taurasi is the same way, she'd play just as hard for Binghamton as she'd have played for UConn.
So what is the point of playing basketball? It's to get better. The best players want to get better all the time. But if you're not on the court, how on earth are you really going to get better? You can't get better at basketball unless you play basketball. Who knows, maybe Kiah Stokes and Heather Buck are really, really great basketball players. But looking at the box scores, that's kind of hard to say.
The number one consideration for any basketball recruit should be playing time. There are lots of coaches out there who can make you better; Geno Auriemma doesn't hold the monopoly. Can you honestly tell me that Auriemma is really a better coach or a better developer of basketball talent than Kathy Delaney-Smith over at Harvard? And don't point to the national championships; Delaney-Smith will never have the raw talent that Auriemma has. One of Delaney-Smith's teams was the only team in NCAA basketball history where a #16 seed beat a #1 seed (with caveats).
You really think that Auriemma can make you a better player than Delaney-Smith could? Really? Tell me what metric measures that.
If I were in the shoes of the 11th or 12th player on the UConn bench, if it looked like I'd be saying "nice job!" to the Maya Moores and Tina Charleses and Sue Birds of the world, I'd ask for a transfer immediately. An NCAA basketball player gets four years to play basketball. A recruit should go to the place where her chances of playing basketball are maximized - period - because how is she going to get better if she doesn't play?
"But you'd be giving up a national championship!" That's an externality. That's like playing for the Cadillac Eldorado. The best players don't need the external motivation. They want to be the best they can be whether they're playing at Division I or Division III. The best players play hard all the time, no matter where they're playing. (Not coincidentally, those are exactly the players that Auriemma looks for.)
If someone told me that the cost of transferring out of UConn was abandoning a national championship, I'd reply that I'd rather be Chekov on the Reliant than Chekov on the Enterprise. You might end up with an earworm digging a tunnel into your brain -- but at least you'd be in command.
I countered with two. One was Elena Delle Donne, but both of us agreed that Delle Donne's case comes with a big asterisk. The other case is that of Samarie Walker, now a senior at Kentucky. Walker averaged 6.2 ppg/5.8 rpg during her lone season as a Huskie. At Kentucky, she's slightly better:
2011-12: 8.7 ppg/7.2 rpg
2012-13: 8.7 ppg/8.1 rpg
Maybe Walker was no more successful at UK than at UConn - but you couldn't argue that she was less successful, and she'll probably be a WNBA Draft pick.
The important thing - in Samarie Walker's eyes, anyway, is the following stat:
2010-11: 18.8 mpg
2011-12: 20.7 mpg
2012-13: 26.6 mpg
Walker left supposedly because she had other priorities - lost her passion for basketball, wanted to study design in Chicago, whatever - it looks like Connecticut cut her loose and basically shoved her out the door.
Anyway, the details aren't important to the point I want to make. The point I want to make comes from, of all places, one of those awful Star Trek paperback fiction novels I used to be into. It was about Commander Chekov's career outside of the Enterprise in a book that took place in the (old) movie universe.
Chekov faced a dilemma in his life. He was a talented officer, but he wasn't James T. Kirk. Chekov was never going to command the Enterprise, or a ship even remotely like the Enterprise. He thus faced two choices: he could be a first officer on a so-so ship like the Reliant, or he could be a role-player on a elite ship like the Enterprise. So which one is it going to be?
This is a question that a lot of recruits face. Take a look at the bottom part of Connecticut's bench. That would have been Kiah Stokes and Heather Buck if I'm reading things right. Both of them started a grand total of one game. They averaged 2.8 and 0.8 ppg, respectively.
At a low major program, they probably would have started. But they chose to be role players at Connecticut. They're the Ensign Chekovs of the Huskies.
Why? Well, I assume if you asked them in an unguarded moment, they'd say, "Because Connecticut wins national championships, and I want to win a national championship."
To which - if I'm being perverse here - I might ask, "Why?" (If I were recruiting against Connecticut, I'd ask this question.) What exactly do you get out of being the 10th or 11th bench player on a championship team? Not much, I'd say. You might get to go on a lot of trips and have Obama shake your hand. You might get a ring out of it and the chance to tell some great stories.
You also get a front row view of everyone else playing basketball, while you applaud from your bench seat. You also get to work as hard - even harder, perhaps, than Mosqueda-Lewis or Faris for the privilege of NOT getting to play.
Everyone knows who Diana Taurasi and Sue Bird are? Can you name the 10th or 11th players off the bench on those teams? Ever hear of Kiana Robinson or Stacey Marron? Unless you bleed Connecticut blue, you're probably scratching your heads. (Geno never talks about them.) Diana Taurasi might have heard of them; they were the bench players during the 2003-04 season when UConn beat Tennessee.
Someone recently pointed me to an essay on the movie Glengarry Glen Ross, particulary the famous "motivational" scene from Alec Baldwin. My wife - who is in sales - loved this movie, and I hated it because Baldwin's character was such a preening narcissist. But I finally understood it and appreciated it.
In it, Baldwin has been assigned to light a fire under an under-performing sales staff:
Blake: You certainly don't pal. 'Cause the good news is -- you're fired. The bad news is you've got, all you got, just one week to regain your jobs, starting tonight. Starting with tonights sit. Oh, have I got your attention now? Good. 'Cause we're adding a little something to this months sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anyone want to see second prize? Second prize's a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired. You get the picture? You're laughing now? You got leads. Mitch and Murray paid good money. Get their names to sell them! You can't close the leads you're given, you can't close shit, you ARE shit, hit the bricks pal and beat it 'cause you are going out!!!
In the essay, the author talks about the idea of "prizes" as motivators. You can always work hard to get a set of steak knives. And if steak knives don't motivate you, there's always the negative motivator of being fired. The problem is that Levene and Moss and Aaronow need some kind of motivation, positive or negative.
But the essayists makes the point that guys like Blake aren't even motivated by the first prize - the Cadillac Eldorado. Oh sure, he'll show it off. "That watch cost more than your car". But the Blakes in this world are motivated to be the best. They don't need external motivations to do what they do.
"It takes brass balls to sell real estate," he later says, using an appropriate prop. That's Blake's motivation. To show the world that he has brass balls.
Pete Rose used to say that he'd run through hell in a gasoline suit to play basketball. I think that Diana Taurasi is the same way, she'd play just as hard for Binghamton as she'd have played for UConn.
So what is the point of playing basketball? It's to get better. The best players want to get better all the time. But if you're not on the court, how on earth are you really going to get better? You can't get better at basketball unless you play basketball. Who knows, maybe Kiah Stokes and Heather Buck are really, really great basketball players. But looking at the box scores, that's kind of hard to say.
The number one consideration for any basketball recruit should be playing time. There are lots of coaches out there who can make you better; Geno Auriemma doesn't hold the monopoly. Can you honestly tell me that Auriemma is really a better coach or a better developer of basketball talent than Kathy Delaney-Smith over at Harvard? And don't point to the national championships; Delaney-Smith will never have the raw talent that Auriemma has. One of Delaney-Smith's teams was the only team in NCAA basketball history where a #16 seed beat a #1 seed (with caveats).
You really think that Auriemma can make you a better player than Delaney-Smith could? Really? Tell me what metric measures that.
If I were in the shoes of the 11th or 12th player on the UConn bench, if it looked like I'd be saying "nice job!" to the Maya Moores and Tina Charleses and Sue Birds of the world, I'd ask for a transfer immediately. An NCAA basketball player gets four years to play basketball. A recruit should go to the place where her chances of playing basketball are maximized - period - because how is she going to get better if she doesn't play?
"But you'd be giving up a national championship!" That's an externality. That's like playing for the Cadillac Eldorado. The best players don't need the external motivation. They want to be the best they can be whether they're playing at Division I or Division III. The best players play hard all the time, no matter where they're playing. (Not coincidentally, those are exactly the players that Auriemma looks for.)
If someone told me that the cost of transferring out of UConn was abandoning a national championship, I'd reply that I'd rather be Chekov on the Reliant than Chekov on the Enterprise. You might end up with an earworm digging a tunnel into your brain -- but at least you'd be in command.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Fred, We Hardly Knew Ye
As time passes, more and more ties are broken from the founding of the Atlanta Dream franchise. When Fred Williams was fired on Friday - let's skip the euphemisms, we're adults here - the only person who is either a player or coach still left from 2008 is Erika de Souza - and she didn't even start playing at the beginning of the season due to injury.
So why get rid of Senor Fred? Clearly, the DFO weren't happy about the Dream's oh-for-three again in the Finals. (They had to pay for a game in Gwinnett that they were probably going to lose. That cost money.) That 25 percent or so shooting game in Game One of the Eastern Semifinals might have sealed Williams's fate right there.
The fact is, in basketball a team can get lucky in a short three-game series and more so in the WNBA because there's more parity there than in the NBA. The Noll-Scully Index for the league this year was 1.88 - much better than 2012's 2.49 or 2011's 2.30. (As a matter of fact, 1.88 is the weighted average Noll-Scully across all 17 seasons.)
Not a single team in the league finished with less than 10 wins. The last time that happened was in 2009, the most competitive season in WNBA history.
So with so much parity (relatively speaking for basketball), the Dream escaped the first round alive when Washington handed Game 2 right back to them and the Fever choked. The DFO should have been happy that Senor Fred even got as far as the Finals; it wasn't as if anyone thought the Dream had a chance anyway.
Why was he fired? Who knows? Williams was a player's coach, and sometimes it showed. McCoughtry playing one-on-four against the Lynx in the paint. Thomas jacking up shots less than 10 seconds into the shot clock.
The problem the DFO have is that the current configuration of the Dream won't work with anyone but a player's coach. I suspect that Williams was more McCoughtry's traveling confidante/psychiatrist than anything else. The Dream were playing smart ball the first 11 games of the season; then Lyttle got hurt and it was back to the same old McCoughtry-vs-the-world gameplan.
You could get Corey Gaines as our new coach, I suppose. Hey, the Dream wouldn't even have to play defense under him! But who wants that?
As someone said on RebKell, there are three scenarios that could explain why Williams had to eat boot.
1) "Pump and dump": The owner of the Golden State Warriors has been talking about getting a WNBA franchise to match his NBA toy. However, he doesn't want an expansion franchise that will stink up the joint for 10 years (see: Lynx). So he's in the market for a experienced franchise with talent.
Therefore, the Brock/Loeffler team are going to make one last push. They'll spend what they're allowed to and connive as much as they can. If the team can't win with Williams, they'll get a new coach and a deeper bench to make that push. Maybe another conference championship.
Then, when the Dream stock is high again, they call Mr. Golden State. He offers them a couple of million dollars for their losses over the years and guess what? We have the California Dream. (Hint: if the new coach is Jenny Boucek, players should start looking for apartments in Oakland.)
2) McCoughtry left for Europe and her Turkish season sometime around Thursday. She had a hand in getting rid of one coach, why not get rid of a second one before the European season starts? When Meadors lost her power struggle with McCoughtry, that meant that McCoughtry ran the team in the eyes of the DFO. McCoughtry - never one to blame herself - might have put a bug in Brock or Loeffler's ear.
"Hey, if Williams wasn't our head coach, we could have won." Dolchstoss!
3) It could be that frankly, the DFO is tired of McCoughtry's bullshit.
There are three constants over these three finals - Erika de Souza, Armintie Herrington, and McCoughtry. We got in a new coach; nothing changed. More finals failure. If it's not the coach's fault, then it must be the players.
So who do you get rid of? You get rid of the biggest pain-in-the-ass, McCoughtry. (It's not like we're selling tickets because of her, anyway.) Willliams's dismissal gets rid of her defender. The new coach (whoever that is) is told to deal McCoughtry off. I bet Bill Laimbeer is pounding his pillow at night in frustration, swearing because he has no player of McCoughtry's caliber to deal. Of course, if the Libs get the #1 pick...then he'd get Charles, who isn't the PITA that McCoughtry is.
The idea is that the old order doesn't work, so you blow crap up. No one is safe. Not Williams, not McCoughtry, not nobody. We get a new coach and a brand new team after all the parts are dealt. (Hey, why not get Laimbeer as head coach? He'll call a few friends!)
What do I think about Fred Williams? I think he's a great guy. I think that under the right circumstances, he's a great coach. (Although he's definitely laid back.) He can evaluate talent. With the right mix of players, he's just as capable a head coach as anyone out there.
He's a great person. Easy to talk to. I'll miss him, definitely.
I suspect that Julie Plank is going to be offered the baton next. Rumor I heard was that Fred Williams was let go because Tulsa started asking about Julie Plank and the Dream didn't want another Carol Ross situation to happen. Don't know what Julie Plank is like. I might have the chance to find out.
SIDE RANT: The 2013 Lynx finished 1.377 standard deviations above the mean in the regular season. That won't even get you into the Top 14 WNBA teams of all time, and yet Minnesota's fans talk as if Minnesota is the 1927 Murderer's Row. Sorry, but you need a lot deeper bench and you need to play against a lot tougher competition to be considered a dynasty. (Furthermore, if Minnesota is so great, how did they lose to Indiana in 2012 in four games? The Fever finished fourth overall in the WNBA and no WNBA team to win a championship had ever finished so low overall.)
So why get rid of Senor Fred? Clearly, the DFO weren't happy about the Dream's oh-for-three again in the Finals. (They had to pay for a game in Gwinnett that they were probably going to lose. That cost money.) That 25 percent or so shooting game in Game One of the Eastern Semifinals might have sealed Williams's fate right there.
The fact is, in basketball a team can get lucky in a short three-game series and more so in the WNBA because there's more parity there than in the NBA. The Noll-Scully Index for the league this year was 1.88 - much better than 2012's 2.49 or 2011's 2.30. (As a matter of fact, 1.88 is the weighted average Noll-Scully across all 17 seasons.)
Not a single team in the league finished with less than 10 wins. The last time that happened was in 2009, the most competitive season in WNBA history.
So with so much parity (relatively speaking for basketball), the Dream escaped the first round alive when Washington handed Game 2 right back to them and the Fever choked. The DFO should have been happy that Senor Fred even got as far as the Finals; it wasn't as if anyone thought the Dream had a chance anyway.
Why was he fired? Who knows? Williams was a player's coach, and sometimes it showed. McCoughtry playing one-on-four against the Lynx in the paint. Thomas jacking up shots less than 10 seconds into the shot clock.
The problem the DFO have is that the current configuration of the Dream won't work with anyone but a player's coach. I suspect that Williams was more McCoughtry's traveling confidante/psychiatrist than anything else. The Dream were playing smart ball the first 11 games of the season; then Lyttle got hurt and it was back to the same old McCoughtry-vs-the-world gameplan.
You could get Corey Gaines as our new coach, I suppose. Hey, the Dream wouldn't even have to play defense under him! But who wants that?
As someone said on RebKell, there are three scenarios that could explain why Williams had to eat boot.
1) "Pump and dump": The owner of the Golden State Warriors has been talking about getting a WNBA franchise to match his NBA toy. However, he doesn't want an expansion franchise that will stink up the joint for 10 years (see: Lynx). So he's in the market for a experienced franchise with talent.
Therefore, the Brock/Loeffler team are going to make one last push. They'll spend what they're allowed to and connive as much as they can. If the team can't win with Williams, they'll get a new coach and a deeper bench to make that push. Maybe another conference championship.
Then, when the Dream stock is high again, they call Mr. Golden State. He offers them a couple of million dollars for their losses over the years and guess what? We have the California Dream. (Hint: if the new coach is Jenny Boucek, players should start looking for apartments in Oakland.)
2) McCoughtry left for Europe and her Turkish season sometime around Thursday. She had a hand in getting rid of one coach, why not get rid of a second one before the European season starts? When Meadors lost her power struggle with McCoughtry, that meant that McCoughtry ran the team in the eyes of the DFO. McCoughtry - never one to blame herself - might have put a bug in Brock or Loeffler's ear.
"Hey, if Williams wasn't our head coach, we could have won." Dolchstoss!
3) It could be that frankly, the DFO is tired of McCoughtry's bullshit.
There are three constants over these three finals - Erika de Souza, Armintie Herrington, and McCoughtry. We got in a new coach; nothing changed. More finals failure. If it's not the coach's fault, then it must be the players.
So who do you get rid of? You get rid of the biggest pain-in-the-ass, McCoughtry. (It's not like we're selling tickets because of her, anyway.) Willliams's dismissal gets rid of her defender. The new coach (whoever that is) is told to deal McCoughtry off. I bet Bill Laimbeer is pounding his pillow at night in frustration, swearing because he has no player of McCoughtry's caliber to deal. Of course, if the Libs get the #1 pick...then he'd get Charles, who isn't the PITA that McCoughtry is.
The idea is that the old order doesn't work, so you blow crap up. No one is safe. Not Williams, not McCoughtry, not nobody. We get a new coach and a brand new team after all the parts are dealt. (Hey, why not get Laimbeer as head coach? He'll call a few friends!)
What do I think about Fred Williams? I think he's a great guy. I think that under the right circumstances, he's a great coach. (Although he's definitely laid back.) He can evaluate talent. With the right mix of players, he's just as capable a head coach as anyone out there.
He's a great person. Easy to talk to. I'll miss him, definitely.
I suspect that Julie Plank is going to be offered the baton next. Rumor I heard was that Fred Williams was let go because Tulsa started asking about Julie Plank and the Dream didn't want another Carol Ross situation to happen. Don't know what Julie Plank is like. I might have the chance to find out.
SIDE RANT: The 2013 Lynx finished 1.377 standard deviations above the mean in the regular season. That won't even get you into the Top 14 WNBA teams of all time, and yet Minnesota's fans talk as if Minnesota is the 1927 Murderer's Row. Sorry, but you need a lot deeper bench and you need to play against a lot tougher competition to be considered a dynasty. (Furthermore, if Minnesota is so great, how did they lose to Indiana in 2012 in four games? The Fever finished fourth overall in the WNBA and no WNBA team to win a championship had ever finished so low overall.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)