WCH.com Boise Preview

[Bball Girl]

WCH.com has certainly gotten some flak this year but their analysis of the games in Boise is interesting. Take a look at
http://www.womenscollegehoops.com/16boise.htm

it is weird that they have had CU as their darkhorse to make it to the Final 4 for some time...but now they see it differently.

I haven't seen Stanford play enough to know if I agree with this analysis or not.

The Tech OU analysis was pretty good and it matches what I see as stengths and weaknesses for both teams. Although I would add turnovers as criteria and that would be more of a weakness for OU than Tech. However, OU is usually able to compensate for those turnovers in one way or another.

[Jennifer]

Interesting....I'm surprised they only rate OU's defense a 3 though.

I think Nightingale could easily run w/ Powell for 40 minutes, but there's that problem w/ the height differential...
still, that should be a great game!

[swok34]

And rated OU's depth with a "4".............hahahahahahahahahaha.
Where are these girls I know nothing about and haven't seen play all year, hiding under the bench?

[Jennifer]

LOL Swok, I sorta thought the same thing, but then I realized the quality of the one sub that gets many minutes and thought she alone was worth a 4. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif That little girl can jump, can run, and can play some tight D.

[YCN]

I sorta looked at it like this...

Since she is a future 1-4 superstar (name your position), the writer lost his/her mind and decided that OU had 4 strong players off the bench.

Either that, or he/she has a problem with excessive blinking, and everytime that person watched the OU team, it looked like there were 8 players on the court.

[kate dawg]

Homer alert, homer alert.

Okay I don't know jack about the stanford analysis, but I know this: the analysis of OU and CU is crap. These teams were 1-2 all season long in the Big 12 in defense and they get 3's on d? Give me a break.

It's annoying that all year CU is their darkhorse for the final four, yet now, when it's go time, they dis the Buffs. Whatever. They also picked LSU to beat CU. Yeah, oh wait....that didn't happen either.

Colorado also doesn't deserve a four on rebounding. Like a one is more like it. HOpefully they show us something better this weekend so that the Big 12 is assured of one team in the FF. Let's go Big 12 (although it is difficult to say that since 75% of the CU region is big 12, but it's all good).

[YCN]

kate dawg,

What do you think of the offense that Coach Barry has decided to go with for the tournament, the triple post.

Do you think that this is an experiment that will sink or swim against the Cardinal?


[This message has been edited by YCN (edited 03-20-2002).]

[unkiemark]

Okay, as hard as it is to type I'm going to give it a try as there are several items I feel compelled to respnd to.

"the triple post" ? CU is running the same offense - a version of the trangle - it has all sesason. Within this offense it is possible - at times - for the forwards to flash post. So I suppose you could say all three front court players can post up.

Concernimg the WCH preview I agree with Kate that CU is not a good rebounding team. One key to the game will be keeping Powell and Yamasaki off the boards - but it will be tough.

Nightingale can run all game with Powell - but she can't keep her from scoring on post up moves. That is the dilemma the coaches must be working on now. The Buff with the ability to best defend Powell is Linda Lappe. The issue then is how to match up with the other Stanford players.

CU must get scoring from its centers to keep pressure off its guards.

It's gonna be a tough but CU does have a shot at the Cardinal.




------------------
MarkW

[swok34]

unkiemark......have missed you this year, very good to see you.

Go http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/cu.gif

[Jennifer]

Welcome Back, UnkieMark.

I also paused when I saw them give Colorado a 4 on rebounding. I didn't recall them being a great rebounding team.

[two cents]

The people at WCH.com are probably more knowledgeable than me, but I wonder about some points in their analysis also. It seems like CU's depth rating should be a 5. They have it and they use it to their tactical advantage. Is SU really the quicker team? Should I be looking for Enghausen to beat Bjorklund down court? Yamasaki to beat Roulier? I know Stanford passes well in transition, but will Colorado forego opportunities to run the floor in order to "play more deliberate than it likes"? I remember last year's tourney game between OU/CU. Colorado has a pretty good running game of its own when slated against running teams. Rebounding will be critical for the Buffs of course.

I also agree that both CU and OU got short-changed on the defensive marks. Oklahoma's defense has been better than Tech's all season. The Sooners' offense is difficult to match up with, but it was their defense that got them two double digit victories over the Raiders. Pressure and quick recovery prevented Tech's shooters from getting into a flow and gaining confidence.

[mc6821]

I wonder if anyone at WCH has even seen a CU game this year...

[DblT81]

Aren't the WCH bunch, if there is a bunch, proponents of betting on wcbb?

Could that affect when and what they say about teams?