Kudos to NCAA Women's Tourney for tonight's matchups

[TheSuzerain]

Iowa could win. Their whole thing is "if we score 90, there's a very good chance the other team simply can't keep up." That has some merit even against SC.

I'm sure SC rightfully favored, but Iowa isn't really a Cinderella. Clark is that good.

[Wingy]

I just came back in here because I saw that exact same angle in slo-mo for the first time today, and its clearly a more significant foul than I thought it was last night.

Yep. The commentators done us wrong. I don't exactly blame then because it's their job to explain what they see, but unfortunately they were working off incomplete information.

They showed a couple of angles during the broadcast, and in one of them you could see her shift her lower body before the contact but it appeared minimal at most. This angle and speed though, very obviously a call-worthy foul at any point of a game. Gripe withdrawn.

You definitely see what I mean in my post above then. I thought the exact same as you did last night. Foul yes, swallow the whistle - yes. But seeing it from better angles it was the right call and kudos to that official. Not just the body/elbow, and the dragging right foot, but her left had basically jumped out into Marshall’s path of travel so would’ve been a tripping call if not for the upper contact. Her feet were spread so wide from her frame it’s pretty clear.

Re: this is just how screens happen. A seemingly very knowledgeable poster on the GB called out that’s an opinion held by those who’ve watched so much nba (all of us). I can’t validate, but they said it’s not so commonplace in the NCAA women’s game. I didn’t pay any attention to screens last night except the controversial one, but anecdotally, maybe there’s some truth given how infrequently Clark was able to see any kind of daylight. I saw attempted screens where the defender was able to stay with her, and probably indicative of less movement on the screen (compared to the league), plus Muhl working her ass off.

I hate the moving screen. Wish they’d call it all the time. Enforcing that one rule would probably be all they needed to do to balance out today’s crazy offensive explosion.

[Ice Man]

Iowa could win. Their whole thing is "if we score 90, there's a very good chance the other team simply can't keep up." That has some merit even against SC.

It certainly does. Iowa won their Final Four game last year and it's essentially an exact rematch. SC lost its best player but reloaded and is once again undefeated with an average victory margin of +28. The same margin as last year. Meanwhile, Iowa is running out the same lineup as in '23, except with Stuekle replacing Czinano (a wash) and Affolter replacing Warnock (perhaps a slight improvement).

Whatever the odds were last year, they are the same this year. And as the game result demonstrated, they weren't zero. Plus, it should be noted, Iowa won by scoring 77. So it could win by scoring less than 90 ...

[Wingy]

Random note, I mentioned consideration of dragging my middle-aged ass out to a bar to watch the elite 8, but ended up calling the too tired, too unmotivated card. I had the “duh” realization yesterday it would be cheaper to just pay $11 for a month of espn+ than going out.

I’m paying money to see the ladies, and I really don’t care about the men’s final four and will make no effort to see it. Even if it ends in the “marquee” 1 vs 1 UConn and Purdue, it’s unfortunately just not exciting for me.

It’s such a bummer when I think of the men’s side and its lack of stars compared to my youth when you had Laettner/Hurley/Hill, UNLV, Monster Mash, the Fab Five, the line of Georgetown centers, etc. (edit: sorry, Shaq!). Those days are gone and are never coming back.

[DropStep]

Iowa could win. Their whole thing is "if we score 90, there's a very good chance the other team simply can't keep up." That has some merit even against SC.

It certainly does. Iowa won their Final Four game last year and it's essentially an exact rematch. SC lost its best player but reloaded and is once again undefeated with an average victory margin of +28. The same margin as last year. Meanwhile, Iowa is running out the same lineup as in '23, except with Stuekle replacing Czinano (a wash) and Affolter replacing Warnock (perhaps a slight improvement).

Whatever the odds were last year, they are the same this year. And as the game result demonstrated, they weren't zero. Plus, it should be noted, Iowa won by scoring 77. So it could win by scoring less than 90 ...

It's not at all an exact rematch from the South Carolina side. As you noted, they lost their best player, the 2022 player of the year (Boston). But they also lost all five starters plus 2 more key reserves from the team that Iowa upset in the semis last year. This is basically an all-new South Carolina team, and they were ranked 6th in the preseason because of it, although they were back to #1 by the time the second poll came out. Obviously they are real good, but it was somewhat unexpected due to their relative youth/inexperience compared to last year's senior-laden team.

SC's odds were -675/-11.5 last year and are -110/-6.5 this year. So, Iowa should have a better shot this year than last year, theoretically.

[Ice Man]

It's not at all an exact rematch from the South Carolina side. As you noted, they lost their best player, the 2022 player of the year (Boston). But they also lost all five starters plus 2 more key reserves the team that Iowa upset in the semis last year. This is basically an all-new South Carolina team, and they were ranked 6th in the preseason because of it, although they were back to #1 by the time the second poll came out. Obviously they are real good, but it was somewhat unexpected due to their relative youth/inexperience compared to last year's senior-laden team.

Also SC's odds were -675/-11.5 last year and are -110/-6.5 this year.

OK, fair enough. My point was that a team that collects All-Americans and is undefeated with a +28 margin is of the same quality the next year when it has different All-Americans and is undefeated with a +28 margin.

But actually I now agree with you. The characteristics of SC have changed. Last year, Iowa had a clear defensive strategy. Pack the paint and dare a crappy shooting team to take 3s. Dawn Staley had done a John Thompson '88 by collecting defenders and athletes, but neglecting distance shooters. Not this year, South Carolina can hit 3s now. So, how do you stop them?

As a side note, while South Carolina has recruited 10 McDonald's All-Americans over the past 4 years, Iowa has 1 McDonald's All-American on its roster.

[dice]

It’s such a bummer when I think of the men’s side and its lack of stars compared to my youth when you had Laettner/Hurley/Hill, UNLV, Monster Mash, the Fab Five, the line of Georgetown centers, etc. (edit: sorry, Shaq!). Those days are gone and are never coming back.

NIL is good because it can keep college stars who are borderline nba players in school longer. but yeah, it was better for both college and nba when guys were in school longer

as for the women, that was the first full women's game i've ever watched. was hoping for a better star confrontation. just seemed that clark is much more capable of dominance if she is on. but the trouble she had against her primary defender may have killed off any thoughts she had of taking the $$$ to play against men

[Ice Man]

This is as good a place as any for me to register my dislike of modern media coverage, with its focus on finger pointing, blame, and quick-take gotcha stories. Article after article on Yahoo! and other such places attacks that final call in their stories' headlines, as if UConn deserved to win but was blatantly cheated by the referees.

That's trash. It's one thing if we get on here and say unfounded things. We're just fans talking to other fans. It should be quite another to print incorrect hot takes, based on incomplete information, as news.

[Wingy]

NIL is good because it can keep college stars who are borderline nba players in school longer. but yeah, it was better for both college and nba when guys were in school longer

as for the women, that was the first full women's game i've ever watched. was hoping for a better star confrontation. just seemed that clark is much more capable of dominance if she is on. but the trouble she had against her primary defender may have killed off any thoughts she had of taking the $$$ to play against men

Yeah, not that it helps poor Canadian Edey, but it will keep guys like him in school longer. I looked it up because of this thread, and an example of another guy like that is the long-haired big dude from Gonzaga. Said NIL definitely factored into his decision to stay another year. Still, I can’t even remember that guy’s name (ah, finally did, Timme), so doesn’t help the excitement factor. Star power matters a lot, and the real stars will be gone quick as ever.

Yeah, it wasn’t as well played a game as I would’ve liked to have seen, but I think there were some natural nerves of a Final Four, then extra nerves of the additional spotlight, and offense is going to struggle when defense goes that hard. I’m surprised more teams haven’t tried to guard Clark like that, but maybe that’s more a hat tip to Muhl being one of the best NCAA women’s defenders in the country.

Nobody who knows the game would realistically expect Clark to be a star against men. But with better teammates just kicking it to her for open 3s, no one shadowing her like she’s actually Steph Curry, teammates that command real attention, I think she would have her moments on offense as a role player amongst men in the Cube league. I’ve never watched any, but I always viewed that league more as a mix of competitive and entertainment.

[dice]

Nobody who knows the game would realistically expect Clark to be a star against men. But with better teammates just kicking it to her for open 3s, no one shadowing her like she’s actually Steph Curry, teammates that command real attention, I think she would have her moments on offense as a role player amongst men in the Cube league. I’ve never watched any, but I always viewed that league more as a mix of competitive and entertainment.

underrated factor is ball size, which requires an adjustment transitioning to big 3 and also back to women's game. significantly harder to shoot w/ men's ball

[Wingy]

underrated factor is ball size, which requires an adjustment transitioning to big 3 and also back to women's game. significantly harder to shoot w/ men's ball

I see this fairly often, but we have this one young woman that plays in the local men’s leagues. I heard someone say the other night she played D3 ball. Now mind you I’m in a very rural area, but still. She shoots it just fine with the men’s ball, is maybe 5’7 or 8, and is a solid contributor on offense. I think Clark’s (and anyone really) challenge isn’t the ball. It’s more that the gap between formerly elite men and presently elite women, for size/strength/athleticism, is much farther apart than my example of average Joe men and higher level women.

I’m not sure if it’s one of your points, but there could be a concern switching back and forth that could negatively impact her WNBA career/shooting.

I hope she does…whatever she wants. I think she can hold her own on offense. It’s guarding much bigger/stronger people that will be tough.

[Ice Man]

On a side note, Iowa women's team is a practical example of modern analytics in action. Clark's shot chart is typical of the team overall. You'd have to say that the strategy has been wildly successful, because no matter how good a single player is, no NCAA hoops team (men or women) should be in two consecutive Finals while only having a single future pro player.

(OK that final comment was true of last year's starting lineup. On this year's team Stuelke might make the show.)

[dougthonus]

I hope she does…whatever she wants. I think she can hold her own on offense. It’s guarding much bigger/stronger people that will be tough.

We'll probably never know, because I doubt she would go, but I think she'd get killed. There's one guy in the whole league that's her height, the next 3 smallest players are 2 inches taller, the typical player in the league is probably 5 inches taller.

A lot of these guys are well past their primes, so not sure how the athleticism translates, but my guess is all still faster and certainly all are still much stronger.

I think if her typical defender is a 6'5 guy with similar or better athleticism, that her shot is going to become impossible to get off all of a sudden.

[Ice Man]

We'll probably never know, because I doubt she would go, but I think she'd get killed.

Without question. It's not about skills, smarts, or strength. It's that every semi-NBA athlete her height would be so much quicker than her that she could not get a shot off, or create space with the dribble. She also would be a sieve on defense.

I actually have some experience with this topic, having seen top-level U15 boys beat the UWMNT in a soccer scrimmage. The problem for the women was quicks. As grown women, they were strong enough to fend off 135-pound boys, plus soccer isn't primarily about muscle either. And they were plenty technical plus better tactically than the boys. But TOO SLOW.

I mean, it all makes sense. The reason that guys don't play in the NBA after age 40 isn't because they lose their skills, fail to understand the game any longer, or become weak. It's because they lose their quicks.

[Wingy]

We'll probably never know, because I doubt she would go, but I think she'd get killed.

Without question. It's not about skills, smarts, or strength. It's that every semi-NBA athlete her height would be so much quicker than her that she could not get a shot off, or create space with the dribble. She also would be a sieve on defense.

I actually have some experience with this topic, having seen top-level U15 boys beat the UWMNT in a soccer scrimmage. The problem for the women was quicks. As grown women, they were strong enough to fend off 135-pound boys, plus soccer isn't primarily about muscle either. And they were plenty technical plus better tactically than the boys. But TOO SLOW.

I mean, it all makes sense. The reason that guys don't play in the NBA after age 40 isn't because they lose their skills, fail to understand the game any longer, or become weak. It's because they lose their quicks.

All valid points, and she very well could flounder if she goes for it. I’m coming from the angle of this being 3v3, tons of space, people will inevitably need to help, and she’ll be able to knock down open shots and do some things from an advantage against rotation and helpers. I agree she’s not going to be able to create a ton on ball. I’m thinking she can be competent playing off her teammates.

In any case, ‘battle of the sexes’ type stuff aside, I appreciate what she and others are doing for the women’s game. As I said earlier, I love all sports, and the more the game elevates, just another fun option in the quiver to enjoy.

[dougthonus]

All valid points, and she very well could flounder if she goes for it. I’m coming from the angle of this being 3v3, tons of space, people will inevitably need to help, and she’ll be able to knock down open shots and do some things from an advantage against rotation and helpers. I agree she’s not going to be able to create a ton on ball. I’m thinking she can be competent playing off her teammates.

In any case, ‘battle of the sexes’ type stuff aside, I appreciate what she and others are doing for the women’s game. As I said earlier, I love all sports, and the more the game elevates, just another fun option in the quiver to enjoy.

It doesn't really matter, because I doubt we'll see it, but I think she'd fail in any role in the big 3, even that one.

That said your 2nd point is the part that matters. Men and women have different leagues for a reason. We can appreciate the elite performers in both leagues without trying to decide if the best woman is better than the 100th, 1,000th, 10,000th, or 100,000th best man.

[MrSparkle]

Whatever the case, women’s basketball is fun to watch, and the skill level is higher than ever. We’ll see if the momentum carries to WNBA. I know I’ll be following it a bit more.

[Ice Man]

Whatever the case, women’s basketball is fun to watch, and the skill level is higher than ever. We’ll see if the momentum carries to WNBA. I know I’ll be following it a bit more.

Yep. Now that I know the games of Clark, Bueckers, and JuJu, I will be watching for them. (I know Reese's game too, and it's very effective, but I'm less interested in chasing down the games of offensive rebounders/post scorers.)

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Are they really going to have Taurasi, Roberts and Bird talk over the whole game? Unbelievable.

Edit: Just realized I’m watching the alt broadcast on ESPN. Oops.

[Ice Man]

South Carolina is BY FAR the best team in NCAA women's hoops this year. The best defensively, great rebounding, score inside, hit midrange shots, and hit 3s. I doubt any other team could even take them to 6 in a 7-game series.

Congrats to them, deserving champs. Kudos also to Iowa for making this an entertaining game, as close as 5 points down with 4 minutes left. Against a powerhouse like SC, that's a heck of an accomplishment.

Finally, Clark is going to get a TON of assists in the WBNA when all those passes that she makes to cutters will become layups rather than blocked shots. I predict that she will lead the WBNA this summer in assists (but not points).