|
Post by green85 on Mar 7, 2019 12:56:32 GMT -8
I don't think the committee puts that much stock into games that late in the season. Their historically evidence just seems to indicate they've already locked things in. The only things the conference tournaments seem to impact are the bubble spots - e.g. two teams closely matching for a 1 seed, positions on the bubble, etc. I just do not see any any major movement happening due to conference tournaments. That said, since nobody in the Pac 12 is going to be a 1 seed, is there really that much preference going to Stanford or Oregon on being in the West? I would think there would be significant weight on balancing the brackets out, after placing the 1 seeds. It's also not really that fair to the #1 seed in the west to put a #2 seed that will have a much closer fan-base and make it more like they are the 1 seed. One of the things that the committee does is seed every team at their level. For instance, Mississippi State could be the a #1 seed, but might be the lowest #1 seed among the four. They would then be placed in whatever region was left after the other #1 seeds had been placed. As the last #1 seed, they would also be scheduled to meet the highest #2 seed (again the lowest #2 seed would be placed in the region with the overall #1 seed). So, as reported with the seeding brackets on Monday of this week, Oregon is currently the top #2 seed. For that reason, if the lowest #1 seed is placed in Portland then Oregon would be in that region facing that lowest rated #1 seed. Right now, it looks like Oregon will be either the top #2 seed or a #1 seed (if they happen to win the Pac12 Tourney and other current #1 seeds lose). Given the other factors in placing seeded teams (geographic region priority), it seems like at this moment that Oregon will remain in the Portland region regardless of the outcome of the Pac12 Tourney. BTW, I think Oregon has earned that spot in this basketball season.
|
|
|
Post by willtalk on Mar 7, 2019 13:57:43 GMT -8
. . has never reached it's potential.----------- arc of her shots, it is always a very flat arc to the basket. This leads to a much smaller margin of error than a higher arcing shot that has more potential ways of ending up in the net. Virtually all her misses "clang" off the front of the rim with no chance to end up in the basket.---------------------------------------------------------------I am aware of this because all through high school and small college basketball I shot this way also. I was never smart enough to figure out that by increasing the arc of my shots I would have a much better chance of the ball going in the basket. Amazingly no coach ever told me to shoot differently.-----------------------------------------------------------------Katie's dad is a coach so I assume he has told her (or someone has!). ----------------------------------------------Anyway it's too late now to do anything about it, -----------------------------------She is good enough in other ways and big enough (6'2") that had she been a better scorer she would probably had a legitimate shot at the WNBA. Just want to add my two bits to this post. Generally everything said is correct. What also was said is that it is surprising that no coach has corrected this in all the years she was playing. I think there are probable two reason for this. The second is the principle of don't fix what is working. There are a lot of players who not only shoot flat but also use horrible shooting form, but still get relatively good results. No one can deny that KMac is one of the better outside shooters in WCBB. It has been working for her for quite a long time. It can also be said that if she used better form she would probably be a better shooter. One other negative to a flat shot is that it is easier to block so necessary defensive position is narrower. Shooter with flat shots need more space to get their shots off. Now I want to interject the aspect of the WNBA. A player that shoots a flat shot can get picked up by a team in the WNBA, however they have to have a higher level of talent in other area's to compensate for that flaw. Sydney Wiese is a player that has a very very flat shot but still made the Sparks roster. However she compensates with a lightning quick release and a higher degree of athleticism. If she had, say Goodmans form, her playing time and odds of staying in the league would be greatly enhanced. Now why do players end up shooting flat shots to begin with. Generally they pick up that bad form early in their basketball lives. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Shooting flat shots increases a smaller weaker ( younger ) players shooting distance. It requires far more strength to shoot the higher arched shot. When players are younger and therefore weaker they tend to compensate by shooting flatter shots. If a players has been very successful doing so that success makes it less likely that they will even attempt to change their shooting stroke. The gold old - don't fix what isn't broken. Once a person has been doing something for a long time it becomes an ingrained habit. It takes a lot more time to break a habit than it does to create a new one. A player playing and being successful at the lower levels does not consider the difficulty they will have at the next level. That is why I always mention - habits picked up in high school. I used to watch a lot of girls high school basketball at various level and after a while it becomes easy to recognize which players will have a harder time adjusting to the next level of play. Another aspect of shooting that is noticeable is the quickness of release. Which again is initially dictated by the players strength. Weaker ( younger ) players need to set themselves longer to generate the strength to shoot for distance. More players are working with personal trainers earlier in their basketball careers, so you see less bad habit adjustments being necessary between the frosh-JV- and Varsity levels. What you really used to see is players having to really adjust their form and quicken there release time if they wished to successfully transition. In the past you seldom saw a frosh with both good form and quick release time. Now you see more players with quick releases and good form as freshmen. The first time I saw Kat Tudor play was the summer before her freshman year. What really stood out to me was her form and quick release time. As a freshman she had the same form and as quick of a release shooting from distance as she has now. That, at the time, was so unusual. I seems her father worked with her early to ingrain not only proper form but also that quick release at an early age, even though she was skinny and not very strong. The down side was that, because she was so effectively dangerous in the corner on her catch and shoot, it delayed the development of other aspects of her offensive game, but consequentially she should still have a big upside left in those area's. I believe Scott had been working on that transition till her injuries derailed them. I have mentioned that Goodman also has a very good form and a quick release. That really puts a lot of pressure on the defense and those skills will suite her well at the next level. Something I also like about Aquino is that she has so little experience that it makes her like an empty canvas with very few bad habits to work through or around. In the few games I saw her play it seemed that the skills she had were not not hampered by the usual bad form acquired by players at the lower levels. Sorry people! But is seems to have turned out to be a bit more than two bits.
|
|