Kat....not so fast!

Some people just have no ability to evaluate a players value outside of their superficial perspectives. One thing to look for in basketball is foot speed and Kat has very quick feet. That is a major reason she has such a quick release. This also makes her an excellent defender. Another aspect that is overlooked is decision making. She makes very good decisions. She sees the floor well and makes the right passes. Her in place dribble could use developing, but her playing the wing exclusively since the eighth grade is responsible for that and also means that she still has upside remaining in that area of her game. What is also overlooked is how well does a player plays without the ball.

For fans who focus entirely on the ball, handlers seem to forget that there are four other players on the floor who don't have possession of the ball on every possession. Every player has a role to play and their value to their team is based on how well they fulfill the role they are asked to do. That is aside from their overall talent as a basketball player. If a player exclusively plays one role, how do you evaluate their abilities in other roles? You really can't.

This subject reminds me that I still haven't fulfilled what I said I would do, which was to respond to the criticism of the style of offense that Scott runs. Mamy would prefer a less structured freewheeling one. One the surface that might appear desirable but there are certain unseen consequences to that style. In terms of consistently winning, Scotts style is superior.

judge Smails perspective on Kat is so ludicrous it doesn't even deserve notice or response, but it does reflect a perspective that fits into the earlier discussion of what type of players that Oregon St should reach for. There are actually some coaches that followed that sort of pattern creating their roster makeup, but they usually failed. They forget that a team should become a greater whole than it's individual parts. What is also important is recruiting players who buy into that concept. Some very talented individual players do not.

You are so full of it. That is not what you said. You are now attempting to back peddle. 

Your rational for why she should not get another year makes less sense that your other rational based on her not being valuable enough. Her request for another year is not based on there being no NCAA playoff, but the fact that she missed getting an automatic extra year by one game her Jr season and compounded by her missing a lot of games to start this last season. When you add the fact that most of the games she played in she was not really healthy, to the loss of the games from the NCAA's not being played, it takes away from the intent of the rule for limiting players to a certain number of seasons. It makes no sense that if she had just played one less game her Jr year she would have been granted another season. Does that one game even balance out or equate the time she missed or the games she played coming back from her injury. You do not recover that quickly from an ACL. It can not be measured in games played. The intent of the rule should take precedent over a technicality. That is what appeals are for. 


The NCAA should have granted her request before last season started, but I assume they were limiting waivers because they decided that they needed to create a semblance of consistency which they had not exhibited years prior when they handed out waives like hotcakes to certain programs.  Last season was pure damage control to avoid lawsuits which would have resulted in diminishing their power and control. 

Your change in direction with respect to your rational on why you do not want Kat back reeks of damage control on your part. It was initially because she was a one trick pony and you wanted more versatile players on the team.  Now it is because she doesn't deserve another year because the other players who played last season didn't get one. Oh you add that you want the younger players to get their chance. Well last I heard they were short on guards. --- Nice try. Your fishing for some sort of rational certainly makes it seem personal to me. 

We have open roster spots, and they're not going to be filled. So it's Kat or an empty chair. Those are the only 2 choices. So, Judge, you either get what you consider a one trick pony, or an empty saddle attached to no pony at all. There is no option C. So, looking at it that way, you would opt for the empty saddle?

Gee Judge Smails....Can you just have a little compassion for the kid....

Do you need 3 guesses?

Cal fan?

Off season