majerus mojo Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 After the 21-0 run, they haven't gotten any closer than 13. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenbill Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Indiana wins 71-53. What the heck happened? Weak finish to the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 1 hour ago, billikenbill said: Indiana wins 71-53. What the heck happened? Weak finish to the season. It's clear that this team was just not that good. They scheduled weak and that made them look a lot better than they were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 6 hours ago, billikenfan05 said: It's clear that this team was just not that good. They scheduled weak and that made them look a lot better than they were. Oh please. Did you not see the game they won over Mizzou after trailing by 16 in the fourth quarter? That was one of their few opponents that made the tournament and a better team than Indiana. It's one thing to criticize Stone for not scheduling tougher, but it's just wrong to pretend this team was incapable of beating good opponents when given the chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Just now, hsmith19 said: Oh please. Did you not see the game they won over Mizzou after trailing by 16 in the fourth quarter? That was one of their few opponents that made the tournament and a better team than Indiana. It's one thing to criticize Stone for not scheduling tougher, but it's just wrong to pretend this team was incapable of beating good opponents when given the chance. But also lost to Duquesne by 29. I'm saying that this team's schedule did not prepare them for playing other good teams. Mizzou was the only team on their non-con schedule that wasn't atrocious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Ken Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Over hyped and it was a shame. The players did everything they could but I agree, weak scheduling and they were just an average A10 team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3star_recruit Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 12-4 is an average A-10 team? Tough crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUBillsFan Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 18 hours ago, billikenfan05 said: It's clear that this team was just not that good. They scheduled weak and that made them look a lot better than they were. It is important to put "not that good" into historical perspective. This "not that good" team was probably the 2nd (to last year) best team in the history of the SLU women's program, right? Also, this "not that good" team was probably somewhere around 75th or so out of 350+ Division 1 schools this year. IMO, they deserve to be celebrated even if they didn't quite live up to expectations of making the NCAAs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 33 minutes ago, RUBillsFan said: It is important to put "not that good" into historical perspective. This "not that good" team was probably the 2nd (to last year) best team in the history of the SLU women's program, right? Also, this "not that good" team was probably somewhere around 75th or so out of 350+ Division 1 schools this year. IMO, they deserve to be celebrated even if they didn't quite live up to expectations of making the NCAAs. This is true, and important. I don't think people realize just how bad this women's program has been historically. While we would've liked to see them build upon last season instead of performing at about the same level (or slightly worse), the fact remains that the program has reached its all-time high in the past two seasons, and is trending in the right direction overall. It takes time, and Stone has moved the program forward in a big way. I would encourage anyone to look at their archives on the official site just to get a perspective of where this program has been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 2 hours ago, 3star_recruit said: 12-4 is an average A-10 team? Tough crowd. It's a VERY good A-10 which by comparison to the rest of the country is average at best. A10 women's basketball is horrible 1 hour ago, Pistol said: This is true, and important. I don't think people realize just how bad this women's program has been historically. While we would've liked to see them build upon last season instead of performing at about the same level (or slightly worse), the fact remains that the program has reached its all-time high in the past two seasons, and is trending in the right direction overall. It takes time, and Stone has moved the program forward in a big way. I would encourage anyone to look at their archives on the official site just to get a perspective of where this program has been. I agree that she moved it forward lightyears and I'm thoroughly impressed by that. It's not like I'm criticizing a team for underperforming due to injuries or uncontrollable circumstances, I'm saying that this team appeared to be way better than it actually was due to a weak schedule. "Not that good" can probably be better articulated as "not as good as their record indicated." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 1 hour ago, RUBillsFan said: It is important to put "not that good" into historical perspective. This "not that good" team was probably the 2nd (to last year) best team in the history of the SLU women's program, right? Also, this "not that good" team was probably somewhere around 75th or so out of 350+ Division 1 schools this year. IMO, they deserve to be celebrated even if they didn't quite live up to expectations of making the NCAAs. Absolutely. This is the main point. It's one thing to say they disappointed this year. We can debate how much of that was the weak schedule and underperforming in big games vs. the expectations being too high to begin with. But to call this team "average" is just not true in objective terms. This was a top 100 team, which is not elite but also much better than average, without even getting into how dismal our women's program has always been historically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 13 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said: It's a VERY good A-10 which by comparison to the rest of the country is average at best. A10 women's basketball is horrible I agree that she moved it forward lightyears and I'm thoroughly impressed by that. It's not like I'm criticizing a team for underperforming due to injuries or uncontrollable circumstances, I'm saying that this team appeared to be way better than it actually was due to a weak schedule. "Not that good" can probably be better articulated as "not as good as their record indicated." The A10 as a whole might be average or even below average, but SLU as a team was way better than average in national terms. I also don't think the won/lost record is the main reason people are disappointed in the finish this year. I think it has much more to do with having the school's all time leading scorer plus the two-time CPOY on the same roster and missing the tournament. That's understandable, but it also obscures that being the SLU women's all time leading scorer is really not saying much at all, and also obscures just how few contributors have been added to the core of Kemph/Stipo/Jakubicek over the last couple years. I still think we'll have one more decent shot to make the women's team next year, but somebody new is going to have to step up AND Kemph is going to have to change her approach next year for us to stay good. She'll have to turn into more of the scoring guard you see her as and less of the distributor she's been so far, because we'll need her to score a lot more than 14 PPG to improve overall next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted March 20, 2017 Author Share Posted March 20, 2017 1 hour ago, hsmith19 said: The A10 as a whole might be average or even below average, but SLU as a team was way better than average in national terms. I also don't think the won/lost record is the main reason people are disappointed in the finish this year. I think it has much more to do with having the school's all time leading scorer plus the two-time CPOY on the same roster and missing the tournament. That's understandable, but it also obscures that being the SLU women's all time leading scorer is really not saying much at all, and also obscures just how few contributors have been added to the core of Kemph/Stipo/Jakubicek over the last couple years. I still think we'll have one more decent shot to make the women's team next year, but somebody new is going to have to step up AND Kemph is going to have to change her approach next year for us to stay good. She'll have to turn into more of the scoring guard you see her as and less of the distributor she's been so far, because we'll need her to score a lot more than 14 PPG to improve overall next year. -imo going to need good options for her to pass to make teams defend honestly, ie no double teams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 21 minutes ago, Pistol said: She is only going to be an eighth grader this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUBillsFan Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 27 minutes ago, brianstl said: She is only going to be an eighth grader this season. Looking at this I wonder if "class of 2022" is the year she is expected to graduate from college. That would make her a 2018 recruit. I can't imagine Stone is out there offering eighth graders. Here is another one: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 4 minutes ago, RUBillsFan said: Looking at this I wonder if "class of 2022" is the year she is expected to graduate from college. That would make her a 2018 recruit. I can't imagine Stone is out there offering eighth graders. Both of these girls are going into eighth grade. That's HS graduation year, not college. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUBillsFan Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Just now, Pistol said: Both of these girls are going into eighth grade. That's HS graduation year, not college. Whoa. Stone is really getting after it then....or is offering super early a lot more common with girls basketball? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 2 hours ago, RUBillsFan said: Whoa. Stone is really getting after it then....or is offering super early a lot more common with girls basketball? I'm actually not sure. I don't know nearly as much about women's recruiting. There isn't even close to as much information. For example, both of these girls play for the Eagles (I don't think the BBE name change happened on the girls' side), but I can't even find any information about the girls' half of the program on their website or any other. The occasional schedule or score, but no rosters or anything. Not just for the 14U, but any age group. We know it happens occasionally on the men's side but it's pretty rare. I know Soderberg offered Tyler Griffey as a middle schooler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmbilliken Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Stone needs to get after it. Her last good class are now seniors. Once they are gone there will be slim pickings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMM28 Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 18 minutes ago, kmbilliken said: Stone needs to get after it. Her last good class are now seniors. Once they are gone there will be slim pickings. Careful there cowboy, you'll rile up the diehards with that kind of talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.