|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 19, 2019 7:44:48 GMT -6
Clemson best wins (RPI ranks): (@) #19 Miami(FL) 76-67 (@) #21 Flor St 54-45 (H) #21 Flor St 73-68
USD best wins: H #11 Iowa St 64-59
USD worst losses: @ #167 Denver 99-104
Clemson worst losses: @ #157 Alabama 56-76 H #150 Davidson 80-90
Kinda similar. We both lost a head-scratcher game that was uncharacteristically high-scoring. Both teams have good defense, but when a team is popping off from the arc anything can happen. Clemson has had many more opportunities to play top-25 teams.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 19, 2019 10:07:18 GMT -6
Was looking at stats, and I think with these teams you have to put the two conferences in perspective: Conf. | ACC | Summit | FG% | #3 | #7 | 3PT% | #3 | #2 | 3PTA | 19.7 | 21.4 | FT% | #7 | #1 | FTA | 16.7 | 17.9 | PPG | #3 | #4 | Reb/G | 39.2 | 36.4 | TO/G | 16.0 | 15.2 | Stl/G | 7.9 | 7.6 | Blk/G | 3.9 | 3.3 | PF/G | 16.3 | 18.3 |
The ACC and the Summit are actually pretty comparable, offensively. Where you likely see the difference between conferences is in individual player size/length/athleticism and in the defensive intensity, which is hard to see in statistics. Sjerven will help us compete physically in the paint, and I'd say we don't take a back seat to anyone in defensive intensity either. Overall athleticism and team speed might be our biggest disadvantage in this tournament.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 19, 2019 10:30:35 GMT -6
Scouting Clemson:
What they are really good at:
Pressure Defense 11.5 Steals/game (USD gets 9.3 steals) 21 Turnovers forced/game (USD only commits 13.2 TO) 4 Blocks/Game (USD blocks 3.8 shots)
What they are not as good at:
Ball control 20 Turnovers committed/game (USD forces 18.7 TO) Scoring defense 66.4 PPG (USD scores 77 PPG) # arc shots 3.8 3-pointers made/game (USD makes 7.9 arc shots/game) *Clemson actually shoots 35%, but doesn't take many shots Fouling/FT shooting 17.8 PF/game (USD fouls 18.5 times/game) 66.4% FT (USD shoots 79.3% #2 in USA)
I think most of these match-ups really favor the Yotes. Our level of ball control may be the most critical factor. Their team speed/athleticism might be another concern.
|
|
|
Post by flagshipU on Mar 19, 2019 11:16:46 GMT -6
Great analysis by everyone.
I anticipate seeing a team similar to the Houston team that we played in the WNIT last year.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 19, 2019 11:20:39 GMT -6
Players to watch:
#44 Kobi Thornton 6'-2" Junior Center 14.7 Pts / 7.2 Reb / 1 Blk Shooting: 50 / 00 / 57
#20 Simone Westbrook 5' 8" Grad-transfer Senior Guard 13.4 Pts / 4.1 Reb / 3.7 Asst / 2.9 Stl Shooting: 46/31/77
#5 Danielle Edwards 5' 7" Senior Guard 12.9 Pts / 3.0 Reb / 3.3 Asst / 2.7 Stl Shooting: 42/39/78
While you could say that Westbrook and Edwards are small starting guards by ACC standards, the overall team size is good compared to the Yotes They start two post players in Thornton (6' 2") and Bennett (6' 4"). Both of them rack up a lot of blocks, but neither has attempted a 3-pointer this season. Westbrook and Edwards rack up a lot of assists and steals, but also as many turnovers. They are the good free-throw shooters on the team, too.
They have 4 players 6' 1" or taller, including 6' 3" Minneapolis native Mikayla Hayes.
|
|
|
Post by hoopsmom on Mar 19, 2019 11:29:59 GMT -6
Mikayla Hayes is a Redshirt this year. She transferred from Florida with the coach. Hannah played against her in high school several times, and they both played for the North Tartan AAU club, one year apart.
|
|
|
Post by gopheryote on Mar 19, 2019 11:50:51 GMT -6
right now
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 19, 2019 11:51:21 GMT -6
Clemson Presser after selection show. Mostly talking about the selection process. 8:25 - reason for "the ugly ducklings" team nickname (they want to play ugly and disrupt the flow of the game) 11:00 - a little on prepping for USD
|
|
|
Post by easmus on Mar 19, 2019 11:54:20 GMT -6
When we played “up” a level last year with Michigan Stae and TCU, we really struggled with the press. We hold our own banging bodies inside, but if we get pressed and it leads to lots of turnovers it could be our undoing.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 19, 2019 12:05:50 GMT -6
When we played “up” a level last year with Michigan Stae and TCU, we really struggled with the press. We hold our own banging bodies inside, but if we get pressed and it leads to lots of turnovers it could be our undoing. That's a good point. I'd say we have negated the press with good passing several times this year, but you are right that it's different with a higher level of athleticism. Remember when Iowa State almost came all the way back in the fourth quarter? They started pressing us, but did it a little too late.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 19, 2019 12:58:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 19, 2019 15:01:58 GMT -6
Massey has us with a 58% chance of beating Clemson 69-66. fivethirtyeight.com ran some odds on the women's tournament. They are usually a very good site for sports statistics. They graphed all the teams's offensive/defensive efficiency as x and y coordinates. They have Mississipi State the strongest team overall. The purple numbers in the chart are the Portland regional teams. Purple #6 (the Jacks) look like the strongest 6-seed by far, paired with a strong #11 (Quin). But the disparity between the two is also large, indicating a big advantage for the Jacks. The Jacks also show, in this analysis, a big opportunity to upset Syracuse and get a historic first appearance in the Sweet 16. The purple #8 (Yotes) is hard to see, but is directly under the purple #3 (Syracuse). We are shown as the second-strongest #8, behind Cyan#8, Central Michigan, in the Chicago bracket. Purple #9 (Clemson) is shown with poor offensive efficiency, and would be a mismatch with the Yotes as a first round opponent. Interesting that this shows the Yotes as very similar to #3 seeds Syracuse, Maryland and NC State, as well as #4 seeds Miami and S Carolina. #5 seed Marquette could be a bracket-buster. They look really good. Also #3 Iowa State and #4 Oregon State.
|
|
|
Post by coyotecrazie5 on Mar 19, 2019 15:39:26 GMT -6
I was surprised to see Drake as a #10 seed
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 19, 2019 16:01:06 GMT -6
I was surprised to see Drake as a #10 seed Right? The Iowa City site will be brutal. Iowa, Drake and Missouri. Whoever gets out of that alive could be a final 4 favorite IMO.
|
|
olifer
Sophomore Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by olifer on Mar 19, 2019 16:54:07 GMT -6
I must be missing something here: We're on here talking about how much is sucks to be an 8 seed in the NCAA Tournament? This is only our second time playing in the tournament, first time by an At Large Bid, and arguably the first time in "Summit League" history as we know it now. Look a the picture of our team when they found out that they made it into the tournament, I don't see disappointment anywhere. The Bunnies got seeded higher than we did, so what? They also beat us twice, won the conference title, and won the Summit League Tournament. because of our schedule, the fact that they beat us catapulted them into better position. Some people would have preferred a 7 or 10 seed, likely in hopes of avoiding playing a 1 seed at their arena if we won the first game, but my initial thought is that an 8 seed is a million times better than that 15 seed we had last time. We are actually seeded higher than our first round opponent instead of 13 spots (times 4) lower. I think the excitement is tempered because a bid has been expected for at least a month, maybe two. This team was ranked or on the fringe for quite some time now. I was never comfortable about our odds at a bid and seeing USD in the bracket was more of a relief than anything, but you better believe everyone will be pumped at tipoff on Friday and especially hyped when we get our first tourney win in program history. Perfect response. I admit that I took a couple of posts "wishing" we had been better seeded to heart. Like you, that 15 seed we got the first time felt like heaven because heck, we weren't the 16 seed! This team is special and if we get a win on Friday and happen to face a number one seed after that, so be it. If we lose, these ladies have still made history!
|
|