WBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[buf]

Point over UWEC 61-46.  And sadly, it didn't even seem that close.  Lots of errant passes again for EC.  Good defense by Point.


Other scores:

UWL over UWO in OT, 73-68
Stout over Sup, 73-68
UWW over UWP, 69-54

[PRF2009A]

Good game in Oshkosh last night.  UWL built an 18 point lead and then Oshkosh's version of the Churchill twins took over.  UWL was lucky to hold on for overtime.  However, they did make it to the extra session and held UWO without a field goal.

Frank went for 21 pts, 19 boards, and 6 blocks.  She keeps this offensive output going and they will be very tough to beat as long as the team plays defense like they can.  Robinson had a solid 1st half off the bench getting to the line and ended up w/ 15 pts.

As it sits right now, UWL is right where they belong in the standings at 3rd.  Gotta beat the best to be the best.

[badgerwarhawk]

With the score tied 6-6 WHITEWATER scored seven straight to lead 13-6 and led till the 2:25 mark when Platteville tied the score 25-25.  However the WARHAWKS scored the last five points of the half for a 30-25 lead when it ended.  The WARHAWKS started the second half with a 27-8 run in the first eight minutes and led by as many as 24 points.  Platteville clawed back to within twelve, 66-54, with a little over two and half minutes remaining, but that is as close as it would get before it ended 69-54.  

Dana Thompson led all scorers with 24 points hitting 9-14 from the floor and 6-10 from the free throw line.  She also led the team in rebounds with 6.  Chantel Burg had 4 assists and Jamie Swanson 4 steals.  The WARHAWKS shot 49% from the field.

Ashley Callahan and Ashley Henry had 13 and 10 points respectively to lead the Pioneers.  Platteville was 0-7 from beyond the arc but attempted 61 shots to the WARHAWKS 51 largely due to pulling down 21 offensive rebounds.  

Points in the paint were a significant factor as the WARHAWKS dominated inside 42-18.  

[billys]

Think about her options for a second JMM.  Eau Claire was shooting free throws with 13 seconds left.  Her choices were 1. call timeout before the first free throw, 2. call time out between the two free throws, 3. call a timeout after the second made free or 4. let the game play out.  If she calls timeout in either the first or second options she ices her shooter.  She couldn't call time out after the second attempt because it was missed and the WARHAWKS secured the rebound.  So if she didn't want to ice her shooter she had no other option than to let the game play out.   You have the advantage that she didn't.  That being the advantage of hindsight.  She has to make a decision in real time.  I don't know her thought process but there are a fair number of coaches who don't believe it's wise to ice your shooter in a situation as critical as this one was. 

Not to mention the fact that calling a timeout in that situation allows the offense to draw/set-up exactly what they want from their final possession. There is a lot more the offense can do than the defense. And since she'd have to call the TO before both free throws are shot; she doesn't even know what the score/situation is going to be. The discussion during that timeout is actually a fairly difficult one to have. Other than man vs. zone and switching screens ... that defensive stand is going to rely on the players.

The assumption that a TO= sure win vs. a very good WW team is absurd.

[badgerwarhawk]

The play by play indicates that she did actually call two timeouts.  One with 6 seconds remaining before Burg's first free throw attempt and another just after her second attempt.  I know that wasn't with 11 seconds, the time JMM feels it should have been called, but it was done with sufficent time to try and help her team set up a shot for the win.  And who knows whatever she set up might have worked if the EC player hadn't fouled and turned the ball over.  Of course she may have just discussed receipes and left them on their own. 

[bulk19]

I'm not getting into Xs and Os on this one, since I only play a coach here on these boards, but... 

In UWW's one point win, Leah Rempert had a good look and shot at the buzzer that just didn't fall... Had it done so, we wouldn't be talking about this as much, perhaps... What was more disconcerting as a Blugold fan was seeing the big lead the Warhawks jumped out to... A noble comeback effort by the Golds fell just short... I was also surprised at the number of fouls in the game; three WW players fouled out, and one Blugold. Wasn't pretty...

Moving on to last night's game. Ouch. Pointers clamped down and made big runs in each half; Blugolds didn't answer. As buf aptly said, it didn't seem that close...

The UWEC bigs played decent, Messick and Plendl combined for 30 of the  points, but not much scoring support elsewhere... As aptly described it, it didn't wasn't as close as the 15-point loss indicated.

UWW and UWSP showed they are both worthy of their rankings; we'll see how the 'Golds respond to their next big test at UWL on Saturday... The Eagles have been playing well all season. Danielle Frank has been having some monster games for the Eagles recently, so we'll see how things play out in the paint this game, and see who capitalizes from the outside.... 'Golds would get a boost in confidence to revenge the earlier loss to UWL at Zorn....

[PRF2009A]

After a shellacking like that last night vs. EC some might be expecting me to praise Messick as the 2nd coming of Michael Jordan.  

Definitely not the case.  I think she ended up with 14 pts, 8 of which came off blatant travels.  (last time I checked you can not take a step, pivot, and then take 2 steps)

The difference in this game other than UWL not showing up was outstanding guard defense for EC in their 2-3 zone.  Very agressive getting into passing lanes took advantage of UWLs lazy passing.  

On another note.  Great article in the La Crosse paper about Frank.  Rough night for her, but she has put together quite an impressive January.

http://lacrossetribune.com/sports/college/article_cf947b78-26a9-11e0-914e-001cc4c03286.html

[JMM]

Looks like EC and thir coach came to terms with the funky play and lack of during the game coaching. . Probably due to the article in the Eau Claire Leader Newspaper after the WW game. Englund was coaching during the game. I think there were only 9 turnovers. In the second half, EC did wave hands or moved out to LAX players shooting three pt shots. Winning is easy if you don't give the ball up 20-25 times. LAX was flat but really EC played very good defense and took Frank out od the game. As far as Messck walking - there were multiple 3 second violations by LAX that were not called. Christension seemed in the very last 5 minutes to want to og back to the sloppy play - but didn't. EC set up for offense, , made deliberate passes and worked for shots as opposed to not setting up and throwing the ball away and not working for shots. If they continue the way the they played at LAX, they could do some damage. SP and WW are both excellent teams. Realative to WW and EC and Englund not calling time out, a time out at with 11 seconds left, and a strategy would have helped the Blugolds. My primary point is that prior to the LAX game, there had been a string of games like Hanover,, RF, WW, and SP were Englund was not that effective. Yes he encouraged the team at half time or before or during time outs but did little while play was going on to manage. Englund was deeply involved on the bench at LAX - helping steer the ship. It showed and was obvious to those in attendance.

[swish4]

Great win for the Blugolds on Saturday! It was fun to see the Blugolds play so well. JMM, I'm not sure what personal grudge you have against the Blugold's coach with your continual negative overanalysis comments with each post...like "came to terms with lack of during the game coaching" in your latest post. It seems in every one of your previous posts you find a way to rip the Head Coach and personally I've grown very tired of your negativity toward the profession and Coach Englund. (I guess that means I should just stop reading this board). However, I have watched some great games so far across the league and would like to discuss the positive things that happen when players play well, rather than your continual slamming of one particular coach. Bottom line, great win for the Blugolds...I'm happy for whole team!  Hopefully the solid play will continue this week. It should be fun to watch! Go 'Golds!

[The Champ]

However, I have watched some great games so far across the league and would like to discuss the positive things that happen when players play well, rather than your continual slamming of one particular coach.

Trust me, JMM doesn't just slam one coach....

[badgerwarhawk]

She called three timeouts in the last 1:35 of the game against WHITEWATER but didn't call one with 11 seconds left.  If she wasn't in game coaching during those three timeouts what do you think she was doing JMM?   

[JMM]

OK - got the message no comments on coaching. I will close with one last note:  if your team has a two year history of really, really, really  bad turnovers, it is coaching, sorry but it is.  

For those who saw the LAX came - it was a whole different world. Team thought before they passed and were deliberate about their play - world of difference. That was the real Blugold team.

Again, the openning sentence in the Eau Claire paper also clearly made the statement about" more of the same" relative to turn overs, so it just ain't me.

The turnovers have been that bad and probably cost a really good team 4 games this year: Hanover, St. Ben's RF and WW (probably SP as well). I think that would make the record 15-4 or something and that is what it should be.

Will not bring up coaching again

[PRF2009A]

For those who saw the LAX came - it was a whole different world. Team thought before they passed and were deliberate about their play - world of difference. That was the real Blugold team.

Incorrect.

The real Blugold team is 1 game over .500 in the conference.  Nothing more, nothing less.

If that was "the real team" they would be undefeated.  Case & point, they're not.

[badgerwarhawk]

OK - got the message no comments on coaching. I will close with one last note:  if your team has a two year history of really, really, really  bad turnovers, it is coaching, sorry but it is. 

That wasn't my message and I don't really care if you comment about coaches or not.  But when you say she isn't in game coaching when she has called three timeouts in the last minute and a half I have to wonder just what it is that you think she is doing.  I haven't seen her coach as often as you but the times that I have it's pretty clear to me that she is involved and actively coaching from start to finish. 

[JMM]

Absolutely, the real team is the one with the turn over problem and the seven losses.