MVCfans.com

ictjay wrote:I pray our days of a 11-12 man rotation are over. I sincerely believe it hurt more than it helped.

Do you think it would be fair to say that over the long haul, the 11-12 man rotation helped the program to maintain the consistently high finishes in the conference, as well as usually strong conference tournament showings while perhaps retarding the potential ceiling for the top 7-8?

In other words, did the bigger rotations eliminate some of the valleys and the peaks? And if (and only if) you agree with that theory, is it worth it?

WuDrWu wrote:

ictjay wrote:I pray our days of a 11-12 man rotation are over. I sincerely believe it hurt more than it helped.

Do you think it would be fair to say that over the long haul, the 11-12 man rotation helped the program to maintain the consistently high finishes in the conference, as well as usually strong conference tournament showings while perhaps retarding the potential ceiling for the top 7-8?

In other words, did the bigger rotations eliminate some of the valleys and the peaks? And if (and only if) you agree with that theory, is it worth it?

Those are excellent questions that we'll probably never really know the answer to. The only thing I can say with confidence is that I do believe the depth was a key factor to the success in St Louis.

My frustration was not the number of players in the rotation but Altman's substitution patterns. I think in St Louis we jumped out 9-0 and then he substituted for guys a couple of minutes into the game when it sure didn't seem anyone needed a breather.

DoubleJayAlum wrote:Those are excellent questions that we'll probably never really know the answer to. The only thing I can say with confidence is that I do believe the depth was a key factor to the success in St Louis.

[/quote]


No doubt....I've seen too many teams, not just WSU, go to St. Louis with enough talent to win, but not nearly enough legs, or in some cases enough bodies.

Perhaps my biggest irritant is a coach that will not develop his bench throughout the year. Those that play the "scrubs" only in the last minute or 2 of blowouts, and then make it worse by not allowing those kids to play (Helllllllllooooooo Coach Turgeon) get a special place in my dungeon of dislike.

WuDrWu wrote:

ictjay wrote:I pray our days of a 11-12 man rotation are over. I sincerely believe it hurt more than it helped.

Do you think it would be fair to say that over the long haul, the 11-12 man rotation helped the program to maintain the consistently high finishes in the conference, as well as usually strong conference tournament showings while perhaps retarding the potential ceiling for the top 7-8?

In other words, did the bigger rotations eliminate some of the valleys and the peaks? And if (and only if) you agree with that theory, is it worth it?

Good points by all. I agree it helps in St. Louis. (excluding last year) On the other hand, I think it stunts the development of the #7-9 players who are on the bench.

This is deep bench in St Louis theory is so overblown. Each team plays one game a day, no more. The kids playing are young and in great shape, playing three or four games back to back is not killing them. If it is, something is terribly wrong with the conditioning program at the school. Playing too many minutes in a single game might be killing them, but playing three games in three days is not too much for these kids.

MoValley John wrote:This is deep bench in St Louis theory is so overblown. Each team plays one game a day, no more. The kids playing are young and in great shape, playing three or four games back to back is not killing them. If it is, something is terribly wrong with the conditioning program at the school. Playing too many minutes in a single game might be killing them, but playing three games in three days is not too much for these kids.

It isn't just three games in three days. It is consecutive games under the stress of a "lose and go home" environment that makes it more emotionally and physically tiring as well. Additionally, it is also three games in three days after a long season where players are beat up.

You can't get through three games in three days without using your bench. If you haven't gone very deep in your bench during the season, it can be hard for coaches to adjust in a high pressure tourney environment.

DoubleJayAlum wrote:

MoValley John wrote:This is deep bench in St Louis theory is so overblown. Each team plays one game a day, no more. The kids playing are young and in great shape, playing three or four games back to back is not killing them. If it is, something is terribly wrong with the conditioning program at the school. Playing too many minutes in a single game might be killing them, but playing three games in three days is not too much for these kids.

It isn't just three games in three days. It is consecutive games under the stress of a "lose and go home" environment that makes it more emotionally and physically tiring as well. Additionally, it is also three games in three days after a long season where players are beat up.

You can't get through three games in three days without using your bench. If you haven't gone very deep in your bench during the season, it can be hard for coaches to adjust in a high pressure tourney environment.

That sounds like life. These players need to be able to deal with it.

Well, I imagine in life and in a three day college basketball tournament, it might be easier to be successful if you had 10-11 people that could share the load and positively contribute rather than 7.

But that only works if your 10-11 can play defense.

jayball wrote:
But that only works if your 10-11 can play defense.

Bingo! So while you're resting the starters, the flow of the offense went south, your defense couldn't make a stop and the other team just went on a 16-4 run. At least the stress level of your starters was protected for the three game grind.