Kakala commits to Louisville

[Streak One]

Manrteca/Cal Stars 2017 post Loretta Kakala has committed to Louisville.



Especially with the Pac-12 improving, it is even more impressive that Lousville has pulled Moore and Kakala from the region.

 

[Norcal_Fan]

Congrats to Kakala on making a choice at a fine school. I sure wish Cal can get it together. There is NO reason why they shouldn't be a top 20 team year in year out. I just looked at their roster and they have 9 (YES NINE) players on their roster from this past year. Can someone please tell me why a Division I team in the Pac-12 only has 9 players on their roster?? That's not enough to scrimmage 5v5!

My bet is Ionescu is outta here but I hope she proves me wrong. It always a bummer when players leave the west coast for east coast schools.

 

[ClayK]

I don't see that big a problem with a nine-woman roster. After all, if No. 10 is playing extended minutes, you're very likely going to lose anyway.

And almost all top women's team scrimmage against male practice players every day so that's really not an issue.

 

[colhenrylives]

But a lack of players does indicate something about the health of the program. The Title 9 watchdogs would fret about scholarships for women going unused. Especially in hoops.

 

[Norcal_Fan]

Col. Henry, that is what I was trying to say. thanks! I can see this at a smaller low-mid major but not at a major BCS conference school..especially the Pac-12. IF players are transferring or quitting the team, something is going on.

 

[larry legend33]

Exactly. You should have 14 players on a team with 12 scholarships and 2 kids who would love to just suit up for home games. Being a part of good program is very healthy. A free ride to cal and you only get 9?

To me the OSU program is on the biggest rise nationwide and its what 8 hours away? Kat Tudor was a nice pickup for them. .

 

[ClayK]

I'm not sure it makes sense to have kids who don't play, especially if they're at or near P5 level. Those kinds of kids (and their parents) think they should be playing, and if they don't, then it's the coach's fault. And now you have unhappy players, and you have problems you don't need.

Realistically, few teams have more than five or six players who can help you win games against the upper echelon of the Pac-12. You're already carrying three, so why add two more? (Remember, Washington played basically five kids en route to the Final Four.)

As for two walk-ons, what's the point? They will never contribute to the team on the court in games, and won't be as good as the male practice players during practice, so except to have them high-five the bench on made threes, what purpose do they serve? That doesn't mean you shouldn't have them, but I'm not convinced you should, either. Getting all the personalities aligned on a team is never easy, and adding more psyches to the mix just makes it more complicated.

 

[larry legend33]

Not all players and parents are like that. Kids mature and often the light goes on in college. I'm getting a free education.... I'm part of a winning culture.... I enjoy competing in practice and making my teammates better... I'm keeping in great shape..... Not everybody gets to carry the torch. Its a team game. Life is a team game. There are crazy parents out there but don't you think when they reach college the wall gets a little bigger? Its harder to be as hovering and invasive.

I get your point but I still think you need players.

 

[Titanhoop]

How many high school teams play everyone on the roster? We discussed this earlier and it makes sense to have numbers as you can possibly have injuries, eligibility issues, family emergency, illness that cause a player or 2 to miss games. I guess the NFL should only have 22 players on the rosters and baseball 9 per team going by your reasoning. They need to have at least 12 players even if that means redshirting a player or 2 to get them adjusted to college speed on the court or in the classroom. How many games did Cal lose because the looked exhausted at the end of games?

 

[RespectBBGame]

I guess everybody is not looking at the big picture ??? In Girls basketball there is not that much money to be made at the pro level. So when a young lady gets a free ride and don't play it real doesn't matter. Just think of someone giving $240,000 to go to school that you don't have to play back. Tell who won't jump at that opportunity for free. Most young ladies will make more than the women's pro basketball player. So tell does it matter how much time on the court or in the class room that is free??????? This for your walk on, not many get any play time but most just want to be apart of a program because it looks good on a job resume. FREE IS FREE!!!!!!!

 

[ClayK]

I think it's fine to have a big roster and walk-ons, if the coach and players are comfortable with that. At the Pac-12 level, I also think it's OK to have a much smaller roster, if the coach and players are comfortable with that.

My point really is that every situation is different, and what works in this place won't work in that place, necessarily. Cal having only nine on the roster is not the reason they didn't do as well as hoped. They could have had 15 and the same results were likely.

Maybe in another situation, the short roster would have hurt more, but not in this case -- especially since two guards left in the fall, long after Lindsay Gottlieb could have done anything about adding players who would contribute at the Pac-12 level.

 

[larry legend33]

I guess everybody is not looking at the big picture ??? In Girls basketball there is not that much money to be made at the pro level. So when a young lady gets a free ride and don't play it real doesn't matter. Just think of someone giving $240,000 to go to school that you don't have to play back. Tell who won't jump at that opportunity for free. Most young ladies will make more than the women's pro basketball player. So tell does it matter how much time on the court or in the class room that is free??????? This for your walk on, not many get any play time but most just want to be apart of a program because it looks good on a job resume. FREE IS FREE!!!!!!!

Thank you! There is little to no money to be made at the pro level for women. The buck stops here. Who cares if I'm not playing. I'm going to cal for god sake and it's free. How many people graduate debt free? 10% of college students? I don't know but I bet it's very low. Also I'm willing to bet a lot less women transfer. Men's game is so much different.

 

[Titanhoop]

Exactly the point having 2 more on the roster they may have been better! You don't know as I don't but having 9 on the roster but only playing 7 on a regular basis equals exactly what they got! Alot of losses! How many players are on the Uconn roster? Bey more than 9!

 

[ClayK]

UConn won a national title playing only six; Washington went to the Final Four last year playing six.

Very few teams at any level play more than seven or eight players in big games for any extended amount of time. There's just not enough depth to make playing nine or 10 in the rotation a viable option.

The Warriors are the exception that proves the rule: They have an incredibly deep roster which is one of the big reasons they set an all-time record. If you look at the other teams in the NBA playoffs, the dropoff is pretty steep after the first seven, and in fact many of them really don't have five quality starters (looking at you, Mason Plumlee).

 

[Paytc]

UConn won a national title playing only six; Washington went to the Final Four last year playing six.

Very few teams at any level play more than seven or eight players in big games for any extended amount of time. There's just not enough depth to make playing nine or 10 in the rotation a viable option.

The Warriors are the exception that proves the rule: They have an incredibly deep roster which is one of the big reasons they set an all-time record. If you look at the other teams in the NBA playoffs, the dropoff is pretty steep after the first seven, and in fact many of them really don't have five quality starters (looking at you, Mason Plumlee).

Clay,

I don't think it is depth so much as it is productivity and playing to win. Most players aside from Curry, Durant, Ray Allen, and Klay Thompson must get into the flow of the game to hit their stride. So good coaches know you must let players get into the flow of the game and leave them out there. I see why Uconn keeps winning. You substitute very little. Just for a brief rest or foul trouble in closely contested games. Play (5-8), Seven to eight players is most likely best. It's the CYO mentality coaches (and parents) that believe you have to be fair. I say be fair to the team by putting the most capable starters and subs on the floor. The game should dictate who plays not the coach IMO. If a starter or two are just not there that day they too should be shown the bench to see if someone can give the team a spark. You always put the team's progress before any individual player(s). But you do need to develop your bench and role players too for the post season or years to come. That should be done when the teams and games are not quite as challenging as post season or championship caliber games. Or when you have put the game a bit out of reach. There are some teams that have quality backup players, this season's St. Mary's of Stockton was an example. But even they must limit the rotation in some games. Rotating too often never allows the team to get in sink or gain any momentum. Limiting the rotation allows players to get into the flow of the game, and allows the team to get a run going. You also must take into account how well your team(and each player) is conditioned, and the tempo of the game. Also different combinations work in different games depending on match ups. You may have a big heavy weight bruiser or a 3 point shooting ace you call upon in certain situations. Again the game and each circumstance dictates. At least that is how I see it.

 

[CW Golden Eagles]

Style of play lends itself to your bench and the need for depth. If you play a 2-3 zone and walk the ball up the floor, you can get by with 6-7 players playing the majority of the minutes. If you press and trap and then push the ball offensively, there is no way 6-7 will suffice. So philosophy plays a factor into depth as well. Obviously, philosophy may have to change as depth comes in and out. But the desire for how many players is ideal must take the philosophy into account.

 

[Paytc]

How many high school teams play everyone on the roster? We discussed this earlier and it makes sense to have numbers as you can possibly have injuries, eligibility issues, family emergency, illness that cause a player or 2 to miss games. I guess the NFL should only have 22 players on the rosters and baseball 9 per team going by your reasoning. They need to have at least 12 players even if that means redshirting a player or 2 to get them adjusted to college speed on the court or in the classroom. How many games did Cal lose because the looked exhausted at the end of games?

I agree Cal may have been fatigued especially as the season wore on. But I think most of Cal's problem was inexperience. They had zero seniors, I think 1 or 2 juniors, and the rest freshman and sophomores. And I think their starting line up was only freshman and sophomores. Not that the young players weren't talented or capable enough, but they hadn't played at that level for that many games before. That was quite a challenge for a senior laced team, so imagine what the test was like for rookies and sophomores.

Cal should be much better as the team matures and get used to playing with one another. And as they just get adjusted to the ins and outs of playing college ball and maintaining good grades. And maturing into responsible young adults.

 

[RespectBBGame]

Why does everyone talk about Cal that has great talent I will be in the top 20 in the country in these next few years ??? Then if they aren't then question should come not the players ? But I think the are missing a 2 guard that can drive beside just shoot outside but that just may opinion.

We are all the way of the topic on this one but congratulations to Kakala to committing to Louisville . Which is a great fit for both of them because KakAla of her physical play. Good job on this one coach K!!!!!!! Which has to that will be on the USA team with DeCosta is the other.

 

[Titanhoop]

It's not about how many you play it's about those that don't get valuable experience in your system so when it their turn to step to the plate their ready! I never said how many played I said how many were on the roster and those that were will be ready to step in and contribute next year.

 

[Paytc]

It's not about how many you play it's about those that don't get valuable experience in your system so when it their turn to step to the plate their ready! I never said how many played I said how many were on the roster and those that were will be ready to step in and contribute next year.

I think playing all the young players(who were the best players on the team) was the right thing to do based on the roster. I agree totally with you on the need to get future players ready so they are confident when the time comes for them to step in. In Cal case there was one player( their biggest player) that might have been the only player I would have perhaps played a bit more to groom for the future. I also agree that carrying 9 players was about 2 or 3 too few. If they had others to groom besides what they played then I think they would have. But I will say I didn't follow Cal close enough to fully comment on whether or not others should have gotten more playing time. Although she is not perfect, I personally like coach Lindsay Gottlieb. I think they will be better next season.

And congratulations to Kakala ! Go help Mariya Moore get to the final 4 or more.

 

[ClayK]

There's a lot of judgment involved here -- if I don't feel particular players can help me reach my goals, even with experience, then I don't know that it makes sense to play them. And there's also a pattern in college basketball I don't agree with, but I'm not a college coach so I'm probably missing something: Coaches leave their starters in until the final minute almost regardless of the score. Even teams with rosters of 12 will only play the rotation in a 20-point win -- if the subs come in, they come in during the final 90 seconds. I would think that would be the time to play the reserves more, but it doesn't happen, and since that's the case, then there's nothing to be gained for players 10-12 since they won't play anyway. So why have players 10-12 if they can't contribute to wins at the Pac-12 level?

But some coaches play more, and some play less. I don't think there's a right answer, and I think coaches whose livelihoods depend on these kinds of decisions have probably thought it through pretty carefully.

 

[Titanhoop]

Clay then that's a question of why did you recruit that player? If your job as a coach is to evaluate players and you have a kid that is a 4 year sitter then who does that really fall on? You have to build the program through kids that you can develop to contributor or your always having the same problem of having to integrate freshman who have a learning curve that may not pan out.

 

[ClayK]

Clay then that's a question of why did you recruit that player? If your job as a coach is to evaluate players and you have a kid that is a 4 year sitter then who does that really fall on? You have to build the program through kids that you can develop to contributor or your always having the same problem of having to integrate freshman who have a learning curve that may not pan out.

Precisely ... if you can't recruit players who can help you -- or in the case of Cal, if two players left in the fall -- having "four-year sitters" on the bench accomplishes pretty much nothing.

If you look at teams in postseason, they're playing the ones who can win games (in the minds of the coaches), and if it's six, it's six. If it's nine, it's nine. But 10, 11 and 12 are never on the court. It may be that 10, 11 and 12 could be rotation players down the line, but remember, there are more D1 scholarships than D1 players, so almost all teams drop off talent-wise well before the end of the bench.

You can say "Why didn't Lindsay (or any other coach) recruit quality players for the end of the bench that can be developed,?" but my answer -- and that of most coaches -- would be "There aren't enough quality players for that to happen."

 

[Paytc]

Clay,

And sometimes a player dominates in high school but finds it difficult to get the same results in college. That also happens in the pros. Scouting talent is not an easy job. I am open to take the job on if there are any college or pro folks reading this post, (Smile)

 

[Titanhoop]

Clay I know you been around the game along time but so have I and what were both saying is subjective to our own belief.
I'm not a believer that you can't find 2-3 quality players every year to come into a program and on the women's side where players aren't leaving early you should have more than enough talent in your program the question is can you develop them! As a college coach your ability to recruit those kids are paramount to the success and health of a program year in and year out and the high profile programs have shown that ability.
H
I've had my say we could continue to banter back and forth but know need as we both have our feeling towards the subject as we should so enjoy your day.