Suzie McConnell-Serio likes rule changes for women's basketball ......
- Thread starter goalieman
- Start date
Both Pitt BB coaches are going to have challenges with their rosters next season. Suzie is going to have 5 freshman and 1 transfer coming in. The three returning starters (Carey, Diop and Bugg) will all be true sophomores (fortunately they played last season beyond their years).
Then you throw in the two players who sat out last season with injuries: Bubbles has been at Pitt for three seasons and has only played about 10 games - none last season; Brittany Gordon also didn't play at all last season.
The other player on the roster is Fred Potvin, who will be a Junior. I hope she's working on a pull-up jump shot and driving it to the hoop this summer... She showed last season that she can be an asset shooting the 3-ball.
Anyway, going to be interesting to see what Coach Suzie can do with the mixture of talented, but young/ inexperienced players - especially with no one like Brianna Kiesel around to be the leader and focal point.
Going to be tough to match what Coach Suzie pulled off last season, but I'll sure be rooting for her.
Go Pitt.
My hope is Coach McConnel-Sero meets and surpasses last year's run!!! IMO ..for the first time Pitt Women's BBL. Has more talent, though young , will be "all in" and will learn fast and be outstanding at the half way point of their season!!! Look out!! HTP/Forever!!!
Yeah, with the success the Panthers had last season, Coach Suzie has put herself in a tough spot. She no longer has BK - one of the best to ever play at Pitt, at the critical point guard spot; and she no longer has Monica Wignot, who far exceeded expectations in her lone season of BB. These two players had major impact at BOTH ends of the floor.
I agree that Pitt will have talent, but I look for a step back next season due to the youth of the team. Would truly be phenomenal if 3 or 4 of the incoming freshmen can play as maturely and as well as last year's freshmen did.
Go Pitt.
A couple comments on the rule changes.
First of all, I really don't care about four quarters versus two halves. Everyone else in the world other than college basketball uses quarters so switching for the sake of uniformity is fine. But adding the potential for more buzzer beaters really is a non-starter. Which happens more often at the end of the first half now, an exciting buzzer beater or a rushed possession that amounts to nothing? Hint, it's the second one. Just because buzzer beaters are more memorable doesn't mean they are actually more likely. They aren't.
Secondly, the rule where you can advance the ball to the front court when you call a timeout late in the game is moronic. Completely, utterly moronic. It's moronic when the NBA does it. It is moronic that the women game want to do it too. The idea is to help the team that is losing have a better chance to win. Why, exactly, should we be doing that? The team that is losing is losing for a reason. If it's simply because it can be more exciting to give the losing team a better chance to catch up, why stop with something like advancing the ball? Why not give a bonus point for all shots the losing team makes in the last minute? That would increase the chances of a comeback. Why not give the losing team some free foul shots? That would increase the chances of a comeback. Why are we changing the rules of the game at the very end to favor one team over the other? It's dumb.
Just imagine if other sports adopted rules like this. If your team is behind in football in the last two minutes and you get the ball back, either through turnover or a punt, you can move the ball from where ever you should get it to the opponents 30 or 40 yard line. That would make things more exciting. How about if your team is behind by a run in the ninth inning of a baseball game you get a free runner on second base to start the inning. That would certainly make things more exciting. Maybe a team that's behind in soccer late in the game gets a free penalty kick to give them a better chance. And so on.
No other sport changes the rules of the game at the very end to give the team that is losing a better chance to catch up. And the reason for that is that it's a dumb idea. One set of rules, applied consistently for both teams, from the beginning to the end of the game. That's the way sports ought to be played.
First of all, I really don't care about four quarters versus two halves. Everyone else in the world other than college basketball uses quarters so switching for the sake of uniformity is fine. But adding the potential for more buzzer beaters really is a non-starter. Which happens more often at the end of the first half now, an exciting buzzer beater or a rushed possession that amounts to nothing? Hint, it's the second one. Just because buzzer beaters are more memorable doesn't mean they are actually more likely. They aren't.
Secondly, the rule where you can advance the ball to the front court when you call a timeout late in the game is moronic. Completely, utterly moronic. It's moronic when the NBA does it. It is moronic that the women game want to do it too. The idea is to help the team that is losing have a better chance to win. Why, exactly, should we be doing that? The team that is losing is losing for a reason. If it's simply because it can be more exciting to give the losing team a better chance to catch up, why stop with something like advancing the ball? Why not give a bonus point for all shots the losing team makes in the last minute? That would increase the chances of a comeback. Why not give the losing team some free foul shots? That would increase the chances of a comeback. Why are we changing the rules of the game at the very end to favor one team over the other? It's dumb.
Just imagine if other sports adopted rules like this. If your team is behind in football in the last two minutes and you get the ball back, either through turnover or a punt, you can move the ball from where ever you should get it to the opponents 30 or 40 yard line. That would make things more exciting. How about if your team is behind by a run in the ninth inning of a baseball game you get a free runner on second base to start the inning. That would certainly make things more exciting. Maybe a team that's behind in soccer late in the game gets a free penalty kick to give them a better chance. And so on.
No other sport changes the rules of the game at the very end to give the team that is losing a better chance to catch up. And the reason for that is that it's a dumb idea. One set of rules, applied consistently for both teams, from the beginning to the end of the game. That's the way sports ought to be played.
What was the reason to change to 10 minute quarters? Is it only a matter of time before it happens in the men's game? I would say they are trying it out with the women and will we'll probably see it in the men's game eventually.
Playing quarters rather than halves was how college hoops was played in the 1950s and 1960s. So, if they changed the men's game to quarters they would actually be going back to the prior way games were structured. Playing halves, was a change made to match what was being done in the Olympics.
Once upon a time in the US quarters were played at every level: High School 6 min JV, 8 min Varsity, College 10 min, NBA 12 min. Playing 20 min halves was an attempt to make college ball closer to International basketball rules.
Once upon a time in the US quarters were played at every level: High School 6 min JV, 8 min Varsity, College 10 min, NBA 12 min. Playing 20 min halves was an attempt to make college ball closer to International basketball rules.
Last edited:
You are right that playing quarters will essentially give an extra time out per half and the coaches probably like it because of that ...... however, the reason the NCAA Women's Basketball Rules Committee gave for changing the rule was to "enhance the flow of the game" as explained in the article in the link below ...... whether it will do that or not remains to be seen ....http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...basketball-adopts-new-rules-including-four-10
So how much longer til we see this in the men's game? Gotta think they are trying this out in the women's game to see how it go's..
Major, I agree 100%, will be hard to match and I won't be surprised if she does !
No it doesn't, because although they have not yet announced the way that it is going to work, all the quarter break is going to do is replace one of the television timeouts. Instead of four television timeouts each half there will be three television timeouts plus the quarter break. The actual number of timeouts will remain the same.
Thanks for the info. Do you know how long the quarter breaks will be? About the same length of a usual TV timeout or longer?
Similar threads
