Depth Issues & Number on Roster

[HuskerClone]

At the time Emiah left and actually a number of times in prior years, we've heard Bill and others speak about depth issues on the team. Having counted the number of players on the roster as 12 with Emiah and 11 without her and knowing that the NCAA limit on scholarships was 15, I wondered why we started the year with 3 open scholarships. Knowing that every team faces transfer issues, injuries and that some players just don't pan out, I really didn't understand why we didn't fill all the scholarships possible.

Not wishing to be uninformed or accused of slamming the ISU coaches and wondering if it was just us but then hearing that Sherri Coale had gone looking for walkons due to multiple injuries, I looked at the rosters for the rest of the Big 12 and found the following

ISU - 11 now, 12 at the beginning of the season
Kansas - 11
Kansas State - 13
Oklahoma - 14
Oklahoma State - 10
Texas - 15
Baylor - 13
Texas Tech - 13
Texas Christian - 12
West Virginia - 13

Texas is the only team at the limit, Oklahoma is one under and everybody else is anywhere from 2 to 5 under the limit. So now my question is: what don't I understand about women's basketball? Why are so many teams so far under the limit? Is it finances, lack of available talent? I really hope that some of you with more knowledge and experience can provide some insight here.

[twistedredbird]

Coach has often said we cannot fill the roster with kids of the level to play at our caliber to just be "depth" They want to play not sit on the bench. We have in the past added some jucos to do that, but everyone wants those.

[Wesley]

Well, it looks like our team is short this year. With two fouls on Pop and Prins, we almost started to look like deer in the headlights. We barely turned around the game.

[ribsnwhiskey]

Here's the answer: we just beat Texas. Bill knows what he's doing.

[Cyfan1843]

Except for the fact our girls looked like they needed to put their lungs back in......It is our coaches responibility to put together enough depth that we don't gas. I am worried about the length and grind of the season....What is someone get hurt are we playing with 6?

[BoxsterCy]

Except for the fact our girls looked like they needed to put their lungs back in......It is our coaches responibility to put together enough depth that we don't gas. I am worried about the length and grind of the season....What is someone get hurt are we playing with 6?

And this is only game #1. They cannot do that for a full conference slate. From past years talk I know they will be going lighter in practice etc but it's going to be a grueling conference season for the starters.

[acoustimac]

Coaches also hold scholarships to balance out positions over years. They know what is graduating and will be looking for those types of bodies to come in. When that doesn't happen they hold those schollies rather than just spend them on a body that sits. I'm sure there is also a budgetary impact that is considered.

[HuskerClone]

So is there that much difference between men and women in how patient they are. If you do the same analysis of the men's teams in the conference and remember their scholarship limit is 13 not 15 as is the women's game, the list becomes:

ISU - 15 (not counting Palo)
KU - 16
KSU - 15
OU - 16
OSU - 15
Baylor - 13
Texas - 14
Tech - 15
TCU - 15
WVU - 15

Baylor is the only one at the limit, everybody else is over, in fact almost all have more men than women players even though the men's limit is lower. I truly don't understand the difference.
I don't know why a coach would hold anywhere from 2-5 scholarships and operate short-handed, particularly when most of us would admit it affects the quality of play. I have some trouble accepting that there are truly less women that can play at the level of ISU than men that can play at ISU's level but yet we have guys that sit on the bench and only play garbage minutes and accept that for a career.

I'm just puzzled.

[isuforlife]

So is there that much difference between men and women in how patient they are. If you do the same analysis of the men's teams in the conference and remember their scholarship limit is 13 not 15 as is the women's game, the list becomes:

ISU - 15 (not counting Palo)
KU - 16
KSU - 15
OU - 16
OSU - 15
Baylor - 13
Texas - 14
Tech - 15
TCU - 15
WVU - 15

Baylor is the only one at the limit, everybody else is over, in fact almost all have more men than women players even though the men's limit is lower. I truly don't understand the difference.
I don't know why a coach would hold anywhere from 2-5 scholarships and operate short-handed, particularly when most of us would admit it affects the quality of play. I have some trouble accepting that there are truly less women that can play at the level of ISU than men that can play at ISU's level but yet we have guys that sit on the bench and only play garbage minutes and accept that for a career.

I'm just puzzled.

your name sucks

[Wesley]

Moody looked quite gassed in that UT game. They tried to have someone else bring the ball up the court, but that was a fail. They needed Moody to dribble the whole game out in order to play. Full court press might cause us problems as far as conditioning goes.

[Polarbears]

Coaches also hold scholarships to balance out positions over years. They know what is graduating and will be looking for those types of bodies to come in. When that doesn't happen they hold those schollies rather than just spend them on a body that sits. I'm sure there is also a budgetary impact that is considered.

From what BF has said before, the AD wants him to give as many scholarships as he can. But it comes down to, I think, it takes a special dedication to practice and not play. Given the choice, most people would rather be a star at a smaller school than a role player/bench rider at a big school. Because of Title IX, the Dept. would like the women's rosters to be full, was my understanding.

[Wesley]

Looks to me like having only seven players means that each game is a potential wreck waiting if anyone commits two fouls in the first half. Outside of Pop, Prins, and Moody, we have a lot of role players. The only way around having a limited number of players is to call a lot of timeouts and be in great shape. Time will tell.

Fred has a similar problem with his inside people: Booker, Georges, Gibson and Melvin. Two fouls in the first half really creates problems.

[Dryburn]

And this is only game #1. They cannot do that for a full conference slate. From past years talk I know they will be going lighter in practice etc but it's going to be a grueling conference season for the starters.

But to me, the "going lighter in practice" raises some other questions. What does that do to their overall conditioning, and to what they are supposed to be accomplishing in practice? It seems to me that if there is a preference to "go harder" in practice, but then you adjust to not wear your team out, that is making an adjustment that you really don't want to have to make, and you are making it merely because of a lack of depth. That seems like something you would do if you have some injuries, or three games in a week or something.

[Dryburn]

So is there that much difference between men and women in how patient they are. If you do the same analysis of the men's teams in the conference and remember their scholarship limit is 13 not 15 as is the women's game, the list becomes:

ISU - 15 (not counting Palo)
KU - 16
KSU - 15
OU - 16
OSU - 15
Baylor - 13
Texas - 14
Tech - 15
TCU - 15
WVU - 15

Baylor is the only one at the limit, everybody else is over, in fact almost all have more men than women players even though the men's limit is lower. I truly don't understand the difference.
I don't know why a coach would hold anywhere from 2-5 scholarships and operate short-handed, particularly when most of us would admit it affects the quality of play. I have some trouble accepting that there are truly less women that can play at the level of ISU than men that can play at ISU's level but yet we have guys that sit on the bench and only play garbage minutes and accept that for a career.

I'm just puzzled.

One thing to note here......you are counting total players on the men's roster. Some of them are walk-ons and do not count against the scholarship total unless they go on schlarship sometime during (or even after) the season, at which time they are no longer considered a walk-on. Right now, ISU Men's has 4 walk-ons.....McBeth, Ellerman, Fowler, and Law. Bubu was also a walk-on but was on scholarship for this year, although now he is suspended and not counted. Right now, I believe ISU has 12 on scholarship.....10 active and then a red-shirt in Dorsey-Walker, and at least a financial arrangement with Jones. So, technically, ISU Men's is short by one from filling the 13 limit.

Frankly, I think the women's teams generally do it wrong. I think they need to be more like the men's teams and fill as many scholarships as possible, and build your practice depth with walk-ons if needed. Yes, some will sit, but male players accept that, so why wouldn't women players?

It just seems silly to me that in one breath you are saying you don't fill all of your scholarships because girls won't have a chance to play, and then in the next you are talking about going lighter in practice because of a lack of depth. Something there makes no sense.

[mred]

I think they need to be more like the men's teams and fill as many scholarships as possible, and build your practice depth with walk-ons if needed.

WBB doesn't need to build practice depth. They play against male practice players.