Women's Gopher Basketball Rundown

In a mixture of complete adoration for all things sport and a need to get involved on campus, I have become the beat reporter for the Women's Gopher basketball team for a certain outlet. I will be at just about every home game, and probably will listen to away games on the radio. After each game, I'll put up some thoughts

GOPHERS 74, LOUISVILLE 69

- Going to the Timberwolves game on Friday was probably a good thing, if only to show the difference between the the pro men's fans and Gopher faithful. It is a blessing for the Gophers to have such a dedicated fan base - a fan base that needs almost no prompting to clap, to boo, to make a shit load of noise to get the team going. And if we keep winning, the crowds will only get bigger.

- This game was a team victory, to be sure, but let it be known: it is a different game when Emily Fox is on the court. She was dominant when she got the ball in the first half, and in limited time in the second half she couldn't miss. She plays with such a level of energy and lovingly influences the rest of the team enough to provide a real fire when she's on (which is all the freaking time. I don't think she gets tired. If anything, she gets more intense).

Final thought about Emily: I have never seen anyone more upset to sit with foul trouble. There were about 17 minutes left in the second half, the Gophers were hanging with the Cardinals, and she gets called for a somewhat soft foul. She pounded on the court as hard as she could when she went off, and at every stop she looked like she was being chained to her seat to prevent her from rushing on court. At every substitution, she flew onto the court. Once again: it's different with Emily.

- Absolute props to Pam Borton's rotation after Fox got into foul trouble. Using defensive specialists Kay Sylva and Katie Ohm (who reminds me of a more pleasant Bruce Bowen in play style - especially with the shot put three pointer), there were more than a few times during that second half where Fox was on the court for the offensive possession, then there was a dead ball, and then there was a defensive substitution. It could be classified as good luck with all those Louisville turnovers, but Borton was on top of that situation.

- This game, in relation to the rest of their victories so far, showed that this team knows how to get a win any way it comes. In the opener against UC-Riverside (the last game I covered), the team made one basket outside the paint the whole game, with Leslie Knight and Zoe Harper dominating in the paint and on the boards.

Against Louisville, they were getting smacked around inside the whole time. They lost big on the boards and in post points, they were forced into terrible shots, and their offense was forced to pass around the perimeter until someone had the guts to drive or set a pick. So how did they win? They buckled down on defense, contested damn near every shot taken in the second half, got Ashley Ellis-Milan to the line, and Korrine Campbell had a monster game. Even with both Brittany McCoy and Zoe Harper playing poorly, the team adapted and found a way to win. This team has six players that can become scorers (seven if you count Ohm's ability to nail a three now and then), and that makes them very very dangerous.

-Angel McCoughtry=fucking crazy-go-nuts out there. 39 points. As well as we played, we had no answer for her. The only thing that stopped her from scoring 50 was that she went cold in the second half and let her emotions get the best of her (she's like Fox, only her players didn't respond as well). She was horrifying when she had the ball.

- I have a feeling this team is going to be much more dangerous at the Barn than on the road. That crowd is just so integral to their flow. However, they have proven that they really only need themselves to win, so who knows.

- They are fun as hell to watch. The end

People have no idea how to read, or, Don Shula gets no resepct

Before we start asking questions like: "did Don Shula throw fuel on the Patriots' fire?" or "is Don Shula an old buffoon?" it might just be more helpful to ask: Did Don Shula say anything about the Patriots deserving an asterisk?

Let's peek at the quote:

"The Spygate thing has diminished what they've accomplished," Shula said in an interview with the New York Daily News. "You would hate to have that attached to your accomplishments. They've got it."

Belichick was fined $500,000 and the Patriots were fined $250,000 and lost a first-round draft pick for videotaping the Jets' opposing sideline during the teams' season-opening game.

"That tells you the seriousness or significance of what they found," Shula said, according to the Daily News. "I guess you got the same thing as putting an asterisk by Barry Bonds' home run record.<

"I guess it will be noted that the Patriots were fined and a No. 1 draft choice was taken away during that year of accomplishment. The sad thing is Tom Brady looks so good, it doesn't look like he needs any help."

Now, let's break down everything Shula says:

"The Spygate thing has diminished what they've accomplished," Shula said in an interview with the New York Daily News. "You would hate to have that attached to your accomplishments. They've got it."

Here, Shula starts by what seems to be a statement of opinion. However, he follows that immediately with a universal statement about not wanting something negative (being caught videotaping other teams) connected to something positive (beating the hell out of the rest of the NFL). He is not saying anything implicitly negative about anyone at this moment.

About the fine and the draft pick:

"That tells you the seriousness or significance of what they found," Shula said, according to the Daily News. "I guess you got the same thing as putting an asterisk by Barry Bonds' home run record.

Now I understand this is difficult to do, but if you read the quote, you'll realize that he still isn't saying anything about what he thinks the Patriots deserve. He is simply saying what will be there. He doesn't say "I guess you've got to put an asterisk next to the Patriots like Barry Bonds" or anything else that implies doing something negative to the Patriots. He is saying that there will be a mark on the Patriots season - and there will be. Anytime something negative happens to your team (and losing a first round draft pick is sort of negative), it will not be remembered fondly. It might not be as big as the mark on Bonds, but he it sure seems like he was relating this event to current events rather than calling the Patriots a bunch of cheaters.

Finally:

"I guess it will be noted that the Patriots were fined and a No. 1 draft choice was taken away during that year of accomplishment. The sad thing is Tom Brady looks so good, it doesn't look like he needs any help."

Once again, he is not saying anything attacking the Pats or recommending a punishment. He is saying that people will remember that they had these negative things happen to them during this amazing season - and people more than likely will. Not out of spite or hatred, but out of simple memory. You will think back on this season and say "Yeah that was a great season. Didn't they have some kind of controversy that season too?" He even goes so far as praising Tom Terrific.

Furthermore, it's Don Shula. Dude beat my Vikings in the Super Bowl the year after that season, and even I can realize that he's to be respected.

Or at least respected enough to read his damn quote.

(P.S. Some more evidence that there was no implication of the Patriots from Shula: when the story first went on ESPN.com, the title said something to the tune of "Shula: Patriots deserve asterisk". The headline now? "Shula: If Pats go 16-0, spying spoils feat"- and that's still too harsh.)