It is my opinion, and to use football analogy, we need Riley Leonard type of transfer to start at the 5 and bring Koval in rotationally at the 4 or 5. By Riley, this is a conversation and understanding between the recruit, coaches, existing players, (Maddy, Kate) that this is a premium player that we need to that will take us to the next level. I think it works to assume that Koval will start at 5, but the year that we won the national championship, we did not rely on an incoming freshman - quite the contrary.

A top 5 recruit is recruited to start as a freshman unless there is a star incumbent at the same position. That was Juju Watkins, Mikaylah Williams, Jadyn Donovan, Ciera Toomey, and Hannah Hidalgo this past season. Toomey is the only one who wasn't a starter because she was injured and didn't play at all.

Or you can consider the most recent seniors who were the top 5 recruits - Paige Bueckers, Angel Reese, Cameron Brink, Caitlin Clark, Kamilla Cardoso. Only Reese wasn't a starter her first year.

Koval is a top 5 recruit. I expect her to be the starter. I'm fine having her as the starter. She needs a reliever to play the post, not a starter. Both post players' jobs will be rebounding and defense with points being gravy.

Maddy Westbeld needs a reliever, too... a forward reliever. Cass Prosper will be fine when Westbeld is taking a breather.

Finally, regarding the 2018 team and freshmen... There were only two on the team (plus walk-on Nicole Benz). Mikayla Vaugn got hurt; and while Danielle Patterson played in most games, she was not a top 5 caliber recruit who was expected to make a difference.

Niele - In my opinion - has NOT done a good job of rotating non starting players and giving them needed developing minutes.

I cvompletely disagree. On the 2023 team, Prosper played 22 minutes per game after joining the team at midseason. KK Bransford averaged 24 minutes playing in 33 games. There was much discussion about Nat Marshall not getting enough time, but a 10 minute average playing in 28 games isn't nothing especially when Kaylee Watson and Lauren Ebo are on the team.

Back up a year to bringing Sam Brunelle, Anaya Peoples, and Abby Prohaska off the bench for 17, 20, and 12 minutes per game respectively. As experienced players we might not consider those development minutes; but if you take that position, you have to acknowledge that Olivia Miles and Sonia Citron got 30+ minutes of development time on the court.

Going back to my Riley Leonard Analogy, the only way a quality 4/5 like that comes in is if they are "promised" a starting spot and the team is onboard.

That wasn't the case with Lauren Ebo who certainly was a quality post player. She started 30 games at Texas the year before she came to Notre Dame to be an important non-starter in the playing rotation.

There are quality players who might not be high WNBA draft picks (with only 12 teams drafting) but would like to be part of a Final Four team. Being an important player on the sport's biggest stage, even if not a starter, has appeal to many players.

We'll be OK if Kate is the starter. But it's by far the most accessible position in which to offer minutes to the kind of caliber recruit we need to compete for a national championship.

Of course I've said this before. I'd be disappointed to not sign a transfer prospect at least as talented as Nat.

I think some people disagree with my rotation defeciency assessments (my opinion) - that is fine. But I think in a nutshell:

We have talent already on our roster (Risch, Prosper, KK) that need minutes and those minutes will be very hard to come by next year. We need depth, mostly at the 4/5 . And 5 is the best opportunity with Koval rotating in, but if we can't get a Beers type of 5, a premium 4 will work....

My opinion: We should recruit and try to add (from the portal) exactly 1 4 or 5 premium player to start and once that person is signed , we are done.

The only caveat is if they can find someone who is willing to come on as a backup and/or fight for a job and really think they can beat out an existing player for a rotational non-starting position. And with understanding that they get a degree and may never get anything more than garbage time minutes.... If they can add that, more power to them....

My opinion: We should recruit and try to add (from the portal) exactly 1 4 or 5 premium player to start and once that person is signed , we are done.

The only caveat is if they can find someone who is willing to come on as a backup and/or fight for a job and really think they can beat out an existing player for a rotational non-starting position. And with understanding that they get a degree and may never get anything more than garbage time minutes.... If they can add that, more power to them....

position.

...if you go to the edits...

I didn't really see her play when she was healthy. With her size I would hope she could the 3 in a pinch. Is that not the case? Is she strictly a Shooter (2)? If so, I don't see how she gets meaningful minutes next year. I know we need better 3 point shooting...but who sits for Emma to play much? Are we really going to take Olivia or Hannah out for very long?

are, obviously, similar in their physical attributes as 6'1" guards. Emma is probably a better three-point shooter (one of the best in the country coming out of high school) but Sonia is better at just about everything else (but I think Sonia is better than most college players at everything else).

Emma only played 88 minutes last year, just over two complete games worth, so it is hard to judge her performance. Most of her time was in short 2-3 minute segments substituting for one of the starters and almost half of her minutes played (42 mins) were in two games against NJIT and Chicago St (the worst team in D1 women's basketball) so the statistics are going to be skewed by the level of competition.

When she was playing in the zone defense she was on the baseline so she was essentially playing in the same position as Citron and Westbeld and she actually had several blocked shots and averaged 10 rebounds/40 minutes played. It is probably worth mentioning that she was suffering from this lingering hip injury that eventually required surgery. I have no idea how her rehabilitation has affected her normal S&C development.

Because of her three-point shooting ability some people have suggested that she might be the next Alicia Ratay and I don't think that is fair to either player. Ratay was a great three-point shooter but she was much more than that and Emma is unlikely to approach Alicia's season or career three-point shooting accomplishments. Maybe someone like Madison Cable would be a better comparison but let's just let Emma be Emma instead of comparing her to other players.

I agree with you that it is going to be hard to find minutes for any player that is not starting and, for Emma, the possible addition to the roster of someone like Aaliyah Nye would make it even more difficult.

Thanks!

I am excited to watch her develop. She seems to really connect with all the players and have a tremendous enthusiasm. So, a great fit from that standpoint.

locked in on defense better than I would've thought.

Not that worried about her or Kate's offense as much, that will be overflowing in abundance. What's going to surprise people is the cat 5 hurricanes of defense this team will unleash, especially against backcourts.

Thanks!

I am excited to watch her develop. She seems to really connect with all the players and have a tremendous enthusiasm. So, a great fit from that standpoint.

European trip and on several occasions KK called Emma BF and bestie so it seems like they have really hit it off. I hope they will be integral parts to the Irish success for the next couple of years at least. Great kids, great players and, hopefully, great alums.

played the equivalent of two games all of last season. If the sharpshooter from Illinois/Alabama commits, then Emmas game time will be limited.

This year will be finishing any necessary rehab and then strength and conditioning. Her game time will be practicing against one of the top four teams in the country. Hopefully, she sees her opportunity coming next season. (You mentioned she showed some rebounding attributes, I agree. She also can really pass the ball and sees the floor well.)

I might've been lucky to see one of her longer stints at NJIT: 15 minutes, 8 points of 2-3 from the floor, 4-5 from the line. No three's but nailed a smooth mid-range right in front of us.

What struck me was how tall she was and long her arms were. The fact that she got 5 rebounds was not surprising. She goes to the ball.

Niele likes to aim high in her superlatives and her teammate Alicia Ratay comes to mind because she was tall and uber accurate. Maddie Cable may be an apt comparison, too.

But at this juncture, who knows? The way I'm interpreting the interest in another tall shooting guard is simple: depth. Depth for whatever reason: injury, recuperation, more weapons (see analogies to Staley's use of roster down below in roster size).

Luckily, Anna's got four full years so let's hope she gets healthy, but is used enough to keep her interested and engaged.

You said "Look no further than our recent tourney rotations. The only time the main players came out was if they got ahead of the "foul schedule", eg 2 fouls in the first quarters, etc. They also came out in garbage time.A typical rotation that we ran was to keep the four main starters on the bench, and then substitute DeWolfe and KK at the last spot."

Who were we going to substitute in at that point? Our healthy players were Hidalgo, DeWolfe, Citron, Westbeld, Marshall, Bransford, Cernugal, and Obinmna.

The only option besides what you mentioned was to throw in either Cernugal or Obinma. Obinma was very foul prone and towards the end of the season seemed almost like she had some injury that kept her out.

Maddy got three fouls in the first half and in the second half her defense became very soft..

Your facts only prove the point that we need more players unless you go on the assumption there will be no injuries. I would much rather have ten quality players and figure out the minutes to keep them fresh and happy rather than the situation last NCAA tournament where our starting 5 could play with any other team including South Carolina but........... we had to play them basically the entire game. HH, MW, and SC played all 40 minutes most, not all, but most of the last nine games.

This is mainly true at the 4 and 5 spots. We definitely need some depth there.

He was suggesting that the substitution was "typical" of Ivey when it was more of a case that we lacked depth (much of which is coming back from injury) due to an unusually high number of injuries. Having 4-5 players injured at the same time is not the norm, but it seems like everyone is acting like it is.

Keep in mind that many teams (and I'm including NC level teams, excluding South Carolina) often only go 7-8 players deep in most Tournament games (Iowa only played 7 more than 20 seconds, and 6 more than 10 minutes in the NC Game. LSU only played 6 players more than 3 minutes (7 players total)).

…and deleted it.
You said it better than me with less snark.
Thanks for posting yet another reminder that this year was NOT normal.

teams play 10 deep UCONN is another when they were winning everything never went deep

When there is a significant drop off, that is where the minutes end. I always liked playing eight and found it difficult to play the remaining players. (Although in AAU I often played to squads of five.)

I agree-definitely need a 5. Get some rebounders too—and work them into the lineup. Especially when other players get hurt, which inevitably occurs.

can start with Koval behind them. Keep in mind Bri was out that entire 2017-18 National Championship with her ACL and of course Miles missed last season with an ACL so that does not bode well for Kylee.