Do you know how disrespectful that is to the players and coaches?
I'd bet you some of the Iowa players would even take offense to that. They'd probably tell you, "dude, we got our asses beat. We just didn't play well enough and they happened to play very well and beat us."
So did the refs fix the game for ESPN/SEC? If so, why didn't they just have S. Carolina beat Iowa? That would have been the much bigger SEC storyline to have either a repeat champion or all-SEC final. I can almost guarantee it wasn't a game with heavy enough action for Vegas to have fixed for their own interest.
Even if you want to believe that a couple calls by the refs catalyzed a string of causation that could have effected the outcome of the game, it still would have only made up a very miniscule portion of what decided the game.
A much larger portion would have to do with the fact that LSU was on fire offensively.
Another significant factor was the fact that LSU had extra motivation; which I will explain momentarily.
But quite simply, expecting Iowa to win with the level of defense they played is asking a LOT. Darn near impossible, in fact. That's why one of the best offenses in the country put up 85 and got blown out.
If you have to resort to gimmick defenses you are eventually going to lose. Bluder used the sagging (to the point of gimmick) defense vs. S. Carolina. It was executed very well and also surprised the Lady Cocks enough to get the win.
But the extreme sag shouldn't have been used against LSU. For one, their offense wasn't as heavily predicated on the paint as S. Carolina's. It ended up opening all sorts of free cuts and more importantly, free runs to the glass, which made it about impossible to box out. Offensive players were open everywhere which kept Iowa in constant rotation. Iowa's ball containment and help principals aren't nearly sound enough to be able to defend effectively in rotation. Given the lack of sound defensive principles in place, Iowa may have lost regardless of what D they played. As I said, Iowa was "resorting" to a gimmick D, whether Bluder wants to admit that or not. And the surprise element was gone. Any gimmick D has huge holes in it and LSU was able to prepare to exploit those holes. For one thing, getting wide open shots is a lot different than being able to prepare for a game knowing that you will get wide open shots.
More importantly, LSU was motivated to make Iowa pay for the extreme sag. Not only did they have the confidence from knowing Iowa's perimeter D would make it feel like their birthday, but they were able to play a disrespect card. Clark waiving off guarding a wide open perimeter player in the previous game was able to be interpreted as disrespect. Mulkey was able to challenge her players' womanhood to make wide open shots. Also, Staley tried to create a narrative of racism after her Lady Cocks got beat. It was complete bullshit. But Mulkey, as disgusting as she is, was able to run with it and use it as motivational fuel that helped her team reach a new level of performance. Basically, Iowa using the gimmick D vs. S. Carolina created an ambush for them to walk into against LSU.
Ignorant and/or weak minded fans are a very unfortunate part of sports. Life certainly isn't always fair. Around every corner an injustice can be found. But sports has about the most fair playing field you're going to encounter in life. That's the beauty of it. The best team on that day wins and there's no taking it back.
Again, it's completely disrespectful to the players and coaches to suggest otherwise. The Iowa players and coaches don't want to hear that the LSU game was fixed. They don't believe that. If they don't believe it, why should you? It's disrespectful to the years and years the players and coaches have put into their craft. They prepare the absolute best they can and come game day may the best team that day win. They are willing to accept that. They don't want to hear some crap about fixed games.
Do you think any LSU fans think the game was fixed? Of course not. So how is it that two fanbases can see a game in two entirely different ways? One fanbase must not be seeing it objectively. Somehow it's always the fanbase of the losing team
