I could write about Stanford or BC, but no…

Let's see those ass-kicking cowboy boots, Coach.

It’s been almost a month since I wrote anything about Notre Dame, although I have talked about the Irish in the tournament in our podcast. Previously, I was cranky about Notre Dame’s loss to UConn in the Big East tournament, but apparently that was good for the Irish. They got some time “off,” and they came back strong for the NCAA tournament.

This season was sort of reminiscent of 2007. It’s been a shaky couple of months, possibly tempered for me by Penn State’s stutter-stop 2010. Knaack was dropped from the roster, the freshmen settled in (right? At least a few of them did), and the senior class has returned to the Final Four. As a four-seed, they sliced through New Mexico, returned to proper Irish form against USC, thrashed top-seeded UNC in North Carolina, and survived again on the road against Oklahoma State. This has been a really, really good run for the Irish after a challenging season. Given the spanking they gave the Tar Heels, I would say that although this season isn’t over yet, it’s been a success.

On Friday, Notre Dame meets Ohio State in the 4 p.m. (ET) semifinal. ESPN2/ESPNU should be carrying the game, as well as ESPN3.com. That’s right, the webcast is for Notre Dame-Ohio State, not Stanford-Boston College (6:30 p.m. ET on ESPN2/ESPNU). Four different conferences are represented, two schools are hitting a consecutive Final Four, and two are in their first semifinal. There are very few ways that a tournament in North Carolina without UNC can go wrong, and with the Irish in the mix, there are a lot of ways it can go right.

Advertisements

Quick points from the Boston College-Rutgers game

Looks like Rutgers head coach Glenn Crooks is not happy with his team’s performance yesterday. Rutgers fell 3-1 to Boston College (ranked 4th in the nation). I would handwave the scoreline and “L” for this game–take issue with that Seton Hall loss on Friday!–but I agree, Rutgers made it easy on BC for most of the game. The visitors dominated without needing to put in much effort. Jonelle Filigno was the only consistent offensive presence for the Scarlet Knights, and you need more than one (albeit very good) player to compete with a defense like that. If this is the usual for Rutgers this year, then Filigno is going to be exhausted by the time the season ends.

Jillian Mastroianni (a US U-23) was a commanding presence in back for Boston College, although she was mostly unchallenged in this contest. She was vocal particularly at the start of the game, and she was called upon to make a few saves. However, in the closing seconds, she gave up BC’s second goal of the season:

At one point during the second half (I think), Mastroianni got in a footrace with a Rutgers player, chasing the ball way out of her box instead of clearing it. Very amusing for us and probably scary for the Eagles to see; confidence can only get you so far before it becomes reckless.

Victoria DiMartino had a decent game. It was definitely a better showing than she gave for the U-20s this year. No offsides, only hit the wood two or three times, took eight shots and assisted on the first goal. Similar to Filigno, she seems to be the main striker, but she has much more support (and BC definitely has other forward options). It was very interesting to see the offensive dynamic for BC, particularly how DiMartino and fellow U-20 Kristie Mewis factored in. Mewis, also with five shots and an assist (the third goal), did a great job of linking up DiMartino and the rest of the forwards.

Altogether, the BC-Rutgers women’s game was a good experience and good way to see both of these teams in person for the first time. I even took some video. The weather was good, the traffic wasn’t bad, and there were a fair amount of fans for both the home team and visitors. The game was the first of a double-header with the men’s team, which we didn’t stick around for. We passed by the field later while that match was still going on, and the crowd had shrunk considerably.  Have to admit, I was a little smug over that.