USC heads home from March Madness looking at an offseason of change
Southern California forward Kiki Iriafen (44) reacts after scoring a basket during the first half against UConn in the Elite Eight of the NCAA college basketball tournament, Monday, March 31, 2025, in Spokane, Wash. (AP Photo/Young Kwak)
UConn forward Sarah Strong (21) secures a rebound next to Southern California center Rayah Marshall (13) during the first half in the Elite Eight of the NCAA college basketball tournament, Monday, March 31, 2025, in Spokane, Wash. (AP Photo/Young Kwak)
Southern California guard Talia von Oelhoffen (55) shoots while pressured by UConn guard Paige Bueckers (5) during the second half in the Elite Eight of the NCAA college basketball tournament, Monday, March 31, 2025, in Spokane, Wash. (AP Photo/Young Kwak)
Southern California guard Kennedy Smith (11) shoots while pressured by UConn forward Sarah Strong (21) during the second half in the Elite Eight of the NCAA college basketball tournament, Monday, March 31, 2025, in Spokane, Wash. (AP Photo/Young Kwak)
Southern California guard Talia von Oelhoffen (55) celebrates her 3-point basket during the second half against UConn in the Elite Eight of the NCAA college basketball tournament, Monday, March 31, 2025, in Spokane, Wash. (AP Photo/Young Kwak)
Players on the Southern California bench watch towards the end of a game against UConn in the Elite Eight of the NCAA college basketball tournament, Monday, March 31, 2025, in Spokane, Wash. (AP Photo/Young Kwak)
Players on the Southern California bench watch towards the end of a game against UConn in the Elite Eight of the NCAA college basketball tournament, Monday, March 31, 2025, in Spokane, Wash. (AP Photo/Young Kwak)
Southern California forward Kiki Iriafen (44) reacts after scoring a basket during the first half against UConn in the Elite Eight of the NCAA college basketball tournament, Monday, March 31, 2025, in Spokane, Wash. (AP Photo/Young Kwak)
UConn forward Sarah Strong (21) secures a rebound next to Southern California center Rayah Marshall (13) during the first half in the Elite Eight of the NCAA college basketball tournament, Monday, March 31, 2025, in Spokane, Wash. (AP Photo/Young Kwak)
Southern California guard Talia von Oelhoffen (55) shoots while pressured by UConn guard Paige Bueckers (5) during the second half in the Elite Eight of the NCAA college basketball tournament, Monday, March 31, 2025, in Spokane, Wash. (AP Photo/Young Kwak)
Southern California guard Kennedy Smith (11) shoots while pressured by UConn forward Sarah Strong (21) during the second half in the Elite Eight of the NCAA college basketball tournament, Monday, March 31, 2025, in Spokane, Wash. (AP Photo/Young Kwak)
Southern California guard Talia von Oelhoffen (55) celebrates her 3-point basket during the second half against UConn in the Elite Eight of the NCAA college basketball tournament, Monday, March 31, 2025, in Spokane, Wash. (AP Photo/Young Kwak)
Players on the Southern California bench watch towards the end of a game against UConn in the Elite Eight of the NCAA college basketball tournament, Monday, March 31, 2025, in Spokane, Wash. (AP Photo/Young Kwak)
SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — For the second straight year, USC's season ended against UConn in the Elite Eight. And this time around, the Trojans didn't have Juju Watkins to help them fight back.
Watkins, the Big Ten Player of the Year, was back home in Los Angeles watching the No. 2 seed Huskies roll past the top-seeded Trojans 78-64 in the women's NCAA Tournament after sustaining season-ending ACL tear in the second round.
Advertisement
Without Watkins, USC managed to grind out a 67-61 win over No. 5 Kansas Stat e in the Sweet 16 on Saturday, but a battle-tested UConn team proved too much to handle.
Paige Bueckers, who had 28 points in last year's Elite Eight victory over the Trojans, took it a step further in this year's tournament meeting, scoring 31 points to send the Huskies to a second straight Final Four.
'UConn did a really good job defensively, and obviously we're still getting used to not having someone on the floor who can just draw three (defenders) all of a sudden,' USC head coach Lindsay Gottlieb said of Watkins' absence.
Facing UConn in the tournament has been in the back of Gottlieb's mind since the teams met for a regular-season matchup in December. Shortly after Watkins scored 25 to lead the Trojans to a 72-70 win in that game, UConn head coach Geno Auriemma texted Gottlieb and said he hoped the teams would face off in the Final Four.
Advertisement
'I was at a Christmas party or something, and I got a text from Geno two days after we had just beaten them, and he said, 'Hey, I was just thinking about what a great win that was for you and your program, and I love your team, and hopefully we meet up in Tampa.''
While the matchup arrived before the Final Four, and didn't go USC's way, Gottlieb had a lot of praise for her players. From the moment last year's tournament run ended in the same round, Gottlieb had made one thing clear: The standard for USC women's basketball had changed.
'From the second we lost at this round last year, I said, 'The bar has been raised, the standards have been raised, the expectations have been raised,'' Gottlieb said she told her team. 'And even though we've lost at the same point and stage, I think our team 100% delivered on raising that bar and raising that standard.'
Gottlieb and her staff will spend the offseason rebuilding a roster that is set to lose several players, some of whom are projected to get selected in the WNBA Draft on April 14.
Advertisement
Kiki Iriafen, a 6-foot-3 forward, was projected to go within the top five after averaging 18.2 points and 8.4 rebounds, while earning All-Big Ten First Team recognition. The Los Angeles native transferred to USC this summer after three years at Stanford.
'Kiki coming here this year changed our program,' Gottlieb said. 'It kind of put us in a different echelon, and I think everyone feels it.'
Talia von Oelhoffen and Rayah Marshall, two other seniors with draft potential, are also expected to depart from the program. Von Oelhoffen transferred this summer from Oregon State, while Marshall is a four-year Trojan.
___
AP March Madness bracket: https://apnews.com/hub/ncaa-womens-bracket and coverage: https://apnews.com/hub/march-madness Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Schools Can Pay Their Athletes—and College Sports Will Never Be the Same
College sports are dying, college sports are dead, college sports aren't about college anymore—it's Christmas in June for anyone feeling apocalyptic about the state of college sports, now that a settlement has been approved allowing schools to directly pay their athletes. This isn't a salary, technically. This is compensation from schools to athletes for use of their 'name, image, likeness,' but it's not a measly NIL like a burly offensive lineman getting all the bratwurst he can eat. This is a real paycheck, directly from the college. It's really happening—for Division I schools that have opted in. It's set to start July 1. 'A new beginning,' NCAA boss Charlie Baker called it. Is it going to work? Will it cannonball Olympic and nonrevenue sports? How does it square with Title IX? Will it withstand legal challenges? Will it all fall apart? I have no idea! Neither does anyone else! Hold on to your helmets, everyone. We're all jumping off the diving board together. (I will now pause 90 seconds for you to climb the ladder and jump off the diving board with the rest of us.) The settlement of this class action—House vs. NCAA, in which current and former athletes sought name, image and likeness opportunities and a share of athletic department revenue—had been in the works for a while. On Friday, a federal judge signed off on the $2.6 billion settlement, which includes back pay to litigants but also creates a revenue-sharing system 'in which each Division I school will be able to distribute roughly $20 million a year to their athletes,' the Journal reported. That's right. Colleges can chop up $20 million and split it among their jocks. It will take some getting used to. Naturally, the revenue sharing is already provoking some to bemoan the demise of 'amateurism' and the college sports landscape. But schools have to be oblivious to not see who's to blame: They are! College sports did this to itself. The NCAA and its member schools set professionalization into motion with decades of arrogance and denial about the bountiful but warped economy they built around the games we love to watch. When college sports started chasing every dollar as a market-driven business—and frankly, there's a case that college sports has always been a business—paying athletes became inevitable. The bigger the money got, the harder the system was to defend. When college sports started indulging in the $10 million dollar coach, the billion-dollar television deal, the megabuck locker rooms and the assistant to the assistant strength coach making more than a surgeon, the hypocrisy was easy to see. Everyone was making a buck, except the talent on the field. It's why the Supreme Court more or less reacted to the NCAA's claims of amateur status with the following: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Public opinion shifted, too. A decade ago, I'd write about proposals to pay athletes and I could hear the jeering a mile away. Boooooooo! That's not what college sports are about, man! Eventually, those big-dollar media deals, private jets and Pop-Tart Bowls caught up with college sports. It was hard to argue there was anything amateurish about it anymore. Now schools will have to figure it out for themselves. I mean that literally: schools and conferences are navigating a new wilderness in which they are permitted to directly compensate athletes—but without a precedent or a clear road map. Yikes. We do know a few things: The bulk of those $20 million allotments are expected to go to high-revenue sports like football and men's basketball—that's where the money's coming from, after all. Other beneficiaries may be growing sports like women's basketball and softball. The settlement also attempts to inject some calm into the craziness around name, image and likeness. The revenue sharing payments will come from the schools, and third party NIL deals over $600 will be subject to review by 'NIL Go,' an oversight group overseen by Deloitte. The idea here is to put outside NIL deals under a microscope—find out what player deals are legitimate arrangements, and what are booster largesses masquerading as NIL. Good luck! Enforcement will be a headache. So will the invariable league challenges. Defenders of the settlement maintain it shouldn't be entangled with Title IX protections against gender discrimination. Already there are parties who want to argue. Also unknown is the impact on nonrevenue Olympic sports. Do schools start eliminating or rolling back certain sports because they're not big contributors to the bottom line? Possible! We'll see. The new setup isn't free of denial, either. While colleges are now entitled to pay athletes, the system still resists the idea that athletes are employees. Good luck with that, too. There will likely be challenges to the revenue sharing system—is the proportion of revenue (22 percent) given to athletes a fair amount, or should it be renegotiated? Is it tantamount to a salary cap? It's hard to not see this heading in the direction of classifying athletes as employees, and eventually, collective bargaining. If you're lying down on a couch right now with a bag of ice on your head, I understand. It's a lot. It's confusing. Imagine being an athletic director in 2025. No job has changed more. A new day is here. It might not be the apocalypse, but college sports will never be the same. Write to Jason Gay at
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
The college sports employment case that looms as the NCAA's next pivotal court battle
The final settlement of the House v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit is a huge relief to college sports. It's the start of a new economic model and a chance for college sports leaders to show legislators and the public they are capable of change. Here is what it is not: The end of their legal troubles. Throughout the final stretch of this case, many involved have pointed to the next big one coming down the pike. Johnson vs. NCAA, which has been moving through the courts for almost six years now, gets into one of the thorniest issues in college sports: employment. It could be a clarifying win for the NCAA, or it could be the case that hastens the big changes many have predicted — football breaking away from the rest of college sports, and a football Super League. Advertisement In February 2019, Ralph 'Trey' Johnson, a former running back at Villanova, sued the NCAA and nearly a dozen schools, claiming that athletes should be recognized as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case has slowly wound through the system, growing to include other former athletes while NCAA efforts to have the case dismissed have been swatted away. Essentially, the Johnson side argues that the NCAA and its schools have gotten away for decades — and continue to do so, even in the age of name, image and likeness payments and revenue sharing — with having athletes take part in a relationship that has all the appearances of employment, without paying them an hourly wage. 'Athletes should have the same, limited student employee status as classmates selling popcorn at NCAA games,' said Paul McDonald, the lead lawyer for the Johnson side. The NCAA argues that the arrangement has worked for decades, benefits athletes and still works for them, especially with NIL, revenue sharing and cost-of-attendance payments added to the pile. But the organization also seems to acknowledge this as another challenge to the system, and hopes it can be solved through federal legislation rather than the courts. 'The NCAA is making changes to deliver more financial benefits to student-athletes but there are issues such as employment that can only be addressed by Congress,' the NCAA said in a statement to The Athletic this spring. 'The Association looks forward to working with student-athletes and lawmakers to set a stable, and sustainable future for all 500,000 student-athletes.' The case could go to trial as early as next year. There's always a chance the NCAA and the plaintiffs will settle, as in the House case, which leads to new rules and perhaps collective bargaining. But for now, both sides seem dug in. McDonald sees this as a civil rights and fairness issue, and asks why athletes aren't treated the same as student concession stand workers, teaching assistants or any student who does work for the university and is considered an employee. Those students are usually paid hourly, often minimum wage, because they are performing a job. McDonald argues athletes should have the same 'equal treatment' to classmates in work-study student employment, some of whom are also on academic scholarships that don't preclude them from earning a wage. Advertisement 'This would be easy to implement using NCAA-mandated timesheets, and affordable on hourly, minimum wage scales — particularly if colleges stop overpaying some coaches,' McDonald said. 'Colleges have never explained why they oppose this easy and equitable solution.' Johnson filed his case before the NIL and revenue sharing eras began, but McDonald argues that should have no impact: While NIL payments are based on an individual's popularity and revenue sharing rewards a sport's popularity, all athletes should be deemed employees because they are performing a job. For several reasons, colleges and universities are very much against employment. There's the culture of college athletics, the idea that these are students seeking a degree and also playing sports, rather than paid athletes. Some cynics say there's a measure of control involved too, especially with the coach-player dynamic. And of course, there's the money. Every employee has a salary and other costs attached, and paying them all hourly wages would wreck budgets. The SEC and a group of education associations filed an amicus brief in the Johnson case, warning that only 2 percent of NCAA member schools generate enough revenue to cover operating costs. 'If colleges and universities are forced to pay their student-athletes (as employees) it is inevitable that many schools will simply eliminate athletics teams, with non-revenue sports teams the most likely to be on the chopping block,' the brief read. The other possible result: The richest schools pulling away from the rest of the NCAA, as the disparity between the haves and have-nots widens. Every school, even the big brands, is adjusting costs and chasing more revenue to pay for revenue sharing. Employment for athletes could prompt another wave of cost-adjusting and revenue-chasing. Advertisement Preventing athletes from being employees has been a central focus of the NCAA in federal legislation, and the House of Representatives' Education and Workforce committee plans to work to codify that restriction as part of a set of bills in the works from three House committees this week. Of course, any federal law could still be challenged in the courts, which is why outside observers think this will still be settled there. What constitutes employment can be a complicated issue, including various tests. Does the employer have the right to hire and fire the employee? Does the employer set rules and working hours? How much day-to-day supervision is involved? There have been court cases before on employment status, but none quite like this. 'In the employment law world, you have employees and you have non-employees. There's only two buckets,' said Josh Nadreau, an employment lawyer in Massachusetts who has advised some schools on employment issues. 'And I think with respect to looking at student athletes, to try to put them into this two-bucket paradigm is complicated.' There could be a lesson in what the Third Circuit said last year when it denied the NCAA's attempt to dismiss the case. The circuit court judges devised a test to determine whether athletes are employees, which could lead to different conclusions about athletes in revenue versus non-revenue sports. 'They're not subject to the same pressures, they're not subject to the same economic forces,' Nadreau said. 'I think at some point we'll start drawing circles around different groups, some will be employees and some will not.' For many, that's the clean solution, but McDonald is not distinguishing between sports in his arguments. Field hockey players, though their sport is not a revenue driver, also work hard and compete for their school, serving essentially as brand ambassadors, and have expectations from their coaches. Meanwhile, the NCAA has expressed no interest in granting hourly wages to any athletes, even those in football and basketball, hoping the House settlement's revenue-sharing structure shows that athletes are now being sufficiently paid. One final caveat: Expecting this to play out the same way as the House case ignores that it has a different lawyer and is also starting on the opposite coast. The House case, led by Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler, went before the same federal judge, Claude Wilken, in California, who oversaw the Alston case (also led by Berman and Kessler) that eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously against the NCAA's ability to cap education-related benefits. The Johnson case was filed in Pennsylvania, which the Third Circuit oversees, so it could proceed predominantly on the East Coast. Advertisement But unless and until the case makes it to the Supreme Court — or gets settled — there could still be more lawsuits and differing rulings. The result could be a mish-mash of laws, with athletes' employment statuses depending on where you live. 'The question of common sense comes down to who's deciding,' Nadreau said. 'What some people might say is common sense might be different than the rest of the country.'
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Texas ex Scottie Scheffler eyes U.S. Open glory at Oakmont after PGA Championship Triumph
Texas ex Scottie Scheffler eyes U.S. Open glory at Oakmont after PGA Championship Triumph Scheffler helped lead the Longhorns to NCAA prominence in the golf field. Scottie Scheffler enters the 2025 U.S. Open at Oakmont Country Club riding a wave of dominance that has the golf world taking notice—and the oddsmakers making history. After a relatively slow start to the season by his lofty standards, Scheffler has surged to win three of his last four events, including victory at the PGA Championship at Quail Hollow last month. The former Texas Longhorn has now held the world No. 1 ranking for 107 consecutive weeks and is a strong contender for what would be a record-tying fourth straight PGA Tour Player of the Year award. Scheffler's recent run is drawing comparisons to Tiger Woods, the gold standard of professional golf excellence. Woods remains the only player in recent memory to have enjoyed a stretch as dominant as Scheffler's current form. Scheffler is not just headlining the field at Oakmont—he is the overwhelming favorite. According to BetMGM, his +275 odds to win are the shortest for any player in a major since Woods in 2009. Trailing Scheffler in the betting are defending U.S. Open champion Bryson DeChambeau, 2025 Masters winner Rory McIlroy, and two-time major champion Jon Rahm. Oakmont, widely considered one of the toughest courses in the world, presents a stern test for the field. The last time the U.S. Open was held here in 2016, only six players finished even or under par. Scheffler, then an amateur and student at Texas, made his major championship debut at Oakmont that year. He shot a one-under 69 in the opening round but followed with a 78 on Friday, missing the cut by a single stroke. 'I remember coming here and thinking it was really fun, really cool to be playing in the U.S. Open,' Scheffler said Tuesday in a pre-tournament press conference. 'You know, it was my first major and it was maybe my third start on the pro tour at the time ... It definitely made me excited to get out here for real because it was a really fun week. Obviously, I had a really good first round. I didn't play as well in the second, and that was a tough pill to swallow, missing the cut by one.' The question asked to Justin Thomas was simple. 'What is Scottie Scheffler doing that is so special, what do you say?' 'What is he doing?' Thomas responded, during his pre-tournament press conference at the U.S. Open. 'Well, everything.' You've heard that refrain before.… — (@GOLF_com) June 10, 2025 Scheffler's game has matured since that first U.S. Open appearance. He now boasts the best birdie-to-bogey ratio on the PGA Tour this season, a testament to his consistency and composure under pressure. As he prepares for another test at Oakmont, Scheffler remains focused on his own game, despite the growing chatter around his status as the betting favorite. 'Starting Thursday morning, we're at even par and it's up to me to go out there and play against the golf course and see what I can do,' Scheffler said. Scheffler will tee off alongside Collin Morikawa and Viktor Hovland at 1:25 p.m. ET on Thursday as he seeks his second major title of the season—and perhaps another step toward golf history.
