100%. Which is where my frustration comes from with having that athleticism be on display vs. C-N, Samford, yet seemingly vanished against the first decent D1 team we play. I don't think the Lady Vols from 2 weeks ago let MTSU score 75 points, in my opinion. The team then was bringing tons of energy — not only in the full-court press, but even in the half-court D. Didn't see it that way tonight, but maybe that's my BVS coming out.
Either (a) I'm wrong about her system and the metrics/analytics being in its favor, as you say, or (b) the only way she fails here at UT is by failing on the S&C end and getting bullied by stronger teams (whose conditioning goes further than "let's do a bunch of cardio and have practices be even harder on your body than the games", which IMO can make you mentally strong, but softer physically than actual SEC S&C) come time to play against competition a bit stronger than the Mountain East and Sun Belt had.
And I hope I'm wrong about everything I'm saying. I'm sorry if I've given anyone, particularly thinking of Knox, second-hand cringe from what I've said, but it's coming from a place of wanting her to succeed (both as a Lady Vol fan and as a Grinnell System fan), with a fear that preserving her D2 S&C programme in her move to D1 won't work in the SEC. The UTM game was a bit concerning, and tonight's game far from relieved my concerns on this end. To let MTSU run their starters almost the entire game, and not drive them to fatigue to the point where they had to go the bench is a really bad look. Our system is supposed to be all about wearing out the opponent with better conditioning and playing the game around our conditioning and depth winning out in the end. Yet MTSU played 4 of their starters 38+ minutes, and they only lost by 14 . . . ? That's a red flag for Kim's team come conference time, unless they're able to make adjustments.