The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 79 Syracuse 58 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 79 Syracuse 58 (/thread-25462.html)

Pages: 1 2

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Syracuse Thursday 7pm; Preview and game thread - 81alum - 02-13-2025

(02-13-2025, 08:37 PM)Card10Fan Wrote:  
(02-13-2025, 08:25 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote:  
(02-13-2025, 07:44 PM)81alum Wrote:  Fundraising for player retention as well as making offers to new recruits is now crucial. We have been far behind and are attempting to become competitive.   -- all per chalk talk.

That's a failure in the program/Stanford athletics and could have multiple year reprecussions if it doesn't improve drastically and soon. Leadership should have recognized earlier the changing nature of collegiate athletics.

I'm glad they see that now. Hopefully they are going in full blast on the Class of 2026 and beyond and building that core needed to compete.

I'm a selfish fan - even though we've been so spoiled rooting for Stanford at the top of the women's game all these years, I don't like not seeing Stanford mentioned as a contender or featured in premiere matchups even one year.

81 alum - who led the chalk talk? I recall BobK in the past posting NIL from LifeCardinal  for WBB is VERY competitive. Stanford leadership needs to be courting the right people to step up the big time giving. Or are we talking about something different from Lifetime Cardinal funds?
Heather Oesterle.  She was very complimentary about Lifetime Cardinal.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Syracuse Thursday 7pm; Preview and game thread - Hieronymus - 02-13-2025

Going to be a Stanford win. Syracuse got down big in Q1 and never made up any ground. 

79-58 Stanford.

All right now.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Syracuse Thursday 7pm; Preview and game thread - BobK - 02-13-2025

A much needed win. Great to see and a shout out to our transfers Stevenson and Heal

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Syracuse Thursday 7pm; Preview and game thread - 81alum - 02-13-2025

This was an excellent win on several levels.  
1) I was impressed with the coaching and the game plan.  
2) I was impressed that we pulled it off without Nunu Agara.  
3) I was impressed that 5 players were in double digits.  
4) I was impressed 21 assists on 28 made baskets.  
5) I was impressed that we led comfortably for most of the game against a taller, more experienced team.  
6) I was impressed that turnovers stayed down to less than terrible levels. 
7) I was impressed that Demetre broke out of her shooting slump. 

Now, there are many things I could pick on that were less than perfect.  But at this point in the season, what we needed were positive results and some feel-good moments, and we got both.

Now that I am at a keyboard and not pecking on my phone, I can elaborate a bit more on the chalk talk.  I am impressed that Heather Oesterle is so open, honest, and quite revealing.  I asked her what I thought was a tough question.  "No one in this room has experience cheering for a Stanford WBB team with a losing record, and I doubt the coaches have any experience coaching a team with a losing record.  What do the coaches need to do to help a team that is struggling?"

I expected she would talk about X's and O's, but she went straight to NIL and money.  This makes some sense since we recruited her away from Notre Dame where she was integral to their NIL program.  She pointed to the players that were lured away with money, and she briefly mentioned Cam in that mix.  It made me think--maybe Cam would have stayed for her final year of eligibility if an NIL deal that rivaled her WNBA contract had been forthcoming.   (The WNBA only pays her $76k, so she mostly gets NIL money as a pro.  Could she have gotten as much NIL money at Stanford?)  One person asked if we had to give contracts to incoming recruits, and as I understood it, the answer is "yes."  Contracts need to be offered even before a player has set foot in a single practice.  Someone answered "how much is needed to recruit a 5 star?" and she said "A lot."  She indicated that fundraising was required  to meet commitments we have already made.  And she noted that court decisions would most likely soon have the University directly paying the athletes.

She was quite profuse in her praise of Lifetime Cardinal which "has really stepped up" but it is an arms race now, and who knows how high we will have to go to truly level the playing field (level the court?) with other programs.

Another question was asked as to whether an athlete that was promised a certain amount could lose that if she did not perform well.  She said it is all based on "fair market value" and so these student--athletes stand to lose value if their performance declines.  That is a lot of pressure on an 18 year old. 

My analysis:  In short, college WBB, at least at our level, now needs to be thought of as a professional sport.  All the players will be paid.  Stanford got a late start on this and is now catching up, but we suffered some damage in the meantime, and this year is the result.  We may not need to match every offer since the Stanford degree is still attractive, but we need to be in the ballpark with our competitors.  That is, if we decide this is something we want to do within the context of an elite academic institution.

I have to say I was overjoyed at the performance during the game, but after coming in from the chalk talk I looked at the athletes differently.   The starkness of knowing that I was watching a minor league professional team curbed my enthusiasm some.   I am still wrestling with myself internally over this.  Not sure where I will land.
Another point.

Chalk talk noted that the players were smart and knew what they were playing for:  their goal is to make the ACC tournament and then go as far as possible.  The ACC tournament takes the top 15 out of 18 teams.  Wake Forest and SMU (that loss was devastating) are pretty much out of it, but above those two there are 7 teams with 3-5 wins each all competing for the last three spots.

And a point about Syracuse:  we played against their coach when she coached Buffalo back in 2019.  That was the trip we were going to go to Canada for Alyssa Jerome, I believe, but something about international travel got messed up and Buffalo filled in across the border from her parents.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Syracuse Thursday 7pm; Preview and game thread - 2006alum - 02-13-2025

Chloe Clardy having 12 assists is really, really encouraging. As is the sudden uptake in the play of our transfers. 

Less exciting is the blatant, unrepentant adoption of the pay to play model. Like you, 81, I'm not sure how much I will be able to sustain my interest in CBB now that it's just an unregulated annual free agency.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Syracuse Thursday 7pm; Preview and game thread - Hieronymus - 02-14-2025

Minor league football and basketball outside of college sports is worth at best $0 in profits; so I don’t see any way that the NCAA becomes less professional at this point. Any attempt to pull those sports from the NCAA would still likely be worth $0, destroying billions in revenue and profits.

I am down to only watching Stanford at this point, and I find myself gravitating to less commercial sports like Volleyball and soccer. However, with WVB’s increasing popularity I expect NIL to have a rapidly increasing impact. And frankly men’s NCAA soccer has no real purpose - the world including the US has well developed minor leagues. Heck most men’s college teams are stuffed with marginal overseas pro academy players. So I have been teetering on the fence here for 18 months or so.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Syracuse Thursday 7pm; Preview and game thread - Card10Fan - 02-14-2025

Overall good win. Was nice to see some players step up with Nunu out and our team break out of our shooting slump. 

Thanks for the chalk talk analysis. So the Lifetime Cardinal fundraising goal for next years team is 1.5 million vs 500k this year. I wonder how that will be spread out amongst our incoming class vs hopeful returners. It stinks that the teams we are often going head to head recruiting against (UCLA, USC, Notre Dame, Duke, UConn) all seem to have their NiL stuff well in order. As much as I hate the current system I hope our fundraising efforts pay off so we can be competitive and relevant still.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Syracuse 58 - crackpot - 02-14-2025

The first thing I wanted to look at this morning was Shay's buzzer-beater at the end of Q1. The refs came over to look at it, and one of the refs told her that Shay clearly beat the buzzer. But she insisted on looking at the inbounds pass and made the scoretable dude play it many times. She decided that they hadn't started the clock when Shay touched the ball and DQ'ed the basket.

1) I've definitely had my complaints about slow clock management in the past, but I've never seen the refs do a darned thing about it. Anyone seen this?

2) Seems unfair, though, to the shooter because likely they're looking at the shotclock when deciding when to put the ball up

3) Did the announcers ever comment on this? They start Q2 with 29 points (rather than 27) and a minute or so later it quietly switches to 27.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Syracuse 58 - 81alum - 02-14-2025

Press conference:
https://gostanford.com/news/2025/02/13/stanford-womens-basketball-syracuse-postgame-press-conference-21325

Lots of praise for Clardy, deservedly.

Interesting that Syracuse "shocked us" by opening up in man after we prepared for their 3-2 matchup zone.  It did not seem to work out too well for them, given that the first quarter was their death knell.  We've been getting better at handling those high-pressure man defenses, and Syracuse did not show a very good version of it.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Syracuse 58 - JohnR34231 - 02-14-2025

Cam said the main reasons she left was because she wasn't eager to do the coast to coast flights, and frankly she was a little tired of going to school, especially because the courses at Stanford weren't ones you could just breeze though.
She didn't say anything about money or NIL's but of course she may not have wanted to come across as greedy.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Syracuse 58 - Hieronymus - 02-14-2025

(02-14-2025, 08:59 AM)crackpot Wrote:  The first thing I wanted to look at this morning was Shay's buzzer-beater at the end of Q1. The refs came over to look at it, and one of the refs told her that Shay clearly beat the buzzer. But she insisted on looking at the inbounds pass and made the scoretable dude play it many times. She decided that they hadn't started the clock when Shay touched the ball and DQ'ed the basket.

1) I've definitely had my complaints about slow clock management in the past, but I've never seen the refs do a darned thing about it. Anyone seen this?

2) Seems unfair, though, to the shooter because likely they're looking at the shotclock when deciding when to put the ball up

3) Did the announcers ever comment on this? They start Q2 with 29 points (rather than 27) and a minute or so later it quietly switches to 27.

So without rewatching everything, I can’t completely say for sure but:
1. Q2 starts with Stanford at 29 points, and suddenly 2 points disappear at 9:30 in q2
2. This is unnoticed apparently by the announcers and there is no explanation
3. No comments at halftime either
4. The NCAA rules are vague about fixing a clock error, but yes this seems like a gross abuse of power
5. The officials are liars if they claimed conclusive proof that the shot would have been late. The clock starts maybe a few tenths slow, and that is about the clock left when Shay releases the ball.
6. The clock is slow to stop after the foul that leads into that play by several tenths so if we are fixing clock errors, go fix all the clock errors. Or maybe more to the point acknowledge the time keeper is human and not a robot and that they have reaction time of a few tenths.
7. I repeat my earlier comment on women’s officiating being a disgrace. Never seen anything like what happened here before.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Syracuse 58 - crackpot - 02-14-2025

(02-14-2025, 09:31 PM)Hieronymus Wrote:  
(02-14-2025, 08:59 AM)crackpot Wrote:  The first thing I wanted to look at this morning was Shay's buzzer-beater at the end of Q1. The refs came over to look at it, and one of the refs told her that Shay clearly beat the buzzer. But she insisted on looking at the inbounds pass and made the scoretable dude play it many times. She decided that they hadn't started the clock when Shay touched the ball and DQ'ed the basket.

1) I've definitely had my complaints about slow clock management in the past, but I've never seen the refs do a darned thing about it. Anyone seen this?

2) Seems unfair, though, to the shooter because likely they're looking at the shotclock when deciding when to put the ball up

3) Did the announcers ever comment on this? They start Q2 with 29 points (rather than 27) and a minute or so later it quietly switches to 27.

So without rewatching everything, I can’t say for sure but
1. Q2 starts with Stanford at 29 points, and suddenly 2 points disappear at 9:30 in q2
2. This is unnoticed apparently by the announcers and there is no explanation
3. No comments at halftime either
4. The NCAA rules are vague about fixing a clock error, but yes this seems like a gross abuse of power
5. The officials are liars if they claimed conclusive proof that the shot would have been late. The clock starts maybe a few tenths slow, and that is about the clock left when Shay releases the ball.
6. The clock is slow to stop after the foul that leads into that play by several tenths so if we are fixing clock errors, go fix all the clock errors. Or maybe more to the point acknowledge the time keeper is human and not a robot and that they have reaction time of a few tenths.
7. I repeat my earlier comment on women’s officiating being a disgrace. Never seen anything like what happened here before.

I went back and tried running a stopwatch from the time Shay first touched the ball 'til the time it left here hand. I'd get b/n 3.64 and 3.84. So it was close. Stupid to overrule the call on the floor.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Syracuse 58 - M T - 02-15-2025

I was at the game. The court announcers did announce the basket had been removed before the 2nd quarter started.  The TV announcers clearly didn't know it; the score on the TV screen changed a minute and a half after the start of the second quarter.

TL;DR: Was it fair to remove the basket?  Probably.  Was it by the rules?  Yes.

I played the video on my TV, recorded the video with my phone, and then counted frames.  I confirmed 60 frames from 3.0 to 1.0 on the TV clock.  From the time she got the ball to when it left her hand, there were 122 frames, or 4.07 seconds.  She only had at most 3.69 seconds to shoot. So, fair from that view.  On the other hand, she heard the countdown and could see the clock. She let the ball go with about 0.3 seconds on the clock.  Fair to not count it? No.


The time shown on the TV screen is not the official time.  As stated by others, there was time left on the clock when she released the ball.  I had a stop-frame where the ball was leaving her hand at 00.3 by the official clock, but 00.8 on the TV clock.

I don't know if the officials see the video sent out to the masses, or whether there is a different feed of some sort that might have the official clock showing.

So the ruling had to be something else -- like a late start of the game clock.  But, what rule gives the refs the authority/requirement to remove a goal scored during live play?  As stated above, the rules are somewhat vague.  So, I went to the 2025 and the 2023 case books.  Surely something as common as this would b3 covered, but it wasn't.

In looking at the rules about time expiration, the first thing to notice is the rules about the shot clock expiration are not applicable.  Rule 5 Section 12, Timing mistakes and Malfunctions, is also explicitly not applicable when replay equipment is available.  So, we're left with Rule 11 on Replay.

In Rule 11, "Art. 3. An on-screen game-clock display on the replay system may be used only
when the clock display is synchronized with the official game clock."

You see some instances of the official game clock above the basket.  These can be compared to the TV clock.  As I said above, the official and on-screen clocks were not synchronized.  Indeed, you could say this shows the TV clock started about 0.4 to 0.5 seconds late, relative to the official game clock.

By the way, you can see the official nearest the camera reaching back to the device he carries to start the clock when she receives the ball.  There isn't enough resolution to see when he actually signals for the clock to start.  But the start of the clock was his responsibility, I believe.  This is no home-town time keeper starting the clock a tad late.

The TV broadcast does not show the official game clock from the free throw to just before the shot. So we can not use it to know when it started.

Quote:Art. 4. Officials may use the digital stopwatch available at the scorers’ table or
a stopwatch embedded in the replay equipment as long as the video is unaltered
and played at normal game speed.

A "stopwatch embedded in the replay equipment" is such an archaic reference.  Why not use a sun dial?  The video is going to have a timecode, which should be able to be displayed.  Then you can just subtract two numbers rather than having to start and stop a stopwatch, and you can pause or step the video to get the right spot.  I counted frames which should be the same (modulo all the processing between their recording and my recording).

Ok, so now, what rule?
There are various references to time expiring on the game clock.  I think that technically is different than "the expiration of time".  In this case, I believe the rule used should have been Rule 5-1.16
Quote:Whether the game clock is running or stopped shall have no bearing
on the counting of a goal as long as the ball was released before the expiration
of time.


There is a permissible (not required) use of replay rule 11-3.1.g to review for erroneously counting or canceling a score (a correctable error per rule 2-12.1.e, but there must be a rule (here, 5-1.16) that applies).

There is a permitted use of replay rule 11-3.1.i about determining if there was a mistake in starting or stopping the game clock.  In the expansion verbiage on the rule, there is no mention of scoring or fouls, only that the error (time correction) must be applied at the first dead ball (here, the end of the quarter). 

A coach may also appeal about 11-3.1.g or 11-3.1.i.  From what one person here said, I presume the coach made no such appeal. 

The refs had to review that the ball left her hand before the clock showed 00.0, but they were not required to review that time had already expired.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Syracuse 58 - M T - 02-15-2025

I arrived at the game just before the end of the first quarter.  The game I saw after that looked sloppy for Stanford on both offense and defense.  The Stanford players, on offense, were
On defense, the opponents were able to get open shots and too many rebounds.  A game or two back, the TV announcer was saying how Stanford needed to stay back after a shot to try to get a rebound.  That's something that we've been seeing for a long time, presumably because the coaches wanted to stop fast breaks and transitions.  I think other teams are taking advantage of that.  Percentage-wise Stanford was out rebounded.   Stanford got 35/46 = 76.1% of their possible defensive rebounds, and 6/31 = 19.4% of the offensive rebounds, for a total of 95.5% (os Syracuse totaled 104.5).

I'm glad we were able to hit our 3-pt shots (45%) when the other team was weaker.  After missing the first 3 FT, we were 16 of 17.

It was painfully obvious that Shay was not put on the shortest opponent.  Clardy got that assignment, it seemed.

Some will say Bosgana had a great game with 18 points and 11 rebounds. But, she played 29 minutes and had a +/- of 0.  So, Stanford scored all its 21 point advantage in the 11 minutes that Bosgana was on the bench.  I did not expect that!

The officials were nothing special either.  Remember the "obvious" travel call on Umeh.  Uh, ref, it isn''t traveling until she puts her pivot foot down, when you're shooting.  Her pivot foot hadn't come down; it wasn't a travel when the whistle blew.  Yeah, it looked ugly, but that's the rule.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Syracuse 58 - 81alum - 02-15-2025

(02-15-2025, 03:19 AM)M T Wrote:  It was painfully obvious that Shaw was not put on the shortest opponent.  Clardy got that assignment, it seemed.
I think you meant Shay, and this one, at least, was by design.  Oesterle told us at the chalk talk that Ijiwoye would defend the much taller 3 point specialist, on the theory that sometimes shorter players can get under the dribble of taller players and be disruptive.  It seemed to work at first, but less well as Syracuse adapted.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Syracuse Thursday 7pm; Preview and game thread - UltimateCard - 02-15-2025

(02-14-2025, 07:10 AM)Card10Fan Wrote:  So the Lifetime Cardinal fundraising goal for next years team is 1.5 million vs 500k this year. I wonder how that will be spread out amongst our incoming class vs hopeful returners. It stinks that the teams we are often going head to head recruiting against (UCLA, USC, Notre Dame, Duke, UConn) all seem to have their NiL stuff well in order. As much as I hate the current system I hope our fundraising efforts pay off so we can be competitive and relevant still.

Tara in her Masterclass this week mentioned that there will be a session on NIL and collectives at Kissick after the game tomorrow. Hope someone attending will report out.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Syracuse Thursday 7pm; Preview and game thread - Card10Fan - 02-15-2025

(02-15-2025, 12:59 PM)UltimateCard Wrote:  
(02-14-2025, 07:10 AM)Card10Fan Wrote:  So the Lifetime Cardinal fundraising goal for next years team is 1.5 million vs 500k this year. I wonder how that will be spread out amongst our incoming class vs hopeful returners. It stinks that the teams we are often going head to head recruiting against (UCLA, USC, Notre Dame, Duke, UConn) all seem to have their NiL stuff well in order. As much as I hate the current system I hope our fundraising efforts pay off so we can be competitive and relevant still.

Tara in her Masterclass this week mentioned that there will be a session on NIL and collectives at Kissick after the game tomorrow. Hope someone attending will report out.
Yes please. I’m in Durham at the men’s game so won’t make the session. Hoping someone can provide a recap too.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Syracuse 58 - crackpot - 02-15-2025

(02-15-2025, 02:10 AM)M T Wrote:  
Quote:Art. 4. Officials may use the digital stopwatch available at the scorers’ table or
a stopwatch embedded in the replay equipment as long as the video is unaltered
and played at normal game speed.

A "stopwatch embedded in the replay equipment" is such an archaic reference.  Why not use a sun dial?  The video is going to have a timecode, which should be able to be displayed.  Then you can just subtract two numbers rather than having to start and stop a stopwatch, and you can pause or step the video to get the right spot.  I counted frames which should be the same (modulo all the processing between their recording and my recording).

They went with the stopwatch embedded in the replay equipment. Lisa told the dude to hit it when she said to and stop it when she said to. That seems much more prone to human error (and doubley so when using two people). I think it would have been much more accurate to track via the replay itself. If that is not available, it's surprising. Most basic video-editing apps display in the hundreths of a second if you prefer. <shrug>