The CardBoard
Some bulletin board material for Shaw - 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: Some bulletin board material for Shaw (/thread-5059.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - 76lsjumb - 04-15-2013

For fans of both sports, I would be interested in hearing your opinion on this: 

Are we more likely, over the next five to ten years, to win a nat'l championship in football or in women's basketball?

Right now, I'm leaning more toward the former...

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - 76lsjumb - 04-15-2013

For fans of both sports, I would be interested in hearing your opinion on this: 

Are we more likely, over the next five to ten years, to win a nat'l championship in football or in women's basketball?

Right now, I'm leaning more toward the former...

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - washingtonismoney - 04-15-2013

(04-15-2013, 05:07 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:Are we more likely, over the next five to ten years, to win a nat'l championship in football or in women's basketball?

That's easy: women's basketball. Winning six games in a row is much easier than winning 14 (or 15!) in a row.

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - washingtonismoney - 04-15-2013

(04-15-2013, 05:07 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:Are we more likely, over the next five to ten years, to win a nat'l championship in football or in women's basketball?

That's easy: women's basketball. Winning six games in a row is much easier than winning 14 (or 15!) in a row.

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - CompSci87 - 04-15-2013

(04-15-2013, 05:07 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:For fans of both sports, I would be interested in hearing your opinion on this: 

Are we more likely, over the next five to ten years, to win a nat'l championship in football or in women's basketball?

Right now, I'm leaning more toward the former...

The variance in WBB is a lot higher than in football, due to the much smaller number of players on a team, the small number of real superstars coming out of high school, and as WIM pointed out, the 64-team tournament. So there are more opportunities to get lucky -- like TA&M did a couple of years back.

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - CompSci87 - 04-15-2013

(04-15-2013, 05:07 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:For fans of both sports, I would be interested in hearing your opinion on this: 

Are we more likely, over the next five to ten years, to win a nat'l championship in football or in women's basketball?

Right now, I'm leaning more toward the former...

The variance in WBB is a lot higher than in football, due to the much smaller number of players on a team, the small number of real superstars coming out of high school, and as WIM pointed out, the 64-team tournament. So there are more opportunities to get lucky -- like TA&M did a couple of years back.

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - washingtonismoney - 04-15-2013

(04-15-2013, 05:37 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:The variance in WBB is a lot higher than in football, due to the much smaller number of players on a team, the small number of real superstars coming out of high school, and as WIM pointed out, the 64-team tournament. So there are more opportunities to get lucky -- like TA&M did a couple of years back.

Oh, no, I think women's basketball is more likely to win because the variance is lower. It seems to me smaller number of players on a team and smaller number of real superstars decreases rather than increases variance -- it disproportionately benefits teams with great players. There's a reason the Lakers and Celtics account for 50+% of NBA Finals appearances (outdated stat as of that Lakers/Celtics NBA finals matchup a few years ago.)

On the other hand, Stanford football will typically be knocked out of national championship consideration by a single loss -- and it's harder to go unbeaten over 14/15 games than 6.

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - washingtonismoney - 04-15-2013

(04-15-2013, 05:37 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:The variance in WBB is a lot higher than in football, due to the much smaller number of players on a team, the small number of real superstars coming out of high school, and as WIM pointed out, the 64-team tournament. So there are more opportunities to get lucky -- like TA&M did a couple of years back.

Oh, no, I think women's basketball is more likely to win because the variance is lower. It seems to me smaller number of players on a team and smaller number of real superstars decreases rather than increases variance -- it disproportionately benefits teams with great players. There's a reason the Lakers and Celtics account for 50+% of NBA Finals appearances (outdated stat as of that Lakers/Celtics NBA finals matchup a few years ago.)

On the other hand, Stanford football will typically be knocked out of national championship consideration by a single loss -- and it's harder to go unbeaten over 14/15 games than 6.

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - OutsiderFan - 04-15-2013

Stanford Women's hoops hasn't won a national title since what, 1990?  I think it's been established that Stanford's women can't quite get enough great athletes to get over the hump, and there is no style of play that lends itself to Stanford women's hoops having any kind of advantage over other teams.  The physicality of football that Stanford plays with now, the fact football has a mental component more complex than basketball, and the fact Stanford can routinely find great QBs (the most important position on the field), to me suggests Stanford football has a better shot at a title.  Moreover, Stanford football has already gone to three BCS games without much benefit from any Top 15 recruiting class contributions.



Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - OutsiderFan - 04-15-2013

Stanford Women's hoops hasn't won a national title since what, 1990?  I think it's been established that Stanford's women can't quite get enough great athletes to get over the hump, and there is no style of play that lends itself to Stanford women's hoops having any kind of advantage over other teams.  The physicality of football that Stanford plays with now, the fact football has a mental component more complex than basketball, and the fact Stanford can routinely find great QBs (the most important position on the field), to me suggests Stanford football has a better shot at a title.  Moreover, Stanford football has already gone to three BCS games without much benefit from any Top 15 recruiting class contributions.



Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - yvonne - 04-15-2013

Aren't we feeling like a big shot Mr. Finally made it to the Final Four?

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - yvonne - 04-15-2013

Aren't we feeling like a big shot Mr. Finally made it to the Final Four?

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - 76lsjumb - 04-16-2013

(04-16-2013, 08:02 AM)garvin link Wrote:There is nothing innately Stanford about being big and tough.

Just make sure you only whisper that... very quietly...with your hand cupped over your mouth... should you happen to be in the vicinity of Andrus Peat [or Alex Carter] [or...]

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - 76lsjumb - 04-16-2013

(04-16-2013, 08:02 AM)garvin link Wrote:There is nothing innately Stanford about being big and tough.

Just make sure you only whisper that... very quietly...with your hand cupped over your mouth... should you happen to be in the vicinity of Andrus Peat [or Alex Carter] [or...]

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - OutsiderFan - 04-16-2013

(04-16-2013, 08:02 AM)garvin link Wrote:
Quote:The physicality of football that Stanford plays with now

There is nothing innately Stanford about being big and tough.

No, and other teams play physical too.  But it is a style of play Stanford can play well that rewards teams who do play it well.  The ability to physically wear teams down is not one the Stanford Women's hoops team has displayed.  Stanford's women hoopsters are usually the ones who are worn out at the end of closely contested games against the best competition.  I can't remember the last time a Stanford football team was physically worn down by a quality opponent. 

The last five Stanford football losses:

At Oregon in 2010 - Lots of bad calls and weird plays - closest 52-31 game I've ever seen in my life
Home against Oregon in 2011 - Oregon just better team, and Stanford really banged up
Fiesta Bowl vs. Oklahoma State in 2011 - Essentially a win - 3 pt OT loss
At Washington in 2012 - Terrible QB and WR play that produce 0 offensive points - not worn out - 7 pt loss.
At Notre Dame in 2012 - Terrible QB and WR play that produced 0 offensive points - not worn out - 7 pt OT loss

It's tough to characterize any of these losses as a result of Stanford being worn down.  But look at many, many wins over the last three seasons and they can absolutely be chalked up to Stanford wearing teams down, including several close games in 2012; SJSU, USC, Arizona, Oregon State, Oregon, UCLA (P12CG), Wisconsin.  Teams like this are really tough to beat.  I just don't see the Stanford women's hoops team having any special it has established on par with what the football program has now. 

Getting to the Final For is nothing to sneeze at, and that is close to winning a title.  But getting there, and winning it are two different things.  If Stanford football gets to the title game it will have more going for it to win the title, than Stanford's women's hoops.  it will have a great QB, a dominant OL and defense, and a style of play that can wear down the other team. 



Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - OutsiderFan - 04-16-2013

(04-16-2013, 08:02 AM)garvin link Wrote:
Quote:The physicality of football that Stanford plays with now

There is nothing innately Stanford about being big and tough.

No, and other teams play physical too.  But it is a style of play Stanford can play well that rewards teams who do play it well.  The ability to physically wear teams down is not one the Stanford Women's hoops team has displayed.  Stanford's women hoopsters are usually the ones who are worn out at the end of closely contested games against the best competition.  I can't remember the last time a Stanford football team was physically worn down by a quality opponent. 

The last five Stanford football losses:

At Oregon in 2010 - Lots of bad calls and weird plays - closest 52-31 game I've ever seen in my life
Home against Oregon in 2011 - Oregon just better team, and Stanford really banged up
Fiesta Bowl vs. Oklahoma State in 2011 - Essentially a win - 3 pt OT loss
At Washington in 2012 - Terrible QB and WR play that produce 0 offensive points - not worn out - 7 pt loss.
At Notre Dame in 2012 - Terrible QB and WR play that produced 0 offensive points - not worn out - 7 pt OT loss

It's tough to characterize any of these losses as a result of Stanford being worn down.  But look at many, many wins over the last three seasons and they can absolutely be chalked up to Stanford wearing teams down, including several close games in 2012; SJSU, USC, Arizona, Oregon State, Oregon, UCLA (P12CG), Wisconsin.  Teams like this are really tough to beat.  I just don't see the Stanford women's hoops team having any special it has established on par with what the football program has now. 

Getting to the Final For is nothing to sneeze at, and that is close to winning a title.  But getting there, and winning it are two different things.  If Stanford football gets to the title game it will have more going for it to win the title, than Stanford's women's hoops.  it will have a great QB, a dominant OL and defense, and a style of play that can wear down the other team. 



Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - Treebound - 04-16-2013

I think there is a real chance for a tie this year 2013-14.  As others point out, it is much tougher to run the table for the football team to reach the NCG, but I think we are in the best position to make the run for the Roses this year.  For ladies hoops, we hopefully only lose Tinkle so I think Tara will get the ladies back to the Final Four this coming year.    I think she has one more title up her sleeve and with Chiney and Orrange as seniors, I like our chances.  Griner is gone so it will be about who has the legs to finish the season.   

So I say, let's win them both!

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - Treebound - 04-16-2013

I think there is a real chance for a tie this year 2013-14.  As others point out, it is much tougher to run the table for the football team to reach the NCG, but I think we are in the best position to make the run for the Roses this year.  For ladies hoops, we hopefully only lose Tinkle so I think Tara will get the ladies back to the Final Four this coming year.    I think she has one more title up her sleeve and with Chiney and Orrange as seniors, I like our chances.  Griner is gone so it will be about who has the legs to finish the season.   

So I say, let's win them both!

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - Farm93 - 04-16-2013

(04-16-2013, 10:01 AM)Treebound link Wrote:So I say, let's win them both!
Amazingly, it is a real possibility.  8)

Both are defending Pac-12 champs, and both should be better, on paper, next year.  Almost any other program would have several messages about that "AND" possibility rather than some strange "OR" notion.

Re: Some bulletin board material for Shaw - Farm93 - 04-16-2013

(04-16-2013, 10:01 AM)Treebound link Wrote:So I say, let's win them both!
Amazingly, it is a real possibility.  8)

Both are defending Pac-12 champs, and both should be better, on paper, next year.  Almost any other program would have several messages about that "AND" possibility rather than some strange "OR" notion.