The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - 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 51 UCLA 49 Final (/thread-4934.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - M T - 03-11-2013

I must say, this discussion has been the best that I've seen about the game, at a high level and not devolving into just cheering for our team and the players.  That's what I appreciate in this group, even if some of you don't see the absolute truth (as I see it ;-).  But what else would I expect from people that are mostly Stanford grads.

I'm glad the tournament did ok in Seattle.  Did anyone on this board go to see the games?  How was it there?

From the TV pictures, it looked like maybe 2000-3000 people in attendance for the final.  I certainly don't think it was the nearly 4000 that was listed in the stats.  No attendance listed on our first game, but the later game was listed as 5500 in attendance.  The section behind one basket, behind the band, had approximately 20 people in it (just before half time) in the first 21 rows.  Hey, at least the Cardinal gets to see the stands filled with red (chairs).  The semis list an unbelievable attendance of nearly 7000, but when I look at the the crowd at one end-zone and one side (during replay of Amber's drive, at 16:15 in the first), I'd say it looks considerably less.  Maybe 2500-3000.  I guess they count the people whose teams aren't playing and aren't there in the "attendance".

I guess that's a lot better than they were getting in L.A.

Of course, Larry Scott declared it a success and they're discussing making it permanent.  (Why do I feel this is from a post-dated release that was prepared prior to the actual tournament?)  I would like to point out that you don't yet know that they got the "crowds" because the tournament was a novelty, or the "crowds" were down because they haven't established a fan base.  I think the "crowds" may actually depend more upon the  current airfare from the bay area.

I know we had the tournament for a number of years in San Jose.  To be honest, I don't really remember whether SJ had more people in the stands (I think so, but then I went to the Stanford games, not some team from the north vs some team from the south).  But I don't like the idea of giving one or two teams a permanent advantage in the tournament.  Not to mention the embarrassment to the league if attendance falls and the league is stuck with a long term commitment, as happened with LA (but maybe it never fell there but was always low).

----

I thought about the meaning of the tournament to the Stanford players as it turned out, versus what their mental state would be if we had breezed through it.  I suspect they have more of a feeling of accomplishment, having come from behind to win.  I don't know that their confidence is any better (I would think there would be more "We can be beat" dark thoughts lurking), but I guess if they come up against this in the NCAA tourney, they may handle it better than otherwise.  I suspect it means we are less likely to get surprised early in the tourney by a team with a good plan, and some sort of issue with the team.

I wish the PAC-12 tournament was  Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday, so you don't have that 3 (or 4!) day straight run.  College age kids should be able to handle the exertion, but the extra day would surely be a blessing for injuries.  In NCAAs, you have at most 2 games in any 5 day span, so the conference tournament is more intensity in a short time.

---

Re DST....  I hope that the coaching staff told the team, "Don't change anything in your habits; don't change your clocks until Sunday night.  Just know the game is at 4PM PST and be ready to play all out then."    I really doubt the DST change had any effect on the team.

It is too bad that once you get to tournament time, your whole season can be lost by a bug sweeping through the team.  I can't see any way to avoid that, so you just have to stay well.


Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - 81alum - 03-11-2013

Thanks VG, your explanation was very clear.  Basically, they play three perimeter defenders on our 4 perimeter players, but by playing tight they help to slow the ball movement down--although our "look for Chiney before passing" style also slows ball movement down.  With movement slow and hesitant, they can always shift to cover whoever has the ball.  And that leaves two to constantly double-team Chiney.

I wonder what would have happened if we went back to the Princeton offense we ran a little bit early in the year with all 5 on the perimeter--to beat Baylor-- alternating who cut in.  What would that do to the Chiney double team?

MT, the point you were making about Seattle is worth considering.  What if Washington gets to be very, very good--and in time McGuff may be just the person to make that happen.  Would we want the tournament to always be at their home? 



Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - 81alum - 03-13-2013

The PAC-12 network replayed the semis and the final last night, and so I took a second look at the games back to back.  I watched Chiney closely through both games.  Her demeanor was noticeably more subdued in the finals--even to the point that she was not smiling and bouncing around before the game as she usually does.

That said, I saw nothing drastically wrong with her in the first half--other than she picked up the two fouls and had to sit the last eight minutes.  She started the game like the same old Chiney--even to the point that the announcers marvelled at her easy bucket and said "nothing came this easy for Chiney last night."  But then she started missing free throws and layups, and frankly, I don't think it had very much to do with the UCLA defense.  Brewer was not really defending her yet.

When Chiney came back in the 2nd half Brewer spent a lot more time defending Chiney and things got ugly.  The officiating was partly to blame--it seemed that Brewer was allowed to push Chiney with her body over and over again even while Chiney was in the act of shooting, and this was not called.  Once it even resulted in a Chiney travel when it should have been a Brewer foul.  Chiney even hit the floor on these shoves and they were not called.  After picking up two ticky tack fouls in the first half on herself, it must have been doubly frustrating for Chiney to be engaged in a Sumo wrestling match in the second.  And that is exactly what it was, with Chiney giving away a lot of weight.

The announcers said UCLA went to a 1-2-2 zone, and while I don't understand what that is, right after they mentioned it I saw two bigs between Chiney and the ball--she was double teamed but not "sandwiched" the way we played Griner,  but instead both the defenders were denying her the entry pass.  I also noticed that Chiney was not moving as often or as fast, and seemed to be having difficulties pushing back against Brewer.  Her teammates were also not looking to get the ball to her that much after all their repeated failures to do so earlier.

The other thing I noticed is that Joslyn's ineffectiveness allowed UCLA to double team Chiney with impunity.  They eventually sagged off of Jos pretty completely and dared her to do damage--which she could not.  Her jump shot was anemic, probably reflecting her red blood cell count.  Perhaps they were all too aware of Joslyn's illness and decided they would not put much effort into guarding her until she made them pay.  But for all the talk about Chiney being 1/9, keep in mind that Joslyn was 1/6.

Finally, I now remember what Tara said about conditioning earlier this year.  They backed off the Susan Borchardt conditioning program from last year after the various foot injuries.  Tara implied that too much conditioning work tends to bring on those nagging injuries, and conditioning was not that important in WBB anymore--especially with all the constant TV ad breaks.  She might well be correct, with the sole exception of a tournament like this with 3 games in 3 days against well known opponents who all three decided to beat up on the focus of our offense.

Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - CompSci87 - 03-13-2013

Good post, MT. On conditioning, I thought Tara just said they were doing less running before the season to try to avoid foot injuries and such, and so they would play their way into shape to run the court. She did also say that being in better condition than the other team was no longer such an advantage as it used to be, considering all the media timeouts and video reviews that give the players extra chances to rest.

I don't know if less running means less ability to play 3 games in 3 days. Could be.

Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - Griffins78 - 03-13-2013

The team Tara was assembling included Toni. She, like Amber, can maneuver and drive to the basket or stop on a dime for a quick and deadly jump shot. The fact we have done so well without Toni (All Pac-12 last year), speaks to the other players developing and stepping up - but also to the coaching.

I really hope Toni can play in the NCAAs. 2 years ago - her freshman year, when she got hurt in the 2nd round of the NCAAs against St. Johns - I thought immediately that our chances to make the Final Four had gone down with her. We made it to the Final Four - but in the end, I think her injury was the difference in us not winning the National Championship. I have no doubt that we would have beaten Texas A&M. She would have been the difference maker.

UCLA is a really good team and they can give anyone in the tournament fits. I hope they show how good they are - and beat some of those East Coast teams and their fans. They gave Cal (the No. 5 ranked team in the country at the time) fits and dominated them. For us to beat UCLA in the Championship with all of the things hampering us was a great team achievement. I think it will help us going forward. We seem to often lose close games so to pull this one out at the end - showed true grit and determination. Now it also shows success and achievement going into that next close game.

Looking at last year's brackets, I don't see that the No. 2 seeds got placed close to home. Duke (ACC), ranked #6 was sent to Fresno for the West Region to face Stanford (ranked # 3) instead of very nearby Raleigh. Maryland (ACC), ranked # 5 was the next closest to Raleigh (but not by much) and was sent to Raleigh to face Notre Dame (Big East), ranked # 4, instead of Kington, RI where they were the closest of all the No. 2 seeds. Tennessee (SEC) and ranked #8 is also closest to Raleigh and was sent to Des Moines to face Baylor (Big12), ranked #1 instead. Kentucky (SEC), ranked #7, which is closest to Des Moines was sent the second furthest to Kington, RI to face nearby UConn, ranked #2.

Based on current rankings, we might face Duke in the West Region Finals and Cal might be in the UConn/Bridgeport Region. Hard to say where UCLA and Colorado end up - but Colorado is hosting the 1st & 2nd rounds like us. I think they have a really good shot at being in the Sweet Sixteen. We could have 4 Pac-12 teams in the Sweet Sixteen.


Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - treefan - 03-13-2013

(03-13-2013, 01:32 PM)Griffin78 link Wrote:The team Tara was assembling included Toni. She, like Amber, can maneuver and drive to the basket or stop on a dime for a quick and deadly jump shot. The fact we have done so well without Toni (All Pac-12 last year), speaks to the other players developing and stepping up - but also to the coaching.

I really hope Toni can play in the NCAAs. 2 years ago - her freshman year, when she got hurt in the 2nd round of the NCAAs against St. Johns - I thought immediately that our chances to make the Final Four had gone down with her. We made it to the Final Four - but in the end, I think her injury was the difference in us not winning the National Championship. I have no doubt that we would have beaten Texas A&M. She would have been the difference maker.

Couldn't agree more about needing Toni in Indy vs. A&M. I was there and it was the most disappointing since the Cincy F4 vs. ODU in '97. Was there, too. We were the best both years.

Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - BobK - 03-13-2013

Nice post 78.  Great point on Toni in Indy.  I was there also. 

Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - Griffins78 - 03-13-2013

We were there too. Very disappointing.

You going to NOLA in April? We've booked our flights and our hotel.

Winning the Pac-12 Championship to get the No. 1 seed in the Spokane Regional was the first step. Next, we'll see who we get in our bracket. Won't be a cake walk but another Final Four is looking definitely possible. Then, as Texas A&M showed, anything is possible.

Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - FarmDad.01 - 03-13-2013

Here's a fantasy: Kokenis is cleared to play, and proves in the first two rounds that she's 90%.

What does anyone think about a Sweet 16 starting lineup of Chiney, Joslyn or Mikaela, Sara, Tony and Amber?

My thinking is that Sara's scrappiness might be more valuable than size. I also think Ruef's rebounding and sharp interior passing is, situationally, more valuable than Tinkle's ability to get hot from long range. Either as #6 in the rotation would be fantastic, and Tara could always sub in Bonnie & Taylor to bomb away.

Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - 81alum - 03-14-2013

(03-13-2013, 10:01 PM)FarmDad.01 link Wrote:Here's a fantasy: Kokenis is cleared to play, and proves in the first two rounds that she's 90%.

What does anyone think about a Sweet 16 starting lineup of Chiney, Joslyn or Mikaela, Sara, Tony and Amber?

My thinking is that Sara's scrappiness might be more valuable than size. I also think Ruef's rebounding and sharp interior passing is, situationally, more valuable than Tinkle's ability to get hot from long range. Either as #6 in the rotation would be fantastic, and Tara could always sub in Bonnie & Taylor to bomb away.
Those are nice thoughts, but as you say, for Toni to contribute she really needs to get time in the first two rounds--given how much time she has missed.  I hope she does--I'd love to see her play a couple more games at Maples this year.

As for Sara--I think a lot would depend on who we were playing and how the players match up.  Right now I think we can defend any posts effectively with Chiney and Ruef and Tinkle.  We have done fairly well defending the perimeter if you look at our stats against three point attempts over the season (opponents .235).  Where we have had problems is defending slashers and pull up mid-range jumpers--Chuckie Jeffrey, Layshia Clarendon, Mosqueda-Lewis, Britanny Boyd, Markel Walker, etc.  Even when these guards can shoot the three, they tend to have sub-par games from beyond the arc against us.  They do their damage by slashing, pulling up, collecting fouls, etc.

Toni can defend those kinds of players very well.  Sara has been tasked to do that and I think she has done better than some of us expected.  But I don't have a particularly good eye for defense.  And if we come up against a team with two or three really effective slashers then we may have problems unless we get Toni back.