The CardBoard
MBB: Stanford 71 -- Clemson 85 - 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: MBB: Stanford 71 -- Clemson 85 (/thread-25377.html)


MBB: Stanford 71 -- Clemson 85 - skip75 - 01-01-2025

Ten years ago, Stanford vs. Clemson on New Years Day might have been a Stanford fans dream - a College Football Playoff semifinal game pitting David Shaw against his good buddy Dabo Swinney.  Today it can mean only one thing - ACC basketball!

Clemson (#34 per Massey vs. #83 Stanford) is favored by 10. The O/U is 142, so the implied score is 76-66.  The Tigers are 10-3, with a big win against Kentucky and losses to Memphis, @ Boise St., & @ South Carolina.  Last year they made it to the Elite 8 with wins over New Mexico, Baylor, & Arizona, before losing to Alabama.

The game is on the ACC network for anyone who wants to squeeze it in between the Peach Bowl and Rose Bowl.  And if the Peach Bowl has already gotten boring for you, you can get a preview of Saturday's game at Pitt by tuning in now to watch Cal @ Pitt.

Clemson is led by Chase Hunter (#1, 6'4-1/2"/202 Gr G) who is in his 6th(!) year with the Tigers.  He has started every game this season and the previous two.  He averages 16.8ppg, shooting 48% from the field and 42% (32/75) on 3s.  Ian Schieffelin (#4, 6'8"/240 Sr F) was named National  Player of the Week in early December when he averaged 13.0ppg, 16.0rpg, & 3.1 apg in wins over Kentucky & Miami.  He has started every game this season and last.  For the season, he averages 13.8ppg, 11.6rpg, & 3.1apg.

The starting line-up has been the same in all 13 games.  Other starters include: #0 Viktor Lakhin (6'11"/245 Sr C), a transfer from Cincinnati averaging 11.5ppg & 6.2rpg; #11 Jaeden Zackery (6'1"/218 Gr G), a 3-year starter from Boston College averaging 9.1ppg & 3.1apg); and #7 Chauncey Wiggins (6'10-1/2"/216 Jr F) averaging 4.8ppg.  Jake Heidbreder (#3, 6'5-1/2"/180 Jr G), a 2-year starter at the Air Force Academy provides a spark off the bench with 12/24 shooting from 3 and 12/12 from the free throw line.

Stanford took a big step up in level of opposition when they played Oregon 11 days ago.  They hung with the Ducks for most of the first half before getting blown out.  Like the Ducks, Clemson is a big, veteran team.  This is likely the toughest road trip of the season.  It's probably a reach to hope for a win on the road at Clemson (and maybe Pitt - although they have some injuries and are currently down by 4 to Cal at the half).  Coming off the Oregon experience with some time to recover and work on what they (hopefully) learned, I'll be watching for some growth & development - showing they can compete with upper echelon ACC teams.  That might at least provide some optimism for more winnable games at home next week and for the rest of the season.

RE: MBB: @ Clemson, 1:00 - BobK - 01-01-2025

A win would be brobdingnagian for Stanford. But :)

RE: MBB: @ Clemson, 1:00 - PVTree - 01-01-2025

Not to be...85-71 loss. We played ok to well in the first half. 2nd half was a different story.

RE: MBB: @ Clemson, 1:00 - needle - 01-02-2025

Going into this tough three-game stretch, I felt like Stanford had to have at least one narrow loss (<10 pts.) to validate the idea that this can be a competitive ACC team (battling for 12th or something like that).

Really thought this might have been it, but the turnovers in the 2nd half were atrocious.

The defense wasn’t much better.
Another chance against Pitt for the team to play its best for the full 40 minutes. If it doesn’t happen, I predict a very bad season that will leave some doubting KS. 

But I think this team will give Pitt a scare.

RE: MBB: @ Clemson, 1:00 - TriangleTree - 01-02-2025

As others have said, a really good first half where Reinaud looked every bit an all conference player with good support from the team, particularly Selllers.

The second half got slowly away from us. There were a few critical plays that easily could have gone our way which would have kept the game competitive throughout. 
A typical one was a fast break missed layup by Okpara (he did not have a good game, this wasn’t the only one), we got the offensive rebound but a questionable no foul call to jar  the ball free quickly resulted in a three point play at the other end. The refs were not kind to us in general with a significant foul differential for what to my eye seemed similar defensive play. Not blaming the refs, just saying that these are hard to overcome away against a good team. 

I think KS had it right in setting the public goal for this team to have a winning record. I think this is achievable and would make it a positive season, more than that would be a great bonus.

RE: MBB: @ Clemson, 1:00 - SkiBum80 - 01-02-2025

I'm still optimistic about Coach Smith, this team (roster), and the future of the program.
Just not as much as a month ago.
This is a long haul to turn things around, a marathon more than a sprint, and Coach started off the footrace with the field having gotten an early jump on him while he was stuck in the porta potty trying to unstick the door, only to find that half his team had deserted him before the starting line.
That being said, I hope he doesn't end up trying our patience as much as Coach TT has, who also came in with lots of deep challenges, and has been trying to turn it around.
But who's race he seems to be telling us is really more of an ultra-marathon than a marathon.
Hopefully his SAG support team now being run by A.Luck will help get his team more competitive more quickly.

RE: MBB: @ Clemson, 1:00 - Sam Leopold - 01-02-2025

(01-02-2025, 06:34 AM)needle Wrote:  Going into this tough three-game stretch, I felt like Stanford had to have at least one narrow loss (<10 pts.) to validate the idea that this can be a competitive ACC team (battling for 12th or something like that).

Really thought this might have been it, but the turnovers in the 2nd half were atrocious.

The defense wasn’t much better.
Another chance against Pitt for the team to play its best for the full 40 minutes. If it doesn’t happen, I predict a very bad season that will leave some doubting KS. 

But I think this team will give Pitt a scare.


I'm sure there were some who doubted Mike Montgomery after he went 15-13 in his first season in 1987.

RE: MBB: Stanford 71 -- Clemson 85 - skip75 - 01-04-2025

This was an expected loss, but a tough one after the hot start and holding Schieffelin to 4 points & 4 rebounds.  Clemson's MVP may have been Jaeden Zackery.  He harassed Blakes, especially in the 2nd half, with relentless, physical on-ball defense.  He had 4 steals, giving him 200 for his career - tops in the ACC (#2 is R.J. Davis of UNC with 158).  Chase Hunter's younger brother Dillon chipped in with 6 steals in only 19 minutes.  The defense, and Stanford's inability to deal with it during a crucial stretch was the difference in the game to me.  From 52-52 with about 15 minutes left to play, turnovers by Raynaud, Blakes, & Cammann led to a 62-52 deficit. Basketball is a game of runs, but Stanford's offense looked out of sorts during that stretch and never seemed to recover.  They finished with 16 turnovers leading to 25 points for Clemson.

I'm still cautiously optimistic.  After today's game at Pitt, Stanford will be home for 7 of the next 10 games, and the opposition, while generally better than the non-conference opponents, should be more beatable than Oregon, Clemson & Pitt.  I found some ACC "power rankings" - all done prior to the Clemson game.  USA Today had Stanford at #12 which I think is reasonable.  A Syracuse site had Stanford at #9 which to me is a best case, everything falls into place scenario.  Shockingly, a Va Tech site (The Fighting Gobbler!) had them at #6!  I usually feel like I've got rose-colored glasses, but that's far too optimistic for me.  The comments in these ratings all mention Raynaud, but he still needs more consistent support from more than just Sellers & Blakes.