The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - 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 82 UCLA 59 (/thread-2960.html)

Pages: 1 2

WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - Viking_Guy - 02-12-2012

Game was a lot closer than the final score makes it appear.  UCLA led with 5 minutes left in the first half, Stanford had both Chiney and Toni on the bench with 2 early fouls apiece, and Nneka had started the game 1-7 from the field.

But the Bruins' own foul trouble and fatigue, compounded by their extremely short bench, let Stanford blow the game open a few minutes into the second half, leading to the deceptive final score.

The first half UCLA employed an aggressive 2-3 zone, and Stanford as usual had a tough time adjusting.  It bottled up Nneka, and Chiney was called for two early fouls, the second a silly reach-in that led to an and-1 opportunity for the Bruins' only real outside shooting threat, Thea Limburger.  Stanford was generally about 3-5 points in the lead, but Stanford was turning the ball over on the perimeter far too often, leading to run-out opportunities for the Bruins.  The Cardinal, meanwhile, had no offensive rhythm to speak of, harassed by the physical zone they were facing, and the breaks seemed to be falling the Bruins' way: Nneka had a wonderful block against against their starting post Costa, but the block fell directly to Rebekah Gardiner for an easy 10-foot unguarded jumpshot.

Things got worse when Toni picked up her second foul trying to defend against a transition opportunity that came off her missing a 3-pointer, leading to UCLA converting 2 FTs for a 24-23 lead.  For some reason, Tara didn't immediately reinsert Amber, instead going with Lindy at the point.  Lindy came down and instead of staying up to, fed the ball into Nneka and then went to the wing.  Nneka tried to dribble back out to the perimeter, got her pocket picked, and Lindy fouled Limberger heading the other way.  While she did have a great pass to Nneka for a transition bucket, she also dribbled into two bad traps and turned the ball over, prompting Tara to bring back in Orrange with the score 28-27 Bruins and about 4 minutes left.

Over the last four minutes, Stanford finally got some positive momentum.  Nneka started to heat up inside, helped by nice feeds from Amber and Lindy, and Erica Payne, seeing some early playing time, had a nice rebound and putback off a missed three, and brought some good energy.  UCLA, meanwhile, stalled, only getting 2 FTs from their star Markel Walker, who then went to the bench dinged up by the foul, taking the entirety of the Bruins' offense with her.  Stanford closed the half outscoring the Bruins 8-2 to take a 35-30 lead into the locker room.

The announcers were predicting a Stanford second half surge, as they have made a habit of coming out and pushing leads out early after the break.  In this game, however, the Bruins managed to hold it off for a while, especially when Toni picked up a silly third foul early in the half.  Gardiner and Walker kept them in it, but the Ogwumikes were at an all-out sprint every time the ball transitioned, leading to early and secondary break opportunities for easy finishes.  And when Stanford started to pass Ogwumike to Ogwumike from the top of the key to a baseline cutter for an easy look, you thought the Bruins might fold.

But they rallied one last time, trimming a 13 point lead to 7 off of three consecutive Stanford turnovers on the perimeter.  That was really their last bit of energy, however. Chiney converted two FTs, then Toni had a signature play.  With UCLA pressing forward, Nneka led her down the sideline.  Toni ran the ball down, took contact from her defender and kept going to the bucket, taking the foul and converting the and-1 opportunity.  Then came two absolute dagger 3s by Greenfield, first on a nice stepback in the right corner then off a secondary transition feed from Lindy for an open look in the left corner, and a 7 point lead was suddenly 18.  And you could see the air come out of the Bruins.  When on a couple of trips later Greenfield faked the three then fired a bullet into Chiney for a layup, Stanford had a 20 point lead, and the game was essentially over.

You may have noticed I've not mentioned Missy Barlow's name once.  The officiating was a bit uneven, but there were no real controversial calls; some banging was let go, other instances weren't.  But Missy couldn't leave well enough alone, although at least this time it didn't have an impact on the game.  Just under four minutes left, Nneka has the ball after a defensive rebound, and is waiting for Amber to come by and pick up the ball.  She turns to hand the ball off just as Gardiner runs into the both of them, and Missy whistles the foul... against Nneka.  I literally laughed, it was so typically Missy.

In any case, a solid win over a team that is going to be really good next year (when they get Jasmine Dixon and other injured players back and have a good group of incoming guard recruits).  Good points: rallying from a rough start, raising the energy level to match an opponent, and eventually wearing them down, leading to an outstanding shooting second half (15-20, 75% as a team - that's nutty goodness right there).  Gameball to Nneka for her 25 and 8, rallying from the 1-7 start to finish 8-16 and 9-10 from the line, and really keeping an even keel throughout adversity.  Strong secondary consideration for Jos, who from opening tip filled whatever role the team needed and finished with 10 points and 9 boards.  Also, Amber for getting into the lane and hitting that nice pull-up jumper of hers on a couple occasions, and Taylor for her dagger threes.

The bad: way too many turnovers, and not enough of them forced by the Bruins' defense; even Taylor had more TOs than assists today.  Too many telegraphed late passes on the perimeter leading to transition opportunities; UCLA is offensively challenged enough that they had real trouble scoring against a set half-court defense, shooting in the low 30s for much of the game.  I really wish Lindy would've driven a bit against the zone, but she settled for 1 three point attempt for the game; we need some offensive threat from her, or other teams really should start doing to her what she's been doing to other shooting-challenged guards - dropping into the middle and helping out inside, as she did today off of Williams and Rebekah Gardner.  The ill-fated run at PG didn't help.  Toni continuing her maturation as the team's PG by not giving up easy and early fouls and putting herself on the bench; not saying it's a common occurrence, but today it really hurt for a while.

In any case, who would have thought that one of the biggest games of the season would be at Oregon State on Thursday?  And the importance of today's win was underscored by Notre Dame losing 65-63 at home to West Virginia, despite Skylar Diggins' 32 points.  WVU, for reference, has a very similar profile to UCLA, #54 in RPI to UCLA's 49. having beaten the Bruins earlier this season on a neutral court by 9.

The Beavers, meanwhile, have won 6 in a row for the first time in years, I would bet, and stand 1 game behind Kal in third place in the Pac-12.  Scott Rueck has really done a great job with them, and it will be interesting to see what Stanford learned from their first meeting, when they only won by 7 in a game that I thought OSU gave up on far too early, trailing by single-digits late but not fouling or trying to extend the game.

VG

Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - M T - 02-12-2012

Quick notes from the stats until I can watch the video.
We "beat" last week's season low in offensive rebounds with a new low of 6 (avg is 16).  Not surprisingly our 2nd chance points were also a season low at 6 (average is 18).  Percentage-wise, UCLA slightly outrebounded Stanford (OR%: 33%, DR%: 64%).
We hit a new "high" in turnovers with 19 (avg 13) and a season high for our opponents points off turnovers, 24 (avg 10).
BUT, we did hit a season high percentage for 2PT shots (69%, avg 52%) (I keep 2PT & 3PT separate.  The FG% was 59.6%).

No double-doubles for Stanford in this game.

Foul trouble in the first half left Stanford using lineups that haven't played together that much in the meat of the games.

There were a number of "cheers" for Melissa B and her crew during the game.  (Notice how we didn't say ANYTHING about the officiating in the previous game?)

A high spot for me was that, generally, we handled the press well, often leading to quick points.

Taylor's two 3ptrs helped us have a respectable 3PT%.  I noticed that Lindy & Bonnie were hitting a high percentage of 3PTs in the warm up for the second half.  I just hope they can get back to hitting them in a game.

Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - 81alum - 02-12-2012

Good posts.  I'm upset with myself for assuming that this weekend's game would be Saturday and scheduling a conflict for today, and more upset when I discovered that a child had tampered with the vcr and I only got half the game.  Your commentary, however, is vivid and quite helpful in understanding what I missed.

Questions:

1. It seems like Nneka's percent for offensive shots has declined quite markedly of late.  Is this simply because defenses are doing something different or is she just "off"?  I have noticed that she has a tendency to do better in second halves than in first.  Any reason for that?  Defenses getting tired?

2. Maybe MT alluded to this, but I am wondering about the one-guard lineup that we used for a stretch in the first half.  I think we had Nneka, Joslyn, Taylor, Bonnie, and Lindy or Amber in.  Was this just out of desperation given the fouls on Toni, or was it an effort to create/exploit a mismatch somewhere?

3. For half the year I have specifically watched Bonnie and Lindy and Toni knock down threes in warm ups.  There was one game where I counted Bonnie make 22 out of 29 in warm ups.  Then I believe she went 0/5 or somesuch in the game.  Is there any relationship at all to how players warm up and how they shoot in a game?  Otherwise I'm almost inclined to say don't bother--just stretch and go.


Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - sheriand - 02-12-2012

Gotta love Nneka's spectacular interception in the first half when she leaped WAY up in the air to grab a long pass.  That was fun and really energized the crowd.    Liked the strong play by Jos, especially her rebounding.  Amber seemed very solid and actually scored some points (yay!) in the first half.  Would have liked to see her play more.  Not sure what's happened with Bonnie.  She seems to have lost confidence.  I'm not sure what it's going to take for her to become our secret weapon. 

Tara mentioned that it's the bittersweet time of the year and I sure feel that way.  There are so few games left to see Nneka at Maples....

Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - M T - 02-12-2012

81alum, here's what I have for playing time & lineups (based on the Play by Play, which I've found is too often unreliable on showing when players are in the game -- which explains why I haven't mentioned this recently).  I have not confirmed this PxP with the video, but at least for the Stanford side, there were no inconsistencies (eg, players scoring when supposedly subbed out, etc.)

[NetPts = Points scored for Stanford minus points scored for the opponent during the time that the lineup or player is in.
NetPts/G = NetPts, normalized to a 40 minute game
Points scored while time is out (ie, FT) may not be credited consistently for a player who is substituted in or out at that time.]

I don't feel the playing times (ie, sample size) for many of these lineups in a single game permits drawing any conclusions based on them. 

Stanford....
  Min NetPts NetP/G  Players
12:09    -1  -3.29 Kokenis, Toni; Ogwumike, Chiney; Ogwumike, Nnemkadi; Orrange, Amber; Tinkle, Joslyn
5:34      7  50.30 La Rocque, Lindy; Ogwumike, Chiney; Ogwumike, Nnemkadi; Orrange, Amber; Tinkle, Joslyn
4:46      7  58.74 Greenfield, Taylor; Kokenis, Toni; La Rocque, Lindy; Ogwumike, Chiney; Ogwumike, Nnemkadi
3:13      0    0.00 Greenfield, Taylor; Kokenis, Toni; La Rocque, Lindy; Ogwumike, Nnemkadi; Tinkle, Joslyn
2:34      1  15.58 Greenfield, Taylor; Kokenis, Toni; Ogwumike, Nnemkadi; Orrange, Amber; Tinkle, Joslyn
2:15      4  71.11 La Rocque, Lindy; Ogwumike, Nnemkadi; Orrange, Amber; Payne, Erica; Tinkle, Joslyn
1:46      2  45.28 Ogwumike, Nnemkadi; Orrange, Amber; Payne, Erica; Samuelson, Bonnie; Tinkle, Joslyn
1:38      0    0.00 Greenfield, Taylor; La Rocque, Lindy; Ogwumike, Nnemkadi; Samuelson, Bonnie; Tinkle, Joslyn
1:28      2  54.55 Greenfield, Taylor; Kokenis, Toni; Ogwumike, Chiney; Ogwumike, Nnemkadi; Orrange, Amber
1:27      1  27.59 Greenfield, Taylor; Kokenis, Toni; La Rocque, Lindy; Ogwumike, Chiney; Tinkle, Joslyn
0:58      1  41.38 James, Sara; Orrange, Amber; Payne, Erica; Samuelson, Bonnie; Tinkle, Joslyn
0:50      2  96.00 James, Sara; Mashore, Grace; Payne, Erica; Samuelson, Bonnie; Tinkle, Joslyn
0:44    -1  -54.55 Greenfield, Taylor; La Rocque, Lindy; Ogwumike, Chiney; Ogwumike, Nnemkadi; Orrange, Amber
0:31    -2 -154.84 Greenfield, Taylor; Kokenis, Toni; Ogwumike, Nnemkadi; Samuelson, Bonnie; Tinkle, Joslyn
0:07      0    0.00 La Rocque, Lindy; Ogwumike, Nnemkadi; Payne, Erica; Samuelson, Bonnie; Tinkle, Joslyn
40:00    23  23.00 Totals

Player                Min NetPts  NetP/G
Greenfield, Taylor  16:21      8  19.57
James, Sara          1:48      3  66.67
Kokenis, Toni        26:08      8  12.24
La Rocque, Lindy    19:44    18  36.49
Mashore, Grace        0:50      2  96.00
Ogwumike, Chiney    26:08    15  22.96
Ogwumike, Nnemkadi  36:45    19  20.68
Orrange, Amber      27:28    15  21.84
Payne, Erica          5:56      9  60.67
Samuelson, Bonnie    5:50      3  20.57
Tinkle, Joslyn      33:02    15  18.16
Total              200:00    115  23.00


By the way, TV announcer Mary Murphy talked to the FBC after the game.  I hadn't heard her speak (other than on air).  I was impressed.


Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - Viking_Guy - 02-12-2012

81--

As wbb mentions, Nneka got great elevation on the interception of an outlet pass in the first half, so my worries about her ankle continuing to bother her have been somewhat alleviated.  But anecdotally, I think her jumpshot hasn't been real solid, either as a set shot or a step back, in a few games, and in the first half, she settles for it a little too readily.  In the second half, her finishes were at the hoop, as were Chiney's.  I think as teams start to tire they start to give up a bit more in terms of inside position to the relentlessness of the Ogwumikes.

Glenn, by the time of Missy's call, I was calmer, given the time and game situation.  If that had happened earlier, apoplexy would have been a distinct possibility.  As it was, I could laugh it off.

Now trying to remember how much work our offense needs against a zone while watching our men's team have, well, no offensive plan whatsoever in leading the Toejams 20-18 at halftime.  I shoulda known I would feel like this when Jarrett Mann started alongside Randle in the backcourt.

VG




Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - pepper1 - 02-12-2012

Good posts on the game with the Bru's today, with special kudos to VG once again.  It's been kind of unnerving that, as on Thursday against our other SoCal friends,  the Cardinal were played close by a team with a thin bench and lesser talent well into the second half before dispatching them.  A few additional impressions I would add to the discussion:

1.  Nneka had an uncharacteristically bad first half against the baseline traps the Bru's ran very effectively against her -- several turnovers & lots of poor, forced shots.  In past games she has been more patient in pushing the ball back around the zone when teams have used that approach.  This won't be the last time she sees this, so I imagine Tara and Amy will be coming up with some new strategies for her.  Of course when she got in the open court & got some second-half high-post/low-post feeds, we got to see what a marvelous talent she is once again.
2.  Fabulous job by Joslyn, particularly in the first half when Nneka was struggling -- a number of key rebounds,  solid defensive stops and a sweet 3.  Perhaps even a game ball worthy performance, though it's hard to vote against the Sisters Show in the second half.
3.  I was very impressed by the way Amber handled the ball today, as if it was attached to her hand with a string.  If she can put it all together, she is going to be an exceptional PG talent ... and I hope it happens this season.  In the meantime, Toni reinforced her credentials as the Third Sister with a very good game at the point when she wasn't being driven to the bench by the touch fouls being called by our officials today.
4.  And speaking of officials, like Garvin, I was relieved that Ms. Barlow's extraordinary second half offensive foul call on Nneka did not send VG to an early grave.  Although I'm generally more tolerant of the mediocre officiating we see in the Pac-12, I thought the crew today was unusually disruptive, with excessive whistles to an extreme.  The first foul called on Chiney and the second foul called on Toni were both phantom fouls that meant that we did not get to see them play more.  It seemed like there were an equal number of weak touch fouls against the Bru's that forced their substitution patterns as well.
5.  The Cardinal interior defense continues to be the best I've seen during many years of watching the Cardinal women.  Even though we still seem to struggle a bit to find offensive consistency, I am very encouraged by our D, which should be a big asset come March when we get a better class of officiating that let's the players play. 

Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - Viking_Guy - 02-12-2012

Glenn--

They outbanged the very physical Irish.  Devereaux Peters was 1-8, big guard Natalie Novosel 6-14, and they got outrebounded.  And Peters and primary post backup Achonwa both fouled out, Achonwa in 11 minutes.  That said, the one difference was ft shooting; WVU 21-25, ND 16-25.  Diggins had the ball with the score tied and 36 seconds left, ran the clock down and drove, didn't get the foul call and then committed an absolutely stupid foul that put the Mountaineers at the line for 2 shots with 5 seconds left.  They hit both, and ND missed a runner and then a desperation tip.

WVU would be a hard matchup for us; they play like Xavier did with Phillips and Harris two years ago.  Bang first, hit hard and pound the ball inside to their two bigs.

VG

Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - terry - 02-12-2012

(02-12-2012, 04:40 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:Game was a lot closer than the final score makes it appear. 

No it wasn't. Stanford kicked their ass.

ND loss - M T - 02-12-2012

Interesting dilemma.  I expect ND will drop below UConn, but will they only drop to 3rd?
I presume they will be ranked higher than Duke (whom they beat, so no lower than 4th)
The only question is how losses to Baylor and WVU, with wins against UConn, Kentucky, Duke, Tenn, Rutgers, Villanova, DePaul
compare to a loss to UConn and a win against Tenn.
In common opponents, ND beat U.SC by more points than either of our games, and beat Tenn by more.

I'm sure some people look at "quality wins" and some look at losses.

The odd outcome would be for some people to say, "Even with two losses, ND should be ranked higher than Stanford.  Duke barely lost to ND, so they should be ranked higher as well." 

[I just noticed that Green Bay lost to Detroit this week.  So they now have one defeat.]

Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - 81alum - 02-13-2012

Interesting dilemma on the rankings.  We should know shortly. 

There is a case to be made that Stanford would benefit by going into the tournament as #5 (a 2 seed if the committee follows the rankings) rather than #4 (a 1 seed).  The opposition would not be appreciably "better" over the first rounds  and we would still have to play exactly the same team in the elite 8 as if the rankings were reversed 4-5 vs 5-4.  During Candice's senior year our being left out of a number 1 seed seemed to give us a "chip on the shoulder" determination that may have helped us to vent our anger on Maryland.  If our rankings and Maryland's had been reversed we still would have played them, but without the perceived slight.

However, going in as a one seed  while ranked #3 or even #2 (what happens to Connecticut if it loses again to the University of South Bend?) might be better than going in ranked 4 or 5.  Presumably the opposition in the elite 8 would be a little weaker--though not necessarily.  The committee has a tendency not to follow the rankings that slavishly.

The calculation I've been thinking about is how we will place if we lose to C.AL either in the last game or in the PAC-12 tournament.  We will probably have to play them twice, and given how the last game went at home the odds are pretty good we might lose one of the two that will be played away from Maples.  Can we hold on to a number one seed if that happens?

Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - pepper1 - 02-13-2012

In terms of seeds, it's difficult for me to seriously consider Dook as a potential #1 after the home beatdown they took from UConn -- it was not pretty or even as close as the score suggests.  In fact, I think there is a pretty significant quality dropoff after the first four ranked teams, ND's surprising loss to WVU notwithstanding.  So I think the Cardinal should be in good shape for a #1 seed.  Among the #1 seeds, Baylor looks like a lock for the top spot, with how the remaining three sort out depending on how UConn and ND do in their conference tourney & how the Cardinal does vs UC.  Currently I would probably put the Cardinal 4th on that list simply because the Pac-12 simply does not offer as much competition as the Big 12 or the Big East.

Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - M T - 02-13-2012

ND fell to fourth behind Stanford, at least in the AP poll. (The other isn't out yet)

Isn't it the case that the #2 and #3 overall seeds wouldn't play Baylor (#1) until the Finals?  That would be a very important difference.

The expectation is that ND & UConn have two more games (@UConn 2/27 and then @UConn in the Big East Tourney Championship game 3/6).
Assuming everyone stays healthy on all the teams and assuming Stanford runs the table to the NCAA tournament:

If UConn is 0-3 against ND for the year, I think ND will be #2 and it is a toss-up between UConn and Stanford for #3. 
If ND loses both games against UConn), then UConn will be #2, Stanford #3, ND #4
If UConn & ND split, I expect that Stanford will be #4, but possibly #3 ahead of ND.
If UConn loses to ND & to another opponent, Stanford may be #4, but possibly #3.
If ND loses to UConn & to another opponent, Stanford will be #3.
If both UConn & ND lose to other opponents, it won't matter as the meteor will hit us first.

I think that if Baylor loses two games (very unlikely), they will still be ranked #1

OTOH, if Stanford loses to anyone before the NCAA tourney, the best we will be ranked will be #4.

Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - CompSci87 - 02-13-2012

(02-13-2012, 09:31 AM)81alum link Wrote:The committee has a tendency not to follow the rankings that slavishly.

The committee says that rankings are not one of the items it considers in its deliberations. In other words, they don't follow the rankings at all. That used to bug me after I got all excited about where we were in the rankings from week to week, but I've come around to feeling it is wise. Some of the folks who vote in the polls really are not paying much attention, and the committee ought to be able to do a better job by starting fresh.

All that said, the rankings represent a good guess at approximately what the committee will do. Some of the voters are paying attention and looking at roughly the same things the committee does.


Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - Viking_Guy - 02-13-2012

The real puzzler this year is the combination of predetermined host sites and a lot of uncertainty below the top 4.

When you look at the host sites, only 3 of the 16 are likely to have top-4 seeds as host: Notre Dame, College Park and College Station
You might get a top-4 seed from West Lafayette (with outside chances from OK, Vandy and Depaul)

But if not, then you have 12 seeded teams having to play neutral site or on the road in the subregional, which I bet is the highest count ever.

There look like 4 or so potential "neutral" sites, where the host is unlikely to qualify: Little Rock, Bridgeport (which essentially has become a bought-and-paid-for cover for UConn), Tallahassee and Norfolk.  The latest bracketology on ESPN posits Baylor in Little Rock and UConn in Bridgeport (with a regional in Rhode Island).  FSU is the only one who might get hot enough to qualify, but if it does, will likely be in the 11-12 seed category below.

That's the rub: where host teams are likely to be seeded.  The problem is a lot of the hosts are either on the bubble (BGSU, Iowa State and North Carolina - who shouldn't even be sniffing the tournament, but I digress) - an 11 or 12 seed - or in the 3-6 seed (Depaul, Oklahoma, Purdue, Vandy) range, meaning they can't be pushed up or down to an 8-9 seed to host a #1.  Maybe Vandy.

What will be interesting to watch:
- does the NCAA let in "bubble" or close to bubble host teams to boost attendance: North Carolina, Gonzaga, Iowa State?  If so, they'll be 11 or 12 seeds, so we can't be sent there.  And I reiterate, North Carolina, with a current RPI of 91, does not deserve a spot in the field.  In which case, Chapel Hill becomes a neutral site and a natural host for Duke as a #2 seed, which may send Stanford to Norfolk.
- what is the dominant bracketing consideration - geography?  advantage to higher seeds?  avoidance of rematches (less likely to be a problem, with no potential #2s in the #1s conferences, like Baylor/TAMU last year)?

All I know is that Selection Monday is going to have a lot of storylines.

VG



Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - yvonne - 02-13-2012

(02-13-2012, 01:52 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:There look like 4 or so potential "neutral" sites, where the host is unlikely to qualify: Little Rock, Bridgeport (which essentially has become a bought-and-paid-for cover for UConn), Tallahassee and Norfolk.  The latest bracketology on ESPN posits Baylor in Little Rock and UConn in Bridgeport (with a regional in Rhode Island).  FSU is the only one who might get hot enough to qualify, but if it does, will likely be in the 11-12 seed category below.

Did I ever mention that I hate UConn?

Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - Yellowlab - 02-13-2012

It was great to see Amber play so much and so well.  I was also happy to see Chiney face up and make a mid-range shot of the sort alluded to by Garvin on a different thread.  I continue to be impressed by Jos Tinkle's progress. She really does do whatever they seem to ask of her.  I think the offense has looked its absolute best when she has been on the high post.  She's a good passer, and can see over the defenders, while also being able to score, if the defense sags off of her.

Stanford might not be a lock to win the rest of the conference games and the Pac-12 tournament, but it seems a near certainty that they will win their last three games at Maples.  Another class graduating without ever losing at home?  Amazing.

After watching Baylor crush A+M, I found myself hoping for better than the 4th #1 seed, but after further reflection, I don't think it matters.  If they can make it to Denver, I'll be very proud of this team.

(I forgot to mention that Tara said they expected Sarah Booth back this year.  We took that to mean that Ruef wouldn't be.  Sad.)

Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - Viking_Guy - 02-13-2012

I always love the meme that if Stanford has a subregional and regional in California, we "don't have to leave the state" to qualify for the Final Four becomes a big story, while UConn rarely having to travel more than 150-200 miles (Trenton, Philadelphia, Rhode Island regionals after a Bridgeport/Fairfield/Storrs/Hartford/Springfield/Boston subregional) to do the same thing excites little comment.

Also, at least this year the Final Four is west of Texas for only the second time in the last 20 years.  It's been on the West Coast exactly once (San Jose in 1999) in that time.  And the next four years?  New Orleans, Nashville, Tampa, Indianapolis.

VG


Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - M T - 02-13-2012

Well, the NCAA will put the screws to UConn for 2013.  After UConn's only traveling 132 miles combined in 2012 for the first two rounds (Bridgeport,  CT(77mi) + Kingston, RI (55mi) ), the NCAA will make them travel a whole 213 miles to Trenton, NJ, for the regional tourney in 2013.  But as consolation, the first round will be at Storrs. 


Re: WBB: Stanford 82 UCLA 59 - Viking_Guy - 02-13-2012

Just noticed one other thing: Gonzaga has a nice little thing going.  They get a subregional in Spokane on their homecourt, and then, because they aren't the official hosts (WSU, which makes a lot of sense given Pullman is about as far from Spokane as Storrs is from Bridgeport), would also be eligible to play in the Spokane regional.  So over a three year span, they'll have a subregional all three years and a regional two years out of three.  That is if they qualify.

Not that Spokane isn't a nice city, and they do support the event.  But that's a pretty brobdingnagian advantage for a team that's only come close to a top-4 seeding once.

VG