The CardBoard
Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - 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: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think (/thread-72.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - 76lsjumb - 01-31-2013

Just returned from the game.  After the "6-point play" described by garvin, there was, for the first time in more games [indeed, seasons] than I can remember, a crowd reaction that, even with the not insignificant number of empty seats, awakened the echoes of the last days of the Mont.y era.  I don't really expect it to continue [although I really do think it would be surprising right now for us to lose to OSU], but it was fun to see it again.

Of course, the short term fun may simply be a preface to long-term agony.

As is quite often the case, there is a scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail that sums things up perfectly [in this case, "things" being Dawkins' tenure]:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh8mNjeuyV4&feature=player_embedded



Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - Farm93 - 01-31-2013

All of the off topic chatter was made possible by the rather boring game.  That was nice to see.  To continue this lovely trend Stanford just needs to find a way to have each opponent suffer an injury to their starting PG that takes that guy out of the game.  No problem, just hire Tonya Harding's crew.

Walton's Stanford stories were lots of fun, but he did claim that the bouncy floor had to be replaced because the scoreboard fell during the 1989 Earthquake.

Ummmm, yeah see I was in school at that time and I can assure you that the bouncy floor was wonderfully bounce throughout the 90s.  Great memories of sitting on the actual bouncy floor watching basketball games.  At the end of games security would use tiny rope to try to keep the students off the court even though several hundred students were already on the floor.  As the students ran onto the court it was not hard at all to imagine that the floor would collapse as the students jumped and cheered in those post-game celebrations.

Good times, though if I believe Walton that bouncy floor was destroyed by the Loma Prieta quake.

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - fullmetal - 01-31-2013

I don't mind all the asterisks next to this win--a win over a ranked team in conference play is always something to hang your hat on, and this team desperately needed this one.

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - 76lsjumb - 01-31-2013

(01-31-2013, 12:28 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:Walton's Stanford stories were lots of fun, but he did claim that the bouncy floor had to be replaced because the scoreboard fell during the 1989 Earthquake.

Good times, though if I believe Walton that bouncy floor was destroyed by the Loma Prieta quake.

You're kidding, right?  He really said that?  ???

The floor was replaced in 2004.  I'm looking at a 6" x 6" piece of the old floor right now -- it was given to my Dad [as similar pieces were to many other Buck Club fundraisers] when the renovation occurred -- bearing the legend "Actual Piece of Historic Stanford University Maples Pavilion Floor 1969 - 2004."

If anything, I blame ... Jon Wilner! ... for the loss of the amazing bounce house floor.  Sometime shortly before the decision to replace the floor was announced, he did a series of junk science "epidemiological" stories suggesting that the excessively bouncy floor was contributing to an overabundance of knee injuries at Stanford.  I have to believe that meme became fodder for negative recruiting -- "You don't want to go to Stanford...at least if you want your knees to survive!"

In any event, the center-hung scoreboard was installed as part of the renovation in 2004.  It didn't exist in 1989... except perhaps in Bill Walton's mind.

That being said, I'm waiting for Ernie Kent and Bill Walton to do a game together.  I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have a clue what about what would be happening on the floor, but I'm sure the discussion would be...existential!

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - 82 Card - 01-31-2013

Great to see the team get it together. I hope the success is habbit forming.

Although Walton may have gotten some things wrong, the Greatful Dead stuff was right. The Maples concert was February 9, 1973. Audio is available at http://archive.org/details/gd73-02-09.sbd.allred.9888.sbeok.shnf.  One account of the origin of the Dead in Palo Alto is at http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-grateful-dead.php.

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - FarmBoy - 01-31-2013

I remember hearing that coaches would recruit against the floor regularly in the late 90's and early 00's. I think Brevin Knight was example 1A of a player with nagging, phantom ankle injuries that they would point to. Who knows how true that was, but as a member of the 6th man club, nothing brought more joy that getting a nice harmonic wave going on that floor during opponent free throws--that is, until the refs started whistling technical fouls on the crowd. Playing intramurals on that court was also unique. You could definitely feel the change in your game.

It's a nice win, but I worry this kind of performance isn't sustainable. Live by the three and die by the three and what not. Hopefully they've found a groove on defense that can carry them through the rest of the Pac12.

What kind of record would get them to the NCAA tourney? Would going 8-2 the rest of the way in conference put them in? Or is the Pac12 so weak that you basically need to be in the top 2 to have consideration?

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - washingtonismoney - 01-31-2013

(01-31-2013, 07:02 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:What kind of record would get them to the NCAA tourney? Would going 8-2 the rest of the way in conference put them in? Or is the Pac12 so weak that you basically need to be in the top 2 to have consideration?

Don't think that'd do it, no (especially when we have zero to offer nonconference.) We'd have to win the Pac-12 tournament.

Hate to be the party pooper, but why exactly wait until now for such a sparkling performance? Why can't they do this more often? Perplexing. Fun, if you watch the right game. Perplexing otherwise.

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - fullmetal - 01-31-2013

If this team really catches fire, it'll catch the eye of some of those pundits who cultivate their recency bias like roses.  Margins of victory and eye tests would have to pass with flying colors...

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - LuckE2Bhere - 01-31-2013

(01-31-2013, 02:20 AM)82 Card link Wrote:Great to see the team get it together. I hope the success is habbit forming.

Although Walton may have gotten some things wrong, the Greatful Dead stuff was right. The Maples concert was February 9, 1973. Audio is available at http://archive.org/details/gd73-02-09.sbd.allred.9888.sbeok.shnf.  One account of the origin of the Dead in Palo Alto is at http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-grateful-dead.php.

Outstanding research, 82 Card -- I think it's safe to say that, notwithstanding his skills on the court, Walton's knowledge and insights re: The Dead greatly exceed those he may have with respect to our scoreboard, floor, players, or coaches!

Dang. Win like that could save a man's job - Redrum - 01-31-2013

Don't know much about basketball  but I like to note things about organizations and leadership.  One of the great destroyers of organizational success is summed up by Bill Walsh's description of  QB Steve DeBerg:  "He plays just well enough to get you beat."  That seems to be the case just looking at the up-down fortunes of Stanford basketball.  Enough wins to give one hope, not enough to produce a credibly consistent, strong program on the path to success. 

Or, maybe Dawkin's great and the proof is how well Stanford has done given the handicaps or circumstances it has had to deal with.

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - Leftcoast - 01-31-2013

Wow ... Does Jon Wilner secretly read the Cardboard?  In this article he not only predicts the Oregon win but also joins the "talented but underperforming" chorus.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/01/30/pac-12-basketball-ratings-oregon-is-no-1-but-will-lose-this-week/#more-29765

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - stan01 - 01-31-2013

Part of Walton's criticism was directed at the players, not just the coach. 

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - Gettingolder - 01-31-2013

Ah yes, the bouncy floor. Led to one of the highlights of my life, dunking a soccer ball (can't really palm a real basketball too well). Now I hurt myself trying to touch the backboard

It was nice to see the team play well in front of a nationally televised audience, but I'm not holding my breath for a repeat performance. Good to see mad dog Madsen on the bench

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - Leftcoast - 02-01-2013

I loved playing intramurals on the Maples floor - it felt like you could jump two inches higher at Maples.  Sometimes that wasn't enough.

In the 80s we had an undersized team with great shooters (mostly Asian from Okada and East House with me as the token white guy) that did pretty well in the playoffs until we met a team made up of football players.  I think three of us got carried off the floor that game with injuries that included two broken bones and a wrenched knee.  The football players were athletic guys who played basketball like they thought they were running drills on a 30 yard field.  No layups allowed, full contact every play and full use of Newton's laws.  (Mass and Momentum were NOT on our side).  After being laid out from behind by a back-up safety while making a jump shot I had full sympathy for opposing wide receivers. 

We held our own through the first half but were blown out in the second as attrition and conditioning took its toll.  It's hard to play when you are hearing footsteps every trip down the floor and are gasping for air and waving for help from the sidelines.  Also, rebounding against a guy who plays O-Line isn't easy when you look like his fun house mirror super thin reflection.

Back in the 80s there were several teams made up mostly of football players in the A and B level leagues (some from various frats, others just ad hoc).  Bill Walton (referenced earlier on this thread) played in several of the A league games for the law school team prior to rejoining the NBA with the Celtics.  I wonder if that sort of thing still happens with the risk of injury and so on?

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - FarmBoy - 02-01-2013

When I was at Stanford it was the B-school that dominated the intramural league. Invariably there were former D-1 players at the school that formed the core of the team. Guys who rode the pine at Duke, Vanderbilt and Stanford coupled with other former top athletes mixed with the A-type personality (disorder) of the B-school pretty much fueled their domination. The rumor was that one of the only years the B-school didn't win the league was when Walton played for the Law School.

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - terry - 02-02-2013

(02-01-2013, 12:13 AM)Leftcoast link Wrote:I loved playing intramurals on the Maples floor - it felt like you could jump two inches higher at Maples.

Only two inches higher? It was a long time ago, but I swear I could jump 6 inches higher at Maples. If you talk to me ten years from now, I'll bet I used to jump a foot higher at Maples!

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - terry - 02-02-2013

(01-31-2013, 12:53 AM)76lsjumb link Wrote:If anything, I blame ... Jon Wilner! ... for the loss of the amazing bounce house floor.  Sometime shortly before the decision to replace the floor was announced, he did a series of junk science "epidemiological" stories suggesting that the excessively bouncy floor was contributing to an overabundance of knee injuries at Stanford.  I have to believe that meme became fodder for negative recruiting -- "You don't want to go to Stanford...at least if you want your knees to survive!"

I thought it was Tim Kawakami, but yeah, I remember those articles. Total conjecture with no real science to back it up, but hey, the only thing that matters is how many readers you get, right? Sheesh. . . .

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - 76lsjumb - 02-02-2013

(02-02-2013, 07:28 PM)terry link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=7484.msg58191#msg58191 date=1359618820]
If anything, I blame ... Jon Wilner! ... for the loss of the amazing bounce house floor.  Sometime shortly before the decision to replace the floor was announced, he did a series of junk science "epidemiological" stories suggesting that the excessively bouncy floor was contributing to an overabundance of knee injuries at Stanford.  I have to believe that meme became fodder for negative recruiting -- "You don't want to go to Stanford...at least if you want your knees to survive!"

I thought it was Tim Kawakami, but yeah, I remember those articles. Total conjecture with no real science to back it up, but hey, all that matters is how many readers you get, right? Sheesh. . . .
[/quote]

It may have been Kawakami [and, if so, I owe Wilner an apology  :o ]  Interestingly, I've been unable to track the articles down on the web, although I've founds references to the 2003 series - described as an "informal survey/study" -- in a couple of different places.

Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - M T - 02-03-2013

(02-02-2013, 10:18 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:Interestingly, I've been unable to track the articles down on the web, although I've founds references to the 2003 series - described as an "informal survey/study" -- in a couple of different places.

From a search at http://www.mercurynews.com/archive-search

Quote: Article 1 of 3, Article ID: 0212200103
Published on December 19, 2002, San Jose Mercury News (CA)

MAPLES FLOOR MAY BE TAKING TOLL ON PLAYERS
Mark Madsen disagrees with me. Adam Keefe, too.
Kris Weems argued against my theory Tuesday night, standing on the bouncy Maples Pavilion floor I believe could be the root of so many sprained joints, torn tendons, shattered bones and fractured hopes.
But despite my mini poll of former Cardinal standouts, the anecdotal evidence mounts against Maples' unique, 34-year-old, spring-reinforced wood floor.
Most recently and crushingly, the toll grew Monday when point
Complete Article, 771 words ( )


Article 2 of 3, Article ID: 0302160036
Published on February 15, 2003, San Jose Mercury News (CA)

TOO MUCH FLEX IN THE HARDWOOD?
In the past 10 seasons, the Stanford men's basketball team has won 85.5 percent of its games at Maples Pavilion, one of the best home-court advantages in the Pacific-10 Conference.
But the Cardinal may also have a home-court disadvantage: It leads the league in stress-related injuries.
There is growing anecdotal, statistical and scientific support that Maples' bouncy floor, which was designed to reduce wear and tear on the body -- think of it as basketball on
Complete Article, 1493 words ( )


Re: Maples blowout! But not the direction you probably think - 76lsjumb - 02-03-2013

MT -- Thanks! ... but, according to the link, I will have to pay $3 to see the articles. 

Just wondering if you looked at them yourself, and, if so, the one question I have is:

Wilner or Kawakami [...or someone else]?