03-13-2023, 02:47 PM
Has anyone seen ticket info for season ticket holders?
WBB: Stanford 92 -- Sacred Heart 49
03-13-2023, 02:48 PM
(03-13-2023, 02:47 PM)Spike Wrote: Has anyone seen ticket info for season ticket holders?
Just a reminder that they'll be charging cards today for those who reserved them. Five bucks says mine bounces because they keep charging my old card that expired (and I keep deleting) a couple of years ago.
Just decided, we're going to go to this game. Anticipate very sparse attendance.
Just talked to ticket office, ordered the tix for Wednesday, $40 each! Oh well. And asked about the tix for Friday and Sunday. If you're a season ticket holder and notified them that you want tickets, they will take care of it automatically tomorrow and charge the credit card on file.
Just talked to ticket office, ordered the tix for Wednesday, $40 each! Oh well. And asked about the tix for Friday and Sunday. If you're a season ticket holder and notified them that you want tickets, they will take care of it automatically tomorrow and charge the credit card on file.
Just decided, we're going to go to this game. Anticipate very sparse attendance.
Just talked to ticket office, ordered the tix for Wednesday, $40 each! Oh well. And asked about the tix for Friday and Sunday. If you're a season ticket holder and notified them that you want tickets, they will take care of it automatically tomorrow and charge the credit card on file.
Just talked to ticket office, ordered the tix for Wednesday, $40 each! Oh well. And asked about the tix for Friday and Sunday. If you're a season ticket holder and notified them that you want tickets, they will take care of it automatically tomorrow and charge the credit card on file.
(03-13-2023, 02:41 PM)MV72018 Wrote:I made specific reference to Harvard. Neither of these two teams are Harvard 1998, which was deliberately underseeded and had a a future pro in Alison Feaster. The TV gods of the day just thought Stanford vs. Harvard would be cute, and so they demoted Harvard to a 16 to pull it off, when Harvard should have been a few seeds higher--and they really were ticked off. And our 1 seed was obviously based on having two star players who could no longer play. Unless Brink and Jones both go down with injuries (say whichever prayers your faith requires) (which is the equivalent of 1998 with Nygaard and Folkl), the situation won't be remotely comparable. But it is good to fire up the team to play someone the equivalent of....CSUN (with a similar NET to these two teams) who we beat in our 2nd game of the season 104-40. Overconfidence is never a good thing, but I will save my worries for the second game. We will have a worthy opponent in the second game, and the second game has been our Achilles heel all season.(03-13-2023, 08:16 AM)81alum Wrote: Preview:
I will return and keep editing this initial post to expand the preview as I learn more, but thought we should get the thread started for our first game in the NCAAs.
Two 16 seeds play each other on Wednesday at Maples, 6pm Pacific, for the privilege of playing Stanford on Friday, 4:30. So we will have a couple of days to get ready for the winner.
Question for anyone who knows: will the tickets we are purchasing to attend the first two rounds also admit us to this play-in round on Wednesday? I will post the answer here once I know.
Sacred Heart is 18-13 overall and is getting back to the NCAAs for the first time in 11 years. They play in the Northeast conference and beat Farleigh Dickinson, which had a much better record, in their tournament. They are 258 in NET.
Southern is 18-14 overall. They play in the Southwestern Conference, and were 4th in their regular season before winning their tournament. Just like the Pac-12, neither of their league's two best teams competed to represent their league, and Southern actually beat a team with a losing record in the finals. Southern is 257 in NET, so theoretically they are perfectly matched with Sacred Heart.
These two teams are, frankly, mediocre even in their own leagues before their league tournaments vaulted them over teams with much better records. They are among the weakest teams in the tournament, and weaker than many many teams that did not make it to the tournament. Neither of them could hold a candle to the infamous Harvard team of 1998, and worries about another 1/16 upset should be quashed.
So what kind of game could either of these two give us on Friday? A lot will depend on what kinds of changes Tara has implemented in the wake of our dismal performance against UCLA, and how many of those changes she will be willing to show in what amounts to an exhibition game. I don't expect to see anything new on Friday, and I do expect to see lots and lots of bench players contributing. Come Sunday we will get a much better idea of whether, or how, Tara has reacted to our late season woes.
"...in what amounts to an exhibition game..." Two words for you: "REMEMBER HARVARD!"
As far as these two teams are concerned, they both are overjoyed to have made the Big Dance given their records, and the one we play will be even happier to have won a game in Maples Pavilion on Wednesday night. Their seasons will be made, their fans overjoyed, and while I expect they will do their best, a loss to us won't at all tarnish their unlikely Cinderella stories.
I really would like to break 100, but we haven't done that for quite some time.
By the way, these two teams represent a flaw in the NCAA tournament system that people in the Pac 12 may not be familiar with. When an inferior team beats a superior team in the Pac 12 tournament, no problem, since the Pac 12 is sending 7 teams. Plenty of room to send the tournament finisher and all the other good teams. When an inferior team beats a superior team in the two leagues of our Friday opponent, the superior team goes home and the inferior team gets the invite, since under no circumstances will they invite 2 teams from such a league. I really do not like the tournament system for this reason. It would be like having the World Series determined by a single game. So we could be playing against the 4th-place finisher of a small league of small schools, while that league's most accomplished team bemoans its tournament loss. Our tournament loss was not so consequential, by comparison. Just imagine if UCLA had knocked us out of the NCAAs completely.
(03-13-2023, 02:41 PM)MV72018 Wrote:I made specific reference to Harvard. Neither of these two teams are Harvard 1998, which was deliberately underseeded and had a a future pro in Alison Feaster. The TV gods of the day just thought Stanford vs. Harvard would be cute, and so they demoted Harvard to a 16 to pull it off, when Harvard should have been a few seeds higher--and they really were ticked off. And our 1 seed was obviously based on having two star players who could no longer play. Unless Brink and Jones both go down with injuries (say whichever prayers your faith requires) (which is the equivalent of 1998 with Nygaard and Folkl), the situation won't be remotely comparable. But it is good to fire up the team to play someone the equivalent of....CSUN (with a similar NET to these two teams) who we beat in our 2nd game of the season 104-40. Overconfidence is never a good thing, but I will save my worries for the second game. We will have a worthy opponent in the second game, and the second game has been our Achilles heel all season.(03-13-2023, 08:16 AM)81alum Wrote: Preview:
I will return and keep editing this initial post to expand the preview as I learn more, but thought we should get the thread started for our first game in the NCAAs.
Two 16 seeds play each other on Wednesday at Maples, 6pm Pacific, for the privilege of playing Stanford on Friday, 4:30. So we will have a couple of days to get ready for the winner.
Question for anyone who knows: will the tickets we are purchasing to attend the first two rounds also admit us to this play-in round on Wednesday? I will post the answer here once I know.
Sacred Heart is 18-13 overall and is getting back to the NCAAs for the first time in 11 years. They play in the Northeast conference and beat Farleigh Dickinson, which had a much better record, in their tournament. They are 258 in NET.
Southern is 18-14 overall. They play in the Southwestern Conference, and were 4th in their regular season before winning their tournament. Just like the Pac-12, neither of their league's two best teams competed to represent their league, and Southern actually beat a team with a losing record in the finals. Southern is 257 in NET, so theoretically they are perfectly matched with Sacred Heart.
These two teams are, frankly, mediocre even in their own leagues before their league tournaments vaulted them over teams with much better records. They are among the weakest teams in the tournament, and weaker than many many teams that did not make it to the tournament. Neither of them could hold a candle to the infamous Harvard team of 1998, and worries about another 1/16 upset should be quashed.
So what kind of game could either of these two give us on Friday? A lot will depend on what kinds of changes Tara has implemented in the wake of our dismal performance against UCLA, and how many of those changes she will be willing to show in what amounts to an exhibition game. I don't expect to see anything new on Friday, and I do expect to see lots and lots of bench players contributing. Come Sunday we will get a much better idea of whether, or how, Tara has reacted to our late season woes.
"...in what amounts to an exhibition game..." Two words for you: "REMEMBER HARVARD!"
As far as these two teams are concerned, they both are overjoyed to have made the Big Dance given their records, and the one we play will be even happier to have won a game in Maples Pavilion on Wednesday night. Their seasons will be made, their fans overjoyed, and while I expect they will do their best, a loss to us won't at all tarnish their unlikely Cinderella stories.
I really would like to break 100, but we haven't done that for quite some time.
By the way, these two teams represent a flaw in the NCAA tournament system that people in the Pac 12 may not be familiar with. When an inferior team beats a superior team in the Pac 12 tournament, no problem, since the Pac 12 is sending 7 teams. Plenty of room to send the tournament finisher and all the other good teams. When an inferior team beats a superior team in the two leagues of our Friday opponent, the superior team goes home and the inferior team gets the invite, since under no circumstances will they invite 2 teams from such a league. I really do not like the tournament system for this reason. It would be like having the World Series determined by a single game. So we could be playing against the 4th-place finisher of a small league of small schools, while that league's most accomplished team bemoans its tournament loss. Our tournament loss was not so consequential, by comparison. Just imagine if UCLA had knocked us out of the NCAAs completely.
I got the email for season ticket holders who preordered all-session passes. It has a footnote saying the First Four game is not included. Just posting in case anyone was still unsure about that.
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2023, 06:06 PM by CompSci87.)
I got the email for season ticket holders who preordered all-session passes. It has a footnote saying the First Four game is not included. Just posting in case anyone was still unsure about that.
03-13-2023, 06:56 PM
For those for whom offense is the only statistic they follow, Folkl and Nygaard combined for 39.4% of the 1998 team’s points. Brink and Jones combine for 37%.
The non-starter guard Folkl and forward Nygaard pulled down 43.6% of the rebounds in 50.9 minutes per game, compared to 40.9% for Brink & Jones in 57.2 minutes per game.
Folkl is IMO the best player to come through Stanford. The only knock on her was that her FT% was middling. That year, in conference, her FT% was only 69.4%. Yes, it was a full 2 percentage points lower than her FG%. Just terrible (;-). Kinda dwarfs the numbers for Shaq or Steph or Griner or whoever.
That year, guard Milena Flores hit 49.4% of her FG%. She was 5th best on the team.
https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...997-98.pdf
The non-starter guard Folkl and forward Nygaard pulled down 43.6% of the rebounds in 50.9 minutes per game, compared to 40.9% for Brink & Jones in 57.2 minutes per game.
Folkl is IMO the best player to come through Stanford. The only knock on her was that her FT% was middling. That year, in conference, her FT% was only 69.4%. Yes, it was a full 2 percentage points lower than her FG%. Just terrible (;-). Kinda dwarfs the numbers for Shaq or Steph or Griner or whoever.
That year, guard Milena Flores hit 49.4% of her FG%. She was 5th best on the team.
https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...997-98.pdf
For those for whom offense is the only statistic they follow, Folkl and Nygaard combined for 39.4% of the 1998 team’s points. Brink and Jones combine for 37%.
The non-starter guard Folkl and forward Nygaard pulled down 43.6% of the rebounds in 50.9 minutes per game, compared to 40.9% for Brink & Jones in 57.2 minutes per game.
Folkl is IMO the best player to come through Stanford. The only knock on her was that her FT% was middling. That year, in conference, her FT% was only 69.4%. Yes, it was a full 2 percentage points lower than her FG%. Just terrible (;-). Kinda dwarfs the numbers for Shaq or Steph or Griner or whoever.
That year, guard Milena Flores hit 49.4% of her FG%. She was 5th best on the team.
https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...997-98.pdf
The non-starter guard Folkl and forward Nygaard pulled down 43.6% of the rebounds in 50.9 minutes per game, compared to 40.9% for Brink & Jones in 57.2 minutes per game.
Folkl is IMO the best player to come through Stanford. The only knock on her was that her FT% was middling. That year, in conference, her FT% was only 69.4%. Yes, it was a full 2 percentage points lower than her FG%. Just terrible (;-). Kinda dwarfs the numbers for Shaq or Steph or Griner or whoever.
That year, guard Milena Flores hit 49.4% of her FG%. She was 5th best on the team.
https://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/c...997-98.pdf
03-13-2023, 07:09 PM
When you see data like Vanessa Nygaard shooting 46% from 3, it's worth noting that the 3 point line in 1997-98 was at 19' 9". It was at 20'9" in 2021 when Stanford won the NC. It's now at 22' 2".
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
When you see data like Vanessa Nygaard shooting 46% from 3, it's worth noting that the 3 point line in 1997-98 was at 19' 9". It was at 20'9" in 2021 when Stanford won the NC. It's now at 22' 2".
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
Setting aside comparisons to a time before any of our players were born, I'll be most curious to see how Tara tweaks our offense. Aside from our game @ASU, this is the best in-game opportunity she's had since the start of the new year, because some of our "gimme" wins like @Washington and @Cal ended up being too close for comfort, and even @WSU looked like a serious trap game leading up to it. Really curious to see what adjustments she makes, if any.
BTW: for those worried about our lack of off-dribble guards, help is to the rescue in Clardy and Ogden. If we have any problem 1-2 years from now, it's ironically going to be post play.
BTW: for those worried about our lack of off-dribble guards, help is to the rescue in Clardy and Ogden. If we have any problem 1-2 years from now, it's ironically going to be post play.
Setting aside comparisons to a time before any of our players were born, I'll be most curious to see how Tara tweaks our offense. Aside from our game @ASU, this is the best in-game opportunity she's had since the start of the new year, because some of our "gimme" wins like @Washington and @Cal ended up being too close for comfort, and even @WSU looked like a serious trap game leading up to it. Really curious to see what adjustments she makes, if any.
BTW: for those worried about our lack of off-dribble guards, help is to the rescue in Clardy and Ogden. If we have any problem 1-2 years from now, it's ironically going to be post play.
BTW: for those worried about our lack of off-dribble guards, help is to the rescue in Clardy and Ogden. If we have any problem 1-2 years from now, it's ironically going to be post play.
03-13-2023, 07:58 PM
https://gostanford.com/gameday/wbball-vs...bball/4781
No dispensation because of the 4:30 tip-off. Free parking only at 4 p.m.
No dispensation because of the 4:30 tip-off. Free parking only at 4 p.m.
https://gostanford.com/gameday/wbball-vs...bball/4781
No dispensation because of the 4:30 tip-off. Free parking only at 4 p.m.
No dispensation because of the 4:30 tip-off. Free parking only at 4 p.m.
03-14-2023, 08:34 AM
(03-13-2023, 04:52 PM)81alum Wrote:(03-13-2023, 02:41 PM)MV72018 Wrote:I made specific reference to Harvard. Neither of these two teams are Harvard 1998, which was deliberately underseeded and had a a future pro in Alison Feaster. The TV gods of the day just thought Stanford vs. Harvard would be cute, and so they demoted Harvard to a 16 to pull it off, when Harvard should have been a few seeds higher--and they really were ticked off. And our 1 seed was obviously based on having two star players who could no longer play. Unless Brink and Jones both go down with injuries (say whichever prayers your faith requires) (which is the equivalent of 1998 with Nygaard and Folkl), the situation won't be remotely comparable. But it is good to fire up the team to play someone the equivalent of....CSUN (with a similar NET to these two teams) who we beat in our 2nd game of the season 104-40. Overconfidence is never a good thing, but I will save my worries for the second game. We will have a worthy opponent in the second game, and the second game has been our Achilles heel all season.(03-13-2023, 08:16 AM)81alum Wrote: Preview:
I will return and keep editing this initial post to expand the preview as I learn more, but thought we should get the thread started for our first game in the NCAAs.
Two 16 seeds play each other on Wednesday at Maples, 6pm Pacific, for the privilege of playing Stanford on Friday, 4:30. So we will have a couple of days to get ready for the winner.
Question for anyone who knows: will the tickets we are purchasing to attend the first two rounds also admit us to this play-in round on Wednesday? I will post the answer here once I know.
Sacred Heart is 18-13 overall and is getting back to the NCAAs for the first time in 11 years. They play in the Northeast conference and beat Farleigh Dickinson, which had a much better record, in their tournament. They are 258 in NET.
Southern is 18-14 overall. They play in the Southwestern Conference, and were 4th in their regular season before winning their tournament. Just like the Pac-12, neither of their league's two best teams competed to represent their league, and Southern actually beat a team with a losing record in the finals. Southern is 257 in NET, so theoretically they are perfectly matched with Sacred Heart.
These two teams are, frankly, mediocre even in their own leagues before their league tournaments vaulted them over teams with much better records. They are among the weakest teams in the tournament, and weaker than many many teams that did not make it to the tournament. Neither of them could hold a candle to the infamous Harvard team of 1998, and worries about another 1/16 upset should be quashed.
So what kind of game could either of these two give us on Friday? A lot will depend on what kinds of changes Tara has implemented in the wake of our dismal performance against UCLA, and how many of those changes she will be willing to show in what amounts to an exhibition game. I don't expect to see anything new on Friday, and I do expect to see lots and lots of bench players contributing. Come Sunday we will get a much better idea of whether, or how, Tara has reacted to our late season woes.
"...in what amounts to an exhibition game..." Two words for you: "REMEMBER HARVARD!"
As far as these two teams are concerned, they both are overjoyed to have made the Big Dance given their records, and the one we play will be even happier to have won a game in Maples Pavilion on Wednesday night. Their seasons will be made, their fans overjoyed, and while I expect they will do their best, a loss to us won't at all tarnish their unlikely Cinderella stories.
I really would like to break 100, but we haven't done that for quite some time.
By the way, these two teams represent a flaw in the NCAA tournament system that people in the Pac 12 may not be familiar with. When an inferior team beats a superior team in the Pac 12 tournament, no problem, since the Pac 12 is sending 7 teams. Plenty of room to send the tournament finisher and all the other good teams. When an inferior team beats a superior team in the two leagues of our Friday opponent, the superior team goes home and the inferior team gets the invite, since under no circumstances will they invite 2 teams from such a league. I really do not like the tournament system for this reason. It would be like having the World Series determined by a single game. So we could be playing against the 4th-place finisher of a small league of small schools, while that league's most accomplished team bemoans its tournament loss. Our tournament loss was not so consequential, by comparison. Just imagine if UCLA had knocked us out of the NCAAs completely.
Speaking of...article from the other side: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/03/13/s...nt=event25
For the 25 years, I thought I'd jinxed 'em by telling my boss that even though my favorite player, Nygaard, would be missing, "Nothin' to worry about!" Of course, this was before we knew about Folkl.
For Feaster (and the rest)? The highlight of her basketball career. Wow.
(03-13-2023, 04:52 PM)81alum Wrote:(03-13-2023, 02:41 PM)MV72018 Wrote:I made specific reference to Harvard. Neither of these two teams are Harvard 1998, which was deliberately underseeded and had a a future pro in Alison Feaster. The TV gods of the day just thought Stanford vs. Harvard would be cute, and so they demoted Harvard to a 16 to pull it off, when Harvard should have been a few seeds higher--and they really were ticked off. And our 1 seed was obviously based on having two star players who could no longer play. Unless Brink and Jones both go down with injuries (say whichever prayers your faith requires) (which is the equivalent of 1998 with Nygaard and Folkl), the situation won't be remotely comparable. But it is good to fire up the team to play someone the equivalent of....CSUN (with a similar NET to these two teams) who we beat in our 2nd game of the season 104-40. Overconfidence is never a good thing, but I will save my worries for the second game. We will have a worthy opponent in the second game, and the second game has been our Achilles heel all season.(03-13-2023, 08:16 AM)81alum Wrote: Preview:
I will return and keep editing this initial post to expand the preview as I learn more, but thought we should get the thread started for our first game in the NCAAs.
Two 16 seeds play each other on Wednesday at Maples, 6pm Pacific, for the privilege of playing Stanford on Friday, 4:30. So we will have a couple of days to get ready for the winner.
Question for anyone who knows: will the tickets we are purchasing to attend the first two rounds also admit us to this play-in round on Wednesday? I will post the answer here once I know.
Sacred Heart is 18-13 overall and is getting back to the NCAAs for the first time in 11 years. They play in the Northeast conference and beat Farleigh Dickinson, which had a much better record, in their tournament. They are 258 in NET.
Southern is 18-14 overall. They play in the Southwestern Conference, and were 4th in their regular season before winning their tournament. Just like the Pac-12, neither of their league's two best teams competed to represent their league, and Southern actually beat a team with a losing record in the finals. Southern is 257 in NET, so theoretically they are perfectly matched with Sacred Heart.
These two teams are, frankly, mediocre even in their own leagues before their league tournaments vaulted them over teams with much better records. They are among the weakest teams in the tournament, and weaker than many many teams that did not make it to the tournament. Neither of them could hold a candle to the infamous Harvard team of 1998, and worries about another 1/16 upset should be quashed.
So what kind of game could either of these two give us on Friday? A lot will depend on what kinds of changes Tara has implemented in the wake of our dismal performance against UCLA, and how many of those changes she will be willing to show in what amounts to an exhibition game. I don't expect to see anything new on Friday, and I do expect to see lots and lots of bench players contributing. Come Sunday we will get a much better idea of whether, or how, Tara has reacted to our late season woes.
"...in what amounts to an exhibition game..." Two words for you: "REMEMBER HARVARD!"
As far as these two teams are concerned, they both are overjoyed to have made the Big Dance given their records, and the one we play will be even happier to have won a game in Maples Pavilion on Wednesday night. Their seasons will be made, their fans overjoyed, and while I expect they will do their best, a loss to us won't at all tarnish their unlikely Cinderella stories.
I really would like to break 100, but we haven't done that for quite some time.
By the way, these two teams represent a flaw in the NCAA tournament system that people in the Pac 12 may not be familiar with. When an inferior team beats a superior team in the Pac 12 tournament, no problem, since the Pac 12 is sending 7 teams. Plenty of room to send the tournament finisher and all the other good teams. When an inferior team beats a superior team in the two leagues of our Friday opponent, the superior team goes home and the inferior team gets the invite, since under no circumstances will they invite 2 teams from such a league. I really do not like the tournament system for this reason. It would be like having the World Series determined by a single game. So we could be playing against the 4th-place finisher of a small league of small schools, while that league's most accomplished team bemoans its tournament loss. Our tournament loss was not so consequential, by comparison. Just imagine if UCLA had knocked us out of the NCAAs completely.
Speaking of...article from the other side: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/03/13/s...nt=event25
For the 25 years, I thought I'd jinxed 'em by telling my boss that even though my favorite player, Nygaard, would be missing, "Nothin' to worry about!" Of course, this was before we knew about Folkl.
For Feaster (and the rest)? The highlight of her basketball career. Wow.
03-14-2023, 11:45 AM
(03-13-2023, 07:19 PM)2006alum Wrote: Setting aside comparisons to a time before any of our players were born, I'll be most curious to see how Tara tweaks our offense. Aside from our game @ASU, this is the best in-game opportunity she's had since the start of the new year, because some of our "gimme" wins like @Washington and @Cal ended up being too close for comfort, and even @WSU looked like a serious trap game leading up to it. Really curious to see what adjustments she makes, if any.
BTW: for those worried about our lack of off-dribble guards, help is to the rescue in Clardy and Ogden. If we have any problem 1-2 years from now, it's ironically going to be post play.
I appreciate and share the optimism surrounding our incoming guards/wings and the continuing development of our current guards/wings. But next year we will have POY candidate Brink in the post supported by Betts and Iriafen. Two years from now, Betts and Iriafen I think are still going to be our primary options on offense. More balanced offense especially the ability of other players to create off the dribble will only enhance their effectiveness. And hopefully they are joined by a couple of top 2024 posts/PFs.
(03-13-2023, 07:19 PM)2006alum Wrote: Setting aside comparisons to a time before any of our players were born, I'll be most curious to see how Tara tweaks our offense. Aside from our game @ASU, this is the best in-game opportunity she's had since the start of the new year, because some of our "gimme" wins like @Washington and @Cal ended up being too close for comfort, and even @WSU looked like a serious trap game leading up to it. Really curious to see what adjustments she makes, if any.
BTW: for those worried about our lack of off-dribble guards, help is to the rescue in Clardy and Ogden. If we have any problem 1-2 years from now, it's ironically going to be post play.
I appreciate and share the optimism surrounding our incoming guards/wings and the continuing development of our current guards/wings. But next year we will have POY candidate Brink in the post supported by Betts and Iriafen. Two years from now, Betts and Iriafen I think are still going to be our primary options on offense. More balanced offense especially the ability of other players to create off the dribble will only enhance their effectiveness. And hopefully they are joined by a couple of top 2024 posts/PFs.
03-14-2023, 12:48 PM
(03-14-2023, 09:41 AM)WBB fan Wrote: Any cardboarders other than me going to this gamer?If you mean the play-in game, I would have gone had it been included in the pass, but I'm not going to shell out extra money to watch those two teams. Kind of a shame for them--I bet they would have gotten quite a few polite Stanford fans to watch them had we not been asked to pay extra. As it is, two small east-coast colleges playing against each other in California--attendance could be very, very poor.
I will certainly be there on Friday and Sunday.
(03-14-2023, 09:41 AM)WBB fan Wrote: Any cardboarders other than me going to this gamer?If you mean the play-in game, I would have gone had it been included in the pass, but I'm not going to shell out extra money to watch those two teams. Kind of a shame for them--I bet they would have gotten quite a few polite Stanford fans to watch them had we not been asked to pay extra. As it is, two small east-coast colleges playing against each other in California--attendance could be very, very poor.
I will certainly be there on Friday and Sunday.
03-14-2023, 01:59 PM
(03-14-2023, 12:48 PM)81alum Wrote:(03-14-2023, 09:41 AM)WBB fan Wrote: Any cardboarders other than me going to this gamer?If you mean the play-in game, I would have gone had it been included in the pass, but I'm not going to shell out extra money to watch those two teams. Kind of a shame for them--I bet they would have gotten quite a few polite Stanford fans to watch them had we not been asked to pay extra. As it is, two small east-coast colleges playing against each other in California--attendance could be very, very poor.
I will certainly be there on Friday and Sunday.
Yes, I did mean this game. Agree it's too bad about the ticket situation. I wonder if that's a Stanford decision or NCAA. Might be the latter. At any rate, we decided to go since we could to show a bit of support to the two teams. On Friday, for us it will be all about the Card. As for attendance tomorrow, I'll be surprised if there are more than a few hundred. Pretty sad
(03-14-2023, 12:48 PM)81alum Wrote:(03-14-2023, 09:41 AM)WBB fan Wrote: Any cardboarders other than me going to this gamer?If you mean the play-in game, I would have gone had it been included in the pass, but I'm not going to shell out extra money to watch those two teams. Kind of a shame for them--I bet they would have gotten quite a few polite Stanford fans to watch them had we not been asked to pay extra. As it is, two small east-coast colleges playing against each other in California--attendance could be very, very poor.
I will certainly be there on Friday and Sunday.
Yes, I did mean this game. Agree it's too bad about the ticket situation. I wonder if that's a Stanford decision or NCAA. Might be the latter. At any rate, we decided to go since we could to show a bit of support to the two teams. On Friday, for us it will be all about the Card. As for attendance tomorrow, I'll be surprised if there are more than a few hundred. Pretty sad
Widespread power outages in Menlo Park, Mtn View, Los Altos, Sunnyvale. Stanford and Palo Alto look ok. I hope it doesn’t affect Wed game
But I have no power, cell, phone, or internet (I drove to find cell coverage)
PLEASE treat dead traffic lights as stop signs!!
But I have no power, cell, phone, or internet (I drove to find cell coverage)
PLEASE treat dead traffic lights as stop signs!!
Widespread power outages in Menlo Park, Mtn View, Los Altos, Sunnyvale. Stanford and Palo Alto look ok. I hope it doesn’t affect Wed game
But I have no power, cell, phone, or internet (I drove to find cell coverage)
PLEASE treat dead traffic lights as stop signs!!
But I have no power, cell, phone, or internet (I drove to find cell coverage)
PLEASE treat dead traffic lights as stop signs!!
03-14-2023, 10:19 PM
I think power and internet on the main campus are okay. Comcast is out at my home near downtown Palo Alto, but from my phone I can ping a campus computer (hopefully still actually on campus) that I still have a guest account on.
I think power and internet on the main campus are okay. Comcast is out at my home near downtown Palo Alto, but from my phone I can ping a campus computer (hopefully still actually on campus) that I still have a guest account on.
03-15-2023, 05:19 PM
(03-13-2023, 10:00 AM)TheWildJacko Wrote: It’s fine except for those of us who have to teach from 4:30-5:30 and 6-7pm on Friday. I’ll be watching on tape delay.
Lol, both of my lessons on Friday have miraculously been pushed to the following weekend through no doing of my own. So I guess it IS fine!
(03-13-2023, 10:00 AM)TheWildJacko Wrote: It’s fine except for those of us who have to teach from 4:30-5:30 and 6-7pm on Friday. I’ll be watching on tape delay.
Lol, both of my lessons on Friday have miraculously been pushed to the following weekend through no doing of my own. So I guess it IS fine!
Just reached my seat in a nearly deserted Maples for the Southern vs Sacred Heart game. Ticket taker said they only sold about 300 tix. The teams did bring bands, tho, plus cheerleaders. Very little media presence.
I see Katie S and Eileen here in the stands. Sacred Heart band played the anthem, the BEST rendition I've heard all season. No kidding, clean pace, no messing with tune, no trills, just very well done. Like Stanford, Southern team left the court for the anthem.
Still having same problems with Maples scoreboards as at UCLA game. Good grief. They've had several weeks to take care of this Hope it's fixed by Friday.
Tara and Kate Paye have now joined Katie S don't see Anderson, but she might be there as well .
I see Katie S and Eileen here in the stands. Sacred Heart band played the anthem, the BEST rendition I've heard all season. No kidding, clean pace, no messing with tune, no trills, just very well done. Like Stanford, Southern team left the court for the anthem.
Still having same problems with Maples scoreboards as at UCLA game. Good grief. They've had several weeks to take care of this Hope it's fixed by Friday.
Tara and Kate Paye have now joined Katie S don't see Anderson, but she might be there as well .
Just reached my seat in a nearly deserted Maples for the Southern vs Sacred Heart game. Ticket taker said they only sold about 300 tix. The teams did bring bands, tho, plus cheerleaders. Very little media presence.
I see Katie S and Eileen here in the stands. Sacred Heart band played the anthem, the BEST rendition I've heard all season. No kidding, clean pace, no messing with tune, no trills, just very well done. Like Stanford, Southern team left the court for the anthem.
Still having same problems with Maples scoreboards as at UCLA game. Good grief. They've had several weeks to take care of this Hope it's fixed by Friday.
Tara and Kate Paye have now joined Katie S don't see Anderson, but she might be there as well .
I see Katie S and Eileen here in the stands. Sacred Heart band played the anthem, the BEST rendition I've heard all season. No kidding, clean pace, no messing with tune, no trills, just very well done. Like Stanford, Southern team left the court for the anthem.
Still having same problems with Maples scoreboards as at UCLA game. Good grief. They've had several weeks to take care of this Hope it's fixed by Friday.
Tara and Kate Paye have now joined Katie S don't see Anderson, but she might be there as well .
03-15-2023, 06:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-15-2023, 07:12 PM by CompSci87.
Edit Reason: Moved here, so now it's in the intended thread
)
Southern by far the more aggressive on the boards. Sacred Heart doesn't even seem to try for O boards, just starts backing down the court when a shot goes up.
Oops, doing this on my phone. Comment belongs in Stanford vs Sacred Heart/ Southern thread
Oops, doing this on my phone. Comment belongs in Stanford vs Sacred Heart/ Southern thread
(This post was last modified: 03-15-2023, 07:12 PM by CompSci87.
Edit Reason: Moved here, so now it's in the intended thread
)
Southern by far the more aggressive on the boards. Sacred Heart doesn't even seem to try for O boards, just starts backing down the court when a shot goes up.
Oops, doing this on my phone. Comment belongs in Stanford vs Sacred Heart/ Southern thread
Oops, doing this on my phone. Comment belongs in Stanford vs Sacred Heart/ Southern thread
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »