04-03-2012, 02:48 PM
This is an interesting issue, and it sort of parallels a thread from a few months back regarding whether it was better or worse for Stanford to have strong football teams at SC and Oregon. There were strong opinions on both sides of that one, and I ultimately leaned toward the view that, to the extent that having better teams at those schools [or any others] made it harder for Stanford to win the Conference, I wasn't in favor of it.
Regarding women's basketball, however, I'm not so sure. Whether or not it's fair, there is no denying the national perception that the Pac-12 is currently pretty weak. If things stay that way, Stanford will, in all likelihood, continue to win the Conference and get a relatively high seed in the post-season...but probably NOT as high a seed as we would get if we won the title in a better-regarded Pac-12. Even with the high seed, we will probably continue to be assigned to the harder regionals and given the more difficult early-round match-ups. Also, to maintain our own national prominence, we will have to continue the strategy of scheduling tough non-conference opponents earlier in the season to make up for the [perceived, and, honestly, probably rightly so] relatively cream-puff conference schedule. While I have nothing against tough early non-conference schedules, I'm always concerned that it can lead to "peaking" way too early and making it difficult to maintain the necessary "edge" throughout the rest of the season while waltzing through conference play. Weaknesses aren't exposed, certain dominant characteristics begin to get taken for granted and/or atrophy, development of tools necessary for post-season loses its urgency, etc.
Of course, if one or more of the other conference teams [i.e., k.al] becomes substantially better, we would likely be challenged and might even lose a few games, making it harder to compile the type of astronomical winning percentages and unbeaten streaks we have recently enjoyed. But, that is not necessarily a horrible thing, if it causes us to take actions designed to counteract the problems listed above. It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between the basketball season and the football season. In football, if you lose two games [or maybe even one], even if it is to another outstanding school in your conference, your ability to get into the premier bowls [let alone win the NC] is pretty much gone. That clearly isn't so in basketball, especially with the advent of the various conference tournaments -- provided you are in a conference perceived as strong.
Thus, on balance, while I have no problem spending most of the season cheering on the 20+ victory margins during conference play, as we've been fortunate enough to do for several years now, I'm ... intrigued ... by the notion of seeing us get challenged a little more by at least a couple of those teams. If it helps us be in a stronger position for those last six games of the season, it would be worth it.
All that being said, however, I certainly hope that we crush the 59ers whenever we play them...
Regarding women's basketball, however, I'm not so sure. Whether or not it's fair, there is no denying the national perception that the Pac-12 is currently pretty weak. If things stay that way, Stanford will, in all likelihood, continue to win the Conference and get a relatively high seed in the post-season...but probably NOT as high a seed as we would get if we won the title in a better-regarded Pac-12. Even with the high seed, we will probably continue to be assigned to the harder regionals and given the more difficult early-round match-ups. Also, to maintain our own national prominence, we will have to continue the strategy of scheduling tough non-conference opponents earlier in the season to make up for the [perceived, and, honestly, probably rightly so] relatively cream-puff conference schedule. While I have nothing against tough early non-conference schedules, I'm always concerned that it can lead to "peaking" way too early and making it difficult to maintain the necessary "edge" throughout the rest of the season while waltzing through conference play. Weaknesses aren't exposed, certain dominant characteristics begin to get taken for granted and/or atrophy, development of tools necessary for post-season loses its urgency, etc.
Of course, if one or more of the other conference teams [i.e., k.al] becomes substantially better, we would likely be challenged and might even lose a few games, making it harder to compile the type of astronomical winning percentages and unbeaten streaks we have recently enjoyed. But, that is not necessarily a horrible thing, if it causes us to take actions designed to counteract the problems listed above. It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between the basketball season and the football season. In football, if you lose two games [or maybe even one], even if it is to another outstanding school in your conference, your ability to get into the premier bowls [let alone win the NC] is pretty much gone. That clearly isn't so in basketball, especially with the advent of the various conference tournaments -- provided you are in a conference perceived as strong.
Thus, on balance, while I have no problem spending most of the season cheering on the 20+ victory margins during conference play, as we've been fortunate enough to do for several years now, I'm ... intrigued ... by the notion of seeing us get challenged a little more by at least a couple of those teams. If it helps us be in a stronger position for those last six games of the season, it would be worth it.
All that being said, however, I certainly hope that we crush the 59ers whenever we play them...