[teejers1]

The point about Maryland missing VERY OPEN treys in Q4 is so easily overlooked by those saying Stanford won "comfortably."  If even one of those had been hit, the pucker would have been amped, and with two more, well . . . who knows?  And those critical misses were NOT due to Stanford's great defense - Maryland just missed 'em.  Thankfully for Stanford.

We'll see about Texas.  Of course Stanford can win - they probably will even be favored by Vegas.  But they'll need to take better care of the ball and be tougher, mentally and physically.

So this is how your scenario actually would have played out (yes, my crystal ball is right :>). If they would have actually hit the threes as you suggest and the lead would have gotten much below 10, then we would have adjusted and we would have started scoring again. Simple as that. We scored pretty much at will against Maryland and it would have been even easier with Miller and Sellers out of the game and Reese with 4. Instead of pulling it out and running clock when we broke their press, we would have taken some easy shots. Haley would have attacked the basket and it would have been a layup fest. Our bigs would have gotten offensive putbacks like they did all game. They are not a good defensive team. I bet Lexie could have scored 10 straight in the 4th if she needed to. But there was no need to adjust, because those threes you point out actually didn't go in. Instead, after not making some free throws (which is a legit concern going forward), we were up 9 with 8 seconds left to watch a meaningless 3 go in at the buzzer. Yawn. 

I am really surprised at the lack of confidence in this team and the "relief" reaction many have posted. We destroyed Maryland. Destroyed them. Our players took the air out of the balloon in the 4th and yes, it wasn't pretty and it would have looked better to win by 20. But all these comments about "we were lucky they didn't" and "if this would have happened" really sells short a pretty much dominating performance.

As for this "looming" Texas threat and "we better this and we better that or else stuff..." (and not just by Teejers but by multiple posters) shows even more insecurity about our team. IMO, most of the Final 8 teams are very good and you can point out threats all over the place if you just want to stir up drama. If it's not stopping Maryland's scoring it's how are we going to get the ball up the court against Texas. Or it's look out for UConn because Paige is back and they are healthy again. Or So Carolina, or Louisville, or Notre Dame - they are really hot. Sure we could lose to Texas. Or we could lose in the next round. It's the same with all these teams. But for me - I am way more confident in our team than I am scared of these other teams. How about asking this instead:  "what are they going to do about <insert any of these here: <our defense, our length, our size, our depth, our execution....>. How will Texas matchup against Haley, Cam, Lexie...? Pretty sure we have some major advantages. Just listen to what the other coaches say about our team in the pressers. We are a bigggg problem.

Last point...if we lose to Texas, look awful bringing up the ball, and make a bunch of silly/costly turnovers, the boo birds will be out in force and it will be a landslide of I was worried about that and I was right about that. But what if we look awful bringing up the ball, make a bunch of silly/costly turnovers, outrebound them by 20, get a ton of layups in our half court sets, get a bunch of oboard put backs, hit lots of threes, and win anyway? Cuz that seems to be what we do.

We SHOULD be a big problem, given that Stanford has better, more heralded recruits than anyone outside of UConn.  (Do you think Maryland had better recruits than Stanford?).

Look, it's not that difficult to evaluate how the teams match up (or matched up).  When watching the game, the primary thing I look at is "which team is getting better looks on O?"  Stanford had more better looks early, Maryland did in Q4 (you say because Stanford just packed it in - whatever, I suspect the team would say they didn't, that they were still trying).  Regardless, throughout the game, Stanford benefited from Maryland missing a lot of shots, including on the good looks.  

I'm not saying Maryland deserved to win; I am saying the final score is more indicative of the play on the court that you think it was (Maryland was not "destroyed").  And if Maryland had made even that one wide open trey midway through Q4 . . .  

The Texas game will again be about which team gets more, better looks.  If Stanford limits turnovers, especially live ball ones (which can lead to layups or good looks in transition), then it should have a good chance to get more better looks; and thus, a decent chance to win.    

P.S.  If Stanford "look[s] awful bringing up the ball, make[s] a bunch of silly/costly turnovers, outrebound[s] them by 20, get[s] a ton of layups in our half court sets, get[s] a bunch of oboard put backs, hit[s] lots of threes, and wins]," then I'll be "relieved."  And content.

[teejers1]

The point about Maryland missing VERY OPEN treys in Q4 is so easily overlooked by those saying Stanford won "comfortably."  If even one of those had been hit, the pucker would have been amped, and with two more, well . . . who knows?  And those critical misses were NOT due to Stanford's great defense - Maryland just missed 'em.  Thankfully for Stanford.

We'll see about Texas.  Of course Stanford can win - they probably will even be favored by Vegas.  But they'll need to take better care of the ball and be tougher, mentally and physically.

So this is how your scenario actually would have played out (yes, my crystal ball is right :>). If they would have actually hit the threes as you suggest and the lead would have gotten much below 10, then we would have adjusted and we would have started scoring again. Simple as that. We scored pretty much at will against Maryland and it would have been even easier with Miller and Sellers out of the game and Reese with 4. Instead of pulling it out and running clock when we broke their press, we would have taken some easy shots. Haley would have attacked the basket and it would have been a layup fest. Our bigs would have gotten offensive putbacks like they did all game. They are not a good defensive team. I bet Lexie could have scored 10 straight in the 4th if she needed to. But there was no need to adjust, because those threes you point out actually didn't go in. Instead, after not making some free throws (which is a legit concern going forward), we were up 9 with 8 seconds left to watch a meaningless 3 go in at the buzzer. Yawn. 

I am really surprised at the lack of confidence in this team and the "relief" reaction many have posted. We destroyed Maryland. Destroyed them. Our players took the air out of the balloon in the 4th and yes, it wasn't pretty and it would have looked better to win by 20. But all these comments about "we were lucky they didn't" and "if this would have happened" really sells short a pretty much dominating performance.

As for this "looming" Texas threat and "we better this and we better that or else stuff..." (and not just by Teejers but by multiple posters) shows even more insecurity about our team. IMO, most of the Final 8 teams are very good and you can point out threats all over the place if you just want to stir up drama. If it's not stopping Maryland's scoring it's how are we going to get the ball up the court against Texas. Or it's look out for UConn because Paige is back and they are healthy again. Or So Carolina, or Louisville, or Notre Dame - they are really hot. Sure we could lose to Texas. Or we could lose in the next round. It's the same with all these teams. But for me - I am way more confident in our team than I am scared of these other teams. How about asking this instead:  "what are they going to do about <insert any of these here: <our defense, our length, our size, our depth, our execution....>. How will Texas matchup against Haley, Cam, Lexie...? Pretty sure we have some major advantages. Just listen to what the other coaches say about our team in the pressers. We are a bigggg problem.

Last point...if we lose to Texas, look awful bringing up the ball, and make a bunch of silly/costly turnovers, the boo birds will be out in force and it will be a landslide of I was worried about that and I was right about that. But what if we look awful bringing up the ball, make a bunch of silly/costly turnovers, outrebound them by 20, get a ton of layups in our half court sets, get a bunch of oboard put backs, hit lots of threes, and win anyway? Cuz that seems to be what we do.

We SHOULD be a big problem, given that Stanford has better, more heralded recruits than anyone outside of UConn.  (Do you think Maryland had better recruits than Stanford?).

Look, it's not that difficult to evaluate how the teams match up (or matched up).  When watching the game, the primary thing I look at is "which team is getting better looks on O?"  Stanford had more better looks early, Maryland did in Q4 (you say because Stanford just packed it in - whatever, I suspect the team would say they didn't, that they were still trying).  Regardless, throughout the game, Stanford benefited from Maryland missing a lot of shots, including on the good looks.  

I'm not saying Maryland deserved to win; I am saying the final score is more indicative of the play on the court that you think it was (Maryland was not "destroyed").  And if Maryland had made even that one wide open trey midway through Q4 . . .  

The Texas game will again be about which team gets more, better looks.  If Stanford limits turnovers, especially live ball ones (which can lead to layups or good looks in transition), then it should have a good chance to get more better looks; and thus, a decent chance to win.    

P.S.  If Stanford "look[s] awful bringing up the ball, make[s] a bunch of silly/costly turnovers, outrebound[s] them by 20, get[s] a ton of layups in our half court sets, get[s] a bunch of oboard put backs, hit[s] lots of threes, and wins]," then I'll be "relieved."  And content.