[teejers1]

Your complaining about officiating is legendary (and can be counted on like the sun rising in the a.m.).  And if you don't think Stanford benefitted immensely by early and dubious calls against Maryland's two best players (who had to sit out big chunks of 1H), we'll just have to disagree on that (and I suspect we will).

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.

But I do agree that Anna played great defense.  That was a constant.  The only play on O that had me smh from Anna was when she drove to the paint from left perimeter, had an open 6-footer, but opted to try a pass to the right corner that went out of bounds (take that shot).  And Kiki had some nice plays, but she needs to be careful about those big swinging swipes she takes at the ball when defending.  Those invite whistles.

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.

P.S.  Prechtel has been relegated to an afterthought.  My sense is that Ashten feels she needs to score in the first half minute or two she is allocated, lest she won't play again.  Thus, she takes a looooong trey (didn't go, but almost did) and that was that.  Belibi and Kiki are playing reasonably well, so that's good.  Hopefully we won't need a bench player going off from long range in Elite 8 to advance to FF this year (though I guess Jump is technically a bench player now, but teams rarely lose sight of her).

Teejers,you are the outlier. Everyone else thought the officiating was bad. The fouls on Diamond were well deserved. And as I wrote, it wasn't just a matter of fouls called/not called, I was unhappy about how the refs made the game choppy. As for my complaints about refs, let me tell you something; I once sat with Pete Newell for 5 hours and talked baseketball. He knew a little bit more about the game than you or I. Pete was extremely critical about the officiating in the game. He didn't simply finger the men and women officials. His main point was that the rules have been for a while and gotten progressively worse, making it difficult to officiate. He told me that the problem is that the NCAA doesn't listen well enough to to former and current coaches who have great insights on how the rules should be set and he gave me several names. I mentioned the ESPN article as just one current example of other people's unhappiness with officiating. For you, it's just a matter of taking a position and if someone disagrees with you,you attack them. That's your MO.

1.  Refs are NEVER going to be perfect;

2.  All you can ask/hope for is consistency in officiating;

3.  The refs in Md game were not perfect, but they were pretty consistent.  You think the bad calls all (or were mostly) against Stanford.  I disagree.  It happens.

P.S.  You should check all your hoop commentary posts and see how many times/what % of them include some negative commentary on the refs.  I'd say it's upwards of 90%.  But I could be mistaken . . . maybe it's only 85%.  But whatever, it's your prerogative to view the game the way you do, and my prerogative to disagree with your takes . . . if/when I do.  If you want to call that "attacking you," that's also your prerogative.

[teejers1]

Your complaining about officiating is legendary (and can be counted on like the sun rising in the a.m.).  And if you don't think Stanford benefitted immensely by early and dubious calls against Maryland's two best players (who had to sit out big chunks of 1H), we'll just have to disagree on that (and I suspect we will).

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.

But I do agree that Anna played great defense.  That was a constant.  The only play on O that had me smh from Anna was when she drove to the paint from left perimeter, had an open 6-footer, but opted to try a pass to the right corner that went out of bounds (take that shot).  And Kiki had some nice plays, but she needs to be careful about those big swinging swipes she takes at the ball when defending.  Those invite whistles.

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.

P.S.  Prechtel has been relegated to an afterthought.  My sense is that Ashten feels she needs to score in the first half minute or two she is allocated, lest she won't play again.  Thus, she takes a looooong trey (didn't go, but almost did) and that was that.  Belibi and Kiki are playing reasonably well, so that's good.  Hopefully we won't need a bench player going off from long range in Elite 8 to advance to FF this year (though I guess Jump is technically a bench player now, but teams rarely lose sight of her).

Teejers,you are the outlier. Everyone else thought the officiating was bad. The fouls on Diamond were well deserved. And as I wrote, it wasn't just a matter of fouls called/not called, I was unhappy about how the refs made the game choppy. As for my complaints about refs, let me tell you something; I once sat with Pete Newell for 5 hours and talked baseketball. He knew a little bit more about the game than you or I. Pete was extremely critical about the officiating in the game. He didn't simply finger the men and women officials. His main point was that the rules have been for a while and gotten progressively worse, making it difficult to officiate. He told me that the problem is that the NCAA doesn't listen well enough to to former and current coaches who have great insights on how the rules should be set and he gave me several names. I mentioned the ESPN article as just one current example of other people's unhappiness with officiating. For you, it's just a matter of taking a position and if someone disagrees with you,you attack them. That's your MO.

1.  Refs are NEVER going to be perfect;

2.  All you can ask/hope for is consistency in officiating;

3.  The refs in Md game were not perfect, but they were pretty consistent.  You think the bad calls all (or were mostly) against Stanford.  I disagree.  It happens.

P.S.  You should check all your hoop commentary posts and see how many times/what % of them include some negative commentary on the refs.  I'd say it's upwards of 90%.  But I could be mistaken . . . maybe it's only 85%.  But whatever, it's your prerogative to view the game the way you do, and my prerogative to disagree with your takes . . . if/when I do.  If you want to call that "attacking you," that's also your prerogative.