[M T]

"Head coach John Tanner, who picked up his 598th career victory, has led the Cardinal to eight NCAA titles, ranking second overall among active Stanford head coaches behind only Lele Forood of women's tennis (10)."

I was out of town over the weekend and unable to watch live but did get to see the ESPNU broadcast.  I hear the UCLA game (semi-final) had some weird goals early.  Anyone see it?

The NCAA site for WWP NC is here.  It does have a 3:30 video for the NC game.
For stats and PxP, see TheFOSH.

In the NC game, USC got out to a lead thanks to making goals on the first 3 power plays, while Stanford got & made 1 penalty shot, all in the first quarter that wasn't shown on ESPNU because of some softball game (sigh - so I didn't get to see Q1).  After that, USC was 1-8 on power plays, ending at 4-11.  Stanford was 3-9.   So, in natural goals, Stanford won 5-3 (not counting the open net goal at the end of the game).   5 natural, 3 power-play, 1 penalty, 1 open-net = 10.

In an interview after the half, Coach Tanner indicated they made some changes on the defense for 5 against 6, which had leaked early.

It was a physical game.  There was great play & beautiful shots & blocks by both teams.   The 3rd ejection (disqualification) on Aria Fischer seemed like a quick whistle for not putting the ball in play promptly at 1:22 4Q, resulting in a turnover, and then she was ejected for interfering with the USC free throw.  Am I wrong in thinking that it was quick and that whole sequence was confusing?  That was concerning to me, even though Stanford was up 2 at the time.  Another earlier ejection (was it Aria also?) seemed to be for questioning the official when she had an open shot from in front of the goal and no foul was called when someone from behind hit her hand.

ESPNU's coverage (other than missing the entire first quarter of a NC) was OK.  I didn't think the PxP announcer was anything special.  Obviously Brenda Villa (Stanford alum doing the color commentary) knows the game, but I didn't think she added that much color in this one.

---

Warning: Thread drift ahead

MT and Embo each posted a link to an SC scandal (seems redundant).  The first was to the dean of the school of education juicing their US News rankings and the second was to another sexual abuse scandal.

Any institution may hire people that turn out to be bad apples.  To me, the scandal is that (according to the Yahoo link) USC had reports for years before a victim got into a position to make something happen about it.

Although USC received reports of alleged abuse by Kelly dating back at least to 2006, he remained in his job until 2018.
In January 2018, a senior USC administration official complained to the chief health officer that he had been abused by Kelly when he was a student, attorney Kelly Van Aken said. The official came forward because of the Nassar case and conversations he had with this own doctor.

As I reread that quote, I do see that the first sentence is (intentionally?) ambiguous.  It could be read that the abuse dated back to 2006.  But another report indicate that the abuse dates back to 1994 at least.  So, I believe the sentence means that USC received reports in 2006 or earlier.

To me, the failure that allowed this to go on is the scandal.

Hmmm... does accreditation of schools include making sure students have a safe place to get an education?  You'd think USC would be short on that.

[M T]

"Head coach John Tanner, who picked up his 598th career victory, has led the Cardinal to eight NCAA titles, ranking second overall among active Stanford head coaches behind only Lele Forood of women's tennis (10)."

I was out of town over the weekend and unable to watch live but did get to see the ESPNU broadcast.  I hear the UCLA game (semi-final) had some weird goals early.  Anyone see it?

The NCAA site for WWP NC is here.  It does have a 3:30 video for the NC game.
For stats and PxP, see TheFOSH.

In the NC game, USC got out to a lead thanks to making goals on the first 3 power plays, while Stanford got & made 1 penalty shot, all in the first quarter that wasn't shown on ESPNU because of some softball game (sigh - so I didn't get to see Q1).  After that, USC was 1-8 on power plays, ending at 4-11.  Stanford was 3-9.   So, in natural goals, Stanford won 5-3 (not counting the open net goal at the end of the game).   5 natural, 3 power-play, 1 penalty, 1 open-net = 10.

In an interview after the half, Coach Tanner indicated they made some changes on the defense for 5 against 6, which had leaked early.

It was a physical game.  There was great play & beautiful shots & blocks by both teams.   The 3rd ejection (disqualification) on Aria Fischer seemed like a quick whistle for not putting the ball in play promptly at 1:22 4Q, resulting in a turnover, and then she was ejected for interfering with the USC free throw.  Am I wrong in thinking that it was quick and that whole sequence was confusing?  That was concerning to me, even though Stanford was up 2 at the time.  Another earlier ejection (was it Aria also?) seemed to be for questioning the official when she had an open shot from in front of the goal and no foul was called when someone from behind hit her hand.

ESPNU's coverage (other than missing the entire first quarter of a NC) was OK.  I didn't think the PxP announcer was anything special.  Obviously Brenda Villa (Stanford alum doing the color commentary) knows the game, but I didn't think she added that much color in this one.

---

Warning: Thread drift ahead

MT and Embo each posted a link to an SC scandal (seems redundant).  The first was to the dean of the school of education juicing their US News rankings and the second was to another sexual abuse scandal.

Any institution may hire people that turn out to be bad apples.  To me, the scandal is that (according to the Yahoo link) USC had reports for years before a victim got into a position to make something happen about it.

Although USC received reports of alleged abuse by Kelly dating back at least to 2006, he remained in his job until 2018.
In January 2018, a senior USC administration official complained to the chief health officer that he had been abused by Kelly when he was a student, attorney Kelly Van Aken said. The official came forward because of the Nassar case and conversations he had with this own doctor.

As I reread that quote, I do see that the first sentence is (intentionally?) ambiguous.  It could be read that the abuse dated back to 2006.  But another report indicate that the abuse dates back to 1994 at least.  So, I believe the sentence means that USC received reports in 2006 or earlier.

To me, the failure that allowed this to go on is the scandal.

Hmmm... does accreditation of schools include making sure students have a safe place to get an education?  You'd think USC would be short on that.