[BosCard]

That effort and outcome should shut down the whinging.

"We wanted to be aggressive, we wanted to play fast, that's how we want to play," Stanford coach Tara VanDerVeer said. "I think we can even do better. And I think I've been holding us back, honestly, I really do."

If and only if Tara follows through and optimizes her enormously talented roster that should never lose to USC or Washington. Even after the Arizona game, I felt Adia was too hard on her team after this beat down. Those losses to USC and Washington made PAC-12 teams think that Stanford is beatable. And they shouldn’t think that. I always thought Part of StanfordWBB’s psychological advantage in the PAC-10 now 12 was that 90% of the seasons (probably higher) PAC-10/12 teams didn’t realistically believe they could win and as a consequence, that made it easier for Stanford to win. Adia said even post game, Stanford is beatable. No Stanford is not beatable by the PAC-10/12 if as Tara said, she doesn’t hold her roster back based on who or who does not make her feel comfortable. You must give talent experience. Nivar would be a lot more polished now if this investment had started in November. So, too, Bosgana.

I pretty strongly disagree with this take. I mean, yes, we have a ton of talent and experience. Yes, we have a hall of fame coach. But:

A) We're not the only team with talent, intelligence and experience.
B) We're not the only team with an intelligent coach that excels at getting the most out of their talent.
C) It's pretty dismissive of other teams/coaches/players/the entire league to suggest that we should always win as long as our coach uses our players in the "correct" way.
D) There are a ton of other factors that go into a game on any given day—fatigue, mental state, injuries/illness, reffing, luck, dozens or even hundreds of split-second, in-game decisions—that make other teams beating us not at all implausible.

Do you really believe the rest of the Pac-12 is that weak?

Even NBA super-teams that should by all rights crush the opposition end up losing to hotter teams (see, unfortunately, the 2015-16 Warriors, 73-9 in the regular season, blowing a 3-1 lead to the 57-25 Cavs in the Finals).

Not only do I think the rest of the PAC-12 is weak, the NCAA Top-16 reveal suggest they believe our league is weak too. Apart from Utah’s beat down of Oklahoma (and I don’t know where Okie is ranked now), the PAC-12 scheduling (including our own) and signature wins out of conference were weaker than it’s been in recent memory.

And Stanford should have never lost to S.Carolina. Don’t even get me started talking about that game. Up 4 with like under 50 seconds. Literally all you have to do is guard the 3-pt line and make them make 2s and they decided “Nah, do or die scouting report defense.” Like what? They can’t beat you with 2s.

---

I've been of the opinion for a while now that some coaches see bad loses as motivators because the coach gets to say very directly to the team that they didn't execute, or play hard enough, or pay attention to the scout, etc. I always thought that after a loss, Mike Montgomery seemed to be actually talking to the team when he would make his characteristically blunt post-game comments.

I've never thought that it's a realistic goal to win every game even if your goal is to win the last one.

Not to say that anyone wants to lose, but there really are different kinds of losses. For instance:

(1) You had no chance. It's 1973. Stanford (men) lose to UCLA at Maples 82-67 against Bill Walton, Jamaal Wilkes et al. Cumulative reaction in the locker room after the game is probably something like "wow they're good. I mean, really good." UCLA yawns and goes undefeated. Two of Stanford's losses to the unfairly stacked UMass teams in the tournament probably fall into this category.

(2) Your effort was lacking. It's January 17, 2020, and Stanford (women) lose to Colorado on the road, breaking a season-long winning streak. Kiana Williams goes 3-12 with no assists, Brink fouls out (thanks Chuck), and Stanford shoots 5-22 from 3. Hollingshed lights them up (32 pts including 4 three-pointers and 10 boards). Coach Tara says (actual quote): "We did not defend Hollingshed worth a darn...She had her way with whoever was guarding her." She also says: "I hold this really bothers people and gets under their skin and they decide we want to play basketball at a different level...It was really disappointing to me."

(3) Maybe your effort was there but you didn't execute. It's January 21, 2020 - Stanford (women) lose to UCLA in Santa Cruz. Coach Tara (actual quotes): "It was ridiculous some of the mistakes we had. They outhustled us and they were scrappier." Reaction: Brink goes into the starting lineup. In the February 5 rematch vs Colorado, Brink has 6 blocks, 8 boards, and 13 points. Hollingshed has 16 points, 6 rebounds, no 3's, and she fouls out. And we all know what happened for the rest of the season.

I'm sure we could come up with several other categories (e.g. we just lost two of our best players to season ending injuries...).

I put the South Carolina loss into the category of "on this night, they were better than we were but we didn't really play well." I put the USC loss into the category of "we aren't able to execute the new offense against a motivated, pressing team," and I was glad to see that the USC loss prompted some reflection and changes from the coaches. I suspect the Washington loss was a combo of a smart defensive scheme and the team not being ready to execute at a high level. What I saw from the Arizona game is a team that decided top to bottom to say "we don't like losing" and "it's time to go." It's hard to keep motivated to play at your very best over an entire season, but losing is sometimes a better motivator than winning. Brink says she hates losing more than winning.

Was I the only one who thought that the refs were on another planet for this game? One of the offensive foul calls against Brink was terrible, and Scofield called a turnover with about 5 minutes to go in the 2nd quarter that I still can't figure out even after replaying it about 50 times.

I put the S. Carolina game in the “do the coaches know how math and probability works” bucket.

I put the USC lost in the “the scout is the scout since Cal and it’s clear you haven’t made adjustments and are still not simulating practices to the scout.”

I put the Washington lost in the “you decided to change the way you have been playing PnR defense and off-ball defense all year for THIS road trip? And you haven’t adjusted last year’s Washington scout on how you defend off-ball screens when they nearly beat you then?”

With 2 All-Americans and 8 McDonalds All-Americans on your roster, what other Pac-12 team comes close to Stanford on paper?

Yes we have more talent overall and I think certainly could have been undefeated in the PAC-12.  But the other teams have talent too.  UCLA has 4 McDonald’s All Americans.  Arizona, Oregon and USC have 3.  And McDonalds All American status isn’t the be all and end all of talent.  UConn only has one McDonalds All American starting right now.

[BosCard]

That effort and outcome should shut down the whinging.

"We wanted to be aggressive, we wanted to play fast, that's how we want to play," Stanford coach Tara VanDerVeer said. "I think we can even do better. And I think I've been holding us back, honestly, I really do."

If and only if Tara follows through and optimizes her enormously talented roster that should never lose to USC or Washington. Even after the Arizona game, I felt Adia was too hard on her team after this beat down. Those losses to USC and Washington made PAC-12 teams think that Stanford is beatable. And they shouldn’t think that. I always thought Part of StanfordWBB’s psychological advantage in the PAC-10 now 12 was that 90% of the seasons (probably higher) PAC-10/12 teams didn’t realistically believe they could win and as a consequence, that made it easier for Stanford to win. Adia said even post game, Stanford is beatable. No Stanford is not beatable by the PAC-10/12 if as Tara said, she doesn’t hold her roster back based on who or who does not make her feel comfortable. You must give talent experience. Nivar would be a lot more polished now if this investment had started in November. So, too, Bosgana.

I pretty strongly disagree with this take. I mean, yes, we have a ton of talent and experience. Yes, we have a hall of fame coach. But:

A) We're not the only team with talent, intelligence and experience.
B) We're not the only team with an intelligent coach that excels at getting the most out of their talent.
C) It's pretty dismissive of other teams/coaches/players/the entire league to suggest that we should always win as long as our coach uses our players in the "correct" way.
D) There are a ton of other factors that go into a game on any given day—fatigue, mental state, injuries/illness, reffing, luck, dozens or even hundreds of split-second, in-game decisions—that make other teams beating us not at all implausible.

Do you really believe the rest of the Pac-12 is that weak?

Even NBA super-teams that should by all rights crush the opposition end up losing to hotter teams (see, unfortunately, the 2015-16 Warriors, 73-9 in the regular season, blowing a 3-1 lead to the 57-25 Cavs in the Finals).

Not only do I think the rest of the PAC-12 is weak, the NCAA Top-16 reveal suggest they believe our league is weak too. Apart from Utah’s beat down of Oklahoma (and I don’t know where Okie is ranked now), the PAC-12 scheduling (including our own) and signature wins out of conference were weaker than it’s been in recent memory.

And Stanford should have never lost to S.Carolina. Don’t even get me started talking about that game. Up 4 with like under 50 seconds. Literally all you have to do is guard the 3-pt line and make them make 2s and they decided “Nah, do or die scouting report defense.” Like what? They can’t beat you with 2s.

---

I've been of the opinion for a while now that some coaches see bad loses as motivators because the coach gets to say very directly to the team that they didn't execute, or play hard enough, or pay attention to the scout, etc. I always thought that after a loss, Mike Montgomery seemed to be actually talking to the team when he would make his characteristically blunt post-game comments.

I've never thought that it's a realistic goal to win every game even if your goal is to win the last one.

Not to say that anyone wants to lose, but there really are different kinds of losses. For instance:

(1) You had no chance. It's 1973. Stanford (men) lose to UCLA at Maples 82-67 against Bill Walton, Jamaal Wilkes et al. Cumulative reaction in the locker room after the game is probably something like "wow they're good. I mean, really good." UCLA yawns and goes undefeated. Two of Stanford's losses to the unfairly stacked UMass teams in the tournament probably fall into this category.

(2) Your effort was lacking. It's January 17, 2020, and Stanford (women) lose to Colorado on the road, breaking a season-long winning streak. Kiana Williams goes 3-12 with no assists, Brink fouls out (thanks Chuck), and Stanford shoots 5-22 from 3. Hollingshed lights them up (32 pts including 4 three-pointers and 10 boards). Coach Tara says (actual quote): "We did not defend Hollingshed worth a darn...She had her way with whoever was guarding her." She also says: "I hold this really bothers people and gets under their skin and they decide we want to play basketball at a different level...It was really disappointing to me."

(3) Maybe your effort was there but you didn't execute. It's January 21, 2020 - Stanford (women) lose to UCLA in Santa Cruz. Coach Tara (actual quotes): "It was ridiculous some of the mistakes we had. They outhustled us and they were scrappier." Reaction: Brink goes into the starting lineup. In the February 5 rematch vs Colorado, Brink has 6 blocks, 8 boards, and 13 points. Hollingshed has 16 points, 6 rebounds, no 3's, and she fouls out. And we all know what happened for the rest of the season.

I'm sure we could come up with several other categories (e.g. we just lost two of our best players to season ending injuries...).

I put the South Carolina loss into the category of "on this night, they were better than we were but we didn't really play well." I put the USC loss into the category of "we aren't able to execute the new offense against a motivated, pressing team," and I was glad to see that the USC loss prompted some reflection and changes from the coaches. I suspect the Washington loss was a combo of a smart defensive scheme and the team not being ready to execute at a high level. What I saw from the Arizona game is a team that decided top to bottom to say "we don't like losing" and "it's time to go." It's hard to keep motivated to play at your very best over an entire season, but losing is sometimes a better motivator than winning. Brink says she hates losing more than winning.

Was I the only one who thought that the refs were on another planet for this game? One of the offensive foul calls against Brink was terrible, and Scofield called a turnover with about 5 minutes to go in the 2nd quarter that I still can't figure out even after replaying it about 50 times.

I put the S. Carolina game in the “do the coaches know how math and probability works” bucket.

I put the USC lost in the “the scout is the scout since Cal and it’s clear you haven’t made adjustments and are still not simulating practices to the scout.”

I put the Washington lost in the “you decided to change the way you have been playing PnR defense and off-ball defense all year for THIS road trip? And you haven’t adjusted last year’s Washington scout on how you defend off-ball screens when they nearly beat you then?”

With 2 All-Americans and 8 McDonalds All-Americans on your roster, what other Pac-12 team comes close to Stanford on paper?

Yes we have more talent overall and I think certainly could have been undefeated in the PAC-12.  But the other teams have talent too.  UCLA has 4 McDonald’s All Americans.  Arizona, Oregon and USC have 3.  And McDonalds All American status isn’t the be all and end all of talent.  UConn only has one McDonalds All American starting right now.