[81alum]

Preview:

In the string of milestones, perhaps Tara winning 1100 games will be overlooked.  For her to do it, we will need to defeat USC on their home court--all while not looking past them to the big showdown against UCLA to come 2 days later.

USC is 1-3, having lost three straight to Arizona State, Arizona, and UCLA.  They came within a point of defeating Arizona on Arizona's home court--so despite the losses USC needs to be regarded as our toughest test to date. 

USC has five players averaging between 10-14 ppg, so it is not easy to focus on one or two stars.  Sophomore point guard Endya Rogers leads USC in points and assists with 6'5" sophomore center Angel Jackson coming in second with a 57% field goal average.  Bench player Jordan Sanders is 8/11 from three point range, and redshirt sophomore Madison Campbell has taken many more shots and is hitting treys at 38%.  This is a team that is very sophomore and freshmen heavy and I expect we will see it be competitive and continue to improve over time. 

We need to be sure they are nowhere close to us by the fourth quarter, so the game does not come down to a point as it did at Arizona.

[81alum]

Preview:

In the string of milestones, perhaps Tara winning 1100 games will be overlooked.  For her to do it, we will need to defeat USC on their home court--all while not looking past them to the big showdown against UCLA to come 2 days later.

USC is 1-3, having lost three straight to Arizona State, Arizona, and UCLA.  They came within a point of defeating Arizona on Arizona's home court--so despite the losses USC needs to be regarded as our toughest test to date. 

USC has five players averaging between 10-14 ppg, so it is not easy to focus on one or two stars.  Sophomore point guard Endya Rogers leads USC in points and assists with 6'5" sophomore center Angel Jackson coming in second with a 57% field goal average.  Bench player Jordan Sanders is 8/11 from three point range, and redshirt sophomore Madison Campbell has taken many more shots and is hitting treys at 38%.  This is a team that is very sophomore and freshmen heavy and I expect we will see it be competitive and continue to improve over time. 

We need to be sure they are nowhere close to us by the fourth quarter, so the game does not come down to a point as it did at Arizona.

[BobK]

An add Pili their best player has been out and remains out.

[BobK]

An add Pili their best player has been out and remains out.

[Softball Fan]

USC MBB is on Covid lockdown for the next two weeks.  I hope the USC WBB practices and weight training were completely separate from MBB activities. 

IMO the 100+ game scores are a positive but also a little deceptive because the level of competition is somewhat of an unknown.  As good as Stanford has looked at times on isolated plays they have not been firing on all cylinders for a full game.   I'd like to see consistent rebounding, good decision passes, and reliable three point shooting throughout the game.

I personally will be glad when Tara gets the next win after which the game announcers focus on the court action rather than continually going through Tara's history.  I understand many fans see it differently.

[Softball Fan]

USC MBB is on Covid lockdown for the next two weeks.  I hope the USC WBB practices and weight training were completely separate from MBB activities. 

IMO the 100+ game scores are a positive but also a little deceptive because the level of competition is somewhat of an unknown.  As good as Stanford has looked at times on isolated plays they have not been firing on all cylinders for a full game.   I'd like to see consistent rebounding, good decision passes, and reliable three point shooting throughout the game.

I personally will be glad when Tara gets the next win after which the game announcers focus on the court action rather than continually going through Tara's history.  I understand many fans see it differently.

[StanFanFam13]

A question not 100% germane to Saturday's game, but relevant as we get closer to the holidays, so perhaps you'll forgive its inclusion here:

Does anyone know what the players are doing for Christmas? The current schedule leaves a week and a half gap between games against UCLA (12/21) and Arizona (1/1), which would normally leave time to go home and be with family. But given the strict protocols they are currently observing, flying commercially with no time for subsequent quarantining seems challenging, and if they would need to quarantine upon returning to Santa Clara county, returning to campus seems off the table as well. I understand that 2020 has been trying for everyone and that not going home for Christmas is both low in the hierarchy of suffering and also something that many are dealing with this year. Still, I feel for young players who have dealt with lots of uncertainty and strangeness and may now be confronting a holiday season far from loved ones. Hoping that teammates can celebrate together and find community and joy wherever they can this year.

[StanFanFam13]

A question not 100% germane to Saturday's game, but relevant as we get closer to the holidays, so perhaps you'll forgive its inclusion here:

Does anyone know what the players are doing for Christmas? The current schedule leaves a week and a half gap between games against UCLA (12/21) and Arizona (1/1), which would normally leave time to go home and be with family. But given the strict protocols they are currently observing, flying commercially with no time for subsequent quarantining seems challenging, and if they would need to quarantine upon returning to Santa Clara county, returning to campus seems off the table as well. I understand that 2020 has been trying for everyone and that not going home for Christmas is both low in the hierarchy of suffering and also something that many are dealing with this year. Still, I feel for young players who have dealt with lots of uncertainty and strangeness and may now be confronting a holiday season far from loved ones. Hoping that teammates can celebrate together and find community and joy wherever they can this year.

[BobK]

We will know next week via Instagram. No doubt the players and family know

I would strongly guess the team recently flew from Vegas to Oakland

[BobK]

We will know next week via Instagram. No doubt the players and family know

I would strongly guess the team recently flew from Vegas to Oakland

[teejers1]

I personally will be glad when Tara gets the next win after which the game announcers focus on the court action rather than continually going through Tara's history.  I understand many fans see it differently.

I suspect most fans agree with you.  Call the game.  Give the accolades post-game (or at least when there is no action on the court).

[teejers1]

I personally will be glad when Tara gets the next win after which the game announcers focus on the court action rather than continually going through Tara's history.  I understand many fans see it differently.

I suspect most fans agree with you.  Call the game.  Give the accolades post-game (or at least when there is no action on the court).

[BostonCard]

Certainly if I were not a Stanford fan, the announcers' non-stop talk about Tara's legacy would have really chapped my hide.  As a fan, it was merely a bit annoying.

BC

[BostonCard]

Certainly if I were not a Stanford fan, the announcers' non-stop talk about Tara's legacy would have really chapped my hide.  As a fan, it was merely a bit annoying.

BC

[jonnyss]

not just this game - espn announcers in particular like to talk to each other rather than call the women's bball games. i presume that the producers direct this or, at minimum, tolerate it. imo it's a sort of male chauvinism, a patronizing, "this is about women, so they want to chat; they probably don't even know the rules."

[jonnyss]

not just this game - espn announcers in particular like to talk to each other rather than call the women's bball games. i presume that the producers direct this or, at minimum, tolerate it. imo it's a sort of male chauvinism, a patronizing, "this is about women, so they want to chat; they probably don't even know the rules."

[Farm93]

not just this game - espn announcers in particular like to talk to each other rather than call the women's bball games. i presume that the producers direct this or, at minimum, tolerate it. imo it's a sort of male chauvinism, a patronizing, "this is about women, so they want to chat; they probably don't even know the rules."

As long as the camera stays wide enough to see most of the ten players and at least 2 referees, then I am good.   They can talk about Tara, COVID protocols or whatever works for them.   My problem is when commentators stop talking about the game and the camera team starts a series of tight shots on only a player or two.    Then it is harder for me to understand the possible incoming subs, whether the stoppage was merely to inbound the ball or because of fouls, etc.    As long as I can see most of the players on floor I will be fine.   Same is true in football, BTW.   I have noticed recently broadcasts will replay the same play 2 or 3 times and often will miss the next snap.   Give me a steady shot with all 22 players, and I'd be happy.

I guess that comes from watching the games in the stands.   If you know the game you don't need the commentators to entertain or the production crew to replay the action multiple times in slow-mo when you followed the play in real time.

TV is about the ratings ultimately.  Most commentators know that if the game is out of hand that they should talk about other things to keep the audience.     Tara's teams often get commentators wandering on tangents because the games aren't very close and there is no real doubt the team will ultimately win.

[Farm93]

not just this game - espn announcers in particular like to talk to each other rather than call the women's bball games. i presume that the producers direct this or, at minimum, tolerate it. imo it's a sort of male chauvinism, a patronizing, "this is about women, so they want to chat; they probably don't even know the rules."

As long as the camera stays wide enough to see most of the ten players and at least 2 referees, then I am good.   They can talk about Tara, COVID protocols or whatever works for them.   My problem is when commentators stop talking about the game and the camera team starts a series of tight shots on only a player or two.    Then it is harder for me to understand the possible incoming subs, whether the stoppage was merely to inbound the ball or because of fouls, etc.    As long as I can see most of the players on floor I will be fine.   Same is true in football, BTW.   I have noticed recently broadcasts will replay the same play 2 or 3 times and often will miss the next snap.   Give me a steady shot with all 22 players, and I'd be happy.

I guess that comes from watching the games in the stands.   If you know the game you don't need the commentators to entertain or the production crew to replay the action multiple times in slow-mo when you followed the play in real time.

TV is about the ratings ultimately.  Most commentators know that if the game is out of hand that they should talk about other things to keep the audience.     Tara's teams often get commentators wandering on tangents because the games aren't very close and there is no real doubt the team will ultimately win.

[JJJ]

not just this game - espn announcers in particular like to talk to each other rather than call the women's bball games. i presume that the producers direct this or, at minimum, tolerate it. imo it's a sort of male chauvinism, a patronizing, "this is about women, so they want to chat; they probably don't even know the rules."

As long as the camera stays wide enough to see most of the ten players and at least 2 referees, then I am good.   They can talk about Tara, COVID protocols or whatever works for them.   My problem is when commentators stop talking about the game and the camera team starts a series of tight shots on only a player or two.    Then it is harder for me to understand the possible incoming subs, whether the stoppage was merely to inbound the ball or because of fouls, etc.    As long as I can see most of the players on floor I will be fine.   Same is true in football, BTW.   I have noticed recently broadcasts will replay the same play 2 or 3 times and often will miss the next snap.   Give me a steady shot with all 22 players, and I'd be happy.

I guess that comes from watching the games in the stands.   If you know the game you don't need the commentators to entertain or the production crew to replay the action multiple times in slow-mo when you followed the play in real time.

TV is about the ratings ultimately.  Most commentators know that if the game is out of hand that they should talk about other things to keep the audience.     Tara's teams often get commentators wandering on tangents because the games aren't very close and there is no real doubt the team will ultimately win.

True, but without a crowd in attendance, you don't get the roar when a "did you see that?" play happens and the announcers are yapping away. I fully realize that isn't the biggest problem in the world at the moment. ;)

[JJJ]

not just this game - espn announcers in particular like to talk to each other rather than call the women's bball games. i presume that the producers direct this or, at minimum, tolerate it. imo it's a sort of male chauvinism, a patronizing, "this is about women, so they want to chat; they probably don't even know the rules."

As long as the camera stays wide enough to see most of the ten players and at least 2 referees, then I am good.   They can talk about Tara, COVID protocols or whatever works for them.   My problem is when commentators stop talking about the game and the camera team starts a series of tight shots on only a player or two.    Then it is harder for me to understand the possible incoming subs, whether the stoppage was merely to inbound the ball or because of fouls, etc.    As long as I can see most of the players on floor I will be fine.   Same is true in football, BTW.   I have noticed recently broadcasts will replay the same play 2 or 3 times and often will miss the next snap.   Give me a steady shot with all 22 players, and I'd be happy.

I guess that comes from watching the games in the stands.   If you know the game you don't need the commentators to entertain or the production crew to replay the action multiple times in slow-mo when you followed the play in real time.

TV is about the ratings ultimately.  Most commentators know that if the game is out of hand that they should talk about other things to keep the audience.     Tara's teams often get commentators wandering on tangents because the games aren't very close and there is no real doubt the team will ultimately win.

True, but without a crowd in attendance, you don't get the roar when a "did you see that?" play happens and the announcers are yapping away. I fully realize that isn't the biggest problem in the world at the moment. ;)

[jonnyss]

not just this game - espn announcers in particular like to talk to each other rather than call the women's bball games. i presume that the producers direct this or, at minimum, tolerate it. imo it's a sort of male chauvinism, a patronizing, "this is about women, so they want to chat; they probably don't even know the rules."

As long as the camera stays wide enough to see most of the ten players and at least 2 referees, then I am good.   They can talk about Tara, COVID protocols or whatever works for them.   My problem is when commentators stop talking about the game and the camera team starts a series of tight shots on only a player or two.    Then it is harder for me to understand the possible incoming subs, whether the stoppage was merely to inbound the ball or because of fouls, etc.    As long as I can see most of the players on floor I will be fine.   Same is true in football, BTW.   I have noticed recently broadcasts will replay the same play 2 or 3 times and often will miss the next snap.   Give me a steady shot with all 22 players, and I'd be happy.

I guess that comes from watching the games in the stands.   If you know the game you don't need the commentators to entertain or the production crew to replay the action multiple times in slow-mo when you followed the play in real time.

TV is about the ratings ultimately.  Most commentators know that if the game is out of hand that they should talk about other things to keep the audience.     Tara's teams often get commentators wandering on tangents because the games aren't very close and there is no real doubt the team will ultimately win.

yes, i would agree that they act as if talking about other things will keep the audience. but imo basketball fans actually like to watch the subs get in the game - certainly, i like seeing if jana can ball.  who wants to listen to debbie antonelli and beth mowins chat? everyone i know would rather websurf to cnn (or fox news if that floats your boat) for a hit of information rather than listen to a pair of espn announcers small talk. and, unfortunately, they don't necessarily keep the camera on the game. too often, the producers switch to a shot of someone famous in the crowd, so neither the camera nor the announcers are on the action.

all that said, yesterday, imo espn did a decent job of using a split screen to show the action in one half and a testimonial in the other half. and i found it moving to hear, for example, steve kerr (not just debbie and beth) talking about tara.

[jonnyss]

not just this game - espn announcers in particular like to talk to each other rather than call the women's bball games. i presume that the producers direct this or, at minimum, tolerate it. imo it's a sort of male chauvinism, a patronizing, "this is about women, so they want to chat; they probably don't even know the rules."

As long as the camera stays wide enough to see most of the ten players and at least 2 referees, then I am good.   They can talk about Tara, COVID protocols or whatever works for them.   My problem is when commentators stop talking about the game and the camera team starts a series of tight shots on only a player or two.    Then it is harder for me to understand the possible incoming subs, whether the stoppage was merely to inbound the ball or because of fouls, etc.    As long as I can see most of the players on floor I will be fine.   Same is true in football, BTW.   I have noticed recently broadcasts will replay the same play 2 or 3 times and often will miss the next snap.   Give me a steady shot with all 22 players, and I'd be happy.

I guess that comes from watching the games in the stands.   If you know the game you don't need the commentators to entertain or the production crew to replay the action multiple times in slow-mo when you followed the play in real time.

TV is about the ratings ultimately.  Most commentators know that if the game is out of hand that they should talk about other things to keep the audience.     Tara's teams often get commentators wandering on tangents because the games aren't very close and there is no real doubt the team will ultimately win.

yes, i would agree that they act as if talking about other things will keep the audience. but imo basketball fans actually like to watch the subs get in the game - certainly, i like seeing if jana can ball.  who wants to listen to debbie antonelli and beth mowins chat? everyone i know would rather websurf to cnn (or fox news if that floats your boat) for a hit of information rather than listen to a pair of espn announcers small talk. and, unfortunately, they don't necessarily keep the camera on the game. too often, the producers switch to a shot of someone famous in the crowd, so neither the camera nor the announcers are on the action.

all that said, yesterday, imo espn did a decent job of using a split screen to show the action in one half and a testimonial in the other half. and i found it moving to hear, for example, steve kerr (not just debbie and beth) talking about tara.

[CompSci87]

not just this game - espn announcers in particular like to talk to each other rather than call the women's bball games. i presume that the producers direct this or, at minimum, tolerate it. imo it's a sort of male chauvinism, a patronizing, "this is about women, so they want to chat; they probably don't even know the rules."

It's not just WBB. Have you listened to Bill Walton rambling continuously through a men's game? Lots of announcers in lots of sports do it. Maybe the producers want to create an atmosphere of a bunch of guys in a sports bar yakking with the game on in the background. Or maybe the announcers have called too many games and are so jaded they don't care what's happening on the court in front of their eyes anymore.

[CompSci87]

not just this game - espn announcers in particular like to talk to each other rather than call the women's bball games. i presume that the producers direct this or, at minimum, tolerate it. imo it's a sort of male chauvinism, a patronizing, "this is about women, so they want to chat; they probably don't even know the rules."

It's not just WBB. Have you listened to Bill Walton rambling continuously through a men's game? Lots of announcers in lots of sports do it. Maybe the producers want to create an atmosphere of a bunch of guys in a sports bar yakking with the game on in the background. Or maybe the announcers have called too many games and are so jaded they don't care what's happening on the court in front of their eyes anymore.

[acerep]

We will know next week via Instagram. No doubt the players and family know

I would strongly guess the team recently flew from Vegas to Oakland

Kate said before the Cal Poly game that the team would stay in its dorm over the holiday break.

[acerep]

We will know next week via Instagram. No doubt the players and family know

I would strongly guess the team recently flew from Vegas to Oakland

Kate said before the Cal Poly game that the team would stay in its dorm over the holiday break.

[teejers1]

We will know next week via Instagram. No doubt the players and family know

I would strongly guess the team recently flew from Vegas to Oakland

Kate said before the Cal Poly game that the team would stay in its dorm over the holiday break.

My assumption is that such a statement assumed the SCC quarantine would be lifted after initial 3 week (?) period.  I doubt it will be lifted; thus, if they come back to dorms in SCC then they are supposed to quarantine for 14 days, right?  Don't see them doing that unless there is a reprieve/dispensation from the SCC Health Officer.

[teejers1]

We will know next week via Instagram. No doubt the players and family know

I would strongly guess the team recently flew from Vegas to Oakland

Kate said before the Cal Poly game that the team would stay in its dorm over the holiday break.

My assumption is that such a statement assumed the SCC quarantine would be lifted after initial 3 week (?) period.  I doubt it will be lifted; thus, if they come back to dorms in SCC then they are supposed to quarantine for 14 days, right?  Don't see them doing that unless there is a reprieve/dispensation from the SCC Health Officer.

[Softball Fan]

A month ago Coach Hambly said the WVB team would quarantine on campus for two weeks before the January 5 practice start date.    That would mean Christmas and New Years in quarantine.   I hope he changed his mind because it is likely the SCC Covid lockdown is extended well into January.

If they want to continue their seasons, WBB and WVB should both plan right now for accommodations and home games outside of California.  There is too much uncertainty in this state to make any plans.

[Softball Fan]

A month ago Coach Hambly said the WVB team would quarantine on campus for two weeks before the January 5 practice start date.    That would mean Christmas and New Years in quarantine.   I hope he changed his mind because it is likely the SCC Covid lockdown is extended well into January.

If they want to continue their seasons, WBB and WVB should both plan right now for accommodations and home games outside of California.  There is too much uncertainty in this state to make any plans.

[BobK]

Can’t come back on the night of the 21st and still play the Arizona’s unless order lifted. Even if quarantine down to 10 days next week

[BobK]

Can’t come back on the night of the 21st and still play the Arizona’s unless order lifted. Even if quarantine down to 10 days next week

[BostonCard]

I really wish that the NCAA would show some leadership and halt everything now so that teams aren't constantly playing logistical gymnastics so as to try to get some games in while avoiding public health orders, and, more importantly, trying not to spread the virus.  Give everyone a break and reconvene in the spring, when hopefully the worst of this surge has passed, the most vulnerable have been vaccinated, and things are a lot safer.  You might even be able to safely have fans then.

BC

[BostonCard]

I really wish that the NCAA would show some leadership and halt everything now so that teams aren't constantly playing logistical gymnastics so as to try to get some games in while avoiding public health orders, and, more importantly, trying not to spread the virus.  Give everyone a break and reconvene in the spring, when hopefully the worst of this surge has passed, the most vulnerable have been vaccinated, and things are a lot safer.  You might even be able to safely have fans then.

BC

[M T]

BC, I don't think spring would work.

Only 40% (100M) of 16+yo Americans (> 250M) will have 1st vaccinations by the end of February, or equivalently, full dose by the end of March, IF everything goes well.  Who would want to start football in April (get back in shape, etc) and try to finish by June?     Who wants to tell the voters that college football players, who are already getting a free ride, should be at the front of the vaccination line?  Or, perhaps more importantly, who is going to tell Wall Street that their employees & customers are going to have to stay home even a week longer so FB can proceed?

[I deleted my views about the coming 6-8 months as it really belongs on the COVID board.  I'm trying to keep this relevant to athletics & Stanford athletics in particular.]

I also feel that this season should be ended early.   I don't think the NCAA has the guts to do it.   I am glad that Stanford saw the futility of post-season play this year.

[M T]

BC, I don't think spring would work.

Only 40% (100M) of 16+yo Americans (> 250M) will have 1st vaccinations by the end of February, or equivalently, full dose by the end of March, IF everything goes well.  Who would want to start football in April (get back in shape, etc) and try to finish by June?     Who wants to tell the voters that college football players, who are already getting a free ride, should be at the front of the vaccination line?  Or, perhaps more importantly, who is going to tell Wall Street that their employees & customers are going to have to stay home even a week longer so FB can proceed?

[I deleted my views about the coming 6-8 months as it really belongs on the COVID board.  I'm trying to keep this relevant to athletics & Stanford athletics in particular.]

I also feel that this season should be ended early.   I don't think the NCAA has the guts to do it.   I am glad that Stanford saw the futility of post-season play this year.

[BostonCard]

You are correct that the pandemic won't be done by spring.  But I am hoping that a combination of warmer weather reducing spread, combined with vaccination of the most vulnerable, will drive the mortality rate down substantially.  We are currently averaging a little over 200,000 new cases a day.  Could better weather get it back to 50,000?  Hospitalizations are over 110,000; can we bring it down to 30,000 (where it was in late September before the latest surge)?  We are currently seeing 3,000 deaths a day.  Could that be brought down to fewer than 500?

I would much rather collegiate athletics resume under those circumstances (and maybe we won't get there in three months) than continue under the current conditions.  Moreover, by April, the vaccine may already be distributed to essential workers, and, depending on what gets approved between now and then, you might start seeing it be made available to the majority of the population.  Under those circumstances, the NCAA could get all athletes vaccinated without special pleading.  Even if not everyone gets the second dose, immunity will start to take hold about 10 days after the first one.

Given that there are strong interests in continuing athletics, I would rather it be safer, even if it can't be made completely safe.  And while I can't be sure of the future, April seems safer than December/January.  Since there is one game left (plus some bowls), I might let football finish up, put basketball on ice for three months, and look to restart when the pandemic is looking better.  And if I am wrong, and, god forbid, things are as bad or worse in the spring, then you can decide then.

BC

[BostonCard]

You are correct that the pandemic won't be done by spring.  But I am hoping that a combination of warmer weather reducing spread, combined with vaccination of the most vulnerable, will drive the mortality rate down substantially.  We are currently averaging a little over 200,000 new cases a day.  Could better weather get it back to 50,000?  Hospitalizations are over 110,000; can we bring it down to 30,000 (where it was in late September before the latest surge)?  We are currently seeing 3,000 deaths a day.  Could that be brought down to fewer than 500?

I would much rather collegiate athletics resume under those circumstances (and maybe we won't get there in three months) than continue under the current conditions.  Moreover, by April, the vaccine may already be distributed to essential workers, and, depending on what gets approved between now and then, you might start seeing it be made available to the majority of the population.  Under those circumstances, the NCAA could get all athletes vaccinated without special pleading.  Even if not everyone gets the second dose, immunity will start to take hold about 10 days after the first one.

Given that there are strong interests in continuing athletics, I would rather it be safer, even if it can't be made completely safe.  And while I can't be sure of the future, April seems safer than December/January.  Since there is one game left (plus some bowls), I might let football finish up, put basketball on ice for three months, and look to restart when the pandemic is looking better.  And if I am wrong, and, god forbid, things are as bad or worse in the spring, then you can decide then.

BC

[BobK]

The team is now in Santa Monica

[BobK]

The team is now in Santa Monica