03-29-2021, 08:00 AM
It was Oregon advancing via forfeit.
NCAA Men’s BB Touney
03-29-2021, 08:08 AM
Another way to look at it is that we had a team that was good enough to have beaten several teams remaining in this tourney but we squandered that ability somehow and lost to the lowly Weenies at the end of the season and got pummeled in the Pac-12 tourney. So, it makes it worse.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
Another way to look at it is that we had a team that was good enough to have beaten several teams remaining in this tourney but we squandered that ability somehow and lost to the lowly Weenies at the end of the season and got pummeled in the Pac-12 tourney. So, it makes it worse.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
03-29-2021, 08:42 AM
(03-29-2021, 08:08 AM)martyup Wrote: Another way to look at it is that we had a team that was good enough to have beaten several teams remaining in this tourney but we squandered that ability somehow and lost to the lowly Weenies at the end of the season and got pummeled in the Pac-12 tourney. So, it makes it worse.Clearly Stanford had some issues with personnel and "team cohesion" at the end of the year. That said, I think what it really shows is that this year nobody was dominant, everybody had major flaws, and if your shots were going in that night you won and if they weren't you lost. As I understand it, this is the only the second time in history a 12 seed has made it this far in the NCAA tournament. Certainly not a typical year IMHO. So, while I wonder what will happen with the coaching staff and team next year, I am not putting as much weight behind beating Arizona and UCLA this year as I would have in the past. It isn't meaningless, but it isn't a great accomplishment either.
(03-29-2021, 08:08 AM)martyup Wrote: Another way to look at it is that we had a team that was good enough to have beaten several teams remaining in this tourney but we squandered that ability somehow and lost to the lowly Weenies at the end of the season and got pummeled in the Pac-12 tourney. So, it makes it worse.Clearly Stanford had some issues with personnel and "team cohesion" at the end of the year. That said, I think what it really shows is that this year nobody was dominant, everybody had major flaws, and if your shots were going in that night you won and if they weren't you lost. As I understand it, this is the only the second time in history a 12 seed has made it this far in the NCAA tournament. Certainly not a typical year IMHO. So, while I wonder what will happen with the coaching staff and team next year, I am not putting as much weight behind beating Arizona and UCLA this year as I would have in the past. It isn't meaningless, but it isn't a great accomplishment either.
03-29-2021, 06:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-29-2021, 06:36 PM by BostonCard.)
Wayne Tinkle and OSU's great run comes to an end at the hands of Houston. No shame in losing to the Cougars 67-61.
BC
That's one way to put it. Stanford imploded is another. We lost the last five games in a row, taking us from "the bubble" of the NCAA tournament to out of the NIT. We lost by 18 to a Cal team we had beaten by an average of 10.5 points in the two previous games. We lost to a WSU team we beat by 15. We went from beating Washington 91-75 to losing to the Huskies 79-61. We didn't have "some issues, we collapsed.
BC
BC
(03-29-2021, 08:42 AM)Goose Wrote: Clearly Stanford had some issues with personnel and "team cohesion" at the end of the year.
That's one way to put it. Stanford imploded is another. We lost the last five games in a row, taking us from "the bubble" of the NCAA tournament to out of the NIT. We lost by 18 to a Cal team we had beaten by an average of 10.5 points in the two previous games. We lost to a WSU team we beat by 15. We went from beating Washington 91-75 to losing to the Huskies 79-61. We didn't have "some issues, we collapsed.
BC
(This post was last modified: 03-29-2021, 06:36 PM by BostonCard.)
Wayne Tinkle and OSU's great run comes to an end at the hands of Houston. No shame in losing to the Cougars 67-61.
BC
That's one way to put it. Stanford imploded is another. We lost the last five games in a row, taking us from "the bubble" of the NCAA tournament to out of the NIT. We lost by 18 to a Cal team we had beaten by an average of 10.5 points in the two previous games. We lost to a WSU team we beat by 15. We went from beating Washington 91-75 to losing to the Huskies 79-61. We didn't have "some issues, we collapsed.
BC
BC
(03-29-2021, 08:42 AM)Goose Wrote: Clearly Stanford had some issues with personnel and "team cohesion" at the end of the year.
That's one way to put it. Stanford imploded is another. We lost the last five games in a row, taking us from "the bubble" of the NCAA tournament to out of the NIT. We lost by 18 to a Cal team we had beaten by an average of 10.5 points in the two previous games. We lost to a WSU team we beat by 15. We went from beating Washington 91-75 to losing to the Huskies 79-61. We didn't have "some issues, we collapsed.
BC
03-29-2021, 06:41 PM
(03-29-2021, 06:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Wayne Tinkle and OSU's great run comes to an end at the hands of Houston. No shame in losing to the Cougars 67-61.
BC
(03-29-2021, 08:42 AM)Goose Wrote: Clearly Stanford had some issues with personnel and "team cohesion" at the end of the year.
That's one way to put it. Stanford imploded is another. We lost the last five games in a row, taking us from "the bubble" of the NCAA tournament to out of the NIT. We lost by 18 to a Cal team we had beaten by an average of 10.5 points in the two previous games. We lost to a WSU team we beat by 15. We went from beating Washington 91-75 to losing to the Huskies 79-61. We didn't have "some issues, we collapsed.
BC
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.tenor.com%2Fimag...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.tenor.com%2Fimages%2F8664ef2538aa7d7970dce8713756e932%2Ftenor.gif%3Fitemid%3D11343839&f=1&nofb=1)
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
(03-29-2021, 06:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Wayne Tinkle and OSU's great run comes to an end at the hands of Houston. No shame in losing to the Cougars 67-61.
BC
(03-29-2021, 08:42 AM)Goose Wrote: Clearly Stanford had some issues with personnel and "team cohesion" at the end of the year.
That's one way to put it. Stanford imploded is another. We lost the last five games in a row, taking us from "the bubble" of the NCAA tournament to out of the NIT. We lost by 18 to a Cal team we had beaten by an average of 10.5 points in the two previous games. We lost to a WSU team we beat by 15. We went from beating Washington 91-75 to losing to the Huskies 79-61. We didn't have "some issues, we collapsed.
BC
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
03-29-2021, 06:47 PM
(03-29-2021, 06:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Wayne Tinkle and OSU's great run comes to an end at the hands of Houston. No shame in losing to the Cougars 67-61.
BC
(03-29-2021, 08:42 AM)Goose Wrote: Clearly Stanford had some issues with personnel and "team cohesion" at the end of the year.
That's one way to put it. Stanford imploded is another. We lost the last five games in a row, taking us from "the bubble" of the NCAA tournament to out of the NIT. We lost by 18 to a Cal team we had beaten by an average of 10.5 points in the two previous games. We lost to a WSU team we beat by 15. We went from beating Washington 91-75 to losing to the Huskies 79-61. We didn't have "some issues, we collapsed.
BC
Nit: We beat UW both times. Stanford 79, UW 61 was the second game.
Wholeheartedly agree with the post though.
(03-29-2021, 06:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Wayne Tinkle and OSU's great run comes to an end at the hands of Houston. No shame in losing to the Cougars 67-61.
BC
(03-29-2021, 08:42 AM)Goose Wrote: Clearly Stanford had some issues with personnel and "team cohesion" at the end of the year.
That's one way to put it. Stanford imploded is another. We lost the last five games in a row, taking us from "the bubble" of the NCAA tournament to out of the NIT. We lost by 18 to a Cal team we had beaten by an average of 10.5 points in the two previous games. We lost to a WSU team we beat by 15. We went from beating Washington 91-75 to losing to the Huskies 79-61. We didn't have "some issues, we collapsed.
BC
Nit: We beat UW both times. Stanford 79, UW 61 was the second game.
Wholeheartedly agree with the post though.
03-29-2021, 06:49 PM
(03-29-2021, 06:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote:The "team cohesion" collapsed. I don't know the details, but it appears that some of the guys just quit playing without leaving the team. Da Silva was hurt, so that was the "issues". The inability to play like anyone cared was a different issue. Beating Cal didn't require our "A Game". It probably required just our "C- game" and we couldn't deliver even that. However, previously the Stanford team with three starters out defeated a lot of the teams in the PAC-12 that they were not expected to defeat. Was it the other teams playing their "C Game"? Did Stanford deliver their "A Game"? Perhaps, but that was my point. This year nobody was very good or consistent, Stanford especially.(03-29-2021, 08:42 AM)Goose Wrote: Clearly Stanford had some issues with personnel and "team cohesion" at the end of the year.
That's one way to put it. Stanford imploded is another. We lost the last five games in a row, taking us from "the bubble" of the NCAA tournament to out of the NIT. We lost by 18 to a Cal team we had beaten by an average of 10.5 points in the two previous games. We lost to a WSU team we beat by 15. We went from beating Washington 91-75 to losing to the Huskies 79-61. We didn't have "some issues, we collapsed.
BC
(03-29-2021, 06:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote:The "team cohesion" collapsed. I don't know the details, but it appears that some of the guys just quit playing without leaving the team. Da Silva was hurt, so that was the "issues". The inability to play like anyone cared was a different issue. Beating Cal didn't require our "A Game". It probably required just our "C- game" and we couldn't deliver even that. However, previously the Stanford team with three starters out defeated a lot of the teams in the PAC-12 that they were not expected to defeat. Was it the other teams playing their "C Game"? Did Stanford deliver their "A Game"? Perhaps, but that was my point. This year nobody was very good or consistent, Stanford especially.(03-29-2021, 08:42 AM)Goose Wrote: Clearly Stanford had some issues with personnel and "team cohesion" at the end of the year.
That's one way to put it. Stanford imploded is another. We lost the last five games in a row, taking us from "the bubble" of the NCAA tournament to out of the NIT. We lost by 18 to a Cal team we had beaten by an average of 10.5 points in the two previous games. We lost to a WSU team we beat by 15. We went from beating Washington 91-75 to losing to the Huskies 79-61. We didn't have "some issues, we collapsed.
BC
03-29-2021, 06:59 PM
(03-29-2021, 06:47 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(03-29-2021, 06:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Wayne Tinkle and OSU's great run comes to an end at the hands of Houston. No shame in losing to the Cougars 67-61.
BC
(03-29-2021, 08:42 AM)Goose Wrote: Clearly Stanford had some issues with personnel and "team cohesion" at the end of the year.
That's one way to put it. Stanford imploded is another. We lost the last five games in a row, taking us from "the bubble" of the NCAA tournament to out of the NIT. We lost by 18 to a Cal team we had beaten by an average of 10.5 points in the two previous games. We lost to a WSU team we beat by 15. We went from beating Washington 91-75 to losing to the Huskies 79-61. We didn't have "some issues, we collapsed.
BC
Nit: We beat UW both times. Stanford 79, UW 61 was the second game.
Wholeheartedly agree with the post though.
Thanks for the correction. That was our last win.
BC
(03-29-2021, 06:47 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(03-29-2021, 06:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Wayne Tinkle and OSU's great run comes to an end at the hands of Houston. No shame in losing to the Cougars 67-61.
BC
(03-29-2021, 08:42 AM)Goose Wrote: Clearly Stanford had some issues with personnel and "team cohesion" at the end of the year.
That's one way to put it. Stanford imploded is another. We lost the last five games in a row, taking us from "the bubble" of the NCAA tournament to out of the NIT. We lost by 18 to a Cal team we had beaten by an average of 10.5 points in the two previous games. We lost to a WSU team we beat by 15. We went from beating Washington 91-75 to losing to the Huskies 79-61. We didn't have "some issues, we collapsed.
BC
Nit: We beat UW both times. Stanford 79, UW 61 was the second game.
Wholeheartedly agree with the post though.
Thanks for the correction. That was our last win.
BC
03-29-2021, 07:02 PM
(03-29-2021, 06:49 PM)Goose Wrote:(03-29-2021, 06:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote:The "team cohesion" collapsed. I don't know the details, but it appears that some of the guys just quit playing without leaving the team. Da Silva was hurt, so that was the "issues". The inability to play like anyone cared was a different issue. Beating Cal didn't require our "A Game". It probably required just our "C- game" and we couldn't deliver even that. However, previously the Stanford team with three starters out defeated a lot of the teams in the PAC-12 that they were not expected to defeat. Was it the other teams playing their "C Game"? Did Stanford deliver their "A Game"? Perhaps, but that was my point. This year nobody was very good or consistent, Stanford especially.(03-29-2021, 08:42 AM)Goose Wrote: Clearly Stanford had some issues with personnel and "team cohesion" at the end of the year.
That's one way to put it. Stanford imploded is another. We lost the last five games in a row, taking us from "the bubble" of the NCAA tournament to out of the NIT. We lost by 18 to a Cal team we had beaten by an average of 10.5 points in the two previous games. We lost to a WSU team we beat by 15. We went from beating Washington 91-75 to losing to the Huskies 79-61. We didn't have "some issues, we collapsed.
BC
They were better without Davis, Wills and Zaire. They played harder and were more cohesive. Don’t know what happened when they came back. But things got ugly on the court.
(03-29-2021, 06:49 PM)Goose Wrote:(03-29-2021, 06:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote:The "team cohesion" collapsed. I don't know the details, but it appears that some of the guys just quit playing without leaving the team. Da Silva was hurt, so that was the "issues". The inability to play like anyone cared was a different issue. Beating Cal didn't require our "A Game". It probably required just our "C- game" and we couldn't deliver even that. However, previously the Stanford team with three starters out defeated a lot of the teams in the PAC-12 that they were not expected to defeat. Was it the other teams playing their "C Game"? Did Stanford deliver their "A Game"? Perhaps, but that was my point. This year nobody was very good or consistent, Stanford especially.(03-29-2021, 08:42 AM)Goose Wrote: Clearly Stanford had some issues with personnel and "team cohesion" at the end of the year.
That's one way to put it. Stanford imploded is another. We lost the last five games in a row, taking us from "the bubble" of the NCAA tournament to out of the NIT. We lost by 18 to a Cal team we had beaten by an average of 10.5 points in the two previous games. We lost to a WSU team we beat by 15. We went from beating Washington 91-75 to losing to the Huskies 79-61. We didn't have "some issues, we collapsed.
BC
They were better without Davis, Wills and Zaire. They played harder and were more cohesive. Don’t know what happened when they came back. But things got ugly on the court.
03-29-2021, 08:15 PM
(03-29-2021, 07:02 PM)lex24 Wrote: They were better without Davis, Wills and Zaire. They played harder and were more cohesive. Don’t know what happened when they came back. But things got ugly on the court.
I agree that they played better before the three players returned. Was that an anomaly followed by a reversion to (below) the mean, or did the returning players not "mesh" with the "new guys" or was it something else? I don't know, but it sure went a long way down hill quickly. Which state was indicative, the "good" play, the "bad" play, or neither?
(03-29-2021, 07:02 PM)lex24 Wrote: They were better without Davis, Wills and Zaire. They played harder and were more cohesive. Don’t know what happened when they came back. But things got ugly on the court.
I agree that they played better before the three players returned. Was that an anomaly followed by a reversion to (below) the mean, or did the returning players not "mesh" with the "new guys" or was it something else? I don't know, but it sure went a long way down hill quickly. Which state was indicative, the "good" play, the "bad" play, or neither?
03-29-2021, 08:36 PM
That narrative -- that Stanford improved without Davis, Wills, and Ziaire -- doesn't hold up completely for me. In that it opened the door for Delaire to rise and O'Connell to emerge certainly helped the team, but both (or multiple) iterations of this squad had its highs and its lows, its advantages and its flaws. What I see uniting these lineups is a failure to really get stronger as the season wore on. Both had a winning streak, beating some tough opponents ('Bama, Arizona, OSU, UCLA), and both tanked. And when they mixed together, they tanked even worse due to some circumstances that I still don't fully know about. But to me, the pattern is the same as every year, no matter the lineup, and that's most concerning.
That narrative -- that Stanford improved without Davis, Wills, and Ziaire -- doesn't hold up completely for me. In that it opened the door for Delaire to rise and O'Connell to emerge certainly helped the team, but both (or multiple) iterations of this squad had its highs and its lows, its advantages and its flaws. What I see uniting these lineups is a failure to really get stronger as the season wore on. Both had a winning streak, beating some tough opponents ('Bama, Arizona, OSU, UCLA), and both tanked. And when they mixed together, they tanked even worse due to some circumstances that I still don't fully know about. But to me, the pattern is the same as every year, no matter the lineup, and that's most concerning.
03-29-2021, 08:49 PM
That narrative is highly influenced by a couple big wins coupled with low expectations.
BC
BC
That narrative is highly influenced by a couple big wins coupled with low expectations.
BC
BC
(03-29-2021, 08:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote: That narrative is highly influenced by a couple big wins coupled with low expectations.
BC
More so by how poorly they played when the three came back. Obviously the team was more talented with Davis, Wills and Zaire. And certainly better with them over the course of the season. But when they came back, they were awful. And the team floundered. Don’t know what happened.
(03-29-2021, 08:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote: That narrative is highly influenced by a couple big wins coupled with low expectations.
BC
More so by how poorly they played when the three came back. Obviously the team was more talented with Davis, Wills and Zaire. And certainly better with them over the course of the season. But when they came back, they were awful. And the team floundered. Don’t know what happened.
03-29-2021, 09:16 PM
(03-29-2021, 09:03 PM)lex24 Wrote:(03-29-2021, 08:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote: That narrative is highly influenced by a couple big wins coupled with low expectations.
BC
More so by how poorly they played when the three came back. Obviously the team was more talented with Davis, Wills and Zaire. And certainly better with them over the course of the season. But when they came back, they were awful. And the team floundered. Don’t know what happened.
Given how they were playing before the injuries, it would be hard to say they were better without those guys (at most, you could say we didn't lose a step, but again, that is highly influenced by beating UCLA). Surely we should have been capable of playing better with those guys than without, and this was not a case of addition by subtraction, but rather, when those guys came back, subtraction by addition. Whatever happened, it was a disaster, and reflects poorly on Davis, Wills, and Williams, as well as the coaching staff.
BC
(03-29-2021, 09:03 PM)lex24 Wrote:(03-29-2021, 08:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote: That narrative is highly influenced by a couple big wins coupled with low expectations.
BC
More so by how poorly they played when the three came back. Obviously the team was more talented with Davis, Wills and Zaire. And certainly better with them over the course of the season. But when they came back, they were awful. And the team floundered. Don’t know what happened.
Given how they were playing before the injuries, it would be hard to say they were better without those guys (at most, you could say we didn't lose a step, but again, that is highly influenced by beating UCLA). Surely we should have been capable of playing better with those guys than without, and this was not a case of addition by subtraction, but rather, when those guys came back, subtraction by addition. Whatever happened, it was a disaster, and reflects poorly on Davis, Wills, and Williams, as well as the coaching staff.
BC
03-30-2021, 09:34 PM
[tweet]https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1377111166632128513?s=20[/tweet]
LOL
BC
LOL
BC
[tweet]https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1377111166632128513?s=20[/tweet]
LOL
BC
LOL
BC
03-31-2021, 05:18 AM
makes no sense, the night in the hotel was already paid for. Was a 1:15 a.m. flight that much cheaper???? Sheesh.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »