[DC 86]

And, if I understood Casey Jakes correctly last eve, Stanford has 4 Quad 1 wins which he says is important. Did we pick up 2 in Hawaii?

Stanford is 4-3 vs Quad One:

Wins: USC x2, Wyoming, WSU.
Losses: Arizona, Baylor, Texas.

The Wyoming game was in Hawaii, beating WSU on the road also qualifies as Quad One.

Four Quad One wins is a lot, only eight teams in the country have more. Stanford is ranked #86 in NET, the next lowest team with four or more Quad One wins is Providence and they are #34, which speaks both to Stanford's inconsistency and the vagaries of NET.

[DC 86]

And, if I understood Casey Jakes correctly last eve, Stanford has 4 Quad 1 wins which he says is important. Did we pick up 2 in Hawaii?

Stanford is 4-3 vs Quad One:

Wins: USC x2, Wyoming, WSU.
Losses: Arizona, Baylor, Texas.

The Wyoming game was in Hawaii, beating WSU on the road also qualifies as Quad One.

Four Quad One wins is a lot, only eight teams in the country have more. Stanford is ranked #86 in NET, the next lowest team with four or more Quad One wins is Providence and they are #34, which speaks both to Stanford's inconsistency and the vagaries of NET.

[teejers1]

And, if I understood Casey Jakes correctly last eve, Stanford has 4 Quad 1 wins which he says is important. Did we pick up 2 in Hawaii?

Stanford is 4-3 vs Quad One:

Wins: USC x2, Wyoming, WSU.
Losses: Arizona, Baylor, Texas.

The Wyoming game was in Hawaii, beating WSU on the road also qualifies as Quad One.

Four Quad One wins is a lot, only eight teams in the country have more. Stanford is ranked #86 in NET, the next lowest team with four or more Quad One wins is Providence and they are #34, which speaks both to Stanford's inconsistency and the vagaries of NET.

TOS surmises NET (over)emphasizes margin of victory, as it is more of a forward-looking projection of how a team will fare against other teams.  Good teams blow out mediocre teams; Stanford doesn't blow out anybody.  However, at the end of the day, I think the Committee will put a premium on accomplishment/resume.  Who have you beaten?  That will prove more important than margin of victory.

Again, all of this just fanciful discussion as Stanford has to win a bunch more games before it can even claim to be "in the mix."  But it's fun to have hope and see it as a real possibility.  Right, burger?

[teejers1]

And, if I understood Casey Jakes correctly last eve, Stanford has 4 Quad 1 wins which he says is important. Did we pick up 2 in Hawaii?

Stanford is 4-3 vs Quad One:

Wins: USC x2, Wyoming, WSU.
Losses: Arizona, Baylor, Texas.

The Wyoming game was in Hawaii, beating WSU on the road also qualifies as Quad One.

Four Quad One wins is a lot, only eight teams in the country have more. Stanford is ranked #86 in NET, the next lowest team with four or more Quad One wins is Providence and they are #34, which speaks both to Stanford's inconsistency and the vagaries of NET.

TOS surmises NET (over)emphasizes margin of victory, as it is more of a forward-looking projection of how a team will fare against other teams.  Good teams blow out mediocre teams; Stanford doesn't blow out anybody.  However, at the end of the day, I think the Committee will put a premium on accomplishment/resume.  Who have you beaten?  That will prove more important than margin of victory.

Again, all of this just fanciful discussion as Stanford has to win a bunch more games before it can even claim to be "in the mix."  But it's fun to have hope and see it as a real possibility.  Right, burger?

[Papa John]

Wazzu, who has a worse overall, conference, and Q1 record than we do, AND who has a H2H loss against us (AT HOME!), is ranked #54. Tell me how that makes sense.

<snip>

Here are how some other computer rankings view WSU vs Stanford:
Sagarin--WSU 55, Stanford 81
Ken Pomeroy--WSU 46, Stanford 83
Teamranking.com--WSU 44, Stanford 95
Warren Nolan's ELO ranking--WSU 99, Stanford 49
RPI (per warrennolan.com)--WSU 95, Stanford 25

So Sagarin, Pomeroy and teamranking more-or-less agree with NET, but those rankings are vastly different than Warren Nolan and the old RPI formula.

By the way, here are the current conference standings with NET rankings for all Pac-12 teams:
1. UCLA (7-1 in conference), NET #11
2. Arizona (6-1), NET #2
3. USC (7-3), NET #28
4. Stanford (5-3), NET #86
4. Oregon (5-3), NET #58
4. Washington (5-3), NET #136
7. Washington State (4-3), NET #51
8. Colorado (5-5), NET #82
9. Arizona State (2-5), NET #157
10. California (2-7), NET #135
10. Oregon State (1-6), NET #226
12. Utah (1-10), NET #128

Of course, NET considers all D1 games on the schedule, not just conference games, and it doesn't take into account when the games were played (or which players may have been out of the lineup due to injury/Covid protocols).

[Papa John]

Wazzu, who has a worse overall, conference, and Q1 record than we do, AND who has a H2H loss against us (AT HOME!), is ranked #54. Tell me how that makes sense.

<snip>

Here are how some other computer rankings view WSU vs Stanford:
Sagarin--WSU 55, Stanford 81
Ken Pomeroy--WSU 46, Stanford 83
Teamranking.com--WSU 44, Stanford 95
Warren Nolan's ELO ranking--WSU 99, Stanford 49
RPI (per warrennolan.com)--WSU 95, Stanford 25

So Sagarin, Pomeroy and teamranking more-or-less agree with NET, but those rankings are vastly different than Warren Nolan and the old RPI formula.

By the way, here are the current conference standings with NET rankings for all Pac-12 teams:
1. UCLA (7-1 in conference), NET #11
2. Arizona (6-1), NET #2
3. USC (7-3), NET #28
4. Stanford (5-3), NET #86
4. Oregon (5-3), NET #58
4. Washington (5-3), NET #136
7. Washington State (4-3), NET #51
8. Colorado (5-5), NET #82
9. Arizona State (2-5), NET #157
10. California (2-7), NET #135
10. Oregon State (1-6), NET #226
12. Utah (1-10), NET #128

Of course, NET considers all D1 games on the schedule, not just conference games, and it doesn't take into account when the games were played (or which players may have been out of the lineup due to injury/Covid protocols).

[burger]

This discussion of NET and the Tourney is way premature.  We all got our hopes up after the USC and WSU games.  And then we had the UW and Zona games, maybe the worst two of this season 

When we can put together, say, four straight high quality performances--not even four straight wins, just four good showings--I'll get excited.

[burger]

This discussion of NET and the Tourney is way premature.  We all got our hopes up after the USC and WSU games.  And then we had the UW and Zona games, maybe the worst two of this season 

When we can put together, say, four straight high quality performances--not even four straight wins, just four good showings--I'll get excited.

[winflop]

I'll get excited when they don't fade in February. Schedule doesn't get any easier.

[winflop]

I'll get excited when they don't fade in February. Schedule doesn't get any easier.

[GK3]

How about that! We sweep the condoms.

This is a very young team, we are watching guys grow a bunch since the season started.  Keefe isn't his dad offensively, but in terms of hustle and rebounding he certainly reminds me of his father.  MOC and Angel are growing as we watch.  This is not a team anyone will want to play.  They aren't perfect, but they play their *** off and never quit defensively.  A group that is clearly tight.

[GK3]

How about that! We sweep the condoms.

This is a very young team, we are watching guys grow a bunch since the season started.  Keefe isn't his dad offensively, but in terms of hustle and rebounding he certainly reminds me of his father.  MOC and Angel are growing as we watch.  This is not a team anyone will want to play.  They aren't perfect, but they play their *** off and never quit defensively.  A group that is clearly tight.

[JJJ]

As others mentioned before, no Juzang today. 

https://www.dailybulletin.com/2022/01/28...ny-juzang/

[JJJ]

As others mentioned before, no Juzang today. 

https://www.dailybulletin.com/2022/01/28...ny-juzang/

[magnus]

Great time out by Hasse to keep usc from advancing the ball with 14 seconds left. 

I happened to rewatch the end of the game and noticed this and recalled the post above.  So a USC timeout would have advanced the ball to midcourt?  And he pre-empted it?  Wow, I have never seen (or perhaps noticed) that move.  Genius!

The announcers didn't really point this out either, I think first believing that USC called the timeout.  Then halfway through the TO, they noted that USC would have to take it full court, but didn't say why.

[magnus]

Great time out by Hasse to keep usc from advancing the ball with 14 seconds left. 

I happened to rewatch the end of the game and noticed this and recalled the post above.  So a USC timeout would have advanced the ball to midcourt?  And he pre-empted it?  Wow, I have never seen (or perhaps noticed) that move.  Genius!

The announcers didn't really point this out either, I think first believing that USC called the timeout.  Then halfway through the TO, they noted that USC would have to take it full court, but didn't say why.

[magnus]

Great time out by Hasse to keep usc from advancing the ball with 14 seconds left. 

I happened to rewatch the end of the game and noticed this and recalled the post above.  So a USC timeout would have advanced the ball to midcourt?  And he pre-empted it?  Wow, I have never seen (or perhaps noticed) that move.  Genius!

The announcers didn't really point this out either, I think first believing that USC called the timeout.  Then halfway through the TO, they noted that USC would have to take it full court, but didn't say why.

At the end of the Cal game,  Ted Robinson noted that the men's game didn't allow ball advancement on time outs so I guess not genius.  =)

[magnus]

Great time out by Hasse to keep usc from advancing the ball with 14 seconds left. 

I happened to rewatch the end of the game and noticed this and recalled the post above.  So a USC timeout would have advanced the ball to midcourt?  And he pre-empted it?  Wow, I have never seen (or perhaps noticed) that move.  Genius!

The announcers didn't really point this out either, I think first believing that USC called the timeout.  Then halfway through the TO, they noted that USC would have to take it full court, but didn't say why.

At the end of the Cal game,  Ted Robinson noted that the men's game didn't allow ball advancement on time outs so I guess not genius.  =)