05-08-2022, 03:37 PM
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
NCAA Championship Women’s Water Polo NCAA Champions!
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
05-08-2022, 04:12 PM
(05-08-2022, 07:16 AM)mbdude Wrote: End of an Era - Stanford University Athletics (gostanford.com)
Great story about Fischer sisters - Makenzie playing her last match for Stanford
So nice to end a career this way!
(05-08-2022, 07:16 AM)mbdude Wrote: End of an Era - Stanford University Athletics (gostanford.com)
Great story about Fischer sisters - Makenzie playing her last match for Stanford
So nice to end a career this way!
![[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%2F9cce512e5bd8c7b5bf184928a0e76a78%2Ftenor.gif%3Fitemid%3D14080473&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FjwQyCxjOfxSH8IMrrz%2Fgiphy.gif&f=1&nofb=1)
05-08-2022, 08:56 PM
Great win for Stanford and especially sweet for Mackenzie! She deserved to go out on top after a truly amazing career. The team really came out in force in the second half with some strong defense and a number of great shots. It's icing on the cake to get the win over university of southern croatia. Congrats to the entire team!
Great win for Stanford and especially sweet for Mackenzie! She deserved to go out on top after a truly amazing career. The team really came out in force in the second half with some strong defense and a number of great shots. It's icing on the cake to get the win over university of southern croatia. Congrats to the entire team!
05-09-2022, 06:29 AM
Also, since they won the beach championship later in the day, it denied them the chance to
Win two in a day.
BC
Win two in a day.
BC
Also, since they won the beach championship later in the day, it denied them the chance to
Win two in a day.
BC
Win two in a day.
BC
05-09-2022, 09:07 AM
Since we're talking about USC, they're in the news, yet again. And it wasn't some low-level employee they can pin this on. It was the Deans!
You can't spell "scandal" without "SC"
You can't spell "scandal" without "SC"
Since we're talking about USC, they're in the news, yet again. And it wasn't some low-level employee they can pin this on. It was the Deans!
You can't spell "scandal" without "SC"
You can't spell "scandal" without "SC"
05-09-2022, 12:04 PM
Since we’re talking about USC, they’re in the news yet again AGAIN.
(Note this is a different scandal than above)
https://news.yahoo.com/usc-settles-case-...46929.html
(Note this is a different scandal than above)
https://news.yahoo.com/usc-settles-case-...46929.html
Since we’re talking about USC, they’re in the news yet again AGAIN.
(Note this is a different scandal than above)
https://news.yahoo.com/usc-settles-case-...46929.html
(Note this is a different scandal than above)
https://news.yahoo.com/usc-settles-case-...46929.html
05-09-2022, 01:07 PM
(05-09-2022, 12:04 PM)M T Wrote: Since we’re talking about USC, they’re in the news yet again AGAIN.
(Note this is a different scandal than above)
https://news.yahoo.com/usc-settles-case-...46929.html
I love that you have to specify that is a different scandal.
BC
(05-09-2022, 12:04 PM)M T Wrote: Since we’re talking about USC, they’re in the news yet again AGAIN.
(Note this is a different scandal than above)
https://news.yahoo.com/usc-settles-case-...46929.html
I love that you have to specify that is a different scandal.
BC
05-09-2022, 01:26 PM
(05-09-2022, 01:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(05-09-2022, 12:04 PM)M T Wrote: Since we’re talking about USC, they’re in the news yet again AGAIN.
(Note this is a different scandal than above)
https://news.yahoo.com/usc-settles-case-...46929.html
I love that you have to specify that is a different scandal.
BC
Wait, which was the other scandal? There are so many I've completely lost track of which one is the latest.
Glad to hear we're at least twice national champs for 21-22. Congrats to our women's team!!
(05-09-2022, 01:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(05-09-2022, 12:04 PM)M T Wrote: Since we’re talking about USC, they’re in the news yet again AGAIN.
(Note this is a different scandal than above)
https://news.yahoo.com/usc-settles-case-...46929.html
I love that you have to specify that is a different scandal.
BC
Wait, which was the other scandal? There are so many I've completely lost track of which one is the latest.
Glad to hear we're at least twice national champs for 21-22. Congrats to our women's team!!
05-09-2022, 01:45 PM
(05-09-2022, 01:26 PM)2006alum Wrote: Wait, which was the other scandal? There are so many I've completely lost track of which one is the latest.
This one that I had linked under a different title:
LA Times: USC School of Education gave selective info to boost rankings in USN&WR
It was the Dean of the school who directed that only the data of their PhD candidates be given, which is a more selective program. She omitted the EdD candidates, who are larger, and less selective. The USN&WR required the data of both groups. The more selective, the higher the rankings.
(05-09-2022, 01:26 PM)2006alum Wrote: Wait, which was the other scandal? There are so many I've completely lost track of which one is the latest.
This one that I had linked under a different title:
LA Times: USC School of Education gave selective info to boost rankings in USN&WR
It was the Dean of the school who directed that only the data of their PhD candidates be given, which is a more selective program. She omitted the EdD candidates, who are larger, and less selective. The USN&WR required the data of both groups. The more selective, the higher the rankings.
05-09-2022, 02:08 PM
Three goals in the last three minutes is pretty crazy. What focus and determination! Congrats to the team!
05-09-2022, 03:42 PM
(05-09-2022, 01:26 PM)2006alum Wrote:(05-09-2022, 01:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(05-09-2022, 12:04 PM)M T Wrote: Since we’re talking about USC, they’re in the news yet again AGAIN.
(Note this is a different scandal than above)
https://news.yahoo.com/usc-settles-case-...46929.html
I love that you have to specify that is a different scandal.
BC
Wait, which was the other scandal? There are so many I've completely lost track of which one is the latest.
Glad to hear we're at least twice national champs for 21-22. Congrats to our women's team!!
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.
BC
(05-09-2022, 01:26 PM)2006alum Wrote:(05-09-2022, 01:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(05-09-2022, 12:04 PM)M T Wrote: Since we’re talking about USC, they’re in the news yet again AGAIN.
(Note this is a different scandal than above)
https://news.yahoo.com/usc-settles-case-...46929.html
I love that you have to specify that is a different scandal.
BC
Wait, which was the other scandal? There are so many I've completely lost track of which one is the latest.
Glad to hear we're at least twice national champs for 21-22. Congrats to our women's team!!
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.
BC
05-09-2022, 04:29 PM
(05-09-2022, 03:42 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(05-09-2022, 01:26 PM)2006alum Wrote:(05-09-2022, 01:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(05-09-2022, 12:04 PM)M T Wrote: Since we’re talking about USC, they’re in the news yet again AGAIN.
(Note this is a different scandal than above)
https://news.yahoo.com/usc-settles-case-...46929.html
I love that you have to specify that is a different scandal.
BC
Wait, which was the other scandal? There are so many I've completely lost track of which one is the latest.
Glad to hear we're at least twice national champs for 21-22. Congrats to our women's team!!
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.
BC
USC = Unusually Scandalous College
(05-09-2022, 03:42 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(05-09-2022, 01:26 PM)2006alum Wrote:(05-09-2022, 01:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(05-09-2022, 12:04 PM)M T Wrote: Since we’re talking about USC, they’re in the news yet again AGAIN.
(Note this is a different scandal than above)
https://news.yahoo.com/usc-settles-case-...46929.html
I love that you have to specify that is a different scandal.
BC
Wait, which was the other scandal? There are so many I've completely lost track of which one is the latest.
Glad to hear we're at least twice national champs for 21-22. Congrats to our women's team!!
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.
BC
USC = Unusually Scandalous College
"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
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.
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
(05-09-2022, 03:42 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 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.
Quote:Although USC received reports of alleged abuse by Kelly dating back at least to 2006, he remained in his job until 2018.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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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
(05-09-2022, 03:42 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 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.
Quote:Although USC received reports of alleged abuse by Kelly dating back at least to 2006, he remained in his job until 2018.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.
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.
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.
05-09-2022, 10:32 PM
Very happy that Stanford won, again. Interesting facts from the NCAA Championship history. During the 21 seasons of women's polo, Stanford has won 8, UCLA 7, USC 6. No one else has won the title. In fact, Cal and Loyola Marymount are the only two other schools to play for the title, each losing once.
The sport is growing, and it would be great to see other schools get in the competitive mix. The best of three really doesn't equate to a Natty. . . .
https://www.ncaa.com/history/waterpolo-women/nc
The sport is growing, and it would be great to see other schools get in the competitive mix. The best of three really doesn't equate to a Natty. . . .
https://www.ncaa.com/history/waterpolo-women/nc
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
Very happy that Stanford won, again. Interesting facts from the NCAA Championship history. During the 21 seasons of women's polo, Stanford has won 8, UCLA 7, USC 6. No one else has won the title. In fact, Cal and Loyola Marymount are the only two other schools to play for the title, each losing once.
The sport is growing, and it would be great to see other schools get in the competitive mix. The best of three really doesn't equate to a Natty. . . .
https://www.ncaa.com/history/waterpolo-women/nc
The sport is growing, and it would be great to see other schools get in the competitive mix. The best of three really doesn't equate to a Natty. . . .
https://www.ncaa.com/history/waterpolo-women/nc
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »