03-14-2014, 09:10 PM
22-5 hole to start the game. Yikes.
BC
BC
Thud
03-14-2014, 09:33 PM
As many of you know, I am a big WBB fan. But I first became a fan of basketball thanks to Todd Lichti and Mike Montgomery--not Tara. But my interest faded after Montgomery left. Since the Lopez twins, I have hardly followed our team. Lately, I began to feel guilty about that. Our team seemed to be doing better, and the players certainly deserve better than they have gotten.
So, tonight, I decided to break my drought and watch a men's game. I tuned in, and was willing to have a good time and be entertained.
Thud indeed. I could not make it through the first half.
So, tonight, I decided to break my drought and watch a men's game. I tuned in, and was willing to have a good time and be entertained.
Thud indeed. I could not make it through the first half.
As many of you know, I am a big WBB fan. But I first became a fan of basketball thanks to Todd Lichti and Mike Montgomery--not Tara. But my interest faded after Montgomery left. Since the Lopez twins, I have hardly followed our team. Lately, I began to feel guilty about that. Our team seemed to be doing better, and the players certainly deserve better than they have gotten.
So, tonight, I decided to break my drought and watch a men's game. I tuned in, and was willing to have a good time and be entertained.
Thud indeed. I could not make it through the first half.
So, tonight, I decided to break my drought and watch a men's game. I tuned in, and was willing to have a good time and be entertained.
Thud indeed. I could not make it through the first half.
03-14-2014, 10:46 PM
Playing 4 games would have been a killer for any NCAA run. Playing 3 I think is better for possibly winning 2 games next weekend.
03-14-2014, 10:53 PM
84-59 was the final. Better in Vegas against UCLA than in the tournament, but any momentum we might have had after ASU has evaporated. I think most projections have us in the 8-10 seed range, which means if we win the first one, we'll have to play out of our minds to make it past the second round against a 1 or 2 seed.
BC
BC
84-59 was the final. Better in Vegas against UCLA than in the tournament, but any momentum we might have had after ASU has evaporated. I think most projections have us in the 8-10 seed range, which means if we win the first one, we'll have to play out of our minds to make it past the second round against a 1 or 2 seed.
BC
BC
03-14-2014, 11:53 PM
(03-14-2014, 10:53 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:we'll have to play out of our minds to make it past the second round against a 1 or 2 seed.
We'll have to play out of our minds to get out of the FIRST round in the NCAA tournament.
At least a UCLA fan bought a round of (Fireball) shots for me and my friends.
(03-14-2014, 10:53 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:we'll have to play out of our minds to make it past the second round against a 1 or 2 seed.
We'll have to play out of our minds to get out of the FIRST round in the NCAA tournament.
At least a UCLA fan bought a round of (Fireball) shots for me and my friends.
03-15-2014, 02:02 AM
It seems like the last two nights have been a microcosm of the Dawkins era at Stanford. We play very well at times, poorly at others. Which of course means we will play well and win our first game in the NCAA's, or we won't and lose.
It seems like the last two nights have been a microcosm of the Dawkins era at Stanford. We play very well at times, poorly at others. Which of course means we will play well and win our first game in the NCAA's, or we won't and lose.
03-15-2014, 06:37 AM
It might be "fun" to get a little NCAA prediction poll up on Sunday night to see the predictions of the board community.
I hope the team escapes with a first round win, but doubt the team will be able to beat a #2 or #1 seed.
I hope the team escapes with a first round win, but doubt the team will be able to beat a #2 or #1 seed.
03-15-2014, 07:17 AM
(03-15-2014, 06:37 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:doubt the team will be able to beat a #2 or #1 seed.
Of course not. I don't see them winning in the first round against any 6 or 7 seed. I'll guess Stanford is an 11 seed. But honestly, to me, they deserve to play in the play-in game.
Johnny Dawkins is like the "Pat" character from SNL fame. You're not sure what he is, so you observe him, and just when you think he's not going to cut it, he does something to make you think maybe he's about to turn it around. And then, just when you think he's going to, he does something to make you think he needs to go. Rinse. Repeat.
But here's the thing. Good to great coaches get results almost immediately. Dawkins has proven he is a mediocre coach at best. Does Stanford settle for mediocrity?
Dawkins has been a fine recruiter, so the question is will another coach be able to maintain the same recruiting level and get better on court results, or not be able to recruit as well, but coach and develop the team better. And at the end of the day will another guy with less recruiting success be able to make the team better than a low seed one and done in the NCAA tournament?
(03-15-2014, 06:37 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:doubt the team will be able to beat a #2 or #1 seed.
Of course not. I don't see them winning in the first round against any 6 or 7 seed. I'll guess Stanford is an 11 seed. But honestly, to me, they deserve to play in the play-in game.
Johnny Dawkins is like the "Pat" character from SNL fame. You're not sure what he is, so you observe him, and just when you think he's not going to cut it, he does something to make you think maybe he's about to turn it around. And then, just when you think he's going to, he does something to make you think he needs to go. Rinse. Repeat.
But here's the thing. Good to great coaches get results almost immediately. Dawkins has proven he is a mediocre coach at best. Does Stanford settle for mediocrity?
Dawkins has been a fine recruiter, so the question is will another coach be able to maintain the same recruiting level and get better on court results, or not be able to recruit as well, but coach and develop the team better. And at the end of the day will another guy with less recruiting success be able to make the team better than a low seed one and done in the NCAA tournament?
03-15-2014, 10:24 AM
(03-15-2014, 07:17 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9678.msg85565#msg85565 date=1394890661]
doubt the team will be able to beat a #2 or #1 seed.
But here's the thing. Good to great coaches get results almost immediately. Dawkins has proven he is a mediocre coach at best. Does Stanford settle for mediocrity?
[/quote]
That's the point I made to Muir last year. His response was that so many games were close, and we were almost there. His standards are, unfortunately, different from ours.
(03-15-2014, 07:17 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9678.msg85565#msg85565 date=1394890661]
doubt the team will be able to beat a #2 or #1 seed.
But here's the thing. Good to great coaches get results almost immediately. Dawkins has proven he is a mediocre coach at best. Does Stanford settle for mediocrity?
[/quote]
That's the point I made to Muir last year. His response was that so many games were close, and we were almost there. His standards are, unfortunately, different from ours.
StanFan88
Unregistered
Unregistered
03-15-2014, 10:39 AM
(03-14-2014, 10:46 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:Playing 4 games would have been a killer for any NCAA run. Playing 3 I think is better for possibly winning 2 games next weekend.
Please stop making excuses. This team has shown up and played to its talent level for ONE HALF IN ITS LAST SIX GAMES.
(03-14-2014, 10:46 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:Playing 4 games would have been a killer for any NCAA run. Playing 3 I think is better for possibly winning 2 games next weekend.
Please stop making excuses. This team has shown up and played to its talent level for ONE HALF IN ITS LAST SIX GAMES.
03-15-2014, 10:54 AM
(03-15-2014, 10:39 AM)StanFan88 link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9678.msg85558#msg85558 date=1394862384]
Playing 4 games would have been a killer for any NCAA run. Playing 3 I think is better for possibly winning 2 games next weekend.
Please stop making excuses. This team has shown up and played to its talent level for ONE HALF IN ITS LAST SIX GAMES.
[/quote]
Extrapolating, that would mean we have a 50/50 chance of making it out of the first round at the NCAAs! ;D
(03-15-2014, 10:39 AM)StanFan88 link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9678.msg85558#msg85558 date=1394862384]
Playing 4 games would have been a killer for any NCAA run. Playing 3 I think is better for possibly winning 2 games next weekend.
Please stop making excuses. This team has shown up and played to its talent level for ONE HALF IN ITS LAST SIX GAMES.
[/quote]
Extrapolating, that would mean we have a 50/50 chance of making it out of the first round at the NCAAs! ;D
03-15-2014, 11:17 AM
(03-15-2014, 10:54 AM)DC link Wrote:[quote author=StanFan88 link=topic=9678.msg85571#msg85571 date=1394905148]
[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9678.msg85558#msg85558 date=1394862384]
Playing 4 games would have been a killer for any NCAA run. Playing 3 I think is better for possibly winning 2 games next weekend.
Please stop making excuses. This team has shown up and played to its talent level for ONE HALF IN ITS LAST SIX GAMES.
[/quote]
Extrapolating, that would mean we have a 50/50 chance of making it out of the first round at the NCAAs! ;D
[/quote]
That's assuming, of course, that playing up to our talent level will be good enough to beat our first round opponent. Actually I think it will, although assuming it does happen it may not be good enough to beat our second round foe.
(03-15-2014, 10:54 AM)DC link Wrote:[quote author=StanFan88 link=topic=9678.msg85571#msg85571 date=1394905148]
[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9678.msg85558#msg85558 date=1394862384]
Playing 4 games would have been a killer for any NCAA run. Playing 3 I think is better for possibly winning 2 games next weekend.
Please stop making excuses. This team has shown up and played to its talent level for ONE HALF IN ITS LAST SIX GAMES.
[/quote]
Extrapolating, that would mean we have a 50/50 chance of making it out of the first round at the NCAAs! ;D
[/quote]
That's assuming, of course, that playing up to our talent level will be good enough to beat our first round opponent. Actually I think it will, although assuming it does happen it may not be good enough to beat our second round foe.
03-15-2014, 11:24 AM
Given we have the talent level to compete and almost beat Arizona and Michigan, we really have the talent level to play (and perhaps beat) anybody in the country. That it doesn't play up to that level on a more consistent basis is ultimately due to (that dude we keep blaming).
Given we have the talent level to compete and almost beat Arizona and Michigan, we really have the talent level to play (and perhaps beat) anybody in the country. That it doesn't play up to that level on a more consistent basis is ultimately due to (that dude we keep blaming).
03-15-2014, 12:17 PM
Does coming close to beating a top team in a preconference game or on your home court mean you have the talent to beat them when all the chips are on the line in the Big Dance? I think it is at least debatable.
Does coming close to beating a top team in a preconference game or on your home court mean you have the talent to beat them when all the chips are on the line in the Big Dance? I think it is at least debatable.
03-15-2014, 02:07 PM
(03-15-2014, 12:17 PM)JPRI link Wrote:Does coming close to beating a top team in a preconference game or on your home court mean you have the talent to beat them when all the chips are on the line in the Big Dance? I think it is at least debatable.
Sure it does! It doesn't make it especially likely, but we're just talking about possibilities.
(03-15-2014, 12:17 PM)JPRI link Wrote:Does coming close to beating a top team in a preconference game or on your home court mean you have the talent to beat them when all the chips are on the line in the Big Dance? I think it is at least debatable.
Sure it does! It doesn't make it especially likely, but we're just talking about possibilities.
03-15-2014, 02:45 PM
(03-15-2014, 02:07 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=9678.msg85578#msg85578 date=1394911044]
Does coming close to beating a top team in a preconference game or on your home court mean you have the talent to beat them when all the chips are on the line in the Big Dance? I think it is at least debatable.
Sure it does! It doesn't make it especially likely, but we're just talking about possibilities.
[/quote]
Can't disagree with that. I mean it's possible that I will win the Florida lottery the next time I play.
(03-15-2014, 02:07 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=9678.msg85578#msg85578 date=1394911044]
Does coming close to beating a top team in a preconference game or on your home court mean you have the talent to beat them when all the chips are on the line in the Big Dance? I think it is at least debatable.
Sure it does! It doesn't make it especially likely, but we're just talking about possibilities.
[/quote]
Can't disagree with that. I mean it's possible that I will win the Florida lottery the next time I play.
03-15-2014, 06:22 PM
(03-15-2014, 11:24 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Given we have the talent level to compete and almost beat Arizona and Michigan, we really have the talent level to play (and perhaps beat) anybody in the country. That it doesn't play up to that level on a more consistent basis is ultimately due to (that dude we keep blaming).
Time to get pissed off for greatness...
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(03-15-2014, 11:24 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Given we have the talent level to compete and almost beat Arizona and Michigan, we really have the talent level to play (and perhaps beat) anybody in the country. That it doesn't play up to that level on a more consistent basis is ultimately due to (that dude we keep blaming).
Time to get pissed off for greatness...
Audaces fortuna iuvat
StanFan88
Unregistered
Unregistered
03-15-2014, 06:50 PM
(03-15-2014, 10:24 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9678.msg85567#msg85567 date=1394893050]
[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9678.msg85565#msg85565 date=1394890661]
doubt the team will be able to beat a #2 or #1 seed.
But here's the thing. Good to great coaches get results almost immediately. Dawkins has proven he is a mediocre coach at best. Does Stanford settle for mediocrity?
[/quote]
That's the point I made to Muir last year. His response was that so many games were close, and we were almost there. His standards are, unfortunately, different from ours.
[/quote]
Well the point this year is that it's now been two years for him and six years for most of us. All we have seen year-in and year-out is inconsistency and being close. At some point you have to recognize a pattern, and when that patterns spans several rosters you can't say it's a particular player or players. You have to look at the coach.
Also, Muir did say the team needs to compete for a conference title in addition to making the NCAAs. On that front, Dawkins has NEVER been close. 6th place is the best finish he's had. That's not good enough.
(03-15-2014, 10:24 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9678.msg85567#msg85567 date=1394893050]
[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9678.msg85565#msg85565 date=1394890661]
doubt the team will be able to beat a #2 or #1 seed.
But here's the thing. Good to great coaches get results almost immediately. Dawkins has proven he is a mediocre coach at best. Does Stanford settle for mediocrity?
[/quote]
That's the point I made to Muir last year. His response was that so many games were close, and we were almost there. His standards are, unfortunately, different from ours.
[/quote]
Well the point this year is that it's now been two years for him and six years for most of us. All we have seen year-in and year-out is inconsistency and being close. At some point you have to recognize a pattern, and when that patterns spans several rosters you can't say it's a particular player or players. You have to look at the coach.
Also, Muir did say the team needs to compete for a conference title in addition to making the NCAAs. On that front, Dawkins has NEVER been close. 6th place is the best finish he's had. That's not good enough.
StanFan88
Unregistered
Unregistered
03-15-2014, 06:53 PM
(03-15-2014, 12:17 PM)JPRI link Wrote:Does coming close to beating a top team in a preconference game or on your home court mean you have the talent to beat them when all the chips are on the line in the Big Dance? I think it is at least debatable.
Given the dozen-plus late-game collapses and less than .400 winning percentage in close games that characterize the Dawkins era, I'd say when the chips are on the line Stanford is not a team I'm going to bet on in a close game. Still gonna root for them, but my expectations will not be high.
(03-15-2014, 12:17 PM)JPRI link Wrote:Does coming close to beating a top team in a preconference game or on your home court mean you have the talent to beat them when all the chips are on the line in the Big Dance? I think it is at least debatable.
Given the dozen-plus late-game collapses and less than .400 winning percentage in close games that characterize the Dawkins era, I'd say when the chips are on the line Stanford is not a team I'm going to bet on in a close game. Still gonna root for them, but my expectations will not be high.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »