[81alum]

South Carolina lost today and we won today.  South Carolina has lost twice since we lost to them, and we are on a 20 game winning streak.  Nonetheless, Charlie Creme thinks South Carolina still gets the #1 seed in the tournament, based upon "metrics" and our head to head record.

I'll be interested to see how Massey, Net, RPI, and the polls treat this when they all get updated. 

It probably does not make a difference--as the 2 we won't see South Carolina until the finals if we both get there.  It might make a difference in who we play in the semifinals--again if we get there.  North Carolina State or Louisville as of the last reveal.  Not sure which of those two I'd rather play.

I would like to see us end the season on a 26 game winning streak!

[81alum]

South Carolina lost today and we won today.  South Carolina has lost twice since we lost to them, and we are on a 20 game winning streak.  Nonetheless, Charlie Creme thinks South Carolina still gets the #1 seed in the tournament, based upon "metrics" and our head to head record.

I'll be interested to see how Massey, Net, RPI, and the polls treat this when they all get updated. 

It probably does not make a difference--as the 2 we won't see South Carolina until the finals if we both get there.  It might make a difference in who we play in the semifinals--again if we get there.  North Carolina State or Louisville as of the last reveal.  Not sure which of those two I'd rather play.

I would like to see us end the season on a 26 game winning streak!

[crackpot]

Ros was making the case on the post-game for UCLA getting an invite. Her argument (that they have players coming back and they did well in the P12 tourney) will be one that I'm betting the committee uses to place UConn higher than their NET score would indicate.

[crackpot]

Ros was making the case on the post-game for UCLA getting an invite. Her argument (that they have players coming back and they did well in the P12 tourney) will be one that I'm betting the committee uses to place UConn higher than their NET score would indicate.

[TonyLima]

Ros was making the case on the post-game for UCLA getting an invite. Her argument (that they have players coming back and they did well in the P12 tourney) will be one that I'm betting the committee uses to place UConn higher than their NET score would indicate.

Plus UConn is getting their star player back from injury. Watch out.

[TonyLima]

Ros was making the case on the post-game for UCLA getting an invite. Her argument (that they have players coming back and they did well in the P12 tourney) will be one that I'm betting the committee uses to place UConn higher than their NET score would indicate.

Plus UConn is getting their star player back from injury. Watch out.

[81alum]

Ros was making the case on the post-game for UCLA getting an invite. Her argument (that they have players coming back and they did well in the P12 tourney) will be one that I'm betting the committee uses to place UConn higher than their NET score would indicate.

Plus UConn is getting their star player back from injury. Watch out.

UConn is currently 4th in NET and 4th in Massey even before today's games.  Charlie Creme has them as a 2 and going against SC.  That doesn't seem right to me.  I think it would be fairer to send them against the overall 4th seed, Louisville.

If we wind up overall 2, then we ought to face the overall 7, which looks like Texas according to Massey and NET.  But Creme has us facing LSU.  I don't get the high seed for LSU, which is 20th in NET and 18th with Massey.  What has LSU done to deserve a high seed?  Not that as a fan I should object to facing a weaker team than expected, I guess.

[81alum]

Ros was making the case on the post-game for UCLA getting an invite. Her argument (that they have players coming back and they did well in the P12 tourney) will be one that I'm betting the committee uses to place UConn higher than their NET score would indicate.

Plus UConn is getting their star player back from injury. Watch out.

UConn is currently 4th in NET and 4th in Massey even before today's games.  Charlie Creme has them as a 2 and going against SC.  That doesn't seem right to me.  I think it would be fairer to send them against the overall 4th seed, Louisville.

If we wind up overall 2, then we ought to face the overall 7, which looks like Texas according to Massey and NET.  But Creme has us facing LSU.  I don't get the high seed for LSU, which is 20th in NET and 18th with Massey.  What has LSU done to deserve a high seed?  Not that as a fan I should object to facing a weaker team than expected, I guess.

[PVTree]

I think Yukon will be the 5th or 6th seed at worst. That will guarantee we don't see them until the final four. It seems that SoCar, Stanford, and NCSt will be the top three seeds. Some combination of Louisville, Yukon, LSU, and Baylor will be seeded 4th through 7th. 

If we're the #2 overall seed, we'll probably get either LSU or Baylor in our Region as the #2 seed. If we're the overall top seed, then we will get 2 out of TX, MD, and Iowa in our region as the #2 and #3 seeds.

[PVTree]

I think Yukon will be the 5th or 6th seed at worst. That will guarantee we don't see them until the final four. It seems that SoCar, Stanford, and NCSt will be the top three seeds. Some combination of Louisville, Yukon, LSU, and Baylor will be seeded 4th through 7th. 

If we're the #2 overall seed, we'll probably get either LSU or Baylor in our Region as the #2 seed. If we're the overall top seed, then we will get 2 out of TX, MD, and Iowa in our region as the #2 and #3 seeds.

[TheFarm07]

Utah HC Lynne Roberts was very complimentary of our team in her postgame comments: "I actually think they're better than they were last year, and last year they won the national championship...I do think they're the best team in the country."

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...tournament

Do you agree with her? We've played very well, on a 20-game winning streak (with a few close games in there, however) and we put in a great defensive effort yesterday.

Comparing our team to last year's, obviously, we added four new freshmen, but Iriafen, I would argue, has been the only one who has had a significant contribution so far this season. Demetre put in a few key minutes in a handful of games, but Bosgana has really only seen action in the waning minutes of games and Harriel hasn't played at all.

Conversely, losing Williams was a significant loss. Though we've adapted over the last few months, you can't easily replace a player of her caliber. Though we still have a bevy of three-point shooters, no one quite has her ability to come down the floor, survey the situation and then stop and pop for a long range three. 

However, we also need to consider how our returning players have improved (or not) since last season. I would argue Belibi is playing better and with more confidence than last year at this point, but beyond that, I wouldn't say, anyone is markedly that much better (they were at already high levels, so that's a tall bar to climb) than last year.

Anyway, just curious, as we have some time, before our next game, to muse over these things.

[TheFarm07]

Utah HC Lynne Roberts was very complimentary of our team in her postgame comments: "I actually think they're better than they were last year, and last year they won the national championship...I do think they're the best team in the country."

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...tournament

Do you agree with her? We've played very well, on a 20-game winning streak (with a few close games in there, however) and we put in a great defensive effort yesterday.

Comparing our team to last year's, obviously, we added four new freshmen, but Iriafen, I would argue, has been the only one who has had a significant contribution so far this season. Demetre put in a few key minutes in a handful of games, but Bosgana has really only seen action in the waning minutes of games and Harriel hasn't played at all.

Conversely, losing Williams was a significant loss. Though we've adapted over the last few months, you can't easily replace a player of her caliber. Though we still have a bevy of three-point shooters, no one quite has her ability to come down the floor, survey the situation and then stop and pop for a long range three. 

However, we also need to consider how our returning players have improved (or not) since last season. I would argue Belibi is playing better and with more confidence than last year at this point, but beyond that, I wouldn't say, anyone is markedly that much better (they were at already high levels, so that's a tall bar to climb) than last year.

Anyway, just curious, as we have some time, before our next game, to muse over these things.

[Card10Fan]

Utah HC Lynne Roberts was very complimentary of our team in her postgame comments: "I actually think they're better than they were last year, and last year they won the national championship...I do think they're the best team in the country."

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...tournament

Do you agree with her? We've played very well, on a 20-game winning streak (with a few close games in there, however) and we put in a great defensive effort yesterday.

Comparing our team to last year's, obviously, we added four new freshmen, but Iriafen, I would argue, has been the only one who has had a significant contribution so far this season. Demetre put in a few key minutes in a handful of games, but Bosgana has really only seen action in the waning minutes of games and Harriel hasn't played at all.

Conversely, losing Williams was a significant loss. Though we've adapted over the last few months, you can't easily replace a player of her caliber. Though we still have a bevy of three-point shooters, no one quite has her ability to come down the floor, survey the situation and then stop and pop for a long range three. 

However, we also need to consider how our returning players have improved (or not) since last season. I would argue Belibi is playing better and with more confidence than last year at this point, but beyond that, I wouldn't say, anyone is markedly that much better (they were at already high levels, so that's a tall bar to climb) than last year.

Anyway, just curious, as we have some time, before our next game, to muse over these things.

This question was asked just a few weeks ago to Michelle Smith, the ESPN/Pac12 writer. Statistically, we are not better than last season per her article. The Pac12 is down as a whole this year so it is a little hard to compare exactly to last season. Just based on the eye test, I think we are better than last season. 

https://pac-12.com/article/2022/02/22/mi...eb-22-2022

[Card10Fan]

Utah HC Lynne Roberts was very complimentary of our team in her postgame comments: "I actually think they're better than they were last year, and last year they won the national championship...I do think they're the best team in the country."

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...tournament

Do you agree with her? We've played very well, on a 20-game winning streak (with a few close games in there, however) and we put in a great defensive effort yesterday.

Comparing our team to last year's, obviously, we added four new freshmen, but Iriafen, I would argue, has been the only one who has had a significant contribution so far this season. Demetre put in a few key minutes in a handful of games, but Bosgana has really only seen action in the waning minutes of games and Harriel hasn't played at all.

Conversely, losing Williams was a significant loss. Though we've adapted over the last few months, you can't easily replace a player of her caliber. Though we still have a bevy of three-point shooters, no one quite has her ability to come down the floor, survey the situation and then stop and pop for a long range three. 

However, we also need to consider how our returning players have improved (or not) since last season. I would argue Belibi is playing better and with more confidence than last year at this point, but beyond that, I wouldn't say, anyone is markedly that much better (they were at already high levels, so that's a tall bar to climb) than last year.

Anyway, just curious, as we have some time, before our next game, to muse over these things.

This question was asked just a few weeks ago to Michelle Smith, the ESPN/Pac12 writer. Statistically, we are not better than last season per her article. The Pac12 is down as a whole this year so it is a little hard to compare exactly to last season. Just based on the eye test, I think we are better than last season. 

https://pac-12.com/article/2022/02/22/mi...eb-22-2022

[BostonCard]

The biggest improvements from last year to this year are Belibi, Brink, Lacie Hull, and Jump.  For some of our other players, the improvement is perhaps a bit more incremental.  But, put it together, and I think this years team is probably approaching last year’s team.

BC

[BostonCard]

The biggest improvements from last year to this year are Belibi, Brink, Lacie Hull, and Jump.  For some of our other players, the improvement is perhaps a bit more incremental.  But, put it together, and I think this years team is probably approaching last year’s team.

BC

[81alum]

A few weeks ago I would have said that we were edging close but not yet up to last year's levels.  Brink's improvement has been dramatic and replaced a lot of the offense we lost with Williams' graduation and that is the most significant positive change.

But Anna Wilson's dramatic improvement offensively in the last couple of weeks does make me think that we are now better than we were.   Last summer I said that we could repeat if Anna Wilson came back and if her offense developed, and she did and now it has.  I'm eager for rematches with any or all teams that previously beat us this year.  None of those losses were by very much, and we are dramatically improved since them.

However, a lot depends on whether, in the first quarter of any game, we get a few three point shots to go down.  There is a certain level of luck in that.  When a few go in it loosens the defense for the rest of the game.  When they don't we have to bludgeon our way to victory with defense--and those are the close, low scoring games.  With potentially six games left to play, I just hope that a couple of our players are hot from three point range in each game. 

Getting back to the thread topic.  I do think we should be the 1 overall based on our record in the second half vs South Carolina's record in the second half.  We are undefeated and they have lost twice.  But head to head does favor them.  Fortunately, it won't matter.

[81alum]

A few weeks ago I would have said that we were edging close but not yet up to last year's levels.  Brink's improvement has been dramatic and replaced a lot of the offense we lost with Williams' graduation and that is the most significant positive change.

But Anna Wilson's dramatic improvement offensively in the last couple of weeks does make me think that we are now better than we were.   Last summer I said that we could repeat if Anna Wilson came back and if her offense developed, and she did and now it has.  I'm eager for rematches with any or all teams that previously beat us this year.  None of those losses were by very much, and we are dramatically improved since them.

However, a lot depends on whether, in the first quarter of any game, we get a few three point shots to go down.  There is a certain level of luck in that.  When a few go in it loosens the defense for the rest of the game.  When they don't we have to bludgeon our way to victory with defense--and those are the close, low scoring games.  With potentially six games left to play, I just hope that a couple of our players are hot from three point range in each game. 

Getting back to the thread topic.  I do think we should be the 1 overall based on our record in the second half vs South Carolina's record in the second half.  We are undefeated and they have lost twice.  But head to head does favor them.  Fortunately, it won't matter.

[TheWildJacko]

Stanford vs. South Carolina Comparison

Team	Overall Record	vs. NET Top 5	vs. NET Top 10	vs. NET Top 30	vs. NET Top 50	vs. NET Top 100	Overall Losses	Sub-50 Losses	Head-to-Head	Win Streak
Stanford	28-3	0-1	0-2	14-2	16-3	25-3	3	0	0-1	20
South Carolina	29-2	3-0	4-0	14-0	18-2	26-2	2	0	1-0	0

Based on this I'd have to say South Carolina still deserves the #1 overall seed, but we clearly deserve the #2 overall and the top seed in Spokane.

[TheWildJacko]

Stanford vs. South Carolina Comparison

Team	Overall Record	vs. NET Top 5	vs. NET Top 10	vs. NET Top 30	vs. NET Top 50	vs. NET Top 100	Overall Losses	Sub-50 Losses	Head-to-Head	Win Streak
Stanford	28-3	0-1	0-2	14-2	16-3	25-3	3	0	0-1	20
South Carolina	29-2	3-0	4-0	14-0	18-2	26-2	2	0	1-0	0

Based on this I'd have to say South Carolina still deserves the #1 overall seed, but we clearly deserve the #2 overall and the top seed in Spokane.

[teejers1]

A few weeks ago I would have said that we were edging close but not yet up to last year's levels.  Brink's improvement has been dramatic and replaced a lot of the offense we lost with Williams' graduation and that is the most significant positive change.

But Anna Wilson's dramatic improvement offensively in the last couple of weeks does make me think that we are now better than we were.   Last summer I said that we could repeat if Anna Wilson came back and if her offense developed, and she did and now it has.  I'm eager for rematches with any or all teams that previously beat us this year.  None of those losses were by very much, and we are dramatically improved since them.

However, a lot depends on whether, in the first quarter of any game, we get a few three point shots to go down.  There is a certain level of luck in that.  When a few go in it loosens the defense for the rest of the game.  When they don't we have to bludgeon our way to victory with defense--and those are the close, low scoring games.  With potentially six games left to play, I just hope that a couple of our players are hot from three point range in each game. 

Getting back to the thread topic.  I do think we should be the 1 overall based on our record in the second half vs South Carolina's record in the second half.  We are undefeated and they have lost twice.  But head to head does favor them.  Fortunately, it won't matter.

We'll see how Stanford fares against teams with elite guards who can cause turnovers ==> easy buckets in transition.  Those are killer.  I don't think we're able to gauge how Stanford will fare in that situation until we see it.

Last year, Stanford did just enough to eke out a championship - two one-point Ws in the FF is the definition of "eke out."
Also, last year, Stanford enjoyed some good fortune.  Missed bunny in semis the #1 bit of luck; and I don't know how you characterize Prechtel saving the team's bacon in the Elite 8 game, but Stanford was lucky (a) she was on the roster, (b) coach put her in, and © she rained some big 3s.  It may take another unexpected contribution to get Stanford to the mountaintop this season, too.

Long way of saying:  it's hard to say with any certainty whether this team is better, the same, or worse than last year's version.  I mean, it's possible Stanford is better and still doesn't win the championship.  [Could healthy UCONN firing on all cylinders just be too much?].

Could Stanford be worse and still win a championship?  I don't know, but that strikes me as less likely, given the good fortune we had last season.

I will say this: IF Stanford cuts down the nets, and does so without ultra thing margins, then there will be a strong case for this team being better.

[teejers1]

A few weeks ago I would have said that we were edging close but not yet up to last year's levels.  Brink's improvement has been dramatic and replaced a lot of the offense we lost with Williams' graduation and that is the most significant positive change.

But Anna Wilson's dramatic improvement offensively in the last couple of weeks does make me think that we are now better than we were.   Last summer I said that we could repeat if Anna Wilson came back and if her offense developed, and she did and now it has.  I'm eager for rematches with any or all teams that previously beat us this year.  None of those losses were by very much, and we are dramatically improved since them.

However, a lot depends on whether, in the first quarter of any game, we get a few three point shots to go down.  There is a certain level of luck in that.  When a few go in it loosens the defense for the rest of the game.  When they don't we have to bludgeon our way to victory with defense--and those are the close, low scoring games.  With potentially six games left to play, I just hope that a couple of our players are hot from three point range in each game. 

Getting back to the thread topic.  I do think we should be the 1 overall based on our record in the second half vs South Carolina's record in the second half.  We are undefeated and they have lost twice.  But head to head does favor them.  Fortunately, it won't matter.

We'll see how Stanford fares against teams with elite guards who can cause turnovers ==> easy buckets in transition.  Those are killer.  I don't think we're able to gauge how Stanford will fare in that situation until we see it.

Last year, Stanford did just enough to eke out a championship - two one-point Ws in the FF is the definition of "eke out."
Also, last year, Stanford enjoyed some good fortune.  Missed bunny in semis the #1 bit of luck; and I don't know how you characterize Prechtel saving the team's bacon in the Elite 8 game, but Stanford was lucky (a) she was on the roster, (b) coach put her in, and © she rained some big 3s.  It may take another unexpected contribution to get Stanford to the mountaintop this season, too.

Long way of saying:  it's hard to say with any certainty whether this team is better, the same, or worse than last year's version.  I mean, it's possible Stanford is better and still doesn't win the championship.  [Could healthy UCONN firing on all cylinders just be too much?].

Could Stanford be worse and still win a championship?  I don't know, but that strikes me as less likely, given the good fortune we had last season.

I will say this: IF Stanford cuts down the nets, and does so without ultra thing margins, then there will be a strong case for this team being better.

[CompSci87]

AP voters were impressed with Stanford and with South Carolina's loss. Although SC is still #1, they went from having all 30 first place votes to only 17. Stanford got 11 first place votes and NC State 2.

https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-womens-...tball-poll

[CompSci87]

AP voters were impressed with Stanford and with South Carolina's loss. Although SC is still #1, they went from having all 30 first place votes to only 17. Stanford got 11 first place votes and NC State 2.

https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-womens-...tball-poll

[TheWildJacko]

Nice!

As to whether Stanford is better this year or last, hard to say. Our overall stats seem to slightly down compared to last year, and our record is slightly worse. But, consider the following:

Last season we played 33 games total, including the NCAA's. This season we've already played 31. So we've had one more loss but also 4 more games in the same period. Subtract the NCAA's from last season's record and we played 27 games. Of those, only 3 were OOC matches; those opponents were Cal Poly, UNLV and Pacific. So we had 24 conference games (including the Pac-12 tournament). The Pac-12 was very strong last year but we didn't play the type of grueling non-conference schedule that Tara usually lines up, and that we faced this year. This year, OOC teams we played included:

Team	NET Ranking
South Carolina	1
Texas	8
Maryland	14
Indiana	15
Tennessee	17
Gonzaga (2x)	27
South Florida	40

Not to mention adjusting to losing our starting point guard to graduation. I suspect (and this is probably not a stretch to imagine) that if you look at our stats from our current win streak, they will be better than our overall season stats, and maybe close to last year's overall stats. Although I do realize that to really do the comparison justice we'd need to remove last year's NCAA stats from the conversation.

ETA: A quick examination of scoring stats reveals we’re doing about the same during our streak than overall. But I just feel this team at its best is better than last year’s squad. Cam is just completely dominant when she’s on her game; both she and Haley are hitting 3’s more often lately. Our passing looks better, so many different players can step up and take over the game, and our defense is on another level. The real question is, can the best version of this team show up for the next 6 games?

[TheWildJacko]

Nice!

As to whether Stanford is better this year or last, hard to say. Our overall stats seem to slightly down compared to last year, and our record is slightly worse. But, consider the following:

Last season we played 33 games total, including the NCAA's. This season we've already played 31. So we've had one more loss but also 4 more games in the same period. Subtract the NCAA's from last season's record and we played 27 games. Of those, only 3 were OOC matches; those opponents were Cal Poly, UNLV and Pacific. So we had 24 conference games (including the Pac-12 tournament). The Pac-12 was very strong last year but we didn't play the type of grueling non-conference schedule that Tara usually lines up, and that we faced this year. This year, OOC teams we played included:

Team	NET Ranking
South Carolina	1
Texas	8
Maryland	14
Indiana	15
Tennessee	17
Gonzaga (2x)	27
South Florida	40

Not to mention adjusting to losing our starting point guard to graduation. I suspect (and this is probably not a stretch to imagine) that if you look at our stats from our current win streak, they will be better than our overall season stats, and maybe close to last year's overall stats. Although I do realize that to really do the comparison justice we'd need to remove last year's NCAA stats from the conversation.

ETA: A quick examination of scoring stats reveals we’re doing about the same during our streak than overall. But I just feel this team at its best is better than last year’s squad. Cam is just completely dominant when she’s on her game; both she and Haley are hitting 3’s more often lately. Our passing looks better, so many different players can step up and take over the game, and our defense is on another level. The real question is, can the best version of this team show up for the next 6 games?

[BostonCard]

Teejers, I don’t know how you can attribute Prechtel’s position on the roster and Tara’s decision to insert her into the game as “luck”. In fact, I consider that the opposite of luck; it is intrinsic to what made Stanford into the team we were. By the same token, we were “unlucky” to have lost Carrington, even though whatever the reason for her departure, it wasn’t due to a coin flip on her part; the fact was that she wasn’t on the team and it wasn’t a random event.

“Luck” implies circumstances beyond the team’s control (for example, a star player on the opponent’s team being out due to COVID). Depth, coaching decisions, and player performance are within our control so I don’t think it qualifies as luck.

BC

[BostonCard]

Teejers, I don’t know how you can attribute Prechtel’s position on the roster and Tara’s decision to insert her into the game as “luck”. In fact, I consider that the opposite of luck; it is intrinsic to what made Stanford into the team we were. By the same token, we were “unlucky” to have lost Carrington, even though whatever the reason for her departure, it wasn’t due to a coin flip on her part; the fact was that she wasn’t on the team and it wasn’t a random event.

“Luck” implies circumstances beyond the team’s control (for example, a star player on the opponent’s team being out due to COVID). Depth, coaching decisions, and player performance are within our control so I don’t think it qualifies as luck.

BC

[teejers1]

Teejers, I don’t know how you can attribute Prechtel’s position on the roster and Tara’s decision to insert her into the game as “luck”. In fact, I consider that the opposite of luck; it is intrinsic to what made Stanford into the team we were. By the same token, we were “unlucky” to have lost Carrington, even though whatever the reason for her departure, it wasn’t due to a coin flip on her part; the fact was that she wasn’t on the team and it wasn’t a random event.

“Luck” implies circumstances beyond the team’s control (for example, a star player on the opponent’s team being out due to COVID). Depth, coaching decisions, and player performance are within our control so I don’t think it qualifies as luck.

BC

I don't want to get into verboten topics to the sensitive administrators here, so I'll leave part of the rationale for why I think Stanford was lucky for another time and place.

But putting that aside, do you consider Prechtel getting hot from long range lucky for Stanford in the Elite 8 game?  If so, I'm fine abandoning (a) and (b) as it does not undermine the point.  If you don't consider that lucky or fortunate or what have you, well . . . I disagree.

I mean, it's hard for me to fathom how an opponent missing a bunny at the buzzer in a the semifinal game constitutes "luck" for Stanford, while Prechtel going off from long range in Elite 8 does not constitute good luck.  (Both strike me as unlikely occurrences in a hoops game).

[teejers1]

Teejers, I don’t know how you can attribute Prechtel’s position on the roster and Tara’s decision to insert her into the game as “luck”. In fact, I consider that the opposite of luck; it is intrinsic to what made Stanford into the team we were. By the same token, we were “unlucky” to have lost Carrington, even though whatever the reason for her departure, it wasn’t due to a coin flip on her part; the fact was that she wasn’t on the team and it wasn’t a random event.

“Luck” implies circumstances beyond the team’s control (for example, a star player on the opponent’s team being out due to COVID). Depth, coaching decisions, and player performance are within our control so I don’t think it qualifies as luck.

BC

I don't want to get into verboten topics to the sensitive administrators here, so I'll leave part of the rationale for why I think Stanford was lucky for another time and place.

But putting that aside, do you consider Prechtel getting hot from long range lucky for Stanford in the Elite 8 game?  If so, I'm fine abandoning (a) and (b) as it does not undermine the point.  If you don't consider that lucky or fortunate or what have you, well . . . I disagree.

I mean, it's hard for me to fathom how an opponent missing a bunny at the buzzer in a the semifinal game constitutes "luck" for Stanford, while Prechtel going off from long range in Elite 8 does not constitute good luck.  (Both strike me as unlikely occurrences in a hoops game).

[TheWildJacko]

I think Prechtel going off for 3 was unexpected but not lucky. We just hadn't seen her do that in a big game situation yet (although she had gone 3-3 from outside before, vs. WSU earlier in the season, and she hit 2 3's in our S16 game too). But this season has proven that game wasn't a fluke.

Consider the TN game this year: TN cut the lead to 4 with 8:23 left. Ashten hit 3 consecutive 3's over the next 2:13 to bring the lead back to 11l, then hit a layup 2 min later right after TN had scored again. 11 points in 4 min, and TN never got closer than 6 the rest of the game.

Or the game at Colorado: Down 5 midway through Q3, Prechtel subs in and immediately hits a jumper. Jones scores, CU this a 3, then Prechtel hits another jumper to bring the game within 2. We tie it and then Prechtel gets a steal to maintain possession at the end of the quarter. In Q4, Prechtel continues scoring as CU tries to keep it close, hitting 2 3's in the first 5 min. to extend the lead. Her scoring is down this season, but she does particularly well in high-pressure situations where we really need someone to step up and score.

[TheWildJacko]

I think Prechtel going off for 3 was unexpected but not lucky. We just hadn't seen her do that in a big game situation yet (although she had gone 3-3 from outside before, vs. WSU earlier in the season, and she hit 2 3's in our S16 game too). But this season has proven that game wasn't a fluke.

Consider the TN game this year: TN cut the lead to 4 with 8:23 left. Ashten hit 3 consecutive 3's over the next 2:13 to bring the lead back to 11l, then hit a layup 2 min later right after TN had scored again. 11 points in 4 min, and TN never got closer than 6 the rest of the game.

Or the game at Colorado: Down 5 midway through Q3, Prechtel subs in and immediately hits a jumper. Jones scores, CU this a 3, then Prechtel hits another jumper to bring the game within 2. We tie it and then Prechtel gets a steal to maintain possession at the end of the quarter. In Q4, Prechtel continues scoring as CU tries to keep it close, hitting 2 3's in the first 5 min. to extend the lead. Her scoring is down this season, but she does particularly well in high-pressure situations where we really need someone to step up and score.

[Goose]

Gary Player famously said "I get luckier the more I practice". A great performance by any athlete is always a combination of being at the right place at the right time and having the skill level to take advantage of it. You can't separate the two things. Prechtel could have got food poisoning the night before and not played at all. She didn't. That was luck. Every game and every sports season has events that one could argue were improbable. Yet they happen. In many cases, people argue that "If you played that game over 100 times, team A would win 99 of them". That may be true, but is unknowable. The "real" result is all that matters. As somebody on this board said recently, "history has no subjunctive".

[Goose]

Gary Player famously said "I get luckier the more I practice". A great performance by any athlete is always a combination of being at the right place at the right time and having the skill level to take advantage of it. You can't separate the two things. Prechtel could have got food poisoning the night before and not played at all. She didn't. That was luck. Every game and every sports season has events that one could argue were improbable. Yet they happen. In many cases, people argue that "If you played that game over 100 times, team A would win 99 of them". That may be true, but is unknowable. The "real" result is all that matters. As somebody on this board said recently, "history has no subjunctive".

[chimera]

I don't really get the lucky thing.  Players shoot, sometimes the ball goes in and sometimes not, because shooting skill is imperfect and difficult under many game conditions.  How many bunnies do we see missed in games by all teams?  Lots and lots.  We moan about that all the time and every other fan base does too.  So is an opponent missing a bunny under pressure at the horn lucky?  In the sense that it could have gone in, I guess so, but in the grand scheme, not really - missing bunnies is relatively common.  In almost all very close games you could say luck determined the outcome and not be really wrong.  Just not a lens I choose to see games through.  

Are we better than last year? Last year was a very odd year and we did not play the big, difficult non-conference schedule that we usually play.  Brink is probably better with a year of experience and she is a major piece.  Belibi is definitely improved.  Jump is improved, even with a bit of a slump lately that I am confident she will break out of soon.  We are even deeper inside with Iriafen in the mix.  The key to better or not is what do we think about our guard play without Williams.

At the beginning of the season I did not think we could play Wilson and Lacie together much because they don't score enough.  Now they are our starting backcourt and it works fine.  Having both Hulls and Wilson in the starting line-up surely helps our perimeter defense, so that is better perhaps.  Lacie is a good three point shooter even though she doesn't take that many.  She does need to be guarded out there.  Wilson has upped her offense lately too.  She tends to assert herself on offense when needed, as does Lacie.  Both are taking good care of the ball.  So starting those two helps the defense and doesn't hurt the offense much, seems to me.  We may lose a point or two off the scoring average, but if we crush with defense, that is not a big deal.  I'm not sure we are better, but I'm also not sure we aren't.

A lot of it will be match-ups.  I don't think physical teams will be a big problem, not after playing the conference teams that play that way.  Nor do I think a pressure defense that really works hard full court like Texas is necessarily a big problem.  Teams haven't been turning us over that much lately.  When we turn the ball over it is usually overly ambitious passes, offensive fouls, a brain fart here and there, stuff we can control.  In a single elimination tournament you can get beat by a team that is very hot shooting if you have your own bad shooting day.  That could happen.  If the defense is good enough, we can hope the team can pull through even in an ugly game.

[chimera]

I don't really get the lucky thing.  Players shoot, sometimes the ball goes in and sometimes not, because shooting skill is imperfect and difficult under many game conditions.  How many bunnies do we see missed in games by all teams?  Lots and lots.  We moan about that all the time and every other fan base does too.  So is an opponent missing a bunny under pressure at the horn lucky?  In the sense that it could have gone in, I guess so, but in the grand scheme, not really - missing bunnies is relatively common.  In almost all very close games you could say luck determined the outcome and not be really wrong.  Just not a lens I choose to see games through.  

Are we better than last year? Last year was a very odd year and we did not play the big, difficult non-conference schedule that we usually play.  Brink is probably better with a year of experience and she is a major piece.  Belibi is definitely improved.  Jump is improved, even with a bit of a slump lately that I am confident she will break out of soon.  We are even deeper inside with Iriafen in the mix.  The key to better or not is what do we think about our guard play without Williams.

At the beginning of the season I did not think we could play Wilson and Lacie together much because they don't score enough.  Now they are our starting backcourt and it works fine.  Having both Hulls and Wilson in the starting line-up surely helps our perimeter defense, so that is better perhaps.  Lacie is a good three point shooter even though she doesn't take that many.  She does need to be guarded out there.  Wilson has upped her offense lately too.  She tends to assert herself on offense when needed, as does Lacie.  Both are taking good care of the ball.  So starting those two helps the defense and doesn't hurt the offense much, seems to me.  We may lose a point or two off the scoring average, but if we crush with defense, that is not a big deal.  I'm not sure we are better, but I'm also not sure we aren't.

A lot of it will be match-ups.  I don't think physical teams will be a big problem, not after playing the conference teams that play that way.  Nor do I think a pressure defense that really works hard full court like Texas is necessarily a big problem.  Teams haven't been turning us over that much lately.  When we turn the ball over it is usually overly ambitious passes, offensive fouls, a brain fart here and there, stuff we can control.  In a single elimination tournament you can get beat by a team that is very hot shooting if you have your own bad shooting day.  That could happen.  If the defense is good enough, we can hope the team can pull through even in an ugly game.

[81alum]

I used the term "luck" to partly apply to three point shooting in the first quarter. 

When the very most skillful three point shooters make less than 50% of their shots, and when they only have the opportunity to attempt appx. 6-8 in a game, the order of their makes could be considered more or less random or "lucky."  If their makes come early they have a greater impact on the defense for a longer time than if their makes come late. 

But of course in another sense, no miss is unlucky unless there is an earthquake that moves the rim after the shot is off.  Pure skill.

Just a matter of perspective.

At the beginning of the year I think it was Coach Katy who said we could repeat if we did three things: 1) kept improving, 2) stay healthy, 3) get a little bit lucky.  I think the coaches know that our natty involved some luck mixed in with all the hard work, discipline, and skill.

With regard to Prechtel--the game against Louisville was not the only game she has saved for us before.  She made a layup against Colorado the prior year on a long pass from Lacie that got us to overtime.  It does seem as if her abilities increase under pressure.  Perhaps Tara recognized that about her.  I think of her as our "stopper."

[81alum]

I used the term "luck" to partly apply to three point shooting in the first quarter. 

When the very most skillful three point shooters make less than 50% of their shots, and when they only have the opportunity to attempt appx. 6-8 in a game, the order of their makes could be considered more or less random or "lucky."  If their makes come early they have a greater impact on the defense for a longer time than if their makes come late. 

But of course in another sense, no miss is unlucky unless there is an earthquake that moves the rim after the shot is off.  Pure skill.

Just a matter of perspective.

At the beginning of the year I think it was Coach Katy who said we could repeat if we did three things: 1) kept improving, 2) stay healthy, 3) get a little bit lucky.  I think the coaches know that our natty involved some luck mixed in with all the hard work, discipline, and skill.

With regard to Prechtel--the game against Louisville was not the only game she has saved for us before.  She made a layup against Colorado the prior year on a long pass from Lacie that got us to overtime.  It does seem as if her abilities increase under pressure.  Perhaps Tara recognized that about her.  I think of her as our "stopper."

[bl82]

The biggest determinant of our "luck" this year will be how many ticky-tack fouls get called on Cam and how much time she spends on the bench in Q1 and Q2 as a result of these fouls.

[bl82]

The biggest determinant of our "luck" this year will be how many ticky-tack fouls get called on Cam and how much time she spends on the bench in Q1 and Q2 as a result of these fouls.