[mbdude]

pitt 25 Stanford 17
only 1 kill fir Rubin in 1st set

[mbdude]

pitt 25 Stanford 17
only 1 kill fir Rubin in 1st set

[CompSci87]

I tuned in late, watched a little, couldn't bear to watch any more. Pitt is at a whole different level than Stanford at this point.

[CompSci87]

I tuned in late, watched a little, couldn't bear to watch any more. Pitt is at a whole different level than Stanford at this point.

[TonyLima]

Jetlag. Stanford‘s timing is off by just a little bit. For better or worse, if we play these folks again it’ll probably be on their court.

[TonyLima]

Jetlag. Stanford‘s timing is off by just a little bit. For better or worse, if we play these folks again it’ll probably be on their court.

[Card10Fan]

Jetlag. Stanford‘s timing is off by just a little bit. For better or worse, if we play these folks again it’ll probably be on their court.

No not jet lag solely. Similar to the loses vs Nebraska and Louisville. We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there, poor blocking, no fight. Nebraska and Pitt look way better than everyone else. 

We are 16 games into the season. Does anyone feel like we are noticeable improved from early on? Have any of our weaknesses improved?

[Card10Fan]

Jetlag. Stanford‘s timing is off by just a little bit. For better or worse, if we play these folks again it’ll probably be on their court.

No not jet lag solely. Similar to the loses vs Nebraska and Louisville. We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there, poor blocking, no fight. Nebraska and Pitt look way better than everyone else. 

We are 16 games into the season. Does anyone feel like we are noticeable improved from early on? Have any of our weaknesses improved?

[TonyLima]

Jetlag. Stanford‘s timing is off by just a little bit. For better or worse, if we play these folks again it’ll probably be on their court.

No not jet lag solely. Similar to the loses vs Nebraska and Louisville. We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there, poor blocking, no fight. Nebraska and Pitt look way better than everyone else. 

We are 16 games into the season. Does anyone feel like we are noticeable improved from early on? Have any of our weaknesses improved?

Lizzie Andrew getting more involved in the middle.

[TonyLima]

Jetlag. Stanford‘s timing is off by just a little bit. For better or worse, if we play these folks again it’ll probably be on their court.

No not jet lag solely. Similar to the loses vs Nebraska and Louisville. We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there, poor blocking, no fight. Nebraska and Pitt look way better than everyone else. 

We are 16 games into the season. Does anyone feel like we are noticeable improved from early on? Have any of our weaknesses improved?

Lizzie Andrew getting more involved in the middle.

[mbdude]

stanford hit .090 for match. we look smaller and slower

[mbdude]

stanford hit .090 for match. we look smaller and slower

[martyup]

I saw Pitt play earlier in the Season and thought they looked crazy good.  I was surprised they dropped a match to SMU.

[martyup]

I saw Pitt play earlier in the Season and thought they looked crazy good.  I was surprised they dropped a match to SMU.

[mbdude]

they hit .448, as marty said crazy good

[mbdude]

they hit .448, as marty said crazy good

[Farm93]

I saw Pitt play earlier in the Season and thought they looked crazy good.  I was surprised they dropped a match to SMU.

As a crazy good team they likely overlooked SMU.   It happens.

No way they would do anything like that against Stanford.
Pitt was going to be ready for Stanford.

It unfolded pretty much as one might have expected.   There is a big, big gap between Pitt and the others.   Lots can happen between now and late December, but a healthy, confident and focused Pitt squad will be very tough for others to beat.

[Farm93]

I saw Pitt play earlier in the Season and thought they looked crazy good.  I was surprised they dropped a match to SMU.

As a crazy good team they likely overlooked SMU.   It happens.

No way they would do anything like that against Stanford.
Pitt was going to be ready for Stanford.

It unfolded pretty much as one might have expected.   There is a big, big gap between Pitt and the others.   Lots can happen between now and late December, but a healthy, confident and focused Pitt squad will be very tough for others to beat.

[joemontes]

I saw Pitt play earlier in the Season and thought they looked crazy good.  I was surprised they dropped a match to SMU.

As a crazy good team they likely overlooked SMU.   It happens.

No way they would do anything like that against Stanford.
Pitt was going to be ready for Stanford.

It unfolded pretty much as one might have expected.   There is a big, big gap between Pitt and the others.   Lots can happen between now and late December, but a healthy, confident and focused Pitt squad will be very tough for others to beat.

So Stanford got masterfully THUMPED by 3 of the most likely NCAA regional 1-seeds.

At this point, I think that they will be an NCAA regional 2-seed  unless they run the table 
of their remaining ACC schedule (including a must-win over Louisville) and
Louisville loses both of their matches vs Pitt.

To begin with, I didn't think that Stanford would be a Final 4 team this season anyway,
so I'm not really disappointed with what they've done so far.

[joemontes]

I saw Pitt play earlier in the Season and thought they looked crazy good.  I was surprised they dropped a match to SMU.

As a crazy good team they likely overlooked SMU.   It happens.

No way they would do anything like that against Stanford.
Pitt was going to be ready for Stanford.

It unfolded pretty much as one might have expected.   There is a big, big gap between Pitt and the others.   Lots can happen between now and late December, but a healthy, confident and focused Pitt squad will be very tough for others to beat.

So Stanford got masterfully THUMPED by 3 of the most likely NCAA regional 1-seeds.

At this point, I think that they will be an NCAA regional 2-seed  unless they run the table 
of their remaining ACC schedule (including a must-win over Louisville) and
Louisville loses both of their matches vs Pitt.

To begin with, I didn't think that Stanford would be a Final 4 team this season anyway,
so I'm not really disappointed with what they've done so far.

[M T]

Jetlag. Stanford‘s timing is off by just a little bit. For better or worse, if we play these folks again it’ll probably be on their court.

No not jet lag solely. Similar to the loses vs Nebraska and Louisville. We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there, poor blocking, no fight. Nebraska and Pitt look way better than everyone else.

I agree with the "solely' modifier.  But all Stanford's losses are 2 or more time zones east from home..  Nebraska's and Louisville's losses were also away games.  (I think Pitt would have beaten Stanford if the match had been played at Stanford, but we don't get to test that... too bad.)

If two teams are equal, I believe the home team has an advantage, and even more so when they are in different time zones.

I do NOT agree with "We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there"  Perhaps you're reflecting your mood (see your use of "we"), but, for whatever reason, you are insulting the team.   You are saying it in a public forum, so you are saying that to them. Is that what you intend?

I saw the best team Stanford has played this year beat Stanford.  One player's serve hurt Stanford, but more importantly, Stanford didn't do well against the Pitt blocks.  A learning experience, I hope.   I also thought Stanford's serves were not as effective as in previous matches, but that could be the quality of the opponent.   Stanford's SO% was a lowly 53.4%.

[M T]

Jetlag. Stanford‘s timing is off by just a little bit. For better or worse, if we play these folks again it’ll probably be on their court.

No not jet lag solely. Similar to the loses vs Nebraska and Louisville. We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there, poor blocking, no fight. Nebraska and Pitt look way better than everyone else.

I agree with the "solely' modifier.  But all Stanford's losses are 2 or more time zones east from home..  Nebraska's and Louisville's losses were also away games.  (I think Pitt would have beaten Stanford if the match had been played at Stanford, but we don't get to test that... too bad.)

If two teams are equal, I believe the home team has an advantage, and even more so when they are in different time zones.

I do NOT agree with "We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there"  Perhaps you're reflecting your mood (see your use of "we"), but, for whatever reason, you are insulting the team.   You are saying it in a public forum, so you are saying that to them. Is that what you intend?

I saw the best team Stanford has played this year beat Stanford.  One player's serve hurt Stanford, but more importantly, Stanford didn't do well against the Pitt blocks.  A learning experience, I hope.   I also thought Stanford's serves were not as effective as in previous matches, but that could be the quality of the opponent.   Stanford's SO% was a lowly 53.4%.

[paloalto]

Jetlag. Stanford‘s timing is off by just a little bit. For better or worse, if we play these folks again it’ll probably be on their court.

No not jet lag solely. Similar to the loses vs Nebraska and Louisville. We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there, poor blocking, no fight. Nebraska and Pitt look way better than everyone else.

I do NOT agree with "We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there"  Perhaps you're reflecting your mood (see your use of "we"), but, for whatever reason, you are insulting the team.   You are saying it in a public forum, so you are saying that to them. Is that what you intend?

It's a form of criticizing a team not playing well.  I've heard similar phraseology from TV sports announcers.

For years there has been criticism, sometimes extremely harsh criticism, on football threads of Stanford players and coaches. Why are you not outraged by these "public insults" as you describe it?

Also I guarantee 20 year old wvb players  are not coming here to see what a few 70 year guys who know little to nothing about volleyball are posting.

[paloalto]

Jetlag. Stanford‘s timing is off by just a little bit. For better or worse, if we play these folks again it’ll probably be on their court.

No not jet lag solely. Similar to the loses vs Nebraska and Louisville. We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there, poor blocking, no fight. Nebraska and Pitt look way better than everyone else.

I do NOT agree with "We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there"  Perhaps you're reflecting your mood (see your use of "we"), but, for whatever reason, you are insulting the team.   You are saying it in a public forum, so you are saying that to them. Is that what you intend?

It's a form of criticizing a team not playing well.  I've heard similar phraseology from TV sports announcers.

For years there has been criticism, sometimes extremely harsh criticism, on football threads of Stanford players and coaches. Why are you not outraged by these "public insults" as you describe it?

Also I guarantee 20 year old wvb players  are not coming here to see what a few 70 year guys who know little to nothing about volleyball are posting.

[SkiBum80]

Jetlag. Stanford‘s timing is off by just a little bit. For better or worse, if we play these folks again it’ll probably be on their court.

No not jet lag solely. Similar to the loses vs Nebraska and Louisville. We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there, poor blocking, no fight. Nebraska and Pitt look way better than everyone else.

I do NOT agree with "We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there"  Perhaps you're reflecting your mood (see your use of "we"), but, for whatever reason, you are insulting the team.   You are saying it in a public forum, so you are saying that to them. Is that what you intend?

It's a form of criticizing a team not playing well.  I've heard similar phraseology from TV sports announcers.

For years there has been criticism, sometimes extremely harsh criticism, on football threads of Stanford players and coaches. Why are you not outraged by these "public insults" as you describe it?

Also I guarantee 20 year old wvb players  are not coming here to see what a few 70 year guys who know little to nothing about volleyball are posting.

Just for clarification, some of us are still in 60's
And if we moved this forum to tiktok and threw in a funny dog or cat trick we might maybe get one or two players to glance at it

[SkiBum80]

Jetlag. Stanford‘s timing is off by just a little bit. For better or worse, if we play these folks again it’ll probably be on their court.

No not jet lag solely. Similar to the loses vs Nebraska and Louisville. We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there, poor blocking, no fight. Nebraska and Pitt look way better than everyone else.

I do NOT agree with "We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there"  Perhaps you're reflecting your mood (see your use of "we"), but, for whatever reason, you are insulting the team.   You are saying it in a public forum, so you are saying that to them. Is that what you intend?

It's a form of criticizing a team not playing well.  I've heard similar phraseology from TV sports announcers.

For years there has been criticism, sometimes extremely harsh criticism, on football threads of Stanford players and coaches. Why are you not outraged by these "public insults" as you describe it?

Also I guarantee 20 year old wvb players  are not coming here to see what a few 70 year guys who know little to nothing about volleyball are posting.

Just for clarification, some of us are still in 60's
And if we moved this forum to tiktok and threw in a funny dog or cat trick we might maybe get one or two players to glance at it

[M T]

For years there has been criticism, sometimes extremely harsh criticism, on football threads of Stanford players and coaches. Why are you not outraged by these "public insults" as you describe it?

I avoid football threads. 

I can understand "He's too short" or "She's too slow" criticisms.  But to criticize a team's loss to #1 by saying they checked out and don't want to be there seems unsubstantiated and in poor taste.  If someone wants to sit with Cal and say those kinds of things about Stanford players, enjoy the company. Usually fans respect their team's players.

[M T]

For years there has been criticism, sometimes extremely harsh criticism, on football threads of Stanford players and coaches. Why are you not outraged by these "public insults" as you describe it?

I avoid football threads. 

I can understand "He's too short" or "She's too slow" criticisms.  But to criticize a team's loss to #1 by saying they checked out and don't want to be there seems unsubstantiated and in poor taste.  If someone wants to sit with Cal and say those kinds of things about Stanford players, enjoy the company. Usually fans respect their team's players.

[TonyLima]

Your occasional reminder.  The players are kids.  Their brains are not yet fully formed.  Please try to cut them some slack.

[TonyLima]

Your occasional reminder.  The players are kids.  Their brains are not yet fully formed.  Please try to cut them some slack.

[paloalto]

For years there has been criticism, sometimes extremely harsh criticism, on football threads of Stanford players and coaches. Why are you not outraged by these "public insults" as you describe it?

I avoid football threads. 

I can understand "He's too short" or "She's too slow" criticisms.  But to criticize a team's loss to #1 by saying they checked out and don't want to be there seems unsubstantiated and in poor taste.  If someone wants to sit with Cal and say those kinds of things about Stanford players, enjoy the company.  Usually fans respect their team's players.

So posting on a "public" forum a Stanford player is "too short" or "too slow" is respecting the player?

[paloalto]

For years there has been criticism, sometimes extremely harsh criticism, on football threads of Stanford players and coaches. Why are you not outraged by these "public insults" as you describe it?

I avoid football threads. 

I can understand "He's too short" or "She's too slow" criticisms.  But to criticize a team's loss to #1 by saying they checked out and don't want to be there seems unsubstantiated and in poor taste.  If someone wants to sit with Cal and say those kinds of things about Stanford players, enjoy the company.  Usually fans respect their team's players.

So posting on a "public" forum a Stanford player is "too short" or "too slow" is respecting the player?

[76lsjumb]

With all the statistics nerds on the Board, I'm surprised no one has pointed out the obvious reason we lost at Pitt.  Check out the service errors.  

For the season, we're averaging about 13 service errors per match [and had 22 (!) against SMU].  Against Pitt, we had ... four.  

Clearly, not enough service errors.

[76lsjumb]

With all the statistics nerds on the Board, I'm surprised no one has pointed out the obvious reason we lost at Pitt.  Check out the service errors.  

For the season, we're averaging about 13 service errors per match [and had 22 (!) against SMU].  Against Pitt, we had ... four.  

Clearly, not enough service errors.

[CompSci87]

With all the statistics nerds on the Board, I'm surprised no one has pointed out the obvious reason we lost at Pitt.  Check out the service errors.  

For the season, we're averaging about 13 service errors per match [and had 22 (!) against SMU].  Against Pitt, we had ... four.  

Clearly, not enough service errors.

Hehe. I saw the low service errors stat mid-match and wondered if we weren't serving tough enough.

[CompSci87]

With all the statistics nerds on the Board, I'm surprised no one has pointed out the obvious reason we lost at Pitt.  Check out the service errors.  

For the season, we're averaging about 13 service errors per match [and had 22 (!) against SMU].  Against Pitt, we had ... four.  

Clearly, not enough service errors.

Hehe. I saw the low service errors stat mid-match and wondered if we weren't serving tough enough.

[Jamesy]

Jetlag. Stanford‘s timing is off by just a little bit. For better or worse, if we play these folks again it’ll probably be on their court.

No not jet lag solely. Similar to the loses vs Nebraska and Louisville. We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there, poor blocking, no fight. Nebraska and Pitt look way better than everyone else.

I do NOT agree with "We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there"  Perhaps you're reflecting your mood (see your use of "we"), but, for whatever reason, you are insulting the team.   You are saying it in a public forum, so you are saying that to them. Is that what you intend?

It's a form of criticizing a team not playing well.  I've heard similar phraseology from TV sports announcers.

For years there has been criticism, sometimes extremely harsh criticism, on football threads of Stanford players and coaches. Why are you not outraged by these "public insults" as you describe it?

Also I guarantee 20 year old wvb players  are not coming here to see what a few 70 year guys who know little to nothing about volleyball are posting.

They're reading VT, which is 10x worse than the stuff said in this thread.

[Jamesy]

Jetlag. Stanford‘s timing is off by just a little bit. For better or worse, if we play these folks again it’ll probably be on their court.

No not jet lag solely. Similar to the loses vs Nebraska and Louisville. We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there, poor blocking, no fight. Nebraska and Pitt look way better than everyone else.

I do NOT agree with "We look like we are checked out and don’t want to be there"  Perhaps you're reflecting your mood (see your use of "we"), but, for whatever reason, you are insulting the team.   You are saying it in a public forum, so you are saying that to them. Is that what you intend?

It's a form of criticizing a team not playing well.  I've heard similar phraseology from TV sports announcers.

For years there has been criticism, sometimes extremely harsh criticism, on football threads of Stanford players and coaches. Why are you not outraged by these "public insults" as you describe it?

Also I guarantee 20 year old wvb players  are not coming here to see what a few 70 year guys who know little to nothing about volleyball are posting.

They're reading VT, which is 10x worse than the stuff said in this thread.

[Leftcoast]

I wasn’t offended by the “checked out” comment … I disagreed but that’s something completely different.

As criticism goes it was mild and I’m sure the coaches and players said worse in post game interviews.

This will become a pretty tedious and boring place if mild criticisms are self censored so let’s allow mild venting.  It shows we care and that’s something I’m sure the team appreciates!

[Leftcoast]

I wasn’t offended by the “checked out” comment … I disagreed but that’s something completely different.

As criticism goes it was mild and I’m sure the coaches and players said worse in post game interviews.

This will become a pretty tedious and boring place if mild criticisms are self censored so let’s allow mild venting.  It shows we care and that’s something I’m sure the team appreciates!