WBB: Stanford 62 UTSA 57 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 62 UTSA 57 (/thread-25352.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 62 UTSA 57 (/thread-25352.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford 62 UTSA 57 - crackpot - 12-16-2024
Just got home. I didn't intend to be this exhausted after a noon, weekday game.
The first half was bizarre. Prior to the game, the head ref (?) said something to the effect of "I'm hope to speed things up" to the scorekeeper. Not sure exactly what she had in mind, but apparently it means only calling offensive fouls and ignoring almost all of the shooting fouls (seriously we were fouled on like 90% of our attempts with no whistle). 2nd half they called more, but still, weird. If this is how the games are going to be called, we need to redo all of the game planning.
Second half I was thinking some UTSA player was trying to give a Stanford player the Heimlich Manuever, but apparently it was just worth a tied ball.
Yup, it was loud. I felt bad for some of the regular STM who arrived late. My seat neighbor was really frustrated because it too her 40 minutes to get into Maples because the kids were having a hard time going through security (as anyone who left through the northeast doors can attest--enough oranges and water bottles to stock a bodega). Still, it was nice to have some energy in the building. But games during the weekday is certainly unfair to those who purchased season tickets only to find out it's a day game.
Also, at the Behind-the-Bench, the Best Answer Award goes to Harper Peterson. When asked how the frosh can get more playing time, she replied, "We're working on that."
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UTSA; preview and game thread - 81alum - 12-16-2024
(12-16-2024, 05:02 PM)paloalto Wrote: .No injury that I know of.
Is she coming off an injury?
"conditioning"? With such an impressive resume it's hard to understand she's not in good condition coming to college. Or getting into condition working with the team for three months prior to the season. Maybe she's not ready for the speed of DI and coach was looking for a nice way to say it. Or maybe I don't know the meaning of conditioning as used here.
At chalk talks you have to read a little between the lines, since the coach talking to us knows that anything said there could get to the player and her family--and you want to coach the player privately and not publicly. But I seem to recall the issue was endurance. What I concluded from what was said--and others here who were in attendance can chime in--was that when Umeh got to campus she could not keep up with the team for more than short spurts, but the coach said that she had gotten much better.
Furthermore, while we have seen her do good things on offense, on the other end of the court she has been beaten by more agile players a few times. Good rebounding, maybe a block or two, but she may need to develop her other defensive skills. Again, from a chalk talk, we heard that she was used in one game for a possession or two just to see how she would do, and the defensive match up issue (I don't remember with who) caused her to come out of the game and stay out.
Basically, the coaches are bringing her along slowly. I worry a bit about that, but they know a lot more than we do and they have to gauge what will be best for the team and the development of the player. We don't know, for example, whether there might be a niggling injury of some sort. Next chalk talk we can ask the question directly.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UTSA; preview and game thread - jonnyss - 12-16-2024
(12-16-2024, 06:29 PM)81alum Wrote:(12-16-2024, 05:02 PM)paloalto Wrote: .No injury that I know of.
Is she coming off an injury?
"conditioning"? With such an impressive resume it's hard to understand she's not in good condition coming to college. Or getting into condition working with the team for three months prior to the season. Maybe she's not ready for the speed of DI and coach was looking for a nice way to say it. Or maybe I don't know the meaning of conditioning as used here.
At chalk talks you have to read a little between the lines, since the coach talking to us knows that anything said there could get to the player and her family--and you want to coach the player privately and not publicly. But I seem to recall the issue was endurance. What I concluded from what was said--and others here who were in attendance can chime in--was that when Umeh got to campus she could not keep up with the team for more than short spurts, but the coach said that she had gotten much better.
Furthermore, while we have seen her do good things on offense, on the other end of the court she has been beaten by more agile players a few times. Good rebounding, maybe a block or two, but she may need to develop her other defensive skills. Again, from a chalk talk, we heard that she was used in one game for a possession or two just to see how she would do, and the defensive match up issue (I don't remember with who) caused her to come out of the game and stay out.
Basically, the coaches are bringing her along slowly. I worry a bit about that, but they know a lot more than we do and they have to gauge what will be best for the team and the development of the player. We don't know, for example, whether there might be a niggling injury of some sort. Next chalk talk we can ask the question directly.
kennedy has played for 31 min over 7 games - 4 1/2 min per game played. imo conditioning is not the reason - at least not a good reason - why she doesn't come in the game earlier. so what if she can't run a brisk 2 miles! do we really need to punish her (and the team) for arriving without endurance? to my eyes, she's plenty fast running the floor - both on fast breaks and getting back on defense. i've never seen her panting, hands on knees - or running slow. anyway, if she tires after 5 minutes, take her out; put her back in later.
to my eye, she plays great under the basket. i suppose maybe she's not ready to follow her player around the court on d. but can't you design a defense that keeps a giant shot-blocker under the basket?
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UTSA; preview and game thread - CompSci87 - 12-16-2024
Quote:(12-16-2024, 03:54 PM)81alum Wrote: Why is Umeh not playing? The one chalk talk I was at when she was discussed, the coach noted that she was working very hard on her conditioning. I'm beginning to wonder if she will redshirt and save her eligibility for when she is in tip top shape. I have no basis for thinking that other than idle speculation.
Is she coming off an injury?
"conditioning"? With such an impressive resume it's hard to understand she's not in good condition coming to college. Or getting into condition working with the team for three months prior to the season. Maybe she's not ready for the speed of DI and coach was looking for a nice way to say it. Or maybe I don't know the meaning of conditioning as used here.
My impression is that she needed to build core strength and endurance. She's moving better now than she did earlier in the year, but may still have a ways to go. She also needs to work on free throw shooting and probably other skills. Just my impression from the limited amount of time I've seen her play and in warmups.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UTSA; preview and game thread - CompSci87 - 12-16-2024
(12-16-2024, 05:02 PM)paloalto Wrote:(12-16-2024, 04:14 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(12-16-2024, 02:59 PM)paloalto Wrote: Stanford time keeper helping out UTSA by not taking time off clock.
Once the time keeper made the initial mistake, some damage had been done, but the fair thing at that point is to minimize that damage. The best -- i.e., the most fair solution to the team with the ball -- would be to blow the whistle, stop play, make sure the clock is working properly [while the teams stay on the floor], reset it, and have UTSA take the ball in again with 13.5 seconds on the clock as if none of that had ever happened. Doing that means that neither team is helped OR hurt in terms of time.
I agree 100%. I don't know why the refs didn't do that. I assume there is a rule for resetting the clock and the refs followed it.
MT may look up the exact rule for us. I think I've seen the refs redo the original inbound if the clock doesn't start, but more often they take time off the clock and give the team the ball out of bounds at the place where they blew the whistle. Maybe it depends on how far the play went before they noticed the timing error.
It's hard to be fair to both teams when the clock fails to start and it's not noticed right away. If you start over, that negates the defense that was played on/after the original inbound. It also would negate whatever the offense accomplished in getting the ball inbounded and the ball and players into position. If instead you continue from the point of play stoppage, it also may negate what either the offense or defense accomplished: maybe the player with the ball was trapped, or conversely maybe she was about to get a wide open shot, etc.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UTSA; preview and game thread - Maple Leaf - 12-16-2024
(12-16-2024, 05:02 PM)paloalto Wrote:(12-16-2024, 04:14 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(12-16-2024, 02:59 PM)paloalto Wrote: Stanford time keeper helping out UTSA by not taking time off clock.
Once the time keeper made the initial mistake, some damage had been done, but the fair thing at that point is to minimize that damage. The best -- i.e., the most fair solution to the team with the ball -- would be to blow the whistle, stop play, make sure the clock is working properly [while the teams stay on the floor], reset it, and have UTSA take the ball in again with 13.5 seconds on the clock as if none of that had ever happened. Doing that means that neither team is helped OR hurt in terms of time.
I agree 100%. I don't know why the refs didn't do that. I assume there is a rule for resetting the clock and the refs followed it.
(12-16-2024, 03:54 PM)81alum Wrote: Why is Umeh not playing? The one chalk talk I was at when she was discussed, the coach noted that she was working very hard on her conditioning. I'm beginning to wonder if she will redshirt and save her eligibility for when she is in tip top shape. I have no basis for thinking that other than idle speculation.
Is she coming off an injury?
"conditioning"? With such an impressive resume it's hard to understand she's not in good condition coming to college. Or getting into condition working with the team for three months prior to the season. Maybe she's not ready for the speed of DI and coach was looking for a nice way to say it. Or maybe I don't know the meaning of conditioning as used here.
IIRC Umeh suffered a knee injury during her senior season in high school, the injury did not require surgery, but required that she rest the knee for an extended period of time.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UTSA; preview and game thread - crackpot - 12-16-2024
(12-16-2024, 07:17 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: MT may look up the exact rule for us. I think I've seen the refs redo the original inbound if the clock doesn't start, but more often they take time off the clock and give the team the ball out of bounds at the place where they blew the whistle. Maybe it depends on how far the play went before they noticed the timing error.
It's hard to be fair to both teams when the clock fails to start and it's not noticed right away. If you start over, that negates the defense that was played on/after the original inbound. It also would negate whatever the offense accomplished in getting the ball inbounded and the ball and players into position. If instead you continue from the point of play stoppage, it also may negate what either the offense or defense accomplished: maybe the player with the ball was trapped, or conversely maybe she was about to get a wide open shot, etc.
It did seem very unfair to UTSA. And the I-have-a-plane-to-catch ref just short of shrugged and said, "Ennh, let's say 10.6."
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UTSA; preview and game thread - 81alum - 12-16-2024
(12-16-2024, 07:26 PM)Maple Leaf Wrote: 0
IIRC Umeh suffered a knee injury during her senior season in high school, the injury did not require surgery, but required that she rest the knee for an extended period of time.
This makes a lot of sense.
And let me emphasize how much the chalk talk said that Umeh had worked very hard over the summer and fall to improve. And we did see that she was running the floor pretty darn well, although she was never in the game for extended periods of time. She sure seems to me as if she could help us a lot. And I do like the idea of 5 Umeh 4 Agara 3 Demetre.
But if it hasn't happened, and it seems like such a logical move, then there is probably a reason we do not know about. A wear-and-tear injury would be a plausible explanation.
RE: WBB: Stanford 62 UTSA 57 - BillBradley - 12-16-2024
(12-16-2024, 03:54 PM)81alum Wrote: ...Too much physicality absolutely destroys that offense. In contrast, offenses that depend upon one or more solo-artists with great physical skills can score even without assists and even in the midst of a bruise-a-thon. Offenses that depend upon timing (like the Princeton) are discombobulated by things that upset the timing.Spot on. We are a slow, plodding team that looks for opportunities in transition, but our bread and butter is this Princeton offense. Teams that bump us out of position and prevent us from setting good screens get us out of our rhythm. That said, we do have an advantage in that we are stronger and thicker than most teams. We don't have the crazy-quick, shifty athletes, but no one should push us around. IMO, we need to be the team that plays the more bruising style of game. Muck it up, slow it down, take the air out of the ball. The goal should be to turn any game into a shooting contest in half court sets. We will hit more threes than our opponents in that scenario and that would make us tough to beat. This was style of game at LSU, and we almost won it. The faster the pace, the worse it is for us (IMO).
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UTSA; preview and game thread - M T - 12-16-2024
(12-16-2024, 02:59 PM)paloalto Wrote: Stanford time keeper helping out UTSA by not taking time off clock.
No, that was an advantage for Stanford. UTSA had to bring it in with 10.9 on the clock instead of 13.5.
Yes, as PaloAlto surmised, this is per the rules, but you have to go to the case book. The official must stop play when he notices it, and he must put the correct time on the clock (with replay, the expired time is to be measured by a stopwatch (physical, or part of replay system)) and resume play. There is a specific statement that forbids the officials from restarting from the point that the timing error began (the throw-in).
As for the "Stanford time keeper", you will notice the device (about the size of a pager) usually on the back of the refs' belts. I believe that the refs start the clock with that device. I do not believe they normally stop the clock. I have not seen this device mentioned in the rules.
Specifically, for the throw-in at 13.5, you can see the ref by the inbounder (at the scorer's table), have one hand behind his back at the time of the throw in, and then he brings it forward. I'm sure he thought he started the clock. The head ref (the female) talks to that ref before looking at the replay. Presumably, it isn't his fault. More likely a radio glitch. But, I believe the official time keeper (referred to as the "Stanford time keeper") is not at fault.
The correction of timing mistakes get really weird when things like fouls (and, specifically, "intentional" fouls), missed or made shots, change of possession, or time expiration happens. If you're morbidly curious, go to the NCAA site and download the case book.
=======
81alum, we all are better because of your analysis. But if it is getting in the way of your just sitting back and cheering for these young ladies, I'd rather you enjoy the game.
---
Once again, we get a "halftime show" that was previously recorded. We play a game at 3PM their time, and they can't even have someone at their home studio be involved. Sigh....
----
YET AGAIN, SLING BLOWS IT.
It was a work day, so I didn't watch the game until the evening. The first thing I noticed was that the recording was 1 hour and 42 minutes long. Wow, that's short. My next thought was that was due to the officials.
Then, deep into the game:
There are 13.5 seconds in the game,
.....Stanford is up by 2
.........Bosgana is at the FT line.....
.............Stanford has had trouble getting the ball into the front court....
..................Suspense..........
and the screen goes dark.
End of recording.
That was on the Sling app on my TV. So I try my laptop.... Same cliff hanger.
This is at least the 4th Sling-recorded video that ended minutes before the end of the game. BOO SLING !!
I go to ESPN from my laptop, and I'm able to see the rest of the game.
The game ended at 1:45:54 on their playback.
-----
Crackpot, consider reporting that the official a priori decided the game should be called in a certain way, perhaps solely for the official's convenience.
There was no big snow storm bearing down on Palo Alto, no severe weather alerts that would affect the safety of the teams or fans.
From the ACC directory:
Barbara Davis Director/Women's Basketball Ext. 4187 bdavis@theacc.org
------
That's a big name coach UTSA hired. She's only getting half of what she earned at UT-Austin, at least in reportable pay.
Clearly, that school is doing what it takes to get to the big time in WBB.
RE: WBB: Stanford 62 UTSA 57 - liveoak - 12-17-2024
My comments on the game...I did rewatch it to check on a couple of things
First, it was really fun to have 1500 screaming school kids in the building! I think it really helped the team. The regular fans are pretty quiet, especially when there is a small crowd. I arrived just when 10 buses of school kids came - not sure the workers at the stadium were ready for the crowd.
Second, the big problem Stanford had was missing their shots. We missed a number of open shots that normally go in. if we even hit two or three of them, that's a 20-point lead with 5 minutes to when UTSA put on their press (see below). If that's the case, we probably win easily. I think we were 12-15 points better than UTSA, which leads to...
Third, we almost lost because UTSA put on a press. Stanford was up 15 when UTSA started pressing the inbounds pass. We have a young team and it showed. I think Talana would have been a big help in breaking the press. I suspect the press break will get attention in practice this week.
Fourth, our defense was pretty good, but a couple of players are occasionally getting beat off the dribble and that needs to be worked on. Also we need to block out better...
Fifth, the offense doesn't always look smooth - but this is a team will a lot of players that are either new or inexperienced. I think the offense will work better in a month or so. I agree with 81alum that there was a lot of contact and that causes problems for the offense.
We will really know where the team is at this time Friday night.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UTSA; preview and game thread - Hulk01 - 12-17-2024
(12-16-2024, 02:57 PM)paloalto Wrote: For her age, UTSA head coach is very good looking.
That sounds like something Hulk would say.
So: kudos.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UTSA; preview and game thread - crackpot - 12-17-2024
(12-16-2024, 11:33 PM)M T Wrote: Yes, as PaloAlto surmised, this is per the rules, but you have to go to the case book. The official must stop play when he notices it, and he must put the correct time on the clock (with replay, the expired time is to be measured by a stopwatch (physical, or part of replay system)) and resume play. There is a specific statement that forbids the officials from restarting from the point that the timing error began (the throw-in).
-----
Crackpot, consider reporting that the official a priori decided the game should be called in a certain way, perhaps solely for the official's convenience.
There was no big snow storm bearing down on Palo Alto, no severe weather alerts that would affect the safety of the teams or fans.
From the ACC directory:
Barbara Davis Director/Women's Basketball Ext. 4187 bdavis@theacc.org
------
Can confirm no stopwatch was involved.
Huh, if one was adept at interfering in the radio frequency of the the start/stop signal, one could really make things difficult for the visiting team.
Shouldn't the responsibility for notifying Davis be on the folks at the scorer's table? But this is good info and I promise to do so in the future if I hear anything that makes my ears perk up AND write down the exact quote at the time. Thanks!
RE: WBB: Stanford 62 UTSA 57 - 81alum - 12-17-2024
A few positives. Harriel had a good game, going 3/4 from three point range, and is now 50% from deep on the season. That plus the last second steal when the game was on the line make this one of her best games.
Although we were out rebounded, we stole the ball 10 times while UTSA stole it 4 times. I would never have guessed that given the frenetic and bruising defense UTSA put on, but we were the beneficiaries of ball hawking, not them. Without those 6 extra possessions--we lose. Clardy had 4 and Bosgana had 3 to go with Harriel's 2.
Each side made 22 field goals. 13 of ours were assisted, 6 of theirs were. Our defense was effectively shutting off their passing lanes.
So why was this close? Although our defense was good most of the game, it collapsed in the 4th. In the fourth UTSA shot 56% after just 17% in the third. For most of the game, UTSA was led by its usual two--Jenkins and Negron, but their other guard Sidney Love got hot at the end, scored 14, and nearly cost us the game. Once they had 3 credible offensive threats on the floor we didn't respond. We seemed to handle two, but not three hot shooters.
RE: WBB: Stanford 62 UTSA 57 - Bampa - 12-17-2024
After watching that game, I asked myself a question: Can Stanford run a better offensive scheme than the one they are using?
The answer is: YES
I hope the make some changes.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UTSA; preview and game thread - 76lsjumb - 12-17-2024
(12-16-2024, 11:33 PM)M T Wrote:(12-16-2024, 02:59 PM)paloalto Wrote: Stanford time keeper helping out UTSA by not taking time off clock.
No, that was an advantage for Stanford. UTSA had to bring it in with 10.9 on the clock instead of 13.5.
Yes, as PaloAlto surmised, this is per the rules, but you have to go to the case book. The official must stop play when he notices it, and he must put the correct time on the clock (with replay, the expired time is to be measured by a stopwatch (physical, or part of replay system)) and resume play. There is a specific statement that forbids the officials from restarting from the point that the timing error began (the throw-in).
Inasmuch as you are unquestionably the Rules guru around here -- and given that I haven't looked anything up -- I accept without question that the law says what you say there. But, to paraphrase Mr. Bumble, of Oliver Twist fame, if the law says that, "the law is a ass -- a idiot..." A radio glitch or the slip of the ref's finger on the clock starter button can determine the outcome of a game [see my earlier hypothetical involving only very slightly different circumstances] when there is no good reason or need for that to happen.
The NCAA promptly closed the Lanning loophole recently when it was exploited on the football field; they should do the same on the basketball floor.
RE: WBB: Stanford 62 UTSA 57 - TonyLima - 12-18-2024
For those having problems viewing the game replay, it should be available on my Youtube channel by the time you read this. Assuming no copyright violations detected.