WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - 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 Colorado 54 (/thread-21509.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 Colorado 54 (/thread-21509.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - chimera - 02-06-2021
It is not just Stanford sports who does this. Just human nature to relax a hair when you "know" you will win. Get way ahead, relax just a bit, maybe play some subs who might make a few more mistakes, while the other team is in go for broke mode, playing loose with nothing to lose since they are already way behind. The other coach may make a few changes and sometimes a change works, coupled with the ahead team relaxing just a bit. Then the losing team goes on a run and the team that was way ahead may tighten up as the lead shrinks, causing them to play not to lose instead of how they played to get the big lead.
We cite UConn as a team that never lets up. That is correct but Geno also plays his stars and starters way more in blowouts than Tara does, more than I think most coaches do. It maybe helps them win by bigger blowouts but it doesn't help the bench get better or keep those players happy. Witness the transfers out they have had.
As annoying as it was to watch what happened against CO in the 4th quarter, and as much as I think that needs to be fixed, I would rather err on the side of playing more people, trying new things, etc., than what Geno does with his subbing.
Lastly it is easy to remember games like CO, where we almost chucked away a big lead. Consider also all the games we did not do that, including the WSU games recently. I am going to stick to the thought that we have a very, very good team with a few flaws, and inconsistent play seems to be one of them. The youth of the four players who play the 4 and 5 spots is part of the reason. I do think the coaches could recognize it quicker and maybe change something up sooner, but then again, often a big lead waxes and wanes a bit toward the end, and there is a case to be made for letting the players figure things out before intervening.
RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - BostonCard - 02-06-2021
Good points, Goose. I don’t know if there is a correlation between the ability to continue to expand the lead in a blowout against an overmatched team, and the ability to hold a close lead or come back from behind. In sports, winning by 1 point counts as much as winning by double digits (except in a few instances where it can be used as a tiebreaker), so the latter scenarios are a bigger deal than having an awful fourth quarter against a team you had a 20 point lead on.
To the extent one worries, it’s around two questions... was the fourth quarter predictive of what could happen in a closer game? Had our lead been single digits after three, we would have lost with a fourth quarter that bad (but maybe we don’t have a fourth quarter that bad), and is there a chance that you completely choke a game well in hand. We did have a small (2 pt) lead going into the fourth quarter against Colorado in Boulder, but we were trailing going into the fourth against UCLA.
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford 62 Colorado 54 - Softball Fan - 02-08-2021
Political correctness is sometimes used to silence a different point of view. I personally wouldn’t use the words sweetheart or prom date to describe someone; it’s not my style. However I see nothing wrong with a Cardinal fan using those words to convey an opinion. I look at intention. Here the intent was not meant to harm anyone. As long as a poster is not trying to ridicule or demean others, I welcome the use of metaphors.
I believe the Hull sisters are two of the most aggressive and competitive athletes in all of sport. I differ on substance with the poster but do not quibble about vocabulary.
I believe these are the latest NET rankings. If the NCAA selection committee uses NET, that's really the only rankings that should matter for what teams are #1 regional seeds.
https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-women/d1/ncaa-womens-basketball-net-rankings
1 UConn
2 Stanford
3 South Carolina
4 Baylor
Is it in Stanford's interest for UConn or South Carolina to win tonight? IMO it doesn't really matter.