The CardBoard
This is flat-out nuts - 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: This is flat-out nuts (/thread-4135.html)


Re: This is flat-out nuts - Farm93 - 10-28-2012

It is basketball.  It is OK.  Stanford does its thing and it will be the #1 seed in the west.

Re: This is flat-out nuts - Farm93 - 10-28-2012

It is basketball.  It is OK.  Stanford does its thing and it will be the #1 seed in the west.

Re: This is flat-out nuts - washingtonismoney - 10-28-2012

They're Tara-knows-what-she's-doing votes.

Hard to disagree, really.

Re: This is flat-out nuts - washingtonismoney - 10-28-2012

They're Tara-knows-what-she's-doing votes.

Hard to disagree, really.

Re: This is flat-out nuts - 81alum - 10-28-2012

Garvin, nuts because we are not ranked higher or nuts because we are ranked so high? 

With the loss of Nneka I can see us being ranked a bit lower until we prove to the world that we can replace her points and replace her defense.  But I imagine the polls reflect the confidence that Tara will get it done somehow. 

Re: This is flat-out nuts - 81alum - 10-28-2012

Garvin, nuts because we are not ranked higher or nuts because we are ranked so high? 

With the loss of Nneka I can see us being ranked a bit lower until we prove to the world that we can replace her points and replace her defense.  But I imagine the polls reflect the confidence that Tara will get it done somehow. 

Re: This is flat-out nuts - needle - 10-29-2012

Is there going to be any TV for the Stanford-Baylor game in Hawaii?

If so, it's not listed in either the online Stanford or Baylor schedules.

Re: This is flat-out nuts - needle - 10-29-2012

Is there going to be any TV for the Stanford-Baylor game in Hawaii?

If so, it's not listed in either the online Stanford or Baylor schedules.

Re: This is flat-out nuts - Yellowlab - 10-31-2012

wbbfan and I are planning on attending the Baylor game in person. We'll post, if it is not on TV.

We did go to the open practice earlier this month, and I admit that I had some of the same concerns as Garvin.    Although every year its the same refrain: we are going to miss Candice or: we are going to miss Jayne, but this year it's no Nneka?  Yikes.

However, I do think Chiney is going to raise her game to a new level.  Toni and Mikaela did not play. I was especially sorry not to see Makaela, because I think she is going to have to make a solid contribution for Stanford to do anything in the post season. 

Joslyn, Bonnie, Taylor and Sara James all looked about the same.  I didn't see anything to make me think any of them would be significantly better than last year.  I hope I'm wrong.

Amber Orrange did look significantly better.  She was more aggressive both to the rim and on pull up jumpers. 

The other player that stood out was Tess Picknell.  She is both very big, and very strong.  I did not get a sense of her offensive game.  They certainly weren't running plays for her, but I think she will be playing meaningful minutes in her Freshman year.  Perhaps, by the end of the year, she might be a significant factor. I went in with low expectations and came away a believer.

Re: This is flat-out nuts - Yellowlab - 10-31-2012

wbbfan and I are planning on attending the Baylor game in person. We'll post, if it is not on TV.

We did go to the open practice earlier this month, and I admit that I had some of the same concerns as Garvin.    Although every year its the same refrain: we are going to miss Candice or: we are going to miss Jayne, but this year it's no Nneka?  Yikes.

However, I do think Chiney is going to raise her game to a new level.  Toni and Mikaela did not play. I was especially sorry not to see Makaela, because I think she is going to have to make a solid contribution for Stanford to do anything in the post season. 

Joslyn, Bonnie, Taylor and Sara James all looked about the same.  I didn't see anything to make me think any of them would be significantly better than last year.  I hope I'm wrong.

Amber Orrange did look significantly better.  She was more aggressive both to the rim and on pull up jumpers. 

The other player that stood out was Tess Picknell.  She is both very big, and very strong.  I did not get a sense of her offensive game.  They certainly weren't running plays for her, but I think she will be playing meaningful minutes in her Freshman year.  Perhaps, by the end of the year, she might be a significant factor. I went in with low expectations and came away a believer.

Re: This is flat-out nuts - CompSci87 - 10-31-2012

(10-29-2012, 11:41 AM)needle link Wrote:Is there going to be any TV for the Stanford-Baylor game in Hawaii?

If so, it's not listed in either the online Stanford or Baylor schedules.

The rights would belong to the host school (U of Hawaii). Their site doesn't list any TV either. In fact, they don't even seem to have All-Access or anything similar -- that is, online streaming of the scoreboard feed at a low resolution. So we'll have to hope for radio, or tweets from wbbfan1 & 2.

Re: This is flat-out nuts - CompSci87 - 10-31-2012

(10-29-2012, 11:41 AM)needle link Wrote:Is there going to be any TV for the Stanford-Baylor game in Hawaii?

If so, it's not listed in either the online Stanford or Baylor schedules.

The rights would belong to the host school (U of Hawaii). Their site doesn't list any TV either. In fact, they don't even seem to have All-Access or anything similar -- that is, online streaming of the scoreboard feed at a low resolution. So we'll have to hope for radio, or tweets from wbbfan1 & 2.