[skip75]

Let me say it:  I thought the team played well today.  Yeah, I saw what I thought were mistakes, but with a big differential from the first minutes, they didn't bother me quite so much.  (OK, you caught me, I was frustrated with the mental mistake when the ball was thrown in with 1.5 on the shot clock and the shot wasn't taken, and just after a timeout.)

Heck, I even thought the refs did a better job than any I've seen this year.  A 3-second call in the first minute of the game?! Unheard of.  Late in the blowout game, they did the usual "adjustments".  We should point out that the FTA favored Stanford 16-6.

A big difference in terms of the opponent is that they had no one over 6'2".  11 Transfers, wow, and no one over 6'2" ??  Was SMU's WBB budget eaten up due to paying for a well-known coach?)  Why, just 5 years ago she almost won a NCAA championship.  Did she get a late start in grabbing transfers?   (Anyone want to update her entry at Wikipedia to fill in her career from April 2, 2021 to the start of this year?)

It was an Adia Barnes approach to playing extremely aggressive at the start of the second half.  Four fouls in the first 3 minutes; two more in the next 3 minutes; ten total in the third quarter.  But somehow, the most effective SMU player played most of the last 16+ minutes without picking up her 5th foul.  (Is that a Stanford coaching decision?  Paye's teams, like Vanderveer's, don't aggressively attack the opponent in foul trouble.)

Playing against a smaller team, Agara could play big, and our younger, taller players had an offset to their inexperience.

SMU was not some intramural team. They played hard, cut well, and made a lot of tough shots.  They got more offensive rebounds than Stanford.  They did more than their share of over-throws.

I was especially interested in Amborn when she came in.  I really haven't seen her much so I focused on her.  Yeah, she hit her one shot but I kinda expected that.   Good dribble.  When she got the ball, she moved it on quickly with decent passes.   On offense, without the ball on offense, she was moving well. On defense, she was alert and moving well.  She did get caught once too far from the girl she was supposed to cover.  Yeah, because of her weight, she probably won't do well under the basket but that's not her position.  Frankly, I don't know why she hasn't played more.

I agree with all of this - particularly the inbounds play with 1.5 seconds left! I would say that was unbelievable, except that based on watching all season, it was quite believable and somewhat predictable.

It is correct that SMU is not an IM team. But they are #209 in the NET rankings, are 0-15 in Quad 1, 2, & 3 games, and, to me, had the worst body language I can recall seeing in a game at this level. At times I thought that some of their players just did not want to be out there (not sure I could blame them when it was 31-6). They did have more O-boards than Stanford, but mainly because they had many more missed shots.

I am somewhat encouraged by Stanford's 2-game winning "streak". But they have not beaten a team ranked higher than #84 in the NET since the Jan. 4 win at UNC. The Clemson game will be much more indicative of whether they might be capable of winning more than one game in the ACC tourney and have any hope of squeaking into the NCAA tourney.

[skip75]

Let me say it:  I thought the team played well today.  Yeah, I saw what I thought were mistakes, but with a big differential from the first minutes, they didn't bother me quite so much.  (OK, you caught me, I was frustrated with the mental mistake when the ball was thrown in with 1.5 on the shot clock and the shot wasn't taken, and just after a timeout.)

Heck, I even thought the refs did a better job than any I've seen this year.  A 3-second call in the first minute of the game?! Unheard of.  Late in the blowout game, they did the usual "adjustments".  We should point out that the FTA favored Stanford 16-6.

A big difference in terms of the opponent is that they had no one over 6'2".  11 Transfers, wow, and no one over 6'2" ??  Was SMU's WBB budget eaten up due to paying for a well-known coach?)  Why, just 5 years ago she almost won a NCAA championship.  Did she get a late start in grabbing transfers?   (Anyone want to update her entry at Wikipedia to fill in her career from April 2, 2021 to the start of this year?)

It was an Adia Barnes approach to playing extremely aggressive at the start of the second half.  Four fouls in the first 3 minutes; two more in the next 3 minutes; ten total in the third quarter.  But somehow, the most effective SMU player played most of the last 16+ minutes without picking up her 5th foul.  (Is that a Stanford coaching decision?  Paye's teams, like Vanderveer's, don't aggressively attack the opponent in foul trouble.)

Playing against a smaller team, Agara could play big, and our younger, taller players had an offset to their inexperience.

SMU was not some intramural team. They played hard, cut well, and made a lot of tough shots.  They got more offensive rebounds than Stanford.  They did more than their share of over-throws.

I was especially interested in Amborn when she came in.  I really haven't seen her much so I focused on her.  Yeah, she hit her one shot but I kinda expected that.   Good dribble.  When she got the ball, she moved it on quickly with decent passes.   On offense, without the ball on offense, she was moving well. On defense, she was alert and moving well.  She did get caught once too far from the girl she was supposed to cover.  Yeah, because of her weight, she probably won't do well under the basket but that's not her position.  Frankly, I don't know why she hasn't played more.

I agree with all of this - particularly the inbounds play with 1.5 seconds left! I would say that was unbelievable, except that based on watching all season, it was quite believable and somewhat predictable.

It is correct that SMU is not an IM team. But they are #209 in the NET rankings, are 0-15 in Quad 1, 2, & 3 games, and, to me, had the worst body language I can recall seeing in a game at this level. At times I thought that some of their players just did not want to be out there (not sure I could blame them when it was 31-6). They did have more O-boards than Stanford, but mainly because they had many more missed shots.

I am somewhat encouraged by Stanford's 2-game winning "streak". But they have not beaten a team ranked higher than #84 in the NET since the Jan. 4 win at UNC. The Clemson game will be much more indicative of whether they might be capable of winning more than one game in the ACC tourney and have any hope of squeaking into the NCAA tourney.