[bl82]

Excited that Lexie appears to be getting back to form. Lacie has sure been a revelation filling in for her sister.

Anyone else notice that Lexie and DiJonai are our top two rebounders (RPG) this year?

[bl82]

Excited that Lexie appears to be getting back to form. Lacie has sure been a revelation filling in for her sister.

Anyone else notice that Lexie and DiJonai are our top two rebounders (RPG) this year?

[M T]

It's been a quarter century or so since I saw Stanford so dominate an opponent, at least in the first half.   After that first quarter, I wondered whether CSUN was going to be given enough fouls  to get past 10 points.  But Stanford eased up, and CSUN stepped up.

We had only 7 turnovers until the last 2 minutes, which is great.  While CSUN had a good defense, it was not the ball-stealing kind of defense.  They did do a good job of getting on our 3 point shooters.  I noticed one Alanna shot early in the 3Q where she was off the 3 pt line by 4 feet.  I wondered if that was a result of our not getting good looks at the 3pt line.  I think that contributed to our rather low 3pt%.

To me, Brown looks like a Sniezek clone.  So close that it seems weird. (I guess I haven't seen her try the impossible passes that are rarely going to work against varsity players,  but look good when they do.) Tara must be allowing the almost-never-look-at-the-basket play, but I don't get it. 

I guess I've been watching a different game than 81alum.  Without analyzing the stats for height differentials, rebound percentages, and such, my impression is we've done a really good job on rebounding.  Our boxing out has been good (esp. compared to prior years, but maybe that's due to the change in offense  & defense).  I've also appreciated our outer players diving in to pick up rebounda (without giving up too many fast breaks). The inner players are keeping contact with their opponent, boxing out, resulting in limited mobility.  But the players along the 3 point line are scooting into the open areas to give us more chances at the rebounds.  Our opponents haven't been blocking them out.  I'm not sure whether the players we've recruited already had this ability, or whether they've been coached in it at Stanford.

I think we're all impressed and pleasantly surprised by the team so far.  It's going to be a fun year.  Still, we may wind up disappointed (2017 WVB) but it should be fun.

[M T]

It's been a quarter century or so since I saw Stanford so dominate an opponent, at least in the first half.   After that first quarter, I wondered whether CSUN was going to be given enough fouls  to get past 10 points.  But Stanford eased up, and CSUN stepped up.

We had only 7 turnovers until the last 2 minutes, which is great.  While CSUN had a good defense, it was not the ball-stealing kind of defense.  They did do a good job of getting on our 3 point shooters.  I noticed one Alanna shot early in the 3Q where she was off the 3 pt line by 4 feet.  I wondered if that was a result of our not getting good looks at the 3pt line.  I think that contributed to our rather low 3pt%.

To me, Brown looks like a Sniezek clone.  So close that it seems weird. (I guess I haven't seen her try the impossible passes that are rarely going to work against varsity players,  but look good when they do.) Tara must be allowing the almost-never-look-at-the-basket play, but I don't get it. 

I guess I've been watching a different game than 81alum.  Without analyzing the stats for height differentials, rebound percentages, and such, my impression is we've done a really good job on rebounding.  Our boxing out has been good (esp. compared to prior years, but maybe that's due to the change in offense  & defense).  I've also appreciated our outer players diving in to pick up rebounda (without giving up too many fast breaks). The inner players are keeping contact with their opponent, boxing out, resulting in limited mobility.  But the players along the 3 point line are scooting into the open areas to give us more chances at the rebounds.  Our opponents haven't been blocking them out.  I'm not sure whether the players we've recruited already had this ability, or whether they've been coached in it at Stanford.

I think we're all impressed and pleasantly surprised by the team so far.  It's going to be a fun year.  Still, we may wind up disappointed (2017 WVB) but it should be fun.

[BobK]

Call me not at all disappointed If like the 2017 WVB we make the F 4

[BobK]

Call me not at all disappointed If like the 2017 WVB we make the F 4

[M T]

Call me not at all disappointed If like the 2017 WVB  we make the F 4

The point is that the 2016 WVB national champions looked good to repeat in 2017.  But, as good as a team may seem, the results of a season may turn on a game or two.  I will be thrilled if 2018 WBB makes the Final Four and I think there's a decent chance of that. 

I think the PAC-12 conference championship will be an interesting race.  I know I'm getting way ahead of things here, but I further expect that we'll all be really unhappy if Oregon (currently #5/5/3) and Stanford (currently #6/6/4) get put into the same region in the tournament.  I think the top 2 or 3 PAC-12  teams will deserve a shot to earn their ways into the Final Four without geography being an excuse to squeeze one out automatically.  If Oregon and Stanford manage a season without any more defeats other than to each other, one will be top seed in the Western region, while I'm afraid the other might get stuck in the same region.  (Managing to do so is not going to be easy.  Other than Oregon & Stanford, conference opponents that have to be beaten (often multiple times) are Cal (RPI #6), Oregon State (AP #11) , Arizona State (RPI #19), plus another two schools with RPI in the 30s.  One off night and the season gets a whole lot bleaker.)

USC is coming up quickly  (Jan 4).  At RPI #33 and 10-1, they could be good.  (But they got drubbed by Texas A&M.)

[M T]

Call me not at all disappointed If like the 2017 WVB  we make the F 4

The point is that the 2016 WVB national champions looked good to repeat in 2017.  But, as good as a team may seem, the results of a season may turn on a game or two.  I will be thrilled if 2018 WBB makes the Final Four and I think there's a decent chance of that. 

I think the PAC-12 conference championship will be an interesting race.  I know I'm getting way ahead of things here, but I further expect that we'll all be really unhappy if Oregon (currently #5/5/3) and Stanford (currently #6/6/4) get put into the same region in the tournament.  I think the top 2 or 3 PAC-12  teams will deserve a shot to earn their ways into the Final Four without geography being an excuse to squeeze one out automatically.  If Oregon and Stanford manage a season without any more defeats other than to each other, one will be top seed in the Western region, while I'm afraid the other might get stuck in the same region.  (Managing to do so is not going to be easy.  Other than Oregon & Stanford, conference opponents that have to be beaten (often multiple times) are Cal (RPI #6), Oregon State (AP #11) , Arizona State (RPI #19), plus another two schools with RPI in the 30s.  One off night and the season gets a whole lot bleaker.)

USC is coming up quickly  (Jan 4).  At RPI #33 and 10-1, they could be good.  (But they got drubbed by Texas A&M.)

[TheFarm07]

Call me not at all disappointed If like the 2017 WVB  we make the F 4

The point is that the 2016 WVB national champions looked good to repeat in 2017.  But, as good as a team may seem, the results of a season may turn on a game or two.  I will be thrilled if 2018 WBB makes the Final Four and I think there's a decent chance of that. 

I think the PAC-12 conference championship will be an interesting race.  I know I'm getting way ahead of things here, but I further expect that we'll all be really unhappy if Oregon (currently #5/5/3) and Stanford (currently #6/6/4) get put into the same region in the tournament.  I think the top 2 or 3 PAC-12  teams will deserve a shot to earn their ways into the Final Four without geography being an excuse to squeeze one out automatically.  If Oregon and Stanford manage a season without any more defeats other than to each other, one will be top seed in the Western region, while I'm afraid the other might get stuck in the same region.  (Managing to do so is not going to be easy.  Other than Oregon & Stanford, conference opponents that have to be beaten (often multiple times) are Cal (RPI #6), Oregon State (AP #11) , Arizona State (RPI #19), plus another two schools with RPI in the 30s.  One off night and the season gets a whole lot bleaker.)

USC is coming up quickly  (Jan 4).  At RPI #33 and 10-1, they could be good.  (But they got drubbed by Texas A&M.)

I don't think if Oregon and we finish 1/2 in the conference standings with no other losses then besides to each other in conference play and the conference tournament, that the tournament committee would put us together in the same region, especially if the two teams would be the top two seeds in that region. I think unless there were many other circumstances that would force the commitee to put us in the same region, they would avoid putting conference teams together as the top seeds in the same region. Even if either team drops another game or two, there would need to be a severe drop in seed for the teams to be together.

Last season, six Pac-12 teams made the tournament and there were 2 regions with 2 teams each, the mathematic minimum for 6 teams and 4 regions. Oregon State and we were in the same region and were slated to meet in the Elite 8, while UCLA and Arizona State were due to meet in the Sweet 16, but UCLA was a #3 seed and AZ State was a #7 seed.

In 2017, seven Pac-12 teams qualified and we were evenly distributed, 2 teams each in 3 regions and us alone in the Lexington region. Plus the teams in those other regions could not have met until the Elite 8 either.

In 2016, five Pac-12 teams were in the NCAA tournament and we met Washington in the Elite 8, while the other 3 teams were distributed evenly among the other regions.

Also, taking the last three years into consideration, the top 2 seeds in the 4 regions were from different conferences:

2016: UConn/Texas, Baylor/Oregon State, South Carolina/Arizona State, Notre Dame/Maryland
2017: UConn/Duke, Baylor/Mississippi State, Notre Dame/Stanford, South Carolina/Oregon State
2018: UConn/South Carolina, Notre Dame/Oregon, Mississippi State/Texas, Louisville/Baylor


This year, with so many Pac-12 teams having winning non-conference records, we could qualify potentially a lot of teams, which would make regional matchups inevitable. However, I believe the committee would split the top conference teams up between different regions rather than having re-matches of intra-conference games of the top national title contenders. So while we could play a Utah in the Sweet 16, I don't think we would have to face Oregon or Oregon State until the Final Four if we both make it that far.

Looking at the other top teams and depending on how the rest of the regular season plays out, we could play a UConn or a Mississippi State if we were a #2 seed.

Anyway, that's still a long ways off, a lot can happen between now and mid-March when the bracket is released

[TheFarm07]

Call me not at all disappointed If like the 2017 WVB  we make the F 4

The point is that the 2016 WVB national champions looked good to repeat in 2017.  But, as good as a team may seem, the results of a season may turn on a game or two.  I will be thrilled if 2018 WBB makes the Final Four and I think there's a decent chance of that. 

I think the PAC-12 conference championship will be an interesting race.  I know I'm getting way ahead of things here, but I further expect that we'll all be really unhappy if Oregon (currently #5/5/3) and Stanford (currently #6/6/4) get put into the same region in the tournament.  I think the top 2 or 3 PAC-12  teams will deserve a shot to earn their ways into the Final Four without geography being an excuse to squeeze one out automatically.  If Oregon and Stanford manage a season without any more defeats other than to each other, one will be top seed in the Western region, while I'm afraid the other might get stuck in the same region.  (Managing to do so is not going to be easy.  Other than Oregon & Stanford, conference opponents that have to be beaten (often multiple times) are Cal (RPI #6), Oregon State (AP #11) , Arizona State (RPI #19), plus another two schools with RPI in the 30s.  One off night and the season gets a whole lot bleaker.)

USC is coming up quickly  (Jan 4).  At RPI #33 and 10-1, they could be good.  (But they got drubbed by Texas A&M.)

I don't think if Oregon and we finish 1/2 in the conference standings with no other losses then besides to each other in conference play and the conference tournament, that the tournament committee would put us together in the same region, especially if the two teams would be the top two seeds in that region. I think unless there were many other circumstances that would force the commitee to put us in the same region, they would avoid putting conference teams together as the top seeds in the same region. Even if either team drops another game or two, there would need to be a severe drop in seed for the teams to be together.

Last season, six Pac-12 teams made the tournament and there were 2 regions with 2 teams each, the mathematic minimum for 6 teams and 4 regions. Oregon State and we were in the same region and were slated to meet in the Elite 8, while UCLA and Arizona State were due to meet in the Sweet 16, but UCLA was a #3 seed and AZ State was a #7 seed.

In 2017, seven Pac-12 teams qualified and we were evenly distributed, 2 teams each in 3 regions and us alone in the Lexington region. Plus the teams in those other regions could not have met until the Elite 8 either.

In 2016, five Pac-12 teams were in the NCAA tournament and we met Washington in the Elite 8, while the other 3 teams were distributed evenly among the other regions.

Also, taking the last three years into consideration, the top 2 seeds in the 4 regions were from different conferences:

2016: UConn/Texas, Baylor/Oregon State, South Carolina/Arizona State, Notre Dame/Maryland
2017: UConn/Duke, Baylor/Mississippi State, Notre Dame/Stanford, South Carolina/Oregon State
2018: UConn/South Carolina, Notre Dame/Oregon, Mississippi State/Texas, Louisville/Baylor


This year, with so many Pac-12 teams having winning non-conference records, we could qualify potentially a lot of teams, which would make regional matchups inevitable. However, I believe the committee would split the top conference teams up between different regions rather than having re-matches of intra-conference games of the top national title contenders. So while we could play a Utah in the Sweet 16, I don't think we would have to face Oregon or Oregon State until the Final Four if we both make it that far.

Looking at the other top teams and depending on how the rest of the regular season plays out, we could play a UConn or a Mississippi State if we were a #2 seed.

Anyway, that's still a long ways off, a lot can happen between now and mid-March when the bracket is released

[freddot5]

I have two tickets for the USC game this Friday that I can’t use. Lower Bowl Section 11.

[freddot5]

I have two tickets for the USC game this Friday that I can’t use. Lower Bowl Section 11.