[joemontes]

Update on Lauren Ware injured in last nights game. According to Adia Barnes,  Ware dislocated her knee but Medical staff was able to pop it back in place. Will probably miss 1 or 2 weeks

Accor

Although Arizona will miss Lauren WARE's shot blocking (team leading 2.1 bpg after 8 games), they are very deep and capable in the post, with post substitutes 6'3 Ariyah COPELAND, 6'3 Arronette VONLEH and 6'3 Gisela SANCHEZ shooting at very high FG% (all better than WARE, who is shooting at a respectable 53.7 FG%).  I would actually like them to establish COPELAND in the post more often, because she is an immovable force down low and is almost a sure 2 points when she gets the ball within 10 feet of the basket.

[joemontes]

Update on Lauren Ware injured in last nights game. According to Adia Barnes,  Ware dislocated her knee but Medical staff was able to pop it back in place. Will probably miss 1 or 2 weeks

Accor

Although Arizona will miss Lauren WARE's shot blocking (team leading 2.1 bpg after 8 games), they are very deep and capable in the post, with post substitutes 6'3 Ariyah COPELAND, 6'3 Arronette VONLEH and 6'3 Gisela SANCHEZ shooting at very high FG% (all better than WARE, who is shooting at a respectable 53.7 FG%).  I would actually like them to establish COPELAND in the post more often, because she is an immovable force down low and is almost a sure 2 points when she gets the ball within 10 feet of the basket.

[M T]

Just noticed that Southern Florida, after beating Oregon and us, lost to Texas-Arlington last week.  Ugh.

USF's offense looks roughly the same in the stats.
Game was close throughout.   Tied at the half.  UTA up 3 at the end of the half.
UTA had only 8 3PTA (making 0) vs Stanford's 25 3PTA (making 8).
UTA was something like 6 of 9 FT on 13 USF fouls until the last 2:14 when USF started fouling (6 fouls).
UTA had 40 points in the paint, compared to Stanford's 20.  UTA top 4 scorers had 10-14 points.
USF's rebounder had 20 rebounds (23 vs Stanford)
USF got more OR (24) against Stanford vs 14 against UTA (Stanford got 16 OR while UTA only got 8 OR)
UTA made 52% of their 2Pt shots.  Stanford made just 37%.

[M T]

Just noticed that Southern Florida, after beating Oregon and us, lost to Texas-Arlington last week.  Ugh.

USF's offense looks roughly the same in the stats.
Game was close throughout.   Tied at the half.  UTA up 3 at the end of the half.
UTA had only 8 3PTA (making 0) vs Stanford's 25 3PTA (making 8).
UTA was something like 6 of 9 FT on 13 USF fouls until the last 2:14 when USF started fouling (6 fouls).
UTA had 40 points in the paint, compared to Stanford's 20.  UTA top 4 scorers had 10-14 points.
USF's rebounder had 20 rebounds (23 vs Stanford)
USF got more OR (24) against Stanford vs 14 against UTA (Stanford got 16 OR while UTA only got 8 OR)
UTA made 52% of their 2Pt shots.  Stanford made just 37%.

[jonnyss]

Update on Lauren Ware injured in last nights game. According to Adia Barnes,  Ware dislocated her knee but Medical staff was able to pop it back in place. Will probably miss 1 or 2 weeks

Accor

hmmm...that's unusual. a dislocated knee usually involves several torn ligaments and has a one-year recovery time. perhaps she had a dislocated kneecap, which has a typical recovery time of 6 weeks.

[jonnyss]

Update on Lauren Ware injured in last nights game. According to Adia Barnes,  Ware dislocated her knee but Medical staff was able to pop it back in place. Will probably miss 1 or 2 weeks

Accor

hmmm...that's unusual. a dislocated knee usually involves several torn ligaments and has a one-year recovery time. perhaps she had a dislocated kneecap, which has a typical recovery time of 6 weeks.

[oldalum]

I'm thinking the patella might have been only partially dislocated, which would make sense based on its mechanism which was a relatively straight-line knee hyperextension rather than the usual severe twisting. A partial dislocation would explain the apparent ease with which the trainer pushed it back into position and the relatively short projected recovery time, as well as the apparent lack of severe pain that often accompanies a full patellar dislocation.

[oldalum]

I'm thinking the patella might have been only partially dislocated, which would make sense based on its mechanism which was a relatively straight-line knee hyperextension rather than the usual severe twisting. A partial dislocation would explain the apparent ease with which the trainer pushed it back into position and the relatively short projected recovery time, as well as the apparent lack of severe pain that often accompanies a full patellar dislocation.

[Baez87]

I’m surprised that this conversation has not turned to the UCLA vs UCON game underway on ABC. (UCLA has a two point lead at halftime!)

[Baez87]

I’m surprised that this conversation has not turned to the UCLA vs UCON game underway on ABC. (UCLA has a two point lead at halftime!)

[crackpot]

UCLA had a 8-9 point lead for much of Q2, then UConn started making some shots,  which continued into Q3. 

But from the announcers, all you hear is "Paige, Paige, Paige...". I think there was one mention of one UCLA player being out.

---

...andnow Osbourne is hurt.

game is getty pretty chippy.

[crackpot]

UCLA had a 8-9 point lead for much of Q2, then UConn started making some shots,  which continued into Q3. 

But from the announcers, all you hear is "Paige, Paige, Paige...". I think there was one mention of one UCLA player being out.

---

...andnow Osbourne is hurt.

game is getty pretty chippy.

[ca245]

Basically UCLA is having a 4Q against UConn like the 4Q UConn had against Georgia Tech a couple of days ago.

[ca245]

Basically UCLA is having a 4Q against UConn like the 4Q UConn had against Georgia Tech a couple of days ago.

[81alum]

I’m surprised that this conversation has not turned to the UCLA vs UCON game underway on ABC. (UCLA has a two point lead at halftime!)

Thank you for the reminder!

I tuned in and UCLA had a 5 point lead, then UConn went on a 14-2 run and more recently a 9-0 run, and I decided not to watch any more.

Based on what I watched, UCLA is not a good team.  However, it led UConn for 2 1/2 quarters so I clearly did not see it at its finest.

Geno got a technical when he came out on the floor to object to a really bad non-call when UCLA hacked a UConn player going in for a layup.  Close continues to coach her teams to play maul ball.  I almost was rooting for UConn at that point.  Almost.

[81alum]

I’m surprised that this conversation has not turned to the UCLA vs UCON game underway on ABC. (UCLA has a two point lead at halftime!)

Thank you for the reminder!

I tuned in and UCLA had a 5 point lead, then UConn went on a 14-2 run and more recently a 9-0 run, and I decided not to watch any more.

Based on what I watched, UCLA is not a good team.  However, it led UConn for 2 1/2 quarters so I clearly did not see it at its finest.

Geno got a technical when he came out on the floor to object to a really bad non-call when UCLA hacked a UConn player going in for a layup.  Close continues to coach her teams to play maul ball.  I almost was rooting for UConn at that point.  Almost.

[crackpot]

I don't think UCLA went to the line at all in the first half. The Bruins were tearing it up on the boards in a way that scared me. Seem more human in the second half.

[crackpot]

I don't think UCLA went to the line at all in the first half. The Bruins were tearing it up on the boards in a way that scared me. Seem more human in the second half.

[WBB fan]

I propose starting a new thread -- WBB - Pac-12 teams and games not involving Stanford -- going to do it -- and then comment on this UCLA game there. That would leave this thread for non-Pac-12 action. Make sense?

[WBB fan]

I propose starting a new thread -- WBB - Pac-12 teams and games not involving Stanford -- going to do it -- and then comment on this UCLA game there. That would leave this thread for non-Pac-12 action. Make sense?

[WBB fan]

New thread to leave the general WBB thread to the non-pac-12 topics

Starting here with UCLA vs UConn today -- as I see it, UCLA played well for the 1st half, really dominated until near end of half. Then let up. 2nd half, UConn woke up and took off. Osborne being out really helped, but now things are looking up a bit for UCLA with her back in, but probably too late. But at least they are making a game of it in the last minute.

[WBB fan]

New thread to leave the general WBB thread to the non-pac-12 topics

Starting here with UCLA vs UConn today -- as I see it, UCLA played well for the 1st half, really dominated until near end of half. Then let up. 2nd half, UConn woke up and took off. Osborne being out really helped, but now things are looking up a bit for UCLA with her back in, but probably too late. But at least they are making a game of it in the last minute.

[BobK]

The announcers are very happy with the UConn win. Great last few minutes by Osborne.

[BobK]

The announcers are very happy with the UConn win. Great last few minutes by Osborne.

[BobK]

Ucla without their Post without their point Makes it hard.

[BobK]

Ucla without their Post without their point Makes it hard.

[M T]

I propose starting a new thread -- WBB - Pac-12 teams and games not involving Stanford -- going to do it -- and then comment on this UCLA game there. That would leave this thread for non-Pac-12 action. Make sense?

Not to me.   What is with all the "It doesn't belong in this thread" stuff?   If someone is worried, the search mechanism defaults to searching the content of posts, not the thread titles.

We could subdivide any topic into 40 different threads and there will be things that don't fit.  But, in two days, who is really going to care what the thread topic was.

[M T]

I propose starting a new thread -- WBB - Pac-12 teams and games not involving Stanford -- going to do it -- and then comment on this UCLA game there. That would leave this thread for non-Pac-12 action. Make sense?

Not to me.   What is with all the "It doesn't belong in this thread" stuff?   If someone is worried, the search mechanism defaults to searching the content of posts, not the thread titles.

We could subdivide any topic into 40 different threads and there will be things that don't fit.  But, in two days, who is really going to care what the thread topic was.

[2006alum]

Let's stick to one non-Stanford WBB thread. Just as an example, both threads had comments on UCLA-UConn, which has both PAC-12 and non-PAC-12 aspects. Other mods can express disagreement, but I like tidy threads rather than sprawl, which leads to confusion about which thread to respond to.

[2006alum]

Let's stick to one non-Stanford WBB thread. Just as an example, both threads had comments on UCLA-UConn, which has both PAC-12 and non-PAC-12 aspects. Other mods can express disagreement, but I like tidy threads rather than sprawl, which leads to confusion about which thread to respond to.

[WBB fan]

Let's stick to one non-Stanford WBB thread. Just as an example, both threads had comments on UCLA-UConn, which has both PAC-12 and non-PAC-12 aspects. Other mods can express disagreement, but I like tidy threads rather than sprawl, which leads to confusion about which thread to respond to.

I agree about liking "tidy threads" but what I'm seeing here is sprawl within a thread that makes it difficult to know what this thread is going to be about. Yes, let's not have lots too discrete threads and start a new one whenever there is drift, but when drift leads to a stream with so many different directions -- sort of like braided glacial rivers, I think that's a problem. Just the way I see it -- but I'm always ready to respect how others feel about this.

[WBB fan]

Let's stick to one non-Stanford WBB thread. Just as an example, both threads had comments on UCLA-UConn, which has both PAC-12 and non-PAC-12 aspects. Other mods can express disagreement, but I like tidy threads rather than sprawl, which leads to confusion about which thread to respond to.

I agree about liking "tidy threads" but what I'm seeing here is sprawl within a thread that makes it difficult to know what this thread is going to be about. Yes, let's not have lots too discrete threads and start a new one whenever there is drift, but when drift leads to a stream with so many different directions -- sort of like braided glacial rivers, I think that's a problem. Just the way I see it -- but I'm always ready to respect how others feel about this.

[triangle2]

Bueckers now looking at surgery to repair her fractured tibial plateau. I wondered whether the initial timeframe for recovery was too optimistic. I can say that having experienced a dislocated kneecap as a teenager, one to two weeks to get back to Division I basketball seemed awfully quick.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...-miss-more

[triangle2]

Bueckers now looking at surgery to repair her fractured tibial plateau. I wondered whether the initial timeframe for recovery was too optimistic. I can say that having experienced a dislocated kneecap as a teenager, one to two weeks to get back to Division I basketball seemed awfully quick.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...-miss-more

[old spanish trail]

Let's stick to one non-Stanford WBB thread. Just as an example, both threads had comments on UCLA-UConn, which has both PAC-12 and non-PAC-12 aspects. Other mods can express disagreement, but I like tidy threads rather than sprawl, which leads to confusion about which thread to respond to.

I agree about liking "tidy threads" but what I'm seeing here is sprawl within a thread that makes it difficult to know what this thread is going to be about. Yes, let's not have lots too discrete threads and start a new one whenever there is drift, but when drift leads to a stream with so many different directions -- sort of like braided glacial rivers, I think that's a problem. Just the way I see it -- but I'm always ready to respect how others feel about this.

Don't make another thread. This is fine.

[old spanish trail]

Let's stick to one non-Stanford WBB thread. Just as an example, both threads had comments on UCLA-UConn, which has both PAC-12 and non-PAC-12 aspects. Other mods can express disagreement, but I like tidy threads rather than sprawl, which leads to confusion about which thread to respond to.

I agree about liking "tidy threads" but what I'm seeing here is sprawl within a thread that makes it difficult to know what this thread is going to be about. Yes, let's not have lots too discrete threads and start a new one whenever there is drift, but when drift leads to a stream with so many different directions -- sort of like braided glacial rivers, I think that's a problem. Just the way I see it -- but I'm always ready to respect how others feel about this.

Don't make another thread. This is fine.

[triangle2]

My gentle request is for the mods to be a little less aggressive about combining threads. I welcome a certain amount of editorial control but not where it makes the discussions more difficult.

This thread is now five pages long and it’s only Dec. 11. We’re only one hot thread drift away from the thread becoming unmanageable. I hope that the mods can approve of the concept that some topics can organically split off and sustain themselves separately. There are some topics that recur and can sustain separate threads, such as WBB injuries, deletion/accretion, games of the week, etc.

I don’t think I spoke up about this, but I’m also in favor of separating the OT topics of Giants and 49ers - that’s a thread that has gotten totally impossible to follow which makes the thread only readable for a few regulars. 

Anyway, just my two cents. Totally appreciate the mods and all the hard work involved.

[triangle2]

My gentle request is for the mods to be a little less aggressive about combining threads. I welcome a certain amount of editorial control but not where it makes the discussions more difficult.

This thread is now five pages long and it’s only Dec. 11. We’re only one hot thread drift away from the thread becoming unmanageable. I hope that the mods can approve of the concept that some topics can organically split off and sustain themselves separately. There are some topics that recur and can sustain separate threads, such as WBB injuries, deletion/accretion, games of the week, etc.

I don’t think I spoke up about this, but I’m also in favor of separating the OT topics of Giants and 49ers - that’s a thread that has gotten totally impossible to follow which makes the thread only readable for a few regulars. 

Anyway, just my two cents. Totally appreciate the mods and all the hard work involved.

[BostonCard]

I generally favor fewer non-Stanford threads rather than more, if for no other reason that more threads push Stanford-related content off the front page.  Though I’m not going to argue that it makes it inaccessible, it is a fact that fewer people read and interact with a thread once it leaves the front page.  In most cases, that’s a feature, as older and less relevant pages get pushed down by fresher content.  However, if that content is a bunch of non-Stanford related pages, then it’s a bug.  Sticking all the Bay Area pro content into a single thread makes it easy for the people who are only here for the Stanford content to ignore it.

The direction threads go is usually organic.  Although it is not hard to split threads, it is hard to disentangle them (figure out which posts go into which of the two daughter threads).  So splitting winds up being imperfect. Combining threads is easier.  And figuring out whether to lump or split threads is always going to be a judgment call, with some people being lumpers and others being splitters.

Had the Bueckers injury started out as a separate thread, I doubt anyone would have merged it into other threads.  Likewise if the Cristobal thread had been a post within a broader thread about football coaching changes, it wouldn’t have been separated out.  Users have a fair amount of discretion when it comes to whether to start a new thread or drift an existing thread.  The only times I intervene is when two threads about the exact same topic have been independently started at the same time, and, in the case of WBB recruiting, it is reasonable to separate each year out once a recruiting class has been signed.

As far as I know, this thread drifted organically; someone just changed the title.  To be fair I haven’t gone back and checked to see if anyone has merged another thread in here.

BC

[BostonCard]

I generally favor fewer non-Stanford threads rather than more, if for no other reason that more threads push Stanford-related content off the front page.  Though I’m not going to argue that it makes it inaccessible, it is a fact that fewer people read and interact with a thread once it leaves the front page.  In most cases, that’s a feature, as older and less relevant pages get pushed down by fresher content.  However, if that content is a bunch of non-Stanford related pages, then it’s a bug.  Sticking all the Bay Area pro content into a single thread makes it easy for the people who are only here for the Stanford content to ignore it.

The direction threads go is usually organic.  Although it is not hard to split threads, it is hard to disentangle them (figure out which posts go into which of the two daughter threads).  So splitting winds up being imperfect. Combining threads is easier.  And figuring out whether to lump or split threads is always going to be a judgment call, with some people being lumpers and others being splitters.

Had the Bueckers injury started out as a separate thread, I doubt anyone would have merged it into other threads.  Likewise if the Cristobal thread had been a post within a broader thread about football coaching changes, it wouldn’t have been separated out.  Users have a fair amount of discretion when it comes to whether to start a new thread or drift an existing thread.  The only times I intervene is when two threads about the exact same topic have been independently started at the same time, and, in the case of WBB recruiting, it is reasonable to separate each year out once a recruiting class has been signed.

As far as I know, this thread drifted organically; someone just changed the title.  To be fair I haven’t gone back and checked to see if anyone has merged another thread in here.

BC