[cardfan77]

The free throw shooting tonight was terrible. Only shot 48% from the free throw line compare to 81% for Santa Clara. 10 out of 21 will not cut it and will not win many games.  That’s a lot of point left off the scoreboard.

[cardfan77]

The free throw shooting tonight was terrible. Only shot 48% from the free throw line compare to 81% for Santa Clara. 10 out of 21 will not cut it and will not win many games.  That’s a lot of point left off the scoreboard.

[needle]

I missed the game completely, but 48% on free throws is pathetic. The box score shows this was mostly Raynaud, who went 6-12, though literally NO ONE shot better than 50% from the line. Scary stat, for sure.

Looking at the box score, Stanford had 12 turnovers, which is not great. Santa Clara had 17 turnovers, reinforcing my idea that they are garbage; they also shot only 21% from three, though that is not entirely surprising (for the year they are only shooting 29% from three).

I don't know, maybe some who watched the game think Santa Clara is a diamond in the rough and it was a day where Stanford's defense really shined. The stats suggest to me a pretty sloppy game played by two mediocre teams.

[needle]

I missed the game completely, but 48% on free throws is pathetic. The box score shows this was mostly Raynaud, who went 6-12, though literally NO ONE shot better than 50% from the line. Scary stat, for sure.

Looking at the box score, Stanford had 12 turnovers, which is not great. Santa Clara had 17 turnovers, reinforcing my idea that they are garbage; they also shot only 21% from three, though that is not entirely surprising (for the year they are only shooting 29% from three).

I don't know, maybe some who watched the game think Santa Clara is a diamond in the rough and it was a day where Stanford's defense really shined. The stats suggest to me a pretty sloppy game played by two mediocre teams.

[Card10Fan]

I was able to watch most of the game. We trailed practically the entire way. It was really an exciting come from behind finish. I don't think the game was played that poorly overall. It was competitive and fun to watch.  We had way too many missed free throws and at times became too dependent on Raynaud offensively. Sellers was great especially late. We are not near as talented as some past teams but seem much more organized and aware of the game plan. Haas was all about hustle and effort but seemingly nothing else. Kyle Smith knows what he's doing.

[Card10Fan]

I was able to watch most of the game. We trailed practically the entire way. It was really an exciting come from behind finish. I don't think the game was played that poorly overall. It was competitive and fun to watch.  We had way too many missed free throws and at times became too dependent on Raynaud offensively. Sellers was great especially late. We are not near as talented as some past teams but seem much more organized and aware of the game plan. Haas was all about hustle and effort but seemingly nothing else. Kyle Smith knows what he's doing.

[BobK]

Great post card10fan. I watched the game of course. Great finish although I thought a loss with several minutes to go.
Good thing we beat up on Tilley their post and fouls not called on Stanford
Undefeated so can’t beat that

[BobK]

Great post card10fan. I watched the game of course. Great finish although I thought a loss with several minutes to go.
Good thing we beat up on Tilley their post and fouls not called on Stanford
Undefeated so can’t beat that

[Mick]

I watched the whole game in person, floor-level seats. SCU (2-4) does a lot of little things wrong. Poor focus and concentration, and their skills don't compare with those of Stanford's players. Stanford (6-0) fought back the whole way after SCU received a lot of breaks in the first half. Entertaining game, the teams were closely matched befitting the result.

I suspect Stanford's team received an earful at the break. Stanford made up eight points of the 10-point deficit in the first 90 seconds of the second half. SCU's FT shooting (81%) kept them in the game, so did their bench which shot 7 for 13, as opposed to their starters which went 15 for 34. Stanford's bench contributed all of four points as Raynaud, Sellers and Blakes accounted for 63 of the 71 overall points. Stanford had more than twice as many steals (11 to 5).

Stanford 71-69 Santa Clara (Nov 23, 2024) Game Stats - ESPN

Attendance just 2,100. And FWLIW, I went to both the Maples game last year and the Leavey game this year. Maples got the big things and little things right, not surprisingly. The SCU concessions experience was the single worst concessions experience I've seen in half-a-century of attending games, and that includes high school games. 240 people in line at the single concession, waits of 35 minutes. Whoever runs that sxxtshow needs to be fired as does their boss. No wonder they only had 2,100 attendees and are averaging 2/3rds the attendance when I was an undergrad.

[Mick]

I watched the whole game in person, floor-level seats. SCU (2-4) does a lot of little things wrong. Poor focus and concentration, and their skills don't compare with those of Stanford's players. Stanford (6-0) fought back the whole way after SCU received a lot of breaks in the first half. Entertaining game, the teams were closely matched befitting the result.

I suspect Stanford's team received an earful at the break. Stanford made up eight points of the 10-point deficit in the first 90 seconds of the second half. SCU's FT shooting (81%) kept them in the game, so did their bench which shot 7 for 13, as opposed to their starters which went 15 for 34. Stanford's bench contributed all of four points as Raynaud, Sellers and Blakes accounted for 63 of the 71 overall points. Stanford had more than twice as many steals (11 to 5).

Stanford 71-69 Santa Clara (Nov 23, 2024) Game Stats - ESPN

Attendance just 2,100. And FWLIW, I went to both the Maples game last year and the Leavey game this year. Maples got the big things and little things right, not surprisingly. The SCU concessions experience was the single worst concessions experience I've seen in half-a-century of attending games, and that includes high school games. 240 people in line at the single concession, waits of 35 minutes. Whoever runs that sxxtshow needs to be fired as does their boss. No wonder they only had 2,100 attendees and are averaging 2/3rds the attendance when I was an undergrad.

[SamuelMcF]

Looking at the box score, Stanford had 12 turnovers, which is not great. Santa Clara had 17 turnovers, reinforcing my idea that they are garbage; they also shot only 21% from three, though that is not entirely surprising (for the year they are only shooting 29% from three).

I don't know, maybe some who watched the game think Santa Clara is a diamond in the rough and it was a day where Stanford's defense really shined. The stats suggest to me a pretty sloppy game played by two mediocre teams.

You looked at their 3p% for the year. Why did you not look at their TOs for the year? 10 TOs per game before this isn't "garbage" and was in fact top 50 in the nation. 

We force A LOT of turnovers on defense (though to be fair, our schedule up til now had indeed been against "garbage").

KenPom now has Santa Clara at #103, ahead of 5 ACC teams. Mediocre? Sure. "Garbage?" No.

Are we mediocre? Let's be real, I think so. That was to be expected given the hand Smith was dealt and the pieces he has managed to cobble together. But enjoying the ride so far!

[SamuelMcF]

Looking at the box score, Stanford had 12 turnovers, which is not great. Santa Clara had 17 turnovers, reinforcing my idea that they are garbage; they also shot only 21% from three, though that is not entirely surprising (for the year they are only shooting 29% from three).

I don't know, maybe some who watched the game think Santa Clara is a diamond in the rough and it was a day where Stanford's defense really shined. The stats suggest to me a pretty sloppy game played by two mediocre teams.

You looked at their 3p% for the year. Why did you not look at their TOs for the year? 10 TOs per game before this isn't "garbage" and was in fact top 50 in the nation. 

We force A LOT of turnovers on defense (though to be fair, our schedule up til now had indeed been against "garbage").

KenPom now has Santa Clara at #103, ahead of 5 ACC teams. Mediocre? Sure. "Garbage?" No.

Are we mediocre? Let's be real, I think so. That was to be expected given the hand Smith was dealt and the pieces he has managed to cobble together. But enjoying the ride so far!

[Mick]

Looking at the box score, Stanford had 12 turnovers, which is not great. Santa Clara had 17 turnovers, reinforcing my idea that they are garbage; they also shot only 21% from three, though that is not entirely surprising (for the year they are only shooting 29% from three).

I don't know, maybe some who watched the game think Santa Clara is a diamond in the rough and it was a day where Stanford's defense really shined. The stats suggest to me a pretty sloppy game played by two mediocre teams.

You looked at their 3p% for the year. Why did you not look at their TOs for the year? 10 TOs per game before this isn't "garbage" and was in fact top 50 in the nation. 

We force A LOT of turnovers on defense (though to be fair, our schedule up til now had indeed been against "garbage").

KenPom now has Santa Clara at #103, ahead of 5 ACC teams. Mediocre? Sure. "Garbage?" No.

Are we mediocre? Let's be real, I think so. That was to be expected given the hand Smith was dealt and the pieces he has managed to cobble together. But enjoying the ride so far!

Gentlemen, Stanford men's basketball is 6-0 for the first time since the 2019-20 team ultimately finished 20-12. Radical idea: how about if we just be happy for a while?

[Mick]

Looking at the box score, Stanford had 12 turnovers, which is not great. Santa Clara had 17 turnovers, reinforcing my idea that they are garbage; they also shot only 21% from three, though that is not entirely surprising (for the year they are only shooting 29% from three).

I don't know, maybe some who watched the game think Santa Clara is a diamond in the rough and it was a day where Stanford's defense really shined. The stats suggest to me a pretty sloppy game played by two mediocre teams.

You looked at their 3p% for the year. Why did you not look at their TOs for the year? 10 TOs per game before this isn't "garbage" and was in fact top 50 in the nation. 

We force A LOT of turnovers on defense (though to be fair, our schedule up til now had indeed been against "garbage").

KenPom now has Santa Clara at #103, ahead of 5 ACC teams. Mediocre? Sure. "Garbage?" No.

Are we mediocre? Let's be real, I think so. That was to be expected given the hand Smith was dealt and the pieces he has managed to cobble together. But enjoying the ride so far!

Gentlemen, Stanford men's basketball is 6-0 for the first time since the 2019-20 team ultimately finished 20-12. Radical idea: how about if we just be happy for a while?

[VB Card]

I watched the whole game in person, floor-level seats. SCU (2-4) does a lot of little things wrong. Poor focus and concentration, and their skills don't compare with those of Stanford's players. Stanford (6-0) fought back the whole way after SCU received a lot of breaks in the first half. Entertaining game, the teams were closely matched befitting the result.

I suspect Stanford's team received an earful at the break. Stanford made up eight points of the 10-point deficit in the first 90 seconds of the second half. SCU's FT shooting (81%) kept them in the game, so did their bench which shot 7 for 13, as opposed to their starters which went 15 for 34. Stanford's bench contributed all of four points as Raynaud, Sellers and Blakes accounted for 63 of the 71 overall points. Stanford had more than twice as many steals (11 to 5).

Stanford 71-69 Santa Clara (Nov 23, 2024) Game Stats - ESPN

Attendance just 2,100. And FWLIW, I went to both the Maples game last year and the Leavey game this year. Maples got the big things and little things right, not surprisingly. The SCU concessions experience was the single worst concessions experience I've seen in half-a-century of attending games, and that includes high school games. 240 people in line at the single concession, waits of 35 minutes. Whoever runs that sxxtshow needs to be fired as does their boss. No wonder they only had 2,100 attendees and are averaging 2/3rds the attendance when I was an undergrad.

SCU's AD is Heather Owen, who was hired away from Stanford in September where she had been our Deputy AD

[VB Card]

I watched the whole game in person, floor-level seats. SCU (2-4) does a lot of little things wrong. Poor focus and concentration, and their skills don't compare with those of Stanford's players. Stanford (6-0) fought back the whole way after SCU received a lot of breaks in the first half. Entertaining game, the teams were closely matched befitting the result.

I suspect Stanford's team received an earful at the break. Stanford made up eight points of the 10-point deficit in the first 90 seconds of the second half. SCU's FT shooting (81%) kept them in the game, so did their bench which shot 7 for 13, as opposed to their starters which went 15 for 34. Stanford's bench contributed all of four points as Raynaud, Sellers and Blakes accounted for 63 of the 71 overall points. Stanford had more than twice as many steals (11 to 5).

Stanford 71-69 Santa Clara (Nov 23, 2024) Game Stats - ESPN

Attendance just 2,100. And FWLIW, I went to both the Maples game last year and the Leavey game this year. Maples got the big things and little things right, not surprisingly. The SCU concessions experience was the single worst concessions experience I've seen in half-a-century of attending games, and that includes high school games. 240 people in line at the single concession, waits of 35 minutes. Whoever runs that sxxtshow needs to be fired as does their boss. No wonder they only had 2,100 attendees and are averaging 2/3rds the attendance when I was an undergrad.

SCU's AD is Heather Owen, who was hired away from Stanford in September where she had been our Deputy AD

[slide]

SCU's AD is Heather Owen, who was hired away from Stanford in September where she had been our Deputy AD

not sure she has been missed...

[slide]

SCU's AD is Heather Owen, who was hired away from Stanford in September where she had been our Deputy AD

not sure she has been missed...

[McKenwood]

I watched the whole game in person, floor-level seats. SCU (2-4) does a lot of little things wrong. Poor focus and concentration, and their skills don't compare with those of Stanford's players. Stanford (6-0) fought back the whole way after SCU received a lot of breaks in the first half. Entertaining game, the teams were closely matched befitting the result.

I suspect Stanford's team received an earful at the break. Stanford made up eight points of the 10-point deficit in the first 90 seconds of the second half. SCU's FT shooting (81%) kept them in the game, so did their bench which shot 7 for 13, as opposed to their starters which went 15 for 34. Stanford's bench contributed all of four points as Raynaud, Sellers and Blakes accounted for 63 of the 71 overall points. Stanford had more than twice as many steals (11 to 5).

Stanford 71-69 Santa Clara (Nov 23, 2024) Game Stats - ESPN

Attendance just 2,100. And FWLIW, I went to both the Maples game last year and the Leavey game this year. Maples got the big things and little things right, not surprisingly. The SCU concessions experience was the single worst concessions experience I've seen in half-a-century of attending games, and that includes high school games. 240 people in line at the single concession, waits of 35 minutes. Whoever runs that sxxtshow needs to be fired as does their boss. No wonder they only had 2,100 attendees and are averaging 2/3rds the attendance when I was an undergrad.

Thanks Mick for the report. Really surprised about SCU's attendance. A few years ago I tried to attend a Stanford - USF game in SF and the game was sold out and USF had allocated very few tickets for visiting fans. I would have thought SCU would have had similar interest especially since Stanford is so beatable.

[McKenwood]

I watched the whole game in person, floor-level seats. SCU (2-4) does a lot of little things wrong. Poor focus and concentration, and their skills don't compare with those of Stanford's players. Stanford (6-0) fought back the whole way after SCU received a lot of breaks in the first half. Entertaining game, the teams were closely matched befitting the result.

I suspect Stanford's team received an earful at the break. Stanford made up eight points of the 10-point deficit in the first 90 seconds of the second half. SCU's FT shooting (81%) kept them in the game, so did their bench which shot 7 for 13, as opposed to their starters which went 15 for 34. Stanford's bench contributed all of four points as Raynaud, Sellers and Blakes accounted for 63 of the 71 overall points. Stanford had more than twice as many steals (11 to 5).

Stanford 71-69 Santa Clara (Nov 23, 2024) Game Stats - ESPN

Attendance just 2,100. And FWLIW, I went to both the Maples game last year and the Leavey game this year. Maples got the big things and little things right, not surprisingly. The SCU concessions experience was the single worst concessions experience I've seen in half-a-century of attending games, and that includes high school games. 240 people in line at the single concession, waits of 35 minutes. Whoever runs that sxxtshow needs to be fired as does their boss. No wonder they only had 2,100 attendees and are averaging 2/3rds the attendance when I was an undergrad.

Thanks Mick for the report. Really surprised about SCU's attendance. A few years ago I tried to attend a Stanford - USF game in SF and the game was sold out and USF had allocated very few tickets for visiting fans. I would have thought SCU would have had similar interest especially since Stanford is so beatable.

[Mick]

I watched the whole game in person, floor-level seats. SCU (2-4) does a lot of little things wrong. Poor focus and concentration, and their skills don't compare with those of Stanford's players. Stanford (6-0) fought back the whole way after SCU received a lot of breaks in the first half. Entertaining game, the teams were closely matched befitting the result.

I suspect Stanford's team received an earful at the break. Stanford made up eight points of the 10-point deficit in the first 90 seconds of the second half. SCU's FT shooting (81%) kept them in the game, so did their bench which shot 7 for 13, as opposed to their starters which went 15 for 34. Stanford's bench contributed all of four points as Raynaud, Sellers and Blakes accounted for 63 of the 71 overall points. Stanford had more than twice as many steals (11 to 5).

Stanford 71-69 Santa Clara (Nov 23, 2024) Game Stats - ESPN

Attendance just 2,100. And FWLIW, I went to both the Maples game last year and the Leavey game this year. Maples got the big things and little things right, not surprisingly. The SCU concessions experience was the single worst concessions experience I've seen in half-a-century of attending games, and that includes high school games. 240 people in line at the single concession, waits of 35 minutes. Whoever runs that sxxtshow needs to be fired as does their boss. No wonder they only had 2,100 attendees and are averaging 2/3rds the attendance when I was an undergrad.

Thanks Mick for the report. Really surprised about SCU's attendance. A few years ago I tried to attend a Stanford - USF game in SF and the game was sold out and USF had allocated very few tickets for visiting fans. I would have thought SCU would have had similar interest especially since Stanford is so beatable.

There's a few reasons for the poor attendance. I refer you to my last paragraph. It was flat out awful, and I didn't even mention the Byzantine, ridiculous ticket experience or the parking. It was a comedy of errors. I've been to a lot of high school games (and grade school and Little League), and I've never been to one that had an end-to-end gameday experience so unpleasant. It shouldn't be that hard to park, buy a ticket, walk in, get some refreshments and use the facilities.

The game itself was a lot of fun, they're my two favorite teams. Big lead, close lose, nice local rivalry. But the stark contrast in gameday experience between Maples and Leavey is breathtaking.

---

SCU's AD is Heather Owen, who was hired away from Stanford in September where she had been our Deputy AD

not sure she has been missed...

Cheryl Levick, part two. If Stanford has someone they desperately want to get rid of, just send them south...Levick, BTW, is in the Slippery Rock athletic hall of fame, I kid you not.

https://rockathletics.com/honors/hall-of.../215/kiosk

[Mick]

I watched the whole game in person, floor-level seats. SCU (2-4) does a lot of little things wrong. Poor focus and concentration, and their skills don't compare with those of Stanford's players. Stanford (6-0) fought back the whole way after SCU received a lot of breaks in the first half. Entertaining game, the teams were closely matched befitting the result.

I suspect Stanford's team received an earful at the break. Stanford made up eight points of the 10-point deficit in the first 90 seconds of the second half. SCU's FT shooting (81%) kept them in the game, so did their bench which shot 7 for 13, as opposed to their starters which went 15 for 34. Stanford's bench contributed all of four points as Raynaud, Sellers and Blakes accounted for 63 of the 71 overall points. Stanford had more than twice as many steals (11 to 5).

Stanford 71-69 Santa Clara (Nov 23, 2024) Game Stats - ESPN

Attendance just 2,100. And FWLIW, I went to both the Maples game last year and the Leavey game this year. Maples got the big things and little things right, not surprisingly. The SCU concessions experience was the single worst concessions experience I've seen in half-a-century of attending games, and that includes high school games. 240 people in line at the single concession, waits of 35 minutes. Whoever runs that sxxtshow needs to be fired as does their boss. No wonder they only had 2,100 attendees and are averaging 2/3rds the attendance when I was an undergrad.

Thanks Mick for the report. Really surprised about SCU's attendance. A few years ago I tried to attend a Stanford - USF game in SF and the game was sold out and USF had allocated very few tickets for visiting fans. I would have thought SCU would have had similar interest especially since Stanford is so beatable.

There's a few reasons for the poor attendance. I refer you to my last paragraph. It was flat out awful, and I didn't even mention the Byzantine, ridiculous ticket experience or the parking. It was a comedy of errors. I've been to a lot of high school games (and grade school and Little League), and I've never been to one that had an end-to-end gameday experience so unpleasant. It shouldn't be that hard to park, buy a ticket, walk in, get some refreshments and use the facilities.

The game itself was a lot of fun, they're my two favorite teams. Big lead, close lose, nice local rivalry. But the stark contrast in gameday experience between Maples and Leavey is breathtaking.

---

SCU's AD is Heather Owen, who was hired away from Stanford in September where she had been our Deputy AD

not sure she has been missed...

Cheryl Levick, part two. If Stanford has someone they desperately want to get rid of, just send them south...Levick, BTW, is in the Slippery Rock athletic hall of fame, I kid you not.

https://rockathletics.com/honors/hall-of.../215/kiosk

[slide]

Cheryl Levick, part two. If Stanford has someone they desperately want to get rid of, just send them south...Levick, BTW, is in the Slippery Rock athletic hall of fame, I kid you not.

https://rockathletics.com/honors/hall-of.../215/kiosk

can we start offloading south with Bernie and build from there?

[slide]

Cheryl Levick, part two. If Stanford has someone they desperately want to get rid of, just send them south...Levick, BTW, is in the Slippery Rock athletic hall of fame, I kid you not.

https://rockathletics.com/honors/hall-of.../215/kiosk

can we start offloading south with Bernie and build from there?

[Mick]

Cheryl Levick, part two. If Stanford has someone they desperately want to get rid of, just send them south...Levick, BTW, is in the Slippery Rock athletic hall of fame, I kid you not.

https://rockathletics.com/honors/hall-of.../215/kiosk

can we start offloading south with Bernie and build from there?

Sure. Send him down the 5, take the 110 South and have him take either the Figueroa or the Exposition Blvd. exits.

USC Maps

[Mick]

Cheryl Levick, part two. If Stanford has someone they desperately want to get rid of, just send them south...Levick, BTW, is in the Slippery Rock athletic hall of fame, I kid you not.

https://rockathletics.com/honors/hall-of.../215/kiosk

can we start offloading south with Bernie and build from there?

Sure. Send him down the 5, take the 110 South and have him take either the Figueroa or the Exposition Blvd. exits.

USC Maps

[slide]

Cheryl Levick, part two. If Stanford has someone they desperately want to get rid of, just send them south...Levick, BTW, is in the Slippery Rock athletic hall of fame, I kid you not.

https://rockathletics.com/honors/hall-of.../215/kiosk

can we start offloading south with Bernie and build from there?

Sure. Send him down the 5, take the 110 South and have him take either the Figueroa or the Exposition Blvd. exits.

USC Maps

that would be 2 legs of a great trifecta

[slide]

Cheryl Levick, part two. If Stanford has someone they desperately want to get rid of, just send them south...Levick, BTW, is in the Slippery Rock athletic hall of fame, I kid you not.

https://rockathletics.com/honors/hall-of.../215/kiosk

can we start offloading south with Bernie and build from there?

Sure. Send him down the 5, take the 110 South and have him take either the Figueroa or the Exposition Blvd. exits.

USC Maps

that would be 2 legs of a great trifecta