[76lsjumb]

on the other hand, the announcer is for pronouncing Elena‘s last name OHGLIV. Short i.

Sounds like a long i to me. Short i would be slightly closer to correct.

With all due respect, for those of us who don’t have access to ACCNX and are forced to follow the match by looking at the LiveStats screen on our phones, the TV announcer’s mispronunciation of Elena’s last name is kind of a “first world” problem… :-)

:-)

ESPN+ is pretty inexpensive. Well, at least in the first world!

Alas, that’s kind of a sore spot for me. We cut the cable last year when xfinity got a little ridiculous price wise. Started streaming with Fubo, because it had PAC-12. Kept Fubo because it has ACCN… but not ACCNX, of course. A few months back, I did some research and saw that Hulu, which we also had, had a deal that included ESPN+. Great, signed up when I also learned that you needed ESPN+ to get ACCNX. Then, the first time I wanted to watch a match on ACCNX, it asked for my “provider”. I entered Hulu… only to receive a message that ESPN+ through hulu doesn’t support ACCNX.   Grrr…

For us, at least, it may be inexpensive…but it’s also worthless. :-(

Fortunately, the UNC match is on ACCN.

[76lsjumb]

on the other hand, the announcer is for pronouncing Elena‘s last name OHGLIV. Short i.

Sounds like a long i to me. Short i would be slightly closer to correct.

With all due respect, for those of us who don’t have access to ACCNX and are forced to follow the match by looking at the LiveStats screen on our phones, the TV announcer’s mispronunciation of Elena’s last name is kind of a “first world” problem… :-)

:-)

ESPN+ is pretty inexpensive. Well, at least in the first world!

Alas, that’s kind of a sore spot for me. We cut the cable last year when xfinity got a little ridiculous price wise. Started streaming with Fubo, because it had PAC-12. Kept Fubo because it has ACCN… but not ACCNX, of course. A few months back, I did some research and saw that Hulu, which we also had, had a deal that included ESPN+. Great, signed up when I also learned that you needed ESPN+ to get ACCNX. Then, the first time I wanted to watch a match on ACCNX, it asked for my “provider”. I entered Hulu… only to receive a message that ESPN+ through hulu doesn’t support ACCNX.   Grrr…

For us, at least, it may be inexpensive…but it’s also worthless. :-(

Fortunately, the UNC match is on ACCN.

[mbdude]

florida st beat G. Tech (next opponent) in 5  on a ceiling shot

---

excuse me   N.Carolina next then GT

[mbdude]

florida st beat G. Tech (next opponent) in 5  on a ceiling shot

---

excuse me   N.Carolina next then GT

[BobK]

Stanford hit 469. Kurt 19 kills hit 545

[BobK]

Stanford hit 469. Kurt 19 kills hit 545

[CompSci87]

Alas, that’s kind of a sore spot for me. We cut the cable last year when xfinity got a little ridiculous price wise. Started streaming with Fubo, because it had PAC-12. Kept Fubo because it has ACCN… but not ACCNX, of course. A few months back, I did some research and saw that Hulu, which we also had, had a deal that included ESPN+. Great, signed up when I also learned that you needed ESPN+ to get ACCNX. Then, the first time I wanted to watch a match on ACCNX, it asked for my “provider”. I entered Hulu… only to receive a message that ESPN+ through hulu doesn’t support ACCNX.   Grrr…

For us, at least, it may be inexpensive…but it’s also worthless. :-(

Yuck! There are so many gotchas in cable/streaming today. I'm paying what seems like way too much for Comcast, but haven't figured out yet if I can get what I want to see, without weird limitations, another way.

[CompSci87]

Alas, that’s kind of a sore spot for me. We cut the cable last year when xfinity got a little ridiculous price wise. Started streaming with Fubo, because it had PAC-12. Kept Fubo because it has ACCN… but not ACCNX, of course. A few months back, I did some research and saw that Hulu, which we also had, had a deal that included ESPN+. Great, signed up when I also learned that you needed ESPN+ to get ACCNX. Then, the first time I wanted to watch a match on ACCNX, it asked for my “provider”. I entered Hulu… only to receive a message that ESPN+ through hulu doesn’t support ACCNX.   Grrr…

For us, at least, it may be inexpensive…but it’s also worthless. :-(

Yuck! There are so many gotchas in cable/streaming today. I'm paying what seems like way too much for Comcast, but haven't figured out yet if I can get what I want to see, without weird limitations, another way.

[TonyLima]

on the other hand, the announcer is for pronouncing Elena‘s last name OHGLIV. Short i.

Sounds like a long i to me. Short i would be slightly closer to correct.

With all due respect, for those of us who don’t have access to ACCNX and are forced to follow the match by looking at the LiveStats screen on our phones, the TV announcer’s mispronunciation of Elena’s last name is kind of a “first world” problem… :-)

:-)

ESPN+ is pretty inexpensive. Well, at least in the first world!

Alas, that’s kind of a sore spot for me. We cut the cable last year when xfinity got a little ridiculous price wise. Started streaming with Fubo, because it had PAC-12. Kept Fubo because it has ACCN… but not ACCNX, of course. A few months back, I did some research and saw that Hulu, which we also had, had a deal that included ESPN+. Great, signed up when I also learned that you needed ESPN+ to get ACCNX. Then, the first time I wanted to watch a match on ACCNX, it asked for my “provider”. I entered Hulu… only to receive a message that ESPN+ through hulu doesn’t support ACCNX.   Grrr…

For us, at least, it may be inexpensive…but it’s also worthless. :-(

Fortunately, the UNC match is on ACCN.

That may be an ESPN problem. I am routinely told that I can’t play shows on ESPN even though I’ve registered with my fuboTV account. Their authentication procedure is reflective of the fact that they’re owned by Disney. It’s not good.

[TonyLima]

on the other hand, the announcer is for pronouncing Elena‘s last name OHGLIV. Short i.

Sounds like a long i to me. Short i would be slightly closer to correct.

With all due respect, for those of us who don’t have access to ACCNX and are forced to follow the match by looking at the LiveStats screen on our phones, the TV announcer’s mispronunciation of Elena’s last name is kind of a “first world” problem… :-)

:-)

ESPN+ is pretty inexpensive. Well, at least in the first world!

Alas, that’s kind of a sore spot for me. We cut the cable last year when xfinity got a little ridiculous price wise. Started streaming with Fubo, because it had PAC-12. Kept Fubo because it has ACCN… but not ACCNX, of course. A few months back, I did some research and saw that Hulu, which we also had, had a deal that included ESPN+. Great, signed up when I also learned that you needed ESPN+ to get ACCNX. Then, the first time I wanted to watch a match on ACCNX, it asked for my “provider”. I entered Hulu… only to receive a message that ESPN+ through hulu doesn’t support ACCNX.   Grrr…

For us, at least, it may be inexpensive…but it’s also worthless. :-(

Fortunately, the UNC match is on ACCN.

That may be an ESPN problem. I am routinely told that I can’t play shows on ESPN even though I’ve registered with my fuboTV account. Their authentication procedure is reflective of the fact that they’re owned by Disney. It’s not good.

[M T]

Now, that's just plain perverted.

I was all set to complain that ACCNx recording of the WVB match ended early at 19-10 in the 3rd set.  I've seen this in other matches and sports.
It ended at the same point whether I used the Sling app on my TV or on my laptop.

But then I went to the ESPN+ website, and found the game under ACCNx tab.  To watch it, I was prompted to login through Sling.
But this recording actually included the full match!!

So, this fault is on you Sling.  I don't understand how they cut it at  1:11 when the ESPN+ version went to 1:17.  WTH?

[M T]

Now, that's just plain perverted.

I was all set to complain that ACCNx recording of the WVB match ended early at 19-10 in the 3rd set.  I've seen this in other matches and sports.
It ended at the same point whether I used the Sling app on my TV or on my laptop.

But then I went to the ESPN+ website, and found the game under ACCNx tab.  To watch it, I was prompted to login through Sling.
But this recording actually included the full match!!

So, this fault is on you Sling.  I don't understand how they cut it at  1:11 when the ESPN+ version went to 1:17.  WTH?

[johnbar]

Louisville dropped the third set at Virginia, though they dominated the 1st, 2nd, and 4th.
So they can lose focus for a set, too.

[johnbar]

Louisville dropped the third set at Virginia, though they dominated the 1st, 2nd, and 4th.
So they can lose focus for a set, too.

[MSG1716]

We won easily but were sloppy and inconsistent.  We still don't block consistently with only 4 in 3 sets against a team that only was in system around 10 times in the match (maybe a slight exaggeration as I didn't keep count) and we seemed to lose focus off and on, mostly in set 2.  A top 10 team beats us tonight.  We've got to get more consistent to beat GA Tech on the road and certainly Louisville in our senior day finale.  Tough to say goodbye to Miner, Oglivie and Francis.

[MSG1716]

We won easily but were sloppy and inconsistent.  We still don't block consistently with only 4 in 3 sets against a team that only was in system around 10 times in the match (maybe a slight exaggeration as I didn't keep count) and we seemed to lose focus off and on, mostly in set 2.  A top 10 team beats us tonight.  We've got to get more consistent to beat GA Tech on the road and certainly Louisville in our senior day finale.  Tough to say goodbye to Miner, Oglivie and Francis.

[M T]

Such a downer...   

Did you count the number of free balls Duke sent to Stanford, or the number of tap downs at the net?  Seems like there were a lot of those, but of course, those aren't available for blocks.   4 blocks (no errors) to Duke's 30 kills seems like a not-unreasonable ratio  (13.3% blocks/opp. kills.  For the season, Stanford has 20.2% blocks/opp. kills.)

Wound up at 5 aces versus 7 service errors.  Not bad either.

Duke was clearly overmatched.  Duke did have a good set  2.  My guess is that once Stanford got down, Stanford tried too hard.  But when you look at the stats, Stanford had 23 kills in set 2 and 2 errors for a hitting% of  0.535 (why do they call it a percentage, and not multiply by 100??).

[M T]

Such a downer...   

Did you count the number of free balls Duke sent to Stanford, or the number of tap downs at the net?  Seems like there were a lot of those, but of course, those aren't available for blocks.   4 blocks (no errors) to Duke's 30 kills seems like a not-unreasonable ratio  (13.3% blocks/opp. kills.  For the season, Stanford has 20.2% blocks/opp. kills.)

Wound up at 5 aces versus 7 service errors.  Not bad either.

Duke was clearly overmatched.  Duke did have a good set  2.  My guess is that once Stanford got down, Stanford tried too hard.  But when you look at the stats, Stanford had 23 kills in set 2 and 2 errors for a hitting% of  0.535 (why do they call it a percentage, and not multiply by 100??).

[TonyLima]

Such a downer...   

Did you count the number of free balls Duke sent to Stanford, or the number of tap downs at the net?  Seems like there were a lot of those, but of course, those aren't available for blocks.   4 blocks (no errors) to Duke's 30 kills seems like a not-unreasonable ratio  (13.3% blocks/opp. kills.  For the season, Stanford has 20.2% blocks/opp. kills.)

Wound up at 5 aces versus 7 service errors.  Not bad either.

Duke was clearly overmatched.  Duke did have a good set  2.  My guess is that once Stanford got down, Stanford tried too hard.  But when you look at the stats, Stanford had 23 kills in set 2 and 2 errors for a hitting% of  0.535 (why do they call it a percentage, and not multiply by 100??).

Technically, the percentage would be 53.5%.  This ends today’s pedantry.

[TonyLima]

Such a downer...   

Did you count the number of free balls Duke sent to Stanford, or the number of tap downs at the net?  Seems like there were a lot of those, but of course, those aren't available for blocks.   4 blocks (no errors) to Duke's 30 kills seems like a not-unreasonable ratio  (13.3% blocks/opp. kills.  For the season, Stanford has 20.2% blocks/opp. kills.)

Wound up at 5 aces versus 7 service errors.  Not bad either.

Duke was clearly overmatched.  Duke did have a good set  2.  My guess is that once Stanford got down, Stanford tried too hard.  But when you look at the stats, Stanford had 23 kills in set 2 and 2 errors for a hitting% of  0.535 (why do they call it a percentage, and not multiply by 100??).

Technically, the percentage would be 53.5%.  This ends today’s pedantry.

[MSG1716]

Duke could not handle our serve, particularly in the first set.  They were out of system much of the time.

This is less a match about stats as accurately stated Duke is a much inferior team to us.  I don't think Duke should get 15 points in any set against a top 10 team.  My point was that we were sloppy and inconsistent, not that I thought we were in any danger of losing to Duke.  I'm looking at us as a potential Final Four team and would like to see us play at that level where one or two give away points in a set loses you the match.

Does anyway know what's up with Yu's health as she hasn't dressed in a while and her serve can be dominant (when she gets it in)?  Also interested to know Hambly's thoughts on our DSs.  Pringle seemed to be the #1 but yesterday was Beaven.  Cawa was up there earlier in the season but has disappeared of late.  I also see that Harvey is playing a lot of back row and Kurt a little.  My guess is the stats and practice indicates they are doing a lot better on service returns than earlier in the season.

[MSG1716]

Duke could not handle our serve, particularly in the first set.  They were out of system much of the time.

This is less a match about stats as accurately stated Duke is a much inferior team to us.  I don't think Duke should get 15 points in any set against a top 10 team.  My point was that we were sloppy and inconsistent, not that I thought we were in any danger of losing to Duke.  I'm looking at us as a potential Final Four team and would like to see us play at that level where one or two give away points in a set loses you the match.

Does anyway know what's up with Yu's health as she hasn't dressed in a while and her serve can be dominant (when she gets it in)?  Also interested to know Hambly's thoughts on our DSs.  Pringle seemed to be the #1 but yesterday was Beaven.  Cawa was up there earlier in the season but has disappeared of late.  I also see that Harvey is playing a lot of back row and Kurt a little.  My guess is the stats and practice indicates they are doing a lot better on service returns than earlier in the season.

[BostonCard]

Such a downer...   

Did you count the number of free balls Duke sent to Stanford, or the number of tap downs at the net?  Seems like there were a lot of those, but of course, those aren't available for blocks.   4 blocks (no errors) to Duke's 30 kills seems like a not-unreasonable ratio  (13.3% blocks/opp. kills.  For the season, Stanford has 20.2% blocks/opp. kills.)

Wound up at 5 aces versus 7 service errors.  Not bad either.

Duke was clearly overmatched.  Duke did have a good set  2.  My guess is that once Stanford got down, Stanford tried too hard.  But when you look at the stats, Stanford had 23 kills in set 2 and 2 errors for a hitting% of  0.535 (why do they call it a percentage, and not multiply by 100??).

Technically, the percentage would be 53.5%.  This ends today’s pedantry.

Not quite yet (on the end of the pedantry).  Technically, it is a difference in percentages, not a percentage.  It reflects the percentage of hit attempts that result in kills minus the percentage of hit attempts that result in errors (which is algebraically the same as (kills - errors)/attempts * 100.

BC

[BostonCard]

Such a downer...   

Did you count the number of free balls Duke sent to Stanford, or the number of tap downs at the net?  Seems like there were a lot of those, but of course, those aren't available for blocks.   4 blocks (no errors) to Duke's 30 kills seems like a not-unreasonable ratio  (13.3% blocks/opp. kills.  For the season, Stanford has 20.2% blocks/opp. kills.)

Wound up at 5 aces versus 7 service errors.  Not bad either.

Duke was clearly overmatched.  Duke did have a good set  2.  My guess is that once Stanford got down, Stanford tried too hard.  But when you look at the stats, Stanford had 23 kills in set 2 and 2 errors for a hitting% of  0.535 (why do they call it a percentage, and not multiply by 100??).

Technically, the percentage would be 53.5%.  This ends today’s pedantry.

Not quite yet (on the end of the pedantry).  Technically, it is a difference in percentages, not a percentage.  It reflects the percentage of hit attempts that result in kills minus the percentage of hit attempts that result in errors (which is algebraically the same as (kills - errors)/attempts * 100.

BC

[BobK]

Beavan has been a very good server. She stays in because her serves produce points. Pringle is the top DS.

[BobK]

Beavan has been a very good server. She stays in because her serves produce points. Pringle is the top DS.

[CompSci87]

From a chalk talk, Hambly would like to be able to play both Harvey and Kurt in the back row to have them available as attackers there, but they have both needed to improve their defense. Harvey is coming along enough that he's playing her back row some, but needs to keep working on her defense. Kurt is not as close but is making progress and will get there.

[CompSci87]

From a chalk talk, Hambly would like to be able to play both Harvey and Kurt in the back row to have them available as attackers there, but they have both needed to improve their defense. Harvey is coming along enough that he's playing her back row some, but needs to keep working on her defense. Kurt is not as close but is making progress and will get there.

[paloalto]

Stanford at North Carolina this morning 9:00am PT on ACCN.   NC is 20-6 overall and 12-5 in conference.  This month NC got swept by Pitt and Louisville; lost in five sets to Georgia Tech.

[paloalto]

Stanford at North Carolina this morning 9:00am PT on ACCN.   NC is 20-6 overall and 12-5 in conference.  This month NC got swept by Pitt and Louisville; lost in five sets to Georgia Tech.

[BobK]

Yu with a wrap on her knee. Koko also not suited up

---

Won the first set easily hitting 259 but 5 blocks

[BobK]

Yu with a wrap on her knee. Koko also not suited up

---

Won the first set easily hitting 259 but 5 blocks

[johnbar]

Stanford now 11 blocks to Tarheels 3.

After two setts 13 vs. 3.

Stanford dominating in most every stat.

---

UNC hit -0.133 in the first set, and got worse in the second (-0.167).

[johnbar]

Stanford now 11 blocks to Tarheels 3.

After two setts 13 vs. 3.

Stanford dominating in most every stat.

---

UNC hit -0.133 in the first set, and got worse in the second (-0.167).

[TonyLima]

Such a downer...   

Did you count the number of free balls Duke sent to Stanford, or the number of tap downs at the net?  Seems like there were a lot of those, but of course, those aren't available for blocks.   4 blocks (no errors) to Duke's 30 kills seems like a not-unreasonable ratio  (13.3% blocks/opp. kills.  For the season, Stanford has 20.2% blocks/opp. kills.)

Wound up at 5 aces versus 7 service errors.  Not bad either.

Duke was clearly overmatched.  Duke did have a good set  2.  My guess is that once Stanford got down, Stanford tried too hard.  But when you look at the stats, Stanford had 23 kills in set 2 and 2 errors for a hitting% of  0.535 (why do they call it a percentage, and not multiply by 100??).

Technically, the percentage would be 53.5%.  This ends today’s pedantry.

Not quite yet (on the end of the pedantry).  Technically, it is a difference in percentages, not a percentage.  It reflects the percentage of hit attempts that result in kills minus the percentage of hit attempts that result in errors (which is algebraically the same as (kills - errors)/attempts * 100.

BC

I stand corrected.

---

Related: UNC band has 3 flugelhorns.

[TonyLima]

Such a downer...   

Did you count the number of free balls Duke sent to Stanford, or the number of tap downs at the net?  Seems like there were a lot of those, but of course, those aren't available for blocks.   4 blocks (no errors) to Duke's 30 kills seems like a not-unreasonable ratio  (13.3% blocks/opp. kills.  For the season, Stanford has 20.2% blocks/opp. kills.)

Wound up at 5 aces versus 7 service errors.  Not bad either.

Duke was clearly overmatched.  Duke did have a good set  2.  My guess is that once Stanford got down, Stanford tried too hard.  But when you look at the stats, Stanford had 23 kills in set 2 and 2 errors for a hitting% of  0.535 (why do they call it a percentage, and not multiply by 100??).

Technically, the percentage would be 53.5%.  This ends today’s pedantry.

Not quite yet (on the end of the pedantry).  Technically, it is a difference in percentages, not a percentage.  It reflects the percentage of hit attempts that result in kills minus the percentage of hit attempts that result in errors (which is algebraically the same as (kills - errors)/attempts * 100.

BC

I stand corrected.

---

Related: UNC band has 3 flugelhorns.

[BobK]

North Carolina suddenly digging everything

[BobK]

North Carolina suddenly digging everything

[johnbar]

Stanford squeaks by in the third set.

Sami Francis 12 blocks (3 BS, 9 BA).

In the third set, Stanford hit 0.068, UNC 0.030.

[johnbar]

Stanford squeaks by in the third set.

Sami Francis 12 blocks (3 BS, 9 BA).

In the third set, Stanford hit 0.068, UNC 0.030.