WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 - Printable Version

WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 (/thread-25383.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - martyup - 01-05-2025

Deme3 can put us up by 5 with 1:49 to play if she sinks two FTs.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - M T - 01-05-2025

(01-05-2025, 02:06 PM)81alum Wrote: They seem to have cut the game off on the channel I was watching. What horrible coverage. It is a Soap rerun.

Arrrrgggghhhh. I went to the audio feed.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - Mudhead - 01-05-2025

(01-05-2025, 01:43 PM)BobK Wrote: Loved the Pac 12 channel. But I haven’t missed a mbb WBB or WVB game yet.

Same experience with Hulu with the ESPN plus added. PAC 12 was nice but harder to get.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - JohnR34231 - 01-05-2025

(01-05-2025, 02:09 PM)martyup Wrote: Deme3 can put us up by 5 with 1:49 to play if she sinks two FTs.

No such luck. Back to tied with under a minute.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - martyup - 01-05-2025

Crap

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tenor.com%2F6mXxQ...ipo=images]

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - mbdude - 01-05-2025

8 -0 run by clemson

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - JohnR34231 - 01-05-2025

(01-05-2025, 02:15 PM)martyup Wrote: Crap

At the risk of being cynical, I can't say I'm surprised.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - crackpot - 01-05-2025

So much more to like than the previous losses. But, yeah. Crap.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - Card10Fan - 01-05-2025

If we make our free throws we win this game. Wasn’t meant to be. Effort was good. I thought Ogden should have been in more in the 2nd half. You take the good and the bad Agara. She makes tough shots but also misses a lot of makable ones. She needed to get buckets in OT and it didn’t happen.

As the loses mount I worry we just aren’t gonna get out of this funk and it’s gonna spiral to a long losing streak.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - petersalas - 01-05-2025

I agree, missed free throws will cost a lost of games. Hopefully the team can begin playing with confidence, aggressiveness and energy again soon!

(01-05-2025, 02:25 PM)Card10Fan Wrote: If we make our free throws we win this game. Wasn’t meant to be. Effort was good. I thought Ogden should have been in more in the 2nd half. You take the good and the bad Agara. She makes tough shots but also misses a lot of makable ones. She needed to get buckets in OT and it didn’t happen.

As the loses mount I worry we just aren’t gonna get out of this funk and it’s gonna spiral to a long losing streak.

Mudhead - Mudhead - 01-05-2025

Much,much better than the SMU game. That was 38 min and 2 sec of lackadaisical play and no hum coaching. Then two minutes of hustle and very loose foul calling.

Today, I saw good effort from start to finish. I don’t understand some of the rotations , especially the one that took Ogden out when she was beginning to play very well. And Harriel seems to have lost the ability to play on either end of the court but she still plays a lot. you have to assume the coaches have a better feel for who can play against what Clemson set than what we can get from TV.

Poor free throw shooting and the inability to keep a good attacker from getting to the basket undid us. But no complaint about the effort here. This level of effort would have been enough for a win against SMU. It is just possible that we are a below average team and that any ACC win will be a slight upset. Right now, we are a team that keeps finding a way to lose games. Our early low level competition fooled me into believing we might be better.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - M T - 01-05-2025

For the record, the officials were Tiara Cruse, Teresa Stuck, Krystle Apellaniz
I don't recognize any of those names.

Regarding the called foul charged against Agara late in regulation, I can't recall the last time I've ever seen an official call a foul more than a second after the occurrence. A half second late would see like a slow whistle.

Had she called it only 1.1 second late (when the clock showed 0.1), the applicable rule is that the clock be stopped when she SIGNALS the foul, so Clemson would get the ball with 0.1 on the clock. But she clearly was watching the shot & backboard, and signaled the foul when the red light came on, 1.2 seconds after she ruled the foul occurred. There is a rule that if the clock expires before the ref has called the foul, then the clock is set to when the foul occurred (even if it was 10 seconds before the clock expired). I'm sure those that made the rule never considered such a slow whistle. So Clemson got the ball with 1.2 seconds on the clock.

Did the official intentionally wait for the clock to run out? I have to say that I think so. We saw no earlier calls for fouls that were way late. The red light comes on before she begins to raise her arm. I'm sorta surprised she didn't signal that the foul was before the shot, which I could see being called. EDIT: Indeed, the foul was ruled as being before the shot. Agara was not credited with a shot in the play-by-play.

I actually can see a reasoning behind waiting even though I don't agree with it. The idea would be that whatever you call, the signal will be later than the foul. But if you wait until time expires, the clock can be wound backwards to the time of the foul.

(The second set of extra time given to Clemson was based on the requirement that at least 0.3 seconds be taken off the clock. 1.2 - 0.3 = 0.9.)

As for the legitimacy of the foul, the defensive player was clearly moving laterally throughout. Agara's outside foot (right) was outside the defender's outside foot (left). Did the defensive player move into Agara's path. Clearly so. Both of Agara's feet were off the floor when the contact was made. The defender can't move into the path of an airborne player (not just airborne shooter). Unfortunately, the rules don't clarify "airborne".

At the next chalk talk, I suggest someone asking if Stanford asked if the official intentionally waited until the clock ran out before calling the foul on Agara. Is this a directive to officials, or just a one-off action by this ref. If a directive, when (5 seconds? 20?) do they stop calling fouls as they happen, and instead wait for the clock to run out?

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - JJJ - 01-05-2025

M T dateline='[url=tel:1736116665' Wrote: 1736116665[/url]']
For the record, the officials were Tiara Cruse, Teresa Stuck, Krystle Apellaniz
I don't recognize any of those names.

Regarding the called foul charged against Agara late in regulation, I can't recall the last time I've ever seen an official call a foul more than a second after the occurrence. A half second late would see like a slow whistle.

Had she called it only 1.1 second late (when the clock showed 0.1), the applicable rule is that the clock be stopped when she SIGNALS the foul, so Clemson would get the ball with 0.1 on the clock. But she clearly was watching the shot & backboard, and signaled the foul when the red light came on, 1.2 seconds after she ruled the foul occurred. There is a rule that if the clock expires before the ref has called the foul, then the clock is set to when the foul occurred (even if it was 10 seconds before the clock expired). I'm sure those that made the rule never considered such a slow whistle. So Clemson got the ball with 1.2 seconds on the clock.

Did the official intentionally wait for the clock to run out? I have to say that I think so. We saw no earlier calls for fouls that were way late. The red light comes on before she begins to raise her arm. I'm sorta surprised she didn't signal that the foul was before the shot, which I could see being called. EDIT: Indeed, the foul was ruled as being before the shot. Agara was not credited with a shot in the play-by-play.

I actually can see a reasoning behind waiting even though I don't agree with it. The idea would be that whatever you call, the signal will be later than the foul. But if you wait until time expires, the clock can be wound backwards to the time of the foul.

(The second set of extra time given to Clemson was based on the requirement that at least 0.3 seconds be taken off the clock. 1.2 - 0.3 = 0.9.)

As for the legitimacy of the foul, the defensive player was clearly moving laterally throughout. Agara's outside foot (right) was outside the defender's outside foot (left). Did the defensive player move into Agara's path. Clearly so. Both of Agara's feet were off the floor when the contact was made. The defender can't move into the path of an airborne player (not just airborne shooter). Unfortunately, the rules don't clarify "airborne".

At the next chalk talk, I suggest someone asking if Stanford asked if the official intentionally waited until the clock ran out before calling the foul on Agara. Is this a directive to officials, or just a one-off action by this ref. If a directive, when (5 seconds? 20?) do they stop calling fouls as they happen, and instead wait for the clock to run out?

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Curious what you think the “correct” call should have been—defensive foul before or in the act of shooting? Not that it really matters now…

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - 81alum - 01-05-2025

For those old timers, wasn't there an infamous late charging foul called that cost us a game deep in the NCAA tournament one year? Was it against Wiggins?

This seemed eerily reminiscent of something buried deep in my memory. But I try very hard to practice selective amnesia about such things.....

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - petersalas - 01-05-2025

Yes, vs LSU in the Elite 8…

(01-05-2025, 04:49 PM)81alum Wrote: For those old timers, wasn't there an infamous late charging foul called that cost us a game deep in the NCAA tournament one year? Was it against Wiggins?

This seemed eerily reminiscent of something buried deep in my memory. But I try very hard to practice selective amnesia about such things.....

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - paloalto - 01-05-2025

I agree the players tried their best. This is a team with an average level of talent. I don't expect them to play like a top 25 team so I'm not disappointed.

This year Stanford won't win the conference or make the NCAA tournament. I don't mind if the losses should start to stack up. My focus is on which player/players improve and emerge as a possible starter for next season. This is a rebuilding year.

Mudhead - Mudhead - 01-05-2025

(01-05-2025, 05:25 PM)paloalto Wrote: I agree the players tried their best. This is a team with an average level of talent. I don't expect them to play like a top 25 team so I'm not disappointed.

This year Stanford won't win the conference or make the NCAA tournament. I don't mind if the losses should start to stack up. My focus is on which player/players improve and emerge as a possible starter for next season. This is a rebuilding year.

Hope you are right but I think “rebuilding” is a thing of the past. We will be very fortunate to keep Nunu, Chloe and Ogden from the portal. Players don’t stay to rebuild unless you pay a great deal of money and I fear we are not there .

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - Card10Fan - 01-05-2025

(01-05-2025, 05:25 PM)paloalto Wrote: I agree the players tried their best. This is a team with an average level of talent. I don't expect them to play like a top 25 team so I'm not disappointed.

This year Stanford won't win the conference or make the NCAA tournament. I don't mind if the losses should start to stack up. My focus is on which player/players improve and emerge as a possible starter for next season. This is a rebuilding year.

I wouldn’t put a focus on potential starters for next year at this juncture. With the portal, who knows how many will even return to Stanford next year. As has been mentioned by others, there’s no rebuilding for great programs, only reloading. I worry a bad season without the team showing real improvement means our best players choose to leave after the season to go play elsewhere. Although we aren’t the most talented team compared to years past, a sense of urgency and need to win games or at least show competitiveness now is important for the future.

I bet if you compared rosters with our last two opponents, we have more top 100 recruits on our team than SMU and probably Clemson. Although we don’t have top 10 talent, we are losing to teams with even less talent than us.

Mudhead - Mudhead - 01-05-2025

Good news! We have the best overall record among the ACC teams who are 0-3. Therefore we are listed ahead of them on the standings.

RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - 81alum - 01-05-2025

My observations:

1) The television coverage was abysmal. I already hate being in the ACC, just for that if nothing else.

2) Our players showed much more fight than in some previous games. They did not give up and in some cases showed promise and improvement. This was not as terrible as, say, Indiana or SMU or Cal or Ohio State. But it was still a loss, as LSU was. Our players did not show the fortitude to play their best when tired, and away, and when the game was on the line. They showed that they have heart and are competent, but they did not show that they are winners.

3) Shay Ijiwoye seemed like a wonderful start, but her lack of experience showed. I think she should become a starter as we build toward the future, but she had fewer points than Lepolo typically scored, only 1 assist, and she fouled out. She did great things on defense. Enormous potential, but on most Stanford teams she would not be a starter.

4) Bosgana did what she often does. She was almost a dominant player early on. I think she had 9 points in the first quarter, and we really needed it. Then she averaged two point each additional quarter. She is simply not consistant.

5) Demetre should be a specialist stretch 4 who comes in when we really need to spread the floor and hit some threes. She really is not right for defending or attacking in the paint. Today she had 3 treys and was 0-2 from inside. Give her credit for 7 rebounds and 2 blocks, but she is not what we need from a 5 or a 4. Filling the shoes of Iriafen or Brink is impossible, of course, but certainly not in her tool set when playing against exceptional athletes.

6) Every game educates me more and more as to what Kate Paye meant when she said Agara needs to be more of a grizzly bear and less of a teddy bear. She has enormous talent but lacks the aggression that is needed. And every offensive foul that is called on her simply reinforces passivity. I wonder what the score would have been had she driven to the basket every single time she had the ball? Would she have fouled out early?

7) Our goals for the season need to change. They are no longer about making the NCAAs or finishing high in the conference or anything else we fans might desire. Our goals are now about retaining our existing players and our incoming recruits, so that next year we will have the talent to truly rebuild. We need to win a couple of games we are not expected to win. And we are certainly not expected to win either of next week end's games at Maples. And make no mistake, under the best of circumstances NEXT year will be a rebuilding year. This year is a survival year. Bosgana, Demetre, and Harriel (at a minimum) will all be gone.

8) Two players who have seemingly disappeared--and I am not sure why--are Harriel and Umeh. Harriel was once our best shooter. Today she only took two shots and missed them both. Umeh hasn't played more than a couple of minutes since since Morgan State. We seem desperate for another big presence, and she acquitted herself well whenever we have seen her. I am beginning to worry that her lack of playing time may be something worse than a coach's decision. There has not been a chalk talk in forever (a truly terrible home schedule), but next time I certainly hope that that question gets asked.

9) It does not get easier with Florida State and North Carolina State coming to Maples next week. NC State just beat Boston College by 40 points. 13-2 Florida State just beat Syracuse. I am thankful that Cal is a good team this year, since it will complicate NC State's and Florida State's preparations--they can't afford to focus on Stanford alone. At this point I would count us very lucky to get one win out of those two games. Winning them both might help to salvage the season.