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)
+- 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)
RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - BobK - 01-05-2025
When Ogden came in to play post that convinced me Umeh is hurt
RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - 81alum - 01-05-2025
(01-05-2025, 09:00 PM)BobK Wrote: When Ogden came in to play post that convinced me Umeh is hurtA plausible explanation. But maybe she has already decided she is red-shirting, regardless of her current health. Or the coaches have.
I also wonder about Lepolo and whether her injuries are the decisive factor or whether she is saving some eligibility .
RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - crackpot - 01-05-2025
(01-05-2025, 05:04 PM)petersalas Wrote: 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.....
Yup, Wiggins with the ball heading straight up to the basket. Krista Rappahan waiting on the right-side 3-point line. Seimone Augustas pops out from behind Wiggins's defender as Wiggins passes the ball to Rappahan who sinks the 3. The 3 is waved off and Wiggins charged with an offensive foul.
Yet I can't remember what I wanted when I just now went to the kitchen...
RE: WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 - BobK - 01-06-2025
Sadly for basketball if you play in a game you can’t still redshirt.
In football you can play in 4 games and redshirt but not other sports
Good question for the chalk talk which I’ll miss
RE: WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 - Jskass - 01-06-2025
when I just Googled it, the reply included a caveat for medical reason so maybe there's hope?
(01-06-2025, 05:20 AM)BobK Wrote: Sadly for basketball if you play in a game you can’t still redshirt.
In football you can play in 4 games and redshirt but not other sports
Good question for the chalk talk which I’ll miss
RE: WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 - Spiny_Norman - 01-06-2025
The coaches tried everything they had to stop Loyal McQueen. Both Ijiwoye and Clardy fouled out trying to guard her. McQueen drew 9 Stanford fouls, shot 12-14 from the line and added 6 assists to her 26 points. She was the difference in the game.
Conversely, Stanford's guards Ijiwoye, Clardy, Harriel and Heal contributed little offensively. 11 points among the 4 of them on 4-16 shooting with 3 assists and 5 turnovers. The ACC is a guard-heavy league. Many opponents have someone as good or better than McQueen. The guard play needs to improve quickly. The return of Talana Lepolo would help, but that does not appear to be happening.
RE: WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 - MV72018 - 01-06-2025
(01-06-2025, 10:31 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: The coaches tried everything they had to stop Loyal McQueen. Both Ijiwoye and Clardy fouled out trying to guard her. McQueen drew 9 Stanford fouls, shot 12-14 from the line and added 6 assists to her 26 points. She was the difference in the game.
Conversely, Stanford's guards Ijiwoye, Clardy, Harriel and Heal contributed little offensively. 11 points among the 4 of them on 4-16 shooting with 3 assists and 5 turnovers. The ACC is a guard-heavy league. Many opponents have someone as good or better than McQueen. The guard play needs to improve quickly. The return of Talana Lepolo would help, but that does not appear to be happening.
You believe that the return of Lepolo would help? IMO, she's not fast or athletic enough to effectively defend against a speedy and athletic guard, and she doesn't score much on O. Hopefully there's a better answer somewhere on the roster, even if that individual requires an intense crash course on defending quick guards.
RE: WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 - TheFarm07 - 01-06-2025
(01-06-2025, 12:24 PM)MV72018 Wrote:(01-06-2025, 10:31 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: The coaches tried everything they had to stop Loyal McQueen. Both Ijiwoye and Clardy fouled out trying to guard her. McQueen drew 9 Stanford fouls, shot 12-14 from the line and added 6 assists to her 26 points. She was the difference in the game.
Conversely, Stanford's guards Ijiwoye, Clardy, Harriel and Heal contributed little offensively. 11 points among the 4 of them on 4-16 shooting with 3 assists and 5 turnovers. The ACC is a guard-heavy league. Many opponents have someone as good or better than McQueen. The guard play needs to improve quickly. The return of Talana Lepolo would help, but that does not appear to be happening.
You believe that the return of Lepolo would help? IMO, she's not fast or athletic enough to effectively defend against a speedy and athletic guard, and she doesn't score much on O. Hopefully there's a better answer somewhere on the roster, even if that individual requires an intense crash course on defending quick guards.
I agree, it shows you what dire straits we are in if we are hoping for the return of a guard who while would be a better game manager than who's out on the floor right now, doesn't add anything really on offense. Decent coverage on her would turn her into a non-shooting factor on offense and she doesn't have the speed or quickness to defend against what we will be facing in conference play over the next couple months.
RE: WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 - Spiny_Norman - 01-06-2025
(01-06-2025, 12:24 PM)MV72018 Wrote:(01-06-2025, 10:31 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: The coaches tried everything they had to stop Loyal McQueen. Both Ijiwoye and Clardy fouled out trying to guard her. McQueen drew 9 Stanford fouls, shot 12-14 from the line and added 6 assists to her 26 points. She was the difference in the game.
Conversely, Stanford's guards Ijiwoye, Clardy, Harriel and Heal contributed little offensively. 11 points among the 4 of them on 4-16 shooting with 3 assists and 5 turnovers. The ACC is a guard-heavy league. Many opponents have someone as good or better than McQueen. The guard play needs to improve quickly. The return of Talana Lepolo would help, but that does not appear to be happening.
You believe that the return of Lepolo would help? IMO, she's not fast or athletic enough to effectively defend against a speedy and athletic guard, and she doesn't score much on O. Hopefully there's a better answer somewhere on the roster, even if that individual requires an intense crash course on defending quick guards.
The crash course on defending quick guards has not shown positive results yet. Coach Paye has tried every combination of Harriel, Ijiwoye, Clardy and Heal. Stanford had no answer for Cal's guards or LSU's guards or SMU's guards. And 5 of the next 8 games are against ranked teams plus Florida State which is just outside the top 25. Dire straits indeed.
I don't know that things would be appreciably better with Lepolo. But I sure would like to have another experienced guard on the court. Lepolo has been strong enough to fight through screens. No one on the current roster seems to do that very well. Stanford seemed to switch on screens effectively sometimes yesterday but really broke down late in the game. I do agree that Lepolo would not add much to the offense.
It's all moot speculation on my part because there are no signs that she will be returning this season.
RE: WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 - BillBradley - 01-06-2025
(01-06-2025, 12:57 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:.(01-06-2025, 12:24 PM)MV72018 Wrote:(01-06-2025, 10:31 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: The coaches tried everything they had to stop Loyal McQueen. Both Ijiwoye and Clardy fouled out trying to guard her. McQueen drew 9 Stanford fouls, shot 12-14 from the line and added 6 assists to her 26 points. She was the difference in the game.
Conversely, Stanford's guards Ijiwoye, Clardy, Harriel and Heal contributed little offensively. 11 points among the 4 of them on 4-16 shooting with 3 assists and 5 turnovers. The ACC is a guard-heavy league. Many opponents have someone as good or better than McQueen. The guard play needs to improve quickly. The return of Talana Lepolo would help, but that does not appear to be happening.
You believe that the return of Lepolo would help? IMO, she's not fast or athletic enough to effectively defend against a speedy and athletic guard, and she doesn't score much on O. Hopefully there's a better answer somewhere on the roster, even if that individual requires an intense crash course on defending quick guards.
The crash course on defending quick guards has not shown positive results yet. Coach Paye has tried every combination of Harriel, Ijiwoye, Clardy and Heal. Stanford had no answer for Cal's guards or LSU's guards or SMU's guards. And 5 of the next 8 games are against ranked teams plus Florida State which is just outside the top 25. Dire straits indeed.
I don't know that things would be appreciably better with Lepolo. But I sure would like to have another experienced guard on the court. Lepolo has been strong enough to fight through screens. No one on the current roster seems to do that very well. Stanford seemed to switch on screens effectively sometimes yesterday but really broke down late in the game. I do agree that Lepolo would not add much to the offense.
It's all moot speculation on my part because there are no signs that she will be returning this season.
Agree w/Spiny. Lepolo doesn't immediately turn us into a contender, but she's an upgrade over the others IMO. That's because she doesn't make the mistakes the others make. I can't believe some of the terrible decision making by these guards sometimes. Some really bad shot selection and headscratching passes/turnovers. Clardy's end of game shot decisions were terrible IMO. Nunu and/or Demetre need to touch the ball most every possession. I'm not a big Lepolo fan and have often posted about her limitations, but she does get the ball to the right people in the right spots, and you can usually count on a good to great A:TO ratio. I think we win both the SMU and Clemson games with a healthy Lepolo in the lineup.
I've always thought Harriel and Clardy had high ceilings. Sometimes they look great, but sadly they just aren't reliable. I don't know what's happened to Harriel. Shay is more of a specialist to me. An energy/spark type player but pretty limited otherwise. Better defensively than offensively, but even then you can't really put her on great guards.
To illustrate just how far we've sunk in the backcourt...compared to "average Stanford guards" (not talking Kiana, Haley, Hulls here...) from recent teams...who would you rather have: any of the current guards or either 1) Anna Wilson 2) Jana Van Gytenbeek 3) Indya Nivar? None of those 3 were all league type players at Stanford. It's not even close.
Last note...I was not impressed with Clemson. Even with our limitations we should have won that game.
RE: WBB: Stanford @ Clemson Sun 11am; Preview and game thread - old spanish trail - 01-06-2025
(01-05-2025, 09:00 PM)BobK Wrote: When Ogden came in to play post that convinced me Umeh is hurt
I think I heard she was in street clothes. Sounds like a physical issue to me.
RE: WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 - triangle2 - 01-06-2025
There have been a lot of complaints on the board about Lepolo amid calls for more minutes for Clardy and Harriel. I think we have a big enough sample size to reach some conclusions on that unfortunately necessary experiment: Lepolo's value as a floor manager, leader, physical defender, and distributor were, IMO, not clearly understood here, and neither Harriel nor Clardy seem to be genuine answers at the one.
Has there been any actual disclosure from staff about the potential length of Lepolo's absence? I agree that it is looking suspiciously like a redshirt injury season.
RE: WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 - bl82 - 01-06-2025
Speaking of Nivar, her development has been disappointing at best. Now in her junior season, she still can't shoot from three, the FT line, or anywhere else. Her assist/TO ratio remains below 1.0 and even though she is starting this year, her minutes per game is up only two minutes from last year, from 21 to 23. The only stat where she excels is in steals, which currently stands at 2.0 per game. She might have helped against Clemson, but on paper at least, she is not the equal of Chloe Clardy, for one.
Hieronymus - Hieronymus - 01-06-2025
(01-06-2025, 04:05 PM)triangle2 Wrote: There have been a lot of complaints on the board about Lepolo amid calls for more minutes for Clardy and Harriel. I think we have a big enough sample size to reach some conclusions on that unfortunately necessary experiment: Lepolo's value as a floor manager, leader, physical defender, and distributor were, IMO, not clearly understood here, and neither Harriel nor Clardy seem to be genuine answers at the one.
Has there been any actual disclosure from staff about the potential length of Lepolo's absence? I agree that it is looking suspiciously like a redshirt injury season.
Lepolo gives a higher floor, but has a correspondingly low ceiling. So both sentiments can be valid/true. Her floor may might result in a win in some of these games against mediocre teams, but she won’t move the needle against better teams where maybe Clardy or Harriel’s ceiling could push the team over the top on a given day.
I also get that ceiling is still mostly hypothetical for Clardy and Harriel and a player with a solid floor has appeal and value. So I agree that Lepolo would be a valuable option right now.
RE: WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 - M T - 01-06-2025
Not this game, but not worth starting a new thread.
I had a few spare minutes and tuned in to watch the Cal@SMU WBB game. The refs were Tiffany Bird, Michol Murray, Talisa Green
In the 2nd quarter, a player was fouled on a shot. She took her first FT.
Then the refs called a timeout and discussed whether she was due two or three FTs. If they'd checked the monitors before the first FT, fine. But they did this after the first FT. Apparently it took a long time (the replay had a commercial here), judging from what Mary Murphy said about icing the FT shooter. (One foot was clearly on the 3pt line, once they reviewed it.) The player missed the 2nd FT.
Then, in the 3rd quarter, a Cal guard was going straight at the basket. She did a Euro step (well, sort of -- she dragged & hopped on her pivot foot which wasn't called), and with the defender facing her, took the ball from her side away from the basket to her side toward the basket by going sorta over her head. In doing so, her elbow hit the cheek or nose of the opponent. The defender staggered and when down on her back. Time out for a review. Mary Murphy was quite confident this was a basketball play and that the incident was neither intentional nor severe. I thought so too. But the refs came back with an Intentional Foul as an unnecessary move. The only thing I could see that may be true is that the offensive player swung her elbows forward at head level rather than over her head. The SMU player (defensive team) took their two FT and got the ball under their basket.
Then the cheap shot by the refs. Within about 10 seconds, Bird called an illegal screen on the SMU player. No way. That was an "Excuse me, I had to call the other foul, but now I'll try to make up for it with a wrong.". If you want to see it, it is at 4:06 Q3. Oh and stay tuned to watch a Cal play be in the lane for 7 seconds before taking a shot (3:59 - 3:52). Bird was watching the whole time. Stick around to 2:01 to see Bird fall for a flop (throw that head back!) Then Cal tried the same thing, but a biocking call went against the flopper.
Tiffany Bird sunk even lower in my opinion with that illegal screen call.
RE: WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 - M T - 01-09-2025
On the subject of referees' calls, I watched a replay of the USC@Maryland game. At one point in the first half, Watkins skids when planting a pivot foot bad enough to lose her balance. No travel call.. When the ball next got to the half court with the USC bench, the coach got in the refs ear. She seemed to be complaining about a lack of a elbow call on that slip (there was no contact by Maryland on that). The obliging refs stopped play and went to the monitor ('for an unobserved <unintelligible>"). She got her uncharged timeout.
The refs were calling practically nothing in the 3rd before the 5-minute time out (and things got pretty chippy), and then they started calling tiny stuff. It seems their favorite is to call the offense for some foul when setting a screen. (While I'm no fan of USC, there was a screening foul they called against USC that I simply can't figure out what the ref thought was illegal.)
Everyone says they want consistency in officiating, but when officials clearly change their calling at a time out, its going to cause some players to get fouls. If the refs went to each bench and said "Things are getting too rough. We're going to be calling it tighter now," then I'd be OK with that.
---
Also, I noted that the jerseys said "SoCal" rather than "USC". Have they thrown in the towel on what team gets called "USC"?
RE: WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 - crackpot - 01-09-2025
(01-09-2025, 11:17 AM)M T Wrote: Also, I noted that the jerseys said "SoCal" rather than "USC". Have they thrown in the towel on what team gets called "USC"?
I figure that's just there way of saying "We have a lot of money to waste and you don't."
RE: WBB: Stanford 61 Clemson 65 - Goose - 01-09-2025
(01-09-2025, 03:46 PM)crackpot Wrote:I had hoped it mean that the women on the team had realized the negative connotations of being associated with the University of Southern California and were attempting to obscure their association with it :-).(01-09-2025, 11:17 AM)M T Wrote: Also, I noted that the jerseys said "SoCal" rather than "USC". Have they thrown in the towel on what team gets called "USC"?
I figure that's just there way of saying "We have a lot of money to waste and you don't."