The CardBoard
WBB: Rankings - 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: Rankings (/thread-14991.html)


WBB: Rankings - 81alum - 11-20-2017

Stanford stays at 14.

UC LA climbs to 5 after beating Baylor and takes on UConn tomorrow.  They may have a chance against a depleted UConn.

Oregon is 10th after losing to #5 Louisville.

Tennessee is 12 after beating several patsies.

Oregon State drops to 18 after losing to #6 N otre Dame by only 5.  I don't get it.

C al is at 21 after a beat down by UConn.

Arizona State is 24 after 4 patsies.

Lili, by the way, is doing quite well in her role as a point guard.  She is shooting 53% and has 19 assists to 6 turnovers in her 29 mpg.

Re: WBB: Rankings - 81alum - 11-21-2017

First coaches poll is out.  They have a 2-2 Stanford at 12, a little more generous than the AP.  I have no idea why.  How can anyone really know anything about this team yet except that we should be lower than the two teams that beat us and higher than the two teams we beat, which means just about anywhere.

The answer is, of course, that the coaches all believe that Tara will get this team into shape, eventually.

Re: WBB: Rankings - 2006alum - 11-21-2017

(11-21-2017, 11:15 AM)81alum link Wrote:The answer is, of course, that the coaches all believe that Tara will get this team into shape, eventually.
+1. I'd say we're borderline top 25 team now and potential to be a low top ten team in March. If you think rankings are primarily to predict season ending outcomes rather than present form, then 12 is closer to correct.

(secretly, I also wonder how many coaches just didn't catch our last two games, given how non-eventful they should have been on paper. The OSU and UConn losses in some ways looked better than our Riverside and Bakersfield wins).

Re: WBB: Rankings - Jskass - 11-21-2017

In Tara we Trust.

Re: WBB: Rankings - TheFarm07 - 11-21-2017

The AP Top 25 played 50 games last week (I double counting matchups between two Top-25 teams) and in all but 5 of the games, the top-25 team scored at least 60 points. Two of the 5 exceptions were us and other three were Duke's upset loss to Villanova, UConn's beatdown of C.al and Louisville's demolition of Michigan.

Michigan's and Ca.l's low point totals were very explainable due to their quality of opponent.

Duke's score of 55 points in their loss to Villanova was the only instance besides our two games where a Top-25 team failed to score at least 66 points against a non-ranked opponent last week.

I know it's a small sample size, but it does show how much our offense needs work, when you compare our current offensive output to other Top 25 teams at this stage in the season. Yes, I know we are a young team and implementing a new offense (even though the second reason was not applicable for our two games since we faced zone defenses and didn't implement the Princeton), but it shows the hill we have to climb if we are to fulfill the expectations that comes with our current ranking.

Re: WBB: Rankings - qwerty49 - 11-22-2017

(11-21-2017, 09:01 PM)TheFarm07 link Wrote:The AP Top 25 played 50 games last week (I double counting matchups between two Top-25 teams) and in all but 5 of the games, the top-25 team scored at least 60 points. Two of the 5 exceptions were us and other three were Duke's upset loss to Villanova, UConn's beatdown of C.al and Louisville's demolition of Michigan.

Michigan's and Ca.l's low point totals were very explainable due to their quality of opponent.

Duke's score of 55 points in their loss to Villanova was the only instance besides our two games where a Top-25 team failed to score at least 66 points against a non-ranked opponent last week.

I know it's a small sample size, but it does show how much our offense needs work, when you compare our current offensive output to other Top 25 teams at this stage in the season. Yes, I know we are a young team and implementing a new offense (even though the second reason was not applicable for our two games since we faced zone defenses and didn't implement the Princeton), but it shows the hill we have to climb if we are to fulfill the expectations that comes with our current ranking.

I seem to recall the Princeton offense was a relatively low-scoring one. Tara’s good at molding the scheme to match the personnel. We’re probably seeing now what she saw a year ago.

Re: WBB: Rankings - 81alum - 11-28-2017

We are 4-3.  No other team in the top 25 has 3 losses.  UConn is 1 and Ohio State is 8 in both polls.

AP moves us down from 14 to 16
Coaches move us down from 12 to 14.

I do not care all that much about the rankings, but this presents an interesting issue.  All three of our losses are to higher ranked teams and the  most recent loss reflected substantial improvement on the team.  And yet beating two decent teams and going to overtime against a higher ranked team dropped us in the polls. 

In the end, it really is about the number of losses.

If we beat USF and lose to Baylor then next week we will be 5-4.  Would be drop again?  Baylor is 9--virtually tied with Ohio State.

At some point we need a break-through game when we beat someone really good to show that our improvement is more than theoretical.  Baylor would be a good place to start.


Re: WBB: Rankings - TheFarm07 - 11-28-2017

(11-28-2017, 07:34 PM)81alum link Wrote:We are 4-3.  No other team in the top 25 has 3 losses.  UConn is 1 and Ohio State is 8 in both polls.

AP moves us down from 14 to 16
Coaches move us down from 12 to 14.

I do not care all that much about the rankings, but this presents an interesting issue.  All three of our losses are to higher ranked teams and the  most recent loss reflected substantial improvement on the team.  And yet beating two decent teams and going to overtime against a higher ranked team dropped us in the polls. 

In the end, it really is about the number of losses.

If we beat USF and lose to Baylor then next week we will be 5-4.  Would be drop again?  Baylor is 9--virtually tied with Ohio State.

At some point we need a break-through game when we beat someone really good to show that our improvement is more than theoretical.  Baylor would be a good place to start.

It will be tough to beat Baylor in Waco. Any chance McPhee will be back for the game? That will certainly help things.

Even if we don't beat Baylor, we have a chance to beat Tennessee and although no longer as marquee a win as in years back, it still would be a good victory.

Also, since the Pac-12 is stronger these last couple years, we'll have chances of beating UCLA and Oregon, among others to add quality wins once conference season starts and hopefully the team will continue to improve

Re: WBB: Rankings - CompSci87 - 11-28-2017

Losing to a higher ranked team is expected, but actually losing is worse than being expected to lose, so it's still reasonable for the loser to drop and the winner to rise. By how much depends on how far apart they were, and possibly on how close the game was.

Re: WBB: Rankings - 2006alum - 11-28-2017

Realistically, I think Tennessee is a more likely place to get a "signature" OOC win. It's after finals, McPhee is more likely to be back in prime form, our players will have had another 3 weeks to gel, and the game's at home. Baylor isn't quite what they used to be in the Griner/Sims era, but I still think they're going to be a tougher team to beat.

(But given my loathing of Kim Mulkey and all-things-Baylor, boy would I loooooove to.)

Re: WBB: Rankings - 76lsjumb - 11-29-2017

As I recall, our game against Tennessee @ Stanford two years ago was a rather ugly affair, with a near total collapse in the fourth quarter.  I remember thinking at the time that it looked like a game between two schools that used to be pretty good.

I hope this year's edition proves to be a little more encouraging.

Re: WBB: Rankings - 81alum - 12-04-2017

5-4 Stanford falls to 18.  The voters probably don't know what to do with us.  All four losses to excellent teams, but no strong wins.

BUT Ohio State falls to 12 after losing by 9 points to Duke, which makes our two losses to them look a little worse.

AND Tennessee climbs past Ohio State to 11 after reeling off an 8-0 start, and UCLA is #7 after losing only to UConn and beating Baylor, Oregon is 7 after thumping A&M and Oklahoma and losing only to Louisville.  So....if you believe the polls, 2 of our upcoming five homestand games will be against competition roughly equal to Baylor and better than tOSU.

This is the time, after about 10 games, that I used to think Sagarin would become accurate.  Well, his computer is not kind to us--wins and losses really do count.  Teams like Utah with easy competition (they lost to Alabama and have beaten Purdue and 5 other teams) appeal to his model, apparently.

1 UConn
6 Baylor
10 Oregon
11 Tennessee
13 Ohio State
15 Oregon State
16 UCLA
20 Utah
21 Arizona State
33 Southern Cal
36 Stanford
40 C.al

I hate to say this, but we could well be 7-6 when we play USC on the afternoon of New Year's eve, to maintain a winning record.



Re: WBB: Rankings - 81alum - 12-06-2017

The coaches also rank 5-4 Stanford at 18.

It is hard to know what else they could do.  Very hard to imagine any other 5-4 team being ranked at all.  We still hold our destiny in our own hands, but we need to beat some good teams--something we have not yet done.

The games with Tennessee and UC LA are looming pretty large for this early in the season.

Re: WBB: Rankings - 81alum - 12-19-2017

The AP poll came out before our loss last night and left us at 18

The Coaches poll came out after our loss and put 6-5 Stanford at 24.

The coaches have SO much respect for Tara that they are bending over backwords to give us a chance not to fall out of the rankings. 

We will have the results of the Tennessee game before the next polls come out.  I presume that a loss--particularly a bad loss--will knock us out of the top 25 in both polls, but the coaches result has me scratching my head. 

I am trying to figure out the last time we have dropped out of the polls.  In 2014-15 we got down to 19th.  No season before that one was remotely that bad unless you go back to 2000-2001 when we were 19-11, and the polling data is not searchable that far back. 

So, unless I am mistaken somehow, we have been ranked every week since at least 2001, and possibly since 1987 when Tara was first building the team at  14-14. 

Re: WBB: Rankings - chimera - 12-19-2017

This could be a a year of streak busting, in a bad way.  I don't think we deserve to be ranked.  Losing to top teams is not a good case for a ranking.  Belmont is our only decent win.  Losing last night to a low RPI team is a bad loss, at home even more so.  Everything is going badly.  Injuries have hurt.  The schedule has not fit the team very well, too many super hard games, which maybe affected the team confidence against WI last night.  We have a young team struggling with a new offense and not playing consistently good defense.  I am not just being alarmist when I say we are in real danger of missing the NCAAs.  We might be lucky to get one win out of the next three games, might well lose them all, and again, that is at home.  If we win one, we would be at 7-7.  We could also go something like 10-8 in conference or more optimistically 12-6.  That still leaves us short of 20 wins ahead of the conference tourney.  Getting ahead of things here I know, but the situation is that bad right now. 

I don't believe it is reasonable to expect the team to improve by a lot.  Sure, they will improve some and getting the injured players back will help a lot, but the turnovers and other issues have been constant even with those players in the line-up.  The freshmen will improve but the big jump usually happens when they have an offseason and come back knowing what they need to do, not during a season.  The experienced players are what they are.  Some of our experienced players have not shown the growth we have seen from previous groups.  Brit improved a lot since her freshman/soph years but she is out.  Kaylee seems to be the same player she was coming in for the most part.  Same with Marta.  Alanna improved a lot but can struggle trying to carry a heavier load like the past game.  The youth thing is a bit of an excuse.  Look at Oregon last year.  Plenty of freshmen, even teams with lots of them, play smart, tough, focused basketball.  We are not doing that.  Also gotta say when a whole team seems to struggle and/or not improve as much as seems they should, it is on the coaches.  When one player struggles it is probably her issues.  When they all do, when it is a team-wise problem, that is probably on the coaches, assuming the talent is there.  Is the talent there?  Should be.  I am beginning to have my doubts.  I also doubt the wisdom of so many big changes to the offense so often.  I did not love the previous version of the offense.  This new one confuses me.  Just does not seem to get us the sort of shots we need to get. 

Re: WBB: Rankings - mbdude - 12-19-2017

"I don't believe it is reasonable to expect the team to improve by a lot.  Sure, they will improve some and getting the injured players back will help a lot, but the turnovers and other issues have been constant even with those players in the line-up.  The freshmen will improve but the big jump usually happens when they have an offseason and come back knowing what they need to do, not during a season.  The experienced players are what they are.  Some of our experienced players have not shown the growth we have seen from previous groups.  Brit improved a lot since her freshman/soph years but she is out.  Kaylee seems to be the same player she was coming in for the most part.  Same with Marta.  Alanna improved a lot but can struggle trying to carry a heavier load like the past game.  The youth thing is a bit of an excuse.  Look at Oregon last year.  Plenty of freshmen, even teams with lots of them, play smart, tough, focused basketball.  We are not doing that.  Also gotta say when a whole team seems to struggle and/or not improve as much as seems they should, it is on the coaches.  When one player struggles it is probably her issues.  When they all do, when it is a team-wise problem, that is probably on the coaches, assuming the talent is there.  Is the talent there?  Should be.  I am beginning to have my doubts.  I also doubt the wisdom of so many big changes to the offense so often.  I did not love the previous version of the offense.  This new one confuses me.  Just does not seem to get us the sort of shots we need to get. "
[/quote]

well said.

Re: WBB: Rankings - TheFarm07 - 12-19-2017

(12-19-2017, 03:14 PM)chimera link Wrote:The youth thing is a bit of an excuse.  Look at Oregon last year.  Plenty of freshmen, even teams with lots of them, play smart, tough, focused basketball.  We are not doing that.  Also gotta say when a whole team seems to struggle and/or not improve as much as seems they should, it is on the coaches.  When one player struggles it is probably her issues.  When they all do, when it is a team-wise problem, that is probably on the coaches, assuming the talent is there.  Is the talent there?  Should be.  I am beginning to have my doubts.  I also doubt the wisdom of so many big changes to the offense so often.  I did not love the previous version of the offense.  This new one confuses me.  Just does not seem to get us the sort of shots we need to get. 

I totally agree. I've been tired of using youth as an entire explanation for our struggles the last couple years. As chimera pointed out, other young teams such as the Ducks last year seem to adjust and adapt, punctuated by their postseason run. There's still enough time for us to do that, but we should be improving as the season progresses. The last two games mark several steps backwards from where we were a week or two before in the Vegas tournament.

Tara has been lauded about her willingness to change offenses after being in the triangle offense for so long. But is this a common thing? Do other coaches change their strategy this drastically based on their personnel? Even within our program, what did we have before the triangle in the 1990s and early 2000s? Did we have trouble switching back then?

Re: WBB: Rankings - 81alum - 12-19-2017

(12-19-2017, 07:34 PM)TheFarm07 link Wrote:[quote author=chimera link=topic=18110.msg218657#msg218657 date=1513721648]
The youth thing is a bit of an excuse.  Look at Oregon last year.  Plenty of freshmen, even teams with lots of them, play smart, tough, focused basketball.  We are not doing that.  Also gotta say when a whole team seems to struggle and/or not improve as much as seems they should, it is on the coaches.  When one player struggles it is probably her issues.  When they all do, when it is a team-wise problem, that is probably on the coaches, assuming the talent is there.  Is the talent there?  Should be.  I am beginning to have my doubts.  I also doubt the wisdom of so many big changes to the offense so often.  I did not love the previous version of the offense.  This new one confuses me.  Just does not seem to get us the sort of shots we need to get. 

I totally agree. I've been tired of using youth as an entire explanation for our struggles the last couple years. As chimera pointed out, other young teams such as the Ducks last year seem to adjust and adapt, punctuated by their postseason run. There's still enough time for us to do that, but we should be improving as the season progresses. The last two games mark several steps backwards from where we were a week or two before in the Vegas tournament.

Tara has been lauded about her willingness to change offenses after being in the triangle offense for so long. But is this a common thing? Do other coaches change their strategy this drastically based on their personnel? Even within our program, what did we have before the triangle in the 1990s and early 2000s? Did we have trouble switching back then?
[/quote]
Good question.  It was my understanding that Tara inserted the Triangle well into her career--that our two national championships were certainly not earned with the triangle.  The triangle is what you use when you want to feed a center or power forward who hangs out on the block.  Tara--and most coaches--have concluded that the game has changed in a way that does not favor large centers who sit on the block, but requires more speed and jump shots from the bigs.  I don't know why that is, but it is not just Tara.  Leaving the triangle made sense when Chiney graduated, since we did not have another player who could be so dominant inside.

But why the Princeton rather than a pick-and-roll that we installed for Amber and Lili?  I presume that Tara thinks it will be suited to the kinds of players she has and expects to have in the coming years.Â