The CardBoard
Stanford - UCLA - 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: Stanford - UCLA (/thread-6644.html)


Stanford - UCLA - BostonCard - 01-23-2014

After taking a 23-21 midway through the first half, the Bruins have outscored us 17-3.  Yeach.  Although a loss on the road at UCLA wouldn't derail an NCAA bid, we need to win one of these (road games against a decent team), and each loss increases the probability of missing the dance.

BC

Re: Stanford - UCLA - 2 for 2028 - 01-23-2014

The turnovers are killing us.  If we can make free throws down the road, we may not be out of this.

Re: Stanford - UCLA - BostonCard - 01-23-2014

78 - 64 with 3 min left.  Not going to happen.  The second 10 minutes of the first half doomed us, and that has been a theme.  Time and again we go stretches without being able to do anything.

BC

Re: Stanford - UCLA - Spiny_Norman - 01-24-2014

I was at the game and told my friend in the middle of the 1H that UCLA should win by 15 points.  UCLA carved up Stanford's defense especially vs. the zone when the quicker UCLA players could penetrate and dish off.  Stanford's half court offense was offensive for long stretches.  The only shot they could create was a 3 or a contested jumper.  And Stanford had no answer for Tony Parker.  He owned the space under both baskets.  He was so much stronger than anyone Stanford had on the court.

I heard on the drive home that UCLA had 15 steals.  Did Stanford have any?  I cannot recall any fast break points or points off turnovers.  It was a pretty good thumping.

Btw, kudos to Good Grief and Mrs Good Grief whom I saw at the game.  Regardless of the expectations, they are almost always at Pauley each year to cheer for the boys in cardinal.  I'll be back in a month to cheer for the girls in cardinal.  I expect a better result.

Re: Stanford - UCLA - Papa John - 01-24-2014

2009
@UCLA 97, Stanford 63

2010
@UCLA 77, Stanford 73

2011
@UCLA 68, Stanford 57

2012
@UCLA 72, Stanford 61

2013
@UCLA 68, Stanford 60

2014
@UCLA 91, Stanford 74

I think it's safe to say that Johnny Dawkins has a Pauley Pavilion problem.

Oh well, the wife is a Bruin, so she's happy. And now I finally understand what "happy wife, happy life" means. It means if my wife is happy, then she is having a happy life. And all these years I thought it had something to do with me.  :'(


Re: Stanford - UCLA - StanFan88 - 01-24-2014

(01-24-2014, 12:31 AM)Papa John link Wrote:I think it's safe to say that Johnny Dawkins has a Pauley Pavilion problem.

Dawkins problem is larger than just Pauley.  His problem is any team with an RPI less than 50.  I'd be surprised if Stanford wins over 20% of those matchups while it beats up on teams with RPI's over 50.

Of course, teams with RPI <50 are the kind you see at the NCAA tournament.  They are the kind that expose the flaws in your system, your players, and your coaching.  Based on last night, Stanford has major flaws in all three.

Re: Stanford - UCLA - StanFan88 - 01-24-2014

(01-24-2014, 12:31 AM)Papa John link Wrote:I think it's safe to say that Johnny Dawkins has a Pauley Pavilion problem.

Dawkins problem is larger than just Pauley.  His problem is any team with an RPI less than 50.  I'd be surprised if Stanford wins over 20% of those matchups while it beats up on teams with RPI's over 50.

Of course, teams with RPI <50 are the kind you see at the NCAA tournament.  They are the kind that expose the flaws in your system, your players, and your coaching.  Based on last night, Stanford has major flaws in all three.

Re: Stanford - UCLA - burger - 01-24-2014

(01-24-2014, 12:31 AM)Papa John link Wrote:I think it's safe to say that Johnny Dawkins has a Pauley Pavilion problem.
Um, Trent Johnson never won at Pauley, and I can remember at least a couple of times that Monty lost there with higher ranked teams.  So, maybe Stanford just has a Pauley problem, period.

(Why do I continually find myself defending Dawkins?  I have to stop this.)

Re: Stanford - UCLA - burger - 01-24-2014

(01-24-2014, 12:31 AM)Papa John link Wrote:I think it's safe to say that Johnny Dawkins has a Pauley Pavilion problem.
Um, Trent Johnson never won at Pauley, and I can remember at least a couple of times that Monty lost there with higher ranked teams.  So, maybe Stanford just has a Pauley problem, period.

(Why do I continually find myself defending Dawkins?  I have to stop this.)

Re: Stanford - UCLA - Spiny_Norman - 01-24-2014

(01-24-2014, 06:58 AM)burger link Wrote:[quote author=Papa John link=topic=9454.msg82507#msg82507 date=1390548671]I think it's safe to say that Johnny Dawkins has a Pauley Pavilion problem.
maybe Stanford just has a Pauley problem, period.
[/quote]

Stanford has had a Pauley problem from the time that it opened.  Stanford lost every game in Pauley for 25 years (1965 to 1989) before finally winning there in 1990.  Stanford had an amazing 8 year winning streak from 1998 to 2005 but has lost every game at UCLA since.


Re: Stanford - UCLA - Papa John - 01-24-2014

(01-24-2014, 08:40 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:[quote author=burger link=topic=9454.msg82510#msg82510 date=1390571924]
[quote author=Papa John link=topic=9454.msg82507#msg82507 date=1390548671]I think it's safe to say that Johnny Dawkins has a Pauley Pavilion problem.
maybe Stanford just has a Pauley problem, period.
[/quote]

Stanford has had a Pauley problem from the time that it opened.  Stanford lost every game in Pauley for 25 years (1965 to 1989) before finally winning there in 1990.  Stanford had an amazing 8 year winning streak from 1998 to 2005 but has lost every game at UCLA since.
[/quote]
I started following Stanford sports in 1980, my freshman year. During my undergraduate years, the men's basketball team never had a winning conference record, but managed an overall winning record in 1984. That year, we actually beat UCLA at Maples, and I remember the student section chanting "NIT, NIT!" Not as a taunt of the Bruins, but because we desperately wanted a bid to the NIT (the NCAA had yet to fully expand and was way out of reach. And yes, I rushed the very springy court when the game was over.

That trip down memory lane aside, I propose that, for argument's sake, we consider 1986-87 as the beginning of the modern era of Stanford basketball. There's no point comparing Johnny Dawkins coaching to that of Dick Dibiaso or Tom Davis. And while I'm not a big defender of Trent Johnson, his Stanford team did beat UCLA at Pauley Pavilion in 2005, once in four tries. JD is 0-6.

Re: Stanford - UCLA - washingtonismoney - 01-24-2014

While I'm no fan of Johnson either, he would've beaten UCLA at Pauley if not for the ref's inexcusably bad call on the Lawrence Hill block.

Re: Stanford - UCLA - Bruce Wang - 01-24-2014

(01-24-2014, 10:42 AM)Papa John link Wrote:JD is 0-6.

So Dawkins borrowed Jordan Zumwalt's platinum sombrero and made it titanium.  That's quite a trick.

Re: Stanford - UCLA - Papa John - 01-24-2014

(01-24-2014, 12:37 PM)Publius link Wrote:[quote author=Papa John link=topic=9454.msg82517#msg82517 date=1390585374]
JD is 0-6.

So Dawkins borrowed Jordan Zumwalt's platinum sombrero and made it titanium.  That's quite a trick.
[/quote]
To be fair to JD, he has at least a couple of wins versus UCLA at Maples. Zumwalt's legacy is more Seussian: He could not beat us here or there, he could not beat us anywhere.