[FarmBoy]

Garvin, why have you forsaken us?

I had to go to ESPN to learn that Stanford waxed USC and some guy named Pickens scored 25 (yes, I actually don't know anyone on the team right now outside or Travis, Humphrey, and the Allenses).

[FarmBoy]

Garvin, why have you forsaken us?

I had to go to ESPN to learn that Stanford waxed USC and some guy named Pickens scored 25 (yes, I actually don't know anyone on the team right now outside or Travis, Humphrey, and the Allenses).

[winflop]

Yes this is what it's come to, as evidenced by the Sixth Man section which was 50% full of elementary school kids (and the other 50% was empty).

Unless they can go out and do it again against UCLA, and against at least one of ASU & AZ next week, it's just another blip on the six-year road of insconsistency.  While it was a great win over a good team, to me it's equally frustrating and energizing because it shows how good this team COULD be.  NCAA bubble talent, CBI coaching.

[winflop]

Yes this is what it's come to, as evidenced by the Sixth Man section which was 50% full of elementary school kids (and the other 50% was empty).

Unless they can go out and do it again against UCLA, and against at least one of ASU & AZ next week, it's just another blip on the six-year road of insconsistency.  While it was a great win over a good team, to me it's equally frustrating and energizing because it shows how good this team COULD be.  NCAA bubble talent, CBI coaching.

[Hank 91]

It would have been a very enjoyable game to attend. But then I wouldn't know that Mike Montgomery, doing color for the Pac-12 Network, casually mentioned that David Shaw played basketball for him for a year. Utterly new fact to me. Did everybody else already know this?

I did know this actually, but it brings something to mind. If he played both sports in college, why not coach both sports now?

[Hank 91]

It would have been a very enjoyable game to attend. But then I wouldn't know that Mike Montgomery, doing color for the Pac-12 Network, casually mentioned that David Shaw played basketball for him for a year. Utterly new fact to me. Did everybody else already know this?

I did know this actually, but it brings something to mind. If he played both sports in college, why not coach both sports now?

[Papa John]

So per my snowball's-chance hypothesis, Stanford needs to sweep remaining games vs UCLA, @ ASU and @ UA and win at least the first game in the Pac-12 tournament (probably versus ASU) to be in the conversation for the NCAA tournament.

Right now, ESPN does not even list Stanford in its rather expansive Bubble Watch blog:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bubblewatch
For those who don't want to look, UO, Utah and UA are locks for the NCAA tournament, C.al and U$C "should be in" and OSU, CU and UW have "work left to do."

Also, Stanford is in position to finish ahead of UCLA in the conference standings for the first time since 2003-04.

[Papa John]

So per my snowball's-chance hypothesis, Stanford needs to sweep remaining games vs UCLA, @ ASU and @ UA and win at least the first game in the Pac-12 tournament (probably versus ASU) to be in the conversation for the NCAA tournament.

Right now, ESPN does not even list Stanford in its rather expansive Bubble Watch blog:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bubblewatch
For those who don't want to look, UO, Utah and UA are locks for the NCAA tournament, C.al and U$C "should be in" and OSU, CU and UW have "work left to do."

Also, Stanford is in position to finish ahead of UCLA in the conference standings for the first time since 2003-04.

[burger]

Is it possible to coach badly in a 20-point blowout?  Yes!  We broke last night's game open with a 25-4 run midway through the first half.  For most of that run, we had 5 subs on the floor (I think it was Sharma, Pickens, Sheffield, Allen #2, and Walker).  Dorian Pickens was unconscious, hitting everything he threw up, and the zone defense was stifling.  After a timeout, the 5 subs came back out, but Dawkins immediaetly sent all 5 starters to the scorers table for the next stoppage. 

Yeah, I know guys need rest, and it obviously didn't affect the outcome, but this stretch was the best any Stanford 5 has looked all year, and instead of, say, subbing out 1 or 2 guys and letting Pickens keep shooting, Dawkins subbed out all 5.  Monty, doing play-by-play, pointed out the obvious--when your team is playing out of their minds like this, you don't do a line change.

Anyway, very fun game despite not getting to see if Pickens could get to 30 in a half.

[burger]

Is it possible to coach badly in a 20-point blowout?  Yes!  We broke last night's game open with a 25-4 run midway through the first half.  For most of that run, we had 5 subs on the floor (I think it was Sharma, Pickens, Sheffield, Allen #2, and Walker).  Dorian Pickens was unconscious, hitting everything he threw up, and the zone defense was stifling.  After a timeout, the 5 subs came back out, but Dawkins immediaetly sent all 5 starters to the scorers table for the next stoppage. 

Yeah, I know guys need rest, and it obviously didn't affect the outcome, but this stretch was the best any Stanford 5 has looked all year, and instead of, say, subbing out 1 or 2 guys and letting Pickens keep shooting, Dawkins subbed out all 5.  Monty, doing play-by-play, pointed out the obvious--when your team is playing out of their minds like this, you don't do a line change.

Anyway, very fun game despite not getting to see if Pickens could get to 30 in a half.

[washingtonismoney]

Yeah, I know guys need rest, and it obviously didn't affect the outcome, but this stretch was the best any Stanford 5 has looked all year, and instead of, say, subbing out 1 or 2 guys and letting Pickens keep shooting, Dawkins subbed out all 5.  Monty, doing play-by-play, pointed out the obvious--when your team is playing out of their minds like this, you don't do a line change.

I don't want to come off as a post-win nitpicker, but lineup management has been a consistent weakness of Dawkins's for his entire tenure. I remember back with the Randle/Brown/Huestis/Powell/Nastic/etc. team he would frequently put all his scorers on the bench at the same time. He just doesn't understand the basics of how to manage a lineup, let alone rotating a lineup for favorable matchups.

[washingtonismoney]

Yeah, I know guys need rest, and it obviously didn't affect the outcome, but this stretch was the best any Stanford 5 has looked all year, and instead of, say, subbing out 1 or 2 guys and letting Pickens keep shooting, Dawkins subbed out all 5.  Monty, doing play-by-play, pointed out the obvious--when your team is playing out of their minds like this, you don't do a line change.

I don't want to come off as a post-win nitpicker, but lineup management has been a consistent weakness of Dawkins's for his entire tenure. I remember back with the Randle/Brown/Huestis/Powell/Nastic/etc. team he would frequently put all his scorers on the bench at the same time. He just doesn't understand the basics of how to manage a lineup, let alone rotating a lineup for favorable matchups.

[76lsjumb]

I did know this actually, but it brings something to mind. If he played both sports in college, why not coach both sports now?

76lsjumb sent Bernard Muir a letter proposing almost this very thing, except Johnny Dawkins instead of David Shaw.

Funny you should say that.  I was just thinking that I hadn't taken this much abuse for failing to relentlessly criticize a coach since I supported Shaw in 2012 against johnnyo53 [among others].  Personally, I think Shaw's worked out okay...

This string, though, does confirm my sense as to why Dawkins has to be replaced:  he puts together a pretty good game plan [defensively, at least] that flummoxes U.SC; despite missing 40% of his starting lineup and having no home court advantage whatsoever, the team absolutely dominates [to the point of being able to play a guy down at the end of the bench with a knee-brace for several possessions at the end and STILL win by 20]; and, the conclusion everyone reaches is that ..."Dawkins stinks!" 

By the way, it was, indeed, a very enjoyable game to attend.  Too bad so many people chose not to.  Hoping to enjoy Saturday, as well. 

[76lsjumb]

I did know this actually, but it brings something to mind. If he played both sports in college, why not coach both sports now?

76lsjumb sent Bernard Muir a letter proposing almost this very thing, except Johnny Dawkins instead of David Shaw.

Funny you should say that.  I was just thinking that I hadn't taken this much abuse for failing to relentlessly criticize a coach since I supported Shaw in 2012 against johnnyo53 [among others].  Personally, I think Shaw's worked out okay...

This string, though, does confirm my sense as to why Dawkins has to be replaced:  he puts together a pretty good game plan [defensively, at least] that flummoxes U.SC; despite missing 40% of his starting lineup and having no home court advantage whatsoever, the team absolutely dominates [to the point of being able to play a guy down at the end of the bench with a knee-brace for several possessions at the end and STILL win by 20]; and, the conclusion everyone reaches is that ..."Dawkins stinks!" 

By the way, it was, indeed, a very enjoyable game to attend.  Too bad so many people chose not to.  Hoping to enjoy Saturday, as well. 

[JJJ]

Yes, I knew David Shaw played hoops, as did quite a few other football players over the years. I guess these days it's pretty rare (unlike football/baseball), but it kind of makes sense, when you think of the type of athletes both require. It's always mentioned that Humphrey and Travis both played high school football. (Sports talk shaws always talk about how LeBron James would be as a football player.)  Back in my day, John Paye, and to a lessor-known extent, Darrell Grissom, were on both teams. Teyo Johnson and a few other names I would have to look up but I can picture them...

Thoroughly enjoyed watching the game on TV but was wondering if there was some sort of "blackout" placed on talking about the game that I wasn't aware of. Once again appreciated Montgomery's comments and had to agree with keeping the second team in as long as possible, although there wasn't much of a "fall-off" that I noticed when the first team came back in.  :P

[JJJ]

Yes, I knew David Shaw played hoops, as did quite a few other football players over the years. I guess these days it's pretty rare (unlike football/baseball), but it kind of makes sense, when you think of the type of athletes both require. It's always mentioned that Humphrey and Travis both played high school football. (Sports talk shaws always talk about how LeBron James would be as a football player.)  Back in my day, John Paye, and to a lessor-known extent, Darrell Grissom, were on both teams. Teyo Johnson and a few other names I would have to look up but I can picture them...

Thoroughly enjoyed watching the game on TV but was wondering if there was some sort of "blackout" placed on talking about the game that I wasn't aware of. Once again appreciated Montgomery's comments and had to agree with keeping the second team in as long as possible, although there wasn't much of a "fall-off" that I noticed when the first team came back in.  :P

[Papa John]

This string, though, does confirm my sense as to why Dawkins has to be replaced:  he puts together a pretty good game plan [defensively, at least] that flummoxes U.SC; despite missing 40% of his starting lineup and having no home court advantage whatsoever, the team absolutely dominates [to the point of being able to play a guy down at the end of the bench with a knee-brace for several possessions at the end and STILL win by 20]; and, the conclusion everyone reaches is that ..."Dawkins stinks!" 

Not everyone, 76lsjumb. My conclusion (see above) is that Stanford is in position to finish ahead of UCLA in the conference standings for the first time since 2003-04. That's at least glass half full.

[Papa John]

This string, though, does confirm my sense as to why Dawkins has to be replaced:  he puts together a pretty good game plan [defensively, at least] that flummoxes U.SC; despite missing 40% of his starting lineup and having no home court advantage whatsoever, the team absolutely dominates [to the point of being able to play a guy down at the end of the bench with a knee-brace for several possessions at the end and STILL win by 20]; and, the conclusion everyone reaches is that ..."Dawkins stinks!" 

Not everyone, 76lsjumb. My conclusion (see above) is that Stanford is in position to finish ahead of UCLA in the conference standings for the first time since 2003-04. That's at least glass half full.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14648.msg157243#msg157243 date=1456523354]

This string, though, does confirm my sense as to why Dawkins has to be replaced:  he puts together a pretty good game plan [defensively, at least] that flummoxes U.SC; despite missing 40% of his starting lineup and having no home court advantage whatsoever, the team absolutely dominates [to the point of being able to play a guy down at the end of the bench with a knee-brace for several possessions at the end and STILL win by 20]; and, the conclusion everyone reaches is that ..."Dawkins stinks!" 

Not everyone, 76lsjumb. My conclusion (see above) is that Stanford is in position to finish ahead of UCLA in the conference standings for the first time since 2003-04. That's at least glass half full.
[/quote]

Or, as the man says in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "I'm not dead yet..."

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14648.msg157243#msg157243 date=1456523354]

This string, though, does confirm my sense as to why Dawkins has to be replaced:  he puts together a pretty good game plan [defensively, at least] that flummoxes U.SC; despite missing 40% of his starting lineup and having no home court advantage whatsoever, the team absolutely dominates [to the point of being able to play a guy down at the end of the bench with a knee-brace for several possessions at the end and STILL win by 20]; and, the conclusion everyone reaches is that ..."Dawkins stinks!" 

Not everyone, 76lsjumb. My conclusion (see above) is that Stanford is in position to finish ahead of UCLA in the conference standings for the first time since 2003-04. That's at least glass half full.
[/quote]

Or, as the man says in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "I'm not dead yet..."

[teejers1]

I attended the game.  The team played very well and looked well-coached, for the overwhelming majority of the game.  The line change near end of 1H when the team was rolling was an obvious head-scratcher, and I thought the O stagnated a bit after that.  But at least USC didn't go an a run (which I was half-expecting).

76L, I think it a very natural reaction to see the team play like that last night and wonder "where has that been all year?"  The talent is there for an NCAA bid (and has been every year except the first under this regime).  But Stanford has no chance to make the NCAAs this year - barring the most unlikely of runs in the P12 Tourney - and it's frustrating and disheartening for fans (and I assume players). 

But I want to end on a good note.  Congratulations to the team and staff for a job very well done last night and good luck against the Bruins.

P.S.  I sat behind the SC bench last night (first time ever behind an opponent's bench at Maples).  Interesting perspective.  In my younger days, I would have had a field day riding the SC players and coaches.  But I'm old and worn down now.  So for the most part I engaged in amiable chatter with the (few) Stanford fans in the immediate vicinity.

[teejers1]

I attended the game.  The team played very well and looked well-coached, for the overwhelming majority of the game.  The line change near end of 1H when the team was rolling was an obvious head-scratcher, and I thought the O stagnated a bit after that.  But at least USC didn't go an a run (which I was half-expecting).

76L, I think it a very natural reaction to see the team play like that last night and wonder "where has that been all year?"  The talent is there for an NCAA bid (and has been every year except the first under this regime).  But Stanford has no chance to make the NCAAs this year - barring the most unlikely of runs in the P12 Tourney - and it's frustrating and disheartening for fans (and I assume players). 

But I want to end on a good note.  Congratulations to the team and staff for a job very well done last night and good luck against the Bruins.

P.S.  I sat behind the SC bench last night (first time ever behind an opponent's bench at Maples).  Interesting perspective.  In my younger days, I would have had a field day riding the SC players and coaches.  But I'm old and worn down now.  So for the most part I engaged in amiable chatter with the (few) Stanford fans in the immediate vicinity.

[76lsjumb]

76L, I think it a very natural reaction to see the team play like that last night and wonder "where has that been all year?"  The talent is there for an NCAA bid (and has been every year except the first under this regime).  But Stanford has no chance to make the NCAAs this year - barring the most unlikely of runs in the P12 Tourney - and it's frustrating and disheartening for fans (and I assume players). 

But I want to end on a good note.  Congratulations to the team and staff for a job very well done last night and good luck against the Bruins.

teejers, don't know if you saw me last night, but I was sitting with someone I think you know quite well.  Not a particularly big JD fan, either...  ;D

I wonder the exact same thing [about consistency], but I don't think Stanford fans are alone in that this season.  After all, K.al is on the verge of an undefeated home season and, until recently, couldn't buy a win on the road [including against us].  We don't have a home court advantage -- unless we've managed to turn silence and empty seats into a weapon -- but we have still managed to beat every team in the conference [pending UCLA], except UW [up there], Colorado [with a 1 point loss at home, and see, above, re no home court advantage] and Arizona, which has better talent than we do [at least without Cartwright and Travis] at every position.

[76lsjumb]

76L, I think it a very natural reaction to see the team play like that last night and wonder "where has that been all year?"  The talent is there for an NCAA bid (and has been every year except the first under this regime).  But Stanford has no chance to make the NCAAs this year - barring the most unlikely of runs in the P12 Tourney - and it's frustrating and disheartening for fans (and I assume players). 

But I want to end on a good note.  Congratulations to the team and staff for a job very well done last night and good luck against the Bruins.

teejers, don't know if you saw me last night, but I was sitting with someone I think you know quite well.  Not a particularly big JD fan, either...  ;D

I wonder the exact same thing [about consistency], but I don't think Stanford fans are alone in that this season.  After all, K.al is on the verge of an undefeated home season and, until recently, couldn't buy a win on the road [including against us].  We don't have a home court advantage -- unless we've managed to turn silence and empty seats into a weapon -- but we have still managed to beat every team in the conference [pending UCLA], except UW [up there], Colorado [with a 1 point loss at home, and see, above, re no home court advantage] and Arizona, which has better talent than we do [at least without Cartwright and Travis] at every position.

[winflop]

and, the conclusion everyone reaches is that ..."Dawkins stinks!" 

He didn't stink last night.  But that's all it was - last night.  I hope he doesn't stink tomorrow.

I listened to Muir speak today.  He actually told a bunch of donors that he still thinks MBB has a chance to make the tournament.  Of course, in order to do so it would have to do something it hasn't come close to doing all year - winning all of the remaining conference games (a close loss at AZ is acceptable) and get to the semifinals in the conference tournament.

It was all I could do to not burst out laughing, and not with him.  My guess is he was just trying to be supportive, but he came across as a bit foolish.

[winflop]

and, the conclusion everyone reaches is that ..."Dawkins stinks!" 

He didn't stink last night.  But that's all it was - last night.  I hope he doesn't stink tomorrow.

I listened to Muir speak today.  He actually told a bunch of donors that he still thinks MBB has a chance to make the tournament.  Of course, in order to do so it would have to do something it hasn't come close to doing all year - winning all of the remaining conference games (a close loss at AZ is acceptable) and get to the semifinals in the conference tournament.

It was all I could do to not burst out laughing, and not with him.  My guess is he was just trying to be supportive, but he came across as a bit foolish.

[burger]

I listened to Muir speak today.  He actually told a bunch of donors that he still thinks MBB has a chance to make the tournament.  Of course, in order to do so it would have to do something it hasn't come close to doing all year - winning all of the remaining conference games (a close loss at AZ is acceptable) and get to the semifinals in the conference tournament.

It was all I could do to not burst out laughing, and not with him.  My guess is he was just trying to be supportive, but he came across as a bit foolish.

A less charitable interpretation is that Muir is delusional and we're going to be saddled with Dawkins for a long time.

[burger]

I listened to Muir speak today.  He actually told a bunch of donors that he still thinks MBB has a chance to make the tournament.  Of course, in order to do so it would have to do something it hasn't come close to doing all year - winning all of the remaining conference games (a close loss at AZ is acceptable) and get to the semifinals in the conference tournament.

It was all I could do to not burst out laughing, and not with him.  My guess is he was just trying to be supportive, but he came across as a bit foolish.

A less charitable interpretation is that Muir is delusional and we're going to be saddled with Dawkins for a long time.

[winflop]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=14648.msg157295#msg157295 date=1456557898]I listened to Muir speak today.  He actually told a bunch of donors that he still thinks MBB has a chance to make the tournament.  Of course, in order to do so it would have to do something it hasn't come close to doing all year - winning all of the remaining conference games (a close loss at AZ is acceptable) and get to the semifinals in the conference tournament.

It was all I could do to not burst out laughing, and not with him.  My guess is he was just trying to be supportive, but he came across as a bit foolish.

A less charitable interpretation is that Muir is delusional and we're going to be saddled with Dawkins for a long time.
[/quote]

Actually, I don't think he's delusional, but he should have done a much better job of being realistic about the chances it would happen instead of conveying a sense of optimism of it actually happening.  He sees a potential path for Stanford to make the tournament, and I wouldn't disagree.  But the chances of it happening are so slim that I won't even think about it, and for him to articulate it in the audience with whom he did is I think a bit foolish.  I would rather he had said, "Look folks, there is still a chance for this team to get an at-large bid.  But let's be clear, an awful lot of things have to go right for it to happen."  That would have been a much more honest assessment of the situation, and at least for me it would have garnered him a lot more respect.

[winflop]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=14648.msg157295#msg157295 date=1456557898]I listened to Muir speak today.  He actually told a bunch of donors that he still thinks MBB has a chance to make the tournament.  Of course, in order to do so it would have to do something it hasn't come close to doing all year - winning all of the remaining conference games (a close loss at AZ is acceptable) and get to the semifinals in the conference tournament.

It was all I could do to not burst out laughing, and not with him.  My guess is he was just trying to be supportive, but he came across as a bit foolish.

A less charitable interpretation is that Muir is delusional and we're going to be saddled with Dawkins for a long time.
[/quote]

Actually, I don't think he's delusional, but he should have done a much better job of being realistic about the chances it would happen instead of conveying a sense of optimism of it actually happening.  He sees a potential path for Stanford to make the tournament, and I wouldn't disagree.  But the chances of it happening are so slim that I won't even think about it, and for him to articulate it in the audience with whom he did is I think a bit foolish.  I would rather he had said, "Look folks, there is still a chance for this team to get an at-large bid.  But let's be clear, an awful lot of things have to go right for it to happen."  That would have been a much more honest assessment of the situation, and at least for me it would have garnered him a lot more respect.

[2006alum]

[quote author=burger link=topic=14648.msg157316#msg157316 date=1456592157]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=14648.msg157295#msg157295 date=1456557898]I listened to Muir speak today.  He actually told a bunch of donors that he still thinks MBB has a chance to make the tournament.  Of course, in order to do so it would have to do something it hasn't come close to doing all year - winning all of the remaining conference games (a close loss at AZ is acceptable) and get to the semifinals in the conference tournament.

It was all I could do to not burst out laughing, and not with him.  My guess is he was just trying to be supportive, but he came across as a bit foolish.

A less charitable interpretation is that Muir is delusional and we're going to be saddled with Dawkins for a long time.
[/quote]

Actually, I don't think he's delusional, but he should have done a much better job of being realistic about the chances it would happen instead of conveying a sense of optimism of it actually happening.  He sees a potential path for Stanford to make the tournament, and I wouldn't disagree.  But the chances of it happening are so slim that I won't even think about it, and for him to articulate it in the audience with whom he did is I think a bit foolish.  I would rather he had said, "Look folks, there is still a chance for this team to get an at-large bid.  But let's be clear, an awful lot of things have to go right for it to happen."  That would have been a much more honest assessment of the situation, and at least for me it would have garnered him a lot more respect.
[/quote]

Of course there's a path - if we win the Pac-12 tournament, we get the auto-bid! ;) Short of that, however, I don't see it happening, much as I would love for it to.

[2006alum]

[quote author=burger link=topic=14648.msg157316#msg157316 date=1456592157]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=14648.msg157295#msg157295 date=1456557898]I listened to Muir speak today.  He actually told a bunch of donors that he still thinks MBB has a chance to make the tournament.  Of course, in order to do so it would have to do something it hasn't come close to doing all year - winning all of the remaining conference games (a close loss at AZ is acceptable) and get to the semifinals in the conference tournament.

It was all I could do to not burst out laughing, and not with him.  My guess is he was just trying to be supportive, but he came across as a bit foolish.

A less charitable interpretation is that Muir is delusional and we're going to be saddled with Dawkins for a long time.
[/quote]

Actually, I don't think he's delusional, but he should have done a much better job of being realistic about the chances it would happen instead of conveying a sense of optimism of it actually happening.  He sees a potential path for Stanford to make the tournament, and I wouldn't disagree.  But the chances of it happening are so slim that I won't even think about it, and for him to articulate it in the audience with whom he did is I think a bit foolish.  I would rather he had said, "Look folks, there is still a chance for this team to get an at-large bid.  But let's be clear, an awful lot of things have to go right for it to happen."  That would have been a much more honest assessment of the situation, and at least for me it would have garnered him a lot more respect.
[/quote]

Of course there's a path - if we win the Pac-12 tournament, we get the auto-bid! ;) Short of that, however, I don't see it happening, much as I would love for it to.

[winflop]

I think if they sweep the AZ schools and make the tournament semis they get to the bubble, but the chances of that are pretty slim.  They are peaking but I think it's too little too late.  Their play in January was brutal.

[winflop]

I think if they sweep the AZ schools and make the tournament semis they get to the bubble, but the chances of that are pretty slim.  They are peaking but I think it's too little too late.  Their play in January was brutal.

[BostonCard]

Still, nice win today against UCLA to get us back to 8-8 in conference.  I don't see us sweeping in Arizona, but I would really like to salvage .500, which for Dawkins would be an accomplishment.

I smell another NIT bid, however.

BC

[BostonCard]

Still, nice win today against UCLA to get us back to 8-8 in conference.  I don't see us sweeping in Arizona, but I would really like to salvage .500, which for Dawkins would be an accomplishment.

I smell another NIT bid, however.

BC

[winflop]

I smell another NIT bid, however.

BC

Followed by another "if only" from Muir when he announces that Dawkins is staying.  This year Cartwright & Travis will be the excuse.

[winflop]

I smell another NIT bid, however.

BC

Followed by another "if only" from Muir when he announces that Dawkins is staying.  This year Cartwright & Travis will be the excuse.

[Treebound]

Wow,
I am very happy and surprised with the weekend's results.  Pickens was amazing against SC, almost chef Curry -like!  I was sitting at half court with the 25+ Menlo Park 5th grader hoops players that loved every minute of the game.  I still can't believe the student section was so empty for what was arguably the team's best game of the season.   

As for Muirs' comments, I too was surprised to hear he thought we had a path, but maybe with a few more wins the committee might throw us all a bone.  To TJ's point, the talent is there.  I really hope they make a run and shock the Wildcats in front of Lute.    If not, another Nit will likely be on the docket. 

[Treebound]

Wow,
I am very happy and surprised with the weekend's results.  Pickens was amazing against SC, almost chef Curry -like!  I was sitting at half court with the 25+ Menlo Park 5th grader hoops players that loved every minute of the game.  I still can't believe the student section was so empty for what was arguably the team's best game of the season.   

As for Muirs' comments, I too was surprised to hear he thought we had a path, but maybe with a few more wins the committee might throw us all a bone.  To TJ's point, the talent is there.  I really hope they make a run and shock the Wildcats in front of Lute.    If not, another Nit will likely be on the docket.