[washingtonismoney]

Nneka and Chiney are sisters?!?! No way, right? Fortunately the local newspapers are all over the story:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...1IORIT.DTL

http://www.mercurynews.com/college-sports/ci_17760223

(Also: will Stanford\'s backcourt handle  A&M\'s pressure?: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17761131)

[washingtonismoney]

Nneka and Chiney are sisters?!?! No way, right? Fortunately the local newspapers are all over the story:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...1IORIT.DTL

http://www.mercurynews.com/college-sports/ci_17760223

(Also: will Stanford\'s backcourt handle  A&M\'s pressure?: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17761131)

[washingtonismoney]

Nneka and Chiney are sisters?!?! No way, right? Fortunately the local newspapers are all over the story:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...1IORIT.DTL

http://www.mercurynews.com/college-sports/ci_17760223

(Also: will Stanford\'s backcourt handle  A&M\'s pressure?: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17761131)

[washingtonismoney]

Nneka and Chiney are sisters?!?! No way, right? Fortunately the local newspapers are all over the story:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...1IORIT.DTL

http://www.mercurynews.com/college-sports/ci_17760223

(Also: will Stanford\'s backcourt handle  A&M\'s pressure?: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17761131)

[yvonne]

Yeah, it\'s pretty bad that the Merc thought it was necessary to phonetically spell Ogwumike at the end of Nneka\'s junior year. The reporter probably didn\'t know because he hadn\'t been to a game.

[yvonne]

Yeah, it\'s pretty bad that the Merc thought it was necessary to phonetically spell Ogwumike at the end of Nneka\'s junior year. The reporter probably didn\'t know because he hadn\'t been to a game.

[yvonne]

Yeah, it\'s pretty bad that the Merc thought it was necessary to phonetically spell Ogwumike at the end of Nneka\'s junior year. The reporter probably didn\'t know because he hadn\'t been to a game.

[yvonne]

Yeah, it\'s pretty bad that the Merc thought it was necessary to phonetically spell Ogwumike at the end of Nneka\'s junior year. The reporter probably didn\'t know because he hadn\'t been to a game.

[M T]

Phonetically spelling the player\'s names is probably for the benefit of Bay Area sportscasters and some radio announcers, and of course for everyone back East.  I decline to name names.

Names are more diverse now than when I grew up.  If someone hasn\'t been a fan, they\'ll need help in pronouncing it as they may never have heard their names before.  

On the other hand, if we encourage the media to not cover WBB, we can probably continue to get decent seats and parking at the games.  (I felt really bad for some folks in their 70s and up that I saw headed toward the mud flats for parking for the last game at Maples.)

[M T]

Phonetically spelling the player\'s names is probably for the benefit of Bay Area sportscasters and some radio announcers, and of course for everyone back East.  I decline to name names.

Names are more diverse now than when I grew up.  If someone hasn\'t been a fan, they\'ll need help in pronouncing it as they may never have heard their names before.  

On the other hand, if we encourage the media to not cover WBB, we can probably continue to get decent seats and parking at the games.  (I felt really bad for some folks in their 70s and up that I saw headed toward the mud flats for parking for the last game at Maples.)

[M T]

Phonetically spelling the player\'s names is probably for the benefit of Bay Area sportscasters and some radio announcers, and of course for everyone back East.  I decline to name names.

Names are more diverse now than when I grew up.  If someone hasn\'t been a fan, they\'ll need help in pronouncing it as they may never have heard their names before.  

On the other hand, if we encourage the media to not cover WBB, we can probably continue to get decent seats and parking at the games.  (I felt really bad for some folks in their 70s and up that I saw headed toward the mud flats for parking for the last game at Maples.)

[M T]

Phonetically spelling the player\'s names is probably for the benefit of Bay Area sportscasters and some radio announcers, and of course for everyone back East.  I decline to name names.

Names are more diverse now than when I grew up.  If someone hasn\'t been a fan, they\'ll need help in pronouncing it as they may never have heard their names before.  

On the other hand, if we encourage the media to not cover WBB, we can probably continue to get decent seats and parking at the games.  (I felt really bad for some folks in their 70s and up that I saw headed toward the mud flats for parking for the last game at Maples.)

[CompSci87]

Eliot Almond has written a lot about Stanford WBB this year and I\'m sure he\'s been at games. I remember hearing Tara answer questions from him at the post-game pressers that have been made available on YouTube.

[CompSci87]

Eliot Almond has written a lot about Stanford WBB this year and I\'m sure he\'s been at games. I remember hearing Tara answer questions from him at the post-game pressers that have been made available on YouTube.

[CompSci87]

Eliot Almond has written a lot about Stanford WBB this year and I\'m sure he\'s been at games. I remember hearing Tara answer questions from him at the post-game pressers that have been made available on YouTube.

[CompSci87]

Eliot Almond has written a lot about Stanford WBB this year and I\'m sure he\'s been at games. I remember hearing Tara answer questions from him at the post-game pressers that have been made available on YouTube.

[yvonne]

@MT,

It\'s one thing when the Indianapolis Star phonetically spells Ogwumike. It\'s another thing entirely when it\'s the Mercury News. We\'re strangers to Indianapolis. We should not be strangers to San Jose.

[yvonne]

@MT,

It\'s one thing when the Indianapolis Star phonetically spells Ogwumike. It\'s another thing entirely when it\'s the Mercury News. We\'re strangers to Indianapolis. We should not be strangers to San Jose.

[yvonne]

@MT,

It\'s one thing when the Indianapolis Star phonetically spells Ogwumike. It\'s another thing entirely when it\'s the Mercury News. We\'re strangers to Indianapolis. We should not be strangers to San Jose.

[yvonne]

@MT,

It\'s one thing when the Indianapolis Star phonetically spells Ogwumike. It\'s another thing entirely when it\'s the Mercury News. We\'re strangers to Indianapolis. We should not be strangers to San Jose.

[CrazedZooChimp]

@MT,

It\'s one thing when the Indianapolis Star phonetically spells Ogwumike. It\'s another thing entirely when it\'s the Mercury News. We\'re strangers to Indianapolis. We should not be strangers to San Jose.

So you\'re definitely able to pronounce the name of every single professional and college athlete in the Bay Area from just seeing it written, right?  It\'s a feature on a player and team trying to create a little interest in the team among people who have never paid any attention to womens basketball, they absolutely should provide a pronunciation of the names.

[CrazedZooChimp]

@MT,

It\'s one thing when the Indianapolis Star phonetically spells Ogwumike. It\'s another thing entirely when it\'s the Mercury News. We\'re strangers to Indianapolis. We should not be strangers to San Jose.

So you\'re definitely able to pronounce the name of every single professional and college athlete in the Bay Area from just seeing it written, right?  It\'s a feature on a player and team trying to create a little interest in the team among people who have never paid any attention to womens basketball, they absolutely should provide a pronunciation of the names.

[CrazedZooChimp]

@MT,

It\'s one thing when the Indianapolis Star phonetically spells Ogwumike. It\'s another thing entirely when it\'s the Mercury News. We\'re strangers to Indianapolis. We should not be strangers to San Jose.

So you\'re definitely able to pronounce the name of every single professional and college athlete in the Bay Area from just seeing it written, right?  It\'s a feature on a player and team trying to create a little interest in the team among people who have never paid any attention to womens basketball, they absolutely should provide a pronunciation of the names.

[CrazedZooChimp]

@MT,

It\'s one thing when the Indianapolis Star phonetically spells Ogwumike. It\'s another thing entirely when it\'s the Mercury News. We\'re strangers to Indianapolis. We should not be strangers to San Jose.

So you\'re definitely able to pronounce the name of every single professional and college athlete in the Bay Area from just seeing it written, right?  It\'s a feature on a player and team trying to create a little interest in the team among people who have never paid any attention to womens basketball, they absolutely should provide a pronunciation of the names.

[M T]

I would suggest two things for the GoStanford web site for WBB (and other sports, presumably):
(1)  Link the names on the roster page to the bio page on the player
(2)  Add a link from the bio page to a short video that has the player saying something like  "Hi, I\'m Nnemkadi Ogwumike, but everyone calls me Nneka"   Then we get the right pronunciation.

[M T]

I would suggest two things for the GoStanford web site for WBB (and other sports, presumably):
(1)  Link the names on the roster page to the bio page on the player
(2)  Add a link from the bio page to a short video that has the player saying something like  "Hi, I\'m Nnemkadi Ogwumike, but everyone calls me Nneka"   Then we get the right pronunciation.

[M T]

I would suggest two things for the GoStanford web site for WBB (and other sports, presumably):
(1)  Link the names on the roster page to the bio page on the player
(2)  Add a link from the bio page to a short video that has the player saying something like  "Hi, I\'m Nnemkadi Ogwumike, but everyone calls me Nneka"   Then we get the right pronunciation.

[M T]

I would suggest two things for the GoStanford web site for WBB (and other sports, presumably):
(1)  Link the names on the roster page to the bio page on the player
(2)  Add a link from the bio page to a short video that has the player saying something like  "Hi, I\'m Nnemkadi Ogwumike, but everyone calls me Nneka"   Then we get the right pronunciation.

[washingtonismoney]

Unfortunately, one of these articles proved to be filled with trenchant analysis. Pressure: it\'s been a problem for us. What do we do to correct it? I don\'t recall these sorts of problems when Candice Wiggins was around, which leads me to suggest that--like Michael Jordan and the Bulls\' triangle--you need a player who can freelance occasionally.

[washingtonismoney]

Unfortunately, one of these articles proved to be filled with trenchant analysis. Pressure: it\'s been a problem for us. What do we do to correct it? I don\'t recall these sorts of problems when Candice Wiggins was around, which leads me to suggest that--like Michael Jordan and the Bulls\' triangle--you need a player who can freelance occasionally.

[washingtonismoney]

Unfortunately, one of these articles proved to be filled with trenchant analysis. Pressure: it\'s been a problem for us. What do we do to correct it? I don\'t recall these sorts of problems when Candice Wiggins was around, which leads me to suggest that--like Michael Jordan and the Bulls\' triangle--you need a player who can freelance occasionally.

[washingtonismoney]

Unfortunately, one of these articles proved to be filled with trenchant analysis. Pressure: it\'s been a problem for us. What do we do to correct it? I don\'t recall these sorts of problems when Candice Wiggins was around, which leads me to suggest that--like Michael Jordan and the Bulls\' triangle--you need a player who can freelance occasionally.

[Viking_Guy]

WiM--

In my depressive haze last night, I was writing a post about this, but got too bleak.

I think there are related problems with Stanford against pressure defenses.  There\'s a synchronicity between what the Cardinal likes to do and the kind of players it attracts (and doesn\'t).

The women\'s b-ball team likes to run things with precision; you can see that working in Tara\'s tendency to pull people after one or two mistakes.  And against teams that aren\'t close to you in talent, that works.  But it\'s a heckuva lot easier to create chaos than it is to create precision.  Whether by the increasing level of athleticism of late tournament opponents, or by the increased amount of physical contact let go by refs (although it\'s WHAT they choose to call that also incenses me a bit - basically, anything goes in rebounding, but touch fouls on drives, and especially the 5th foul on Mel), or whatever, the amount of chaos on the floor increases as the season goes along.

Stanford doesn\'t adapt well to that chaos.  One quote about the game last night mentioned how they had to play their spread offense the entire second half, more than they\'d played it all season.  That\'s a direct result of the ineffectiveness of their structured offense against the pressure and physical perimeter play of the Aggies.

Part of it is scheme, and part of it is personnel, and the two are somewhat related.  Stipulate that Tara knows far more about basketball than all of us put together, that she works harder and thinks about it more than almost any of her fellow coaches.  Add onto that her staff of excellent assistants, again with similar stipulations.

But the philosophy is one of structure, of patterns, and of running them precisely.  And Tara really wants her lead guard to be essentially her alter-ego on the court.  That has in the past led to conflicts with more free-spirited/free-lancing type guards (as long ago as Martha Richards), who also happen to be the type of players who can work well in a chaotic environment.  I remember reading a lot of conflict between the lines in her relationships with her Olympic team guards in 1996.

I think that the kind of guards who can drive/slash/create off the dribble against pressure don\'t like to be told exactly what they are supposed to do.  And there is some relationship between that and both the type of player attracted to Stanford and the type of player who can get in.

With the notable exception of Candice, we haven\'t had much success attracting slasher/scorers, especially from the lead guard spot.  Granted, a large part of that is the individual situations, but we\'ve come close and missed on a large number of top-flight guard recruits in recent years.  I wouldn\'t say it\'s all team philosophy; as I wrote (and erased each time), I couldn\'t help watching Skylar carve up UConn and wish she had been from anywhere but South Bend.

But another part of it is, I think there is some negative correlation between the amount of time one spends on a basketball court playing pickup and the academic balance that will get one into Stanford.  I don\'t think it\'s as strong in women\'s basketball as it is in men\'s (because girls\' basketball tends to be more structured in many ways, and less about pickup), but I\'d argue it\'s there.  

I\'m not saying Stanford players don\'t care deeply and passionately about the game.  Indeed, I don\'t buy into too much of the "nice girls from Stanford" stuff.  But in order to get in, basketball can\'t be as dominant a part of your life as it is at other institutions and in other situations; you have to at least have some academic balance and commitment.  Or be absolutely extraordinary in so many areas.

Those people come up occasionally, and Stanford gets more than its share.  But they are rare.

Beyond that, there\'s always the murky question of "drive." Not only does basketball/life balance affect your ability to get admitted, I think it also may have an effect at the margin on play on the court.  I don\'t think very many Stanford players fully subscribe to "basketball is my life" as a philosophy.  At least comparatively, because they have so many other accomplishments.

But all this is probably just venting.  From the perspective of 25 years of watching similar patterns play out, but still just venting.

The only thing that was going through my head this morning was "one more f%$# free throw." Especially considering that A&M TOOK the damned lead on the questionable call on Mel.  If that call is not made, Stanford has the ball up 1, with a new shot clock, and under a minute to play.

Crap.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

WiM--

In my depressive haze last night, I was writing a post about this, but got too bleak.

I think there are related problems with Stanford against pressure defenses.  There\'s a synchronicity between what the Cardinal likes to do and the kind of players it attracts (and doesn\'t).

The women\'s b-ball team likes to run things with precision; you can see that working in Tara\'s tendency to pull people after one or two mistakes.  And against teams that aren\'t close to you in talent, that works.  But it\'s a heckuva lot easier to create chaos than it is to create precision.  Whether by the increasing level of athleticism of late tournament opponents, or by the increased amount of physical contact let go by refs (although it\'s WHAT they choose to call that also incenses me a bit - basically, anything goes in rebounding, but touch fouls on drives, and especially the 5th foul on Mel), or whatever, the amount of chaos on the floor increases as the season goes along.

Stanford doesn\'t adapt well to that chaos.  One quote about the game last night mentioned how they had to play their spread offense the entire second half, more than they\'d played it all season.  That\'s a direct result of the ineffectiveness of their structured offense against the pressure and physical perimeter play of the Aggies.

Part of it is scheme, and part of it is personnel, and the two are somewhat related.  Stipulate that Tara knows far more about basketball than all of us put together, that she works harder and thinks about it more than almost any of her fellow coaches.  Add onto that her staff of excellent assistants, again with similar stipulations.

But the philosophy is one of structure, of patterns, and of running them precisely.  And Tara really wants her lead guard to be essentially her alter-ego on the court.  That has in the past led to conflicts with more free-spirited/free-lancing type guards (as long ago as Martha Richards), who also happen to be the type of players who can work well in a chaotic environment.  I remember reading a lot of conflict between the lines in her relationships with her Olympic team guards in 1996.

I think that the kind of guards who can drive/slash/create off the dribble against pressure don\'t like to be told exactly what they are supposed to do.  And there is some relationship between that and both the type of player attracted to Stanford and the type of player who can get in.

With the notable exception of Candice, we haven\'t had much success attracting slasher/scorers, especially from the lead guard spot.  Granted, a large part of that is the individual situations, but we\'ve come close and missed on a large number of top-flight guard recruits in recent years.  I wouldn\'t say it\'s all team philosophy; as I wrote (and erased each time), I couldn\'t help watching Skylar carve up UConn and wish she had been from anywhere but South Bend.

But another part of it is, I think there is some negative correlation between the amount of time one spends on a basketball court playing pickup and the academic balance that will get one into Stanford.  I don\'t think it\'s as strong in women\'s basketball as it is in men\'s (because girls\' basketball tends to be more structured in many ways, and less about pickup), but I\'d argue it\'s there.  

I\'m not saying Stanford players don\'t care deeply and passionately about the game.  Indeed, I don\'t buy into too much of the "nice girls from Stanford" stuff.  But in order to get in, basketball can\'t be as dominant a part of your life as it is at other institutions and in other situations; you have to at least have some academic balance and commitment.  Or be absolutely extraordinary in so many areas.

Those people come up occasionally, and Stanford gets more than its share.  But they are rare.

Beyond that, there\'s always the murky question of "drive." Not only does basketball/life balance affect your ability to get admitted, I think it also may have an effect at the margin on play on the court.  I don\'t think very many Stanford players fully subscribe to "basketball is my life" as a philosophy.  At least comparatively, because they have so many other accomplishments.

But all this is probably just venting.  From the perspective of 25 years of watching similar patterns play out, but still just venting.

The only thing that was going through my head this morning was "one more f%$# free throw." Especially considering that A&M TOOK the damned lead on the questionable call on Mel.  If that call is not made, Stanford has the ball up 1, with a new shot clock, and under a minute to play.

Crap.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

WiM--

In my depressive haze last night, I was writing a post about this, but got too bleak.

I think there are related problems with Stanford against pressure defenses.  There\'s a synchronicity between what the Cardinal likes to do and the kind of players it attracts (and doesn\'t).

The women\'s b-ball team likes to run things with precision; you can see that working in Tara\'s tendency to pull people after one or two mistakes.  And against teams that aren\'t close to you in talent, that works.  But it\'s a heckuva lot easier to create chaos than it is to create precision.  Whether by the increasing level of athleticism of late tournament opponents, or by the increased amount of physical contact let go by refs (although it\'s WHAT they choose to call that also incenses me a bit - basically, anything goes in rebounding, but touch fouls on drives, and especially the 5th foul on Mel), or whatever, the amount of chaos on the floor increases as the season goes along.

Stanford doesn\'t adapt well to that chaos.  One quote about the game last night mentioned how they had to play their spread offense the entire second half, more than they\'d played it all season.  That\'s a direct result of the ineffectiveness of their structured offense against the pressure and physical perimeter play of the Aggies.

Part of it is scheme, and part of it is personnel, and the two are somewhat related.  Stipulate that Tara knows far more about basketball than all of us put together, that she works harder and thinks about it more than almost any of her fellow coaches.  Add onto that her staff of excellent assistants, again with similar stipulations.

But the philosophy is one of structure, of patterns, and of running them precisely.  And Tara really wants her lead guard to be essentially her alter-ego on the court.  That has in the past led to conflicts with more free-spirited/free-lancing type guards (as long ago as Martha Richards), who also happen to be the type of players who can work well in a chaotic environment.  I remember reading a lot of conflict between the lines in her relationships with her Olympic team guards in 1996.

I think that the kind of guards who can drive/slash/create off the dribble against pressure don\'t like to be told exactly what they are supposed to do.  And there is some relationship between that and both the type of player attracted to Stanford and the type of player who can get in.

With the notable exception of Candice, we haven\'t had much success attracting slasher/scorers, especially from the lead guard spot.  Granted, a large part of that is the individual situations, but we\'ve come close and missed on a large number of top-flight guard recruits in recent years.  I wouldn\'t say it\'s all team philosophy; as I wrote (and erased each time), I couldn\'t help watching Skylar carve up UConn and wish she had been from anywhere but South Bend.

But another part of it is, I think there is some negative correlation between the amount of time one spends on a basketball court playing pickup and the academic balance that will get one into Stanford.  I don\'t think it\'s as strong in women\'s basketball as it is in men\'s (because girls\' basketball tends to be more structured in many ways, and less about pickup), but I\'d argue it\'s there.  

I\'m not saying Stanford players don\'t care deeply and passionately about the game.  Indeed, I don\'t buy into too much of the "nice girls from Stanford" stuff.  But in order to get in, basketball can\'t be as dominant a part of your life as it is at other institutions and in other situations; you have to at least have some academic balance and commitment.  Or be absolutely extraordinary in so many areas.

Those people come up occasionally, and Stanford gets more than its share.  But they are rare.

Beyond that, there\'s always the murky question of "drive." Not only does basketball/life balance affect your ability to get admitted, I think it also may have an effect at the margin on play on the court.  I don\'t think very many Stanford players fully subscribe to "basketball is my life" as a philosophy.  At least comparatively, because they have so many other accomplishments.

But all this is probably just venting.  From the perspective of 25 years of watching similar patterns play out, but still just venting.

The only thing that was going through my head this morning was "one more f%$# free throw." Especially considering that A&M TOOK the damned lead on the questionable call on Mel.  If that call is not made, Stanford has the ball up 1, with a new shot clock, and under a minute to play.

Crap.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

WiM--

In my depressive haze last night, I was writing a post about this, but got too bleak.

I think there are related problems with Stanford against pressure defenses.  There\'s a synchronicity between what the Cardinal likes to do and the kind of players it attracts (and doesn\'t).

The women\'s b-ball team likes to run things with precision; you can see that working in Tara\'s tendency to pull people after one or two mistakes.  And against teams that aren\'t close to you in talent, that works.  But it\'s a heckuva lot easier to create chaos than it is to create precision.  Whether by the increasing level of athleticism of late tournament opponents, or by the increased amount of physical contact let go by refs (although it\'s WHAT they choose to call that also incenses me a bit - basically, anything goes in rebounding, but touch fouls on drives, and especially the 5th foul on Mel), or whatever, the amount of chaos on the floor increases as the season goes along.

Stanford doesn\'t adapt well to that chaos.  One quote about the game last night mentioned how they had to play their spread offense the entire second half, more than they\'d played it all season.  That\'s a direct result of the ineffectiveness of their structured offense against the pressure and physical perimeter play of the Aggies.

Part of it is scheme, and part of it is personnel, and the two are somewhat related.  Stipulate that Tara knows far more about basketball than all of us put together, that she works harder and thinks about it more than almost any of her fellow coaches.  Add onto that her staff of excellent assistants, again with similar stipulations.

But the philosophy is one of structure, of patterns, and of running them precisely.  And Tara really wants her lead guard to be essentially her alter-ego on the court.  That has in the past led to conflicts with more free-spirited/free-lancing type guards (as long ago as Martha Richards), who also happen to be the type of players who can work well in a chaotic environment.  I remember reading a lot of conflict between the lines in her relationships with her Olympic team guards in 1996.

I think that the kind of guards who can drive/slash/create off the dribble against pressure don\'t like to be told exactly what they are supposed to do.  And there is some relationship between that and both the type of player attracted to Stanford and the type of player who can get in.

With the notable exception of Candice, we haven\'t had much success attracting slasher/scorers, especially from the lead guard spot.  Granted, a large part of that is the individual situations, but we\'ve come close and missed on a large number of top-flight guard recruits in recent years.  I wouldn\'t say it\'s all team philosophy; as I wrote (and erased each time), I couldn\'t help watching Skylar carve up UConn and wish she had been from anywhere but South Bend.

But another part of it is, I think there is some negative correlation between the amount of time one spends on a basketball court playing pickup and the academic balance that will get one into Stanford.  I don\'t think it\'s as strong in women\'s basketball as it is in men\'s (because girls\' basketball tends to be more structured in many ways, and less about pickup), but I\'d argue it\'s there.  

I\'m not saying Stanford players don\'t care deeply and passionately about the game.  Indeed, I don\'t buy into too much of the "nice girls from Stanford" stuff.  But in order to get in, basketball can\'t be as dominant a part of your life as it is at other institutions and in other situations; you have to at least have some academic balance and commitment.  Or be absolutely extraordinary in so many areas.

Those people come up occasionally, and Stanford gets more than its share.  But they are rare.

Beyond that, there\'s always the murky question of "drive." Not only does basketball/life balance affect your ability to get admitted, I think it also may have an effect at the margin on play on the court.  I don\'t think very many Stanford players fully subscribe to "basketball is my life" as a philosophy.  At least comparatively, because they have so many other accomplishments.

But all this is probably just venting.  From the perspective of 25 years of watching similar patterns play out, but still just venting.

The only thing that was going through my head this morning was "one more f%$# free throw." Especially considering that A&M TOOK the damned lead on the questionable call on Mel.  If that call is not made, Stanford has the ball up 1, with a new shot clock, and under a minute to play.

Crap.

VG

[Nan3cy]

VG - what\'s your verdict on the officiating overall? (I think I know what you think about the late call on Mel...) Do you think A&M got away with a lot? I\'ve seen the contention that identical contact was called blocking when we were on defense and charging when we had the ball. Do you think that\'s valid, or just fan venting?

[Nan3cy]

VG - what\'s your verdict on the officiating overall? (I think I know what you think about the late call on Mel...) Do you think A&M got away with a lot? I\'ve seen the contention that identical contact was called blocking when we were on defense and charging when we had the ball. Do you think that\'s valid, or just fan venting?

[Nan3cy]

VG - what\'s your verdict on the officiating overall? (I think I know what you think about the late call on Mel...) Do you think A&M got away with a lot? I\'ve seen the contention that identical contact was called blocking when we were on defense and charging when we had the ball. Do you think that\'s valid, or just fan venting?

[Nan3cy]

VG - what\'s your verdict on the officiating overall? (I think I know what you think about the late call on Mel...) Do you think A&M got away with a lot? I\'ve seen the contention that identical contact was called blocking when we were on defense and charging when we had the ball. Do you think that\'s valid, or just fan venting?