04-20-2025, 02:20 AM
Stanford's WWP is an amazing collection of players. You'd think they'd be a pretty sure bet for a national championship.
But, the MPSF has a single-match season. Even though schools play each other multiple times in their 20 to 30 game seasons, there is only one conference game between each time. Going into the weekend, in conference matches, Stanford was 18-1/4-1, USC was 26-1/5-0, UCLA was 17-4/4-1.
Stanford won the Big Splash on Friday 12-8 over 17-4(3-3) Cal. There was a bit of concern in Q2 when Cal scored 4 straight, but Stanford dominated the second half. Stanford was up 12-6 before giving up two meaningless goals in the last 40 seconds after the subs came in.
But, Stanford's only loss of the season, to USC, was a conference game. The only blemish on their full season record was a loss to USC by 1 goal. scored with 22 seconds left, at USC. (Stanford won an earlier non-conference game versus USC, USC's only loss.) Two weeks ago, Stanford gave UCLA a loss in a conference game (also beating them in a non-conference game).
The last game of the ultra-short MPSF season was played on Saturday between (then) 26-1 USC and 17-4 UCLA. But, it was played at UCLA's pool.
I expected USC to win the game. If they did, Stanford would be seeded #2. But if UCLA won, then three teams would have a 5-1 record. Somehow, the decision point would be if UCLA won by 1, 2, or 3 goals, Stanford would get the tie breaker. I'm not sure who would be 2nd. If UCLA wins by 4+ goals, they get the tie breaker,, with USC getting 2nd seed.
USC started out looking like I expected. Up 4-1 early, and 4-2 at the end of Q1, I even thought how UCLA played like they were tired. But then UCLA shut USC down and started scoring a lot. While Cal beat Stanford 4-0 in the 2nd quarter, UCLA drowned USC 7-0 in the 2nd quarter and a total of 10 goals in a row, putting UCLA up 11-4 at one point. That's way more than the 3-goal differential.
But USC clawed their way back. They scored 3 straight, then UCLA got 1 (12-7). Then again USC scored 2 goals, making a 3-goal differential (12-9) with 1:04 to play in the game.
Then UCLA got a power play and scored with 36 seconds left. USC wasn't able to get a goal in their final possession. (The UCLA announcer apparently knew nothing of the importance of a 4-goal differential as he never mentioned it.)
Because the MPSF season is insanely devoid of conference games, the two teams with 2 or fewer losses on the full season are seeded 2nd and 3rd to a team with 4 losses on the season.
The conference tourney seeding is #1 4-loss UCLA, #2 2-loss USC, #3 1-loss Stanford.
Stanford's games against UCLA this year: 14-4 and 14-12 (2 weeks ago).
against USC: 10-6, 11-12
UCLA vs USC: 11-14, 13-9
This means that, if the first round games in the MPSF conference tournament go as seeded, the semi-finals will be
UCLA-Cal and USC--Stanford.
This single goal and the lack of conference games (not to mention that single round of play means there is no fairness of home and home games) impacts the national tourney.
Assuming the MPSF tourney semis pit USC and Stanford, and that UCLA wins its semi, and then also wins the final, what happens about the #1 seeding for the national tourney? Do you put a 4-loss team as #1 versus
a 2-loss Stanford with a 2-1 record over UCLA (if Stanford wins the semi)
or a 3-loss USC with a 1-2 record versus UCLA (if USC wins the semi)
Whichever team gets the #1 NC seed, they get the easy road.
So, basically, the national championship winner will likely be the team that doesn't suffer a loss. That comes down to the one that wins the MPSF tourney. Stanford and USC have two tough games to achieve that; UCLA only has one.
6-game conference season. one goal that USC got on Stanford; 22 seconds; One goal that USC didn't get on UCLA. 36 seconds...
And now, a big upstream swim. Stanford can do it, but I'd no longer put them as the favorite unless they get the #1 NC seed.
But, the MPSF has a single-match season. Even though schools play each other multiple times in their 20 to 30 game seasons, there is only one conference game between each time. Going into the weekend, in conference matches, Stanford was 18-1/4-1, USC was 26-1/5-0, UCLA was 17-4/4-1.
Stanford won the Big Splash on Friday 12-8 over 17-4(3-3) Cal. There was a bit of concern in Q2 when Cal scored 4 straight, but Stanford dominated the second half. Stanford was up 12-6 before giving up two meaningless goals in the last 40 seconds after the subs came in.
But, Stanford's only loss of the season, to USC, was a conference game. The only blemish on their full season record was a loss to USC by 1 goal. scored with 22 seconds left, at USC. (Stanford won an earlier non-conference game versus USC, USC's only loss.) Two weeks ago, Stanford gave UCLA a loss in a conference game (also beating them in a non-conference game).
The last game of the ultra-short MPSF season was played on Saturday between (then) 26-1 USC and 17-4 UCLA. But, it was played at UCLA's pool.
I expected USC to win the game. If they did, Stanford would be seeded #2. But if UCLA won, then three teams would have a 5-1 record. Somehow, the decision point would be if UCLA won by 1, 2, or 3 goals, Stanford would get the tie breaker. I'm not sure who would be 2nd. If UCLA wins by 4+ goals, they get the tie breaker,, with USC getting 2nd seed.
USC started out looking like I expected. Up 4-1 early, and 4-2 at the end of Q1, I even thought how UCLA played like they were tired. But then UCLA shut USC down and started scoring a lot. While Cal beat Stanford 4-0 in the 2nd quarter, UCLA drowned USC 7-0 in the 2nd quarter and a total of 10 goals in a row, putting UCLA up 11-4 at one point. That's way more than the 3-goal differential.
But USC clawed their way back. They scored 3 straight, then UCLA got 1 (12-7). Then again USC scored 2 goals, making a 3-goal differential (12-9) with 1:04 to play in the game.
Then UCLA got a power play and scored with 36 seconds left. USC wasn't able to get a goal in their final possession. (The UCLA announcer apparently knew nothing of the importance of a 4-goal differential as he never mentioned it.)
Because the MPSF season is insanely devoid of conference games, the two teams with 2 or fewer losses on the full season are seeded 2nd and 3rd to a team with 4 losses on the season.
The conference tourney seeding is #1 4-loss UCLA, #2 2-loss USC, #3 1-loss Stanford.
Stanford's games against UCLA this year: 14-4 and 14-12 (2 weeks ago).
against USC: 10-6, 11-12
UCLA vs USC: 11-14, 13-9
This means that, if the first round games in the MPSF conference tournament go as seeded, the semi-finals will be
UCLA-Cal and USC--Stanford.
This single goal and the lack of conference games (not to mention that single round of play means there is no fairness of home and home games) impacts the national tourney.
Assuming the MPSF tourney semis pit USC and Stanford, and that UCLA wins its semi, and then also wins the final, what happens about the #1 seeding for the national tourney? Do you put a 4-loss team as #1 versus
a 2-loss Stanford with a 2-1 record over UCLA (if Stanford wins the semi)
or a 3-loss USC with a 1-2 record versus UCLA (if USC wins the semi)
Whichever team gets the #1 NC seed, they get the easy road.
So, basically, the national championship winner will likely be the team that doesn't suffer a loss. That comes down to the one that wins the MPSF tourney. Stanford and USC have two tough games to achieve that; UCLA only has one.
6-game conference season. one goal that USC got on Stanford; 22 seconds; One goal that USC didn't get on UCLA. 36 seconds...
And now, a big upstream swim. Stanford can do it, but I'd no longer put them as the favorite unless they get the #1 NC seed.
