Stanford 69
Michigan State 76
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Monday, March 28, 2005
Recommended reading
Okay. Last post on yesterday's game. Seriously.
S. has a link on her home page to WomensBasketballOnline.com which is a tremendous resource. Each morning they post links to newspaper articles, indexed by school, from periodicals around the country. I find it great for two reasons: It saves me the effort of checking all the Bay Area newspapers for Stanford articles and it allows me to read articles from reporters local to our competition.
I usually skim through the articles while drinking my morning coffee. Today's reading took a bit longer. There were 12 UConn articles and 10 Stanford ones. For Stanford there were the usual suspects. Michelle Smith (from the Chron) had a couple of good articles (1 2). As usual. Ann Killion (from the Merc) had one good read. Scott Ostler (Chron) had one. Darren Sabedra (Merc) had two (1 2) articles that didn't make the roll. And Zach Jones' (Stanford Daily) piece rounded out the local contributions.
Equally fun were the columns that ran in the Kansas City Star* (one from Sam Mellinger of the Star and another from Mechelle Voepel) and the Indianapolis Star (one from Michael Pointer). * KC Star site requires registration - or bugmenot.
And all the articles written by Connecticut sports writers were just icing on the cake.
A very enjoyable morning.
Postscript: I guess I could've gone through and contextualized each link... Nah. Read 'em all. :-)
S. has a link on her home page to WomensBasketballOnline.com which is a tremendous resource. Each morning they post links to newspaper articles, indexed by school, from periodicals around the country. I find it great for two reasons: It saves me the effort of checking all the Bay Area newspapers for Stanford articles and it allows me to read articles from reporters local to our competition.
I usually skim through the articles while drinking my morning coffee. Today's reading took a bit longer. There were 12 UConn articles and 10 Stanford ones. For Stanford there were the usual suspects. Michelle Smith (from the Chron) had a couple of good articles (1 2). As usual. Ann Killion (from the Merc) had one good read. Scott Ostler (Chron) had one. Darren Sabedra (Merc) had two (1 2) articles that didn't make the roll. And Zach Jones' (Stanford Daily) piece rounded out the local contributions.
Equally fun were the columns that ran in the Kansas City Star* (one from Sam Mellinger of the Star and another from Mechelle Voepel) and the Indianapolis Star (one from Michael Pointer). * KC Star site requires registration - or bugmenot.
And all the articles written by Connecticut sports writers were just icing on the cake.
A very enjoyable morning.
Postscript: I guess I could've gone through and contextualized each link... Nah. Read 'em all. :-)
Bringing SI up to date
I posted on March 20th about SI's poor two-round showing in their NCAA men's tournament predictions. They didn't improve over rounds three and four. To date:
Round 1 - 22/32 correct (D/D+)
Round 2 - 8/16 correct (F)
Round 3 - 2/8 correct (F)
Round 4 - 2/4 correct (F)
Round 5 - 2/2 teams still playing
Round 6 - 1/1 team still playing
I'll have to figure out how to weight these various percentages - giving a higher proportion for the final round and working backwards - before issuing them a final grade for the tournament. That will be out after the last game is played next week.
On a related note, we recently got the latest issue of SI in the mailbox. Most of it was devoted to baseball. The men's tournament got a nice section. Amazingly, it would be hard to tell the women were even having a tournament from the articles. They did rate one of the three opening two-page photo spreads. So that's something. And there was a side bar on Pat Summitt (who, at the time the issue had gone to press, was tied with Dean Smith for career wins) that had a cool photo of her playing back in the seventies - love those knee pads!!.
But, based on the past two weeks worth of coverage, someone not familiar with women's college basketball would not even know who the top seeds in each regional were, let alone anything about most of the other 60 teams. Sigh. I really think they should change the name of the magazine to something like, "Pre Title IX Sports" Illustrated. When you don't even pretend to cover the most important yearly event in women's college sports you're definitely part of the problem.
Round 1 - 22/32 correct (D/D+)
Round 2 - 8/16 correct (F)
Round 3 - 2/8 correct (F)
Round 4 - 2/4 correct (F)
Round 5 - 2/2 teams still playing
Round 6 - 1/1 team still playing
I'll have to figure out how to weight these various percentages - giving a higher proportion for the final round and working backwards - before issuing them a final grade for the tournament. That will be out after the last game is played next week.
On a related note, we recently got the latest issue of SI in the mailbox. Most of it was devoted to baseball. The men's tournament got a nice section. Amazingly, it would be hard to tell the women were even having a tournament from the articles. They did rate one of the three opening two-page photo spreads. So that's something. And there was a side bar on Pat Summitt (who, at the time the issue had gone to press, was tied with Dean Smith for career wins) that had a cool photo of her playing back in the seventies - love those knee pads!!.
But, based on the past two weeks worth of coverage, someone not familiar with women's college basketball would not even know who the top seeds in each regional were, let alone anything about most of the other 60 teams. Sigh. I really think they should change the name of the magazine to something like, "Pre Title IX Sports" Illustrated. When you don't even pretend to cover the most important yearly event in women's college sports you're definitely part of the problem.
A random observation concerning last night's game
One thing that became crystal clear to me early on in the game was that we were controlling which Connecticut players would shoot open three-point shots. They did make three of their baskets from beyond the arc in the first half but those shots were uncontested. Intentionally. I can remember two instances where Turner had the ball far from the basket and waited for a Cardinal to run out and defend her. It looked to me like she was hoping to fake, get around the defender, and get closer in where she could do some damage. But we just held steady, playing tough interior defense, looking at her out there by herself. The message was clear, "Go ahead and shoot that shot. We don't care. It's not your shot. You're not going to beat us that way." Finally, she put up the shot. And in the first half those shots went in.
But I loved it! We were playing smart and going with the numbers. Turner had attempted 16 three-pointers all season, making three. In the game last night she put up 5 attempts and made two. Turner shooting from the perimeter is where you want her to be. She's third on the team in offensive boards. The further from the basket she is, the better. And if she's out there trying to be a different player than normal, well that's the kind of behavior you want to see from an opponent.
Another player we gave a free license to on the perimeter was Swanier. She made 1 out of 5, after attempting only 23 during the rest of the year. And Moore. Another green light. Her two attempts (and no hits) from downtown deserved a hearty thank you from the Cardinal. During the rest of the season she only attempted 5 three-point shots, making one.
The players that we didn't want shooting the ball from downtown were their three best shooters: Strother, Valley, and Thomas. And we defended them aggressively. I don't think any of those three got an open look all night (well, maybe just one). And it showed on the stat sheet. Together they shot 1-10 during the game after going a combined 127-342 during the rest of the year. I'll take 10% versus 37% every day of the week.
The only Connecticut player who was a decent three point shooter during the regular season (in terms of attempts and percentage) and did well in the game was Battle. She over-excelled, making 2 out of 3. I'll have to watch the tape again to see how we defended her.
So an A+ for our perimeter defense (our interior defense was good as well - but that's another topic). We shut down the players we didn't want hurting us from the perimeter. We gave the green light to anyone else. We made it easy for them to play outside their comfort zone by giving them an open shot. It takes tremendous focus and recognition to keep that defense up for an entire game. And it's just excellent, smart basketball. When you couple that with the physical basketball we started playing in the interior, it makes us a deadly team. So if you're playing Stanford and you have a wide open three-pointer you should probably ask yourself, "If I shoot this shot, am I doing exactly what they want me to do?"
But I loved it! We were playing smart and going with the numbers. Turner had attempted 16 three-pointers all season, making three. In the game last night she put up 5 attempts and made two. Turner shooting from the perimeter is where you want her to be. She's third on the team in offensive boards. The further from the basket she is, the better. And if she's out there trying to be a different player than normal, well that's the kind of behavior you want to see from an opponent.
Another player we gave a free license to on the perimeter was Swanier. She made 1 out of 5, after attempting only 23 during the rest of the year. And Moore. Another green light. Her two attempts (and no hits) from downtown deserved a hearty thank you from the Cardinal. During the rest of the season she only attempted 5 three-point shots, making one.
The players that we didn't want shooting the ball from downtown were their three best shooters: Strother, Valley, and Thomas. And we defended them aggressively. I don't think any of those three got an open look all night (well, maybe just one). And it showed on the stat sheet. Together they shot 1-10 during the game after going a combined 127-342 during the rest of the year. I'll take 10% versus 37% every day of the week.
The only Connecticut player who was a decent three point shooter during the regular season (in terms of attempts and percentage) and did well in the game was Battle. She over-excelled, making 2 out of 3. I'll have to watch the tape again to see how we defended her.
So an A+ for our perimeter defense (our interior defense was good as well - but that's another topic). We shut down the players we didn't want hurting us from the perimeter. We gave the green light to anyone else. We made it easy for them to play outside their comfort zone by giving them an open shot. It takes tremendous focus and recognition to keep that defense up for an entire game. And it's just excellent, smart basketball. When you couple that with the physical basketball we started playing in the interior, it makes us a deadly team. So if you're playing Stanford and you have a wide open three-pointer you should probably ask yourself, "If I shoot this shot, am I doing exactly what they want me to do?"
Sunday, March 27, 2005
General superficialities (GO CARD)
I put on my Brickyard Club tee, got the lucky "fighting" tree hat out of the closet (where it waits for special occasions), and sat down to watch our women take on the three-time defending national champions.
We started out looking very good. Pretty early on, it seemed like in the first five minutes but it could've been a little longer, all five of our starters had scored. Azella was one of the starting forwards and quickly got in the books. Susan and Kelley were playing the ball like Gary Payton. T'Nae came in for the first time since getting injured versus Oregon and made a quick bucket. Our shots were falling and the amazing thing was that we hadn't taken a three point attempt. I was yelling, and clapping, and fist pumping and feeling very vindicated. For the first time in the tournament we opened a game the way we normally do.
Then things started to go wrong. We went more than five minutes without scoring. And it wasn't just that we were well defended and that's why we missed. The key was a battle zone but we were getting plenty of open looks from mid-range and beyond the three point arc. There were many shots where our players were squared up with nobody in their face. The shots just weren't dropping. And that opened the door for Connecticut to creep back in. Even with the cold streak, however, we led for most of the half. It was only at the end that the Huskies pulled even and then had some spectacular defensive stops. At the end of the half we were down by six.
I muted the volume on the television, went outside to walk around for a bit, and then did some minor apartment cleaning. I'm usually an internal wreck, mentally preparing myself for the worst, when we trail to a team like Connecticut. But I didn't feel that way. I was just irritated. We were clearly the better team. When we were clicking they couldn't stop us. We went for more than five minutes without scoring and they didn't run away. Our defense was great.
There were some small concerns. They were doing a good job on rebounding. We had some minor problems with the full court press and had turned the ball over nine or ten times. Candice was forcing things just a bit too much. But the only reason the score was even as close as it was was because of the points off turnovers and three point shooting of Connecticut. We conceded at least two wide open threes to Turner (and maybe Battle). That's not their shot. We could live with that. Without those threes, and their defense feeding thier offense, and us just missing open shots for an extended period of time we're leading this game by a wide margin going into the locker room. So I felt like we showed up at the beginning and if we could do that for the second half we wouldn't have a problem.
The second half started off with a bang, for us at least. Within three minutes we had tied the game and moved into a back and forth battle. Then our perimeter shots started to fall. And Brooke made some great plays. And Azella got free for a couple of open lay-ups. And Kristin put in some quality minutes. And Candice and Susan and Kelley were all over on the defense. Seb hit her only shot of the game, a three. Susan got a great screen and nailed a three. Candice looked at the defender sagging off her and calmly put up a three. All of a sudden the lead ballooned and that's all she wrote.
Connecticut didn't go down without a fight. They started fouling with way more than a minute left and we made our free throws. They would score a quick basket and we'd make more free throws. The first time we missed a free throw, Azella got the rebound and was fouled. She stepped to the line and made the first so we didn't give up any ground. Finally, the Huskies saw the writing on the wall and we ran most of the clock down. But I think Susan wanted to put one last exclamation point on the whole thing. When the Connecticut player who was guarding her started off the court with more than ten seconds left, she dribbled in for the uncontested lay-up and then ran back on defense by herself to make sure Connecticut didn't try the same thing. It was a nice touch (and if someone had done it to us I would've been hopping mad - funny that).
Just some general observations. They were triple teaming Brooke Smith at times. That really surprised me. She got tied up on a couple of occasions and either made a poor shot or turned the ball over but, for the most part, she handled the pressure. Kelley made some outstanding drives to the basket and either layed it in or kicked it out to the wide open player on the perimeter for an open three pointer. She's always been one of our most clutch players and can legitimately take over a game for short periods of time (at least IMHO). She also went 0-4 from three point range, which happens less frequently than a blue moon. Susan not only shut down Strother (who ended the game with 4 points on 2-8 shooting and went 0-3 from beyond the arc) but she went 4-5 on three pointers herself, scored 14 points, got 3 assists (and even 1 rebound) and was named player of the game. Candice had a much better second half. The drives that looked out of control in the first half resulted in points after the break. And she went 11-12 from the charity stripe down the stretch. We also tightened up on turnovers after the intermission and ended up with 2 less than Connecticut. About the only area where they clearly dominated us was on the offensive glass (and it's scary to think how much more we would've beat them by if they hadn't got those second chances).
So it was a good win. A great win. And exactly what we were expected to do (at least in my mind - if you listened to the talking heads, they all expected a Huskies win). So far we've held serve. Every game after this we are expected to lose (based on seeding). Now is where we show the rest of the country how good we are.
Let the tournament begin!
We started out looking very good. Pretty early on, it seemed like in the first five minutes but it could've been a little longer, all five of our starters had scored. Azella was one of the starting forwards and quickly got in the books. Susan and Kelley were playing the ball like Gary Payton. T'Nae came in for the first time since getting injured versus Oregon and made a quick bucket. Our shots were falling and the amazing thing was that we hadn't taken a three point attempt. I was yelling, and clapping, and fist pumping and feeling very vindicated. For the first time in the tournament we opened a game the way we normally do.
Then things started to go wrong. We went more than five minutes without scoring. And it wasn't just that we were well defended and that's why we missed. The key was a battle zone but we were getting plenty of open looks from mid-range and beyond the three point arc. There were many shots where our players were squared up with nobody in their face. The shots just weren't dropping. And that opened the door for Connecticut to creep back in. Even with the cold streak, however, we led for most of the half. It was only at the end that the Huskies pulled even and then had some spectacular defensive stops. At the end of the half we were down by six.
I muted the volume on the television, went outside to walk around for a bit, and then did some minor apartment cleaning. I'm usually an internal wreck, mentally preparing myself for the worst, when we trail to a team like Connecticut. But I didn't feel that way. I was just irritated. We were clearly the better team. When we were clicking they couldn't stop us. We went for more than five minutes without scoring and they didn't run away. Our defense was great.
There were some small concerns. They were doing a good job on rebounding. We had some minor problems with the full court press and had turned the ball over nine or ten times. Candice was forcing things just a bit too much. But the only reason the score was even as close as it was was because of the points off turnovers and three point shooting of Connecticut. We conceded at least two wide open threes to Turner (and maybe Battle). That's not their shot. We could live with that. Without those threes, and their defense feeding thier offense, and us just missing open shots for an extended period of time we're leading this game by a wide margin going into the locker room. So I felt like we showed up at the beginning and if we could do that for the second half we wouldn't have a problem.
The second half started off with a bang, for us at least. Within three minutes we had tied the game and moved into a back and forth battle. Then our perimeter shots started to fall. And Brooke made some great plays. And Azella got free for a couple of open lay-ups. And Kristin put in some quality minutes. And Candice and Susan and Kelley were all over on the defense. Seb hit her only shot of the game, a three. Susan got a great screen and nailed a three. Candice looked at the defender sagging off her and calmly put up a three. All of a sudden the lead ballooned and that's all she wrote.
Connecticut didn't go down without a fight. They started fouling with way more than a minute left and we made our free throws. They would score a quick basket and we'd make more free throws. The first time we missed a free throw, Azella got the rebound and was fouled. She stepped to the line and made the first so we didn't give up any ground. Finally, the Huskies saw the writing on the wall and we ran most of the clock down. But I think Susan wanted to put one last exclamation point on the whole thing. When the Connecticut player who was guarding her started off the court with more than ten seconds left, she dribbled in for the uncontested lay-up and then ran back on defense by herself to make sure Connecticut didn't try the same thing. It was a nice touch (and if someone had done it to us I would've been hopping mad - funny that).
Just some general observations. They were triple teaming Brooke Smith at times. That really surprised me. She got tied up on a couple of occasions and either made a poor shot or turned the ball over but, for the most part, she handled the pressure. Kelley made some outstanding drives to the basket and either layed it in or kicked it out to the wide open player on the perimeter for an open three pointer. She's always been one of our most clutch players and can legitimately take over a game for short periods of time (at least IMHO). She also went 0-4 from three point range, which happens less frequently than a blue moon. Susan not only shut down Strother (who ended the game with 4 points on 2-8 shooting and went 0-3 from beyond the arc) but she went 4-5 on three pointers herself, scored 14 points, got 3 assists (and even 1 rebound) and was named player of the game. Candice had a much better second half. The drives that looked out of control in the first half resulted in points after the break. And she went 11-12 from the charity stripe down the stretch. We also tightened up on turnovers after the intermission and ended up with 2 less than Connecticut. About the only area where they clearly dominated us was on the offensive glass (and it's scary to think how much more we would've beat them by if they hadn't got those second chances).
So it was a good win. A great win. And exactly what we were expected to do (at least in my mind - if you listened to the talking heads, they all expected a Huskies win). So far we've held serve. Every game after this we are expected to lose (based on seeding). Now is where we show the rest of the country how good we are.
Let the tournament begin!
Round 3 wrap up
We started the third round with 16 schools from 13 states representing 7 conferences. If every game went as expected (a higher seed beating a lower seed) the thid round should've ended with 8 schools from 7 states representing 5 conferences left in contention. Instead, due to one upset, the fourth round will be played out between 8 schools from 7 states representing 6 conferences.
Upset winner - Rutgers (3 seed out of the Big East conference).
Upset loser - Ohio State (2 seed out of the Big Ten conference).
Since there was only one upset, this wrap up borders on the boring. It's pretty easy to figure out which conference exceeded, and which conference disappointed, expectations. In terms of states, New Jersey exceeded expectations and Ohio disappointed expectations.
Overall, the Big 12 finally made it through a round without suffering an upset. This might be because there is only one Big 12 school left, Baylor. Although seeded second (and so expected to lose tomorrow) they were one of the six teams that the selection committee thought had a legitimate shot at a one seed and was actually placed ahead of Stanford. It should be really interesting to see how the game between them and North Carolina plays out. The Tar Heels are small and quick and Baylor has some huge, highly skilled post players.
The Big East was scheduled to lose both remaining schools this round but Rutgers pulled the upset, keeping conference hopes alive. Connecticut, however, was clearly outplayed down the stretch and bowed out on cue.
Both the ACC and the SEC have two teams remaining in the tournament. North Carolina and Duke could potentially meet in the Final Four. Tennessee and LSU would not meet until the championship game.
North Carolina is the only state that still has two schools participating.
On a more general note, it's disappointing (to me, at least) that, out of the 56 games played to date, there have been only 11 upsets. There may be a lot of talk from the heads on ESPN about parity in women's basketball but when you look at the elite eight and see all four of the number one seeds, three of the two seeds, and only one of the three seed left it makes me wonder. And most of the round three games, while closer in final margin than some of the earlier round blow-outs, didn't feel close. I guess we have to wait until next round for some of those nail-biting to-the-wire photo finishes (or replay the USC-MSU game. Funny how that was an eight seed Pac 10 team versus a one seed Big Ten school).
Upset winner - Rutgers (3 seed out of the Big East conference).
Upset loser - Ohio State (2 seed out of the Big Ten conference).
Since there was only one upset, this wrap up borders on the boring. It's pretty easy to figure out which conference exceeded, and which conference disappointed, expectations. In terms of states, New Jersey exceeded expectations and Ohio disappointed expectations.
Overall, the Big 12 finally made it through a round without suffering an upset. This might be because there is only one Big 12 school left, Baylor. Although seeded second (and so expected to lose tomorrow) they were one of the six teams that the selection committee thought had a legitimate shot at a one seed and was actually placed ahead of Stanford. It should be really interesting to see how the game between them and North Carolina plays out. The Tar Heels are small and quick and Baylor has some huge, highly skilled post players.
The Big East was scheduled to lose both remaining schools this round but Rutgers pulled the upset, keeping conference hopes alive. Connecticut, however, was clearly outplayed down the stretch and bowed out on cue.
Both the ACC and the SEC have two teams remaining in the tournament. North Carolina and Duke could potentially meet in the Final Four. Tennessee and LSU would not meet until the championship game.
North Carolina is the only state that still has two schools participating.
On a more general note, it's disappointing (to me, at least) that, out of the 56 games played to date, there have been only 11 upsets. There may be a lot of talk from the heads on ESPN about parity in women's basketball but when you look at the elite eight and see all four of the number one seeds, three of the two seeds, and only one of the three seed left it makes me wonder. And most of the round three games, while closer in final margin than some of the earlier round blow-outs, didn't feel close. I guess we have to wait until next round for some of those nail-biting to-the-wire photo finishes (or replay the USC-MSU game. Funny how that was an eight seed Pac 10 team versus a one seed Big Ten school).
Day 5 and 6 all in one
It didn't make much sense to do a graphic for each of these days since only four teams were eliminated per day so this is the combined graphic updating all sweet sixteen results:
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Random thoughts on some of the second round action
After an immensely rewarding first round of action for the five Pac 10 teams, the second round was a bit of a let down. ESPN/ESPN2 did not show any of the Oregon-Baylor game so I'm not sure what happened during the contest, but the end result was that the Ducks were blown out. I wasn't expecting Oregon to win, however I had hoped that they would at least keep the score close. I had even less expectations for Arizona. After the way they played the first game I didn't think they stood much of a chance at all against LSU. And they didn't.
The other three games were much more entertaining. Stanford steadily pulled away and ended up winning the game by a wide margin. It felt closer than it actually was. Candice got in early foul trouble and had to sit for extended periods of time throughout the game. Her stats reflect this. Fortunately, Brooke Smith had a field day on the inside. And Azella put in a very strong performance (I think she went 6 for 6 and had some key rebounds). It's always good to see Azella doing well. Other than that, it was just your average Stanford victory. I am a bit concerned about the slow starts we have had in the first two games. We're going to need to come out of the blocks a lot stronger against Connecticut. I'm also worried about how ready Thiel is after having a cast on her foot for the past many weeks. She gives us a huge presence in the key and is a rebounding machine. She's a strength player as opposed to Brooke's finesse. We'll need her against UConn and I hope it doesn't take her too long to shake the cobwebs loose once she enters the game. Although, if Brooke Smith has another monster game, we might be able to keep T'nae on the sidelines.
Arizona State took out Notre Dame with a very impressive second half which was a good thing because the first half was forgettable. The Irish played excellent defense and Arizona State had too many turnovers during the first twenty minutes. They went long stretches of time without scoring the ball but, towards the end of the half, they started gelling out there. They fed off their always strong defense and cut the lead to a manageable margin with a three pointer at the buzzer. The second half was a whole different story. The Sun Devils came out on fire and quickly made up the five point deficit. They kept Notre Dame off balance and, even though the score remained close for a while, it was clear that they were dictating the pace of the game. Emily Westerberg had a great game but my personal favorite was Carrie Buckner, who is just a tenacious defender - she reminds me a lot of one of my favorite Cardinal, Sarah Dimson.
USC put up a fight but there were times in the game where they were just terrible. They kept making these slow, high arcing passes around the perimeter and into the low post that would get intercepted. I don't know how many times they turned the ball over but it just looked really bad for a while. The Spartan players would step around the Trojans, who were waiting for the ball, and pick off the pass. I felt like yelling through the TV, "Come TO the pass." I understand why you wouldn't want to give up your position in the low block by coming to the pass, but there was no excuse on the perimeter. After a couple of steals for easy lay-ups, you would think they would either make harder passes or come to the ball. It just killed me to see them give up so many easy baskets like that. Even with that sloppy play they almost managed to have a shot at winning the game. They kept just ahead of Michigan State until the final minute or so when the Spartans took the lead on a three. USC answered right back to tie the game and it was going to come down to their defense. They blocked the shot, had the rebound, but then the ball got batted to the ground and pinballed between diving players until a Spartan picked it up and put in a lay-up with 2.9 seconds left. Not a lot to do at that point but draw up a play and go for the long pass but a Trojan stepped over the line before inbounding the ball and that turnover should've been the game. For some odd reason, Michigan State threw the ball almost to half court where USC intercepted the inbounds, got a pass off, and almost had a shot from just beyond the three point arc. Actually, the Trojan who intercepted the pass got fouled and should've shot one plus one but there was no call. I don't think the three pointer got off in time and Michigan State won by two. Man, USC really didn't play that well over significant stretches of the first half and still managed to almost upset the number one seed. It's a shame that a good fight had to come down to fifteen seconds of rugby at the end.
Some quick thoughts on non-Pac 10 action: Liberty continues to be impressive. They dispatched DePaul rather handily and look much better than your average 13 seed. Duke, Connecticut, and Tennessee all looked strong. They're going to be tough.
The other three games were much more entertaining. Stanford steadily pulled away and ended up winning the game by a wide margin. It felt closer than it actually was. Candice got in early foul trouble and had to sit for extended periods of time throughout the game. Her stats reflect this. Fortunately, Brooke Smith had a field day on the inside. And Azella put in a very strong performance (I think she went 6 for 6 and had some key rebounds). It's always good to see Azella doing well. Other than that, it was just your average Stanford victory. I am a bit concerned about the slow starts we have had in the first two games. We're going to need to come out of the blocks a lot stronger against Connecticut. I'm also worried about how ready Thiel is after having a cast on her foot for the past many weeks. She gives us a huge presence in the key and is a rebounding machine. She's a strength player as opposed to Brooke's finesse. We'll need her against UConn and I hope it doesn't take her too long to shake the cobwebs loose once she enters the game. Although, if Brooke Smith has another monster game, we might be able to keep T'nae on the sidelines.
Arizona State took out Notre Dame with a very impressive second half which was a good thing because the first half was forgettable. The Irish played excellent defense and Arizona State had too many turnovers during the first twenty minutes. They went long stretches of time without scoring the ball but, towards the end of the half, they started gelling out there. They fed off their always strong defense and cut the lead to a manageable margin with a three pointer at the buzzer. The second half was a whole different story. The Sun Devils came out on fire and quickly made up the five point deficit. They kept Notre Dame off balance and, even though the score remained close for a while, it was clear that they were dictating the pace of the game. Emily Westerberg had a great game but my personal favorite was Carrie Buckner, who is just a tenacious defender - she reminds me a lot of one of my favorite Cardinal, Sarah Dimson.
USC put up a fight but there were times in the game where they were just terrible. They kept making these slow, high arcing passes around the perimeter and into the low post that would get intercepted. I don't know how many times they turned the ball over but it just looked really bad for a while. The Spartan players would step around the Trojans, who were waiting for the ball, and pick off the pass. I felt like yelling through the TV, "Come TO the pass." I understand why you wouldn't want to give up your position in the low block by coming to the pass, but there was no excuse on the perimeter. After a couple of steals for easy lay-ups, you would think they would either make harder passes or come to the ball. It just killed me to see them give up so many easy baskets like that. Even with that sloppy play they almost managed to have a shot at winning the game. They kept just ahead of Michigan State until the final minute or so when the Spartans took the lead on a three. USC answered right back to tie the game and it was going to come down to their defense. They blocked the shot, had the rebound, but then the ball got batted to the ground and pinballed between diving players until a Spartan picked it up and put in a lay-up with 2.9 seconds left. Not a lot to do at that point but draw up a play and go for the long pass but a Trojan stepped over the line before inbounding the ball and that turnover should've been the game. For some odd reason, Michigan State threw the ball almost to half court where USC intercepted the inbounds, got a pass off, and almost had a shot from just beyond the three point arc. Actually, the Trojan who intercepted the pass got fouled and should've shot one plus one but there was no call. I don't think the three pointer got off in time and Michigan State won by two. Man, USC really didn't play that well over significant stretches of the first half and still managed to almost upset the number one seed. It's a shame that a good fight had to come down to fifteen seconds of rugby at the end.
Some quick thoughts on non-Pac 10 action: Liberty continues to be impressive. They dispatched DePaul rather handily and look much better than your average 13 seed. Duke, Connecticut, and Tennessee all looked strong. They're going to be tough.
Round 2 wrap up
Continuing in the same vein as Sunday's post...
We started the second round with 32 schools from 23 states representing 11 conferences. If every game went as expected (a higher seed beating a lower seed) the second round should've ended with 16 schools from 13 states representing 7 conferences left in contention. Even though there were four upsets the number of states and conferences represented did not change. The actual composition shifted but not the total number.
Upset winners - Liberty (13 seed out of the Big South conference), Georgia (6 seed out of the Southeastern conference), Arizona State (5 seed out of the Pac 10 conference), and Vanderbilt (5 seed out of the Southeastern conference).
Upset losers - DePaul (5 seed out of Conference USA), Texas (3 seed out of the Big 12 conference), Notre Dame (4 seed out of the Big East conference), and Kansas State (4 seed out of the Big 12 conference).
Conferences whose teams exceeded expectations - Southeastern conference (expected to win 2 and lose 2 but instead won 4 and lost 0), Big South conference (expected to win 0 and lose 1 but instead won 1 and lost 0), and the Pac 10 conference (expected to win 1 and lose 4 but instead won 2 and lost 3).
Conferences whose teams disappointed expectations - Big 12 conference (expected to win 4 and lose 0 but instead won 2 and lost 2), Big East conference (expected to win 3 and lose 1 but instead won 2 and lost 2), and Conference USA (expected to win 1 and lose 0 but instead won 0 and lost 1).
States whose teams exceeded expectations - Arizona (expected to win 0 and lose 2 but instead won 1 and lost 1), Georgia (expected to win 0 and lose 1 but instead won 1 and lost 0), Virginia (expected to win 0 and lose 2 but instead won 1 and lost 1), and Tennessee (expected to win 1 and lose 2 but instead won 2 and lost 1).
States whose teams disappointed expectations - Texas (expected to win 3 and lose 0 but instead won 2 and lost 1), Indiana (expected to win 1 and lose 1 but instead won 0 and lost 2), Kansas (expected to win 1 and lose 0 but instead won 0 and lost 1), and Illinois (expected to win 1 and lost 0 but instead won 0 and lost 1).
Just some general observations: I'm surprised at how poorly Big 12 and Conference USA schools performed in the first and second rounds. After going perfect the first round, both the Pac 10 and the Big East lost teams (two for the Big East and three for the Pac 10) in the second round. The Pac 10 had two teams reach the round of 16 for the first time in more than a decade. The Southeaster conference, after underperforming in the first round, turned it around and went undefeated over the past two days. And the Big South, on the back of the only team from the conference to make the tournament, is having a strong showing. Go Liberty!
We started the second round with 32 schools from 23 states representing 11 conferences. If every game went as expected (a higher seed beating a lower seed) the second round should've ended with 16 schools from 13 states representing 7 conferences left in contention. Even though there were four upsets the number of states and conferences represented did not change. The actual composition shifted but not the total number.
Upset winners - Liberty (13 seed out of the Big South conference), Georgia (6 seed out of the Southeastern conference), Arizona State (5 seed out of the Pac 10 conference), and Vanderbilt (5 seed out of the Southeastern conference).
Upset losers - DePaul (5 seed out of Conference USA), Texas (3 seed out of the Big 12 conference), Notre Dame (4 seed out of the Big East conference), and Kansas State (4 seed out of the Big 12 conference).
Conferences whose teams exceeded expectations - Southeastern conference (expected to win 2 and lose 2 but instead won 4 and lost 0), Big South conference (expected to win 0 and lose 1 but instead won 1 and lost 0), and the Pac 10 conference (expected to win 1 and lose 4 but instead won 2 and lost 3).
Conferences whose teams disappointed expectations - Big 12 conference (expected to win 4 and lose 0 but instead won 2 and lost 2), Big East conference (expected to win 3 and lose 1 but instead won 2 and lost 2), and Conference USA (expected to win 1 and lose 0 but instead won 0 and lost 1).
States whose teams exceeded expectations - Arizona (expected to win 0 and lose 2 but instead won 1 and lost 1), Georgia (expected to win 0 and lose 1 but instead won 1 and lost 0), Virginia (expected to win 0 and lose 2 but instead won 1 and lost 1), and Tennessee (expected to win 1 and lose 2 but instead won 2 and lost 1).
States whose teams disappointed expectations - Texas (expected to win 3 and lose 0 but instead won 2 and lost 1), Indiana (expected to win 1 and lose 1 but instead won 0 and lost 2), Kansas (expected to win 1 and lose 0 but instead won 0 and lost 1), and Illinois (expected to win 1 and lost 0 but instead won 0 and lost 1).
Just some general observations: I'm surprised at how poorly Big 12 and Conference USA schools performed in the first and second rounds. After going perfect the first round, both the Pac 10 and the Big East lost teams (two for the Big East and three for the Pac 10) in the second round. The Pac 10 had two teams reach the round of 16 for the first time in more than a decade. The Southeaster conference, after underperforming in the first round, turned it around and went undefeated over the past two days. And the Big South, on the back of the only team from the conference to make the tournament, is having a strong showing. Go Liberty!
Monday, March 21, 2005
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Round 1 wrap up
We started the weekend with 64 schools from 32 states representing 31 conferences. If every game went as expected (a higher seed beating a lower seed) the first round should've ended with 32 schools from 24 states representing 9 conferences left in contention. Instead, due to seven upsets, the second round will be played out between 32 schools from 23 states representing 11 conferences.
Upset winners - Liberty (13 seed out of the Big South conference), Middle Tennessee State (12 seed out of the Sun Belt Conference), Oregon (10 seed out of the Pac 10 conference), Utah (10 seed out of the Mountain West conference), Arizona (9 seed out of the Pac 10 conference), George Washington (9 seed out of the Atlantic 10 conference), and Purdue (9 seed out of the Big Ten conference).
Upset losers - Penn State (4 seed out of the Big Ten conference), North Carolina State (5 seed out of the Atlantic Coast conference), TCU (7 seed out of Conference USA), Iowa State (7 seed out of the Big 12 conference), Oklahoma (8 seed out of the Big 12 conference), Mississippi (8 seed out of the Southeastern conference), and New Mexico (8 seed out of the Mountain West conference).
Conferences whose teams exceeded expectations - Pac 10 conference (expected to win 3 and lose 2 but instead won 5 and lost 0), Atlantic 10 conference (expected to win 1 and lose 2 but instead won 2 and lost 1), Sun Belt conference (expected to win 0 and lose 1 but instead won 1 and lost 0), and the Big South conference (expected to win 0 and lose 1 but instead won 1 and lost 0).
* The Mountain West and the Big Ten conferences both matched expectations by having one higher seed lose and one lower seed win. The upsets cancelled out.
Conferences whose teams disappointed expectations - Big 12 conference (expected to win 6 and lose 0 but instead won 4 and lost 2), Southeastern conference (expected to win 5 and lose 0 but instead won 4 and lost 1), Atlantic Coast conference (expected to win 6 and lose 1 but instead won 5 and lost 2), and Conference USA (expected to win 2 and lose 2 but instead won 1 and lost 3).
States (or districts) whose teams exceeped expectations - Arizona (expected to win 1 and lose 1 but instead won 2 and lost 0), Washington DC (expected to win 0 and lose 1 but instead won 1 and lost 0), Indiana (expected to win 1 and lose 1 but instead won 2 and lost 0), Tennessee (expected to win 2 and lose 1 but instead won 3 and lost 0), Utah (expected to win 0 and lose 1 but instead won 1 and lost 0), and Virginia (expected to win 1 and lose 4 but instead won 2 and lost 3).
States whose teams disappointed expectations - Iowa (expected to win 1 and lose 0 but instead won 0 and lost 1), Mississippi (expected to win 1 and lose 1 but instead won 0 and lost 2), New Mexico (expected to win 1 and lose 0 but instead won 0 and lost 1), North Carolina (expected to win 3 and lose 1 but instead won 2 and lost 2), Oklahoma (expected to win 1 and lose 1 but instead won 0 and lost 2), Pennsylvania (expected to win 2 and lose 1 but instead won 1 and lost 2), and Texas (expected to win 4 and lose 3 but instead won 3 and lost 4).
Let Round 2 begin!
Upset winners - Liberty (13 seed out of the Big South conference), Middle Tennessee State (12 seed out of the Sun Belt Conference), Oregon (10 seed out of the Pac 10 conference), Utah (10 seed out of the Mountain West conference), Arizona (9 seed out of the Pac 10 conference), George Washington (9 seed out of the Atlantic 10 conference), and Purdue (9 seed out of the Big Ten conference).
Upset losers - Penn State (4 seed out of the Big Ten conference), North Carolina State (5 seed out of the Atlantic Coast conference), TCU (7 seed out of Conference USA), Iowa State (7 seed out of the Big 12 conference), Oklahoma (8 seed out of the Big 12 conference), Mississippi (8 seed out of the Southeastern conference), and New Mexico (8 seed out of the Mountain West conference).
Conferences whose teams exceeded expectations - Pac 10 conference (expected to win 3 and lose 2 but instead won 5 and lost 0), Atlantic 10 conference (expected to win 1 and lose 2 but instead won 2 and lost 1), Sun Belt conference (expected to win 0 and lose 1 but instead won 1 and lost 0), and the Big South conference (expected to win 0 and lose 1 but instead won 1 and lost 0).
* The Mountain West and the Big Ten conferences both matched expectations by having one higher seed lose and one lower seed win. The upsets cancelled out.
Conferences whose teams disappointed expectations - Big 12 conference (expected to win 6 and lose 0 but instead won 4 and lost 2), Southeastern conference (expected to win 5 and lose 0 but instead won 4 and lost 1), Atlantic Coast conference (expected to win 6 and lose 1 but instead won 5 and lost 2), and Conference USA (expected to win 2 and lose 2 but instead won 1 and lost 3).
States (or districts) whose teams exceeped expectations - Arizona (expected to win 1 and lose 1 but instead won 2 and lost 0), Washington DC (expected to win 0 and lose 1 but instead won 1 and lost 0), Indiana (expected to win 1 and lose 1 but instead won 2 and lost 0), Tennessee (expected to win 2 and lose 1 but instead won 3 and lost 0), Utah (expected to win 0 and lose 1 but instead won 1 and lost 0), and Virginia (expected to win 1 and lose 4 but instead won 2 and lost 3).
States whose teams disappointed expectations - Iowa (expected to win 1 and lose 0 but instead won 0 and lost 1), Mississippi (expected to win 1 and lose 1 but instead won 0 and lost 2), New Mexico (expected to win 1 and lose 0 but instead won 0 and lost 1), North Carolina (expected to win 3 and lose 1 but instead won 2 and lost 2), Oklahoma (expected to win 1 and lose 1 but instead won 0 and lost 2), Pennsylvania (expected to win 2 and lose 1 but instead won 1 and lost 2), and Texas (expected to win 4 and lose 3 but instead won 3 and lost 4).
Let Round 2 begin!
A couple of days later, and half have gone away
The second day of the tournament started out swimmingly. Arizona upset Oklahoma to complete the Pac-10s first round perfection. I was especially impressed because Arizona really didn't play their best game and there was definitely room for improvement. They're going to have to improve their play for Tuesday's game because they're going up against the overall number one seed, LSU.
The only other game I was interested in was the New Mexico-Purdue contest. Unfortunately, the Lobos fell to the lower seeded Boilermakers. Good thing I didn't have too much invested in that game.
Other games that caught my eye:
Tennessee put the smack down on Western Carolina. The two schools are separated by less than two hours and the Carolina coach used to play for Summitt, but that's not the real significance of the match. With this win, Pat Summitt lifted herself into a tie at the top of the all-time career coaching wins list. If Tennessee beats Purdue on Tuesday, and there's no reason they shouldn't, she'll be setting the record with every future victory. Mind blowing career milestone.
Liberty took out the four seed Penn State team in a well played game. This is only the fourth time in tournament history that a thirteen seed has taken out a four seed. The prize for winning? Taking on DePaul (who looked very beatable against Virginia Tech today) in the second round. Should be interesting.
That's about it for the Sunday games. Oh. One more thing. Did I mention that the Pac 10 conference is perfect? Oh. Must've slipped my mind.
Pac 10 (5 wins - 0 losses)
The only other game I was interested in was the New Mexico-Purdue contest. Unfortunately, the Lobos fell to the lower seeded Boilermakers. Good thing I didn't have too much invested in that game.
Other games that caught my eye:
Tennessee put the smack down on Western Carolina. The two schools are separated by less than two hours and the Carolina coach used to play for Summitt, but that's not the real significance of the match. With this win, Pat Summitt lifted herself into a tie at the top of the all-time career coaching wins list. If Tennessee beats Purdue on Tuesday, and there's no reason they shouldn't, she'll be setting the record with every future victory. Mind blowing career milestone.
Liberty took out the four seed Penn State team in a well played game. This is only the fourth time in tournament history that a thirteen seed has taken out a four seed. The prize for winning? Taking on DePaul (who looked very beatable against Virginia Tech today) in the second round. Should be interesting.
That's about it for the Sunday games. Oh. One more thing. Did I mention that the Pac 10 conference is perfect? Oh. Must've slipped my mind.
Pac 10 (5 wins - 0 losses)
But second, a word from our sponsor
I'm only paying attention to the men's tournament for one reason (now that Stanford is gone). That reason is to see how badly Sports Illustrated messes up their overall predictions. I started doing this last year because I was irritated with SI's coverage of the two tournaments: pages and pages of men's coverage complete with brackets and fold out predictions and only a few pages of women's coverage with no bracket (At least no bracket this year. I don't remember last year).
SI does a four page fold out spread where they predict the winners of each game. Each time they make a wrong prediction I chortle evilly and scribble through that team. Sometimes the mistakes are meaningless because the team that wins doesn't advance and SI predicted another school moving on in the next round anyway. But on a few occasions the teams that are upset were expected to go deep into the tournament. Crossing out all those boxes is particularly enjoyable. Here's how SI is doing after the first two rounds (I hope they're not getting graded on a straight percentage):
Round 1 - 22/32 correct (D/D+)
Round 2 - 8/16 correct (F)
Round 3 - 3/8 teams still playing
Round 4 - 2/4 teams still playing
Round 5 - 2/2 teams still playing
So they could still be right about the championship match-up but they took a big hit with the losses of Syracuse, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia Tech, and Wake Forest.
SI does a four page fold out spread where they predict the winners of each game. Each time they make a wrong prediction I chortle evilly and scribble through that team. Sometimes the mistakes are meaningless because the team that wins doesn't advance and SI predicted another school moving on in the next round anyway. But on a few occasions the teams that are upset were expected to go deep into the tournament. Crossing out all those boxes is particularly enjoyable. Here's how SI is doing after the first two rounds (I hope they're not getting graded on a straight percentage):
Round 1 - 22/32 correct (D/D+)
Round 2 - 8/16 correct (F)
Round 3 - 3/8 teams still playing
Round 4 - 2/4 teams still playing
Round 5 - 2/2 teams still playing
So they could still be right about the championship match-up but they took a big hit with the losses of Syracuse, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia Tech, and Wake Forest.
First things first
Well, the first round of the women's tournament is officially over. I have some thoughts on the games today that I'll write down later. But here's the graphic update:
It's a good thing there's video with that audio
The first half of the Arizona-Oklahoma game is over and the Wildcats are down at the break. They started strong and led for the first sixteen minutes but went cold from the field and Oklahoma went on a 13-2 run, took the lead with about four minutes left, and held it for the remainder. However, if you just listened to the commentary from Ann Meyers you would think that Arizona had trailed the entire game. It's clear to me that she likes Oklahoma more than Arizona. Most of the first sixteen minutes she spent in talking up the things the Sooners were doing well (um, excuse me, are we looking at the same scoreboard?). When she did make comments about Arizona, or the Pac-10 in general, they were always weaker than they could have been. Just a couple of examples. In talking about the success of the Pac-10 yesterday she said that they went four out of five. This is technically true but weaker than saying that the Pac-10 was 4 and 0. Two true statements. Two different impressions. About midway through the half, Dee Dee Wheeler took the ball on a solo fast break and manuevered her way through three defenders, putting in a lay-up for the score. All Meyers said was that this was an example of why it's important to be able to dribble with both hands. Once again, technically true but gives a weaker impression of the play and totally takes away any credit to the individual who made the great play.
It's pretty hard to listen to her commentary. And her partner? I think it's Mark Jones but he hasn't really distinguished himself to this point. Kind of generic. Ann Meyers would make a great press secretary, carefully choosing words to subtly hype up one side while playing down the accomplishments of their opponents.
So far, my favorite announcing crew is the one working the Fresno games. I really enjoy Kara Lawson, she's amazingly good at the commentary and she and her partner work well together. I sure wish they were doing the Arizona game.
* EDITTED TO ADD: Okay. They've gotten much better in the second half. Specifically, Ann Meyers is a lot more even-handed in her commentary. I'm actually enjoying this announcing team now.
It's pretty hard to listen to her commentary. And her partner? I think it's Mark Jones but he hasn't really distinguished himself to this point. Kind of generic. Ann Meyers would make a great press secretary, carefully choosing words to subtly hype up one side while playing down the accomplishments of their opponents.
So far, my favorite announcing crew is the one working the Fresno games. I really enjoy Kara Lawson, she's amazingly good at the commentary and she and her partner work well together. I sure wish they were doing the Arizona game.
* EDITTED TO ADD: Okay. They've gotten much better in the second half. Specifically, Ann Meyers is a lot more even-handed in her commentary. I'm actually enjoying this announcing team now.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
64 b-ball teams, going out to play
Well, day 1 of the NCAA women's tournament is in the books. I figured I'd update my graphic to reflect the results. The 16 teams that were eliminated today have been ghosted out.
I have a pretty simple strategy that guides which teams I root for. First, I'm rooting for our team. Next, I root for any teams from the Pacific or Mountain West regions. After that, I'm just looking for upsets. So, I guess that breaks down as follows:
1. Stanford
2. Pac-10 teams
3. Any teams from California, Washington, or Oregon
4. Any teams from Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, or Utah.
5. Any team seeded lower than its opponent.
Today was actually a very good day. Almost outstanding. Stanford handily took care of Santa Clara. S., because of her ties to SCSU, was hoping that the Broncos had some success early on. I was just hoping for Stanford to win in a dominant fashion. We, both got our wish (although I told S. that the living room was Stanford only territory - I get a little unrealistic where the team is concerned and try to turn into a lazy-boy despot. I'm also a very pessimistic fan and a wet blanket when we're trailing.).
The rest of the Pac-10 kicked ass. We're 4-0 so far (with only Arizona left to play in the first round). The only game that was technically an upset (based on seeding) was the Oregon victory over TCU. But, due to the lack of respect that the Pac-10 normally receives on the national stage, every victory was sweet. Monday's games are going to be a bit more problematic. Arizona State will meet another great defensive team in Notre Dame. I think the Sun Devils are at least as good defensively and better offensively. USC are going to have their hands full with Michigan State. But I think the combination of size and quickness, and the platooning of players, gives USC an even money shot to pull off the huge upset. Oregon has a harder task, IMO, going up against Baylor. I watched the conference championship game that Baylor won and they are impressive. Their big tandem up front would give most Pac-10 teams fits. However, Oregon is the ideal west coast team to face them. They've got a pair of giants of their own who know how to play. It should be a battle down in the trenches. Stanford shouldn't have too much of a problem with Utah. They're similar to Santa Clara in that they shoot a lot of threes and we played them earlier in the season. Our perimeter defense showed up in the second half today and we really shut down SCSU from beyond the arc, so I think we'll do the same for the Utah shooters. Plus, Thiel might be back, which gives us even more of a rebounding advantage.
I was only disappointed in the outcome of two games. Montana losing to Vanderbilt was one of them. ESPN2 didn't show any of that game so I'm not sure what it was like. The harder defeat was Santa Barbara going down to Notre Dame. UCSB actually made a great game of it. They were close all game, even though the number one scorer on the team - the conference player of the year - was pretty much held in check. They were within 4 points late in the game when two possessions really decided things. A lazy pass out on the perimeter led to a breakaway basket for the Irish. On the next possession, the Gaucho player was called for traveling as she shot the ball. The ball went in and the replays showed she didn't lift her pivot foot. Two turnovers in a row. Missed opportunities. Notre Dame stretched the lead and UCSB didn't seriously threaten after that. Just two possessions. It was frustrating.
That's it for day 1. Mostly good news. A lot of favorable press for the Pac-10 from people who gave us short shrift before the tournament started. Let's hope days 2, 3, and 4 are just as good. There's really only two games I care about tomorrow: Arizona taking on Oklahoma and New Mexico against Purdue. Both Arizona and New Mexico are 8 seeds so the games should be tight.
I have a pretty simple strategy that guides which teams I root for. First, I'm rooting for our team. Next, I root for any teams from the Pacific or Mountain West regions. After that, I'm just looking for upsets. So, I guess that breaks down as follows:
1. Stanford
2. Pac-10 teams
3. Any teams from California, Washington, or Oregon
4. Any teams from Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, or Utah.
5. Any team seeded lower than its opponent.
Today was actually a very good day. Almost outstanding. Stanford handily took care of Santa Clara. S., because of her ties to SCSU, was hoping that the Broncos had some success early on. I was just hoping for Stanford to win in a dominant fashion. We, both got our wish (although I told S. that the living room was Stanford only territory - I get a little unrealistic where the team is concerned and try to turn into a lazy-boy despot. I'm also a very pessimistic fan and a wet blanket when we're trailing.).
The rest of the Pac-10 kicked ass. We're 4-0 so far (with only Arizona left to play in the first round). The only game that was technically an upset (based on seeding) was the Oregon victory over TCU. But, due to the lack of respect that the Pac-10 normally receives on the national stage, every victory was sweet. Monday's games are going to be a bit more problematic. Arizona State will meet another great defensive team in Notre Dame. I think the Sun Devils are at least as good defensively and better offensively. USC are going to have their hands full with Michigan State. But I think the combination of size and quickness, and the platooning of players, gives USC an even money shot to pull off the huge upset. Oregon has a harder task, IMO, going up against Baylor. I watched the conference championship game that Baylor won and they are impressive. Their big tandem up front would give most Pac-10 teams fits. However, Oregon is the ideal west coast team to face them. They've got a pair of giants of their own who know how to play. It should be a battle down in the trenches. Stanford shouldn't have too much of a problem with Utah. They're similar to Santa Clara in that they shoot a lot of threes and we played them earlier in the season. Our perimeter defense showed up in the second half today and we really shut down SCSU from beyond the arc, so I think we'll do the same for the Utah shooters. Plus, Thiel might be back, which gives us even more of a rebounding advantage.
I was only disappointed in the outcome of two games. Montana losing to Vanderbilt was one of them. ESPN2 didn't show any of that game so I'm not sure what it was like. The harder defeat was Santa Barbara going down to Notre Dame. UCSB actually made a great game of it. They were close all game, even though the number one scorer on the team - the conference player of the year - was pretty much held in check. They were within 4 points late in the game when two possessions really decided things. A lazy pass out on the perimeter led to a breakaway basket for the Irish. On the next possession, the Gaucho player was called for traveling as she shot the ball. The ball went in and the replays showed she didn't lift her pivot foot. Two turnovers in a row. Missed opportunities. Notre Dame stretched the lead and UCSB didn't seriously threaten after that. Just two possessions. It was frustrating.
That's it for day 1. Mostly good news. A lot of favorable press for the Pac-10 from people who gave us short shrift before the tournament started. Let's hope days 2, 3, and 4 are just as good. There's really only two games I care about tomorrow: Arizona taking on Oklahoma and New Mexico against Purdue. Both Arizona and New Mexico are 8 seeds so the games should be tight.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Hmmm. This explains a lot.
S. handed me a page with a link on it for a nerd test. So, being the competitive person I am, I just had to take the quiz to see how we compared. Here are the results without commentary:
Monday, March 14, 2005
Final thoughts on geographic myopia
It's time to move beyond the women's NCAA tournament selection committee ranting. So just a parting shot. The Stanford-Santa Clara first round match-up really chaps my hide. There are all sorts of sub-plots of more importance, but I'm just amazed that the committee could have two teams that are so geographically close to each other go heads-up right off the bat.
Two teams from the same state playing each other in the first round is not that big a deal - this year there are three. But Virginia and Old Dominion are about three hours apart. Texas Tech and Texas Arlington are more than five hours away from each other. We're freaking less than twenty minutes up the road from Santa Clara. I actually figured out the distance between all the first round match-up schools and the only other pairing that is separated by less than 100 miles is Tennessee and Western Carolina (just barely, at 95 miles, and they're in different states).
In the entire field of 64 teams, there is only one possible match-up that would pit schools, geographically closer than Santa Clara and Stanford, against each other. That would be Duke and North Carolina, which are separated by 10.4 miles (at least according to maps.yahoo.com - which is where all of my distance information is coming from - so take it with a grain of salt). Imagine the uproar if one of those two teams was guaranteed not to advance to the second round. In this year's tournament, those two teams will not meet until the final four.
Just for the sake of completeness, I looked at the two other possible match-ups of geographically close schools. For reference, Stanford and Santa Clara are 15.0 miles apart. Extremely close, which is not surprising because they're in the same city, are Houston and Rice Universities. These schools are separated by 15.2 miles. This year they will not meet until the sweet 16. Texas Arlington and TCU are 20.3 miles apart. But no need to worry since the earliest they could meet this year would be in the championship game. All other schools were greater than or equal to 30 miles from any potential opponent.
Now I have no idea if the committee keeps track of how close schools are to each other when they make the pairings. I just find it odd that Stanford and Santa Clara are such huge outliers (the mean for first round opponent schools is 930 miles and the median is 880 miles). In thinking that they have sinister motives when it comes to west coast schools, I'm probably giving them too much credit to expect something as trivial as distance to play any kind of role.
As a side note, I'm probably the only person who is irritated by the whole geographic thing. I gave a brief synopsis of my findings to S. earlier and she just stared at me. I think she was trying hard to see what my point was, but I just wasn't articulating it well enough (or it was so trivial as to be unimportant). Finally, she suggested that the discussion would make more sense if she could see a visual mapping of all the schools in this year's tournament.
I'm never one to turn down a request for multi-modal communication of a particular concept.
Click on thumbnail for larger image. Blue=Chattanooga regional. Purple=Philadelphia regional. Yellow=Tempe regional. Red=Kansas City regional.
Two teams from the same state playing each other in the first round is not that big a deal - this year there are three. But Virginia and Old Dominion are about three hours apart. Texas Tech and Texas Arlington are more than five hours away from each other. We're freaking less than twenty minutes up the road from Santa Clara. I actually figured out the distance between all the first round match-up schools and the only other pairing that is separated by less than 100 miles is Tennessee and Western Carolina (just barely, at 95 miles, and they're in different states).
In the entire field of 64 teams, there is only one possible match-up that would pit schools, geographically closer than Santa Clara and Stanford, against each other. That would be Duke and North Carolina, which are separated by 10.4 miles (at least according to maps.yahoo.com - which is where all of my distance information is coming from - so take it with a grain of salt). Imagine the uproar if one of those two teams was guaranteed not to advance to the second round. In this year's tournament, those two teams will not meet until the final four.
Just for the sake of completeness, I looked at the two other possible match-ups of geographically close schools. For reference, Stanford and Santa Clara are 15.0 miles apart. Extremely close, which is not surprising because they're in the same city, are Houston and Rice Universities. These schools are separated by 15.2 miles. This year they will not meet until the sweet 16. Texas Arlington and TCU are 20.3 miles apart. But no need to worry since the earliest they could meet this year would be in the championship game. All other schools were greater than or equal to 30 miles from any potential opponent.
Now I have no idea if the committee keeps track of how close schools are to each other when they make the pairings. I just find it odd that Stanford and Santa Clara are such huge outliers (the mean for first round opponent schools is 930 miles and the median is 880 miles). In thinking that they have sinister motives when it comes to west coast schools, I'm probably giving them too much credit to expect something as trivial as distance to play any kind of role.
As a side note, I'm probably the only person who is irritated by the whole geographic thing. I gave a brief synopsis of my findings to S. earlier and she just stared at me. I think she was trying hard to see what my point was, but I just wasn't articulating it well enough (or it was so trivial as to be unimportant). Finally, she suggested that the discussion would make more sense if she could see a visual mapping of all the schools in this year's tournament.
I'm never one to turn down a request for multi-modal communication of a particular concept.
Click on thumbnail for larger image. Blue=Chattanooga regional. Purple=Philadelphia regional. Yellow=Tempe regional. Red=Kansas City regional.
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Follow up with numbers
The first question that ran through my mind as I watched the selection show today was: How often does the number one team in the nation not receive a number one seed? Unfortunately, using strictly on-line resources, I was unable to answer this question. Fortunately, a number of columnists had access to more data than I did. The answer is that this hasn't happened since the third year of the tournament, 1984, when Texas was ranked number one at the end of the year and received a number two seed. I still don't know how many polls they were ranked number one in (and even if there was more than one poll at the time). I'm assuming, based on the way the columnists presented this statistic, that this was the only time this situation occurred.
So we're in elite company, apparently. (I guess if there were another team that had to go through this slap on the face, I'm glad it was Texas. Things didn't turn out that well for Texas that year either. They got bounced by number one seed Louisiana Tech 85-60, who ended up getting beat by the eventual winner Southern Cal.)
I've been playing around with other numbers and, based on the seeds that teams receive in the tournament, the Pac 10 is considered by the committee to be one of the weakest of the major conferences. The Southeastern conference gets the most respect with 29 number one seeds, 22 number two seeds, 25 number three seeds, and 14 number four seeds. I came up with a metric (for lack of originality I call it score) to help me better compare conferences. Each number one seed is multiplied by four, number two seed by three, number three seed by two, and number one seed by one and all these numbers are summed. Ranking conferences using this value puts the Pac 10 at fifth. The only other major conference below us is the Big East. (The top four are the SEC, ACC, Big 12, and Big Ten).
I find this hard to reconcile with actual performance. All the talk is about making the final four, so I looked at how well conferences do once their teams reach that plateau. Turns out that the Pac 10 has the second highest winning percentage of any conference (the Big East, based on the strength of Connecticut mainly, is first). Now, granted, only two teams from the Pac 10 have reached the final four: Southern Cal and Stanford. But in nine appearances they managed to win four times. That's got to count for something, you'd think. If we get there, we do well.
Why does it matter, you might ask, what seed a team receives? Well, in the 23 previous tournaments, a number one seed has won 17 times. No team lower than a three seed has ever won (and that only happened twice). In fact, teams seeded lower than four have only made the final four 6 times, and none of them advanced to the championship game. Out of sixty-nine total final four games, teams seeded as a two have won twelve and lost eighteen. Compare that to 47 wins for number one seeds and you begin to see the disparity. In terms of history, it's much more comforting to be seeded number one. But I guess things could be worse. We could've been seeded sixth, like last year, after we won the regular season and the conference tournament.
Looks like the Stanford women are just going to have to go out and prove the mental midgets on the selection committee wrong. On a side note, this is the absolute worst time of the year to be a fan of west coast women's basketball. No matter how exciting the games have been throughout the year, how tight the conference races usually are, how thrilling the conference tournaments - come selection Sunday it becomes all too clear that the committee didn't pay any attention at all.
So we're in elite company, apparently. (I guess if there were another team that had to go through this slap on the face, I'm glad it was Texas. Things didn't turn out that well for Texas that year either. They got bounced by number one seed Louisiana Tech 85-60, who ended up getting beat by the eventual winner Southern Cal.)
I've been playing around with other numbers and, based on the seeds that teams receive in the tournament, the Pac 10 is considered by the committee to be one of the weakest of the major conferences. The Southeastern conference gets the most respect with 29 number one seeds, 22 number two seeds, 25 number three seeds, and 14 number four seeds. I came up with a metric (for lack of originality I call it score) to help me better compare conferences. Each number one seed is multiplied by four, number two seed by three, number three seed by two, and number one seed by one and all these numbers are summed. Ranking conferences using this value puts the Pac 10 at fifth. The only other major conference below us is the Big East. (The top four are the SEC, ACC, Big 12, and Big Ten).
I find this hard to reconcile with actual performance. All the talk is about making the final four, so I looked at how well conferences do once their teams reach that plateau. Turns out that the Pac 10 has the second highest winning percentage of any conference (the Big East, based on the strength of Connecticut mainly, is first). Now, granted, only two teams from the Pac 10 have reached the final four: Southern Cal and Stanford. But in nine appearances they managed to win four times. That's got to count for something, you'd think. If we get there, we do well.
Why does it matter, you might ask, what seed a team receives? Well, in the 23 previous tournaments, a number one seed has won 17 times. No team lower than a three seed has ever won (and that only happened twice). In fact, teams seeded lower than four have only made the final four 6 times, and none of them advanced to the championship game. Out of sixty-nine total final four games, teams seeded as a two have won twelve and lost eighteen. Compare that to 47 wins for number one seeds and you begin to see the disparity. In terms of history, it's much more comforting to be seeded number one. But I guess things could be worse. We could've been seeded sixth, like last year, after we won the regular season and the conference tournament.
Looks like the Stanford women are just going to have to go out and prove the mental midgets on the selection committee wrong. On a side note, this is the absolute worst time of the year to be a fan of west coast women's basketball. No matter how exciting the games have been throughout the year, how tight the conference races usually are, how thrilling the conference tournaments - come selection Sunday it becomes all too clear that the committee didn't pay any attention at all.
Why do I bother watching?
So today was the selection show for the NCAA tournaments. My team is the Stanford women, we've had season tickets for the past six years and even traveled to Eugene and Boise to root them on. I don't care too much about the men. I'll be rooting for Stanford and other west coast teams, but that's about it.
One thing I've learned over the past few years is that the selection committee has a mental block where west coast teams are concerned. It might even be more than that. I'm continually reminded of the east coast bias in all things sports and today was no different.
Today, the committee delivered an unequivocal "fuck you" to a number of teams. Most of them just happened to be west coast teams. After ending the season as the number one ranked team in the country, number one team in the Pac-10 in the regular season, winner of the conference tournament, and unbeaten at home this year Stanford received a #2 seed in the St. Louis bracket. No team in the country had fewer losses than Stanford. Apparently, the eyes of the selection committee glazed over and their brains stopped working as soon as they thought about anything west of the Rockies.
Only one positive note in all this, and even that is tinged with more of that "fuck you" magic that the selection committee doled out. Stanford will play their first game in Fresno. Great news! Less than two hours from home. What's not to like about that? The screwed up part is their first round opponent. Out of the sixty-three teams that the committee had to work with they selected the one twenty minutes down the road: Santa Clara. And the match-up is even more disappointing when you realize that there is a Kimyacioglu on each team. Sebnem is one of our seniors and her younger sister, Yasemin, is a sophomore at Santa Clara.
I'm too irritated to type more. At this point I am rarely surprised when quality west coast teams are overlooked on the national scene. Disappointed, yes. Surprised, no. I blame it on regional jealousy.
And don't even get me started on how the Gonzaga women got screwed.
One thing I've learned over the past few years is that the selection committee has a mental block where west coast teams are concerned. It might even be more than that. I'm continually reminded of the east coast bias in all things sports and today was no different.
Today, the committee delivered an unequivocal "fuck you" to a number of teams. Most of them just happened to be west coast teams. After ending the season as the number one ranked team in the country, number one team in the Pac-10 in the regular season, winner of the conference tournament, and unbeaten at home this year Stanford received a #2 seed in the St. Louis bracket. No team in the country had fewer losses than Stanford. Apparently, the eyes of the selection committee glazed over and their brains stopped working as soon as they thought about anything west of the Rockies.
Only one positive note in all this, and even that is tinged with more of that "fuck you" magic that the selection committee doled out. Stanford will play their first game in Fresno. Great news! Less than two hours from home. What's not to like about that? The screwed up part is their first round opponent. Out of the sixty-three teams that the committee had to work with they selected the one twenty minutes down the road: Santa Clara. And the match-up is even more disappointing when you realize that there is a Kimyacioglu on each team. Sebnem is one of our seniors and her younger sister, Yasemin, is a sophomore at Santa Clara.
I'm too irritated to type more. At this point I am rarely surprised when quality west coast teams are overlooked on the national scene. Disappointed, yes. Surprised, no. I blame it on regional jealousy.
And don't even get me started on how the Gonzaga women got screwed.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Memory is a funny thing
I didn't eat whipped cream for years because I positively KNEW that it would make me sick. This wasn't too much of a hardship, because my family didn't keep the stuff in the refrigerator, it was reserved for special occasions like Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner. But whenever the pie was being served, I would always take mine without that particular topping (sometimes, however, I would splurge and go a la mode).
For twenty years I ate pumpkin pie without whipped cream, ordered ice cream cones instead of banana splits, and drank hot chocolate with only a few marshmellows. All of this because I never forgot the last time I had had the stuff, at a Thanksgiving dinner at my grandmother's house when I was around six or seven years old, where I spent some time in the bathroom afterwards losing the entire meal.
A couple of years ago, my sister-in-law asked me why I never had whipped cream on my dessert. I told her the story, ending with the part where I threw up after eating the pie with the offending topping. My brother got this funny look on his face, shook his head, and set the record straight.
"Uncle G. was slipping you beer the whole night." he said, "THAT'S why you threw up."
He was absolutely right. And it all came rushing back. I had totally forgotten that, while I was playing on the floor around the dinner table, Uncle G. had been slipping me drinks out of his glass. I didn't know what the stuff was. He seemed to get a big kick out of the whole thing. I never made the connection that it was beer. When we had dessert later, and I threw up, I just blamed it on the one thing I'd eaten that was not part of my diet on a regular basis: whipped cream. I don't think I realized, at that point in my life, that something you drank could make you throw up.
So for the next twenty years I faithfully adhered to the lesson I learned that night. It's too bad it was the wrong lesson.
For twenty years I ate pumpkin pie without whipped cream, ordered ice cream cones instead of banana splits, and drank hot chocolate with only a few marshmellows. All of this because I never forgot the last time I had had the stuff, at a Thanksgiving dinner at my grandmother's house when I was around six or seven years old, where I spent some time in the bathroom afterwards losing the entire meal.
A couple of years ago, my sister-in-law asked me why I never had whipped cream on my dessert. I told her the story, ending with the part where I threw up after eating the pie with the offending topping. My brother got this funny look on his face, shook his head, and set the record straight.
"Uncle G. was slipping you beer the whole night." he said, "THAT'S why you threw up."
He was absolutely right. And it all came rushing back. I had totally forgotten that, while I was playing on the floor around the dinner table, Uncle G. had been slipping me drinks out of his glass. I didn't know what the stuff was. He seemed to get a big kick out of the whole thing. I never made the connection that it was beer. When we had dessert later, and I threw up, I just blamed it on the one thing I'd eaten that was not part of my diet on a regular basis: whipped cream. I don't think I realized, at that point in my life, that something you drank could make you throw up.
So for the next twenty years I faithfully adhered to the lesson I learned that night. It's too bad it was the wrong lesson.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Why don't they play somewhere else?
I don't know how many animals I've run over in my driving career.
Every time I see something moving in the road I follow the same routine: slow down, try to estimate the speed and direction of movement of the small thing, attempt to anticipate what avoidance move it will make and steer my vehicle so that I miss it. Short of putting myself or other drivers in harms way, there's not much I won't do to keep from hitting an animal. But at highway speeds sometimes there's just not enough time.
When I look in my rearview mirror and see the body of an animal that I just ran over I'm not quite sure what to do. Should I stop? If it's not dead would it be better for me to put it out of it's misery? I get a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach and hope that the small thing died quickly. And every time this has happened, I've kept driving. My reaction to these situations, more than anything, is what has convinced me that hunting is not my sport. I really don't like taking the life of a mammal, no matter how small. (I like fishing, however. I'm not sure what the difference is.)
One particular roadkill incident has stuck with me over the years. I was coming back from the New Idria mine, heading north across the valley floor towards the hills on my way back to highway 25. It was summer, after a rather wet winter, and the foxtails were high and yellow by the side of the road. I had passed a huge amount of roadkill all day, scattering crows and vultures each time with my approach. This was surprising since the road is not a high traffic route - I've driven it a number of times and rarely met more than one vehicle every half hour.
All of a sudden two squirrels cavorted into the road directly in front of me. That's the best word I can use to describe their activity - they looked like they were playing a game of tag or just engaging in general friskiness. I don't think they even knew I was there and I didn't have time to slow down. When I looked back in the rearview mirror there was one still form in the middle of the road. As I watched, the other squirrel came back and sniffed at it's fallen playmate and then they were too far behind me to see anymore. I could imagine the confusion going through the thing's tiny brain as it's mate, or buddy, all of a sudden stopped playing and lay there in the road (I know, I know, I'm anthropomorphizing).
In the general scheme of things, one less squirrel in the world doesn't amount to much. But I sure felt rotten for the rest of the day and I get sad just thinking about it.
Every time I see something moving in the road I follow the same routine: slow down, try to estimate the speed and direction of movement of the small thing, attempt to anticipate what avoidance move it will make and steer my vehicle so that I miss it. Short of putting myself or other drivers in harms way, there's not much I won't do to keep from hitting an animal. But at highway speeds sometimes there's just not enough time.
When I look in my rearview mirror and see the body of an animal that I just ran over I'm not quite sure what to do. Should I stop? If it's not dead would it be better for me to put it out of it's misery? I get a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach and hope that the small thing died quickly. And every time this has happened, I've kept driving. My reaction to these situations, more than anything, is what has convinced me that hunting is not my sport. I really don't like taking the life of a mammal, no matter how small. (I like fishing, however. I'm not sure what the difference is.)
One particular roadkill incident has stuck with me over the years. I was coming back from the New Idria mine, heading north across the valley floor towards the hills on my way back to highway 25. It was summer, after a rather wet winter, and the foxtails were high and yellow by the side of the road. I had passed a huge amount of roadkill all day, scattering crows and vultures each time with my approach. This was surprising since the road is not a high traffic route - I've driven it a number of times and rarely met more than one vehicle every half hour.
All of a sudden two squirrels cavorted into the road directly in front of me. That's the best word I can use to describe their activity - they looked like they were playing a game of tag or just engaging in general friskiness. I don't think they even knew I was there and I didn't have time to slow down. When I looked back in the rearview mirror there was one still form in the middle of the road. As I watched, the other squirrel came back and sniffed at it's fallen playmate and then they were too far behind me to see anymore. I could imagine the confusion going through the thing's tiny brain as it's mate, or buddy, all of a sudden stopped playing and lay there in the road (I know, I know, I'm anthropomorphizing).
In the general scheme of things, one less squirrel in the world doesn't amount to much. But I sure felt rotten for the rest of the day and I get sad just thinking about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
