Personal Preseason Polls

[Buffsfan22]

First the disclaimer. I admit to being an extremely optimistic and unabashed "homer".
But at least I can promise this isn't another "this is a recording" preseason poll.
Hope others will contribute their own polls and likewise won't be afraid of saying something is good or isn't good without first looking over their shoulder to make sure somebody else is saying the same thing.

Anyhoo, here's mine:

TOP 25

1. Duke
When you add the #1 ranked recruiting class to a team that was already the favorite you've got a team unlikely to forfeit their best chance to date at a NC. Bass and Foley should make immediate impacts. Bass could make Tillis and Currie that much better. Beard isn't too bad either. The only question mark is at the point.

2. Colorado
And a sophomore shall lead them. By about the midway-point of the past regular season, I couldn't wait for this upcoming one. The reason? Veronica Johns-Richardson. The fastest and most athletic player I've ever seen in a Buff uniform. She's had a year of prep for this challenge and she'll handle it well. Coupled in the backcourt with her is the deadliest 3-point threat in the B12, Kate Fagan. Kate averaged 20 minutes a game and got the starting nod ahead of Roulier on several occasions last year. Buff fans won't be missing Mandy and Roo for very long. Add the best frontcourt in the nation in Lappe, Scott and Bjorklund. Then sprinkle in a few new wrinkles to the triangle offense provided by new assitant coach Jabir and here's the biggest threat to a Duke NC. However, this team doesn't have the depth of last years squad and staying healthy has never been more important, not to mention overdue, for this team.
I will take bets that my prediction for this team comes closer to the mark than WCH's "EarlyBird Poll"

3. Texas Tech
The Red Raiders lost little but regain forward Plennette Pierson, returning from her suspension. Joining her in the frontcourt is hard-nosed Jolee Ayers and future star center, 6'5 sophomore Cisti Greenwalt. Looks like two B12 teams in the Final Four.

4. LSU
A full bench, a return of Quality starters, Another year for Temeka Johnson to get even better, and super recruit Augustus should be enough to take them to the top of the SEC in her first year.

5. Penn State
Anathema Rene Portland comes in with the best backcourt in the nation w/ Wright and Mazzante. 6'7 sophomore center Tiffany Tomlinson will provide a serious defensive obstacle for opponents and fowards Jess Brungo and Courtney Upshaw round out a very impressive starting 5. Jess Strom adds tremendous depth at guard. W/out a senior on this team, this ranking may be a bit high. They are a team to keep an eye out for a NC in 2003-04.

6. UConn
Because "The Slugs" aren't really that bad, and Taurasi is simply the best. Strother will continue the tradition of UConn greats and Geno may be (ok, probably IS) the top coach in the game atm.

7. Tennesee
Summit has lost the ability to mesh a plethora of tremendous individual talents into a great basketball team. I look for them to finish behind a hungry LSU in the SEC and then be upset in the Sweet 16, again.

8.Kansas State
Deb Patterson is one of the bright new stars in the coaching world. Oldhe may be the best center in the country. Koehn and Wecker will be All-American mentions at the least.

9: Texas
Expectations in Austin will be much higher than this. My feeling is they're too slow to get further than the Elite 8. Not sure Conrandt is still among the coaching elite either. Like Penn State, one year from peaking.

10: Minnesota
Two words: Whalen and McCarville. Would rate them higher, but while Borton may prove in the long term to be a better coach than Oldfield, the change can only hurt (but just a little) the team this season.

11. Vanderbilt
The loss of Klimesova, Danker and Coach Foster will result in a slide,
but Anderson and McElhiney won't allow it to be a long slide.

12 BYU.
They won't be surispring anybody this year.

13. Colorado State
The return of point guard Elizabeth English from an ACL injury to this senior laden team should spark them to a Sweet Sixteen birth.

14. North Carolina
Forget Teasley. It's Candace Sutton's turn to be a star. Coretta Brown adds plenty of support. I'm cautious however, as I overrated this team in last year's poll.

15. South Carolina
Sure they lost Gortman and Geter. But Susan Walvius is a coaching stud, Kelly Morrone is a court general analogous to George Patton and Jocelyn Penn is , well, fabulous.

16. Mississippi St
They have Latoya Thomas.

17. Notre Dame
I'm not as excited about them as some other prognosticators are.

18. Purdue
The loss of Komara is huge to this team that was a bit overrated last year.

19. Iowa State
The return of Junod should allow Wilson to play the 2. Making for a great backcourt. While Mary Cofield can shoot lights out, the Cyclones lack the size up front to finish higher than 5th in the B12.

20 Arkansas
While the SEC is a little weaker at the top, it's stronger in the middle.

21. Georgia
Kara Braxton. This is the team I'm most likely underrating.

22 Cincinnati
OK. So I'm a snob when it comes to weak conferences. So heres a token team. Cinci getting an automatic 1st round game at home demonstrates why I opposse this new system.

23 Rutgers
Because someone will have to finish third in the Big Least and we can only pray it won't be Boston College.

24 Stanford
OK. So I'm a snob when it comes to weak conferences...and so forth.

25.West Virginia
A surprising fourth in the Big Least and an up and comer in the near future. And because I didn't want to get through this entire poll without going out on at least one limb.

Just missed out: La. Tech, New Mexico, Washington, ODU, UCSB.

[RaiderPower1]

hmmmmm....?

[35TangoTango]

Well Buffsfan22, you certainly know how to yank a crimson and cream chain! OU not in the top 5 in the conference, and not in the top 30 in the nation?

I can't be quite the homer you are and rate the sooners second in the nation, but I'd be willing to bet good money they finish higher than Colorado. If I may do a comparison:

Oklahoma will have two players faster than "fastest and most athletic player ever seen in a Buff uniform" - Dionnah Jackson, and Maria Villarroel . Fagan is not the best 3 point shooter in the Big 12 - not with Koehn around (or Screiber, or..). OU will also have the better frontcourt. Between them, Hartshorn and Bjorklund were a pretty good center, but Hartshorn is gone. Bjorklund offensively will be upstaged by the Sooners' Schuknecht. The dynamite frontcourt player for Colorado was Bohman, and she's gone, too. Scott is not as good as Caton Hill, and whoever plays the three spot will not be as good as last year's Texas high school player of the year Chelsi Welch.

Other names that will cause you pain are Antoinette Wadsworth (medical redshirt last year - an unbelievably athletic forward), Erin Higgins (here's your 3 point shooter), Beky Preston and Casey Walker, two 6'3" freshman centers for depth. I bet OU has another 3 first round draft picks in those players, just not all this year. Certainly a lot more depth than last year, and a lot stronger front line.

I fully expect the next Colorado game to go about like the last one! We might even finally find a way to beat the Twister Sisters this year. Now about Texas Tech....

[NoDakSt]

Colorado as #2? Well, I hadn't given them much notice but they do have some weapons coming back and they definitely have the team concept down, soemthing that teams with more athletic players don't seem to have.

no way, though, is Penn State #5. There front court is highly experienced and their 6'7" center may be as tall as a tree but she moves like one also. They'll finish behind Purdue, Illinois, and Minnesota anbd maybe Iowa in the Big 10.

UCONN will not be in the sweetest of 16 either come March.
Tennessee will.

Good insights, though. Texas Tech will be in the Final Four along with DUke, Tennessee and LSU.

[Buffsfan22]

Well you should be upset Soonerman. And you should defend your team.
For what it's worth, I do have OU at 6th in the conference and still making the dance.

I must contest what you said about Fagan.
How is Koehn's .430 3 pt shooting or Screiber's .413 better than Kate's .473???
Your opinion is welcomed, but the facts are right here.
http://www2.big12sports.com/new/wbball/stats/index.php?stat=207

Caton Hill is one of my favorite players. However, Sabrina Scott is my absolute favorite player. I won't say who's better as I'd rather let that be proven in their upcoming senior years. I will predict that Sabrina will lead the conference in boards.
As for our 3, I will take a healthy Lappe over any other 3 in the conference. "Healthy" is the key word here. Just as Linda is the key to this teams success. If her body won't let her go this year, I will drop my prediction for this team from 2 to between 12-15. She's that key.
I don't feel the need to debate whether Tera is a better center than your OU gal.

Thanks for your comments and good luck to your team.

[35TangoTango]

"I must contest what you said about...." That's why we play the games! Will fall never get here??? If you're right about Colorado, and Bill Fennelly is as good a coach as I think he is, and can we really relegate Baylor to also-ran status?

We could have an abolutely amazing conference race! This looks to be a year for the Big 12 that could even surpass last year!

[RaiderPower1]

I think we all know who will have the best front court in the conference if not the nation http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif . The backcourt of Jia Perkins/Mik Tennal/Erin Grant won't be to shabby either!

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by RaiderPower1:
I think we all know who will have the best front court in the conference if not the nation http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif . The backcourt of Jia Perkins/Mik Tennal/Erin Grant won't be to shabby either!

Trying real hard not to think about it....

Sometimes you just fall in love with a player even if they're on another team. I think Cisti Greenwalt will be as good as any center in the conference next year, and could become a consensus all-American before she's through. What Sherri Coale describes as "Marsha's high-low post thing" should be devastating!

But again, that why they play the games.

[cyfanatic]

Interesting discussion, but Colorado #2????

[Buffsfan22]

"Interesting discussion, but Colorado #2????"

Did you read my disclaimer? Especially the part about the ability to think something without needing to make sure another (preferably a majority of folks) is/are thinking the same thing?

I'm confident most of the folks posting here think our conference is good enough that the team who wins it deserves a #2 ranking, at least. I believe there are 3 other teams that could win the conference instead. I just happen to like the Buffs chances better. I might have picked Texas Tech but our regular season meeting is here this year. They couldn't beat us on their own court last season, so why should I believe they'll beat us on ours this year? OU plays here too. I can't see the Buffs dropping any games at home this season.

Anyway. The idea of personal polls is to state what you think will happen. That's what I did.
When someone says something that nobody has said before it always sounds a little funny at first. And if you think this ranking is just cause I'm a Buff fan(atic), I offer in my defense that in a preseason poll posted on the ESPN board last preseason I ranked the Buffs at #7. I think that proved rather accurate.

[RaiderPower1]

Originally posted by Buffsfan22:
[BI might have picked Texas Tech but our regular season meeting is here this year. They couldn't beat us on their own court last season, so why should I believe they'll beat us on ours this year?[/B]

Correction: Mandy Nightingale beat Tech this past year with her 30 foot three pointer. If what you say is true, then Tech should have beat CU this past year just because the LR beat CU in Colorado the year before. For 2003, the LR have, and I think MANY will agree, many more potential weapons than the buffs do. CU just doesn't have the experience to finish higher than 4th IMHO.

[Buffsfan22]

"For 2003, the LR have, and I think MANY will agree, many more potential weapons than the buffs do."

Again I one final time will reiterate that I am confident enough in my prediction that I don't need the comfort of "Many agreeing" with me. Bottom line is having "potential weapons" has never won anyone a conference championship.

If experience is the end all in wch that so many like to think it is, then what the hell was Duke doing in the FF last year?

I also must ask you how is 2 seniors, two juniors and one sophomore for a starting 5 inexperienced? Everyone of those gals made it to the elite 8 last year. Not to mention they were up by two points on OU just before the half when they lost Lappe for the rest of the game.

And please show me where the Buffs have ever been showed the respect they deserve. O, like last year, when the hype highlights for the Elite 8 contained clips of OU, Tenn, UConn, Duke, Vandy, ODU, SC, and STANFORD????

[ChipperF1]

Okay....The ChipperSports Organisation will give it a whirl too

1. Texas Tech......2003 National Champions
2. Tennessee.......Zolman will help, but cohesiveness could be the achilles heel
3. Stanford........Resistance Is Futile. Nicole Powell will lead the Borg to the Final Four
4. Duke............Beard, Tillis and Currie have talent, but seems to crack like fine china under championship pressure
5. Connecticut.....Lady Diana will have to be a royal pain to opponents this year, all by herself.
6. LSU.............The Bayou Shimp have speed, size and Seimone, but can it close the gap with Tennessee
7. Purdue..........Mary Jo Noon in the middle Valek outside, Wright on the wings. Why Purdue in the Big 10, because they know how to get it together better than anyone else
8. Texas...........Heather Schriber is wonderful, she just needs some guards.
9. Iowa State......No Blue Chips, Not sexy enough for the sneaker-pimps. WHO CARES! Erica Junod's back and Lindsey Wilson's unleashed. Better shooting could lead them past Texas
10. Mississippi State....LaToya Thomas and lil sis Tan White lead a squad who learned how good they could be.
11. Kansas State. Ohlde, Koehn and Wecker are great, but they've lost the license to sneak and can you put your trust in a team who was handly beaten by Nebraska?
12. South Carolina....Good Coach in Walvius, Good size, could use another perimeter threat
13. Minnesota........Pam Borton is solid coach, and has a team with something to prove led by the Magic of Lindsay Whalen.
14. Oklahoma.........Dionnah Jackson to Caton Hill could be as nice as Holieway to Keith Jackson. Also, Meg Ryan Coale made some smart offseason moves
15. Drake............The U.S.S. Carla Bennett is not something you want to see on your coastline. This Creighton fan is afraid, very afraid.
16. Cincinnati.......Laurie Pirtle has a nice little ol' ballclub, led by an Energizer Bunny point guard and silky sophmore center.
17. Vanderbilt......Chantelle is swell, but this team needs a killer instinct in the worst way.
18. Arkansas........Shameka Christon. Her name sound like a Tennessee Lady Vol, plays like one, too. Losing Amy Wright means you need a new quarterback
19. Georgia.........Have all the talent, especially the Braxtons. But when will some Spartan discipline get to Athens?
20. Boston College..The WCBB Surgeon General has determined that a healthy Becky Gottstein and a healthy Brianne Stepherson is very healthy for the Eagles chances in the Big East.
21. Notre Dame......I like Battleast. I loved their late run, but Irish fans will not move into first in the Big East...and they may drop down to fourth.
22. Colorado........A great ride last year, but the Buffs have to stay Consistent (Bjorklund), Healthy (Linda Lappe and Sabrina Scott), and have to grow up very fast (Johns-Richardson and Stafford) to move up.
23. Colorado State...Chris Denker, you have big shoes to fill, but Elizabeth English and Ashley Augspurger will help. You have that Colorado State Championship to defend.
24. Penn State....I'm feeling Kelly Mazzante, but Rene Portland's fleet of posts and power forwards have to come to the party.
25. UC-Santa Barbara...Mark French's Young and Restless Gauchos will do what kids do. They'll get greedy for winning.

Teams to look out for: New Mexico (have to retool, but still solid), Brigham Young (they made a run, now they have to prove it again), Creighton (A lot rides on the coaching situation), Houston (They will make an NCAA tourney appearance), Michigan State (It's time to take a next step), Iowa (Drake University-Iowa City will take a next step forward), Vermont (Will lead the America East Guerilla War, but can they win it?), Temple (Dawn Staley's recruits will play impact roles early), George Washington (They'll be a part of that three card monte in the A-10), Louisiana Tech and Old Dominion (they are old AIAW Cats, but have lives left), Florida (The U.S.S. Vanessa Hayden needs some perimeter air cover. But they have a good admiral in Carolyn Peck).

[35TangoTango]

The professional speaks - except for one glaring error!

Originally posted by ChipperF1:
Okay....The ChipperSports Organisation will give it a whirl too
3. Stanford........Resistance Is Futile. Nicole Powell will lead the Borg to the Final Four


Actually, resistance is productive. I've seen Stanford and Powell play 4 games - three against Oklahoma, and one against Colorado. Against real defence, Powell is an ordinary player, and Stanford is an ordinary team. The Borg would need a big assist from the energizer Bunny.

[DblT81]

Chipper! I've always LOVED the way you think. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

I don't know enough about other teams to post a full Top 25, so here are my thoughts about some B12 and other top national teams.


1. Tennessee The SEC again
2. LSU
3. Duke, like the halftime speech by coach G at last years F4 game v OU, I don't think Duke will have as much *fun* as they want.
4. Texas Tech, I would love to see them return to the site of their greatest win ever.
5. Texas, The rivalry with Tech will never be greater as the two should be at the top of their games.


The rest of the Top 10:
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Connecticut
Stanford
Purdue

Top 15
Vanderbilt
Arkansas
Notre Dame
Georgia
Penn St

Colorado should be in the Top 25. I'm not sure about ISU right now, its awfully hard to be top 15 without an inside game. Their guards will be good enough to make them very dangerous. I can't imagine them dropping out of the top 25. Blackmon, et al will keep Baylor scary.

26+ Mississippi State, I guess I don't understand. The team I saw in Lubbock in March was not that great. Did Tech's defense and large crowd make the two stars on this team look rather ordinary or what? Vandy's Anderson and McElhiney were much better.

[35TangoTango]

It's hard enough to pick the Big 12, let alone the rest of the country. I had already forgotten last year's records.

OKLAHOMA 14 2 32 4
BAYLOR 12 4 27 6
COLORADO 11 5 24 10
KANSAS ST 11 5 26 8
TEXAS 10 6 22 10
IOWA ST 9 7 24 9
TEXAS TECH 8 8 20 12
OKLAHOMA ST 7 9 16 15
TEXAS A&M 5 11 13 16
MISSOURI 5 11 14 15
NEBRASKA 4 12 14 16
KANSAS 0 16 5 25

A couple of things jump out at me here.

Oklahoma and Baylor both lose a lot. Oklahoma has a lot coming in (or out of redshirt) - what is Baylor gaining?

I had forgotten how high Colorado finished - for them, the whole really was greater than the sum of the parts. Can it be again this year?

With the addition of a point guard, Kansas State looks poised for first - This will be the year we find out how good a coach Patterson is.

Texas always strikes me as a team where the whole is often less than the sum of the parts. They will beat teams they're not supposed to beat, and lose to teams they're not supposed to lose to.

I respect Fennelly a lot, but without Welle in the middle, all those shooters will be played straight up.

We all seem to give Tech first place and the Final Four, but I had forgotten how much ground they have to make up. Can they really go from second division all the way? Do they really gain THAT much?

Nobody below 7th place will improve as far as 6th.





[This message has been edited by soonerman (edited 07-14-2002).]

[Press]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by soonerman:
[b]It's hard enough to pick the Big 12, let alone the rest of the country. I had already forgotten last year's records.


We all seem to give Tech first place and the Final Four, but I had forgotten how much ground they have to make up. Can they really go from second division all the way? Do they really gain THAT much?[CODE]

----------
Reply:

The records from last year are just that, but good for OU fans to hang on to.

I'm not saying Tech is a final four team, but they SHOULD be top two in the conference. Last years team lacked a strong PG and leadership and an athletic and experienced post player that could consistantly score. This years team has added both with Erin Grant and Mik Tennal and the return of Pleanette Pierson. If they can put all these things together and have some chemistry, they should be a pretty good team and should go pretty far.




[This message has been edited by Press (edited 07-14-2002).]

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by Press:
The records from last year are just that, but good for OU fans to hang on to.


Do I detect a note of snideness here? I know that with only one returning starter OU is a complete questionmark.

I posted the records because of what it revealed about the other teams. When you look at the combination of last year's record and the number of quality returning players, It definitely lends some credence to Buffsfan22. It also should lead to some more respect for KSU.

I like Perkins, Greenwalt & co. a lot, and was shocked to remember that they were only one game better than the Cowboys.

[RaiderPower1]

Last year's Tech team was IMO the Texas team of 2000-2001. Texas had lost many players due to injuries while Tech lost their second leading scorer and leading rebounder this past season. Without a true leader, the Lady Raiders lost a lot of close games last year just like UT did in 2000-2001. Gaining Plenette Pierson back is a big PLUS sign for the Lady Raiders.

Like Press said, Tech lacked a consistent post player last year which made defenses focus more on the guards. It's very hard to take Plenette Pierson 1 on 1 so that would draw defenses in on her thus freeing the guards. Tech did not have the dominant post player (like they usually do) to take their defender to the basket. Eventually, I think Cisti will be able to do that no doubt but she was only a freshman.

SO, with that being said, I think you have to throw last years record out the window because you bring back Plenette and gain two excellent guards in Erin Grant and Mik Tennal. It shows that Plenette made a big difference to the team and that there's no way Tech finishes 7th again. I predict 1-3.

[This message has been edited by RaiderPower1 (edited 07-14-2002).]

[KSUron]

Originally posted by soonerman:
We all seem to give Tech first place and the Final Four, but I had forgotten how much ground they have to make up. Can they really go from second division all the way? Do they really gain THAT much?]

KSU went from 11th in the Big XII to top ten in the country in one year without as good a base to build on as tech has, and with three key injuries, so yes I think it can be done. Will it? Dunno, but I think they will be VERY dangerous.

[This message has been edited by KSUron (edited 07-14-2002).]

[Press]

Originally posted by soonerman:
Do I detect a note of snideness here? I know that with only one returning starter OU is a complete questionmark.

I posted the records because of what it revealed about the other teams. When you look at the combination of last year's record and the number of quality returning players, It definitely lends some credence to Buffsfan22. It also should lead to some more respect for KSU.

I like Perkins, Greenwalt & co. a lot, and was shocked to remember that they were only one game better than the Cowboys.



Not at all snide, just saying that you had a good year and it's
fun to hold on to those great runs, nothing wrong with that.

I don't think there is any need to be defensive when fans don't predict OU to be at the top again. Coale has people respecting her and the kind of team she puts on the floor and it's only natural for everyone to be interested to see if she has reloaded or has to rebuild.

It will be another fun year in the Big 12 and I hope all the teams have injury free seasons and we have 7 or 8 teams in the top 15 next year.

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by Press:
I don't think there is any need to be defensive when fans don't predict OU to be at the top again.

Actually, if you read my post, I wasn't picking OU to be number one again. What I said was more along the lines of "given last year's records, the players returning, and who gets added, how can we not pick KSU? And how can we relegate Colorado to the second division?"

Also noting here that until I reviewed the records, I was guilty on both counts.

The bottom line is that the top seven positions are all up for grabs - going to be the most fantastic Big 12 season yet. And after last year, I don't think they'll rate us down too much for beating up on each other.

[DblT81]

A couple of years ago, the conference finished in a 3 way tie. I wouldn't be surprised to see such a finish in 2003.

This was a PERSONAL Top 25 preseason poll as someone said. It will not surprise me if KSU finishes 1st and Tech 4th in the Big 12.

Tech will be much improved. How much? We won't know until they start to play. Just as we won't know how much Nightingale and her 33 min a game meant to Colorado. In my personal Top 25, I'm guessing that CU finishes ahead of Iowa State and Baylor. I'm also guessing that Tech, KSU, Texas, and OU will battle it out for the top spot(s), but if one of those slips due to injuries, etc., CU won't be too far behind to be in the mix.

KSU has to find some defense. If they do, there is no question they have the offense to finish on top and they have the benefit of playing the other of my top 3 only once.

I have this sneaky feeling that Coale will have all her newbies humming by the time January arrives. There are some doubts in my mind that OU can take the top spot alone. But they are certainly capable of sharing.

Both Texas and Tech lost some games last season that they shouldn't have-A&M, Missouri. Its true both Tech and Texas lost to KSU last season. So most would reason that KSU is the favorite. I have my scarlet colored glasses on, so I think Tech will edge out KSU in the polls. Just a hunch of a loyal fan.

Now---from a national media standpoint, Tech will be at the top of B12 teams in the polls to begin the season. Right or wrong, that is the way it will be. With Sharp coaching the USA team now and Pierson coming back, the national media and the fans of other teams who are not up on the B12 will go with the names they are familiar hearing about at the top. And those same people will remember UT's win over Tenn, so don't be surprised if Texas is ranked higher in the polls than KSU. Outside of the B12, KSU will suffer in early polls from a lack of respect due to two games that outsiders paid attention to at the end of the season-KSU lost by 20 to OU in the B12 tourney and by 26 to ODU in the NCAA tourney. I'm not saying those two games have anything to do with where KSU will finish in 2003, they are just the TV games that will be in the minds of those outside the B12.

Polls are a popularity contest. In my poll, Tech and Texas are more *popular*....but not by much. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[Jennifer]

Scheduling will play a big part of who finished on top, IMO.
Assuming Tech, Texas, and OU all split w/ one another, that would put each of them with 2 losses. KSU plays at OU and at Tech, I believe. Say they beat Texas at home--that's 3 L's for Texas, and they lose at OU and Tech. So that's 2 losses for KSU. Then say KSU splits w/ CU. 3 losses for them. If OU loses at CU, and CU beats Tech or Texas, then you have 4 teams w/ 3 losses, CU w/ 2 losses--though I can see them splitting w/ ISU and maybe MU. And that's only looking at teams expected to be in the hunt. As an OU fan, I know ISU can't be discounted (will OU finally beat them this year???), and OSU, NU, MU, and A&M have shown they know how to pull off an upset. Baylor may look weak on paper, but w/ KMR in control, they can't be taken lightly either.
Now that I'm thoroughly confused...I think I can see that it could be a very interesting year indeed! I do think it will be hard for anyone to win the conference title outright. But then, maybe by January we'll be able to see some teams who have set themselves apart.

[RaiderPower1]

Originally posted by Jennifer:
Now that I'm thoroughly confused...I think I can see that it could be a very interesting year indeed! I do think it will be hard for anyone to win the conference title outright. But then, maybe by January we'll be able to see some teams who have set themselves apart.

http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif Maybe that's what I should have thought about Jennifer. Let's just wait until AT LEAST the beginning of the season or conference play to make a fair guess at who will be at the top. Even at that, the conference race could come down to the very last game. A lot can happen from now until November too so don't put one team too far ahead.

[dem]

Originally posted by RaiderPower1:
http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif Even at that, the conference race could come down to the very last game.

That's my prediction: The conference race will come down to the very last game day. Wouldn't be surprised at another three-way (or more) tie. And everyone can expect lots more frustrating losses just like last season.

[swok34]

Originally posted by dem:
That's my prediction: The conference race will come down to the very last game day. Wouldn't be surprised at another three-way (or more) tie. And everyone can expect lots more frustrating losses just like last season.


I agree, dem..........my preseason prediction....
Texas A & M wins the conference http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/tongue.gif http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/tongue.gif

Hey, it could happen...

[carolann]

Thanks, Buffsfan22, for starting a lively subject. Sure, it's foolish to predict now but what else is there for us to talk about in July? Buffsfan22, Chipper and DblT81 win the 'courage to fail' awards. It is easy to argue about why one team should be higher and lower, much harder to put together a whole list. That said, I will stick to my team - The Longhorns. I'm hoping Texas will be a top 10 team. I agree with Chipper that the critical question will be guard play. More specifically, I think a lot hinges on the point guard position. Will Norman be able to come in and provide that leadership as a freshman? Will Tai Dillard look more comfortable at the point than she has in the past? And then there is the 'x' factor of Jamie Carey and her health. The Longhorns will play with greater expectations upon them than in years.

[cyfanatic]

I think maybe the bottom line here in this thread is that once again the Big Twelve is one of the toughest and telented conferences in the country, and while there are several schools in the conference that are consistently good, there are several with the potential to be much improved and ready to contend. I think the door is wide open for almost any team at this point, and I am eager for the season to begin! Thanks everyone for your insights, though, they are all very valid and noteworthy!

[Buffsfan22]

I'd like to thank everyone here for being able to discuss these various topics amicably.
What a great forum and what a fine, intelligent group of posters.
Thanks especially to KSURon and CarolAnn for your kind welcomes.
I plan on being here now through the season and beyond.
While I'm a Buffs fan first, after that I root for the B12.
Only 3 months till Midnight Madness.

[Jennifer]

Hey Buffsfan--I've seen your posts on the ESPN board. I post there occasionally under the name jenburnes.
Glad to see you join in here--you'll find there is a lot less flaming and a lot more meaningful bball discussion here. We all tend to respect each other's schools and favorite players, for the most part.
Welcome aboard.

[RaiderPower1]

Speaking of Midnight Madness: did I understand right that Texas Tech would not have one this year? I think it had to do something with coach knight not wanting to do it this year. I actually liked going though I doubt I would have been able to go this year.

[Buffsfan22]

Thanks Jennifer! When I saw this name on this board I wondered if you might be JenBurnes from the ESPN board.
You are missed there. However, you're not missing much either.
It's still pretty much the same tired contest of who can hurl the most petty insults.
We have picked up a few decent posters recently and of course there are a few knowledgeable vets there as well.
Still a minority though. And as always the B12 gets no love there, least of all my Buffs.
Thanks for the shout!

[swok34]

RP.......I like the way OU does their "midnight madness"......
they have a scrimmage and an autographing "afternoon"...think last years was around the 22nd/23rd.

Much better than that middle of the night stuff. The men and women have seperate events, the men are still on the midnight hour.

[BigUtFan]

Wow, this is fun and we are still three months away. I will post my predictions later when I have a chance, but I did feel compelled to respond to Buffs remark about Conradt being an elite coach. Think again dude, you bet your sweet life she is!!!

[Buffsfan22]

To BigUTfan.

Sorry girlfriend, I mistakenly thought the point of these forums were to express our opinions about women's college hoops.
But Dude, thanks for the correction.

[35TangoTango]

BigUTFan, of course Jody (on alternate weeks the winningest coach in the history of the game)is among the elite! However, I for one get the feeling that until the wake-up call issued by the Cyclones then Sooners, she was in semi-retirement, and now she is attempting something of a comeback.

BuffsFan, you were doing so good! You introduced a lively, controversial topic which has provided much worthwhile entertainment for all of us (and changed my mind about Colorado), and then you have to take things personally!

I'm relatively new here myself, and I like a lively debate - I do try to stay aware of all the invisible lines, but I find myself stepping on them a lot. When I do, I just apologize profusely and go on. I can say my player can whip your player, my coach can whip your coach, but I can't ever call you names or question your motives.

This thread and MRed's "When did you become a fan" are the two best discussions since I've been here!

[BigUtFan]

Originally posted by Buffsfan22:
To BigUTfan.

Sorry girlfriend, I mistakenly thought the point of these forums were to express our opinions about women's college hoops.
But Dude, thanks for the correction. OOOPPPSSS!!! Did I step on someone's toes unintentionally?? This really was not necessary, but WELCOME to the board anyway.

[BigUtFan]

Originally posted by soonerman:
BigUTFan, of course Jody (on alternate weeks the winningest coach in the history of the game)is among the elite! However, I for one get the feeling that until the wake-up call issued by the Cyclones then Sooners, she was in semi-retirement, and now she is attempting something of a comeback.

BuffsFan, you were doing so good! You introduced a lively, controversial topic which has provided much worthwhile entertainment for all of us (and changed my mind about Colorado), and then you have to take things personally!

I'm relatively new here myself, and I like a lively debate - I do try to stay aware of all the invisible lines, but I find myself stepping on them a lot. When I do, I just apologize profusely and go on. I can say my player can whip your player, my coach can whip your coach, but I can't ever call you names or question your motives.

This thread and MRed's "When did you become a fan" are the two best discussions since I've been here! THANKS, soonerman....could not have said it better. I agree, I think Jody received a BIG wake-up call and I hope she can snag another championship before she passes the baton. We have very high expectations over the next few years, and I can't wait until October. Hey, are you coming to Dallas for Texas-OU weekend????

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by BigUtFan:
Hey, are you coming to Dallas for Texas-OU weekend????


Nahh, it's only f-ball! But we definitely will be there for the Big XII tournament!

[SKATERBOY]

BIG 12 PREDICTIONS

1. TEXAS - very talented with more experience will be the most physical in big 12 & best athletically
2. KSU - ohlde too hard to stop
3. OU - still strong cant write them out
4. tx tech - great fundamentally but not physical enough to compete with ut or ksu - 3 point play weekest in years
(the above 4 will probably beat each other on their floor at least once)
5. colorado
5. baylor
5. iowa state
(any of the above 3 could be 5th best - will probably beat one of the top 4 once)
8. a & m, kansas, oklahoma state, missouri, nebraska

[TXSNOS]

I don't know . . . this year is going to be a tough year to predict. I think it's pretty much a toss up.

I'd move Texas Tech up a bit and maybe OU down a bit. I don't know how much OU's new players are going to add this year.

Tech is going to be more physical than you might think. With Ayers, Pierson, and this Davis gal, I think they are going to have some muscle in the middle. Pierson is tougher than her build would lead you to believe, and Perkins is as physical a guard as there is in the Big 12 (with maybe the exception of Wilson at Iowa State; Wecker doesn't play guard does she?)

I also think Kansas is going to surprise some people.

TXSNOS

[This message has been edited by TXSNOS (edited 07-24-2002).]

[Guns Up!]

1. Texas Tech
2. Texas
3. Kansas State
4. Colorado
5. Oklahoma
6. Baylor
7. Iowa State
8. Oklahoma State
9. Kansas
10. Missouri
11. A&M
12. Nebraska

[elfdenmom]

I've resisted making my predictions long enough.

1. Texas Tech. (Well what did you expect?) They are always #1 in my heart!
2. Texas (tie)
KSU (tie)
4. OU (tie)
Colorado (tie) I would pick OU outright, but the southern division is going to be so much tougher than the north this year.
6. Iowa State
7. Baylor (tie)
Missouri (tie)
9. OSU
10.TAMU
11.KU
12.Nebraska. Sorry Chipper, I don't think even a new coach can help Nebraska this year, but next year might be different.

[ChipperF1]

Taking a break from the Craftsman Trucks race to take a look at the Big 12 race

1. Texas Tech.......ChipperSports preseason national #1. IF this team comes together, they'll be the end-of-season #1

2. Texas............Heather Schreiber leads the Longhorn paint scheme, but can a championship backcourt develop?

3. Iowa State.......Most have the 'Clones low but I've learned never to say a Bill Fennelly team can't, because too often they can and do.

4. Oklahoma.........The Sooners move higher if new weapons develop with Jackson and Hill, they will move lower if they don't

5. Kansas State.....A good young Wildcat team, but now you can't sneak on anyone. Koehn's having a carnivale in Brasil and international experience often translates into good Big 12 performance.

6. Colorado.........A locked on Tera Bjorklund moves the Buffs team up the ladder. A ready to play Johns-Richardson and Stafford could bring back the Sheetz era.

7. Baylor...........It's time to retool the Bears, but Steffanie Blackmon's a good model to build from.

8. Texas A&M........Most talented of the Enron division teams, and maybe the Aggie administration will notice.

9. Missouri.........The Tigers have fair talent now, but recruiting woes could make them a future Enron Cup winner.

10. Oklahoma State...New coach and the same old lack of Cowboy committment. They still enough talent to outrun Monica Lewinsky-Lawrence and Monica Lewinsky-Lincoln.

11. Nebraska.........They are one injury to Keasha Cannon away from 12th.

12. Kansas...........They are one injury to Keasha Cannon away from 11th.

[Cardinal]

Soonerman-Powell an ordinary player? Maybe you were not impressed because she was post playing the point, but how many 'ordinary' players could even do what she did and put up the numbers she did? She improved tremendously her freshman and sophomore year and set many school and Pac 10 records. Watch out this year when she will move to the 3 and 4 spots with 2 true point guards to help her. Stanford will beat OU by 15 at Maples.

[NoDakSt]

I like Elfdenmom's predictions. I think TT is loaded at every position. The team is athletic and has slashers, bumpers, and a couple of folks that can hit the outside shot.

KSU is for real but won't take folks by surprise..then again, they don't need to.

Texas with Carey in the backcourt (she is eligible for this season, correct?) should take better care of the ball and she has some great help with Schrieber and Stephen's.

I would give COlorado a nod over OK, though.

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by Cardinal:
Soonerman-Powell an ordinary player? Maybe you were not impressed because she was post playing the point, but how many 'ordinary' players could even do what she did and put up the numbers she did?

My observation was that Powell's numbers haven't been so great against Big XII competition.

Originally posted by Cardinal:
[Stanford will beat OU by 15 at Maples.

Maybe so - maybe fourth time's a charm!

[Cardinal]

dude, you missed the point. She is a POST playing the point for 2 years since Stanford lost 2 point guards. I won't bring why they lost one of their players. Powell's numbers in the 3 games you listed are not so bad; she averaged 13 pts, 9 boards and 4 assists per game.

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by Cardinal:
dude, you missed the point. She is a POST playing the point ...

Well, we all have our own opinions - that's what makes boards like this fun! Actually, I wouldn't characterize Powell as a post player like Yamasaki. I would think she is more of a wing player - 2 or 3 position. But then I wouldn't characterize myself as a dude, either.

[Cardinal]

well, opinions should be informed ones. Powell came to Stanford as a post player in h.s. and played the post two years for the Jr. Nat'l team in which she led the team in rebounds both years. She is a natural 4 with the skills to play the 2, 3 and 1 out of necessity -which is quite extrordinary vs. ordinary. Yamasaki on the other hand is not a post player, but more of a true 3. Because of Yamsaki's size and jumping ability, she can post up the smaller wings that guard her. Similar to when she scored 30 pts vs. OU in their first match up.

[swok34]

And, Oklahoma will actually have a POST player playing POST this year.... http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[35TangoTango]

Well Cardinal, you see them all the time, so I'm sure you're better informed than me. But other than the fact that Yamasaki was the real threat for Stanford, what you describe is sure not what I saw against Colorado in Boise.

[Cardinal]

maybe because it was Yamasaki's first game back in 2 weeks after having an appendectomy. Also, not having a point guard in the NCAAs in quite the challenge to overcome since guards are crucial to advancing.

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by swok34:
And, Oklahoma will actually have a POST player playing POST this year.... http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

swok-Caton Hill isn't a post?

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by Cardinal:
swok-Caton Hill isn't a post?


In the sense that a post is a player who plays offensively with her back to the basket, Caton spends very little time posting up. Oklahoma normally plays what Coach Coale often describes as a "4 guard out" offense with one post player, and four players rotating. Last year Oklahoma lost their starting center to an ACL injury two weeks before the beginning of the season. This year their starting center is Theresa Schuknecht, who earned all Pac 10 honors as a Freshman at ASU.

I'm taking the liberty of answering for swok, but I think this is what was meant.

[35TangoTango]

Now getting back on track, how about:

1. KSU - Moved up because Ohlde looked awesome in South America.

2. Tech - all the things everyone said.

3. Tie, OU, Texas, and Colorado - I'm a homer (and Welch keeps getting MVPs); I feel about Texas like a lot of people feel about KState - I'm going to have to see it happen before I'll really believe it; Buffsfan has made me a believer in Colorado's team play (and if they beat Stanford they must be really good, right?)

6. ISU -

No one else has a chance

[Cardinal]

I'm familiar with OU's 4 guard offense as Stanford has been running it for years-hence why Yamasaki and Powell each play the wing and post up. Curious, did you not see the OT game at OU where Yamasaki scored 30 pts? The same game which King when lit up the court before she was hurt.

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by Cardinal:
...did you not see the OT game at OU where Yamasaki scored 30 pts?

(I promise I will not post any more thread creep replies)

Yes, I was at that game. Lindsey Yamasaki was a fantastic player. Far and away the best player on Stanford's team, and they will not be the same without her. (Which sort of was my original point)

[swok34]

thanks, soonerman....actually if anyone off of last year's OU team could have been called a post, it would be Jamie Talbert.
Though many times, we saw Coale go with her "small" lineup in 4 guards + Caton and saw Dales, Caufield, Hill all post up.

Pac-10 fans might be familiar with Schuknecht, though that's her married name. Her maiden name is Jantzen; wow, I noticed they have the numers assigned to the OU players....
Welch is #0, Higgins gets Whaley's #34.

[This message has been edited by swok34 (edited 07-29-2002).]

[elfdenmom]

I'm really surprised that OU assigned Whaley's numer. I really thought they might retire it someday.

[JK]

Elfdenmom -- They SHOULD retire Whaley's number! Though she wasn't there long enough to finish in all the glory, she was DEFINITELY the one who helped start it. I picked her as a Blue Chipper out of high school when others didn't even recruit her (including UT and Tech). What a great player and a great kid we missed out on!!!!

[Cardinal]

soonerman, I thought your first point was that Powell is an ordinary player and Yamasaki didn't show you much in the CU game, no where did you say Stanford will not do well without Yamasaki-which is if your point, makes my point that they needed her full strength vs. CU, which she wasn't and was also the reason why they lost to ASU. Final pont, see what Powell does at the wing and post vs. running the pt.

[Buffsfan22]

Gosh dangit I can never stay away from a board once i get started.
This portion of the thread is SSOOOO redolent of the never-ending excuse making by Stanford fans on the ESPN top 25 wch board.
How abot Sabrina Scott and Mandy both playing that Stanford game with severely sprained ankles?
I see, Stanford is the only team that ever has to play with adversity.

OK, Sure.

[elfdenmom]

J.K., You're right. Whaley was a jewel we let slip away, but I am glad Marsha thought enough of her to recommend her to Coale even if it did come back to haunt us.

[Cardinal]

the key word you used was that the CU players were PLAYING hurt. Carey and King were on the bench with no chance to play. That is a BIG difference, and I'm sorry you can't see how not having point guards (of that caliber) would effect Stanford's chances to advance.

[ChipperF1]

"Carey and King were on the bench with no chance to play. That is a BIG difference, and I'm sorry you can't see how not having point guards (of that caliber) would effect Stanford's chances to advance."

If you are referring to the Oklahoma game, Stanford was very much in that game even after losing two point guards. And Yamasaki had an awesome game, but what hurt in part was something Yamasaki does sometimes. Lindsay has a tendency to get rather ditzy in a game and do some very strategically stupid things. She loses focus, gets careless and gets out of position.
Look at the last 4 possession in regulation of that game...each one, Lindsay tries to force a pass or makes a poor decision with the ball, or passes up an open player.

Stanford played well, but Oklahoma was locked on it and that is why they won, period. The Cardinal at points were not precise and wheren't on their game plan the way they needed to be, and against a team that has more athleticism than you do, that will get you beat.

Now as far as Nicole being "average". She's well above average, however she played a passive game against Colorado in the NCAAs. And I think it was as much in part from a strange game plan from Tara Vanderveer more than anything else. It seems as if she wanted to run more of the game through Lindsay than Nicole. Which is odd given that Tara doesn't really does 100% trust Lindsay or seems not to. Vanderveer was outcoached and Colorado just outplayed Stanford all night long, especially the fine defensive job Eisha Bohman did. Bohman should have been the mismatch, instead she comes up and is the closer, which made the Buffaloes job a lot easier.

My biggest criticism of Tara that night was what she did to Sebnem Kimyacioglu. All year this kid's been a bulldog. You put this freshman in a lot of situations and she responds, and then you play her for about 7 minutes in a high-stakes game??? Tara Milhous Nixon made that decision. You can't trust a kid all season and then drop them flat.

This season, both Stanford and Oklahoma have young ballclubs. Stanford by 15??? I don't see it. I do see Stanford final four this year. The Cardinal are very talented, but also very young in same key positions. At that point of the season, the teething pains are going to come out and there is the matter again of the point guard, and really a good multi-role off guard. Plus Stanford been a do-nut in the middle for three years, and there is the matter of replacing Yamasaki, which isn't an easy amount of production to bring in
Oklahoma's got a lot of replace too, but with Jackson and Caton Hill coming back, you have two proven starters whereas Stanford has one in Powell.

A 15 point spread? No way...Four or five points either way.

[swok34]

Don't you all know that the only reason Oklahoma won the West Region is because they didn't sit on the "haunted bench"?...... http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

Stanford, Texas Tech and Colorado all found a game on the haunted bench.

I went looking for the article the guy wrote in the Idaho paper about the haunted bench and can't find it.

[Cardinal]

Chipper, you make good points about the CU game and Tara being out coached. However, not having Jamie Carey and Susan King for 2 years was HUGE. I understand Powell playing passive in a NCAA game because she is not a guard. Put Jamie in the first game vs. OU and Yamasaki would have had to take control of the game-and make stupid mistakes. Plus, you'll recall that King was dominating the game before she got hurt. King and Carey playing healthy would have equaled Final Four.

Remember, King and Trotter will be back for Stanford, so that's a lot to help Powell. Also, freshman Clare Bodensteiner is amazing. They are not Yamasaki, but they are better than what OU has coming inn-or have left. Playing at home gives them the advantage.

[ChipperF1]

"Remember, King and Trotter will be back for Stanford, so that's a lot to help Powell. Also, freshman Clare Bodensteiner is amazing. They are not Yamasaki, but they are better than what OU has coming inn-or have left.

Susan King vs. Dionnah Jackson? All I'll say Cardinal is I would suggest Susan eats her Wheaties and brings friends to deal with all of that speed, because Susan King isn't the player she was two years and one good knee ago.

Chelsea Trotter is okay, but you'd take her over Caton Hill? Really? You sure about that? Chelsea Trotter's talents have been talked about, but she hasn't shown me anything tangible yet as far as results. I see another Christina Bastatini sighting in the making with this kid at this time.

Now I've seen some tape of Clare Bodensteimer and this kid can play no question, but she still a froshie with a lot to learn. Make mine Dionnah in this matchup too.

I notice a name very absent from your rundown of Stanford. Again, where's Sebnem. If Susan King had Kimyacioglu's attitude, she'd be twice the point guard she is now. Susan King is good, UNTIL you really challenge her. You can intimidate Susan King, and lesser teams have done it in competition.

As for your assertion that OU doesn't have much coming, having seen some of their incoming folks play, and yours..I'd say the two recruiting classes are even, and God help the Borg if Maria Villaroel turns out to be good as advertised.

This is a very even ballgame in many respects. A may have to go to this one http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[elfdenmom]

I wouldn't count too much on home court advantage against OU. They keep their cool in very tough venues. After the way they played at Connecticutt, Kansas State and Tech, I don't think they will be intimidated in any arena.

That said, it should be a good close game.

[Cardinal]

Chipper, I failed to mention Sebnem AND Perrymann. They are awesome players with a great attitudes and Tara thinks the world of them.

King, Suminiski, Seb, Powell, Theil as starting five, with Trotter and Bodensteiner comnig in first. The KEY is having point guards so Powell can play her natural position at the 3 or 4.

Jackson and Hill don't add up to to Powell. Theil, Perryman and Seb are all better than Hill.

King ate Caufield's and Daley's lunch before Caufiled caused her to tear her ACL so I'm not worried about King and Jackson match-up.

I saw Bodensteiner play in person-she is for real.

Trotter is great post player and we refer to her as the Enforcer, and she certainly doesn't compare to turn over queen Batastini.

OU has not played at Maples and they will be surprised of the environment there, which will NOT be warm. Bottom line, Stanford has much more experience that OU and playing at home will give them 7 pts. + the 7 or 8 pts that they are already better than OU.

[ChipperF1]

OU has not played at Maples and they will be surprised of the environment there, which will NOT be warm. Bottom line, Stanford has much more experience that OU and playing at home will give them 7 pts. + the 7 or 8 pts that they are already better than OU.

Two points here

1. Maples won't be warm? Do you think Lubbock, Austin, Ames, or Boulder are warm? Remember where OU has to play just about every year. Hostile environments are part of the game and yours is no different from anywhere else.

2. Stanford fans have said before every encounter they've had with Oklahoma that they are better than Oklahoma yet the scoreboard doesn't seem to agree with the contention. Heading into to this season you say Stanford is 15 points better.

Okay...15 points better, before "taxes"... http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

Here's the taxes.

--"When last we saw" tax.
When last we saw Stanford. Nicole Powell was candypants, Tara was outcoached and Oklahoma erased the team that erased Colorado (and they beat them in the regular season too.)
hmm...that a tax of 5 points

-- "Experience" tax

Looking at your starting lineup.
Susan King....2 games last season...and this is your quarterback...I say again Susan King was a better player two years and one good knee ago (1 point tax)
You can dismiss Dionnah Jackson if you want to, but take it from this Big 12 observer, that kid is somebody you don't wanna deal with if you are a step slow.

Kelly Suminski...She plays better against the jabronis than against good teams. (1 point tax)
T'Nae Thiel......23 starts, 35 games...6.3 points per game
but now she has to play more than 23 minutes per (1 point tax)
Azella Perryman...Hasn't started a game, yet...(1 point tax)

Nicole Powell.....I like this kid, but in the NCAA tournament, she was somewhat sissified (2 point tax for general lack of aggression in a big game.)

total tax levy: 6 points

3. Tara Vanderveer....She's none for two vs. Sherri Coale right now.

total tax levy: 1 point

After taxes...Stanford is 3 poinst better if Stanford is better at all, which remains to be seen.

Bottom Line: Stanford has some kids who have played, but so has Oklahoma, and when it comes to starters with combat experience, you are about even. The Sooners have to retool, so do the Cardinal.

[Cardinal]

Chipper-you still don't give enough taxes for Powell playing out of position and not having King or Carey so many of your points are moot or irrelevant. Things will be very different WITH TWO guards this year and Powell playing her REAL postion- at home. I'm talking about the future, not the past.

The Cardinal and their loyal fans have NO love for Sherri and Sooners from what happened at OU the first game, so the Sooners better bring their wagons. Sure, both teams will have to re tool as you put it, but Stanford has more tools in the drawer to begin with, Powell and Tara are more than Sherri and any player she has left.

[Cardinal]

forgot to mention that I don't think names like candy pants and sissified are appropriate in talking about a college kid. Powell was a POST playing a GUARD. Give her a break.


I know Jackson is fast, but faster than Shaq Williams at OU or Ragland at OSU? Stanford has played against speed, so it's not a problem. Can she shoot accurately?

[ChipperF1]

"The Cardinal and their loyal fans have NO love for Sherri and Sooners from what happened at OU the first game, so the Sooners better bring their wagons."

You Stanford fans just can't let it go, can you?

For the final time. If you really believe that LaNeisha Caulfield wanted to deliberately hurt Susan King, then you probably believe that Tara Vanderveer is a fashion plate, too.

I've seen that play from five different angles. Was it a foul? Yes. Was it smart play? No it wasn't. Was it a deliberate cheap-shot? NO! Is LaNeisha Caulfield a dirty cheap shot artist? HECK NO!

And again, you talk about not having Susan King and Jamie Carey. I'm not even discussion that issue in my contentions. I'm looking at the team you are putting on the floor and the team I saw last year, and I saw a Stanford team that did play above their station at many points, but I also see a team that is very young and has some soft spots just like Oklahoma.

I believe me, my friend, the Sooners will bring their wagons..and their Winchesters to this range war.

It seems to me you are underestimating Oklahoma, just like Stanford did the last two times they played them.

I'm sure the Stanford Cardinal team do not share your attitude.

[ChipperF1]

"forgot to mention that I don't think names like candy pants and sissified are appropriate in talking about a college kid. Powell was a POST playing a GUARD. Give her a break.

When you are an All-American candidate who passes up shots and play unaggressively..That is Candypants

When you pass up shots and defer, the way Powell did against Colorado (although in her defense, I think Tara's game plan had something to do with it) It is sissified

Powell was playing the swing spot against Colorado which is more of her natural position as well as where Tara was playing her most of last season, where NKP was kicking el mundo de booty.

As for my terminology. I'm not discussing Nicole Powell as a person. She's a great kid. I am commenting only on them on the court.

Oh, by way of correction for future reference Candypants is one word http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[ChipperF1]

I know Jackson is fast, but faster than Shaq Williams at OU or Ragland at OSU? Stanford has played against speed, so it's not a problem.

Stanford has played against speed. Problem is, they haven't problem beating a team with a lot of it (Remember Tennessee last year?)

Dionnah Jackson is faster than Shaq Williams and has twice the court savvy and heart as Shaq Williams. You really are trying to sell Shaquala Williams as a comparison here?

Cardinal, Shaq Williams is to playing point guard was Lil Kim is to being Ladylike.

As for Jackson vs. Ragland. Flea Ragland doesn't have the speed or the aggressiveness and Jackson's a better shooter and ballhandler. She knows what to do with that basketball and she's improving with each outing (104 assists vs. 83 turnovers last year, not bad for a true freshman). And the amazing thing is, this kid is only at the beginning of realizing her potential.

Also, unlike many of Stanford's guards...Jackson was put into high stake situations and she would step up to the challenge. Didja catch her in the NCAA tournament last year? This kid was coming off the bench and making plays..even in the National Championship game.

I'm sure some of the Oklahoma faithful have even better examples.

But again, it goes back to my premise that this will be an excellent game, not the biggest laugh-in this side of Rowen and Martin that our friends in Palo Alto seem to feel this will be.




[This message has been edited by ChipperF1 (edited 08-01-2002).]

[Cardinal]

Powell kicked booty playing the 1 when she could run, not the wing waiting for the ball. She will kick more booty at the 3 or 4 when she has an experience guard or two to get her the ball. She averaged 9.5 rebounds at the 1, so imagine what she will do when she actually plays the post?

a conservative half court game is the way I would call Tara's approach in the CU game vs. your name.

by the way, the Stanford players will remember some of the redneck fans who sat behind their bench and called them names in the first meeting. Just curious, is redneck one or two words?

[KSUron]

Originally posted by Cardinal:
I know Jackson is fast, but faster than --- Ragland at OSU?

I'm sorry, I can't resist that one. We played both Ragland and Jackson last year and its not even close. OH YEAH, Jackson is faster, and with a heck of a lot more overall defensive skill. I will give the edge to Ragland on offense. My daughter, a K-State fan, has a nickname for Jackson. "Spider Woman" (said with disgust & respect). You won't belive what she can do with those hands on defense and she has the footspeed, determination and basketball smarts to get those hands in the right place at the right time.

All in all it should be fun though. Good luck to both teams.

[ChipperF1]

"Just curious, is redneck one or two words?"

Redneck is one word. And I'm curious, what exactly did those "rednecks" say?

Cardinal, I hope you are not thinking what I think you are thinking. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif

[KSUron]

Originally posted by Cardinal:
Powell -- will kick more booty at the 3 or 4 when she has an experience guard or two to get her the ball.

One problem we had when playing OU with Jackson in the game, was getting the ball from the guards to the front court players. Whoever plays against Dionnah Jackson will have to work very hard to get the ball up court and then they will have to work even harder to run the offense. I'm not saying it can't be done because it can, but I am saying that while your imagining what Nicole Powell can do you also need to imagine her working with short time on the shot clock and a disrupted offensive set. And you need to imagine some turnovers.

Man! When can we get these games going! Good luck Cardinal. OU is going to have to deal with some things too, including Powell's skills. The above having been said I do think she can create some mis-matches.

[Cardinal]

let's just say none of it was nice-everything from going to Stanford, living in the bay area, sexuality, size, height, build, weight, looks, etc.

[metromaniac]

Cardinal---I was at the game in Boise---Obviously, I couldn't hear every OU fan---but was on the second row and didn't hear one scandalous word or comment about bay area, drugs, sex, etc,,,during any of the game. This also means and confirms, I said no such thing)s) myself.

Was also at the first game in Norman---let it go---please---King had prior and will probably have more ACL's---just like Jen Cunningham----IT WASN'T INTENTIONAL!!!!

Your war is over but the game will be played and it will be a War between two great teams. Isn't that enough.

Surely you can start this war over on the Pac 10 message board and wallow in your inability to understand injuries are just part of the game,,,be they ACL's or concusssions.

Beware Lady Longhorns!!

[This message has been edited by metromaniac (edited 08-01-2002).]

[mred]

Originally posted by Cardinal:
by the way, the Stanford players will remember some of the redneck fans who sat behind their bench and called them names in the first meeting. Just curious, is redneck one or two words?

There have on occasion been ISU fans sitting behind the visitor bench at Hilton who have been less-than-nice to opponents. It's student seating and it's where I sat when I was at ISU. Then, it wasn't too bad. However, my sister-in-law (still at ISU) sat there this season and said there were a handful of really bad apples. I hope visiting players and fans don't judge all fans by the actions of a few, but sometimes those few can get really loud...

[Cardinal]

metro- I was speaking of the first game at OU where the some of the fans behind the bench were heckling and name calling. I know because I was there and heard every bit of it and went to get an usher, but none were to be found.

it was a hard, unneccessary and preventable foul by Caulfield. As player and coach I was taught to run past a player who is in the act of shooting a lay-up, and not to foul them from behind. Tara believes the same thing. King had one knee injury in h.s and wasn't an ACL-but SO WHAT? I also know that is customary for the coach and team to send a card to the player who was hurt on their court-for whatever reason, but no such thing happened with the Sooners. Bad blood is an understatement, but not by Susan King, who has handled it with class.

good luck to the Longhorns as I will be following them. Carey is a very special player and they are lucky to have her.

[35TangoTango]

I was going to stay out of this, especially since the more objective fans like Chipper, KSURon, and Mred have been so eloquent, but I couldn't help noticing:

The evaluation of the recruiting classes on ESPN's site that has OU's at number seven, Texas Tech way underrated at 17, but Stanford's class doesn't even get on the radar scope.

[Cardinal]

Clare Bodensteiner did not go to any camps, so she wasn't rated, but she WILL be an All American before she leaves Stanford. Rappahahn was rated top 50, but won't play much. Okafor tore her ACL last week, so Clare will be the only freshman getting any time. By the way, what's the admission rates of the schools you listed and what are they compared to Stanford's? Do you know how many players schools in the big 12 can look at and recruit vs. what Stanford can? I do, and the difference is huge.

just to be clear with Metromaniac, the discussion that Chipper and I were having was about this coming year, but he brought of the stats and performances last year, which I pointed out that judging the team last year was irrelevant because THIS year they will have 2 points and everyone can move back to their normal positions, including Powell. It's going to be whole different ball club THIS year.

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by Cardinal:
By the way, what's the admission rates of the schools you listed and what are they compared to Stanford's?

Well, the number one school was Duke....

[mred]

Originally posted by Cardinal:
By the way, what's the admission rates of the schools you listed and what are they compared to Stanford's? Do you know how many players schools in the big 12 can look at and recruit vs. what Stanford can? I do, and the difference is huge.

This may be a big factor in MBB, but it really isn't in WBB. How often do you hear of players being academically ineligible? It happens occasionally, but WBB isn't overrun with marginal students like MBB is. I bet the vast majority of WBB players in the Big XII would have been able to go to Stanford out of high school.

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by Cardinal:
metro- I was speaking of the first game at OU where the some of the fans behind the bench were heckling and name calling. I know because I was there and heard every bit of it and went to get an usher, but none were to be found.

Just for the other fans who weren't there, and might get the wrong impression. OU and Stanford had never played before, so there was no history between the schools. Stanford came to Norman as a reward for Sarah Dimson - a Stanford player who was from Norman. In fact, a graduate of one of Sherri's Norman High state championship teams.

Stanford in general was warmly received, and Sarah got a standing ovation when she was introduced as a starter. In fact, Sarah even got applause when she scored against OU!

OU students and Fans don't get behind the visitor bench - that is the area given to visiting fans - if Cardinal was really there, that's where he would have been sitting.

Is it possible that one fan may have said something objectionable? Of course - we have all seen that everywhere. But the inference that multiple fans were doing this, or that Stanford was anything but well received by the fans in general is a bald faced lie!

[ChipperF1]

"By the way, what's the admission rates of the schools you listed and what are they compared to Stanford's? Do you know how many players schools in the big 12 can look at and recruit vs. what Stanford can? I do, and the difference is huge."

Warning! Borg arrogance is about to reveal itself in all of its fury. Insults about Big 12 students to follow.

[Cardinal]

Duke's admisssion rate is 28%, Stanford's is 13%. Duke AD dept was found guilty admitting student athletes to the school without the admissions office even knowing about, so I would hardly give them as an exmaple of high academic standard. Stanford is the only school that requires the student to apply before the coaches can offer them a scholarship. They also limit the number of students the coaches can contact based on their % of the students that apply and get in. Blue Star camp has 80 players, Stanford can look at and contact 8, whereas other schools can contact all.

There are some quality players that wanted to go to Stanford, but couldn't get in, and some of them went to play in the big 12. No need to mention names, but I think some of you know who they are.

I was sitting right behind the Stanford and the foul mouthed male 'students' or yahoos that didn't have anything better to do were sitting in the section across from me and yelling at the players and at our small fan base.

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by mred:
This may be a big factor in MBB, but it really isn't in WBB. How often do you hear of players being academically ineligible? It happens occasionally, but WBB isn't overrun with marginal students like MBB is. I bet the vast majority of WBB players in the Big XII would have been able to go to Stanford out of high school.


mred-admission rates refer to the number of students that apply and % that acutally get in the school, which is different from being ineligible.

Stanford has 15,000 students that apply each year and 13% of that get in, so they hold the same standard to student athletes so not everyone gets in. The average SAT is 1450 and I think the average gpa is 3.8 or greater, but certainly there are other circumstances that factor in acceptance rate, like diversity, letters of recommendation, special skills, written application, family members who went to the school, etc.

[ChipperF1]

"There are some quality players that wanted to go to Stanford, but couldn't get in, and some of them went to play in the big 12. No need to mention names, but I think some of you know who they are."

Well, how about mentioning some names. I'm sure your aren't trying to insult anybody.

This is my chief gripe about Stanford fans. When things are going well they'll say..."We win even though we can't look at as many kids as the other schools do because of our high admissions standards.."

But lose to Harvard in the first round of the NCAA tournament and that because "We have a hard time because of our admission standards, its harder for us to compete."

You know something. All schools get great kids. I'll would be willing to put the kids in our league against anybody on the court and in the classroom, and the grade points averages leaguewide prove it.

I don't knock any kid who is trying to get their education and play ball. I applaud their dedication and their discipline.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong Cardinal, but I sense a tinge of "your kids in that conference aren't real students" in your statement up there. And I could be wrong, and if so apologize.

The whole recruiting/admissions issue to me isn't want the "debate" is about. Its about the ballgame, and that is where I'm going to keep it.

Now about the contentions that next year's team will be different? My response is, perhaps, but that doesn't make the past irrelevant. What condition is Susan King returning in. She's a solid player with a damaged knee, and she's going to be tested in that game. You speak of Bodensteimer and she's a player. I saw this kid play high school ball. I also saw a ton of Rappahahn, who wasn't as "highly recruited" as her "top 50" suggests (And I don't place a great deal of stock in any of the "Sneaker Pimp" lists.)

Either way. Two fine clubs will play a great game, and that's the bottom line. Most OU fans give respect to Stanford, however that respect doesn't come the other way but some Stanford fans..

That's my opinion, and I'll stick with it http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif

[35TangoTango]

So all the bright athletes go to Stanford, and the dummies who can't get in go to the Big XII? Before we go too far with that piece of fiction, let's not forget this!
http://soonersports.ocsn.com/sports/w-baskbl/spec-rel/073102aaa.html

[This message has been edited by soonerman (edited 08-01-2002).]

[Cardinal]

chiiper- interesting how you erroneously left out a little fact like Folkl and Nygaard suffering ACLs day before the game. You're right, that had nothing to do with it and was all about admission rates.

I didn't mean to imply Big 12 student/athletes are lesser than Stanford, just that Stanford has more restrictions in recruiting than other schools. They have lost more kids than most people know, or couldn't even LOOK at because of grades.

It's school first then bball at Stanford because when Tara or Amy see a player they like, their first question is can she get into school. There aren't that many schools in that category, and I know the kids that got into Stanford did not have to apply to Purdue, Duke and Vandy. Naming names doesn't help or change anything and only does harm.

I agree with you about Rappahahn, and that just shows how political the rankings can be. She is average and will not play much. Susan King is doing great and she is ready to play, as is Trotter. It'll be Susan at the 1, then Suminski at the 2 with Clare coming in to play both 1 and 2.

Sarah did have a warm welcome from the Sooner crowd. It was home a coming game for her-more than a reward as soonerman said. Tara promised Sarah's mom that she would play at OU by her senior year so her mom and family to see Sarah play.

Btw, I was at the Final Four in Tenn in 1990 after the unbelievable timing of OU announcing they were cutting women's bball. Because of that, it was great to see the crowd and caliber of their team after their program almost died. It was a very entertaining game minus the fact there was no defense being played.

We all went out for a nice dinner afterwards. Folks in Norman were very nice to us. My comment related to the bad blood from Stanford stemmed from the the way the players were treated by a FEW fans and no usher did anything to get rid of them per NCAA rules, and of course King's injury and lack of get well card from the Sooners. Fwiw, OU has no reason not to respect Stanford.

It will be a very entertaining game at Maples, and I'm very sorry to hear that OU and Stanford both recently had freshman forwards suffer ACL injuries.

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by soonerman:
So all the bright athletes go to Stanford, and the dummies who can't get in go to the Big XII? Before we go too far with that piece of fiction, let's not forget this!
http://soonersports.ocsn.com/sports/w-baskbl/spec-rel/073102aaa.html

[This message has been edited by soonerman (edited 08-01-2002).]


An award voted on by Sports Information Directors and that is sponsored by a phone co? Wow, that is something!

[mred]

Originally posted by Cardinal:

Stanford has 15,000 students that apply each year and 13% of that get in, so they hold the same standard to student athletes so not everyone gets in. The average SAT is 1450 and I think the average gpa is 3.8 or greater, but certainly there are other circumstances that factor in acceptance rate, like diversity, letters of recommendation, special skills, written application, family members who went to the school, etc.

OK. I take back what I said, but I don't think it's that much of a disadvantage. Don't you think that the athletes who are capable of getting into Stanford and are offered a scholarship might favor Stanford because of the academic reputation? I know I would. So although the tough standards might keep the not-as-academically-inclined athletes from attending, Stanford has a big advantage with those players who are smart enough to go there. In WBB, there is no shortage of those players.

[35TangoTango]

Cardinal Said: "An award voted on by Sports Information Directors and that is sponsored by a phone co? Wow, that is something!"

Yes it is! More than anything academically won by any Standford players!

Cardinal, would you like some cheese with your whine?

[This message has been edited by soonerman (edited 08-01-2002).]

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by mred:
OK. I take back what I said, but I don't think it's that much of a disadvantage. Don't you think that the athletes who are capable of getting into Stanford and are offered a scholarship might favor Stanford because of the academic reputation? I know I would. So although the tough standards might keep the not-as-academically-inclined athletes from attending, Stanford has a big advantage with those players who are smart enough to go there. In WBB, there is no shortage of those players.

I actually think there are fewer players with the grades AND the talent to play now days, and more talented players that don't have the grades in and imo, this is where the women are catching up to the men.

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by soonerman:
Cardinal Said: "An award voted on by Sports Information Directors and that is sponsored by a phone co? Wow, that is something!"

Yes it is! More than anything academically won by any Standford players!

Cardinal, would you like some cheese with your whine?

[This message has been edited by soonerman (edited 08-01-2002).]

well as a mater of fact, Stacy was the first OU player to get that award whereas Stanford has had 6 players named to various levels of the GTE/COSID teams; Folkl, Wideman, Starbird, Zielstra, MacMurdo, and Flores.

[dem]

I will put in my two cents here and say that I do think that Stanford's academic admissions policy is a significant obstacle to their sports recruiting. That's true for some other top sports schools as well (perhaps to a different extent) such as Duke, Vandy, Notre Dame, etc

No doubt that Stanford's well-deserved academic rep is a great incentive for the students they are trying to recruit (as mred said), but the pool they can seriously recruit from is very definitely smaller that that of most other schools. They trim some corners on athletic admissions standards just as do some other elite schools, and they also can recruit nationally MUCH more easily than, for instance, Big 12 schools. But however you slice it, when you are forced to recruit only athletes who have a very good chance of being able to graduate from Stanford, the pool is much smaller. Statistics can lie, but not THAT much.

[ChipperF1]

"interesting how you erroneously left out a little fact like Folkl and Nygaard suffering ACLs day before the game."

Muiotopaele was out for that game, too, and granted those were 3 major losses and the Cardinal got the wrong end of some bad mojo..

However 1. It's the NCAA Tournament and 2. You were playing a 16 seed team.
Tape it up, novocaine it up, or someone has to step up.

Granted Stanford got the short end of the deal, and Harvard shouldn't have been a 16 seed, BUT your in Maples and it was at home. You gotta come to play. No excuses, no substitutions. And not having a coherent game plan toward Harvard best and really only weapon didn't help.

Oh by the way, what excuse do you have for the first round loss to Maine the following year?

Again, it just goes back to the same deal. You want it both ways, and you can't have it both ways. All the things about admission rates and who lets in who aside, it all comes down to what you do on the 94-by-50, none of the other things matter in between the lines.

And for what its worth, Stanford's kids I'm sure respect OU and vice versa. I'm sure even Tara Vandeveer does, even though I'm sure she'll probably have a jealous snipe at them they way she does about Connecticut if the Sooners or any other Big 12 gets too good. (Remember "Connecticut is undeserving of the attention they get" and "I have five Nykesha Saleses"?)

And a last note about the "they didn't send a card deal" From what I heard after the incident, LaNeisha apologized to Susan King personally and that the entire team was concerned about what happened. In my mind a personal apology is worth more than a Hallmark card, but that's just me.



[This message has been edited by ChipperF1 (edited 08-02-2002).]

[Cardinal]

Not having 45% of their point production and 25% of their rebounding, or their inside leader scorer and outside leading scorer was just a TAD bad mojo. I was at the game when Nygaard tore her ACL, and as many ACLs, it was a blood curdling sound. She was the emotional leader of the team and only led the team/school record in 3pt shooting, and she personally wanted to take the team to Kansas City (final four) to atone for her poor performance in the final four the year before.

That was Sat. On Tues, Folkl went down in practice, same injury. Dead silence in the gym. Folkl was only a Kodak AA-the only non starter ever to be named to that team. Namomi was already out and couldn't play at all. So, there are 3 senior leaders on the bench and the psychological effect of seeing and hearing your leaders go down within DAYS of the NCAA game took it's toll. Any other team with injuries, Tenn, UConn, ISU, OU all others had weeks to prepare for their games after injuries to key players. I saw the team minutes before the harvard game, and I knew they were going to lose as they were still in the state of shock. On the basektball side of things, did they have enough time to adjust losing their outside and inside scoring and rebounding leaders, and adjust who was going to guard Feaster? No. And, if you understand sports at all, you know the game is as much mental as physical, then can you understand that NO team could have overcome the losses just days before a NCAA game.

This is also where the admissions comes in, they lost 2 players in a week and 1 was out already, but didn't have a wealth of talent on the bench because they get with a few very good players vs. having depth like other teams. Just like losing King and Carey took it's toll, there wasn't a lot on the bench to go to.

a bunch of freshman and inexperienced players lost to Maine-who played very well and deserved to win.

In the 2nd game at OU, I saw Dales come up and see how King was doing, but Caulfield was no where in sight. The card is a symbol of good sportsmanship (and expected) and the Sooners did not display in King's case. Tara's gripe with Sherri has nothing to do with her success or Geno, which some like to believe, but the fact that one of her players unecessarily fouled her player, thus taking away 1 year, then 2 years of her career. Caulfield should have ran PAST Susan vs. fouling her so hard.

[swok34]

Redneck is one word, having derived from the "rednecks" that our midwestern farmer forefathers obtained when feeding and clothing the nation.......how that word get such a "negative" meaning is beyond me.

KSUron said it best and it was Jackson's defense in the Big XII tourney game vs KSU that earned what he's talking about....I think? and the defense she played. "Action" Jackson was probably the best defender on OU's team LAST year. Her vision and court savvy is absolutely incredibly especially in the play we OU fans witnessed last season, given that she was a freshmen. I think Dionnah would tell you herself, that she would rather pass than shoot, especially given the senior shooters that were on the team last year. About mid-season, I saw a change in her and I think the OU coaches were telling her to SHOOT the ball, DRIVE to the basket......they say that Wadsworth, who no one but us OU fans in the gym for the 1st exhibition game saw play....has a 30" vertical jump. Jackson's gotta come close to matching her, heck the girl can jump out of the gym. I love watching Wadsworth play.....someone asked me at the 1st exhibition game if they thought we had another Whaley......and I told them I thought Wadsworth would probably be better.....she is incredibly athletic.

[swok34]

Though I know better than to jump into this one.........

the rednecks referred to in the particular thread were about 5 or 6 male college students about 18/19 years old who were stuck in Norman over the Christmas holidays due to the ice storm....
and I would suspect had never been to a women's basketball game in their life, but had absolutely nothing better to do on December 27, 2000 but to come and jeer and sneer at women athlete's.

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by swok34:
Though I know better than to jump into this one.........

the rednecks referred to in the particular thread were about 5 or 6 male college students about 18/19 years old who were stuck in Norman over the Christmas holidays due to the ice storm....
and I would suspect had never been to a women's basketball game in their life, but had absolutely nothing better to do on December 27, 2000 but to come and jeer and sneer at women athlete's.

I agree Swok, but none of that changes the bad taste that the Stanford players were left with, given the ushers did nothing-which was my point.

[ChipperF1]

"No. And, if you understand sports at all, you know the game is as much mental as physical, then can you understand that NO team could have overcome the losses just days before a NCAA game.

The game is mental, and in the minds of Stanford's players, they decided to concede rather than compete, coach included. No team could have overcome the losses? Maybe, maybe not, but teams with some heart at least take their best shot and aren't "shell shocked prior to the game."

Based on what you observed, no wonder Tara reamed those kids out in the press after that game. If I had a team walk out there in a defeatist, "Oh my! The rest of us-suck", sissy-candypants frame of mind and get beat, I'd ream them too.

No excuses. Either tape it up, novocaine it up, or someone else has to step up. 'Nuff said.

One last rehash of past events. Again, LaNeisha did apologize for what happened. It was an accidental play in the heat of battle. But you folks out there will still equate LaNeisha Caulfield with Jack Tatum. That is your choice. I know better.

About this year's game. It's gonna be a fun one. Good luck to both teams in the contest.

[35TangoTango]

...and now Cardinal is sitting behind our bench, being just as offensive! He certainly isn't doing anything but lowering our opinion of Stanford fans!

[Cardinal]

Chipper-who are suggesting that could play, Folkl, Nygaard or Naomi M? None of them could play. Period. It's obvious you have a dislike of Stanford and Tara, so your're not being very objective.

I know better re: the 'foul'. Caulfield IS Tatum in Stanford's mind.

Soonerman-I ain't no He, and I'm not being as offensive as the 'fans' at that game, and you should at least apologize for saying my comments were a bald face lie.

[swok34]

I'm pretty sure that OU didn't even have ushers at that point.
I've only see ushers for the NCAA tourney's AND this past season.
We got 'em now....they've always had security guards, though many more now than in season's past.

I'm not sure how visitor seating has changed from the season Stanford was here around Christmas. Since OU has seats on the floor now and if I'm not mistaken, the entire lower bowl is now reserved seating.

[mc6821]

Just out of curiosity - Swok, what was the average attendance at the LNC during that period?

As an aside, I was at the West Regionals in Boise and observed no problems with any of the fans there - OU, Tech, Stanford, us (CU) and locals.

[swok34]

mc........so good to see you. Are you planning on going to Dallas for the Big XII tourney this season?

Since I don't have my attendance numbers here at work....I'm guessing around 3200. That was a really bad year, seems if OU played at home it would snow or ice.......and there was a really bad ice storm the week Stanford came to play.....1827 is the official attendance number.

And I will agree with Cardinal on the "jeering college student point"......why they chose to sit where they did when there were approximately 4000 empty seats in the lower bowl alone?....the
student section is across the court from the visitor's bench.

[ChipperF1]

"It's obvious you have a dislike of Stanford and Tara, so you're not being very objective.

I have a dislike of neither team nor coach. I'm just calling it like I see it. And I'm a fan of neither team in any great. Could you please show me an example of this dislike of your coach or your team please, and do not confuse it with a "dislike" of an opinion of a fan of said team?

Nygaard, Folkl and Muiotopaele weren't able to play, that is a fact. But I think you have completely misinterpreted my response. To clarify, the rest of the ballclub had to step up, and they didn't step up. By your own admission, they were too shaken by their losses and were not able to effect an adequate counter to their opposition.

When a ballclub has to the take the floor, you have to come to compete as you are. That is what I'm saying. "Tape it up. Novocaine it up, or somebody has to step up." is my standard belief when it comes to injury. If you lose a player or even three like in that game, somebody has to stand in the gap and compete, and again you said the team was too shaken to effectively compete. Pointing that out is not showing dislike for a team. It just stating the facts and that all I'm doing.

LaNeisha Caulfield: "They Call Me Assassin"? Sorry, Cardinal...I just don't see that http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by Cardinal:
Soonerman-I ain't no He, and I'm not being as offensive as the 'fans' at that game, and you should at least apologize for saying my comments were a bald face lie.

Gee Cardinal, I do apologize for calling you a "he". I guess I'm sexist enough to believe that a troll who would come on another conference's message board, post 25 (I counted) uncomplimentary posts and argue with everyone here, would be an over testosterone-laden male. You have opened my eyes.

As for my original statement: "But the inference that ... Stanford was anything but well received by the fans in general is a bald faced lie!" I stand by it.


Folks, I think we have entertained this troll long enough. I for one, am moving on.

[mc6821]

Hi Swok! Yup, am planning to make it to Dallas, hope to see y'all there!

[DBLTFarmer]

Cardinal give it up!! OU was a better team than Stanford last year. They will be a better team than your giving them credit for. Although, I think OU tries to stretch the rules of the game as far as they can, Caufield did not try to injure the Stanford player. There was intention to foul but not to injure.

One thing that really gets me, is that Stanfod is a team with a lot of tradition. I would think you would have played in places where you received taunting far worse than you received at OU. If not maybe you should go play at A&M and have a thousand or so of the corps of cadets yelling at you. Or go and play in front of a loud and rowdy ISU or KSU crowd. Better yet go to Austin and have the former govener yell at you.(sorry UT fans, I couldnt resist) If a few rowdy college students bother your team maybe they need to toughen up a bit.

Finally, I know at least one player from your team chose Stanford over several big 12 schools because of academics. In fact her grandfather was honored as a guest coach at a Lady Raider game. How many others are there on the team that chose Stanford because of academics?? I would think that it gives you an advantage recruiting.

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by soonerman:
Gee Cardinal, I do apologize for calling you a "he". I guess I'm sexist enough to believe that a troll who would come on another conference's message board, post 25 (I counted) uncomplimentary posts and argue with everyone here, would be an over testosterone-laden male. You have opened my eyes.

As for my original statement: "But the inference that ... Stanford was anything but well received by the fans in general is a bald faced lie!" I stand by it.


Folks, I think we have entertained this troll long enough. I for one, am moving on.



Troll? soonerman, you implied that I was lying about a) being at the game, b) sitting where I was sitting, c) and there being were some obnoxious fans behind the Stanford bench. You were wrong on all accounts.

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by DBLTFarmer:
Cardinal give it up!! OU was a better team than Stanford last year. They will be a better team than your giving them credit for. Although, I think OU tries to stretch the rules of the game as far as they can, Caufield did not try to injure the Stanford player. There was intention to foul but not to injure.

One thing that really gets me, is that Stanfod is a team with a lot of tradition. I would think you would have played in places where you received taunting far worse than you received at OU. If not maybe you should go play at A&M and have a thousand or so of the corps of cadets yelling at you. Or go and play in front of a loud and rowdy ISU or KSU crowd. Better yet go to Austin and have the former govener yell at you.(sorry UT fans, I couldnt resist) If a few rowdy college students bother your team maybe they need to toughen up a bit.

Finally, I know at least one player from your team chose Stanford over several big 12 schools because of academics. In fact her grandfather was honored as a guest coach at a Lady Raider game. How many others are there on the team that chose Stanford because of academics?? I would think that it gives you an advantage recruiting.


OU was better than Stanford last year mostly because King was on the bench because of a play by Caufield. I stand by that- being at the game and seeing it from the eyes of a former player and coach.

Sure, the acadamics are a draw for the kids that CAN get in, but my point was, there are MANY kids that can't get and there are other schools that can and do get them.

[swok34]

mc, I'll be there....might even have to show up on Tuesday if these runnen and gunnen younguns' don't mesh.......

Hopefully, we have a little bit larger convention for our 2nd Annual Hoopscoopers Meeting......will there be any Big XII seniors being scouted for the WNBA?.....we sure need to top the featured speaker of Linn Dunn from last year......or Chipper may need to find his way down from up there in Connecticut land.

[DBLTFarmer]

Cardinal,

As a player, coach you should be the first to realize that injuries are a part of the game regardless of how they happen. And yes, injuries are a significant part of a success of a team, and I guess if one chooses to, use it as an excuse for the failures of a team.

As far as recruiting goes, every team has their own set of advantages and disadvantages. Stanford may not get some players because of their academic status, but it is a lot easier for them to recruit nationally because of the schools academeic success.

Now for the cheese to go with your wine, a few years back I witnessed the Stanford Cardinal mascot stomp on the Tech Double T logo on the floor at the Tech while the Stanford band was trying to drowned out the Tech band while playing our school song. A lot of Tech fans didnt like it but we chalked it up to left coasters. Hell weve had worse, we have to play Texas and A&M every year in several sports.

[Cardinal]

DB-of course I know injuries are a part of the game, but Susan's injury was different because it was preventable and uneccesary. Some coaches believe the defender should run past a player who is the act of shooting a lay-up. Tara believes and teaches that, and I agree with her. no excuse, just a fact.

Was the game you were referred to TTech a men's or women's game?
The only time the band and mascot travel with the women is during the NCAA tourney and one or two conference games.

[Guns Up!]

So much for the original thread Personal Preseason Polls

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by Guns Up!:
So much for the original thread Personal Preseason Polls

okay-
Stanford #8
OU #20

[DBLTFarmer]

Cardinal,

The game was against the Ladies. Cant remember for sure but it was either a conference challenge game or NCAA tournament. People see things differently. I saw the same play along with many others who did not think the injury was intentional. (on TV) Why come to this board and do your boasting??

[SKATERBOY]

Michele Voepel says Texas would win the big 12 this comming year. she stated that on espn womens college basketball article.

[TXSNOS]

Originally posted by DBLTFarmer:
Better yet go to Austin and have the former govener yell at you.(sorry UT fans, I couldnt resist) [/B]


Yea Ann - my favorite fan!

TXSNOS

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by DBLTFarmer:
Cardinal,

The game was against the Ladies. Cant remember for sure but it was either a conference challenge game or NCAA tournament. People see things differently. I saw the same play along with many others who did not think the injury was intentional. (on TV) Why come to this board and do your boasting??

uh, because it's a free country and because Stanford has and will be play a big 12 team. so what? I was at the game and saw things differently as did the Stanford team and many other fans.

[Buffsfan22]

Stanford a better team than OU last year? That's laughable! Why not just go all out and suggest they were better than UConn too?
Fact: Forget the excuses, it was proven on a neutral court that Colorado was a better TEAM than Stanford last year.
And no matter how much it pains me, OU as a better team than Colorado.
If Stanford played as well on the court as their fans perform making excuses, they would have a national championship every year.

As for Stanford getting the smart players.
I'll just mention in passing that Buffs starting PF Sabrina Scott rejected Stanford to play here.
Smart. Very Smart.
Makes me think this is a kid who really wants to win.

http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/cu.gif

[YCN]

Quite frankly, I haven't posted on this thread before now first of all because I don't have a clue as to the top teams will be this year.

And beyond that I haven't posted because Cardinal is making a wreck of the fine reputation of that school by posting endless innuendo accusing OU of not being a "high-minded" school.

And thirdly, because the message board noise level across the board from Stanford fans has been so abysmally bad regarding the so-called Susan King "assassination" that it literally makes me ill.

And it still makes me ill. I've seen the dirty deed from at least 4 or as many as 6 different angles and every single view I've seen suggests that Neisha's foul was hard and ill-advised, but was well-intentioned but badly timed. There hasn't been a single bit of videotape or trash rhetoric accusation of dirty play that has changed my mind in the slightest.

I first thought that maybe there was something wrong within the Stanford athletic program when I saw a couple of gross and disgusting exhibitions by their band, which were only amplified by the famous and infamous Stanford-Cal game when a band member got flattened by the winning touchdown.

Somehow, it seems, Stanford fans seem to think that their "academic excellence" makes them better than lowly Big XII fans. Really?

So why is it on this thread all the venom and denial is being disseminated by a Stanford fan? Why is it that the logic is so clearly on the side of those persons who are long-time posters on this board?

Why is it that this Stanford fan claims the high road while making every kind of excuse for why Stanford hasn't been successful lately? Why all of this?

Here's a quote from a Stanford website regarding the academic qualifications of their athletes:

"NCAA statistics bear that out. Freshman male athletes who entered Stanford between 1994 and 1997 averaged 1,215 on the SAT—218 points above the average for Division I schools. Female athletes averaged 1,151—144 above the national average."

Since Stanford loves to hold the phony achievement of the Sears Director's Cup as a sword over our heads, I'd like to get a breakdown on the relative scores of football and basketball players versus the rowing and rifle teams.

I'm so sick of the Susan King thing that I'm afraid I might explode. Stanford fans need to worry about their team's future, not the past.

And Nicole Powell is an above average player, and certainly one of the very best in the Pac-10, but I absolutely guarantee that if the NP that I saw against Colorado is even remotely representative of her skills, she could not possibly have been better than an honorable mention All Big XII team member last year.

And while on that point, I'd like to mention that 6 of the top 16 seeds were from the Big XII - half the conference. Where was the Pac-10 in this equation? From the early exit of that "power" conference, I think I can say with certainty that if Stanford had played in this conference, they would certainly NOT have been in the top 4 teams.

Now, Cardinal, shoot back all you want. But facts are facts, and you are just a bitter mirage of what really ought to be.

Grow up!

One last thing - I'd bet dollars to donuts that OU's women's basketball team had higher SAT scores - or ACT equivalents - than the Stanford team.

Maybe, Cardinal, you can shoot that down. I doubt it.


[This message has been edited by YCN (edited 08-02-2002).]

[DblT81]

Originally posted by SKATERBOY:
Michele Voepel says Texas would win the big 12 this comming year. she stated that on espn womens college basketball article.

Skaterboy, you might want to enroll in a reading comprehension course.

When discussing the potential problems with predetermined subregional sites for the NCAA tournament, Voepel wrote:
For example, Duke might be the overall No. 1 next season, yet would have to go on the road for the first two rounds while other teams seeded the same and lower get to stay home. Texas might win the Big 12 title, yet it's for sure going to travel for the early rounds.

*Might* is a pretty important word in that paragraph to miss.

Voepel *might* pick the Longhorns to win the B12 at some future date, but I don't think she did so in her August 1st article. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[Cardinal]

Here are the facts YCN. And yes, I can shoot your stuff down.

1-YOU ARE sick of hearing about Susan. Gee, that's big a chip on your shoulder. Forget about Susan's three surgeries caused by UNtimely foul (which is the only thing that I agree with), forget about all Stanford players having to adjust and play different posistions and watch Susan toll in the rehab room. Yea, life is bad for ya. You my friend are the one that has some growing up to do.

2-NOwhere did I say Caulfield's foul was intentional, but many of the fans here said that. For some reason they are very defensive which doesn't sound logical to me. I sad it was preventable and unecessary, and some coaches teach their players to run past a player who is in the act of shooting a lay-up. To my knowledge, there was one tape of the game by a station in Norman (which I have) and there were 2 angles showed. Four or six angles were not available.

2-AGAIN, Powell is not a guard and only was playing there due to no other guard being available (for reasons discussed) and NO other player in the country could do what she did. How many players could even have an "average" game at the post AND guard positions. My point to Chipper was that things will different when Powell moves back to her natural spot. BUT she still managed to set many schools and conf. records and still get Kodak AA as a soph. I guess all other coaches, media and voters know less about her talent than you. She would have done the same thing in the big 12. Remember, many of those Pac 10 records were set by many great players that were Olympians and pros now (Thompson, Leslie, Folkl, Starbird, Wideman, Nygaard, Cooper, Azzi, N. Williams, Scott, and the list goes on)

3-I never said any OU player couldn't make into Stanford and I never denigrated the academics of any Big 12 school. Again, your are simply overreacting to the facts of the recruiting challenges that Stanford faces. My point was about recruiting is how Stanford COMPARES to other SCHOOLS not players. It is a fact that Stanford can only look at 8 out 80 players at Blue Star whereas other schools can look at all 80. It is FACT that Stanford cannot give a scholarship WITHOUT the school reviewing their application AND admitting them first. So, since you brought it up, where is OU academically ranked in the US and what is their admission rate?

4-What does the irreverance of the Stanford band (20 yrs ago) have anything to do with the discussion? Again, who is being logical here? I've seen many bands play at a lot of events, and they often act weird.

5-I did forget to mention that in the first game between OU and Stanford at OU, the OU SID dept was so ill prepared that the program and announcer said CardinalS (as in bird, not color), then to add more insult, there was a cartoon animation played during a time out showing a sooner with a gun shooting and killing a cardinal (bird). You would think a program with Stanford's reputation the SID at OU would know their school nickname.

5-PHONY Sears Cup? Name any school that has 20 sports ranked in the top TEN in the country? Football, women and men's sports such as bball, vball, track, baseball, swimming, diving, soccer, tennis, and the list goes on, are ALL ranked high. All this for a school that has less than 7000 students!

6-Per the media guide, Stanford is 15-8 vs. Big 12 (or Big 8) schools overall and Stanford would have done fine your conf. You failed to mention how UW took care of the Sooners last year. Your projection about Stanford after only seeing them play 2 times is unrealistic and illogical at best.

[Cardinal]

my bad on the screwing up the numbers on my last post, it was late and I was too lazy to get my glasses.

[SKATERBOY]

I guess forgive my ignorance, but one thing I am not ignorant about Texas & KSU being major contendors this comming year.

[ChipperF1]

Welcome to The Chipper Factor...Here's tonight's talking points memo.

"King ate Caufield's and Daley's lunch before Caufiled caused her to tear her ACL"

Sounds like you are saying its intentional here, Cardinal. I could be wrong.

on to #2

"My point to Chipper was that things will different when Powell moves back to her natural spot. BUT she still managed to set many schools and conf. records and still get Kodak AA as a soph.

I would agree to this to a point, but Powell did well even playing out of the position and that was not my contention. She didn't play as well in some of the higher-stakes games Stanford was in last year. I point to her turnover laden outing vs. Tennessee and her unaggressive games throughout the NCAA tournament including the loss to Colorado. If NKP gains a more aggressive posture this season and learns from the outings, she's really going to be an awesome player this coming season. I think she will step up to that challenge. But, Cardinal, I get red flags when players play soft in big games, and Nicole played soft basketball vs. Colorado, and Tara coached soft basketball vs. Colorado. That wasn't the NKP I saw much of the year.

"My point was about recruiting is how Stanford COMPARES to other SCHOOLS not players. It is a fact that Stanford can only look at 8 out 80 players at Blue Star whereas other schools can look at all 80."

But the mere fact Stanford can look at any of those kids and make it believable puts them a leg up on over 300 or so college teams. The Cardinal are an elite program. They will get a lot of interest from the "Sneaker Pimplicious Oh Golly Gee Red-White-Blue and GoldStar Top 100." Tara Vanderveer has VIP accomodations at any camp/scouting combine she wishes. Most teams can begin to have that sort of pull. It all balances out in the end.

4. The academic issue. First of Cardinal, I don't think anybody here denies that The Leland Stanford University is one of the academic gems our country. No one denies that status nor does anyone deny their impressive performance in both athletics and academics.
I highly respect the stand that their administration takes in regards to the place of athletics in a university. 99% OF their kids are athletes in the truest since. A great mind, in a great body.

Looking at the womens basketball team:

The team averaged 1380 on their SATs. Three players got a perfect score in one the SATs testing disiciplines.
4 kids on the team were high school valedictorians or salutorians
8 kids on the team are bilingual.

Those facts blew me away...Amazing what you learn in media guides.
Those are things that should celebrated.

But in your rebuttals you constantly harp on "The kids who didn't get in end up _______." And maybe that just a little stiffbacked midwestern defensiveness coming out, but it does ring sort of like, "Your kids aren't real students."
Sorry, I don't buy that brand.

Tell Stacey Dales, who never missed a Dean's List when she was at Oklahoma, she's not a real student.
Tell Angie Welle, who never missed a Dean's List at Iowa State and who will go into the next phase of her life shaping the next generation of young Americans as a schoolteacher, she's not a real student.
Please tell my own dear heart warrior Cornhusker Keasha Cannon...who was also Dean's List at Nebraska, she's not a real student. Leading the team in every category from PPG to GPA and having to deal with team full of sad sacks while doing it.

If I read it wrong, I apologize, but I find some bicoastal arrogance a little off-putting.

On a personal note...The "dislike" issue.
Go back to the beginning of this thread and see my very, very early top 25...You'll find Stanford ranked very high, because I see the team making a breakthrough in the next two seasons and get back to the top rung before NKP leaves.

So much for dislike.

You see Cardinal, I'm like Fox News Channel and so are a good number of the folks here. We're Fair and Balanced.
Plus, A good number of us know the game and not just the Big 12 game. We keep on finger on the pulse of the whole scene.

Are we contentious? Heck yeah we are! You oughta read some of the stuff from last season when we are in conference play. We stick up for our ball clubs (well most of us do, I didn't do a great job sticking up for mine last year lol!), but we are basically fair.

We hope you stick around our sandbox and bring a few friends, we'll share a couple of Dr. Pepper's sit on the porch and argue some more. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[Buffsfan22]

Chipper,

While it seems to me you are the top wit involved in this forum, and generally you are a pleasure to read, I absolutely must take umbrage at your saying that Powell "played soft" or that Tara "coached soft."

Does anyone here besides me remember the Buffs theme through their tourney ride last season of "No Respect"????
Some things never change I reckon.

Call me crazy, but I thought the difference in the Stanford game was the defense played by Scott, Bohman, and especially Lappe and Hartshorn.
Yet I NEVER hear a positive word about what CU accomplished, only how Stanford failed.
It's never about what the Buffs did, it's always about what the other team didn't do. um, ok.

This board is "Fair and Balanced"???
Well, if ya mean "Fair and Balanced" like "Fox News" then ok, I guess I'll buy that much then.

http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/cu.gif

[TXSNOS]

Am not getting into the King-Caufield discussion since I've never seen the play.

BUT I do want to comment on Nicole Powell. I think she is one of the top college players in the country. When I first saw her I didn't think she would have enough speed to be effective, but I kept watching and was pleasantly surprised at what an effective offensive player she is. I don't think there is a Big 12 coach that wouldn't love to have her on their team.

TXSNOS

[CYNIC]

Bottom line is that Stanford was a paper tiger last year. There were two, three, four Big 12 teams that could have gone undeated in the Pac 10 last year. I don't think I have even seen so many bad teams in a major conference. Stanford would have finished in the middle of the pack in the Big 12 last year, maybe lower. When Stanford went against an average(which means a good solid team) Big 12 team last year (CU), they couldn't hold up. That's what happens when you don't play competetion. A fact is that the OU coaches expected Colorado to beat Stanford last year in the NCAA. They even said it on radio. I also remember other coaches, could have been Sharp expressing the same view only not as forceful. Hey, maybe Stanford will win the NC this year, doubt it and maybe they will beat OU at Stanford this year. They probably should but one thing I do know as was expessed earlier in this thread, Jackson will dominate the Stanford point guard on defense. Makes the offense hard to run.

[Cardinal]

Good morning Chipper,

Point counter point begins...

Yes, I said Caufield caused the foul, I did not say she INTENDED to hurt King. Caufield made the untimely choice to foul her in a hard fashion that caused Susan to tear her ACL.

You’re right, Powell had some bad TOs and decisions late in the Tenn game. Tara lost that game playing 2 freshmen too much instead of going with Donaphin and St. Clair-which still bugs me. In the CU game, Powell hit a huge 3 in the last minute that brought them within reach. I agree she played soft, but that was Tara’s plan, which I adamantly disagree with. I guarantee that she will not play 'soft' with 2 other guards out there in the next 2 years. I predict at least one Final Foul before she leaves.

Powell ‘s line vs. Tenn:
6-14FG, 3-7 3pt, 2-5FTs, 8 boards, 17pts, 3A , 5TO, 3 fouls in 34min.

her cumulative stats for the year;
49% FG%, 42% 3pt, 82%FT, 16.6ppg, 9.3 rpg, 6.2A, 3.4TO (that’s a 2/1 assist to TO ratio). WEll above average.

The recruiting/academic thing balances out, but some years are cyclical in that there are kids who can't get in, and who Stanford wants, but other years it's not a problem.

I was talking about bball talent (of the kids that didn't get and it relates to the rankings of recruiting classes). I know there are very good players that didn't get in (one plays at CU), and it's not a bicoastal thing, no more than east coast folks bringing up the Harvard game. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

I'm assuming you were referring OU's SAT scores since Stanford doesn't report such things in their media guide. I agree all those things should be congratulated.

The Fox News Channel? Owned by Robert Murdoch? I see them as right wing and very unbalanced-but don't see you that way-yet.

I've read this board over the last 2 years and it very fair and balanced. Many people are knowledgeable and do a great job of sticking up for their team.

I will add that Buffsfan either doesn’t remember, or didn’t see the comments by many Cardinal fans congratulating the Buffs on the game. I was the first to say that Ceal and CU did a great job as they had the better game plan AND executed it. Maybe folks don’t give CU much credit because the way OU trounced them.

It seems there are some short memories here when talking down about the Pac 10. The left coast Huskies did a number on OU 2 years ago. Oregon has played Big 12 tough as USC. The Pac 10 can't win, if there are 4 teams fighting for 1st place two years ago, then it's weak vs. having parity. Whereas the same situation it the big 12 is talked about a positive way. If Stanford blows them away, then it's weak again. midwest or east coast bias?

I will come back to your little sandbox and report on the Stanford/OU game. (Jan. 3rd 7pm) Good luck until then.

[DBLTFarmer]

Cardinal,

Your posts here suggests that you thought the foul was intentional. You also gave your posts a feeling that Stanford was better than everyone else. That you thought the taunting by the OU students caused Stanford to lose. Sure it may not be right for fans and students to taunt but unfortunately it happens everywhere. Just like the instance with the Stanford band and mascot. We may not like it but unfortunate incidents are gonna happen, whether it be Stanford, Texas Tech, or OU.

Finally, some of your posts give the flavor of Stanford doesnt get a fair shake(specifically recruiting). We see it a little differently here. We see a potential advantage that you have in recruiting. Like a previous post said, you can look at all recruits across the nation. Most schools except a small few can do that such as Tenn and UConn and Duke. Most schools dont have that luxury.

[Cardinal]

Cynic-I heard many Pac 10 coaches (and other coaches) say just the opposite, that Stanford would beat CU. No surpirse Marsha and Sherri would say the same thing in supporting CU. It's called posturing and supporting your conference.

Some of you act like Tenn crushed Stanford. If you remember, it was a very tight games throughout, and Stanford led much of the way.

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by Buffsfan22:
Chipper,

While it seems to me you are the top wit involved in this forum, and generally you are a pleasure to read, I absolutely must take umbrage at your saying that Powell "played soft" or that Tara "coached soft."

Does anyone here besides me remember the Buffs theme through their tourney ride last season of "No Respect"????
Some things never change I reckon.

Call me crazy, but I thought the difference in the Stanford game was the defense played by Scott, Bohman, and especially Lappe and Hartshorn.
Yet I NEVER hear a positive word about what CU accomplished, only how Stanford failed.
It's never about what the Buffs did, it's always about what the other team didn't do. um, ok.


Buffsfan, I can't answer for Chipper, but I think you are being much too quick to take offense here. I would take Chipper's point as meaning that Powell really made no attempt to step up and challenge that agressive defense. And she didn't.

My view from the second row at Boise is that you are exactly right. The difference in the game was the Colorado defense - I came away most impressed by Bohman, but that may have been from the second game, too.

I think lots of people have given Colorado due credit. In fact, it was my original observation that triggered Cardinal's mega-post whiny tirade, and that obervation (modified to correct the game count) was:

"Actually, resistance is productive. I've seen Stanford and Powell play 3 games - two against Oklahoma, and one against Colorado. Against real defense, Powell is an ordinary player, and Stanford is an ordinary team. The Borg would need a big assist from the energizer Bunny."



[This message has been edited by soonerman (edited 08-03-2002).]

[Cardinal]

"Actually, resistance is productive. I've seen Stanford and Powell play 3 games - two against Oklahoma, and one against Colorado. Against real defense, Powell is an ordinary player, and Stanford is an ordinary team. The Borg would need a big assist from the energizer Bunny."

[/B][/QUOTE]


WOW! you saw 3 games of approx. 70 game college game that Powell has played! That is impressive how you can judge talent in so few games, and of a player not playing her true position. Again, show me ONE player who can do what she did.

[elfdenmom]

The fact of the matter is that both OU and CU proved on the floor that they were the better teams. They played offense and defense harder, longer and better than Stanford, and they prevailed in the end.

I have enormous respect for Stanford both academically and athletically. I believe the school can and does stand on its own record with justifiable pride. It really does not need apologists to speak for it and, frankly, it does not deserve this particular one.

This ongoing, repetitive, and seemingly neverending (sort of reminds me of Chinese water torture!) tirade is pointless and demeaning to a fine school.

[Cardinal]

DB-If you interpret that I think the foul was intentional, that is your choice, but I assure I do not think that. I merely said that it is my coaching philosophy not to foul a player who is the act of shooting a lay-up. Where do you pick up that I think Caulfield INTENDED to hurt King.

What the band and mascot have anything to do with foul mouthed OU fans that the ushers did nothing about? It is the mascot and band's job is to jeer, taunt and cheer. I never said I thought that's why Stanford lost the game, that's simply ridiculous. I said Stanford has some bad blood because of the treatment they received by a few fans, and of course the foul on Susan which caused her tear her ACL- which DID cause the loss.

I fail to see how Stanford only being able look at and contact 8 out 80 players at a Blue Star camp is an advantage over other teams.

[Cardinal]

apologist elf? Where did I apologize for anything?

look back at the thread.

first,
I said Stanford would beat OU by 15 at Maples this coming year. No apology, just my opinion.

Chipper disagreed, brought up past stats, Harvard, Tara's comments 8 years ago. I rebuttted

someone brought up recruiting class rankings, I rebutted it's tougher to get into Stanford. no apology, not put down of others, just a fact.

someone questioned Powell's talents, I rebutted that no other player could do what she was asked to do based on not having a point guard-and that's where things got hairy.

[CYNIC]

Originally posted by Cardinal:
Some of you act like Tenn crushed Stanford. If you remember, it was a very tight games throughout, and Stanford led much of the way.[/B]

It has probably been pointed out in this thread, but bringing up Tenn. does not back your argument. Texas, another average Big 12 team went to Tenn and beat them, something Stanford couldn't do on its home court. And trust me, the OU coaches wanted CU to win but they really wanted to play Stanford because as they said, they would run them out of the gym.

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by Cardinal:
I will come back to your little sandbox and report on the Stanford/OU game. (Jan. 3rd 7pm) Good luck until then.

(sigh) too much to hope for.

Stop feeding the troll!! Until you do, it'll never stop coming back!!

[DBLTFarmer]

Cardinal,

In a previous post you wrote"It was hard, unneccessary, and preventable foul by Caufield." In another post you wrote "OU was better than Stanford last year because King was on the bench because of a play by Caufield." Along with your rhetoric about OU not sending a card or Caufield not checking up on King, these all insinuate that Caufields play was dirty and intentional. No you didnt use the words but the insinuations are there.

Bringing up the taunting by the OU students was obvously a sore spot to you. Maybe I misread a post(for which I apologize) about the players reaction to the taunting. My whole point is that you seemed to hold a great deal of animosity towards OU. If this is not the case I suggest you reread your posts. My reason for bringing up the band thing is that anything can happen in college basketball that can create animosity between teams. Most players and coaches realize this and adapt to it. OU is a perfect example. Im sure many big 12 crowds have taunted Sherri and her players. They have sustained many numerous injuries over the past few years yet they still came back and won the toughest conference championship and made it to the NCAA final game. They were a great team with class players and coaches.

[elfdenmom]

I used the term apologist in the sense of one who makes excuses.

[Cardinal]

condensing replies to save time and give soonerman a break.

Cynic, I'm sure Tara knew about OU's comment last year regarding who was going to run who out of the gym. It's another reason why the feelings toward OU are not so positive-which what I said in my original post. OU fans cannot change the fact that there is some bad blood by some Stanford folks toward OU. deal with it. It's called competition for reason.

So what if Texas beat Tenn, Texas lost to PSU - Stanford beat PSU badly. Texas only beat USC by 2, Stanford beat them badly. We could go round and round all day like this, but it proves nothing, just like projecting how Stanford or Powell might do in the big 12.

By the way, did you see Stanford play at Tenn the week before OU/Stanford game 2 years ago? King had 23 points and almost single handedly beat Tenn and Pat had nothing but praise for her. You guys act like CU and OU trounced Stanford, but 2 of the 3 games you are talking about was a total difference of 5 pts with NO point guards.

DB-exactly when does hard and unneccessary mean deliberate or intent? I have no idea what Caulfield was thinking, but in my mind it WAS unneccessary, preventable and a hard foul that caused King to injure her ACL. It wouldn't have happened had Caulfield just ran past King.

I was not upset by the OU fans, but again, my point that it left a bad taste with the Stanford team because the yahoos were not moved or stopped-per NCAA rules. Not very classy that the OU wouldn't have an usher or guard behind the opposing team bench as most schools do. This was more than taunting, but harassment on a personal note.

ELF-I don't make excuses for the fact that Powell had to play out of position, but rather defend the POSITIVE side of her having the ability to play guard and post. I simply don't understand why some of you would knock her skills or call her average. It's should be easy to recognize that what she accomplished was incredibly rare. Could Caufield or Dales play the post consistently and put up numbers like Powell, how about Hill, could she play the guard? I think not.

[CYNIC]

Cardinal, Cardinal, Cardinal. You are so fun. I truly don't know how Tara would know about Stanford being run out the gym, altho if she was honest about the difference in her team and OU's she knew it would probably happen, because those were the private and not public feelings of the OU staff. They truly felt they were a far superior team to Stanfand last year. Stanford simply didn't have the speed and quickness to match up with OU last year. They felt the same way about Duke. Wanted to play them, thought they matched up well with them. Of course they even thought they could beat UCONN. As far as dealing with a few Stanford folks who have bad feelings toward OU, I love it. Altho I think it is more like a lot of Stanford fans, plus the players and the coaches who don't like OU. I can even deal with that. Doesn't hurt my feelings, just makes the taste of another OU victory over Stanford even sweeter. And Cardinal, one of these years you are going to have to get over the Caufield foul. Was it a hard foul, well yes it was. Has OU players been fouled like that. So many times I can't count. One of the ways some teams tried to play Dales last year was to be physical with her. She got the crap beat out of her including when she went to the rim. Also Tara must have forgot to tell the Stanford player to run by Ross in the 2001 regional game when Ross was going in for a layup. The announcers even said something like the play being like the Caufield foul but that couldn't be since Tara teaches her players to run by, ohhhhhhhhh I am so confused.

[This message has been edited by CYNIC (edited 08-04-2002).]

[swok34]

Well, since this is the longest thread in Hoopscoop history, let me add my two cents......

Rozie is about the toughest young woman I think to ever play college basketball. I don't think she had a single intact ligament in her knee; it will be interesting to see how she does at the next level with TWO legs instead of one.

[elfdenmom]

Well, I for one, hope she does just great...Talk about courage!

[Cardinal]

Cynic-the 'hard' foul on Ross was no where near the 'hard' foul on King. I've seen Caufield 'hard' foul other players and it'll catch up with her someday.

It's great that you can savor the victories over Stanford without them having a point guard. Pay back will be sweet on Jan. 3rd.

[Cycurl714]

I have read through this tread and IMHO, Cardinal you sound as though you were the one who was fouled. Anyone who has ever played competitive basketball knows that sometimes players do foul hard. I've done this myself. You say players are taught to run by the person shooting, but have you not ever heard of a player fouling someone hard so their opponent can't get a shot off to prevent the three-point play?

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by Cycurl714:
I have read through this tread and IMHO, Cardinal you sound as though you were the one who was fouled. Anyone who has ever played competitive basketball knows that sometimes players do foul hard. I've done this myself. You say players are taught to run by the person shooting, but have you not ever heard of a player fouling someone hard so their opponent can't get a shot off to prevent the three-point play?


yes, but not the way Caufield came from behind. Even some Sooner fans admit she plays rough and made similar if not harder fouls on other players. There is a DIFFERENT coaching philosophy that believes when a player is in FRONT of you and is the air shooting a lay-up, the defender distracts them by yelling, or tries to strip the ball by running past them vs. slamming into them because the likelihood of them making the easy lay-up and getting fouled are very high. I've attended many coaching clinics and camps (by Div. 1 coaches) and have done a bit of coaching and playing myself, and that is the philosophy that I learned and believe.

[BigUtFan]

Hey Cardinal, what do you do in your spare time??? Let's let this one go since it actually began as a personal pre-season poll!! Move the bantering to another thread and let's start another pre-season poll for fun. In a hurry and I want to leave my office so here are my Top Five:

Texas Tech
Texas
OU
KSU
CU and Iowa State (tie)

It could come down to the wire for TT and UT. Both have good solid teams and are hungry for more. Pierson's return and an excellent recruiting class could make the difference. UT also has a good freshman class to compliment the Big Three. Also Hastings, Dillard, and Reed are ready to go. Hopefully Fry and Carey will make a difference also. I certainly do not count out OU. Coale is on a roll and also has a good class(#7 in one report)coming in. Coale is savy and is not ready to pass the crown just yet. KSU had a slight melt-down in the tourney and if Ohlde(?) plays up to her potential, they could make a mess of things at the top. Look forward to another great match-up with her and Stephens. Stephens had 33 points and Ohlde had almost that many at UT. It should be a great game. Wild card pick at #5 is CU or Iowa State. Could be a toss-up.

[elfdenmom]

How do you feel Baylor factors in here? There is bound to be a drop off with the loss of Lambert and Crockrum, but they have really good talent with Blackmon and Dionne Brown. I seem to recall that last year they recruited some outstanding girls. It is just that Crockrum and Lambert dominated their games so much that I was hardly aware of anyone else. Still I don't think we should sell short a KMR team.

[YCN]

Since I've only one post in this historically long thread, and since probably close to a quarter of all the posts have been by a certain Cardinal, and since I'm feeling a little feisty on the eve of my birthday; and since Cardinal is pathologically obsessed with Roz Ross, I just end my non-prediction portion of participation in this thread by saying a few more words.

Roz Ross fouled out twice, once each season, in her last two seasons. Thats 2 of out 70 games. (Are you listening here, Cardinal? This is after bad, bad Roz developed her reputation as a cold-hearted assassin. Did I mention that the team that picked Roz in the WNBA draft thought enough about her potential that they made her have surgery to fix her knees this year, rather than jump right into competition? On knees that on the whole were possibly worse than Susan King's?)

Roz was noted for playing with the maximum hustle that her nearly ligamentless knees would allow. She played hard, not rough. I have no idea where Cardinal got that, because no one outside of Stanford - which will forever hold her up as a valid reason to deny their reputation for good sportsmanship and fair play - thinks that.

The foul against Susan King was a hard foul with the intent to play defense in such a way as to prevent the FG, even if it meant she would go to the line for 2 shots. This has been done countless times by countless players since the beginning of basketball. It is known as a hard foul. It is just as much a part of basketball as a 3-point shot. It is why the game officials that saw the play felt it met neither of the criteria for a technical foul to be issued on that play.

While Stanford breezed as clearly the best team in the nation's 8th or 9th best conference last year, once they faced real competition they were in over their heads. I am sure it must have been all the fault of Coach Lurch for playing Nicole Powell out of position.

OU has probably had more ACL injuries in the last 4 years than Stanford has had in the last 10. Does anyone on this board recall the Sooners holding a grudge about this?

I didn't think so.

When Cardinal responds to this post, I will let Cardinal get the last word in, because if there is one thing an obsessive-compulsive sociopathologically disfunctional person will always do, I know that person will always use their own alarmingly clear and intensely rational post to refute every single thing I have said here.

For that I scarcely care. Because Stanford is an old-school afterthought which is about to be buried by the new-street competitive nature of women's basketball, and I will not grieve about this development.

Not one bit.

[TXSNOS]

Originally posted by elfdenmom:
How do you feel Baylor factors in here? There is bound to be a drop off with the loss of Lambert and Crockrum, but they have really good talent with Blackmon and Dionne Brown. I seem to recall that last year they recruited some outstanding girls. It is just that Crockrum and Lambert dominated their games so much that I was hardly aware of anyone else. Still I don't think we should sell short a KMR team.


How good Baylor will be this year is the unknown factor. I think that they will also have a highly rated guard that transferred from Virginia who will be elegible this year.

TXSNOS

[Cardinal]

Hello Cynic! Happy Bday! Starting drinking already? Because I have NO idea what you are talking about-and that's why I'm replying,. Caulfield fouled King, not Ross. I never brought up Ross and have no idea what you are referring to. Someone mentioned a Stanford player fouling Ross in the NCAA game, and I replied that it was nothing like the foul Caufield committed on King.

Each person's body heals differently. Good for Ross, she's a good player and toughed it out. Achievements should be celebrated, but not at the expense of others who are less fortunate.

It is my opinion that it was a hard foul by Caulfield and the officials (Sally Bell) were wrong (as she often is) by not calling it fragrant. Even sooonerman called it untimely.

As far as Stanford's season, I think they did extremely well without a point guard (for 2 years). Coach VanDerveer had no choice but to play Powell at the point guard because she had NO one else. If you don't GET THAT, or if you brag or feel good about beating a team without a point guard, or call the coach names, then you are the one with some serious social problems.

Okay, let's get in a p*ssin contest about the number of ACL (or season ending) injuries each school has had in the last 10 years;

Stanford;

Okafor-ACL just happened
King $-ACL her freshman and sophomore year
Nygaard*-ACL her freshman and senior year
Folkl* ACL
Naomi Mulitauaopele*-out two years with chronic knee/surgeries
Julie Zielstra*^
Trisha Stevens*^
Chelsea Trotter has had 10 knee surgeries and misssed one year.

*played in at LEAST one Final Four and were just a TAD gifted.

*^each missed a year post 1990 Championship with chronic knee/foot problems. Stanford probably would have won another NC had it not been for those 2 being out.

$- King was ranked a top 10 guard in the country coming into Stanford.

least we forget, losing Jamie Carey for TWO years was HUGE, but obviously not to an ACL. They lost her after she was name Pac 10 freshman of the year and set a Stanford record 81 3's.

By my count, that's 9 different players in 10 years, 4 of them lost TWO years (and I'm sure I'm forgetting at least 2 players).

So how many injuries did OU have in last 4 years?

Cunningham-twice
2 freshman (one this year, one last yr, or was it 2?)
Dales-freshman year

who else?

so what did our little experiment prove. Nothing. Injuries are part of the game, some can be prevented, some are bad luck and some lead to a team having no point guards, or All Americans.

OU's will fall off and take a much longer to get back to the Final Four than Stanford. I think it'll be similar to 1990 when Stanford won the National Championship -the same year OU cut the women's basketball program.

See you at Maples on Jan 3rd.
85 Stanford 70 OU

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by YCN:
I will let Cardinal get the last word in, because if there is one thing an obsessive-compulsive sociopathologically disfunctional person will always do, I know that person will always use their own alarmingly clear and intensely rational post to refute every single thing I have said here.

For that I scarcely care. Because Stanford is an old-school afterthought which is about to be buried by the new-street competitive nature of women's basketball, and I will not grieve about this development.

Not one bit.

Well YCN, you called that one right. And just to prove "ain't a he" will do it again, I'm going to (against my better judgement) bait the troll once more.

Cardinal said: "Even sooonerman called it untimely".

This is an absolute and direct lie - look over the thread.

Cardinal said: "Even some Sooner fans admit she (Caulfield) plays rough and made similar if not harder fouls on other players."

Given the absence of any Sooner fans to agree with this statement, I declare it to be another absolute and direct lie.

Cardinal said: "Stanford probably would have won another NC had it not been for those 2 being out."

We've heard this over and over, and it's so tiresome - in contrast, try this:

Before the 2001-02 season OU lost:

Jadrea Seeley to transfer - Jadrea would have either been the starter or the first sub at small forward, and also the first sub at power forward. Instead, this small town girl chose to be a big fish in a small pond. She got her wish - was named NAIA player of the year. Think she could have contributed?

Jennifer Cunningham to her 4th ACL. Jennifer would have been the starting center. Think the sooners would have been better with Cunningham at center and Talbert as the backup? Ask any of the teams she dominated the year before.

Antoinette Wadsworth - Another good Texan. With Seeley gone, the first backup at forward. Highest vertical leap on the team. Pre-season Wadsworth, not Jackson, was the freshman everyone was most impressed with.

So what did OU do with the loss of these three key players? Won both the regular season and tournament championship in the toughest conference in the country.

Won the NCAA West Regional. Pummelled Duke in the National Semi-Finals. Lost to UCONN in the finals.

And when they lost, they didn't whine, moan, make excuses, or talk about who wasn't there. They acted with pride and class - something that seems to be sorely missing in at least one cardinal fan.

[Cardinal]

dude-soonerman, you have been proven wroing about calling me a bald face liar, so here we go again. How can call me a liar when it is MY opinion that Stanford would have won another NC with Stevens and Zielstra in 1991? This was the first time that I brought up those 2 players and it happened probably when you were in grade school. I wasn't referring to Folkl and Nygaard in '98-that's a separate issue. Look at the caliber of players Stanford lost over the years and that should give you an indication of how it effected their success.

so the SEC folks would be interested in knowing the Big 12 took over as the toughest conference in the land. the big 12 had ONE good year, so don't get over confident.

okay, one of you guys said the foul on Caufield was untimely, I thought it was you. I'll look back to make sure.

No one is whining about losing players to injuries that weren't their fault or bad luck but it is MY opinion that Caulfield CAUSED King to lose at least one year, and that's what the issue. It would have been a non issue had King's tore her ACL like most players do-non contact.

[Cardinal]

soonerman, losing King and Carey would have been like you losing Dales and hack girl Caulfied so your comparisons are really relevant.

what I failed to mention is that even with many injuries, Stanford still won 2 National Championships and made it to 6 Final Fours in the 90's (more than any team), and also won 11 Conference Championships, compared to your ONE final four and one conf.

[YCN]

soonerman, the facts speak for themselves. In spite of my Roz Ross gaffe, LaNeishea Caufield fouled out twice the last two seasons, just like Ross. I would say regardless of which player we are talking about here, neither of them would qualify as overagressive players. In fact, Neish didn't foul out this last year.

Regardless, here are some stats that I found interesting, and just for fun I compared the Big XII and Pac-10:

-----------
NCAA Rank, School, Average Attendance (2001 home games)
2 Texas Tech 12,544
4 Iowa St. 10,295
7 Kansas St. 8,158
12 Oklahoma 6,606
14 Baylor 5,524
15 Texas 5,355
17 Oregon 4,600
22 Stanford 3,776
25 Nebraska 3,472
29 Washington 3,245
32 Colorado 2,992
42 Missouri 2,561
52 Arizona 2,166
53 Oklahoma St. 2,103
63 Kansas 1,808
69 Texas A&M 1,713
73 UCLA 1,652
74 Oregon St. 1,640
98 Arizona St. 1,303
100 Southern California 1,253
117 California 1,078
249 Washington St. 405

-----------
Rank, Conference, Avg. Attendance, Total Attendance (all home games)
1 Big 12 5,331 +1,002,251 (all-time record, average and total)
7 Pac-10 2,308 350,742

(Note that Oregon's attendance led the Pac-10 at 4,600. This is 731 fewer fans per game than the Big 12 average. The total combined average attendance of the bottom 7 teams of the Pac-10 would rank them 3rd against Big 12 attendance at 9,500 per game. The combined total of the top 3 in Pac-10 attendance is 922 per game less than Texas Tech.)

-----------
Rank, Team, Total Attendance (all games)
3 Oklahoma 271,542
5 Iowa State 231,562
6 Kansas State 211,738
13 Baylor 165,353
14 Texas 160,179
(no Pac-10 teams in top 15)

-----------
Rank, Team, Attendance Increase (largest increase in home attendance for 2001-02 season over 2000-01)
1 Kansas St. 4,734
3 Oklahoma 2,240
5 Baylor 1,565
(no Pac-10 teams in top 10)

-----------
Just a few reasons why the Big 12 will continue in the future to be the best conference in basketball. When recruiters point out the fact that attendance in basketball arenas is consistently high, with large throngs of enthusiastic crowds, as compared to conferences like the Pac-10, where crowds are often so small as to be incapable of making a really loud and exciting environment, it will get harder and harder for recruits to turn down a Big 12 scholarship. And when the quality of play is added to the equation, it becomes even more compelling. According to CollegeRPI.com, there were 7 teams in the Big 12 that were better than the 2nd-place team of the Pac-10.

[Cardinal]

great YCN. good for the big 12. I liked how you changed the topic after I proved that the # of injuries OU suffered in the last 4 years were not more than the Stanford had in the last 10 years. good job.

[35TangoTango]

YCN, Good Post!

Have you noticed how cardinal always misreads others' posts when she replies. Your original post speculated that OU had more ACL injuries, but she read that as all injuries from ankle sprains up.

Also, I said she lied because she attributed a quote to me that I didn't make, and because she attributed quotes to other OU fans that they didn't make. In her reply, she refered to her opinion on national championships.
For someone representing a prestigious academic institution, she doesn't read very well, does she?

But she does have a most unexpected sense of humor. Like when she disses the Verizon award because it is sponsored by a phone company, then points with pride to Stanfords' GTE awards.

But boy, were you right about her pathological inability to let anyone else have the last word!

Actually, this thread has become a travesty of all that HoopScoop stands for. I'm going to take my own advise, and not descend to this level any more - hope you will do the same. Notice you live in Boulder. Are you primarily a Buffs fan?

[YCN]

Soonerman, I'm a lifelong Sooner fan who happens to be living in Boulder right now. Trust me, if I thought I could make the move to Norman or OKC without taking a big financial hit, I would do it in a heartbeat.

[Cardinal]

from YCN- a few posts back-like when soonerman said he/she was going to stop replying to me. still not taking your own advice uh Soonerman? Who is lying?

YCN said "And it still makes me ill. I've seen the dirty deed from at least 4 or as many as 6 different angles and every single view I've seen suggests that Neisha's foul was hard and ill-advised, but was well-intentioned but badly timed. "

okay ILL ADVISED vs. untimely -close to the same meaning. I also pointed out there were only 2 views of the play, so who is lying?

soonerman-Verizon took over GTE last year, that's why the name of the award had changed. I was being sarcastic, but you wouldn't know that since you don't read the business section.

Look back at your thread, you points are all over the board.

Stanford had 6 ACLs in 10 years-happy now?

[Bob_Ballew]

Getting back to the original thread, I am really struggling at this point as to how to rank the Big XII teams. However, as a Baylor Lady Bear fan, I am going to rank them in the top half of the conference.

Baylor showed me a great deal last season, even when Lambert and Crockrom were both on the bench. With the addition of Dionne Brown, and the new recruits, I am looking forward to a very good season. Coaching will make the difference. KMR will make the players reach deep within themselves and step up to the challenge. They were not highly touted last season and ended up in second place. Second place this season is a little high. Below is my SWAG.

1. Texas Tech
2. Kansas State
3. Texas
4. Baylor
5. Colorado
6. Oklahoma
7. Iowa State
8. Texas A&M
9. Oklahoma State
10. Missouri
11. Nebraska
12. Kansas

Colorado will have a good team and will give several teams a real run for their money, even Big XII schools, but it would be incredible for them to finish second in the nation.

GO BIG XII

[DBLTFarmer]

Okay, heres my picks.

1. Texas Tech, I know Im being a homer on this pick.
2. Kansas State, There the real deal and they will be out to
prove it this year.
3. Texas Very big and good front line. Guards are still
questionable, Wouldnt be surprised to see a
freshmen guard start. Stephanie Thiel and Nina
Norman could surprise a lot of people.
4. Colorado They may have enough left from last year to
surprise a lot of people. Probably the most
underated team in the big 12.
5. OU Caton Hill will show that she was a much bigger
of OU's success last year than people thought.
6. Iowa State
7. Baylor
8. Missouri
9. Oklahoma Stat
10. Kansas
11. Nebraska
12. Texas A&M