The Preseason: Rank Rankings Should Not Undermine Legitimate Excitement

 

Warren Grimes

Stanford women’s basketball enters the upcoming season without a top 25 preseason ranking.  That’s not unexpected.  ACC coaches picked last year’s team to finish in 7^th place. They managed only an 11^th place finish.   The team struggled to maintain an above .500 winning percentage, saw a long streak of NCAA tournament appearances end, and lost twice to Cal.  I still loved that team for its moxie and fight.  Stanford lost its top three scorers from the previous year and suffered a mid-season injury to its top scorer and rebounder (Nunu Agara). 

The reasons for preseason excitement include anticipated improved play from returning veterans such as Agara, Chloe Clardy, Courtney Ogden, Ashley Stevenson, and Shay Ijiwoye, the apparent recovery of point guard Talano Lepolo, and perhaps, most of all, the injection of five new freshmen, three of whom were high school All Americans.  Hailee Swaine is a top ten guard recruit who could be a team leader in scoring and defense.  The other two McDonald’s All Americans, 6’4” Lara Somfai and 6’5” Alexandra  Eschmeyer, have inside moves, can run the floor, and shoot three pointers.  Two other freshmen could diversify the team’s offense.  Carly Amborn, at 6’2’, is an outside shooter who seems suited to the three position.  And 6’2” Nora Ezike, as a member of the Nigerian women’s under-19 team, generated excitement this summer by humiliating the Chinese team with athletic second half moves that resulted in Nigeria’s upset win.  All these players could easily become part of a late season rotation that plays 10 or more minutes per game. 

So yes, there’s sound reason for optimism and excitement.  Coach Paye says that the depth of talent on the team will lead to more competitive and intense practices.

Is any of this reflected in the preseason rankings?  Apparently not.  One recent poll selected five ACC teams in the top 20: Duke (#8), NC State (#9), North Carolina (#10), Louisville (#17), and Notre Dame (#18).  Stanford was not in the top 25.  When the ACC conference rankings come out, this pattern suggests that Stanford could be selected for, at best, a 6^th place conference finish. 

All rankings are suspect, but none more so than those made in the preseason.  Such ratings, like other ratings, are a democratic process of compiling the selections of sports writers or coaches, each of whom may know a lot more about basketball than this writer.  These experts likely know a lot about the players in conferences that they closely follow.  They may also know, from media coverage, something about the strengths of top teams in the country.  What they lack is detailed knowledge about each of the 100 plus teams eligible for consideration in a nationwide poll.

When a pundit or coach passes judgment on relatively unknown teams, the voter is likely to fall back on reputation and last year’s performance.  College teams, however, change every year.  Underclassmen develop new skills, veteran players graduate, and incoming freshmen add to the mix.  Stanford’s WBB team for the upcoming season will have vastly different personnel from last year’s team (four players lost and five new ones added), so even those who follow the team closely would have difficulty making accurate predictions. 

As a matter of mathematics, rankings are likely to be less precise as you move from top 5 teams down the scale.  There may be only 5 teams that win 90% of their games, but a larger number (say 20 teams) that win 80% of the time.  That means more nuanced decisions to make as you move from top 10 to top 20 teams.   This effect may be exacerbated because those doing the rankings may have less knowledge of teams with fewer wins.

Finally, there is the issue of being a relatively new member of a conference dominated by east coast teams.  One could expect that writers and coaches involved in the ACC conference would tend to support other conference teams in making rating selections for a national poll.  There is a built-in bias to support fellow conference teams.  But many of these coaches and writers do not know Stanford tradition and strengths, perhaps relying instead upon last year’s results.

This bias won’t just affect women’s basketball.  Consider the current season for women’s soccer, where Stanford has started the season at a record-setting pace.  In the preseason rankings, ACC coaches picked Stanford to finish fifth, behind North Carolina, Notre Dame, Florida State, and Duke.  The season is still young, but so far, Stanford women’s soccer has vastly outperformed its ranking.  The undefeated team is averaging an impressive 5 goals per game, the most of any team in the nation.  By comparison, last year’s squad averaged just over 1.5 goals per game yet still made it to the final four in the NCAA tournament.   What a difference a season makes.  In early season games, Stanford reserves have come off the bench to average 1.5 goals per game in 40 minutes or less of playing time.  Meanwhile, Stanford is holding rivals to average of 0.5 goals per game.  This season’s team has impressive depth and, as of this writing, is ranked #1 in the nation.  Injuries or other unknowns could undermine Stanford’s juggernaut beginning.  It is already crystal clear, however, that preseason rankings were grossly inaccurate. 

Outperforming expectations is easier when the preseason pundit pollsters have low-balled your team.    Stanford WBB can follow in the footsteps of their soccer-playing sisters in using depth, teamwork and intensity to win decisively.  Stanford’s end of season record, for both soccer and women’s hoops, will be based not on fallible preseason polls, but on what its talented players demand of themselves.  I’m excited for both teams (women’s volleyball too).

A Rant Over Perverse Conference Realignments -- And Some Possible Fixes

 

Warren Grimes

For the Stanford women, the season ended Thursday when the team was upset by Portland in the first round of the WBIT.  Stanford led most of the game, played good defense, but was unable to find sufficient offensive spark in the second half and overtime.  The Portland coach may have gotten the ear of the refs.  The game was called in a way that limited Nunu Agara’s inside moves and her late game participation.  Agara was the team’s clutch performer all season.  Her absence in much of the fourth quarter and in the final minute of overtime was pivotal.

I am proud of the team.  They had a difficult season but showed mettle and fight throughout.  Seniors Elena Boscana and Brooke Demetre brought us multiple highlight moments.  And fast developing freshmen and sophomores are a reason for optimism for next year.   They will be joined by a remarkable freshmen class that includes three McDonald’s All Americans.

The bigger and longer-term issue is how to fix the perverse results of conference realignments.   The troubling features of conference shifts affect all non-football sports.  They affect not only Stanford but at least 5 other former Pac-12 schools: California, Oregon, UCLA, USC, and Washington.   As a result of substantial additional travel time, the teams from all six schools are now at a comparative disadvantage when matched with conference rivals. 

The impetus for conference realignment was and is primarily the desire to maintain maximum football exposure and revenues.  Every school wants a share of gold mine football revenues.  What makes sense for football and its revenues, however, makes no sense for the rest of collegiate athletics. 

For the six former Pac-12 schools, all of them on the Pacific rim, the negative impact of realignments is obvious and severe.  Using Stanford women’s basketball as an example, let’s look at some of these negatives.

Negative Effects of Long Plane Trips and Constant time Changes -  For the Stanford women, playing in the ACC meant five long weekend trips of up to 6000 miles roundtrip for each.  Four of those trips were weekend matchups against ACC opponents.  The fifth was the ACC tournament.  Each one-way trip meant up to 5 hours in the air.  For the five roundtrip treks, that meant close to 50 hours of plane travel during the conference season (not counting local travel to and from the airport).  That’s a lot of time to be confined to an airplane. 

On top of this, four of these trips meant a three-hour time change at the destination followed by another three-hour shift on return.  That’s stress for body clocks for persons at any age.   The stress created by time changes affects not only players but coaches and other support staff who travel with the team. 

Was it an accident that Stanford women had a very respectable home game record but a miserable record on the road?  I think not.  Playing on the road is tough under any circumstances, but consider the difference between road games in the old Pac-12 and road games in the ACC: All Pac-12 games involved much shorter travel and at most a 1-hour time change (most were played in the same time zone). 

Impact on Athletic Department Budget – Paying for all this travel takes a heavy bite out of the Athletic Department’s budget.  If a road trip in the old Pac-12 usually involved less than a 1200-mile round trip, and an ACC round trip typically involves a 6000-mile round trip, travel costs are going to be much higher.  These increased costs are compounded if the school charters a plane for the team, something that I understand was done for the men’s and women’s basketball teams.

Impact on Recruiting – This impact is more difficult to predict.  Consider, however, the following.  Suppose Stanford is in a battle with Duke or South Carolina to attract a talented high school athlete.  If I am the coach at one of the Carolina schools, I am going to tell that athlete that if they choose Stanford, they will spend 50 hours on a plane during the conference season alone.  If they stay at one of the Carolina schools, they may have only 10 or 20% of that travel time during the conference season. 

This could affect not only the recruitment of players, but Stanford’s ability to attract coaches and other support staff.  Many of these folks are likely to have family obligations that make it much more attractive to have far more limited travel times.  Some Pac-12 games may involve fewer overnight stays, such as a trip to Los Angeles compared to a trip to the East Coast.

Impact on the Environment – The Los Angeles Times wrote recently about the negative effects of conference realignments on the environment.  Quite right.  If you consider that ACC travel compared to travel in the old Pac-12 means a difference of roughly 4800 additional air travel miles for each weekend road trip, and multiply this by the 5 conference road trips, for Stanford women’s BB alone this means 24,000 additional air travel miles for the team.  Now add to that the additional miles for men’s BB and for the 12 or more other conference sports, and you get a collective number of at least 240,000 additional air travel miles for Stanford teams ( The 240,000 figure is discounted  – some sports such as women’s volleyball – may have a comparable number of road trips while others, such as men’s and women’s soccer, will likely have fewer).

The total environmental impact of conference realignments for the six former Pac-12 schools will be far higher.   Cal’s travel miles should be the same as Stanford’s while the 4 schools that joined the Big Ten will have fewer miles (much of their travel will be to the Midwest, not the East Coast).   A crude estimate of total additional travel miles for the six former Pac 12 might be 1 million.   That’s not the end of it.  ACC and Big Ten teams not on the Pacific Coast will have a lot less added travel.  Still, collectively, these conference teams will have as many cross country trips as the total for the six West Coast schools.  So the total additional travel miles for all ACC and Big Ten teams may be closer to 2 million.  That’s a lot additional carbon dioxide pumped into our atmosphere, and for no good reason.

Ending unnecessary travel will not, by itself, end the climate crisis.  What is galling, however, is that six prominent academic institutions, each with environmental scientists on their faculty, would sign on to athletic arrangements that worsen global warming and that simultaneously put their non-football teams at a comparative disadvantage.

There is no need to schedule cross country trips to improve competition – The Pac-12 was a powerhouse in nearly all non-football sports.  In virtually every conference sport, the Pac-12 was one of the top two or three conferences in the country.  All that cross-country travel doesn’t improve the level of competition and, in some cases, may lessen it.

Fixing the Problem – Someone, perhaps a senior leader like Tara VanDerveer, should take the lead in calling out the insanity of current conference alignments for non-football sports.  Right now, Charmin Smith, Cori Close, and Lindsay Gottlieb are all involved in the women’s NCAA tournament.  As soon as that ends, get all the women’s BB coaches on a conference call, adding the coaches from Oregon and Washington.  Get them thinking and talking about solutions.  Then set up a zoom meeting that includes every other coach of a non-football sport from one of the Pacific rim schools.  The purpose of the meeting would be to get all of them to press their athletic directors and university presidents for a meaningful way to end this insanity.

What are the solutions?  The most comprehensive solution would be to cut football loose to make its own conference alignments while allowing non-football sports to join genuinely regional conferences that eliminate unnecessary and disadvantageous long journeys.  Notre Dame already separates football from other sports.  However, because of long-term media contracts, this across-the-board solution may be unlikely in the near term. 

There still could be meaningful short-term steps that could lessen the six schools’ comparative travel disadvantages.  Using women’s hoops as an example, the ACC and the Big Ten could agree to shorten the conference schedule, eliminating one or two of the required cross-country treks.  Replacement games could still count to conference statistics based on the quality of the opponent that a team plays.  This would allow Stanford and the other Pacific rim teams to schedule games against one another and other traditional opponents, such as Oregon State and Washington State. Similar approaches might be taken for other non-football sports.  

This proposal could encounter resistance from other conference members, some of whom might prefer to keep the former Pac-12 schools at a disadvantage by forcing them to travel more.  There are still advantages to all conference members in approving such a proposal.  It could enhance the reputation and national reach of the conferences, allowing all conference members more choice in selecting opponents.  It is also likely to contribute to fairness and long-term conference stability.  Finally, depending on how the scheme is set up, it could marginally decrease cross-country travel for all conference members.

Let’s get off the starting line.  Everyone who supports or works to foster Stanford’s non-football sports should demand action.   If you support Cal, or any of the other four Pacific rim schools, welcome aboard.  We need broad support from all six schools to make this happen.

Note:Some language in the final three paragraphs was amended on Marach 23, 2025.

"WBIT: Stanford's Post Season Opportunity

 

Warren Grimes

After losing its first ACC tournament game to Clemson, Stanford’s dwindling prospects for making the NCAA tournament disappeared.   Instead, Stanford is now a second seed in the Women’s Basketball Invitation Tournament (WBIT).

WBIT is a relatively new tournament organized in 2023 by the NCAA for 32 teams that are not playing in the regular NCAA tournament.  It has now replaced the WNIT as the second-best end of season tournament for women’s college hoops.   That status is assured because the first four teams out of the big dance are automatic first seeds for WBIT.  There are some very good teams in WBIT including three former Pac-12 teams (Stanford, Arizona, and Colorado) and three teams from the ACC (Stanford, Virginia Tech, and Boston College).

It’s likely that the top eight teams in the WBIT would fare well against some of the lower seeds in the regular NCAA tournament.  That’s so because lower seeded teams at the big dance tend to come from less competitive minor conferences. 

So Stanford is a second seed in a bracket that has Saint Joseph’s (23-9) as the number 1 seed.  Top seeds in other brackets include Colorado (20-12) and Virginia Tech (18-12), a team Stanford defeated in conference play.  Second seeds, other than Stanford, include Arizona (19-13) and UNLV (25-7). 

So Stanford has an opportunity to make a deep run in this tournament.  To get to the final  four in Indianapolis, Stanford must win three straight games, starting with its game against Portland to be played Thursday at Maples.  If it wins, it will host a second game against  the winner of Quinipiac and #3 seed Seton Hall.  The third game could be on the road against #1 seed Saint Joseph’s.

This Stanford team has an Achille’s Heal.  That would be its vulnerability to a defense that guards the perimeter and clogs the middle.  Clemson did that very well in its decisive win over Stanford in the ACC tournament opener.  Clemson’s scout was likely based on Stanford’s win against Georgia Tech, where Stanford was only 5 for 15 from distance, but blitzed Tech on the inside with Mary Ashley Stevenson’s 17 and Courtney Ogden’s 16. Clemson designed a collapsing defense that eliminated easy interior points and still stifled Stanford’s three-point shooting (3-11).

One answer to these offensive woes is Nunu Agara, who has the strength and skill to be a forceful interior presence.  She played just 17 minutes against Clemson (scoring 8 and grabbing 3 boards).  If she can find her earlier season form (averaging 15.5 points, 7.4 boards and 1.9 assists), Stanford can play with anyone in this tournament.

Other players playing at their best in the end season games include underclassmen Courtney Ogden (scoring 16 against Georgia Tech and 13 against Clemson), Chloe Clardy, Mary Ashley Stevenson, and Shay Ijiwoye.  And seniors Elena Boscana and Brooke Demetre want to end their Stanford careers on a high note.  Altogether, Stanford should have a nine-player rotation that could serve the team well in a single elimination tournament.

I’m looking forward to watching.

Upbeat Regular Season Finish: Stanford Has 10 "Dofigscos" to Diversify Its Offense

Warren Grimes

Stanford finished the season winning 5 of 6, including two victories over higher ranked teams.  One of those was the overtime road win against Virginia Tech.  The other was the season ending home win against George Tech, a NCAA-tournament-bound team.  Stanford can also celebrate its win over top-25-ranked Florida State.  It lost to 7 other top 25 teams, but many of these losses were one-possession games, including the overtime road loss to #7-ranked LSU. 

Four of the last six games were at home.  They were against worthy opponents, although none were against the top six ACC teams.  Stanford can take satisfaction from its wins despite the unavailability of Nunu Agara, the team’s top scorer, top rebounder, highest percentage free thrower, and a major assist maker.

Tournament opponents scouting Stanford must cope with unpredictability in the team’s offense.  Entering the post season, Stanford has on its roster 10 players who qualify as “dofigscos”.  A “dofigsco” is a player that has a double figure score in her season high game.  Higher level recognition, a double dofigsco, goes to players whose season high was 20 points or more.   A triple dofigsco goes to a player with a season high of 30 or more.

Stanford has only one triple dofigsco so far this season.  That is Chloe Clardy, who put up 30 points in the overtime win against Virginia Tech.  In that contest, Clardy had 45% of the assists, 40% of the points, and 33% of the steals.  Basketball is a team sport, but that game was Clardy’s game. 

Stanford has five players at the double dofigsco level.  Season highs of 20 points or more were reached by Nunu Agara (29 points against LSU); by Elena Boscana (26 points against UC San Diego); by Brooke Demetre (24 points against Florida State); by Tess Heal (24 points against Wake Forest); and by Jzaniya Harriel (24 points against Le Moyne). 

Base level dofigsco recognition goes to Courtney Ogden, Mary Ashley Stevenson, Shay Ijiwoye and Kennedy Umeh.  Three of these players have stepped up their performances in the late season.  Ogden, who was averaging 6.5 points per game during conference play, averaged 11.5 during the crucial last 6 games.  Ijiwoye, my nominee for most-fun-to-watch player, scored 10 vital points against Virginia Tech while Stevenson embarrassed Georgia Tech with 17 points.  

These three have helped to offset the challenge of an Agara-less team.  Three others have increased their productivity in the last 6 games.   Brooke Demetre averaged 14 points in the last six games, measured against a conference average of 9.7.  Clardy, in the last six, has averaged 14.3 points compared to her overall conference average of 11.9.  And Elena Boscana has averaged 13.5 in the last six compared to a conference average of 11.7.

There is uncertainty whether Nunu Agara will play again this season.  If she does, Stanford will be very difficult to scout.   If Agara does not play, Stanford still has 9 other dofigscos that can challenge any defensive scheme.  Four of them will come from the bench, giving Stanford a degree of depth that should be valuable in back-to-back tournament games.  Bench players Courtney Ogden and Tess Heal are players with double digit performances in multiple games.  Jzaniya Harriel, if she can return to form, will be another threat from the bench.  Bring it on!

With Grit, Stanford Beats the Odds on the Road

 

Warren Grimes

On the road, Stanford overcame adversity with an inspiring 75-74 overtime victory over a strong Virginia Tech team.  Stanford trailed for most of the game, including the fourth quarter, but went on a late game run to tie the game in regulation, and win it in extra time.  This game was, in many respects, a satisfying reverse image of Stanford’s early season overtime loss to LSU.

On paper, Tech should have won this game.  They came into the contest with a 16-9 record, compared to Stanford’s 13-12 record.  Stanford had won only one road game all season.  This was a game in which grit was Stanford’s secret weapon. 

Stanford won despite the unavailability of its star Nunu Agara.

Stanford won despite shooting just 26% from the three-point line and only 61% from the foul line.

Stanford won despite the foul trouble of its two senior scorers: Elena Boscana played just over 10 minutes and had only 3 points while Brooke Demetre played 27 minutes, with just 5 points.

Stanford won despite being substantially outrebounded (32 boards to Tech’s 42).

Stanford won with defense.  That was especially true in the fourth quarter, when Stanford held Tech to 16 points while disrupting their offensive flow with steals and turnovers that produced points and a tie game at the end of regulation.  Chaos-generating turnovers were a winner for Stanford.  Tech had 22 turns, with many leading to Stanford scores. 

The underclassmen really were the difference makers in this game, scoring 65 of Stanford’s 75 points.  Playing 43 plus minutes, Chloe Clardy had a career high 30 points, including 3 of 7 three pointers, one of which finally erased Tech’s late fourth quarter lead.  Clardy also contributed 5 assists and 3 steals.  All of Stanford’s 9 steals came from underclassmen, with 2 each from Shay Ijiwoye and Kennedy Umeh.  Courtney Ogden was in double figures with 15 and Ijiwoye had 10 points, including vital overtime lay ups and two late seconds free throws that sealed the deal.

Special recognition goes to Mary Ashley Stevenson, who has been starting in place of Agara.  Stevenson’s statistical line was modest, with 6 points, 7 boards, and 2 assists.  But she played mistake free basketball (no turnovers) for 43 exhausting minutes.    

Stanford is a team without a high margin for error.  It won against Tech despite poor outside shooting and tepid rebounding.  The determination and focus the team displayed was a high point and should be a confidence booster.  With or without Nunu Agara, let’s hope that the game provides momentum for a team that hopes to extend its three-game winning streak and get deep into the ACC tournament.

Stanford Shows Resilience in Addressing Vertical Challenges

Warren Grimes

Stanford has now played four games without a meaningful presence for its star Nunu Agara.  It lost the first two on the road against Notre Dame and Louisville but picked up important wins at home against Syracuse and Boston College. 

Agara played the opening minutes against Notre Dame before going down with an injury, missed the next two games against Louisville and Syracuse, then made only a token appearance against Boston College.

Agara has been a major presence for Stanford, leading the team in points and rebounds.  Her versatility is part of the package – she shoots the threeball but can also score inside with finesse and power moves.  She is also an assist leader.  Her abrupt departure in the first quarter is at least partly responsible for the humbling defeat in the Notre Dame game. 

In the loss against Louisville, Stanford figured out how to play without Agara but still fell short in a fourth quarter comeback attempt.  Back home at Maples, Stanford rediscovered its three-point shooting and found sufficient rebounding and inside scoring to win, decisively against Syracuse and more narrowly against Boston College. 

Most of the scoring in the Maples games came from three starters and one player off the bench: Elena Boscana, Brooke Demetre, Chloe Clardy, and Tess Heal.  Mary Ashley Stevenson started both games and contributed valuable points, boards, and assists. 

There is growth in the performances of all these players.  Boscana is still hitting a high percentage of her outside shots while improving conversions on her improvised inside drives.  Demetre is notably improving her shot blocking while converting her threes and fall-away inside shots.  Clardy is improving her assist turnover ratio while still hitting from outside and on drives.  Heal continues her torrid, above 50% shooting from three-point distance.

Stanford remains a vertically challenged team.  The team does not have the same inside game -- height, power, and finesse -- of recent Stanford teams.  In another sense, Stanford also needs a stronger vertical game.  The team can do perimeter passing as well as anyone but needs to be able to move the ball inside to draw defenders away from its three-point shooters.  In the last two games, Stanford perimeters showed increased ability to penetrate and still dish the ball back outside. 

Agara is a player who can draw multiple inside defenders and helps Stanford deal with these vertical challenges.  The timing for her full recovery and return to form remains uncertain.

Stanford understandably remains cautious in dealing with head injuries.  Female athletes have had some unfortunate outcomes.  Jamie Carrie, after a promising first year start at Stanford, suffered a head injury and ended up transferring to Texas when the medical staff there cleared her to play.  Career-ending head injuries to a star soccer goalie and a hard-hitting volleyball player are part of Stanford’s history.

I have my fingers crossed that Agara’s injury is one which will allow her a rapid and full recovery. 

Hated Symbiotic Rival: Cal Sweeps Two Different Stanford Teams

 

Warren Grimes

On December 13 of last year, the Cal Bears defeated Stanford decisively at Haas (83-63).  A bit more than a month later, playing at Maples, Cal completed the two-game sweep, this time by a narrower 75-72 margin.

A Cal sweep in this rivalry game has happened before – to be precise, in January of 1986.  Almost 40 years had passed between these events.  Sandwiched between these 40 year markers were Tara VanDerveer years in which Stanford won most of the games, often  sweeping the two conference games.  Stanford had won the last 12 straight.

Not this season.   Cal has the strongest team that Charmin Smith has fielded during her 5 seasons as the head coach.  Using the transfer portal, Smith has put together a team that is outperforming the preseason rankings.  The team is now 18-3 and 6-2 in the very competitive ACC conference.  Cal will have a challenge against Notre Dame and Louisville on the road and North Carolina at home, but the team should have a comfortable path to the NCAA tournament.  They are getting it done with focus and balanced scoring by an experienced lineup, with five players averaging in double digits.

As a Stanford student, I quickly bought into the rivalry hype – hate Cal, prank Cal, and most of all BEAT CAL.  Over the years, the rivalry games have brought out the best in players from both teams.  So yes, players and fans are passionate about winning the rivalry games. 

The athletic departments of the two schools likely have more nuanced views.  Rivalry games bring in the fans with more ticket revenues.  There is a kind of a mutual dependence in the Stanford vs. Cal rivalry.  Consider the following.

During their time together in the Pac-12, Stanford and Cal joined in fighting for event scheduling that protected student athletes’ classroom performance.

When the Pac-12 disintegrated, the two schools stood together and bargained for admission to the ACC.

Both the Cal men’s and women’s basketball teams are coached by former Stanford greats (Mark Madson and Charmin Smith).  The Stanford football team is coached by a California alum (Troy Taylor).

Charmin Smith and Kate Paye played together under VanDerveer and later were assistant coaches on VanDerveer’s staff.  Both Paye and VanDerveer openly state that they cheer for Cal whenever the two teams aren’t playing each other.  VanDerveer has referred recruits to Cal when there is no place for them on Stanford’s roster. 

Stanford’s loss to Cal at Maples was painful.  It increases the long odds that Stanford will make the NCAA tournament.  And it was a winnable, one possession game with an inspiring comeback by Stanford.  There was a late-game controversial intentional foul call against Shay Ijiwoye that removed her from the game and gave Cal a four point turn around.

Stanford, however, showed moxie at Maples that wasn’t displayed in the December game.  Stanford was NOT the same team in January that Cal had comfortably taken down a month earlier.

Consider these points.

In the December game, only one starter (Nunu Agara) was an underclassman.  Agara, along with Chloe Clardy and Kennedy Umeh from the bench,  scored 25 points, or 40% of the team’s total 63.

In January, two more underclassmen (Chloe Clardy and Shay Ijiwoye) had joined the starting lineup.  Together with Agara and three more underclassmen from the bench (Courtney Ogden, Mary Ashley Stevenson and Kennedy Umeh), they scored 61, or 85% of the team’s total 72 points. 

During the late third quarter and most of the fourth quarter, the team overcame all but two points of a 19 point deficit.  They did so by generating Cal turnovers.  Ogden and Stevenson joined the three starting underclassmen for most of the inspirational rally.   

In January, Clardy started and played over 39 minutes.   For good reason -- she scored a team and career high 22 points.  Her drives to the basket drew fouls, and she converted 8 of 11 free-throw attempts.

In the January game, Ijiwoye’s statistics were solid (8 points, 2 boards, 3 steals, and 3 assists) but probably understate the spark she provides to her teammates.  Ijiwoye is very strong, very quick, and very aggressive on defense.

Kennedy Umeh played over 5 mintues in the January game (she had only 44 seconds in the December encounter).  Umeh picked up 3 fouls, one free throw, one defensive board, and 2 turnovers.  Unimpressive statistics – but the coaching staff had the confidence and wisdom to give her playing time in a hotly contested game.  She fills a need and will get better.

Nothing is easy for this Stanford team, but I love watching them evolve and compete.  I hope the team will be inspired by Stanford women’s soccer.  In the fall, that injury-ridden team didn’t play well enough to make the ACC tournament.  Never mind.  In the NCAA tournament, they made it all the way to the final four (College Cup).

Looking Forward and Back: Stanford's Small Margin for Error

Warren Grimes

Approaching the halfway point in its season, the Stanford women stand at a pivotal moment.  Will the team regain the momentum it had in November, finishing that month with a 7-1 record and high hopes to outperform preseason predictions?  Or is its path forward mired in its December-early January record of 2-6?

The un-Stanford like realities of this season so far suggest that rival California, with a 16-2 record, is the Cinderella team of the ACC.  Meanwhile, Stanford, with a 1-4 conference record, will be lucky to finish with a preseason-predicted 6^th place finish.   Perhaps even more concerning, a Stanford invitation to the NCAA tournament is now in doubt.

During the Cameron Brink years, Stanford could rely on Brink and other powerful interior players to block shots of opponents who crashed the paint.  Not this year.  For this team, defense requires players at all positions to coordinate and focus on defense.  Focus and intensity for the full 40 minutes are needed.  What may have sufficed during the Brink era will not get it done for this team.

These realities were evident in the team’s last four games.  Stanford has yet to win a single game played outside Maples.  The team was unable to seal the deal against SMU and  Creighton, teams that will struggle to finish in the top half of the conference.  Both were one-possession games, with the loss to Creighton in overtime.  Stanford recovered for a scrappy Maples victory against a solid Florida State team.  The weekend ended with a hard fought but overmatched loss to NC State.  In that last contest, Stanford won the first quarter (by 6 points) and the fourth quarter (by 11 points), statistics that should bode well.  But they weren’t nearly enough.  NC State won the second quarter (by 12 points) and decimated Stanford in the third quarter (by 19 points).  NC State’s 34-point third quarter matched its total for the first half.

There’s no shame in losing to NC State, a final four team last year with a core of guards with substantial WNBA potential.  Stanford showed some mettle with its 24-point fourth quarter, narrowing what had been a 27-point deficit to an 11-point margin near the end of the game.  But Stanford ran out of gas and time. 

As a glass-is-half-full person, I still see hope for the last half of the season.  Stanford will be the underdog in most of those games but change and development is in the air.  After the loss to SMU, Coach Paye changed the starting lineup to add Chloe Clardy and Shay Ijiwoye (moving Tess Heal and Jzaniya Harriel to reserves).  Both additions show promise.  Chloe Clardy had a team high of 17 points against NC State, including 5 boards and 3-5 shooting from three-point range.  Ijiwoye’s strength and quickness will disrupt an opponent’s rhythm on both offense and defense.  Her strengths were on show against Florida State, where she had 7 points, 5 boards, 2 assists and a steal (no turnovers).   

The other starters have not faltered.  Elena Boscana has shown Brittany McPhee-like moves inside.  Brooke Demetre and Nunu Agara have been steady and reliable.

There won’t be any easy wins for this young Stanford team.  The starting lineup now includes two sophomores and one freshman.  Four of the five starters did not start last year.  There is real potential for improvement.  The chemistry remains strong with this scrappy, creative, and fun-to-watch team.  A few wins on the road, and maybe two upsets of higher ranked teams should guarantee Stanford an invite to the big dance.

December Downers: Is There a Brittany McPhee Solution?

 

Warren Grimes

Stanford has finished its December schedule with a disappointing 1-3 record.  

Going into their Stanford matchups, the four December opponents collectively had lost just 2 games.  Number 5 ranked LSU and number 11 ranked Ohio State had (and still have) no losses.  The other two had only a single loss each: Cal lost to ranked Michigan State and UT San Antonio had a season opening loss to Texas Tech.   

Stanford’s sole December victory was against UTSA, a game where Stanford showed the ability to hold off a late run and win a close game.  The loss to LSU was mitigated by the grit Stanford showed in holding a lead for over 38 minutes of regulation.  The losses to Cal and Ohio State, both by 20 or more points, were discouraging.   

Stanford finishes its nonconference schedule with an 8-0 record in Maples and a winless 0-4 record when playing elsewhere (the Ohio State game was on a neutral court).  Do the December downers define this team?  Or does the impressive November record-setting start more accurately reflect the team’s character?   Stanford started the season with exceptional three-point shooting and impressive 20- or 30-point margins against lesser opponents.

The Ohio State loss ended the December schedule on a down note   There were times in that contest when Stanford lost confidence, showing an element of panic and chaos in the face of OSU’s full court press.   Stanford scored 6 points in the first quarter and ended the half with just 19 points.  At the end, Stanford had 19 turnovers and only 4 assists.  The team found some composure in the second half, but OSU outscored Stanford in all four periods.  The final margin was 25 points, Stanford’s worst loss of the season. 

So what’s to be done?  Stanford’s 8-4 record is way above the national average but well below Stanford expectations.   This is a young team on an improvement curve.  Stanford lost 3 December games to very good teams.  The team will get better when it learns how to keep control of the ball and score more effectively against an opponent that shuts down the three-ball.  Nunu Agara is part of the answer, but Agara cannot do it alone. 

Thinking about past players who could both shoot the three and create inside, the name Brittany McPhee came to mind.  McPhee was a six-foot guard-forward who graduated in 2018.  She was an aggressive scorer who got it done.  Early in her Stanford career, McPhee showed that she could create all sorts of mischief in the key, with acrobatic moves that included hooks, scoops, loops, reverse lay ups, and spins.  In her junior year, she started making lots of threes, expanding the challenge for any defender.   When it mattered, by whatever means, McPhee got the ball in the basket.

In her junior season, McPhee scored 27 points in an elite eight game against Notre Dame, helping Stanford to overcome a 16-point second half deficit.  The next year. in a game against 6^th ranked Oregon in Eugene, McPhee registered a career high of 33 points, 31 of them in the second half.  Making all but one of her fourth quarter attempts, McPhee lit it up, allowing Stanford to pull away to a  13-point upset. 

This year’s team has guard-forwards who could emulate McPhee’s game.  They include Elena Boscana, Brooke Demetre, Jzaniya Harriel, Tess Heal, Chloe Clardy, and Courtney Ogden.  Each can shoot the three-ball and drive to the basket.  A key difference, however, is their interior scoring efficiency.  McPhee was a master at getting her interior shots to fall. Some of the guard-forwards on this year’s team take the same kind of creative interior shots, but don’t match McPhee’s conversion rate. 

How does Stanford’s current crop of guard-forwards achieve success by McPhee’s standards?  The answer lies in practice, focus, and the confidence to know that they can get the job done.  Starting in the first week of January, each of these players should look to McPhee for inspiration.  If they do, Stanford should rise to a higher level.

The LSU Nemesis: Another One Possession Game

 

Warren Grimes

Stanford has never defeated LSU.  The two teams don’t play often, but the last two games have been one-possession games.  During an elite eight game in the NCAA tournament, LSU defeated Stanford in March of 2006.  With less than 10 seconds on the clock, Candice Wiggins drove to the basket, leaping forward to make a pass to a wing player who proceeded to swish the three-pointer.  That would have made the difference.

But it didn’t count.  There was the small matter of how Candice Wiggins descended.  She crash-landed on LSU's preeminent player, Simone Augustus, who drew the charge that nullified the three-point shot.

The two teams played again 18 years later.  It was, once again, down to the wire.  Once again, LSU came out on top, this time by tying the game with less than 5 seconds on the clock and pulling away from Stanford in overtime.

Both games were deflating for Stanford.  The 2024 version was especially frustrating because Stanford led the game for over 38 minutes.  With 16 seconds on the clock, Stanford held on to a 2-point lead and the opportunity to hold or expand that lead by successfully inbounding the ball.  LSU managed to tip the inbounds pass away.  LSU got possession, and the rest is history.

Frustration aside, there is a lot to like about how unranked Stanford played this game.  The team was on the road against the number 5 team in the nation. By far, this was the toughest match of the season so far.  Had Stanford won, it would have been a major upset.

 Going into the match, Coach Paye expressed the hope that her team would play with confidence.  They did.  Stanford took the lead early in the first quarter, extending that lead to as many as 15 points, and still holding that lead until the last 5 seconds of regulation.  The loss notwithstanding, this was arguably Stanford's best performance of the season.

Stanford outboarded LSU’s strong inside lineup 42 to 37 but lost the turnover battle.  LSU had 14 points off turns to Stanford’s 7.  Throughout the game, Stanford was resilient and focused.  Nunu Agara (29 points and 13 boards) and Brooke Demetre (19 points and 5 boards) both had career days.  Both Elena Boscana and Jzaniya Harriel were also double-digit scorers with 16 and 15 points respectively.  Stanford had a bad second quarter, but unlike against Indiana, fought back in the second half to extend its lead to 5 points at the end of the third quarter. 

Using just 8 players, Stanford played a great game, good enough to win against most any team.  Based on this performance, Stanford could well be one of the top ten teams in the nation.  Stanford may not be ranked next week, but any opponent who saw this game must take Stanford seriously. 

Ask yourself these two questions: (1) How many of the six ACC teams that were ranked above Stanford in the preseason could have played this well against #5 LSU? and (2) how many of the top 25 ranked teams could have matched unranked Stanford's performance in Baton Rouge?

I think you’ll like your own answers.  As far as LSU, watch out the next time you play Stanford.