TheBootleg.com®
Posts of the Week
Each week, we will highlight a few entertaining
and/or informative posts from the previous week. Please keep in
mind that it is hard to keep track/prioritize all posts so we
would welcome input from all Booties. You can make a "Bootie
Selection" post as a response to any post that you deem
worthy or you can email a link (to the nominated post) to me at lars@thebootleg.com.
Below are the posts that made this week's list:
Poster: redhot
Subject: The three matches at UofV
Date: 9/3/01
The Stanford board provides a lot of stats so I will not go
into that aspect.
Originally I believe we were to play the weakest of the three
teams (Radford) first followed by the other two. Then that
changed because of the UofV football game on Saturday late
afternoon so we played the supposed most difficult, Minnesota
#15, first. I commented on that to one of the parents and he put
it in proper perspective with "lets see what we are made
of." A very appropriate comment. In attendance was a small
group of Stanford parents and a couple of other rooters for us.
MINNESOTA (Friday morning): the first two games of this match
ended up 30-27 but there was a distinct difference in the feel of
the scoring. In the first game, we were ahead most of the way by
4/5 points and then Minnesota would make it 2/3. Never had the
feeling we were going to lose this one. The second game with the
same score was different. It was up and down and until the very
end, a bit uncertain but again we came through. At one time we
did have a significant lead but then the Minnesota setter,
serving with a very difficult jump serve, scored five points in a
row to bring their team back into the match. Her jump serve was
never a factor after that as we figured it out and adjusted. The
third game, 30-17, was never in doubt. Our lead and our talent
was too great to be overtaken with such a substantial lead. So
the supposed more difficult of the three matches was in the
"w" column. Following was the starting lineup
throughout the match and one that should usually start (I refer
to this lineup as the basic throughout the comments).
Setter: Robyn Lewis
OH: Logan Tom, Ogonna Nnamani, Ashley Ivy
MB: Tara Conrad
DS: Emily Lawrence
Rotating subs: Michelle Chambers for Emily and Jennifer Harvey
for Tara.
The only other substitute, late in the third game (25-14) was
Jennifer Hucke. This indicates the stature she must have to be
the first off the bench except for the rotating subs.
VIRGINIA (Friday evening): first two games were never in doubt at
30-22 and 30-20. The only substitute in the first game from the
basic starting lineup was Anna Robinson at setter. The second
game lineup was the same as the first except Sara McGee made her
first trip at MB. Hucke comes in for Oganna at 25-16 and our
freshman DS, Leahi Hall, comes into her first Stanford game at
28-10. The third game was very different and early we were down
by a number of points. Sara Sandrick started but the rest of the
starting lineup remained the same. We became very sloppy early
on. Not to take anything away from Virginia but we were not
playing up to our usual game. We were down at 5-10. Oganna was
back in by this time and then the scores were 11-14, 18-15 and
22-19. Hucke replaced Oganna at the back line at 24-21 (I think
but my penmanship is bad). We then went to 28-24 when Hucke
provides a big spike to reach 29. Virginia picks up a couple of
points to narrow the score but we finish at 30-26. I think this
third game, and the third game with Radford, are the usual
letdown when you have won the first two games by a significant
margin and "know" you have the match in hand. You
cannot do this with a top 10 club but in these two cases you knew
you had the match. Stanford was that much better.
RADFORD: is a smaller school not too far from Charlottesville
with the loudest fan support. They had a very good 2000 season
only losing one match in their conference but losing to Colorado
State in the first round of the NCAAs. They also had only one
player 6' or over. They made up for this with real hustle and
defensive digs and beat Minnesota in one of their four games. The
starting lineup (apart from what I called the basic six/eight in
the beginning) were Anna at setter and Sara Dukes at OH. With a
final score of 30-19, the subs included Sandrick and Hall. I
think all three MBs played but am not certain. The winning point,
and spike, was by Sara Dukes. The second game, ending at 30-21,
started Hauke for Oganna. With the score tied at 11-11 we then
pulled away. Logan had her first, and only rest throughout the
two days, coming out at 27-17. An Ivy spike won it for us. Game
three had the basic lineup except for Anna at setter (Robyn did
not play in the matches vs Virginia and Radford) and Dukes at OH.
The two rotating subs at the start were McGee and Sandrick. We
were tied at 22 but then created a lead we did not give up. I
think the closeness of the third game was a "get out of
Dodge" atmosphere. One of our points must be explained. At
15-12 Leahi is at D/S when a smash spike is hit near her. She
dives and makes a remarkable bump to the setter. Radford, on the
same point, sends another smash spike near her. In an instant,
her decision is to let it go and it is an "out" hit for
our point. When she is subbed for rotation, she comes out the the
acclamation or her teammates and Stanford fans. You could see the
glow in her face and she must have felt a lot taller than her
listed 5'9".
LAST COMMENTS
1) The Radford match started at noon. I arrived around 10am to
secure a parking space and read the local newspaper. Heavens, the
team was already practicing on the floor. For those interested
and have the time, you should come to a practice and watch. By
the way, the local newspaper had almost no coverage of women's vb;
they had a full page on soccer . No wonder so few fans came to
the match although football and soccer reign supreme in this
area.
2) UofV is a drinking/partying school. Picked up a ticket after
the football game started. Large numbers of dressed up fans in
the parking lot. Left in the middle of the third quarter; still a
large number of fans in the lots. Expect some never came in and
some left at half time and never returned. Field announcer
sounded as if he came from NASCAR in trying to obtain reactions
from the fans.
3) Agree with Botech about the next three matches. Penn State is
(was) ranked #3 so this will be a big test. Given the demise of
their football team, their wvb team may have added support. I
gunning for a coming home with at least 2 of 3 (5 of 6 for the
extended trip).
4) You all come out to our home and PAC-10 opener against the
Wildkittenettes (Friday 9/14); they are ranked above us in
preseason polls.
Poster: Genuine Realist
Subject: Hard Thinking
Date: 9/14/01
I'm not going to renew the obnoxious line below in which my
frustration over the passivity with which the victims met their
death was mistaken for moral condemnation. However, it's going to
be a long weekend and I have been doing some hard thinking about
all this - my own easy reader version of the failure analysis the
feds must be doing big time. Some Booties might be interested in
my thoughts and have their own notion of
alternatives/elaborations.
1. The seizure of the plane can actually be broken down into two
separate elements - (a) the seizure of the cabin, followed by the
(b) the seizure of the cockpit.
2. The point in time when the seizure of the cabin occurs is
fairly easy to deduce. It has to happen after the ascent, but
before the food carts are out, which not only make movement
difficult, but also contain a number of utensils (bottle openers,
can openers, and the trays themselves) that can be used as crude
weapons.
3. The criminals almost certainly chose seat assignments on the
aisle, and committed some act of violence immediately, likely
against the flight attendants. It is interesting that all the
cell calls I've heard use the verb `stabbed' as opposed to
`killed' or `murdered'. The likely thought is some assaultive act
occurred that would produce a lot of blood and commotion, but not
homicide, which would give the game (the hijacker had no interest
in a safe escape) away.
4. Probably two in first class, two in tourist.
But the control of the cabin only gets them so far. It is control
of the cockpit that transforms a commercial vehicle into a
fearsome superweapon of unlimited mobility. Without that, the
other is nullity - and how that happened is frustrating and
mysterious. All four planes surrendered immediately. All four
observed radio silence (the conversation the controllers
overheard from 11 was transmitted surreptitiously); and none of
them jettisoned fuel, which I had thought was SOP in these
situations, not so much to eliminate explosive potential as to
minimize the range of the craft. So what gives ?
One thought is that the creeps either had, or bluffed having, a
bomb. I don't know whether the presence of explosives on the
planes has been verified or not. For reasons I'll get into below,
I'd bet that the threat was real. But that only partially
explains the ease with which they gained control.
The most likely basic cause is that the crews were not undertrained, but
overtrained. With the bewildered, ambulatory
psychotics of the 70's, the usual profile then, the idea was to
avoid any gesture that might trigger impulsive violence,
apparently acquiesce, and maneuver the craft to a point where
trained hostage teams could take over. These incidents almost
always ended successfully with minimal loss of life. It's been so
long since a hijacking occurred that I'd bet those general
directions are still in place, and acquiescence the response the
crew was trained to give and did give.
But what made sense wirth that profile is absolute madness with a
trained cadre of fanatics whose motives are anything but mixed. I
doubt the FAA is going to broadcast the fact, but my bet is that
from now on passenger cabins will be no-hostage zones, like
prisons or jails, i.e., no matter what happens in the passenger
cabin, the cockpit will not be surrendered.
If all the assailants had was knives and box cutters (razor
blades), then the outcome is frustrating to the point of madness.
The Flight 11 dialog with the controller establishes that one of
them stayed in the cockpit. One means two, because if only one,
the pilot might react, and the assailants can't take that chance.
That means that the bulk of passengers were being controlled by
no more than 3, maybe even 2 hijackers. That will work while no
violence is done to the passengers, but systematic homicide is
impossible - the passengers will react if that begins overwhelm
the attackers by sheer numbers. Since there is no terroristic
point to a single murder, intransigence might save everyone. The
entire terroristic exercise is pure bluff. This is an absolutely
sickening thought. (Lest I have to endure another pointless
personal attack, I am not blaming anyone. The crews reacted
exactly the way they had been trained to react. The point is that
the scenario had become outdated, and no one noticed.)
But my bet is that these sociopaths did have some sort of
explosive. It is hard to believe they'd plan twenty months, go to
all this work, and take the chance of coming up completely empty.
I'd bet the threat was genuine, that Plan B was to blow the
planes out of the air if they could not control the deck. That
would have produced a national tragedy - the deaths would have
almost exactly equaled the Murragh Building - but we would all
have been at the game tomorrow night observing a moment of
silence. It would not have produced the massive rent in the
social fabric that the actual event did.
Finally, what happened to the pilots ? With the first plane, I'd
bet that the pilot remained at the controls until the WTC was in
visual range. Even if the criminals had learned to fly, they'd
have to have a pretty high confidence level to maneuver from the
Boston to NewYork air space. Once in sight, he could be murdered
and the plane directed to its target by one of the murderers. My
pilot friends tell me that wouldn't be too tough.
But what happened on the second plane? It hit fifteen minutes
later, which is an eternity. News of the collision must have come
up on the airwaves. Pilot dead ? The delay because an amateur was
doing the navigation ? Or unaware for some reason ? No one will
ever know.
There is only one bit of bleak good news here. This horrific act
depended almost entirely on the hijackers gaining control of the
cockpit - and that's easy security to implement. All of the
curbside and terminal stuff is comparatively cosmetic. Pilots by
law fly unarmed these days - I doubt they will any more, even if
the sidearm is in a safe with a combination lock. (What a
wonderful fantasy can be conjured up involving a crew member with
a fully loaded Glock Nine.)
Breaking all this down like a football play is my own way of
coping, reducing everything to rational scale. Those of similar
bent might want to share their own thoughts.
Poster: BD
Subject: Blitz/press coverage
Date: 9/18/01
IMO, the defense in order to be effective has to vary its
looks. Sometimes the corners must press. Sometimes the corners
can play off. And other times they can press and then immediately
bail. The idea is to not let the quarterback have any continuity
for a presnap read. Obviously Stanford does not do this. We
continually play off regardless if we are blitzing or just
playing base defenses.
The lack of press coverage by the corners can be reasonably
attributed to a couple reasons. One, simply, our corners are not
fast enough to press. Pressing requires playing man to man, which
we don't do a lot of regardless if we are blitzing. And more
importantly, it requires catch up speed, which depending on who
you ask is questionable on our team. I believe we are faster at
the corner positions than last year. But good enough to press,
miss, and recover.....I don't know.
Second, Stanford's corners may not press because they do not feel
comfortable doing it, again since we don't press any other time.
Likewise they probably don't want to press only when we blitz, as
that would give an easy presnap read to the QB.
Which leads me to my point as to why we never press. In order to
effectively press, or press and bail, the corners must
consistently use the technique. It can not be a once in awhile
deal. You must be in a press position at least 33% of the time.
That does not automatically require the corners to press or even
play man to man. It just means they have to start up on the line.
I believe that our staff is not comfortable with committing to
that philosophy quite yet. I am sure Baer would do it more if he
could, as he prefers attacking defenses. And maybe the players
are not comfortable. Who knows. But what is known is the end
result of conservatism that plaques the secondary........and
ultimately the entire defense once opposing offensive
coordinators effectively attack our lack coverage.
Myself, I am gambling man by nature, so I am not content to sit
back at 10 yards and let the offense throw in front of the
defense with high percentage completion passes, with my only hope
of a successful defense coming in the form of a tip pass at the
line of scrimmage, an errant throw, or unforced dropped pass. But
that is just me. In some respects, it depends alot on the
coaching staffs belief in our offenses potential and the
personality of our defense.
Poster: Hulk
Subject: Another Hulkish view, of Hulkish length, on
recruiting
Date: 9/19/01
When you watch recruiting and try to predict what Stanford
prospects will decide, a concern that arises is with
"leads." What do they mean? And most important, do
September leads help you predict the school a Stanford prospect
will choose?
Pondering that, and seeking a distraction, I looked at our past
two recruiting classes to find out where we stood with our key
prospects on this date in their respective senior years.
On this day, the following current Stanford players reported to
Allen Wallace that the following teams had "solid
leads" for them:
Stanley Wilson: USC
Alex Smith: USC (60%), Colorado (40%)
"huge" over Stanford and others
Brandon Royster: Virginia and
Virginia Tech; Stanford not even mentioned
JR Lemon: Georgia Tech (Auburn later
took a brief lead)
Amon Gordon: USC and some
megaprograms, including Florida State
Kevin Schimmelman: Georgia
Calvin Amstrong: Georgia Tech
("Big")
Grant Mason: Michigan and Michigan
State "big" over Stanford and others
OJ Oshinowo: Illlinois (said Stanford
had "only an outside chance")
Will Svitek: USC, over ASU, UW and
Ohio State; Stanford not in top five
According to the player's comments to Wallace, Stanford also
trailed "huge" for:
James Johnson (Ark): Arkansas solid
over Stanford and others
Alex Holmes: Listed Stanford fourth,
posted a 3.0 / 1170
Paul Mociler: UCLA slightly over Cal,
both "BIG" over Stanford
On this day of their senior years in high school, the following
current Stanford players said the following teams had
"slight" leads over Stanford.
Mike Craven: UCLA
Dave Bergeron: Washington
Teyo Johnson: USC, ("but maybe
because I visited there most recently")
Kwame Harris: Michigan ("Mom's
favorite, and she could drive to the games.")
Leigh Torrence: Duke
In addition, Stanford in September also trailed slightly for
these players who we eventually would lose:
Brandon Russell: Favored GT slightly
over nearby NC; Stanford 3d; chose NC
Jeremy Battier: Favored and later
chose Duke, his famous older brother's school
Jake Wood: Favored and chose nearby
Wisconsin
Scott Robinson: Favored nearby Penn
State, chose Virginia, rumored girlfriend's school
Omar Jenkins: Favored Northwestern,
chose Notre Dame
On this day of their senior years in high school, these are the
only Wallace-covered players for whom Stanford had a lead, which
each prospect except Crochet said was "slight":
Casey Carroll
Justin McCullum
Kris Bonifas
Chris Rudiger
Mark Anderson
Mike Lovelady
Gerren Crochet
(Note: Kyle Matter (June), Nick Sebes (8-27), Capp Culver (8-8) Justin McCullum (8-8) , Jon Alston (8-11) all
verballed before this date in their respective senior years.)
Stanford, of course, landed all seven of those players. But we
also led for three other players whom we eventually lost:
Ian Scott, who opted for homestate
Florida, where he now starts at DT;
Ty Ericks, who chose his parent's,
sister's, and girlfriend's school and favorite, the hometown
Huskies;
Brandon Holley, who chose Army.
(We also led slightly for Lorenzo Alexander, who chose Cal after
not clearing Stanford admissions.)
The above seems to suggest, though certainly not prove:
1. Leads obviously are not very predictive of our prospect's
ultimate choices if a team other than Stanford leads. When a team
other than Stanford led, our prospect eventually committed to
that school in only three (Johnson's, Battier's, and Wood's) of
23 cases.
2. A Stanford lead is more predictive of the prospect's ultimate
decision. Of the 10 prospects who reported in September that we
led, seven eventually chose us.
3. Our chances for prospects for whom we trail in September are
good, provided we still appear in the prospect's top four. With
prospects for whom we trailed in September, huge or slightly, our
win-loss was 15-6. For prospects for whom we led, it was 7-3. (I
do not include Holmes and Mociler as losses because Holmes
clearly would have chosen us, and Mociler was no worse than
50-50.)
4. Overall, our win-loss for our key prospects who list us in
September is 20-9. (I exclude Royster and Svitek, because neither
listed us in September.) So we've converted about two-thirds of
these "elite" players. If you factor in losses to OU,
the record is 20-12.
This performance helps explain why some posters here, knowing we
have 23 scholarships to offer, ask if we have at least 35
candidates still listing us; those posters have learned that our
conversion rate is about two-in-three, and that we have to count
on a couple losses in OU. (As I noted earlier, this class in
general is the most remarkably qualified I've seen, but there are
a few specific cases of concern, so this allowance still should
be factored in.)
Naturally, past performance may be no predictor of future
performance, or we may have ventured into new territory this
year. It does appear that we face better and more competition
this year for these players. Last year, we repeatedly faced off
against Northwestern and Georgia Tech, and swept them. This year,
we are in several battles with Notre Dame and Texas, as well as
UCLA, USC, Miami, Oklahoma, and others. In a post soon, however,
I will offer my view that the same conversion rate probably will
play out, in part because from all indications and comments, our
remaining prospects in the pool are unusually well suited to
Stanford, and very inclined to choosing us, regardless of what
other school or schools they are considering.
5. Our toughest competitor is geography. With the exception of Ty
Ericks, every prospect we lost in the last two classes lived at
least two time zones away and chose a school closer to home than
Stanford--and only three of those prospects chose a school in a
state other than their home state or one of its bordering states.
Our record with prospects in the Pacific and Mountain zones was
13-1, losing only Ericks (who chose not just his home state, but
his home city.) With prospects who lived in the Central and
Eastern zones, our win-loss was 9-8.
Again, the data is pretty limited, but I think most of us would
expect that even limited data would look a little
different--"solid" leads would hold up more often than
slight ones, for example, even in a limited sample.
Ever the recruitnik,
Hulk