This is the much bigger problem. It's one thing for football to do it for games that are once per week and, generally speaking, on a weekend. I know they travel on a Friday but when I went to school, there were multiple quarters where I didn't have any class on Friday, though this obviously isn't the case everywhere. But what are we doing when there are Thur/Sat basketball games? Now we've got student-athletes (I know it's a cliche but not all these kids are going pro in basketball) missing at least two days worth of classes plus all that time on the plane. It's one thing for UCLA to take the short flight up to Wash/Ore/Utah. It's another going back and forth to the midwest/east coast. And then you've got all the other smaller sports. If this is just football, it's not as big of a deal. But it probably won't be.

Yeah, moving it to the stadium was an awful idea. I mean, it's early June. Odds are, even with good weather, it's going to be 80. And as you said, on that field turf it's going to feel much warmer with the sun beating down on it. You're just asking for something bad to happen. Best case scenario is people are pissed off because they've been baking for a couple hours.

I remember going on a tour of the stadium years ago when it was about to open. Wasn't even that warm that day but you could feel the extra heat off the turf and it was noticeably warmer on it.

Like with most things, there are definitely some negatives that come along with the transfer portal. We just have to evaluate whether the positives outweigh the negatives. Personally, I think they do. But I also understand why some might not be so fond of it or have their doubts about it.

I think the transfer portal will ultimately be a mixed bag.

Yes, there are definitely going to be instances where a small school finds a develops a player only to see them leave. But in a way, isn't that a good thing? If a player is a late developer for whatever reason, isn't it a good thing for them to be able to develop more and a potentially quicker rate? We're trying to benefit the athlete right?

At the same time, there might be more instances where a player is more willing to transfer to a school that is a better fit. There were always a number of athletes willing to transfer anyway while sitting out a year, like Corey Hawkins or Joe Harden. But there might be more now who are willing to if they don't have to sit out a year.

This is a one time thing too, which I like. So the athlete essentially gets a mulligan. Want to transfer a second time? Now you have to sit out a year/burn your redshirt year if you haven't done so already. I like this since it's not like the player is just signing one year deals where they can change schools each year.

So for every program that gets hit because they signed a lightly recruited guy out of high school only to have him blossom and leave, you're going to have another one that benefits from signing guys who didn't pan out at bigger schools. We let coaches sign a bunch of players under (at least partially) the guise of playing for that specific coach only to allow the coach to just leave whenever they want to without sitting out a year. Players should be afforded the same option, at least to some extent.

Adding to the controversy is how players can now get paid for the the use of their NIL (names, images and likeness) which opens the doors for further abuse by 3rd parties and deep pocketed donors getting into the ears of players with promises of more money and stardom from their NIL if they transfer to their school. — BlueGoldAg

This was already happening. It's just more in the open now. I don't think NIL has really changed anything in terms of the big schools.

Relevant to the above,

Over the weekend there was a record-tying 8 wins by double digit seeds.

2-seeds had only 3 losses against 10 seeds since the tourney expanded to 64 teams in 1994 coming into the year. 2-seeds went 0-2 against 10 seeds this year in the tourney.

Could just be a blip of course.

Yeah, I think it's getting better, though that's mainly at the top, but the depth isn't there yet. I imagine it's similar to what the men's tourney would have looked like had there been 64 teams back in the 60's and 70's when UCLA was destroying everyone. Takes time for more and more girls to start playing but eventually, because roster spots are limited, that depth starts trickling down. Doesn't happen overnight though.

There was the 16 over a 1 upset of Stanford but that was due to Stanford losing two players to injuries right before the tournament. Other than that, no 14 or 15 seed has won a game in the women's tourney. By comparison, we see a 14 or a 15 seed win about a game year on average in the men's side. Even in the second round the 1's on the women's side rarely lose (100-3 all time).

Could have been worse for Hawaii.

South Carolina was up on Howard 22-2 after the 1st, 44-4 at half and 60-8 after the third quarter in their first round game.

Stanford shut out Montana State 20-0 in the 1st quarter of their first round game.

Well in Hawkins's case, he had already transferred from Arizona St so he would have been eligible a year earlier for us. Then he would have had to sit out a year had he transferred from UC Davis. I assume he would have been able to use a redshirt year like he did when he transferred from Arizona St. He could have still done that though and might have wanted to if he felt it would help his pro prospects or if he wanted to give a big school another shot. In a world where he doesn't have to sit out a year going from ASU -> UCD, he could have redshirted and still been a junior at his new school.

Shorts is a trickier case. He would have been going into his senior year with only one year at the DI level already. I would guess he would have just stayed at UCD.

It will probably be a mixed bag. For every team it helps it will hurt another team. Smaller schools will lose a guy after a year or two who wants tougher competition but they'll also gain guys who might be less hesitant to transfer from a bigger school they're not playing as much as they'd like to if they don't have to sit out a year.

LBST gets the ball down 1 with 21 seconds left and can't get a shot off. Fullerton played some good D on that last possession but you have to get a shot up there.

I would think, recruiting wise, it might be easier to sell a higher level recruit on playing early knowing you just lost three senior starters. There's no longer an entrenched group of starters that you, as a freshman, would really have to blow out of the water to get playing time. Sure, the fresh and sophs in the program have a bit of a leg up having been in the program for a couple years. But it's not like they're proven at the collegiate level.

But yeah, like you said, it will be interesting to see how things shake out the next two years to see if they can get back to the top of the conference.

Thanks for the info. I wonder if Turner just assumed the foul would come right away (which she shouldn't have since there were still 30 seconds left) and then was caught off guard when they didn't foul right away.

For those that were watching, the turnover at the end of regulation, was it a bad inbounds? I was listening on the radio and all they said was it was inbounded to the corner and that’s usually a no-no because it allows the opponent to trap. We had a timeout left so it wasn’t like we were forced to inbound it.

Overtime is not a friend to the underdog.

Hope we didn’t blow out shot with that turnover late in regulation.

Tie game, UCD ball, 17 seconds left.

Game winner, please.

Up 1 after the third quarter. Ended the quarter on a 10-1 run. Scored 25 points that quarter after only scoring 22 in the 1st half.

Going to need some other players to do some scoring. Hall and Turner are 10-19 for 25 points. Rest of team is 4-17 for 10 points.

Not great shooting right now for either team. Combined 2-17 from 3 so far.