Well, hope that's the stinker game. Win tomorrow and win the conference, then win three games in the tournament.

Can't believe we're going to lose after the way that third quarter ended. Thought for sure that was the turning point.

Too many missed layups.

Missed layup and then a foul on Cierra on the rebound. That hurts.

If she makes the layup we're down 2 and she's still in the game.

Boy that was a huge swing right there.

Down 9, Hawaii gets a block and goes the other way. But they turn the ball over and we get a layup to cut it to 7.

Hawaii gets a tech which not only gives us two FTs - which we make - but gives us the ball. Ags hit a 3 and it's down to 2.

Forgot about the technical foul being 2 shots and giving the ball to the other team. I'm used to the NBA where it's just one shot and whoever had the ball keeps it.

Seemed like an odd tech but works in our favor so I'll take it.

Couple dubious foul calls there didn't help.

Offense seems to be picking it up. Defense doing better too.

We got this.

I barely watched any of the half but based on the stats, that seems like an "everything went wrong" half. Hawaii had 9 offensive boards early second quarter, we shot 33% from the field and 20% from 3, and had three more turnovers.

Glad they got it to single digits by the end of the half. Still think we'll win but we're going to have to work for it.

Finally got the live stream to work so if things change from here on, it's because of me.

That's an interesting way of doing things and definitely helps us out. I was assuming only one of those teams would get removed. Now, if all games get played, the adjusted total games played is 98, divided by 7 teams and the average is 14. We'd be at 10 which means we don't add a loss.

On the women's side, it doesn't change anything unless Long Beach doesn't play either game. If they do, they'll have either 17 or 18 games played and nobody else would be above 16.

So the math is the same for the women but changes for the better for the men.

Assuming I'm looking at the right Big West board (guy posting stuff is named "gauchodan"), it appears they think that the extra loss only comes if you've played 5 full games less than the average.

So men's side. If all games get played, the average would be 14.5 games. We max out at 10. So unless 4 games get cancelled that aren't ours, we'll pick up a loss on the adjusted record.

I believe the only way we could get first is if four games get cancelled so we don't get tagged with a loss. If not enough games get cancelled, we win twice and end at 7-4 adjusted record (.636 winning percentage). UCSB would have to lose twice to go 11-5 (.686 winning percentage). If 4 games get cancelled, we'd finish at 7-3. We'd also need Irvine to lose at least one game or have their games get cancelled. That being said, UCSB plays 1-13 Cal Poly so they probably aren't even losing once, let alone twice.

As for the three seed, let's say we win twice and 3 or fewer games get cancelled. We finish 7-4. If UCR wins twice, they finish at 8-4 (.667 winning percentage). So they'd be ahead of us. If they lose once, we'd finish third. So we're not guaranteed the third seed if we win twice. If we finish tied with UCR, which would require them to play only one game and win it, they'd have the tiebreaker because they beat UCSB and we didn't.

The one caveat is the interpretation of the rules. It says:

If any team plays more than four (4) games less than the average number of games played by all Conference teams, said team will add losses to their win-loss record (losses only added until minimum threshold is met) to create an adjusted winning percentage for Conference play.

I take that to include fractions of a game. So if all games get played, the average is 14.5. We'd play 10. So the difference is 4.5 and based on the math I was taught in school, 4.5 > 4.0, so we'd tack on a loss to get the difference between average games played and our games played under 4. If they interpret that to mean you'd have to play 5 full fewer games than the average before a loss is added on, then it changes things. Then if we win twice we'd be the 3-seed since we'd be 7-3 (.700) and UCR could max out at 8-4 (.667).

Irvine does still have a chance, it just requires us to either have both games canceled or lose the games that are played. When I ran the numbers a couple weeks ago, if no games were cancelled (so the max number was played the rest of the way), the average is 15 games. So teams that have played more than four games less than that average would have losses added to reach that minimum number. So the minimum number is 11 games. We’re 8-0 with two games left so we’ve got 1 loss for sure being added. Irvine can get to 12-3 (.800 winning percentage). Us adding one more loss (either via actually losing or having a game cancelled) puts us at 9-2 (.818 winning percentage). So if the games get played, we’d have to lose both for Irvine to pass us. That’s why we just need the games to be played. If they get cancelled, we’d be at 8-3 and then Irvine would only need to win 1 to get the 1 seed.

Shorter version: Irvine can catch us but it probably requires both of our games to be cancelled for it to happen because Hawaii isn’t beating us twice. So win Friday and celebrate.

Just need to hope next weeks games happen. I feel pretty confident we'll at least win one down there. We've got one loss coming for the adjusted standings so splitting with Hawaii puts us at 9-2 (81.8 winning percentage). Irvine beating LB twice puts them at 12-3 (80.0 winning percentage).

If both games get cancelled we're screwed unless LB turns their season around. We'd be 8-3 (72.7 winning percentage) and a Irvine split puts them at 11-4 (73.3 winning percentage). Both sets of games getting cancelled would also give Irvine the title (8-3 for us vs 10-3 for them).

So basically hope there aren't any Covid issues and we'll win the regular season title unless we crap the bed twice. And while we'd obviously like to win the regular season title, if for some reason we do finish second, there doesn't appear to be any opponent benefit to 1st vs 2nd. UCSD (5-8, 7th) and UCR (5-9, 8th) seem pretty similar. LB seemed like the clear 3rd a couple weeks ago but they've lost 6 straight so shouldn't be a huge deal playing them.

That being said, hope they get the games in and take another title.

This only matters if any of our games get cancelled or we lose, but Poly helped us out this weekend by beating Long Beach twice, so they’re now 10-4.

Obviously if we play 4 and win 4 we’ll win the conference. But 3-1 we’d just need Long Beach to beat Irvine once. They play the last weekend of the year so we’ll have a better idea after next weekend.

Yeah, if teams are close, you could do some sort of common opponents ranking standings tiebreaker. So we don't get penalized for not getting to play 1-11 Fullerton twice but LBSt doesn't get penalized for having to play us and Irvine while UCD and UCI don't play. This year, as of now, you could group the top three, the middle four and the bottom three and sort that way.

It does look like it matters less this year though since the tourney is similar to the men's - everyone has to play three games to win it (except the 8 and 9 seeds) as opposed to having single byes and double byes. So from that aspect, if we did drop to, say, the three seed (this is almost impossible since Irvine and LBSt play each other), it wouldn't force us to play an extra game. I know the team wants to win the regular season tile but ultimately, they want the tourney berth. I'd be much more annoyed if we had to play the extra game because we got losses tacked on due to missed games.

Assuming I’m interpreting the rules right, as long as the women play their remaining 4 games and win them, they’ll win the title. Assuming no other game for any other teams get cancelled (which would make the average games played the highest), the conference average would be exactly 15 games played. UCD’s adjusted record would be 10-1. Beach could get to 16-2 and Irvine to 13-2. Winning percentage would determine the order and we’d get that.

If we have one game cancelled and win the other three games, our adjusted record would be 9-2. Then it would come down to what LBSt and Irvine do in their games. A three loss LB would have a better winning percentage with no cancellations but not a four loss. Irvine would have to win out because we’d have a slightly higher winning percentage than a 12-3 UCI team.

If we get two games cancelled, winning the conference is probably not happening without some upsets. Adjusted record would be 8-4. A five loss LBSt has a better winning percentage as would a 4 loss UCI.

As for H2H to matter, that only matters if we end up with the same winning percentage, which is unlikely. I think the only way that would happen is if we end up at 8-4, LB would be 12-6 and UCI would go 10-5. That would take us either having games cancelled and/or losing a game, plus some upsets of LB/UCI (those two playing each other means two losses but it also means two wins as well).

So basically we just need to hope the four games get played. I like our odds of at least going 3-1 which would make it hard for either LB or UCI to pass us.

Jen Gross has put together a machine. It's pretty impressive.

61-9 in conference the last five years (and four of those losses were in 2019-20) and 102-35 overall. Four straight regular season titles. Only blemish is the two BW tourney losses.

The biggest thing is replacing players who have graduated. We're now on year 5 of controlling the conference so this isn't a "we had one or two great recruiting classes" situation.

Would be nice for competitive reasons if they could have gotten Irvine to cancel their Fullerton series this weekend and have them come up here and play Davis as was originally scheduled. Or have us go down there and play them. Record-wise, UCD, LBST and UCI are the top three teams in the conference. LBST and UCI still play, we just played LBST. Would make sense to have us play UCI also for a true round robin. At least give UCI a shot. They get nothing by playing a horrible Fullerton team and we've got an open date. I would think that UCI would prefer the chance to knock us off themselves rather than hope we lose twice to .500 teams.

Everything went wrong for the Chiefs yesterday.

-They had a makeshift OL that couldn't block for Mahomes. I think I saw the Bucs pressured Mahomes 29 times and only two of those they sent more than four rushers. If you're getting home with only four guys, nobody's going to be open.
-The Chiefs dropped some passes. I think there were two instances of Chiefs receivers who had balls hit them in the facemask. Kelce dropped an easy one early also on a 3rd down.
-Chiefs made dumb mistakes. Lining up offsides on 4th and 5 FG attempt? Inexcusable. That led to 7 instead of 3. Calling a timeout down 8 when the Bucs seem content to let the clock run out and you get the ball to start the second half? Horrible coaching decision. That led to 7 instead of 0. Take those two out and it's 10-6 at half instead of 21-6.
-Refs didn't help. The PI call on Evans in the end zone was bogus. That was uncatchable. The earlier one on the same drive was soft but a 50-50 call. Soft unnecessary roughness on KC for a light shove when the TB player shoved first. And regardless of that, if were calling that a penalty, you're going to have 20 penalties a game for shoving. I don't see how you can call 4-5 PI/defensive holding penalties on KC in the first half but none on TB. You're telling me nobody held Kelce or Hill to keep them in check?
Mahomes was off a bit also. Even early in the game, he missed a wide open Hardman on what would have been a huge gain. Wasn't a tough throw, wasn't pressured. Just missed him.

I think KC was the better team on the season - they went 14-1 when they played their starters in the better conference. But it's not like Tampa was a bad team. So when you have a great team matched up with a good team and the great team plays about as poorly as possible while the good team plays flawlessly, a result like this happens. I mean, the Raiders were mediocre but went to Arrowhead and beat KC this year.

Occam’s Razor would be better applied here.

Either...

It was right wing lunatics who stormed the Capitol with the intention of doing harm to member of the House and Senate and to attempt to overthrow the election, something that a vast majority of people on both sides of the aisle agree on.

Or

There’s a vast conspiracy by Antifa and the MSM media to make it seem like it was right wing lunatics when it was actually Antifa and only super lawyer Rudy Giuliani has the proof (the like the countless number of election fraud lawsuits that he filed and we’re swiftly thrown out by Obama and Trump appointed judges alike).