Beachcat97 wrote:Even with Rawle, winning at Palo Alto could be too tall an order for this slow-starting, unsteady team. Hope I’m wrong.
Or, we could just win like we have all but one game since the Bahamas, and just win because we are better.
Even with a slow start. Or being unsteady.
Maybe a slow, unsteady start has a fast, look at us finish. Or we don't start slow because Stanford demands more respect than Cal. Or January 20 is the day the first 4 shots fall. Or Ayton hears the CBS music on the monitor when someone unplugs their headset and plays like it is March Madness.
Or it snows in Palo Alto and the game is cancelled.
All of this is more possible than me believing it is "too tall an order" for this Arizona team to win at Stanford. A challenge? Yup. A game we could lose? Absolutely. ASU opened -4 to -5, action took that down, but ASU was favored. I imagine our line is held, but if it can be set? UA -3 without Alkins, UA - 5 with him.
This seems like some old time posting here...but, no, this is not "too tall an order" for Arizona to go into Maples and beat 11-8 Stanford, a team with an impressive 5 game winning streak beating one ranked (soon to not be...ASU) opponent. A streak that came after losing to that dumpster fire of a Cal team and being beat by 21 by that Kansas team that ASU beat.
Portland State is pretty good...for Portland St. Portland State played with Duke for 25 minutes, only lost to Butler by a bucket, and understandably has dropped 3 in the rugged Big Sky. So Stanford getting throttled by Portland St...that was so long ago, it shouldn't matter, right? (Like the Bahamas...).
But they beat UW and WSU on the road, so...that puts it in the "tall order for Arizona" category, I suppose.
We'll forget they are 0-2 in the Big Sky...