[dcnav]

 would you want your child to leave Stanford to be closer to you for however long you had left?  It's a morbid question - but really a rhetorical one.  It's hard for me to see how this is not either a basketball decision or an "I don't like Stanford that much" decision (and given how much time athletes spend on their sport in D1 athletics, that flows back toward a basketball decision).

elena della donne.

While I agree in principal...it's difficult to make decisions for someone else.
And not the same thing with Della Donne as it is an ongoing 'sister' thing, not a terminal illness. (no I have no idea what is happening with Jana's family)

[dcnav]

 would you want your child to leave Stanford to be closer to you for however long you had left?  It's a morbid question - but really a rhetorical one.  It's hard for me to see how this is not either a basketball decision or an "I don't like Stanford that much" decision (and given how much time athletes spend on their sport in D1 athletics, that flows back toward a basketball decision).

elena della donne.

While I agree in principal...it's difficult to make decisions for someone else.
And not the same thing with Della Donne as it is an ongoing 'sister' thing, not a terminal illness. (no I have no idea what is happening with Jana's family)

[teejers1]

I hope all is well with her and her family.  It could just be a basketball decision, but given that she was in line for a much bigger role next season, would seem a bit of an odd decision, doubly so since she is a soph and not graduating so no degree in hand.  I guess we shall see where she ends up.  That may tell something about why she chose to transfer.  Beyond that I won't speculate.

So let's see.  Now that JVG in the portal, it's no longer speculation to say Stanford WBB could lose a player to portal, for whatever reason.
But guessing on the reason is frowned upon as speculation.

Separately, if Bob is the insider with all the knowledge, and he implies it could be a family-related thing, is it okay to assume that's what is driving this?  Or is that unjustified speculation, too?

Will close with this general question/observation:  if you had a child at Stanford University who played basketball, and you were sick - let's even say terminally - would you want your child to leave Stanford to be closer to you for however long you had left?  It's a morbid question - but really a rhetorical one.  It's hard for me to see how this is not either a basketball decision or an "I don't like Stanford that much" decision (and given how much time athletes spend on their sport in D1 athletics, that flows back toward a basketball decision).

It happens . . . even within our beloved program.  

I hope all is well with Jana and her family and that she enjoys her experience at her next college destination.  Best of luck.

Why are you being such a jerk about this?

BC

Why are you so bothered by it?  This is just a board where people speak their mind about Stanford sports.

And aren't you an Occam guy?  Isn't the most likely reason for a D1 scholarship athlete transferring from his/her school unhappiness with the PT in the sport?  It's like you can't raise that possibility here, unless you have first-hand knowledge direct from the transferee that such is the truth?  Otherwise, it's unfounded speculation.

And why is that, exactly?  It's like there is some Unwritten Rule that all posts here must put Stanford sports in the most favorable light or else you get blasted for harmful speculation.  It's ridiculous.

And I'll put my Stanford fandom and support up against most on this board - well, those who aren't retired, anyway - including support for WBB.   You can be a supporter and a realist at the same time.

[teejers1]

I hope all is well with her and her family.  It could just be a basketball decision, but given that she was in line for a much bigger role next season, would seem a bit of an odd decision, doubly so since she is a soph and not graduating so no degree in hand.  I guess we shall see where she ends up.  That may tell something about why she chose to transfer.  Beyond that I won't speculate.

So let's see.  Now that JVG in the portal, it's no longer speculation to say Stanford WBB could lose a player to portal, for whatever reason.
But guessing on the reason is frowned upon as speculation.

Separately, if Bob is the insider with all the knowledge, and he implies it could be a family-related thing, is it okay to assume that's what is driving this?  Or is that unjustified speculation, too?

Will close with this general question/observation:  if you had a child at Stanford University who played basketball, and you were sick - let's even say terminally - would you want your child to leave Stanford to be closer to you for however long you had left?  It's a morbid question - but really a rhetorical one.  It's hard for me to see how this is not either a basketball decision or an "I don't like Stanford that much" decision (and given how much time athletes spend on their sport in D1 athletics, that flows back toward a basketball decision).

It happens . . . even within our beloved program.  

I hope all is well with Jana and her family and that she enjoys her experience at her next college destination.  Best of luck.

Why are you being such a jerk about this?

BC

Why are you so bothered by it?  This is just a board where people speak their mind about Stanford sports.

And aren't you an Occam guy?  Isn't the most likely reason for a D1 scholarship athlete transferring from his/her school unhappiness with the PT in the sport?  It's like you can't raise that possibility here, unless you have first-hand knowledge direct from the transferee that such is the truth?  Otherwise, it's unfounded speculation.

And why is that, exactly?  It's like there is some Unwritten Rule that all posts here must put Stanford sports in the most favorable light or else you get blasted for harmful speculation.  It's ridiculous.

And I'll put my Stanford fandom and support up against most on this board - well, those who aren't retired, anyway - including support for WBB.   You can be a supporter and a realist at the same time.

[Jskass]

it is just tough to speculate but let's not assume the worst about the team/coaching/dynamics. could be that all is great and we don't know the rationale. Brown makes complete sense - this less so but still tough to determine that there is a pattern or issue. As I often say, wait on facts and the only ones we know right now show a cohesive team and coaching staff. Very sorry to lose JVG and hope it all works out well for her and the way she wants.

[Jskass]

it is just tough to speculate but let's not assume the worst about the team/coaching/dynamics. could be that all is great and we don't know the rationale. Brown makes complete sense - this less so but still tough to determine that there is a pattern or issue. As I often say, wait on facts and the only ones we know right now show a cohesive team and coaching staff. Very sorry to lose JVG and hope it all works out well for her and the way she wants.

[2006alum]

We had a saying when I was going through RA training that has really resonated with me: "don't piss in your own pool." Reasonable disagreement and pointed criticism of our teams/coaches/players does, of course have its place. But commentary on our women's team has been, IMHO, pretty decidedly negative relative to both their performance on the court and their own joy they seem to bring to every game - even the losses. 

And at a certain point, the negative energy turns people away. FWIW, multiple people have messaged me recently to this exact effect- that certain posters are peeing in the pool so often that they're less eager to wade in. Sure, you have a right to pee in the pool. But maybe think about the effect that has on everyone else. 

Just my two cents.

[2006alum]

We had a saying when I was going through RA training that has really resonated with me: "don't piss in your own pool." Reasonable disagreement and pointed criticism of our teams/coaches/players does, of course have its place. But commentary on our women's team has been, IMHO, pretty decidedly negative relative to both their performance on the court and their own joy they seem to bring to every game - even the losses. 

And at a certain point, the negative energy turns people away. FWIW, multiple people have messaged me recently to this exact effect- that certain posters are peeing in the pool so often that they're less eager to wade in. Sure, you have a right to pee in the pool. But maybe think about the effect that has on everyone else. 

Just my two cents.

[teejers1]

it is just tough to speculate but let's not assume the worst about the team/coaching/dynamics. could be that all is great and we don't know the rationale. Brown makes complete sense - this less so but still tough to determine that there is a pattern or issue. As I often say, wait on facts and the only ones we know right now show a cohesive team and coaching staff. Very sorry to lose JVG and hope it all works out well for her and the way she wants.

So I guess this is where I may differ from most - I don't consider kids transferring from Stanford for PT reasons to be assuming "the worst about team/coaching/dynamics."  It's just an unavoidable byproduct of recruiting a LOT of great players (virtually all of whom are great kids, too) who are used to being stars.  Even at Stanford.  Even with Tara & Staff (who are excellent).  And the situation is compounded with the portal.  Tara & Co. have done an great job to date limiting the unavoidable, all things considered.  At least that's how it appears from here.

[teejers1]

it is just tough to speculate but let's not assume the worst about the team/coaching/dynamics. could be that all is great and we don't know the rationale. Brown makes complete sense - this less so but still tough to determine that there is a pattern or issue. As I often say, wait on facts and the only ones we know right now show a cohesive team and coaching staff. Very sorry to lose JVG and hope it all works out well for her and the way she wants.

So I guess this is where I may differ from most - I don't consider kids transferring from Stanford for PT reasons to be assuming "the worst about team/coaching/dynamics."  It's just an unavoidable byproduct of recruiting a LOT of great players (virtually all of whom are great kids, too) who are used to being stars.  Even at Stanford.  Even with Tara & Staff (who are excellent).  And the situation is compounded with the portal.  Tara & Co. have done an great job to date limiting the unavoidable, all things considered.  At least that's how it appears from here.

[Softball Fan]

 ...Anyone know what percent of incoming freshmen stick it out to graduation at Stanford?  

Where I went to college decades ago, the first thing they told us was that many would not graduate. It was an intended shock.

I don't know about WBB players.  I do know about WVB players.  Recently fans did a study of which WVB players left Stanford before graduating.  They found three players in the history of the program.

1.) Twenty five years ago a player from Michigan got homesick.  She transferred to a school near her home town after freshman year.  Somewhat ironically she came back to Stanford for her graduate degree.

2.) In 2002 Logan Tom left Stanford to focus on playing with the National Team and playing professionally.  In 2014 she came back to Stanford to complete her degree. 

3.)  This past season a player left the team midway through freshman season.  Originally she committed to Princeton.  She de-committed and came to the farm.  Early on in the season she realized playing time for her at Stanford was not likely.  FWIW I never understood her thought process because she knew how stiff the competition would be for her position on the team at Stanford.

There were a number of players through the years who got little playing time and left the rigors of practicing with a varsity sport.  They all stayed at Stanford until they graduated.  I think it's fair to assume they put the Stanford degree above the importance of playing a college sport.

Of course none of this has anything to do with the current WBB team.  It would be interesting for someone with time on their hands to research how many Stanford WBB players left the team to play for another team versus how many left the team and stayed at Stanford until they got their degree.

[Softball Fan]

 ...Anyone know what percent of incoming freshmen stick it out to graduation at Stanford?  

Where I went to college decades ago, the first thing they told us was that many would not graduate. It was an intended shock.

I don't know about WBB players.  I do know about WVB players.  Recently fans did a study of which WVB players left Stanford before graduating.  They found three players in the history of the program.

1.) Twenty five years ago a player from Michigan got homesick.  She transferred to a school near her home town after freshman year.  Somewhat ironically she came back to Stanford for her graduate degree.

2.) In 2002 Logan Tom left Stanford to focus on playing with the National Team and playing professionally.  In 2014 she came back to Stanford to complete her degree. 

3.)  This past season a player left the team midway through freshman season.  Originally she committed to Princeton.  She de-committed and came to the farm.  Early on in the season she realized playing time for her at Stanford was not likely.  FWIW I never understood her thought process because she knew how stiff the competition would be for her position on the team at Stanford.

There were a number of players through the years who got little playing time and left the rigors of practicing with a varsity sport.  They all stayed at Stanford until they graduated.  I think it's fair to assume they put the Stanford degree above the importance of playing a college sport.

Of course none of this has anything to do with the current WBB team.  It would be interesting for someone with time on their hands to research how many Stanford WBB players left the team to play for another team versus how many left the team and stayed at Stanford until they got their degree.

[jonnyss]

 would you want your child to leave Stanford to be closer to you for however long you had left?  It's a morbid question - but really a rhetorical one.  It's hard for me to see how this is not either a basketball decision or an "I don't like Stanford that much" decision (and given how much time athletes spend on their sport in D1 athletics, that flows back toward a basketball decision).

elena della donne.

While I agree in principal...it's difficult to make decisions for someone else.
And not the same thing with Della Donne as it is an ongoing 'sister' thing, not a terminal illness. (no I have no idea what is happening with Jana's family)

so you're saying that della donne doesn't count as someone who left for family reasons rather than playing time reasons because.....?

[jonnyss]

 would you want your child to leave Stanford to be closer to you for however long you had left?  It's a morbid question - but really a rhetorical one.  It's hard for me to see how this is not either a basketball decision or an "I don't like Stanford that much" decision (and given how much time athletes spend on their sport in D1 athletics, that flows back toward a basketball decision).

elena della donne.

While I agree in principal...it's difficult to make decisions for someone else.
And not the same thing with Della Donne as it is an ongoing 'sister' thing, not a terminal illness. (no I have no idea what is happening with Jana's family)

so you're saying that della donne doesn't count as someone who left for family reasons rather than playing time reasons because.....?

[BobK]

I think those who left Stanford WBB as undergrads last 20 or so years
Becky Bonner
Taylor Rooks
Jana

Stayed to graduate but retired as players
Jamie Carey who then went to Texas
Toni Kokenis
Ally Beebe who never played
I’m sure there are more

[BobK]

I think those who left Stanford WBB as undergrads last 20 or so years
Becky Bonner
Taylor Rooks
Jana

Stayed to graduate but retired as players
Jamie Carey who then went to Texas
Toni Kokenis
Ally Beebe who never played
I’m sure there are more

[chimera]

We had a saying when I was going through RA training that has really resonated with me: "don't piss in your own pool." Reasonable disagreement and pointed criticism of our teams/coaches/players does, of course have its place. But commentary on our women's team has been, IMHO, pretty decidedly negative relative to both their performance on the court and their own joy they seem to bring to every game - even the losses. 

And at a certain point, the negative energy turns people away. FWIW, multiple people have messaged me recently to this exact effect- that certain posters are peeing in the pool so often that they're less eager to wade in. Sure, you have a right to pee in the pool. But maybe think about the effect that has on everyone else. 

Just my two cents.

This covers how I feel.  I don't understand the constant whining by one poster that others who post here will only pump sunshine and will not abide by speculation that is at all negative.  That's not what I see at all.  I do see posters here for the most part recognizing that we have almost no information about personal decisions like a transfer and that negative speculation about the player or the program regarding a transfer is kinda silly and unkind both.  I do think the idea that we fans ought not speculate negatively about the program without some sort of evidence is a good way to go.  

We have the evidence from decades of following the team that the program we support generally does things right on the court and off, that we have way fewer transfers out than most places, that the players and coaches seem to like and support one another, and that the coaches try to make the experience of playing for Stanford positive for the players.  That does not mean every player will be happy or that a coach never screws up.  It does mean we should keep our criticisms in context and be glad for what we have, not piss on it or piss in our pool here as we discuss the program.  These are difficult times for the sport with all the transfers and the extra year of eligibility messing with rosters.  We are lucky that we have as stable a team as we do, and the fact that we do speaks to how well the program is run (assuming I have not just jinxed things and half the team goes into the portal today).

[chimera]

We had a saying when I was going through RA training that has really resonated with me: "don't piss in your own pool." Reasonable disagreement and pointed criticism of our teams/coaches/players does, of course have its place. But commentary on our women's team has been, IMHO, pretty decidedly negative relative to both their performance on the court and their own joy they seem to bring to every game - even the losses. 

And at a certain point, the negative energy turns people away. FWIW, multiple people have messaged me recently to this exact effect- that certain posters are peeing in the pool so often that they're less eager to wade in. Sure, you have a right to pee in the pool. But maybe think about the effect that has on everyone else. 

Just my two cents.

This covers how I feel.  I don't understand the constant whining by one poster that others who post here will only pump sunshine and will not abide by speculation that is at all negative.  That's not what I see at all.  I do see posters here for the most part recognizing that we have almost no information about personal decisions like a transfer and that negative speculation about the player or the program regarding a transfer is kinda silly and unkind both.  I do think the idea that we fans ought not speculate negatively about the program without some sort of evidence is a good way to go.  

We have the evidence from decades of following the team that the program we support generally does things right on the court and off, that we have way fewer transfers out than most places, that the players and coaches seem to like and support one another, and that the coaches try to make the experience of playing for Stanford positive for the players.  That does not mean every player will be happy or that a coach never screws up.  It does mean we should keep our criticisms in context and be glad for what we have, not piss on it or piss in our pool here as we discuss the program.  These are difficult times for the sport with all the transfers and the extra year of eligibility messing with rosters.  We are lucky that we have as stable a team as we do, and the fact that we do speaks to how well the program is run (assuming I have not just jinxed things and half the team goes into the portal today).

[teejers1]

We had a saying when I was going through RA training that has really resonated with me: "don't piss in your own pool." Reasonable disagreement and pointed criticism of our teams/coaches/players does, of course have its place. But commentary on our women's team has been, IMHO, pretty decidedly negative relative to both their performance on the court and their own joy they seem to bring to every game - even the losses. 

And at a certain point, the negative energy turns people away. FWIW, multiple people have messaged me recently to this exact effect- that certain posters are peeing in the pool so often that they're less eager to wade in. Sure, you have a right to pee in the pool. But maybe think about the effect that has on everyone else. 

Just my two cents.

Yes, my comments here are exactly like peeing in a pool . . .  

Perhaps people here need to think about their posts and reactions to same.  Some person comes on and criticizes the coaching in the last WBB game, and the person is immediately dubbed a "troll" by one of the most prolific posters here, to much general acclaim.  I didn't see the L as a coaching issue - more just the team as a whole didn't play well, and the coach was (correctly, imo) looking for something that might work offensively.  But at the same time, I don't automatically assume any poster criticizing the coaching in that game is a troll.

And the notion that the WBB posts have been unduly critical in these parts is . . . curious.  I just re-read the entire UConn thread (11 pages of it).  And while there were some posts expressing frustration (one poster used "anger"), the majority were either outright "thanks for a great run" or remarkably analytical in what went wrong (O out of synch, not getting ball inside enough, missed FTs and treys, etc.).  And one poster even criticized the negativity of the WBB threads, while at the same time admitting to not having watched the game.  (C'mon now . . . ).

Echo chambers can "turn people away," too.  Just ask garvin.

But okay . . . you all win.

Now back to your regularly scheduling programming . . .

[teejers1]

We had a saying when I was going through RA training that has really resonated with me: "don't piss in your own pool." Reasonable disagreement and pointed criticism of our teams/coaches/players does, of course have its place. But commentary on our women's team has been, IMHO, pretty decidedly negative relative to both their performance on the court and their own joy they seem to bring to every game - even the losses. 

And at a certain point, the negative energy turns people away. FWIW, multiple people have messaged me recently to this exact effect- that certain posters are peeing in the pool so often that they're less eager to wade in. Sure, you have a right to pee in the pool. But maybe think about the effect that has on everyone else. 

Just my two cents.

Yes, my comments here are exactly like peeing in a pool . . .  

Perhaps people here need to think about their posts and reactions to same.  Some person comes on and criticizes the coaching in the last WBB game, and the person is immediately dubbed a "troll" by one of the most prolific posters here, to much general acclaim.  I didn't see the L as a coaching issue - more just the team as a whole didn't play well, and the coach was (correctly, imo) looking for something that might work offensively.  But at the same time, I don't automatically assume any poster criticizing the coaching in that game is a troll.

And the notion that the WBB posts have been unduly critical in these parts is . . . curious.  I just re-read the entire UConn thread (11 pages of it).  And while there were some posts expressing frustration (one poster used "anger"), the majority were either outright "thanks for a great run" or remarkably analytical in what went wrong (O out of synch, not getting ball inside enough, missed FTs and treys, etc.).  And one poster even criticized the negativity of the WBB threads, while at the same time admitting to not having watched the game.  (C'mon now . . . ).

Echo chambers can "turn people away," too.  Just ask garvin.

But okay . . . you all win.

Now back to your regularly scheduling programming . . .

[BostonCard]

Teejers,
I’m not bothered by your posts. At this point, I know your schtick, and I read your posts when I’m in the mood for it, and skip them
when I’m not. Notwithstanding what 2006alum said, there is no rule against speculating about why someone is leaving nor is there a rule about criticizing coaches and it is easy enough not to read posts from people who “pee in the pool”. My post was simply a response to your whinging about apparently being singled out for your opinions, and my response was that mostly, the response is to you being a jerk about it all. You basically have two choices: you can continue to post being all edgy and continue to stir the pot, as is your right, but you should be prepared for people to push back at it and accept that it will happen, or you can moderate your tone, approach this board with a bit more humility, and maybe get a better reception. I’m not the tone police, so I’m not going to tell you that you have to pick one, but I am telling you how it is.

As for Jana van Gytenbeek, I don’t claim to have an inking into her decision. Playing time might be a reason, for all I know (though with Brown leaving, JvG would be the only returning point guard on the team, I believe). It could be that there is conflict with the staff. Although I don’t know enough  to point to a specific individual as having a conflict with the coaches, I can stipulate that someone, at some point in time, likely had a personal conflict with one of the coaches, because that sort of thing is inevitable. Maybe she’s homesick. Maybe she is in academic or disciplinary trouble. Maybe she had a family emergency. I honestly don’t know, and I’m willing to assume neither something benign nor something malignant is the cause, since in this case, the news came unexpectedly and suddenly (but that may not have been the case in JvG’s mind).

BC

[BostonCard]

Teejers,
I’m not bothered by your posts. At this point, I know your schtick, and I read your posts when I’m in the mood for it, and skip them
when I’m not. Notwithstanding what 2006alum said, there is no rule against speculating about why someone is leaving nor is there a rule about criticizing coaches and it is easy enough not to read posts from people who “pee in the pool”. My post was simply a response to your whinging about apparently being singled out for your opinions, and my response was that mostly, the response is to you being a jerk about it all. You basically have two choices: you can continue to post being all edgy and continue to stir the pot, as is your right, but you should be prepared for people to push back at it and accept that it will happen, or you can moderate your tone, approach this board with a bit more humility, and maybe get a better reception. I’m not the tone police, so I’m not going to tell you that you have to pick one, but I am telling you how it is.

As for Jana van Gytenbeek, I don’t claim to have an inking into her decision. Playing time might be a reason, for all I know (though with Brown leaving, JvG would be the only returning point guard on the team, I believe). It could be that there is conflict with the staff. Although I don’t know enough  to point to a specific individual as having a conflict with the coaches, I can stipulate that someone, at some point in time, likely had a personal conflict with one of the coaches, because that sort of thing is inevitable. Maybe she’s homesick. Maybe she is in academic or disciplinary trouble. Maybe she had a family emergency. I honestly don’t know, and I’m willing to assume neither something benign nor something malignant is the cause, since in this case, the news came unexpectedly and suddenly (but that may not have been the case in JvG’s mind).

BC

[2006alum]

Yes, and just to reiterate, I'm not saying there's any rule, and I'm certainly not enforcing one. I'm (mostly) speaking as a fellow poster who simply found the volume of second guessing our coaches, criticizing our players, and speculating about who might leave the team to be out of whack with our level of success. 

All that said, when multiple people reach out to me, I do tend to take notice because generally speaking, we want this to be a place where everyone enjoys themselves - you included. And we can all probably work to moderate our tone a bit, first and foremost me. =)

[2006alum]

Yes, and just to reiterate, I'm not saying there's any rule, and I'm certainly not enforcing one. I'm (mostly) speaking as a fellow poster who simply found the volume of second guessing our coaches, criticizing our players, and speculating about who might leave the team to be out of whack with our level of success. 

All that said, when multiple people reach out to me, I do tend to take notice because generally speaking, we want this to be a place where everyone enjoys themselves - you included. And we can all probably work to moderate our tone a bit, first and foremost me. =)

[joemontes]

So with JVG moving on to other pastures, Stanford's 2022-2023 roster looks like this:

C - Lauren BETTS / 6'7
F - Ashten PRECHTEL / 6'5
F - Cameron BRINK / 6'4
F - Brooke DEMETRE / 6'3
F - Kiki IRIAFEN / 6'2
F - Fran BELIBI / 6'1

F/G - Haley JONES / 6'1

G - Elena BOSGANA / 6'2 
G - Hannah JUMP / 6'0
G - Agnes EMMA-NNOPU / 5'11
G - Jzaniya HARRIEL / 5'10
G - Indya NIVAR / 5'9
G - Talana LEPOLO / 5'7


At this point, it's pretty clear that PG by committee will again be used, consisting of Haley JONES and a collection of promising collegiate neophytes in HARRIEL, NIVAR and LEPOLO.  We can pretty much surmise that Stanford is in a much worse PG situation to begin this year than at the start of last year. Thus, a BIG TIME MUST to get a proven PG from the transfer portal.

Then, they also lose their #2, #3, #4 and #5 3-point shooters based on 3-pts made/game. Thus, a BIG TIME MUST to get a proven 3-point shotmaker from the transfer portal.

[joemontes]

So with JVG moving on to other pastures, Stanford's 2022-2023 roster looks like this:

C - Lauren BETTS / 6'7
F - Ashten PRECHTEL / 6'5
F - Cameron BRINK / 6'4
F - Brooke DEMETRE / 6'3
F - Kiki IRIAFEN / 6'2
F - Fran BELIBI / 6'1

F/G - Haley JONES / 6'1

G - Elena BOSGANA / 6'2 
G - Hannah JUMP / 6'0
G - Agnes EMMA-NNOPU / 5'11
G - Jzaniya HARRIEL / 5'10
G - Indya NIVAR / 5'9
G - Talana LEPOLO / 5'7


At this point, it's pretty clear that PG by committee will again be used, consisting of Haley JONES and a collection of promising collegiate neophytes in HARRIEL, NIVAR and LEPOLO.  We can pretty much surmise that Stanford is in a much worse PG situation to begin this year than at the start of last year. Thus, a BIG TIME MUST to get a proven PG from the transfer portal.

Then, they also lose their #2, #3, #4 and #5 3-point shooters based on 3-pts made/game. Thus, a BIG TIME MUST to get a proven 3-point shotmaker from the transfer portal.

[BostonCard]

Bear in mind that we cannot approach the transfer portal the way other schools can.  A transfer would have to apply and get accepted by a graduate program, so swooping in and picking up a transfer at the last minute is unlikely.

With any luck, the coaching staff anticipated the possibility of losing someone at a critical position and laid the groundwork to take a transfer, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.  My expected number of transfers is 0.

BC

[BostonCard]

Bear in mind that we cannot approach the transfer portal the way other schools can.  A transfer would have to apply and get accepted by a graduate program, so swooping in and picking up a transfer at the last minute is unlikely.

With any luck, the coaching staff anticipated the possibility of losing someone at a critical position and laid the groundwork to take a transfer, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.  My expected number of transfers is 0.

BC

[qwerty49]

As ever, as Haley goes, so do we.  I finally looked up Haley's FT %age the last three years (62%, 72%, 82%) and she's obviously worked on that part of her game.

So if you were making the decisions, what would you have her work on the most this offseason?  Ball-handling? 3-pt shot? Other?  A week ago I would have said 3-pt shot, but now it seems increasingly likely she will have a big role in bringing the ball up court (like Nicole Powell, maybe?).

Tara will undoubtedly experiment in going big at one point -- with Betts and Brink on the court, I wonder if she would seriously consider Prechtel at the 3?

[qwerty49]

As ever, as Haley goes, so do we.  I finally looked up Haley's FT %age the last three years (62%, 72%, 82%) and she's obviously worked on that part of her game.

So if you were making the decisions, what would you have her work on the most this offseason?  Ball-handling? 3-pt shot? Other?  A week ago I would have said 3-pt shot, but now it seems increasingly likely she will have a big role in bringing the ball up court (like Nicole Powell, maybe?).

Tara will undoubtedly experiment in going big at one point -- with Betts and Brink on the court, I wonder if she would seriously consider Prechtel at the 3?

[CardinalWBBFan]

I think there's a strong possibility that Lepolo will be very much ready to go. I've seen her play with the Cal Stars quite a few times and I'm not sure you'll find a more pure point guard than Talana Lepolo. I was always impressed with her ability to run her team and dictate the pace of the game.

[CardinalWBBFan]

I think there's a strong possibility that Lepolo will be very much ready to go. I've seen her play with the Cal Stars quite a few times and I'm not sure you'll find a more pure point guard than Talana Lepolo. I was always impressed with her ability to run her team and dictate the pace of the game.

[Card10Fan]

So with JVG moving on to other pastures, Stanford's 2022-2023 roster looks like this:

C - Lauren BETTS / 6'7
F - Ashten PRECHTEL / 6'5
F - Cameron BRINK / 6'4
F - Brooke DEMETRE / 6'3
F - Kiki IRIAFEN / 6'2
F - Fran BELIBI / 6'1

F/G - Haley JONES / 6'1

G - Elena BOSGANA / 6'2 
G - Hannah JUMP / 6'0
G - Agnes EMMA-NNOPU / 5'11
G - Jzaniya HARRIEL / 5'10
G - Indya NIVAR / 5'9
G - Talana LEPOLO / 5'7


At this point, it's pretty clear that PG by committee will again be used, consisting of Haley JONES and a collection of promising collegiate neophytes in HARRIEL, NIVAR and LEPOLO.  We can pretty much surmise that Stanford is in a much worse PG situation to begin this year than at the start of last year. Thus, a BIG TIME MUST to get a proven PG from the transfer portal.

Then, they also lose their #2, #3, #4 and #5 3-point shooters based on 3-pts made/game. Thus, a BIG TIME MUST to get a proven 3-point shotmaker from the transfer portal.

I agree with your take. I hope we find someone in the portal to help fill our team needs which you highlighted. Wow, our current guards are inexperienced and not deep. This is another reason why our misses on elite guards the past few recruiting cycles was critical. We have some of the top/best post players/forwards of any team in the country but have been unable to effectively recruit elite guards.

Lepolo could start as a freshman as we may have no other choice. It's happened before with Orrange I believe? Not ideal by any means.

Orrange was a top 20 recruit out of HS, Wiggins a top 5. Leopolo just slid into the top 100 with the last recruiting update so take that for what it’s worth. She’s not a top 10-15 recruit in her class. Kiki Rice on the other hand would start as a freshman no doubt.

[Card10Fan]

So with JVG moving on to other pastures, Stanford's 2022-2023 roster looks like this:

C - Lauren BETTS / 6'7
F - Ashten PRECHTEL / 6'5
F - Cameron BRINK / 6'4
F - Brooke DEMETRE / 6'3
F - Kiki IRIAFEN / 6'2
F - Fran BELIBI / 6'1

F/G - Haley JONES / 6'1

G - Elena BOSGANA / 6'2 
G - Hannah JUMP / 6'0
G - Agnes EMMA-NNOPU / 5'11
G - Jzaniya HARRIEL / 5'10
G - Indya NIVAR / 5'9
G - Talana LEPOLO / 5'7


At this point, it's pretty clear that PG by committee will again be used, consisting of Haley JONES and a collection of promising collegiate neophytes in HARRIEL, NIVAR and LEPOLO.  We can pretty much surmise that Stanford is in a much worse PG situation to begin this year than at the start of last year. Thus, a BIG TIME MUST to get a proven PG from the transfer portal.

Then, they also lose their #2, #3, #4 and #5 3-point shooters based on 3-pts made/game. Thus, a BIG TIME MUST to get a proven 3-point shotmaker from the transfer portal.

I agree with your take. I hope we find someone in the portal to help fill our team needs which you highlighted. Wow, our current guards are inexperienced and not deep. This is another reason why our misses on elite guards the past few recruiting cycles was critical. We have some of the top/best post players/forwards of any team in the country but have been unable to effectively recruit elite guards.

Lepolo could start as a freshman as we may have no other choice. It's happened before with Orrange I believe? Not ideal by any means.

Orrange was a top 20 recruit out of HS, Wiggins a top 5. Leopolo just slid into the top 100 with the last recruiting update so take that for what it’s worth. She’s not a top 10-15 recruit in her class. Kiki Rice on the other hand would start as a freshman no doubt.

[jonnyss]

Lepolo could start as a freshman as we may have no other choice. It's happened before with Orrange I believe? Not ideal by any means.

jamila wideman, candice wiggins started at point as freshman and did quite well. as i recall, milena flores and susan king borchardt did, too.

[jonnyss]

Lepolo could start as a freshman as we may have no other choice. It's happened before with Orrange I believe? Not ideal by any means.

jamila wideman, candice wiggins started at point as freshman and did quite well. as i recall, milena flores and susan king borchardt did, too.

[joemontes]

As ever, as Haley goes, so do we.  I finally looked up Haley's FT %age the last three years (62%, 72%, 82%) and she's obviously worked on that part of her game.

So if you were making the decisions, what would you have her work on the most this offseason?  Ball-handling? 3-pt shot? Other?  A week ago I would have said 3-pt shot, but now it seems increasingly likely she will have a big role in bringing the ball up court (like Nicole Powell, maybe?).

Tara will undoubtedly experiment in going big at one point -- with Betts and Brink on the court, I wonder if she would seriously consider Prechtel at the 3?

I can see a BIG frontline combo of BETTS/BRINK/BELIBI with:
-  BETTS a 5 on offense and defense,
-  BRINK a wing on offense (since she can shoot from beyond the arc) and a 4 on defense,
-  BELIBI a 4 on offense and a wing on defense

as well as another BIG frontline combo of BRINK/PRECHTEL/BELIBI with:
-  BRINK a 4/5 on offense and a 4 on defense
-  PRECHTEL a wing on offense (since she can shoot the 3 in bunches) and a 5 on defense
-  BELIBI a 4/5 on offense and a wing on defense

[joemontes]

As ever, as Haley goes, so do we.  I finally looked up Haley's FT %age the last three years (62%, 72%, 82%) and she's obviously worked on that part of her game.

So if you were making the decisions, what would you have her work on the most this offseason?  Ball-handling? 3-pt shot? Other?  A week ago I would have said 3-pt shot, but now it seems increasingly likely she will have a big role in bringing the ball up court (like Nicole Powell, maybe?).

Tara will undoubtedly experiment in going big at one point -- with Betts and Brink on the court, I wonder if she would seriously consider Prechtel at the 3?

I can see a BIG frontline combo of BETTS/BRINK/BELIBI with:
-  BETTS a 5 on offense and defense,
-  BRINK a wing on offense (since she can shoot from beyond the arc) and a 4 on defense,
-  BELIBI a 4 on offense and a wing on defense

as well as another BIG frontline combo of BRINK/PRECHTEL/BELIBI with:
-  BRINK a 4/5 on offense and a 4 on defense
-  PRECHTEL a wing on offense (since she can shoot the 3 in bunches) and a 5 on defense
-  BELIBI a 4/5 on offense and a wing on defense

[spike5882]

So with JVG moving on to other pastures, Stanford's 2022-2023 roster looks like this:

C - Lauren BETTS / 6'7
F - Ashten PRECHTEL / 6'5
F - Cameron BRINK / 6'4
F - Brooke DEMETRE / 6'3
F - Kiki IRIAFEN / 6'2
F - Fran BELIBI / 6'1

F/G - Haley JONES / 6'1

G - Elena BOSGANA / 6'2 
G - Hannah JUMP / 6'0
G - Agnes EMMA-NNOPU / 5'11
G - Jzaniya HARRIEL / 5'10
G - Indya NIVAR / 5'9
G - Talana LEPOLO / 5'7


At this point, it's pretty clear that PG by committee will again be used, consisting of Haley JONES and a collection of promising collegiate neophytes in HARRIEL, NIVAR and LEPOLO.  We can pretty much surmise that Stanford is in a much worse PG situation to begin this year than at the start of last year. Thus, a BIG TIME MUST to get a proven PG from the transfer portal.

Then, they also lose their #2, #3, #4 and #5 3-point shooters based on 3-pts made/game. Thus, a BIG TIME MUST to get a proven 3-point shotmaker from the transfer portal.

I do not think we are actually in a worse situation than last year re: PG.  Definitely not a better situation.  But last year, we had lost our PG and we had none.  Lexie was not a PG and still isn't, though I do love her to death.  She always gave it her all and improved greatly, a but a PG she is not.  So, we start the season the same exact place we were last year.  However, we do have Lepolo coming in who is truly a PG.  She is not rated as high as others, but she is a PG.  Whether she can contribute right away, who knows.  But we are essentially exactly where we were last year wrt PG. Where we may be lacking is the defense that the Hulls and Wilson brought. That is going to be tough to replace.

[spike5882]

So with JVG moving on to other pastures, Stanford's 2022-2023 roster looks like this:

C - Lauren BETTS / 6'7
F - Ashten PRECHTEL / 6'5
F - Cameron BRINK / 6'4
F - Brooke DEMETRE / 6'3
F - Kiki IRIAFEN / 6'2
F - Fran BELIBI / 6'1

F/G - Haley JONES / 6'1

G - Elena BOSGANA / 6'2 
G - Hannah JUMP / 6'0
G - Agnes EMMA-NNOPU / 5'11
G - Jzaniya HARRIEL / 5'10
G - Indya NIVAR / 5'9
G - Talana LEPOLO / 5'7


At this point, it's pretty clear that PG by committee will again be used, consisting of Haley JONES and a collection of promising collegiate neophytes in HARRIEL, NIVAR and LEPOLO.  We can pretty much surmise that Stanford is in a much worse PG situation to begin this year than at the start of last year. Thus, a BIG TIME MUST to get a proven PG from the transfer portal.

Then, they also lose their #2, #3, #4 and #5 3-point shooters based on 3-pts made/game. Thus, a BIG TIME MUST to get a proven 3-point shotmaker from the transfer portal.

I do not think we are actually in a worse situation than last year re: PG.  Definitely not a better situation.  But last year, we had lost our PG and we had none.  Lexie was not a PG and still isn't, though I do love her to death.  She always gave it her all and improved greatly, a but a PG she is not.  So, we start the season the same exact place we were last year.  However, we do have Lepolo coming in who is truly a PG.  She is not rated as high as others, but she is a PG.  Whether she can contribute right away, who knows.  But we are essentially exactly where we were last year wrt PG. Where we may be lacking is the defense that the Hulls and Wilson brought. That is going to be tough to replace.