[2006alum]

I gather you were fortunate enough not to watch the 01/04 game against ASU and the 01/24 game against UCLA.  As low-scoring [and many would likely say, anemic] as the men's offense has been under Dawkins, I don't believe it has ever failed to score at least 40 points, while the women's team managed that feat TWICE [31 and 36, respectively] in less than 3 weeks.  And, of course, there was the meltdown against OSU and that rather ugly early home loss to Santa Clara.  You may place all of the blame for those outcomes on the players; I don't.  And, while I certainly acknowledge questionable coaching has contributed substantially to the men's late game struggles over the past few seasons, I don't believe it has been the sole cause [as I recall, for example, a number of instances where almost certain game-winning free throws were missed].  As a result, I think "zero reason to compare anything" is simply not supported by the facts.  But I do agree that it's a waste of time...

To me, here's the difference:

-UCLA killed us, absolutely killed us, with a zone defense. So what happened between that game and our game against Washington? Presumably, the coaches worked relentlessly on it, because when Washington came out and tried the same thing, we overcame them to the degree that, if memory serves, they actually abandoned it midway through the game.
-Early in the season, Erica was avoiding jump shots and back-to-the-basket plays. I haven't been able to watch many games, but based on 81alum's very thorough writeups, my sense is that she's greatly expanded her offensive repertoire. The same applies to Kaylee.
-Until recently, Marta has basically completely avoided shooting the ball. Last few games, she's not only driven to the basket for layups, but even hit a jump shot or two. This is extremely encouraging. And her Assist-to-Turnover ratio has gone from below 1.00 to well north of 2.00 in the last few games. When interviewed, she has repeatedly stated how much the coaches have been working with her on these things and how much she appreciates it.

Can the coaches get all the credit for this? No, of course not. Players naturally develop too. They get bigger, stronger, and more confident. But on the women's side, they're developing before their senior year, and in ways that are clearly the result of coaching as well as natural development. By contrast, part of my frustration with the men's team is that most players only really seem to "break out" their senior year, when it's kind of too little, too late (the latest examples of this are Nastic last year and Rosco this year). And the players who *do* come in very naturally gifted, such as Randle and Powell, don't really seem to grow, and kind of plateau early on. Even Chiney, who came in very gifted, was a demonstrably better player by senior year. Her freshman year she often fouled out and was a little spastic under the basket. By senior year, she was a reliable rebounding and scoring machine.

All of this, to me, is evidence that while Tara isn't the perfect coach all the time and is prone to mistakes (especially, IMHO, in who she gives playing time to), I feel like we do seem to make strides on fixable errors in ways that is very encouraging. I just don't see that happening on the men's side.

[2006alum]

I gather you were fortunate enough not to watch the 01/04 game against ASU and the 01/24 game against UCLA.  As low-scoring [and many would likely say, anemic] as the men's offense has been under Dawkins, I don't believe it has ever failed to score at least 40 points, while the women's team managed that feat TWICE [31 and 36, respectively] in less than 3 weeks.  And, of course, there was the meltdown against OSU and that rather ugly early home loss to Santa Clara.  You may place all of the blame for those outcomes on the players; I don't.  And, while I certainly acknowledge questionable coaching has contributed substantially to the men's late game struggles over the past few seasons, I don't believe it has been the sole cause [as I recall, for example, a number of instances where almost certain game-winning free throws were missed].  As a result, I think "zero reason to compare anything" is simply not supported by the facts.  But I do agree that it's a waste of time...

To me, here's the difference:

-UCLA killed us, absolutely killed us, with a zone defense. So what happened between that game and our game against Washington? Presumably, the coaches worked relentlessly on it, because when Washington came out and tried the same thing, we overcame them to the degree that, if memory serves, they actually abandoned it midway through the game.
-Early in the season, Erica was avoiding jump shots and back-to-the-basket plays. I haven't been able to watch many games, but based on 81alum's very thorough writeups, my sense is that she's greatly expanded her offensive repertoire. The same applies to Kaylee.
-Until recently, Marta has basically completely avoided shooting the ball. Last few games, she's not only driven to the basket for layups, but even hit a jump shot or two. This is extremely encouraging. And her Assist-to-Turnover ratio has gone from below 1.00 to well north of 2.00 in the last few games. When interviewed, she has repeatedly stated how much the coaches have been working with her on these things and how much she appreciates it.

Can the coaches get all the credit for this? No, of course not. Players naturally develop too. They get bigger, stronger, and more confident. But on the women's side, they're developing before their senior year, and in ways that are clearly the result of coaching as well as natural development. By contrast, part of my frustration with the men's team is that most players only really seem to "break out" their senior year, when it's kind of too little, too late (the latest examples of this are Nastic last year and Rosco this year). And the players who *do* come in very naturally gifted, such as Randle and Powell, don't really seem to grow, and kind of plateau early on. Even Chiney, who came in very gifted, was a demonstrably better player by senior year. Her freshman year she often fouled out and was a little spastic under the basket. By senior year, she was a reliable rebounding and scoring machine.

All of this, to me, is evidence that while Tara isn't the perfect coach all the time and is prone to mistakes (especially, IMHO, in who she gives playing time to), I feel like we do seem to make strides on fixable errors in ways that is very encouraging. I just don't see that happening on the men's side.