[76lsjumb]

1. Not remotely the same thing. Nunes and Hogan were out there during all the same dog-day practices, and everybody knew it.

2. I am not necessarily defending the proposition that it wouldn't have been "fair" to start Folkl over somebody who was there for all the practices and the non-conference games. But if some of the other players felt that way, Tara would have had to had to deal with it. Not starting Folkl, while giving her plenty of playing time, strikes me as a good way to do that.

3. In what way did this hurt the team? Folk's decision to play volleyball means that, essentially, she was only available for the conference portion of the basketball season. Stanford won the conference championship in all three years she was on the team, and lost a total of only six conference games. Even if some of those six losses can be definitively proven to be the result of Folkl not starting (count me dubious on that score), they were meaningless.

garvin -- Hey... I'm not looking to start WWIII over this.  In fact, I simply posted my thoughts in response to 81alum's question regarding the "backstory" on Folkl and women's b'ball, mostly to point out that the story told by that Stanford Professor was not solely a figment of that professor's imagination. 

Two more points and then I'm done:  Maybe I'm misinterpreting your point, but the argument about Kristin not being part of the early practices as a justification for starting and/or playing others who were just doesn't add up to me.  First, as noted, she was clearly involved in her own [i.e., volleyball] dog-day practices.  I would guess there were a number of players on the team --indeed, on most teams -- who worked very, very, very hard in praactices and didn't get to start [or, indeed, even play much] because there were other players on the team who were better.

Second,  I did not say [because I really don't remember at this point] that any of the losses directly resulted from the way Kristin was utilized in the games.  However, as folks on this Board are wont to do with respect to analyzing games all the time, I felt that there were games that we won in which the team would have been better served -- or, otherwise put, the victory would have been easier and/or the winning margin greater -- had Kristin been playing.  Indeed, on the men's side, one of the favorite Board sports this season has been criticizing Dawkins' substitution patterns, even in games we have won.

I'll just leave it at concurring with 81alum's most recent post [with only one small quibble -- would put a "very" in front of good.]  Now I'm off to see the President's brother-in-law...

[76lsjumb]

1. Not remotely the same thing. Nunes and Hogan were out there during all the same dog-day practices, and everybody knew it.

2. I am not necessarily defending the proposition that it wouldn't have been "fair" to start Folkl over somebody who was there for all the practices and the non-conference games. But if some of the other players felt that way, Tara would have had to had to deal with it. Not starting Folkl, while giving her plenty of playing time, strikes me as a good way to do that.

3. In what way did this hurt the team? Folk's decision to play volleyball means that, essentially, she was only available for the conference portion of the basketball season. Stanford won the conference championship in all three years she was on the team, and lost a total of only six conference games. Even if some of those six losses can be definitively proven to be the result of Folkl not starting (count me dubious on that score), they were meaningless.

garvin -- Hey... I'm not looking to start WWIII over this.  In fact, I simply posted my thoughts in response to 81alum's question regarding the "backstory" on Folkl and women's b'ball, mostly to point out that the story told by that Stanford Professor was not solely a figment of that professor's imagination. 

Two more points and then I'm done:  Maybe I'm misinterpreting your point, but the argument about Kristin not being part of the early practices as a justification for starting and/or playing others who were just doesn't add up to me.  First, as noted, she was clearly involved in her own [i.e., volleyball] dog-day practices.  I would guess there were a number of players on the team --indeed, on most teams -- who worked very, very, very hard in praactices and didn't get to start [or, indeed, even play much] because there were other players on the team who were better.

Second,  I did not say [because I really don't remember at this point] that any of the losses directly resulted from the way Kristin was utilized in the games.  However, as folks on this Board are wont to do with respect to analyzing games all the time, I felt that there were games that we won in which the team would have been better served -- or, otherwise put, the victory would have been easier and/or the winning margin greater -- had Kristin been playing.  Indeed, on the men's side, one of the favorite Board sports this season has been criticizing Dawkins' substitution patterns, even in games we have won.

I'll just leave it at concurring with 81alum's most recent post [with only one small quibble -- would put a "very" in front of good.]  Now I'm off to see the President's brother-in-law...