[JJJ]

Many of the passes were ill-advised, in my opinion. I hope we’re not experimenting with some funky new “system” that looks sketchy at best. But the team is solid. And I hope Lacie and DiJonai heal soon!

[JJJ]

Many of the passes were ill-advised, in my opinion. I hope we’re not experimenting with some funky new “system” that looks sketchy at best. But the team is solid. And I hope Lacie and DiJonai heal soon!

[TheFarm07]

Before the game:

We learned the unfortunate news that Carrington and Dodson are out indefinitely, and that Lacie is now in a boot.   Carrington had the operation last summer and apparently it is acting up.  Dodson is healing very slowly and dealing with pain.  None the coaches ever offer anything solid on timetables--they claim that they themselves do not know--Stanford coaches have nothing to do with medical decisions. With Brewer injured all year (so far) that leaves us with 11 healthy players.

It's frustrating when injuries come out of the blue, especially during breaks. At least with Nadia's injury and the horrendous non-calls during the USC game, we all saw what happened. With some of our other injuries, one game they're fine and then the next one, they're out.

I also agree that when the shot clock is winding down and we need someone to create something, the two players I trust the most right now are Kiana and Haley with Lexie not too far behind. They can create their own shot and especially with Haley, she has the shooting prowess for the pull-up jumper as she showed during this game, but she also has the height and strength to drive it as well to the basket which gives her options depending on who's defending her.

A few of our turnovers came off of when we stole the ball from them and was trying to score on a fast break. I like the aggression in forcing the issue, but we need to work on timing a little more (some of the turnovers were over-passes) or pull the ball out and find a second opportunity, such as a trailing player left open on the perimeter.

On 3-pointers, I did not notice our overall shooting percentage as a team, but I am not surprised. We have been a pretty streaky long range shooting team for the last couple seasons. Either we are like the Warriors and are raining threes or we get so cold that it seems like the basket is only a couple inches wide. That's why having players like Haley, Kiana and Lexie who can shoot the midrange jumper or Fingall and Prechtel to shoot the elbow jumper is critical when opposing teams are clogging the lane or playing the zone to force us out.

[TheFarm07]

Before the game:

We learned the unfortunate news that Carrington and Dodson are out indefinitely, and that Lacie is now in a boot.   Carrington had the operation last summer and apparently it is acting up.  Dodson is healing very slowly and dealing with pain.  None the coaches ever offer anything solid on timetables--they claim that they themselves do not know--Stanford coaches have nothing to do with medical decisions. With Brewer injured all year (so far) that leaves us with 11 healthy players.

It's frustrating when injuries come out of the blue, especially during breaks. At least with Nadia's injury and the horrendous non-calls during the USC game, we all saw what happened. With some of our other injuries, one game they're fine and then the next one, they're out.

I also agree that when the shot clock is winding down and we need someone to create something, the two players I trust the most right now are Kiana and Haley with Lexie not too far behind. They can create their own shot and especially with Haley, she has the shooting prowess for the pull-up jumper as she showed during this game, but she also has the height and strength to drive it as well to the basket which gives her options depending on who's defending her.

A few of our turnovers came off of when we stole the ball from them and was trying to score on a fast break. I like the aggression in forcing the issue, but we need to work on timing a little more (some of the turnovers were over-passes) or pull the ball out and find a second opportunity, such as a trailing player left open on the perimeter.

On 3-pointers, I did not notice our overall shooting percentage as a team, but I am not surprised. We have been a pretty streaky long range shooting team for the last couple seasons. Either we are like the Warriors and are raining threes or we get so cold that it seems like the basket is only a couple inches wide. That's why having players like Haley, Kiana and Lexie who can shoot the midrange jumper or Fingall and Prechtel to shoot the elbow jumper is critical when opposing teams are clogging the lane or playing the zone to force us out.

[chimera]

what exactly is the difference between Sylvia Hatchell and Tara?  Aside from the fact that Hatchell has a more recent national championship that is.

I'm just saying

Here are a few differences:

Sylvia Hatchell ran a program with players who were part of an academic cheating scandal in which players got credit for  "directed reading" courses in which they did no work.

Sylvia Hatchell was fired for making racially insensitive remarks, and forcing players to play when injured.

Sylvia Hatchell made it to the final four 3 times, winning the championship once.  (Tara has been 12 times and won twice.)

Sylvia Hatchell did not have to contend with Stanford's sky-high admission standards.

I'm sure I could come up with a few more....

Agreed Hatchel has won a chip more recently than Tara.  So you have a smoking gun on Hatchel making kids play injured and data on Tara not doing the same thing (and maybe even worse)?  You may want to verify that before you cast aspersions.  Tara may be a more politically correct dinosaur than Hatchel, but I am struggling to elevate Tara over Hatchel.  Let's also factor in the positives about Stanford and the fact that most sane human beings would never transfer from Stanford (as opposed to UNC) because of the lifel0ng opportunities it will bring.

I think if you step back you will say "1992 was a LONG time ago"  Chips are chips and 30 years is 30 years.

What exactly is the point of your posts about Tara?  Tara and Sylvia Hatchell are completely different coaches in almost every respect.  If you want to complain about the coaching go for it but weird comparisons just confuse everyone.  Also, complaining works better when the team is not 9-0 and ranked #1 with a very young team, and two starters out (Carrington and Dodson) and a starter from last season who is a key reserve out (Lacie Hull).  But what do I know...

[chimera]

what exactly is the difference between Sylvia Hatchell and Tara?  Aside from the fact that Hatchell has a more recent national championship that is.

I'm just saying

Here are a few differences:

Sylvia Hatchell ran a program with players who were part of an academic cheating scandal in which players got credit for  "directed reading" courses in which they did no work.

Sylvia Hatchell was fired for making racially insensitive remarks, and forcing players to play when injured.

Sylvia Hatchell made it to the final four 3 times, winning the championship once.  (Tara has been 12 times and won twice.)

Sylvia Hatchell did not have to contend with Stanford's sky-high admission standards.

I'm sure I could come up with a few more....

Agreed Hatchel has won a chip more recently than Tara.  So you have a smoking gun on Hatchel making kids play injured and data on Tara not doing the same thing (and maybe even worse)?  You may want to verify that before you cast aspersions.  Tara may be a more politically correct dinosaur than Hatchel, but I am struggling to elevate Tara over Hatchel.  Let's also factor in the positives about Stanford and the fact that most sane human beings would never transfer from Stanford (as opposed to UNC) because of the lifel0ng opportunities it will bring.

I think if you step back you will say "1992 was a LONG time ago"  Chips are chips and 30 years is 30 years.

What exactly is the point of your posts about Tara?  Tara and Sylvia Hatchell are completely different coaches in almost every respect.  If you want to complain about the coaching go for it but weird comparisons just confuse everyone.  Also, complaining works better when the team is not 9-0 and ranked #1 with a very young team, and two starters out (Carrington and Dodson) and a starter from last season who is a key reserve out (Lacie Hull).  But what do I know...

[2006alum]

Martyup, I'm shamelessly borrowing from your playbook here, but:

what exactly is the difference between Sylvia Hatchell and Tara?  Aside from the fact that Hatchell has a more recent national championship that is.

I'm just saying

Here are a few differences:

Sylvia Hatchell ran a program with players who were part of an academic cheating scandal in which players got credit for  "directed reading" courses in which they did no work.

Sylvia Hatchell was fired for making racially insensitive remarks, and forcing players to play when injured.

Sylvia Hatchell made it to the final four 3 times, winning the championship once.  (Tara has been 12 times and won twice.)

Sylvia Hatchell did not have to contend with Stanford's sky-high admission standards.

I'm sure I could come up with a few more....

Agreed Hatchel has won a chip more recently than Tara.  So you have a smoking gun on Hatchel making kids play injured and data on Tara not doing the same thing (and maybe even worse)?  You may want to verify that before you cast aspersions.  Tara may be a more politically correct dinosaur than Hatchel, but I am struggling to elevate Tara over Hatchel.  Let's also factor in the positives about Stanford and the fact that most sane human beings would never transfer from Stanford (as opposed to UNC) because of the lifel0ng opportunities it will bring.

I think if you step back you will say "1992 was a LONG time ago"  Chips are chips and 30 years is 30 years.

---

Caught most of the game and mostly loved what I saw. I feel like Lexie and Wilson were pushing the pace, and when neither was on the court our ball passing got somewhat lazy. I felt like we handled their half-court press defense really well, but then eased up on we got the ball to the key and weren't executing properly. Some of that is two weeks off, some almost felt a bit like "well, we have this game in hand, I can ease up." I'm still waiting for us to play the 4th quarter of not-close games like it's UConn for a championship. To me, the difference between the Baylors and South Carolinas of the world in recent years is that when those teams are good (like both are this year), they play 4 complete quarters. I feel like we eased up on the gas and got sloppy for chunks of the end. 

All that said, 7 steals from Lexie in the first half has to be a program record. She's like a cross between gumby (with the long, flexible limbs), the energy bunny (relentlessness), and quicksilver (somehow seemingly everywhere at once). Haley Jones is funny because she almost seems better at executing impressive trick plays than really basic bounce passes. It almost feels like she loses focus when it seems easy. 

I agree that Williams has seemed a little off all season. It's hard to tell, though, because she usually plays her best in second halves of close games, and honestly, we've had very few so far this season. And I feel like she really feeds off of Carrington's energy, and her absence has probably affected that. 

Speaking of which... it really does seem like we have more chronic injuries than any other team in women's college basketball. I'd like to know if we changed shoe brands, stretching and warmup routines, or some other major common aspect to our gear or practices/warmups. It just seems too coincidental to have had so many players in boots over the past few seasons...

[2006alum]

Martyup, I'm shamelessly borrowing from your playbook here, but:

what exactly is the difference between Sylvia Hatchell and Tara?  Aside from the fact that Hatchell has a more recent national championship that is.

I'm just saying

Here are a few differences:

Sylvia Hatchell ran a program with players who were part of an academic cheating scandal in which players got credit for  "directed reading" courses in which they did no work.

Sylvia Hatchell was fired for making racially insensitive remarks, and forcing players to play when injured.

Sylvia Hatchell made it to the final four 3 times, winning the championship once.  (Tara has been 12 times and won twice.)

Sylvia Hatchell did not have to contend with Stanford's sky-high admission standards.

I'm sure I could come up with a few more....

Agreed Hatchel has won a chip more recently than Tara.  So you have a smoking gun on Hatchel making kids play injured and data on Tara not doing the same thing (and maybe even worse)?  You may want to verify that before you cast aspersions.  Tara may be a more politically correct dinosaur than Hatchel, but I am struggling to elevate Tara over Hatchel.  Let's also factor in the positives about Stanford and the fact that most sane human beings would never transfer from Stanford (as opposed to UNC) because of the lifel0ng opportunities it will bring.

I think if you step back you will say "1992 was a LONG time ago"  Chips are chips and 30 years is 30 years.

---

Caught most of the game and mostly loved what I saw. I feel like Lexie and Wilson were pushing the pace, and when neither was on the court our ball passing got somewhat lazy. I felt like we handled their half-court press defense really well, but then eased up on we got the ball to the key and weren't executing properly. Some of that is two weeks off, some almost felt a bit like "well, we have this game in hand, I can ease up." I'm still waiting for us to play the 4th quarter of not-close games like it's UConn for a championship. To me, the difference between the Baylors and South Carolinas of the world in recent years is that when those teams are good (like both are this year), they play 4 complete quarters. I feel like we eased up on the gas and got sloppy for chunks of the end. 

All that said, 7 steals from Lexie in the first half has to be a program record. She's like a cross between gumby (with the long, flexible limbs), the energy bunny (relentlessness), and quicksilver (somehow seemingly everywhere at once). Haley Jones is funny because she almost seems better at executing impressive trick plays than really basic bounce passes. It almost feels like she loses focus when it seems easy. 

I agree that Williams has seemed a little off all season. It's hard to tell, though, because she usually plays her best in second halves of close games, and honestly, we've had very few so far this season. And I feel like she really feeds off of Carrington's energy, and her absence has probably affected that. 

Speaking of which... it really does seem like we have more chronic injuries than any other team in women's college basketball. I'd like to know if we changed shoe brands, stretching and warmup routines, or some other major common aspect to our gear or practices/warmups. It just seems too coincidental to have had so many players in boots over the past few seasons...

[philitup371@gmail.com]

what exactly is the difference between Sylvia Hatchell and Tara?  Aside from the fact that Hatchell has a more recent national championship that is.

I'm just saying

Here are a few differences:

Sylvia Hatchell ran a program with players who were part of an academic cheating scandal in which players got credit for  "directed reading" courses in which they did no work.

Sylvia Hatchell was fired for making racially insensitive remarks, and forcing players to play when injured.

Sylvia Hatchell made it to the final four 3 times, winning the championship once.  (Tara has been 12 times and won twice.)

Sylvia Hatchell did not have to contend with Stanford's sky-high admission standards.

I'm sure I could come up with a few more....

Agreed Hatchel has won a chip more recently than Tara.  So you have a smoking gun on Hatchel making kids play injured and data on Tara not doing the same thing (and maybe even worse)?  You may want to verify that before you cast aspersions.  Tara may be a more politically correct dinosaur than Hatchel, but I am struggling to elevate Tara over Hatchel.  Let's also factor in the positives about Stanford and the fact that most sane human beings would never transfer from Stanford (as opposed to UNC) because of the lifel0ng opportunities it will bring.

I think if you step back you will say "1992 was a LONG time ago"  Chips are chips and 30 years is 30 years.

What exactly is the point of your posts about Tara?  Tara and Sylvia Hatchell are completely different coaches in almost every respect.  If you want to complain about the coaching go for it but weird comparisons just confuse everyone.  Also, complaining works better when the team is not 9-0 and ranked #1 with a very young team, and two starters out (Carrington and Dodson) and a starter from last season who is a key reserve out (Lacie Hull).  But what do I know...

I guess my point is that Hatchel quit coaching in shame and Tara is a legend, but if you really examine it (aside from the allegedly racially insensitive comments, which is a legitimate issue) they are very similar in coaching resumes.  I am not trolling or trying to hate on the program because it is a wonderful program and from what I can tell from the distance, Tara is a fantastic coach and person.  

I am just posing a question.

[philitup371@gmail.com]

what exactly is the difference between Sylvia Hatchell and Tara?  Aside from the fact that Hatchell has a more recent national championship that is.

I'm just saying

Here are a few differences:

Sylvia Hatchell ran a program with players who were part of an academic cheating scandal in which players got credit for  "directed reading" courses in which they did no work.

Sylvia Hatchell was fired for making racially insensitive remarks, and forcing players to play when injured.

Sylvia Hatchell made it to the final four 3 times, winning the championship once.  (Tara has been 12 times and won twice.)

Sylvia Hatchell did not have to contend with Stanford's sky-high admission standards.

I'm sure I could come up with a few more....

Agreed Hatchel has won a chip more recently than Tara.  So you have a smoking gun on Hatchel making kids play injured and data on Tara not doing the same thing (and maybe even worse)?  You may want to verify that before you cast aspersions.  Tara may be a more politically correct dinosaur than Hatchel, but I am struggling to elevate Tara over Hatchel.  Let's also factor in the positives about Stanford and the fact that most sane human beings would never transfer from Stanford (as opposed to UNC) because of the lifel0ng opportunities it will bring.

I think if you step back you will say "1992 was a LONG time ago"  Chips are chips and 30 years is 30 years.

What exactly is the point of your posts about Tara?  Tara and Sylvia Hatchell are completely different coaches in almost every respect.  If you want to complain about the coaching go for it but weird comparisons just confuse everyone.  Also, complaining works better when the team is not 9-0 and ranked #1 with a very young team, and two starters out (Carrington and Dodson) and a starter from last season who is a key reserve out (Lacie Hull).  But what do I know...

I guess my point is that Hatchel quit coaching in shame and Tara is a legend, but if you really examine it (aside from the allegedly racially insensitive comments, which is a legitimate issue) they are very similar in coaching resumes.  I am not trolling or trying to hate on the program because it is a wonderful program and from what I can tell from the distance, Tara is a fantastic coach and person.  

I am just posing a question.

[2006alum]

BTW: Post-tOSU game, our four frosh are among our top seven scorers, which includes Carrington, who's been out for our past 4 games. Subtract her, and 4 of our top 6 scorers are frosh. I can't remember ever seeing that from a Stanford team. Truly remarkable contributions from our young guns.

[2006alum]

BTW: Post-tOSU game, our four frosh are among our top seven scorers, which includes Carrington, who's been out for our past 4 games. Subtract her, and 4 of our top 6 scorers are frosh. I can't remember ever seeing that from a Stanford team. Truly remarkable contributions from our young guns.

[TheWildJacko]

Re: Hatchell

Yeah, but to what end? There's no benefit to comparing. You either put down one coach or the other, or say they're both the same, and none of those outcomes are particularly interesting or valuable.

And why specifically Hatchell? Could have picked any other coach with one championship.

And also, good of you to acknowledge that it's you posing the question, instead of how you originally phrased it which was basically, "Since you guys brought up the subject of championships, let's talk about Sylvia Hatchell"—which like, MAYBE is kind of related in a VERY tangential way? But not really.

[TheWildJacko]

Re: Hatchell

Yeah, but to what end? There's no benefit to comparing. You either put down one coach or the other, or say they're both the same, and none of those outcomes are particularly interesting or valuable.

And why specifically Hatchell? Could have picked any other coach with one championship.

And also, good of you to acknowledge that it's you posing the question, instead of how you originally phrased it which was basically, "Since you guys brought up the subject of championships, let's talk about Sylvia Hatchell"—which like, MAYBE is kind of related in a VERY tangential way? But not really.

[philitup371@gmail.com]

Re: Hatchell

Yeah, but to what end? There's no benefit to comparing. You either put down one coach or the other, or say they're both the same, and none of those outcomes are particularly interesting or valuable.

And why specifically Hatchell? Could have picked any other coach with one championship.

And also, good of you to acknowledge that it's you posing the question, instead of how you originally phrased it which was basically, "Since you guys brought up the subject of championships, let's talk about Sylvia Hatchell"—which like, MAYBE is kind of related in a VERY tangential way? But not really.

No end at all.  Just asking a thought provoking (and clearly for many here) and emotionally charged question.  I hear the negativity toward David Shaw on this board.  Johnny Dawkins was crucified.  Why can we not opine as to the actual results of Tara?  I applaud my courage for raising this at a time when Stanford is ranked #1.  This is a Stanford board.  I must confess that I expected more of a factual and intelligent response to my questions than " you must have an agenda" I root for the Card and I hope this year bucks the trend and that we demand more than 2 post season wins against inferior competition at home in the NCAA's.  We can all agree that is a pretty low bar.  Sweet 16 in men's versus women's is a completely different animal (and accomplishment).



For the record championships never came up and did not spark this dialogue.  Not sure how that became your narrative.

[philitup371@gmail.com]

Re: Hatchell

Yeah, but to what end? There's no benefit to comparing. You either put down one coach or the other, or say they're both the same, and none of those outcomes are particularly interesting or valuable.

And why specifically Hatchell? Could have picked any other coach with one championship.

And also, good of you to acknowledge that it's you posing the question, instead of how you originally phrased it which was basically, "Since you guys brought up the subject of championships, let's talk about Sylvia Hatchell"—which like, MAYBE is kind of related in a VERY tangential way? But not really.

No end at all.  Just asking a thought provoking (and clearly for many here) and emotionally charged question.  I hear the negativity toward David Shaw on this board.  Johnny Dawkins was crucified.  Why can we not opine as to the actual results of Tara?  I applaud my courage for raising this at a time when Stanford is ranked #1.  This is a Stanford board.  I must confess that I expected more of a factual and intelligent response to my questions than " you must have an agenda" I root for the Card and I hope this year bucks the trend and that we demand more than 2 post season wins against inferior competition at home in the NCAA's.  We can all agree that is a pretty low bar.  Sweet 16 in men's versus women's is a completely different animal (and accomplishment).



For the record championships never came up and did not spark this dialogue.  Not sure how that became your narrative.

[2006alum]

 I applaud my courage for raising this 

HAHAHA. I think you could have just stopped here. Please continue to pat yourself on the back for your brave and courageous contribution(s) to this anonymous online messaging board. I myself am immensely enjoying this first-class troll job.

[2006alum]

 I applaud my courage for raising this 

HAHAHA. I think you could have just stopped here. Please continue to pat yourself on the back for your brave and courageous contribution(s) to this anonymous online messaging board. I myself am immensely enjoying this first-class troll job.

[81alum]

So you have a smoking gun on Hatchel making kids play injured and data on Tara not doing the same thing (and maybe even worse)?  You may want to verify that before you cast aspersions.

Those are the stated reasons Hatchel was was fired.  All of my "aspersions" can be found in the New York Times.  And just ask Jamie Carey if Tara is one to permit injured players to play. 

But I am not going to pursue this further.  I just thought the comparison was singularly inept.  If the only comparison intended was to note that Hatchell had a championship 25 years ago and Tara had one 27 years ago, then you are correct.

[81alum]

So you have a smoking gun on Hatchel making kids play injured and data on Tara not doing the same thing (and maybe even worse)?  You may want to verify that before you cast aspersions.

Those are the stated reasons Hatchel was was fired.  All of my "aspersions" can be found in the New York Times.  And just ask Jamie Carey if Tara is one to permit injured players to play. 

But I am not going to pursue this further.  I just thought the comparison was singularly inept.  If the only comparison intended was to note that Hatchell had a championship 25 years ago and Tara had one 27 years ago, then you are correct.

[philitup371@gmail.com]

 I applaud my courage for raising this 

HAHAHA. I think you could have just stopped here. Please continue to pat yourself on the back for your generous and enlightening contribution(s) to our board. I myself am immensely enjoying this first-class troll job.

Cool I was hoping my shameless self promotion would not go unnoticed.  Glad I was able to illicit a response from you.  Not trolling I assure you.  My intent was not to offend you or anyone else.  I said my piece and we can just move on.  I hope to contribute to this board in a way that is more acceptable to you and others going forward. 
Go Card!

[philitup371@gmail.com]

 I applaud my courage for raising this 

HAHAHA. I think you could have just stopped here. Please continue to pat yourself on the back for your generous and enlightening contribution(s) to our board. I myself am immensely enjoying this first-class troll job.

Cool I was hoping my shameless self promotion would not go unnoticed.  Glad I was able to illicit a response from you.  Not trolling I assure you.  My intent was not to offend you or anyone else.  I said my piece and we can just move on.  I hope to contribute to this board in a way that is more acceptable to you and others going forward. 
Go Card!

[TheWildJacko]

Re: Hatchell

Yeah, but to what end? There's no benefit to comparing. You either put down one coach or the other, or say they're both the same, and none of those outcomes are particularly interesting or valuable.

And why specifically Hatchell? Could have picked any other coach with one championship.

And also, good of you to acknowledge that it's you posing the question, instead of how you originally phrased it which was basically, "Since you guys brought up the subject of championships, let's talk about Sylvia Hatchell"—which like, MAYBE is kind of related in a VERY tangential way? But not really.

No end at all.  Just asking a thought provoking (and clearly for many here) and emotionally charged question.  I hear the negativity toward David Shaw on this board.  Johnny Dawkins was crucified.  Why can we not opine as to the actual results of Tara?  I applaud my courage for raising this at a time when Stanford is ranked #1.  This is a Stanford board.  I must confess that I expected more of a factual and intelligent response to my questions than " you must have an agenda" I root for the Card and I hope this year bucks the trend and that we demand more than 2 post season wins against inferior competition at home in the NCAA's.  We can all agree that is a pretty low bar.  Sweet 16 in men's versus women's is a completely different animal (and accomplishment).



For the record championships never came up and did not spark this dialogue.  Not sure how that became your narrative.

"Sounds like an approach that hasn't won a national championship in almost 30 years!!!!!

While we are on the subject (and BobK I say this with super respect for your contributions on this board and to the program overall), what exactly is the difference between Sylvia Hatchell and Tara?"

Literally you brought the subject up. It's your narrative, not mine.

[TheWildJacko]

Re: Hatchell

Yeah, but to what end? There's no benefit to comparing. You either put down one coach or the other, or say they're both the same, and none of those outcomes are particularly interesting or valuable.

And why specifically Hatchell? Could have picked any other coach with one championship.

And also, good of you to acknowledge that it's you posing the question, instead of how you originally phrased it which was basically, "Since you guys brought up the subject of championships, let's talk about Sylvia Hatchell"—which like, MAYBE is kind of related in a VERY tangential way? But not really.

No end at all.  Just asking a thought provoking (and clearly for many here) and emotionally charged question.  I hear the negativity toward David Shaw on this board.  Johnny Dawkins was crucified.  Why can we not opine as to the actual results of Tara?  I applaud my courage for raising this at a time when Stanford is ranked #1.  This is a Stanford board.  I must confess that I expected more of a factual and intelligent response to my questions than " you must have an agenda" I root for the Card and I hope this year bucks the trend and that we demand more than 2 post season wins against inferior competition at home in the NCAA's.  We can all agree that is a pretty low bar.  Sweet 16 in men's versus women's is a completely different animal (and accomplishment).



For the record championships never came up and did not spark this dialogue.  Not sure how that became your narrative.

"Sounds like an approach that hasn't won a national championship in almost 30 years!!!!!

While we are on the subject (and BobK I say this with super respect for your contributions on this board and to the program overall), what exactly is the difference between Sylvia Hatchell and Tara?"

Literally you brought the subject up. It's your narrative, not mine.

[philitup371@gmail.com]

Re: Hatchell

Yeah, but to what end? There's no benefit to comparing. You either put down one coach or the other, or say they're both the same, and none of those outcomes are particularly interesting or valuable.

And why specifically Hatchell? Could have picked any other coach with one championship.

uh where exactly did I say "since you guys brought up the subject of championships"??????

Your narrative.  I did bring up the fact that Tara has not won a chip in almost 3 decades.  Guilty as charged.

And also, good of you to acknowledge that it's you posing the question, instead of how you originally phrased it which was basically, "Since you guys brought up the subject of championships, let's talk about Sylvia Hatchell"—which like, MAYBE is kind of related in a VERY tangential way? But not really.

No end at all.  Just asking a thought provoking (and clearly for many here) and emotionally charged question.  I hear the negativity toward David Shaw on this board.  Johnny Dawkins was crucified.  Why can we not opine as to the actual results of Tara?  I applaud my courage for raising this at a time when Stanford is ranked #1.  This is a Stanford board.  I must confess that I expected more of a factual and intelligent response to my questions than " you must have an agenda" I root for the Card and I hope this year bucks the trend and that we demand more than 2 post season wins against inferior competition at home in the NCAA's.  We can all agree that is a pretty low bar.  Sweet 16 in men's versus women's is a completely different animal (and accomplishment).



For the record championships never came up and did not spark this dialogue.  Not sure how that became your narrative.

"Sounds like an approach that hasn't won a national championship in almost 30 years!!!!!

While we are on the subject (and BobK I say this with super respect for your contributions on this board and to the program overall), what exactly is the difference between Sylvia Hatchell and Tara?"

Literally you brought the subject up. It's your narrative, not mine.

---

Re: Hatchell

Yeah, but to what end? There's no benefit to comparing. You either put down one coach or the other, or say they're both the same, and none of those outcomes are particularly interesting or valuable.

And why specifically Hatchell? Could have picked any other coach with one championship.

uh where exactly did I say "since you guys brought up the subject of championships"??????

Your narrative.  I did bring up the fact that Tara has not won a chip in almost 3 decades.  Guilty as charged.

And also, good of you to acknowledge that it's you posing the question, instead of how you originally phrased it which was basically, "Since you guys brought up the subject of championships, let's talk about Sylvia Hatchell"—which like, MAYBE is kind of related in a VERY tangential way? But not really.

No end at all.  Just asking a thought provoking (and clearly for many here) and emotionally charged question.  I hear the negativity toward David Shaw on this board.  Johnny Dawkins was crucified.  Why can we not opine as to the actual results of Tara?  I applaud my courage for raising this at a time when Stanford is ranked #1.  This is a Stanford board.  I must confess that I expected more of a factual and intelligent response to my questions than " you must have an agenda" I root for the Card and I hope this year bucks the trend and that we demand more than 2 post season wins against inferior competition at home in the NCAA's.  We can all agree that is a pretty low bar.  Sweet 16 in men's versus women's is a completely different animal (and accomplishment).



For the record championships never came up and did not spark this dialogue.  Not sure how that became your narrative.

"Sounds like an approach that hasn't won a national championship in almost 30 years!!!!!

While we are on the subject (and BobK I say this with super respect for your contributions on this board and to the program overall), what exactly is the difference between Sylvia Hatchell and Tara?"

Literally you brought the subject up. It's your narrative, not mine.

uh where exactly did I say "since you guys brought up the subject of championships"??????

Your narrative.  I did bring up the fact that Tara has not won a chip in almost 3 decades.  Guilty as charged.

[philitup371@gmail.com]

Re: Hatchell

Yeah, but to what end? There's no benefit to comparing. You either put down one coach or the other, or say they're both the same, and none of those outcomes are particularly interesting or valuable.

And why specifically Hatchell? Could have picked any other coach with one championship.

uh where exactly did I say "since you guys brought up the subject of championships"??????

Your narrative.  I did bring up the fact that Tara has not won a chip in almost 3 decades.  Guilty as charged.

And also, good of you to acknowledge that it's you posing the question, instead of how you originally phrased it which was basically, "Since you guys brought up the subject of championships, let's talk about Sylvia Hatchell"—which like, MAYBE is kind of related in a VERY tangential way? But not really.

No end at all.  Just asking a thought provoking (and clearly for many here) and emotionally charged question.  I hear the negativity toward David Shaw on this board.  Johnny Dawkins was crucified.  Why can we not opine as to the actual results of Tara?  I applaud my courage for raising this at a time when Stanford is ranked #1.  This is a Stanford board.  I must confess that I expected more of a factual and intelligent response to my questions than " you must have an agenda" I root for the Card and I hope this year bucks the trend and that we demand more than 2 post season wins against inferior competition at home in the NCAA's.  We can all agree that is a pretty low bar.  Sweet 16 in men's versus women's is a completely different animal (and accomplishment).



For the record championships never came up and did not spark this dialogue.  Not sure how that became your narrative.

"Sounds like an approach that hasn't won a national championship in almost 30 years!!!!!

While we are on the subject (and BobK I say this with super respect for your contributions on this board and to the program overall), what exactly is the difference between Sylvia Hatchell and Tara?"

Literally you brought the subject up. It's your narrative, not mine.

---

Re: Hatchell

Yeah, but to what end? There's no benefit to comparing. You either put down one coach or the other, or say they're both the same, and none of those outcomes are particularly interesting or valuable.

And why specifically Hatchell? Could have picked any other coach with one championship.

uh where exactly did I say "since you guys brought up the subject of championships"??????

Your narrative.  I did bring up the fact that Tara has not won a chip in almost 3 decades.  Guilty as charged.

And also, good of you to acknowledge that it's you posing the question, instead of how you originally phrased it which was basically, "Since you guys brought up the subject of championships, let's talk about Sylvia Hatchell"—which like, MAYBE is kind of related in a VERY tangential way? But not really.

No end at all.  Just asking a thought provoking (and clearly for many here) and emotionally charged question.  I hear the negativity toward David Shaw on this board.  Johnny Dawkins was crucified.  Why can we not opine as to the actual results of Tara?  I applaud my courage for raising this at a time when Stanford is ranked #1.  This is a Stanford board.  I must confess that I expected more of a factual and intelligent response to my questions than " you must have an agenda" I root for the Card and I hope this year bucks the trend and that we demand more than 2 post season wins against inferior competition at home in the NCAA's.  We can all agree that is a pretty low bar.  Sweet 16 in men's versus women's is a completely different animal (and accomplishment).



For the record championships never came up and did not spark this dialogue.  Not sure how that became your narrative.

"Sounds like an approach that hasn't won a national championship in almost 30 years!!!!!

While we are on the subject (and BobK I say this with super respect for your contributions on this board and to the program overall), what exactly is the difference between Sylvia Hatchell and Tara?"

Literally you brought the subject up. It's your narrative, not mine.

uh where exactly did I say "since you guys brought up the subject of championships"??????

Your narrative.  I did bring up the fact that Tara has not won a chip in almost 3 decades.  Guilty as charged.

[TheWildJacko]

Re: Hatchell

Yeah, but to what end? There's no benefit to comparing. You either put down one coach or the other, or say they're both the same, and none of those outcomes are particularly interesting or valuable.

And why specifically Hatchell? Could have picked any other coach with one championship.

uh where exactly did I say "since you guys brought up the subject of championships"??????

Your narrative.  I did bring up the fact that Tara has not won a chip in almost 3 decades.  Guilty as charged.



And also, good of you to acknowledge that it's you posing the question, instead of how you originally phrased it which was basically, "Since you guys brought up the subject of championships, let's talk about Sylvia Hatchell"—which like, MAYBE is kind of related in a VERY tangential way? But not really.

No end at all.  Just asking a thought provoking (and clearly for many here) and emotionally charged question.  I hear the negativity toward David Shaw on this board.  Johnny Dawkins was crucified.  Why can we not opine as to the actual results of Tara?  I applaud my courage for raising this at a time when Stanford is ranked #1.  This is a Stanford board.  I must confess that I expected more of a factual and intelligent response to my questions than " you must have an agenda" I root for the Card and I hope this year bucks the trend and that we demand more than 2 post season wins against inferior competition at home in the NCAA's.  We can all agree that is a pretty low bar.  Sweet 16 in men's versus women's is a completely different animal (and accomplishment).



For the record championships never came up and did not spark this dialogue.  Not sure how that became your narrative.

"Sounds like an approach that hasn't won a national championship in almost 30 years!!!!!

While we are on the subject (and BobK I say this with super respect for your contributions on this board and to the program overall), what exactly is the difference between Sylvia Hatchell and Tara?"

Literally you brought the subject up. It's your narrative, not mine.

"uh where exactly did I say "since you guys brought up the subject of championships"??????"

You didn't, but saying "While we are on the subject," when you are the one who brought up the subject, and then saying that you're "just posing a question," and then wondering why people are asking why you are making random/weird comparisons, seems a just a *little* bit troll-y.

[TheWildJacko]

Re: Hatchell

Yeah, but to what end? There's no benefit to comparing. You either put down one coach or the other, or say they're both the same, and none of those outcomes are particularly interesting or valuable.

And why specifically Hatchell? Could have picked any other coach with one championship.

uh where exactly did I say "since you guys brought up the subject of championships"??????

Your narrative.  I did bring up the fact that Tara has not won a chip in almost 3 decades.  Guilty as charged.



And also, good of you to acknowledge that it's you posing the question, instead of how you originally phrased it which was basically, "Since you guys brought up the subject of championships, let's talk about Sylvia Hatchell"—which like, MAYBE is kind of related in a VERY tangential way? But not really.

No end at all.  Just asking a thought provoking (and clearly for many here) and emotionally charged question.  I hear the negativity toward David Shaw on this board.  Johnny Dawkins was crucified.  Why can we not opine as to the actual results of Tara?  I applaud my courage for raising this at a time when Stanford is ranked #1.  This is a Stanford board.  I must confess that I expected more of a factual and intelligent response to my questions than " you must have an agenda" I root for the Card and I hope this year bucks the trend and that we demand more than 2 post season wins against inferior competition at home in the NCAA's.  We can all agree that is a pretty low bar.  Sweet 16 in men's versus women's is a completely different animal (and accomplishment).



For the record championships never came up and did not spark this dialogue.  Not sure how that became your narrative.

"Sounds like an approach that hasn't won a national championship in almost 30 years!!!!!

While we are on the subject (and BobK I say this with super respect for your contributions on this board and to the program overall), what exactly is the difference between Sylvia Hatchell and Tara?"

Literally you brought the subject up. It's your narrative, not mine.

"uh where exactly did I say "since you guys brought up the subject of championships"??????"

You didn't, but saying "While we are on the subject," when you are the one who brought up the subject, and then saying that you're "just posing a question," and then wondering why people are asking why you are making random/weird comparisons, seems a just a *little* bit troll-y.

[CompSci87]

This is all very trolly indeed. I've banned this new poster.

[CompSci87]

This is all very trolly indeed. I've banned this new poster.

[CompSci87]

John Reid game story: https://cardreider.wordpress.com/

[CompSci87]

John Reid game story: https://cardreider.wordpress.com/

[81alum]

John Reid game story: https://cardreider.wordpress.com/

The Reid story says that Lacey's knee is sore--then why wear a boot? 

Shooting 50% is excellent!

The refs let a lot of contact go.  There were a couple of bad calls, but at least they did not dominate the game.

The Daily article pointed out something I had not considered.  We have not played an opponent on the opponent's regular home court yet this year.  Every single game has been a home game or a neutral site.  San Francisco comes closest to an away game.

Certainly don't want to look past Tennessee which will be a challenging game, but Texas will be baptism by fire for our freshmen experiencing a hostile environment really for the first time.

[81alum]

John Reid game story: https://cardreider.wordpress.com/

The Reid story says that Lacey's knee is sore--then why wear a boot? 

Shooting 50% is excellent!

The refs let a lot of contact go.  There were a couple of bad calls, but at least they did not dominate the game.

The Daily article pointed out something I had not considered.  We have not played an opponent on the opponent's regular home court yet this year.  Every single game has been a home game or a neutral site.  San Francisco comes closest to an away game.

Certainly don't want to look past Tennessee which will be a challenging game, but Texas will be baptism by fire for our freshmen experiencing a hostile environment really for the first time.

[martyup]

This is all very trolly indeed. I've banned this new poster.

From his member name, I'd say he banned himself.  If our girls stay #1 we'll see a lot more of this crap.

[martyup]

This is all very trolly indeed. I've banned this new poster.

From his member name, I'd say he banned himself.  If our girls stay #1 we'll see a lot more of this crap.

[Hulk01]

How is singular ineptitude different from ineptitude? 
Can a statement be plurally inept? 
If so, isn't singular ineptitude superior?

And in this case, is "inept" just a
a fancier way of communicating nothing more than "I disagree"?

[Hulk01]

How is singular ineptitude different from ineptitude? 
Can a statement be plurally inept? 
If so, isn't singular ineptitude superior?

And in this case, is "inept" just a
a fancier way of communicating nothing more than "I disagree"?

[81alum]

How is singular ineptitude different from ineptitude? 
Can a statement be plurally inept? 
If so, isn't singular ineptitude superior?

And in this case, is "inept" just a
a fancier way of communicating nothing more than "I disagree"?

Singular:  extraordinary, remarkable, exceptional.  Not as in "single vs. plural."
Inept: lacking in fitness or aptitude

"Singularly inept": Extraordinarily lacking in fitness.

Yes, it means "I disagree" but it also means more than that.  It means the reason I disagree is that I found the comparison way out of line.  I had previously explained why.  Others might find the comparison useful, I did not.

By the way, I certainly hope and am beginning to expect that the 27 year drought of national championships will come to an end sometime over the careers of our current freshman class.  Isn't it odd that someone came out of the woodwork to raise this issue just as we are trending toward the top?

[81alum]

How is singular ineptitude different from ineptitude? 
Can a statement be plurally inept? 
If so, isn't singular ineptitude superior?

And in this case, is "inept" just a
a fancier way of communicating nothing more than "I disagree"?

Singular:  extraordinary, remarkable, exceptional.  Not as in "single vs. plural."
Inept: lacking in fitness or aptitude

"Singularly inept": Extraordinarily lacking in fitness.

Yes, it means "I disagree" but it also means more than that.  It means the reason I disagree is that I found the comparison way out of line.  I had previously explained why.  Others might find the comparison useful, I did not.

By the way, I certainly hope and am beginning to expect that the 27 year drought of national championships will come to an end sometime over the careers of our current freshman class.  Isn't it odd that someone came out of the woodwork to raise this issue just as we are trending toward the top?