[Card10Fan]

I wonder if Tara told the team that this next season was her last and some players decided they wanted a coach for the next three years or something to that effect.

No. If anything that would have reverse effect. Players wanting to have one more season playing for her and then transfer. I think these players are sending a message that they did not enjoy playing for Tara and our coaches and are willing to throw away their Stanford education to go elsewhere. It reflects poorly on our coaches that as strong as academics as Stanford has, that reason alone still was not a strong enough reason to stay and play for Tara. It’s a very bad image and makes us all question what in the heck is going on or happened this season to cause this.

[Card10Fan]

I wonder if Tara told the team that this next season was her last and some players decided they wanted a coach for the next three years or something to that effect.

No. If anything that would have reverse effect. Players wanting to have one more season playing for her and then transfer. I think these players are sending a message that they did not enjoy playing for Tara and our coaches and are willing to throw away their Stanford education to go elsewhere. It reflects poorly on our coaches that as strong as academics as Stanford has, that reason alone still was not a strong enough reason to stay and play for Tara. It’s a very bad image and makes us all question what in the heck is going on or happened this season to cause this.

[81alum]

I wonder if Tara told the team that this next season was her last and some players decided they wanted a coach for the next three years or something to that effect.

No. If anything that would have reverse effect. Players wanting to have one more season playing for her and then transfer. I think these players are sending a message that they did not enjoy playing for Tara and our coaches and are willing to throw away their Stanford education to go elsewhere.

That is an interesting hypothesis.  On what do you base it?

[81alum]

I wonder if Tara told the team that this next season was her last and some players decided they wanted a coach for the next three years or something to that effect.

No. If anything that would have reverse effect. Players wanting to have one more season playing for her and then transfer. I think these players are sending a message that they did not enjoy playing for Tara and our coaches and are willing to throw away their Stanford education to go elsewhere.

That is an interesting hypothesis.  On what do you base it?

[Maple Leaf]

Each player could very well have distinctly different reasons for transferridng.  Such as playing time, homesick, Stanford/California culture is not to their liking, coaching, academics too demanding and yes NIL opportunities.

[Maple Leaf]

Each player could very well have distinctly different reasons for transferridng.  Such as playing time, homesick, Stanford/California culture is not to their liking, coaching, academics too demanding and yes NIL opportunities.

[chimera]

I wonder if Tara told the team that this next season was her last and some players decided they wanted a coach for the next three years or something to that effect.

No. If anything that would have reverse effect. Players wanting to have one more season playing for her and then transfer. I think these players are sending a message that they did not enjoy playing for Tara and our coaches and are willing to throw away their Stanford education to go elsewhere. It reflects poorly on our coaches that as strong as academics as Stanford has, that reason alone still was not a strong enough reason to stay and play for Tara. It’s a very bad image and makes us all question what in the heck is going on or happened this season to cause this.

Not sure I agree with the reverse affect.  Could be true.  I do agree with the rest of it.  We could all see it all season.  Team underachieved.  Coaching was all over the place with changes to the offense and the strange way the roster was used.  Players did not seem all that happy as a group all season.  I'm sure they were unhappy when they played a lot one game and did ok but then did not play at all the next game.  

I don't know that there was a good solution.  Pick the top 8 or 9 players and give them set roles maybe would have helped those players, but which ones?  And do the ones not in that rotation feel they were overlooked and leave?  Do what Tara did and play a lot of players but inconsistently clearly did not make anyone happy.

[chimera]

I wonder if Tara told the team that this next season was her last and some players decided they wanted a coach for the next three years or something to that effect.

No. If anything that would have reverse effect. Players wanting to have one more season playing for her and then transfer. I think these players are sending a message that they did not enjoy playing for Tara and our coaches and are willing to throw away their Stanford education to go elsewhere. It reflects poorly on our coaches that as strong as academics as Stanford has, that reason alone still was not a strong enough reason to stay and play for Tara. It’s a very bad image and makes us all question what in the heck is going on or happened this season to cause this.

Not sure I agree with the reverse affect.  Could be true.  I do agree with the rest of it.  We could all see it all season.  Team underachieved.  Coaching was all over the place with changes to the offense and the strange way the roster was used.  Players did not seem all that happy as a group all season.  I'm sure they were unhappy when they played a lot one game and did ok but then did not play at all the next game.  

I don't know that there was a good solution.  Pick the top 8 or 9 players and give them set roles maybe would have helped those players, but which ones?  And do the ones not in that rotation feel they were overlooked and leave?  Do what Tara did and play a lot of players but inconsistently clearly did not make anyone happy.

[Card10Fan]

Betts following UCLA, Notre Dame on IG. I feel like she ends up at one of the two. Both strong academic schools. Gosh, both programs were already out-recruiting us the past few years. Now potentially this.

[Card10Fan]

Betts following UCLA, Notre Dame on IG. I feel like she ends up at one of the two. Both strong academic schools. Gosh, both programs were already out-recruiting us the past few years. Now potentially this.

[TheFarm07]

Betts following UCLA, Notre Dame on IG. I feel like she ends up at one of the two. Both strong academic schools. Gosh, both programs were already out-recruiting us the past few years. Now potentially this.

Adding Betts would fill a big void for the Bruins. They have a really good backcourt in Rice, Osborne and Londyn Jones, but their relative weakness was size so Betts would be a significant upgrade for them at the 5.

[TheFarm07]

Betts following UCLA, Notre Dame on IG. I feel like she ends up at one of the two. Both strong academic schools. Gosh, both programs were already out-recruiting us the past few years. Now potentially this.

Adding Betts would fill a big void for the Bruins. They have a really good backcourt in Rice, Osborne and Londyn Jones, but their relative weakness was size so Betts would be a significant upgrade for them at the 5.

[treetop11]

Yes, I think ND, Ucla, and CU her top choices. Lots of talent on Ucla and NDwith openings at the 5. Both good academics and potential FF teams. Cu mainly because close to home.

[treetop11]

Yes, I think ND, Ucla, and CU her top choices. Lots of talent on Ucla and NDwith openings at the 5. Both good academics and potential FF teams. Cu mainly because close to home.

[BobK]

Ucla has three very good post players for next season

[BobK]

Ucla has three very good post players for next season

[Baez87]

Betts played for the U19 team that Cori Close coached in 2021. Lauren was the youngest player on the team and Cori played her along with Rice on the way to a US Title!

[Baez87]

Betts played for the U19 team that Cori Close coached in 2021. Lauren was the youngest player on the team and Cori played her along with Rice on the way to a US Title!

[cardfan1996]

UCLA is loaded at post with Christeen, Sontag and Bessoir, the 5* coming in and Dugalic is better than all of them, including Bessoir who is terrific. Cori plays a lot of people but not for a lot of minutes. But she does generously use her bench. A 6 post rotation seems like a lot to me. But what do I know?

Notre Dame has Westbeld, Watson, Marshall and who else? Ebo is graduating. Not sure who is coming in. Notre Dame typically subs generously too. But again, no guarantee in starting here but much better chance at ND than at UCLA.

[cardfan1996]

UCLA is loaded at post with Christeen, Sontag and Bessoir, the 5* coming in and Dugalic is better than all of them, including Bessoir who is terrific. Cori plays a lot of people but not for a lot of minutes. But she does generously use her bench. A 6 post rotation seems like a lot to me. But what do I know?

Notre Dame has Westbeld, Watson, Marshall and who else? Ebo is graduating. Not sure who is coming in. Notre Dame typically subs generously too. But again, no guarantee in starting here but much better chance at ND than at UCLA.

[Baez87]

South Carolina graduated Boston and Cardoso. Why not them?

[Baez87]

South Carolina graduated Boston and Cardoso. Why not them?

[jk1926]

Betts played for the U19 team that Cori Close coached in 2021. Lauren was the youngest player on the team and Cori played her along with Rice on the way to a US Title!

Minor correction:  Kiki Rice played on the USAB U18 team (along with Indya Nivar) that won the FIBA Americas gold medal in 2022, not the U19 World Cup gold medal team the previous year.  Cori Close did serve as head coach of the U19 team.  Betts teammates included Caitlin Clark, Sonia Citron, Azzi Fudd, and Tehina Paopao.

Also Kamilla Cardoso will return to South Carolina for her senior season campaign next year.  But I do think Betts could very well land in Columbia to play for Dawn Staley and chase a national title.

[jk1926]

Betts played for the U19 team that Cori Close coached in 2021. Lauren was the youngest player on the team and Cori played her along with Rice on the way to a US Title!

Minor correction:  Kiki Rice played on the USAB U18 team (along with Indya Nivar) that won the FIBA Americas gold medal in 2022, not the U19 World Cup gold medal team the previous year.  Cori Close did serve as head coach of the U19 team.  Betts teammates included Caitlin Clark, Sonia Citron, Azzi Fudd, and Tehina Paopao.

Also Kamilla Cardoso will return to South Carolina for her senior season campaign next year.  But I do think Betts could very well land in Columbia to play for Dawn Staley and chase a national title.

[M T]

South Carolina graduated Boston and Cardoso. Why not them?

If pay-to-play, aka NIL, money is an athlete's goal, then the quality of the team, coach, or school is no better than second place.  If the financers can raise enough money, without rules as is the case for the NCAA currently, then they can buy a top player at each spot.  So, with enough money, No-Name College could be next year's champs.

Bleech......

[M T]

South Carolina graduated Boston and Cardoso. Why not them?

If pay-to-play, aka NIL, money is an athlete's goal, then the quality of the team, coach, or school is no better than second place.  If the financers can raise enough money, without rules as is the case for the NCAA currently, then they can buy a top player at each spot.  So, with enough money, No-Name College could be next year's champs.

Bleech......

[Baez87]

Thanks for the above clarifications and corrections jk…

My wife and I are similar to many fans. We live close to Stanford, so are season ticket holders, go to all the women’s basketball events, travel to far away places to watch the team in preseason and postseason tourneys, and follow the ups and downs of the season — as if the team was an extension of our own family.
In the last couple of days we have felt betrayed and let down, the feelings one gets when deceived by a good friend, or the feeling of violation you have after a nice hike in nature only to find your car has been broken into. I figured that, after a good night's sleep, the awful feeling would go away — but it hasn’t! Instead our morning conversations are about the contaminating influences of NIL and the portal and the demise of one of our favorite activities. 
I think that we could trace the lack of this year's team-unity to the abuses of NIL (and, in a larger sense, the defection of the Southern California teams for greater profit). How could a coach speak about unselfishness and team spirit with the distraction of some players enriching themselves off the sport or being self-possessed by the vanity of a Twitter post, while others players are left behind? Selfishness, jealousy, and conceit replace the essentials of team unity — humility, cohesiveness, and teamwork.
The game has eroded beneath our feet, much like the ground being swept away by an atmospheric storm. The values that connected my family to women’s collegiate basketball have been compromise almost overnight. Maybe we should not have pinned too much hope on a group of young athletes, maybe we should not have seen them as different from the rest — but we did. The very thing that attracted us to women’s basketball, a youthful idealism, has been tarnished by a few players in a very short span of time.
The question remains, will it right itself? Will this be a blip on the path? Will those players that remain hold hope for the future, or will they, too, be contaminated by NIL and the portal? Will the coaches adapt and change? Will the institution respond?
The players don’t seem to understand or take into consideration the fan experience — the fans are a vital part of the game. Perhaps, we have lost the connection between the fans and the players. At least, when we used to engage in an afternoon of autographing at Town & Country, we got to interact with the players. Now the players have become a commodity in an ever-increasing materialistic system. We can only watch from a distance as if it is another game that got away.

[Baez87]

Thanks for the above clarifications and corrections jk…

My wife and I are similar to many fans. We live close to Stanford, so are season ticket holders, go to all the women’s basketball events, travel to far away places to watch the team in preseason and postseason tourneys, and follow the ups and downs of the season — as if the team was an extension of our own family.
In the last couple of days we have felt betrayed and let down, the feelings one gets when deceived by a good friend, or the feeling of violation you have after a nice hike in nature only to find your car has been broken into. I figured that, after a good night's sleep, the awful feeling would go away — but it hasn’t! Instead our morning conversations are about the contaminating influences of NIL and the portal and the demise of one of our favorite activities. 
I think that we could trace the lack of this year's team-unity to the abuses of NIL (and, in a larger sense, the defection of the Southern California teams for greater profit). How could a coach speak about unselfishness and team spirit with the distraction of some players enriching themselves off the sport or being self-possessed by the vanity of a Twitter post, while others players are left behind? Selfishness, jealousy, and conceit replace the essentials of team unity — humility, cohesiveness, and teamwork.
The game has eroded beneath our feet, much like the ground being swept away by an atmospheric storm. The values that connected my family to women’s collegiate basketball have been compromise almost overnight. Maybe we should not have pinned too much hope on a group of young athletes, maybe we should not have seen them as different from the rest — but we did. The very thing that attracted us to women’s basketball, a youthful idealism, has been tarnished by a few players in a very short span of time.
The question remains, will it right itself? Will this be a blip on the path? Will those players that remain hold hope for the future, or will they, too, be contaminated by NIL and the portal? Will the coaches adapt and change? Will the institution respond?
The players don’t seem to understand or take into consideration the fan experience — the fans are a vital part of the game. Perhaps, we have lost the connection between the fans and the players. At least, when we used to engage in an afternoon of autographing at Town & Country, we got to interact with the players. Now the players have become a commodity in an ever-increasing materialistic system. We can only watch from a distance as if it is another game that got away.

[cardfan1996]

The players were always the commodity and exploited. They are simply being paid to be now. The coaches have always benefited and were allowed to leave for greener pastures whereas the kids were stuck with a bad decision they made when they were 17 and 18 years old. 

Of course the system is not perfect (it never was) and resilience is no longer taught in this generation but the equities are closer to being balanced than they were previously.

Your experience as a fan is certainly not as important as that of the student-athlete.

[cardfan1996]

The players were always the commodity and exploited. They are simply being paid to be now. The coaches have always benefited and were allowed to leave for greener pastures whereas the kids were stuck with a bad decision they made when they were 17 and 18 years old. 

Of course the system is not perfect (it never was) and resilience is no longer taught in this generation but the equities are closer to being balanced than they were previously.

Your experience as a fan is certainly not as important as that of the student-athlete.

[81alum]

Thanks for the above clarifications and corrections jk…

My wife and I are similar to many fans. We live close to Stanford, so are season ticket holders, go to all the women’s basketball events, travel to far away places to watch the team in preseason and postseason tourneys, and follow the ups and downs of the season — as if the team was an extension of our own family.
In the last couple of days we have felt betrayed and let down, the feelings one gets when deceived by a good friend, or the feeling of violation you have after a nice hike in nature only to find your car has been broken into. I figured that, after a good night's sleep, the awful feeling would go away — but it hasn’t! Instead our morning conversations are about the contaminating influences of NIL and the portal and the demise of one of our favorite activities. 
I think that we could trace the lack of this year's team-unity to the abuses of NIL (and, in a larger sense, the defection of the Southern California teams for greater profit). How could a coach speak about unselfishness and team spirit with the distraction of some players enriching themselves off the sport or being self-possessed by the vanity of a Twitter post, while others players are left behind? Selfishness, jealousy, and conceit replace the essentials of team unity — humility, cohesiveness, and teamwork.
The game has eroded beneath our feet, much like the ground being swept away by an atmospheric storm. The values that connected my family to women’s collegiate basketball have been compromise almost overnight. Maybe we should not have pinned too much hope on a group of young athletes, maybe we should not have seen them as different from the rest — but we did. The very thing that attracted us to women’s basketball, a youthful idealism, has been tarnished by a few players in a very short span of time.
The question remains, will it right itself? Will this be a blip on the path? Will those players that remain hold hope for the future, or will they, too, be contaminated by NIL and the portal? Will the coaches adapt and change? Will the institution respond?
The players don’t seem to understand or take into consideration the fan experience — the fans are a vital part of the game. Perhaps, we have lost the connection between the fans and the players. At least, when we used to engage in an afternoon of autographing at Town & Country, we got to interact with the players. Now the players have become a commodity in an ever-increasing materialistic system. We can only watch from a distance as if it is another game that got away.

Very well said.

I am wrestling with the same issues.  Chimera indicates something similar.  How can it be that just as WBB seems to be peaking in popularity, it is being ruined from the standpoint of my own enjoyment of it?  Is it that I am naive, had unrealistic expectations?  Am I at fault for loving this game "in the wrong way"?  Am I just too "old fashioned" or, as a few posters have noted on this board, just too elderly (like Tara) to really understand the changing landscape and the desires of the new players?

I did not think any of those things are true.  I teach 18-21 year olds every week, and (if I do say so myself) am wildly popular with them.  I seem to "get" them well enough to inspire them academically.  I have closely followed events in college sports ever since the Knight Commission.

I think the problem is, quite simply, that certain people and certain institutions have simply made terrible choices about the future of college sports, beginning right at the top with the Supreme Court and the NCAA both.  These choices were not inevitable--college sports did not have to be ruined in this way.  But they have been.

The one place where I will admit my naivete was in hoping that Stanford, almost alone among universities, could use its advantage as an elite and wealthy academic institution to be successful in college sports without capitulating to the corruptions that have been introduced.  Well, I was right that Stanford is resisting, but I was wrong that we could be successful while doing so.  At least not successful in an athletically elite manner.

[81alum]

Thanks for the above clarifications and corrections jk…

My wife and I are similar to many fans. We live close to Stanford, so are season ticket holders, go to all the women’s basketball events, travel to far away places to watch the team in preseason and postseason tourneys, and follow the ups and downs of the season — as if the team was an extension of our own family.
In the last couple of days we have felt betrayed and let down, the feelings one gets when deceived by a good friend, or the feeling of violation you have after a nice hike in nature only to find your car has been broken into. I figured that, after a good night's sleep, the awful feeling would go away — but it hasn’t! Instead our morning conversations are about the contaminating influences of NIL and the portal and the demise of one of our favorite activities. 
I think that we could trace the lack of this year's team-unity to the abuses of NIL (and, in a larger sense, the defection of the Southern California teams for greater profit). How could a coach speak about unselfishness and team spirit with the distraction of some players enriching themselves off the sport or being self-possessed by the vanity of a Twitter post, while others players are left behind? Selfishness, jealousy, and conceit replace the essentials of team unity — humility, cohesiveness, and teamwork.
The game has eroded beneath our feet, much like the ground being swept away by an atmospheric storm. The values that connected my family to women’s collegiate basketball have been compromise almost overnight. Maybe we should not have pinned too much hope on a group of young athletes, maybe we should not have seen them as different from the rest — but we did. The very thing that attracted us to women’s basketball, a youthful idealism, has been tarnished by a few players in a very short span of time.
The question remains, will it right itself? Will this be a blip on the path? Will those players that remain hold hope for the future, or will they, too, be contaminated by NIL and the portal? Will the coaches adapt and change? Will the institution respond?
The players don’t seem to understand or take into consideration the fan experience — the fans are a vital part of the game. Perhaps, we have lost the connection between the fans and the players. At least, when we used to engage in an afternoon of autographing at Town & Country, we got to interact with the players. Now the players have become a commodity in an ever-increasing materialistic system. We can only watch from a distance as if it is another game that got away.

Very well said.

I am wrestling with the same issues.  Chimera indicates something similar.  How can it be that just as WBB seems to be peaking in popularity, it is being ruined from the standpoint of my own enjoyment of it?  Is it that I am naive, had unrealistic expectations?  Am I at fault for loving this game "in the wrong way"?  Am I just too "old fashioned" or, as a few posters have noted on this board, just too elderly (like Tara) to really understand the changing landscape and the desires of the new players?

I did not think any of those things are true.  I teach 18-21 year olds every week, and (if I do say so myself) am wildly popular with them.  I seem to "get" them well enough to inspire them academically.  I have closely followed events in college sports ever since the Knight Commission.

I think the problem is, quite simply, that certain people and certain institutions have simply made terrible choices about the future of college sports, beginning right at the top with the Supreme Court and the NCAA both.  These choices were not inevitable--college sports did not have to be ruined in this way.  But they have been.

The one place where I will admit my naivete was in hoping that Stanford, almost alone among universities, could use its advantage as an elite and wealthy academic institution to be successful in college sports without capitulating to the corruptions that have been introduced.  Well, I was right that Stanford is resisting, but I was wrong that we could be successful while doing so.  At least not successful in an athletically elite manner.

[81alum]

Let me raise an uncomfortable issue, which I am not sure is related to recent events but which might be.  That is the issue of race, our players, and our coaches.

Tara has spent her career trying to promote female coaches for WBB, but more and more WBB teams are coached by men.  She has also been cognizant of the need to promote Black WBB coaches, and has always had (in my memory) at least one Black assistant coach.  Bobbie Kelsey is the one Black assistant coach that I recall that went on to a head coaching position, and sadly it did not go that well.  After Bobbie we had Trina Patterson, and I never developed much of an impression of her.  Following Patterson we had Tempie Brown who was a fabulously personable, youthful coach who I imagine related very well with our players.  Britney Anderson seems much more like Tara herself, less outgoing, and I wonder how she gets along with our players.   In all these cases, however, the Black assistant coach was fairly junior--behind Amy Tucker or Kate Paye and usually behind the other assistant coach.  It was never a possibility that any of them were going to become the "heir apparent" to Tara, as Kate has become.  And even more perplexing, there has never been more than one Black assistant coach.   Why not two or three?

Now couple that observation about coaching with recent developments in WBB.  Dawn Staley and  Adia Barnes have made major headlines for breaking barriers.  And we were beaten by another barrier-breaker, Yolett McPhee-McCuin, who at her presser noted that Tara was not really her role model, that it was CViv and Staley. 

Now consider recruiting.  Some of Tara's best players over the decades have been Black, obviously.  But for the most part, they have been Black middle class kids.  Parents were military officers, or well-to-do business people, or sports professionals, or coaches, or doctors.  I can't remember Ki's background....  This may be a function of Stanford.  Stanford can be quite diverse demographically, but is not very diverse socioeconomically.  It is very difficult for a kid from a poor school district to go to Stanford regardless of their innate abilities, and if they get there they are surrounded by students from very different economic backgrounds.

So, given that most of our players who are Black have just graduated or entered the transfer portal, is it time to look seriously at race and representation?  I've had a nagging feeling for some time that Tara needed to have more Black assistant coaches, and at least one who could relate exceptionally well to our Black players and their families.  I've felt for some time that we need a team that attracts more working class kids.  I have no particular data or basis for those feelings, but I have wondered for several years now whether it is hurting us.

I wonder, for example, what it would be like if Tara had an all-Black staff backing her up, rather than what looks increasingly in the modern-age like tokenism with one coach.  It might help with both recruiting and retention.  And while we are at it, she needs younger assistant coaches to balance her out.  I do think Kate Paye is too valuable to give up, but I have wondered about whether Katy Steding was really the right choice at the other position.  Britney Anderson does not seem personable or charismatic at the chalk talks, but maybe she is terrific with the players--I don't know.  But I would take a hard look at that position as well.

So my question is this: are any of the team's recent issues in recruiting and retention related to race, or maybe race and class?  I might be persuaded that they are not, but I sense that the question needs to be asked.

[81alum]

Let me raise an uncomfortable issue, which I am not sure is related to recent events but which might be.  That is the issue of race, our players, and our coaches.

Tara has spent her career trying to promote female coaches for WBB, but more and more WBB teams are coached by men.  She has also been cognizant of the need to promote Black WBB coaches, and has always had (in my memory) at least one Black assistant coach.  Bobbie Kelsey is the one Black assistant coach that I recall that went on to a head coaching position, and sadly it did not go that well.  After Bobbie we had Trina Patterson, and I never developed much of an impression of her.  Following Patterson we had Tempie Brown who was a fabulously personable, youthful coach who I imagine related very well with our players.  Britney Anderson seems much more like Tara herself, less outgoing, and I wonder how she gets along with our players.   In all these cases, however, the Black assistant coach was fairly junior--behind Amy Tucker or Kate Paye and usually behind the other assistant coach.  It was never a possibility that any of them were going to become the "heir apparent" to Tara, as Kate has become.  And even more perplexing, there has never been more than one Black assistant coach.   Why not two or three?

Now couple that observation about coaching with recent developments in WBB.  Dawn Staley and  Adia Barnes have made major headlines for breaking barriers.  And we were beaten by another barrier-breaker, Yolett McPhee-McCuin, who at her presser noted that Tara was not really her role model, that it was CViv and Staley. 

Now consider recruiting.  Some of Tara's best players over the decades have been Black, obviously.  But for the most part, they have been Black middle class kids.  Parents were military officers, or well-to-do business people, or sports professionals, or coaches, or doctors.  I can't remember Ki's background....  This may be a function of Stanford.  Stanford can be quite diverse demographically, but is not very diverse socioeconomically.  It is very difficult for a kid from a poor school district to go to Stanford regardless of their innate abilities, and if they get there they are surrounded by students from very different economic backgrounds.

So, given that most of our players who are Black have just graduated or entered the transfer portal, is it time to look seriously at race and representation?  I've had a nagging feeling for some time that Tara needed to have more Black assistant coaches, and at least one who could relate exceptionally well to our Black players and their families.  I've felt for some time that we need a team that attracts more working class kids.  I have no particular data or basis for those feelings, but I have wondered for several years now whether it is hurting us.

I wonder, for example, what it would be like if Tara had an all-Black staff backing her up, rather than what looks increasingly in the modern-age like tokenism with one coach.  It might help with both recruiting and retention.  And while we are at it, she needs younger assistant coaches to balance her out.  I do think Kate Paye is too valuable to give up, but I have wondered about whether Katy Steding was really the right choice at the other position.  Britney Anderson does not seem personable or charismatic at the chalk talks, but maybe she is terrific with the players--I don't know.  But I would take a hard look at that position as well.

So my question is this: are any of the team's recent issues in recruiting and retention related to race, or maybe race and class?  I might be persuaded that they are not, but I sense that the question needs to be asked.

[BillBradley]

The players were always the commodity and exploited. They are simply being paid to be now. The coaches have always benefited and were allowed to leave for greener pastures whereas the kids were stuck with a bad decision they made when they were 17 and 18 years old. 

Of course the system is not perfect (it never was) and resilience is no longer taught in this generation but the equities are closer to being balanced than they were previously.

Your experience as a fan is certainly not as important as that of the student-athlete.

Exactly.

---

Thanks for the above clarifications and corrections jk…

My wife and I are similar to many fans. We live close to Stanford, so are season ticket holders, go to all the women’s basketball events, travel to far away places to watch the team in preseason and postseason tourneys, and follow the ups and downs of the season — as if the team was an extension of our own family.
In the last couple of days we have felt betrayed and let down, the feelings one gets when deceived by a good friend, or the feeling of violation you have after a nice hike in nature only to find your car has been broken into. I figured that, after a good night's sleep, the awful feeling would go away — but it hasn’t! Instead our morning conversations are about the contaminating influences of NIL and the portal and the demise of one of our favorite activities. 
I think that we could trace the lack of this year's team-unity to the abuses of NIL (and, in a larger sense, the defection of the Southern California teams for greater profit). How could a coach speak about unselfishness and team spirit with the distraction of some players enriching themselves off the sport or being self-possessed by the vanity of a Twitter post, while others players are left behind? Selfishness, jealousy, and conceit replace the essentials of team unity — humility, cohesiveness, and teamwork.
The game has eroded beneath our feet, much like the ground being swept away by an atmospheric storm. The values that connected my family to women’s collegiate basketball have been compromise almost overnight. Maybe we should not have pinned too much hope on a group of young athletes, maybe we should not have seen them as different from the rest — but we did. The very thing that attracted us to women’s basketball, a youthful idealism, has been tarnished by a few players in a very short span of time.
The question remains, will it right itself? Will this be a blip on the path? Will those players that remain hold hope for the future, or will they, too, be contaminated by NIL and the portal? Will the coaches adapt and change? Will the institution respond?
The players don’t seem to understand or take into consideration the fan experience — the fans are a vital part of the game. Perhaps, we have lost the connection between the fans and the players. At least, when we used to engage in an afternoon of autographing at Town & Country, we got to interact with the players. Now the players have become a commodity in an ever-increasing materialistic system. We can only watch from a distance as if it is another game that got away.

Very well said.

I am wrestling with the same issues.  Chimera indicates something similar.  How can it be that just as WBB seems to be peaking in popularity, it is being ruined from the standpoint of my own enjoyment of it?  Is it that I am naive, had unrealistic expectations?  Am I at fault for loving this game "in the wrong way"?  Am I just too "old fashioned" or, as a few posters have noted on this board, just too elderly (like Tara) to really understand the changing landscape and the desires of the new players?

I did not think any of those things are true.  I teach 18-21 year olds every weak, and (if I do say so myself) am wildly popular with them.  I seem to "get" them well enough to inspire them academically.  I have closely followed events in college sports ever since the Knight Commission.

I think the problem is, quite simply, that certain people and certain institutions have simply made terrible choices about the future of college sports, beginning right at the top with the Supreme Court and the NCAA both.  These choices were not inevitable--college sports did not have to be ruined in this way.  But it has been.

The one place where I will admit my naivete was in hoping that Stanford, almost alone among universities, could use its advantage as an elite and wealthy academic institution to be successful in college sports without capitulating to the corruptions that have been introduced.  Well, I was right that Stanford is resisting, but I was wrong that we could be successful while doing so.  At least not successful in an athletically elite manner.

I really think you, and many others, are sentimental, high-integrity, and overall nice people (all of which I glean from a message board!), which is why your students probably dig you. I hope I'm the same. But I really don't think things are as bad as you are perceiving. The kids that are transferring, the coaches that are making moves, the universities and their NIL collectives...they aren't bad people. They are doing what's necessary to compete within the governing rules. We can question the decisions made that got collegiate sports into this position, but there is a very strong rationale why we ended up here. The players were being exploited for far too long. Choose to look at all the positives that come with that being fixed.

[BillBradley]

The players were always the commodity and exploited. They are simply being paid to be now. The coaches have always benefited and were allowed to leave for greener pastures whereas the kids were stuck with a bad decision they made when they were 17 and 18 years old. 

Of course the system is not perfect (it never was) and resilience is no longer taught in this generation but the equities are closer to being balanced than they were previously.

Your experience as a fan is certainly not as important as that of the student-athlete.

Exactly.

---

Thanks for the above clarifications and corrections jk…

My wife and I are similar to many fans. We live close to Stanford, so are season ticket holders, go to all the women’s basketball events, travel to far away places to watch the team in preseason and postseason tourneys, and follow the ups and downs of the season — as if the team was an extension of our own family.
In the last couple of days we have felt betrayed and let down, the feelings one gets when deceived by a good friend, or the feeling of violation you have after a nice hike in nature only to find your car has been broken into. I figured that, after a good night's sleep, the awful feeling would go away — but it hasn’t! Instead our morning conversations are about the contaminating influences of NIL and the portal and the demise of one of our favorite activities. 
I think that we could trace the lack of this year's team-unity to the abuses of NIL (and, in a larger sense, the defection of the Southern California teams for greater profit). How could a coach speak about unselfishness and team spirit with the distraction of some players enriching themselves off the sport or being self-possessed by the vanity of a Twitter post, while others players are left behind? Selfishness, jealousy, and conceit replace the essentials of team unity — humility, cohesiveness, and teamwork.
The game has eroded beneath our feet, much like the ground being swept away by an atmospheric storm. The values that connected my family to women’s collegiate basketball have been compromise almost overnight. Maybe we should not have pinned too much hope on a group of young athletes, maybe we should not have seen them as different from the rest — but we did. The very thing that attracted us to women’s basketball, a youthful idealism, has been tarnished by a few players in a very short span of time.
The question remains, will it right itself? Will this be a blip on the path? Will those players that remain hold hope for the future, or will they, too, be contaminated by NIL and the portal? Will the coaches adapt and change? Will the institution respond?
The players don’t seem to understand or take into consideration the fan experience — the fans are a vital part of the game. Perhaps, we have lost the connection between the fans and the players. At least, when we used to engage in an afternoon of autographing at Town & Country, we got to interact with the players. Now the players have become a commodity in an ever-increasing materialistic system. We can only watch from a distance as if it is another game that got away.

Very well said.

I am wrestling with the same issues.  Chimera indicates something similar.  How can it be that just as WBB seems to be peaking in popularity, it is being ruined from the standpoint of my own enjoyment of it?  Is it that I am naive, had unrealistic expectations?  Am I at fault for loving this game "in the wrong way"?  Am I just too "old fashioned" or, as a few posters have noted on this board, just too elderly (like Tara) to really understand the changing landscape and the desires of the new players?

I did not think any of those things are true.  I teach 18-21 year olds every weak, and (if I do say so myself) am wildly popular with them.  I seem to "get" them well enough to inspire them academically.  I have closely followed events in college sports ever since the Knight Commission.

I think the problem is, quite simply, that certain people and certain institutions have simply made terrible choices about the future of college sports, beginning right at the top with the Supreme Court and the NCAA both.  These choices were not inevitable--college sports did not have to be ruined in this way.  But it has been.

The one place where I will admit my naivete was in hoping that Stanford, almost alone among universities, could use its advantage as an elite and wealthy academic institution to be successful in college sports without capitulating to the corruptions that have been introduced.  Well, I was right that Stanford is resisting, but I was wrong that we could be successful while doing so.  At least not successful in an athletically elite manner.

I really think you, and many others, are sentimental, high-integrity, and overall nice people (all of which I glean from a message board!), which is why your students probably dig you. I hope I'm the same. But I really don't think things are as bad as you are perceiving. The kids that are transferring, the coaches that are making moves, the universities and their NIL collectives...they aren't bad people. They are doing what's necessary to compete within the governing rules. We can question the decisions made that got collegiate sports into this position, but there is a very strong rationale why we ended up here. The players were being exploited for far too long. Choose to look at all the positives that come with that being fixed.

[81alum]

The players were always the commodity and exploited. They are simply being paid to be now. The coaches have always benefited and were allowed to leave for greener pastures whereas the kids were stuck with a bad decision they made when they were 17 and 18 years old. 

Of course the system is not perfect (it never was) and resilience is no longer taught in this generation but the equities are closer to being balanced than they were previously.

Your experience as a fan is certainly not as important as that of the student-athlete.

While I am able to be just as good a Marxist as anyone here, should I choose to be, I do not believe that Stanford exploited its student-athletes as "commodities."  The University gave most of them a terrific education and 4 or more terrific years in life.  And it is not as if Stanford was "profiting" from their unpaid labor, given that the whole Athletics enterprise loses money hand-over-fist.  Student athletes get preferred treatment in many ways to other students--including taking up admissions slots that could go to other high achievers.  This is not the definition of exploitation.  Furthermore, comparing the whole thing to an economic enterprise (as Justice Kavanaugh did) is to fundamentally misunderstand--even twist--the purpose of athletics at a non-profit institution of higher education.

With regard to the last observation, that my experience as a fan is not as important as that of the student-athlete.  I agree with that statement.  However, if we truly embrace it then we might as well be Division III, and not worry about having fans at all.  If we want to be Division I then we do need to worry about the experience of fans, or we won't have any.  I'm about to opt for Div III, in which case I will probably be one of six fans in the stands at our WBB games.

[81alum]

The players were always the commodity and exploited. They are simply being paid to be now. The coaches have always benefited and were allowed to leave for greener pastures whereas the kids were stuck with a bad decision they made when they were 17 and 18 years old. 

Of course the system is not perfect (it never was) and resilience is no longer taught in this generation but the equities are closer to being balanced than they were previously.

Your experience as a fan is certainly not as important as that of the student-athlete.

While I am able to be just as good a Marxist as anyone here, should I choose to be, I do not believe that Stanford exploited its student-athletes as "commodities."  The University gave most of them a terrific education and 4 or more terrific years in life.  And it is not as if Stanford was "profiting" from their unpaid labor, given that the whole Athletics enterprise loses money hand-over-fist.  Student athletes get preferred treatment in many ways to other students--including taking up admissions slots that could go to other high achievers.  This is not the definition of exploitation.  Furthermore, comparing the whole thing to an economic enterprise (as Justice Kavanaugh did) is to fundamentally misunderstand--even twist--the purpose of athletics at a non-profit institution of higher education.

With regard to the last observation, that my experience as a fan is not as important as that of the student-athlete.  I agree with that statement.  However, if we truly embrace it then we might as well be Division III, and not worry about having fans at all.  If we want to be Division I then we do need to worry about the experience of fans, or we won't have any.  I'm about to opt for Div III, in which case I will probably be one of six fans in the stands at our WBB games.

[dabigv13]

Fantastic post 81alum.

[dabigv13]

Fantastic post 81alum.