WBB news - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB news (/thread-26136.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB news (/thread-26136.html)
RE: WBB news - stopandpop - 04-13-2026
(04-13-2026, 09:56 AM)BosCard Wrote:(04-13-2026, 09:40 AM)Jskass Wrote:(04-12-2026, 07:41 PM)Card10Fan Wrote:funny because I was wondering if MAS would be aiming to transfer to Columbia!(04-12-2026, 03:47 PM)jonnyss Wrote:(04-12-2026, 03:19 PM)Card10Fan Wrote: [quote="BobK" pid='448562' dateline='1776029056']
Carla is the new Northwestern coach. You know Scott SP but would he move.
what about megan griffith? her columbia team swept berube's princeton team.
Yep I agree. I think Columbia coach would be a great hire too.
I know it probably won’t happen but I would like to see Scott Rueck from OSU as the new head coach. I’ve always been very impressed by his player development and the ability of his teams to outplay their opponents even when the other team has superior athletes. Good at X’s and O’s and good at player development and seems like a good guy. Would be a good fit here.
As I've posted several times, would agree with you 100%. He's one of the few coaches in my mind who can successfully turn the program around, but I believe more and more that IF there is a leadership change (and it's a big 'IF'), Stanford will play it safe and hire Lindy La Rocque, selecting someone who is in the Stanford family, rather than recruit a coach who can facilitate the fundamental change the program really needs to be competitive in the ACC and on the big stage.
RE: WBB news - Card10Fan - 04-13-2026
Per Talia Goodman. We are in mix for Ryan Bennett along with Cal and USC.
She also reports Stanford is the favorite for Michigan State transfer Ines Sotelo, 6’3 sophomore from Spain.
https://www.on3.com/her/news/kentucky-stanford-usc-emerging-as-teams-to-monitor/
RE: WBB news - crackpot - 04-13-2026
(04-13-2026, 11:28 AM)stopandpop Wrote: As I've posted several times, would agree with you 100%. He's one of the few coaches in my mind who can successfully turn the program around, but I believe more and more that IF there is a leadership change (and it's a big 'IF'), Stanford will play it safe and hire Lindy La Rocque, selecting someone who is in the Stanford family, rather than recruit a coach who can facilitate the fundamental change the program really needs to be competitive in the ACC and on the big stage.
Would Lindy really want it, though? She has a good thing going at UNLV--it's home, family is there, etc. Sure, it would be a pay bump, but at what cost? Certainly a lot more pressure.
Similar argument for Rueck, though he is older, doesn't have much left to prove, and if it doesn't work out could just waltz his way into retirement.
RE: WBB news - 2006alum - 04-13-2026
I refloat my "CTT for a year" possibility. She has loose ties to the Stanford family (thus has a friendly relationship with Tara but LOTS of distance from the program's recent half-decade-long player retention/coaching style issues and no close ties to the immediate coaching personnel she may be replacing), a great coaching pedigree of her own, and could very easily pull the Frank Reich for a season before going back to retirement and commentating.
I agree a desirable permanent coaching hire is better, but unless the AD pulls a miracle out of his hat, the notion that he will simultaneously fire KP and hire a desirable replacement feels like more than I think this administration is capable of. But we'll see!
RE: WBB news - 81alum - 04-13-2026
Well, it is all disheartening. I remain unconvinced, however, that established coaches would want to come to us given the deep structural problems that have been revealed about Stanford's ability to compete in the new era. And how much of a team could we even field next year, even if we get lucky and get a couple of transfers?
Question: For those who have been following it, what does our entering class look like, and have any of them backed out?
RE: WBB news - qwerty49 - 04-13-2026
(04-12-2026, 03:52 PM)BobK Wrote: Chloe leaving convinced me Kate is staying.
Sigh. I hope you’re wrong but it makes too much sense to me.
RE: WBB news - Nurdyguy - 04-13-2026
(04-12-2026, 06:31 AM)Goose Wrote:(04-11-2026, 09:22 PM)Nurdyguy Wrote: Even the best coaches must be able to reload with quality upper-class and graduate players in the portal in revenue sports, so I don't think Stanford will be able to get back to prominence or attract good coaches who care about their careers until our Stanford Administration eliminates its hostility to transfers. And that hostility to transfers is a conscious choice that our Stanford Administration continues to make...and something they could change, but they won't unless someone forces them.First of all, Stanford is not "hostile" to transfers in general. There are however limiting factors. First, the number of students Stanford accepts is more-or-less fixed. Therefore for every transfer in there notionally has to be a transfer out. Stanford is unwilling to adopt a policy of reserving transfer in slots for athletes for corresponding athletes who transfer out. Second, like the freshman admissions process Stanford is not willing to give absolute preference to athletes. Athletes do get some preference, but definitely not a free pass in. Third, the transfer process, like all Stanford processes it seems, is structured and "measured", i.e. slow. You aren't going to get a yes/no in 48 hours in general.
These factors inherently limit the utility of the transfer portal. Add to that the academic degree of difficulty for Stanford admissions of any kind and it becomes clear that the transfer in path, while still useful, is never going to be a "reload" the entire team every year option. Some of the "friction" in transfer admissions has been mitigated. More probably can and will be. However, it is never going to approach what is possible at e.g. UCLA or ASU. Student body size and admission standards alone ensure that.
As far as "somebody" forcing Stanford to fundamentally change its transfer policies, no such "somebody" exists. Even the president has to satisfy a large academic constituency that is not supportive of absolute athletic preferences in admissions, transfer or otherwise. Some of the limitations are structural. As an example, Stanford has about 8000 undergraduate students UCLA has about 33,000. The transfers in to UCLA are a lot easier to fit into the norms of the school than they are at Stanford simply based on quantity.
I agree that, given past history, Stanford is unlikely to adapt to the transfer/NIL era, as the self-imposed limitations our revenue sports are suffering under are tolerated by our alumni and key donors, and the Stanford Administration refuses to change. I'll still cheer for all Stanford teams to win as many games as possible, while understanding that our inability and lack of will to adapt to the transfer/NIL era will severely limit our ability to attract good coaches and players, so our mediocrity in revenue sports will continue. So be it.
RE: WBB news - BobK - 04-13-2026
MAS to Columbia
https://x.com/ma_stevenson20/status/2043814778779447502?s=46
RE: WBB news - 2006alum - 04-13-2026
(04-13-2026, 03:40 PM)BobK Wrote: MAS to ColumbiaGreat fit for her. Well done. And ironic that she's technically transferring "up" to the more successful program, based on last season's results.
https://x.com/ma_stevenson20/status/2043814778779447502?s=46
Imagine if we fired KP and hired Columbia's coach. Would MAS come back?!
RE: WBB news - SearchingForTheTruth - 04-13-2026
I came here to find out if there were any factual allegations against the program. I have yet to find any.
Discredited tweets, misread and misinterpreted social media posts and secret information are not facts.
I will keep monitoring to see if any facts do come out. Hoping for the best.
--------------------------
Also on the coaching front:
Scott Rueck is 3 - 22 against Stanford. Finished fourth this season. In 2024 8 players transferred out (why wasn't he fired?).
CTT. Have you seen her offense? or lack there of.
RE: WBB news - OCcardinal - 04-13-2026
(04-10-2026, 10:37 AM)Papa John Wrote:(04-10-2026, 08:43 AM)AlwaysRight Wrote: Lara said “This program has meant so much to me, and I will always be thankful for my coaches, teammates and the entire community that have supported me along the way.”
Nunu said “To my coaches, training staff, and support staff, thank you for your time, effort, and investment in me. Thank you for believing in me and helping shape me into the person I am today. I am truly grateful.”
Courtney said: “To my coaches, thank you for the chance to compete and be a part of the women’s basketball program.”
Facts.
I think there is another fact that you might be discounting (credit to Griffins78 for starting the compilation of the following data):
2026 Transfers Out (so far):
Nunu Agara (Forward): Entered portal.
Lara Somfai (Forward): Committed to TCU.
Courtney Ogden (Forward) Entered portal.--grad transfer
Harper Peterson (Forward): Entered portal.
Mary Ashley Stevenson (Forward): Entered portal.
Carly Amborn (Guard): Entered portal
Chloe Clardy (Guard): Entered portal
2026 Transfers In (so far):
<none>
2025 Transfers Out:
Tess Heal (Guard): Transferred to Kansas State.
Jzaniya Harriel (Guard): Transferred to SMU--grad transfer
2025 Transfers In:
<none>
2024 Transfers Out:
Kiki Iriafen (Forward): Transferred to USC--grad transfer
2024 Transfers In:
Tess Heal from Santa Clara
Mary Ashley Stevenson from Purdue
2023 Transfers Out:
Lauren Betts (Center): transferred to UCLA
Indya Nivar (Guard): Transferred to North Carolina
Agnes Emma-Nnopu (Forward): Transferred to TCU--grad transfer
2023 Transfers In:
<none>
2022 Transfers Out:
Jana Van Gytenbeek (Guard): Transferred to Baylor
Jenna Brown to Notre Dame--grad transfer
2022 Transfers In:
<none>
2021 Transfers Out:
Maya Dodson to Notre Dame--grad transfer
2021 Transfers In:
Jordan Hamilton from Northwestern--grad transfer
2020 Transfers Out:
DiJonai Carrington to Baylor--grad transfer
Estella Moschkau to Wisconsin--grad transfer
2020 Transfers In:
<none>
I accept that grad transfers belong in a class by themselves, but the fact is that Stanford currently has 6 non-grad-transfers in the portal which exceeds the total number of non-grad transfers over the previous 6 seasons. So if the coaches are not the reason why players are leaving, what is?
A few comments:
- Nunu is a grad transfer
- Even though Stanford had 2 transfers out and no transfers in in 2025, they still had a full roster this season.
- interesting that both our 2024 transfers in have now transferred out
- Updated commitments: Somfai (TCU), Peterson (Tennessee), Stevenson (Columbia) and Clardy (North Carolina)
- Not yet Committed: Agara, Ogden and Amborn
- Agara and Ogden both thanked the coaches. If we somehow convince Agara and Ogden to come back, I'd feel a lot better about next season. With Agara and Ogden we'd have 10 players, 5 of whom (Agara, Ogden, Ijiwoye, Swain, and Eschmeyer) have been starters in key games. This year we basically had 10 players. We had 15 on the roster but there were the injuries to Umeh, Lepolo & Peterson and Papadaki and Green did not play meaningful minutes. And half of those 10 players were frosh. So with 7 returners and 3 frosh coming in, any talented transfers we could pick up would be a bonus in my book. Of course it's a big "if" to suggest Stanford could convince Agara and Ogden to come back. They probably will have committed by the time I finish writing this post.
RE: WBB news - BobK - 04-13-2026
Great post however Stevenson to Columbia
RE: WBB news - Lorcan - 04-13-2026
(04-13-2026, 04:37 PM)AlwaysRight Wrote: I came here to find out if there were any factual allegations against the program. I have yet to find any.
Discredited tweets, misread and misinterpreted social media posts and secret information are not facts.
I will keep monitoring to see if any facts do come out. Hoping for the best.
--------------------------
Also on the coaching front:
Scott Rueck is 3 - 22 against Stanford. Finished fourth this season. In 2024 8 players transferred out (why wasn't he fired?).
CTT. Have you seen her offense? or lack there of.
Rueck wasn't fired because Oregon State was left to die in the winterlands as a result of realignment - and he didn't stand in the way of what was best for his players. You can't really argue about players wanting to play in the SEC/BIG10/ACC instead of the WCC.
RE: WBB news - BostonCard - 04-13-2026
(04-13-2026, 03:16 PM)Nurdyguy Wrote: I agree that, given past history, Stanford is unlikely to adapt to the transfer/NIL era, as the self-imposed limitations our revenue sports are suffering under are tolerated by our alumni and key donors, and the Stanford Administration refuses to change. I'll still cheer for all Stanford teams to win as many games as possible, while understanding that our inability and lack of will to adapt to the transfer/NIL era will severely limit our ability to attract good coaches and players, so our mediocrity in revenue sports will continue. So be it.
Apropos nothing, I saw this article [https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7165839/2026/04/02/uconn-women-men-march-madness-financial-nil-comparison] about what UConn spends on its men’s and women’s basketball programs. The answer is $34 million between the two basketball programs. It doesn’t break down expenses between the men and women, though revenues are broken down ($11.9 million in revenue for the MBB team vs. $8.5 million for the women’s team). I thus find it a bit curious that the article keeps talking about “investment” in the team; spending $34 million to get back $20.4 million makes it one of the lousiest investments ever. These “investments” don’t even count NIL payments to players.
BC
RE: WBB news - OCcardinal - 04-13-2026
(04-13-2026, 04:47 PM)BobK Wrote: Great post however Stevenson to Columbia
Fixed it. Thanks.
RE: WBB news - jacket3ree - 04-13-2026
I may be dense, but what on earth is a "grad transfer"? You graduate from one place and are accepted as a graduate student at another place, with eligibility left. The usual process is apply to grad school, get in to grad school, graduate from you undergraduate institution, and go to grad school.
Maybe this is a difference without distinction, but from what I recall four decades ago, don't you apply to a specific department and they decide based on money, spaces, other applicants, etc? You aren't applying to get into the university, you are applying to get into a program. Obviously that might be tough to do for athletes, so some post-baccalaureate we don't want to embarrass ourselves on national TV program would work.
Stanford athlete transfers shouldn't be competing with the limited number of regular transfers throughout all of Stanford, they should be competing only among other athletes for available spots on teams vacated by the transfers out, that aren't going to be filled by incoming high school students. Seems like an easy formula.
A formula that won't work is the one listed below. Over 7 years, 18 players transferred out and 3 players transferred in (so far). One of the transfers in is already transferring out. Either high school replacement recruiting needs to be bang on, or Stanford is the next Japan, or from recent reports, the U.S. Might take a long time, but the talent drain is inevitable. How much is coaching vs. lack of financial resources will come out eventually.
RE: WBB news - Card10Fan - 04-13-2026
(04-13-2026, 05:11 PM)Lorcan Wrote:(04-13-2026, 04:37 PM)AlwaysRight Wrote: ------------------------
Also on the coaching front:
Scott Rueck is 3 - 22 against Stanford. Finished fourth this season. In 2024 8 players transferred out (why wasn't he fired?).
Rueck wasn't fired because Oregon State was left to die in the winterlands as a result of realignment - and he didn't stand in the way of what was best for his players. You can't really argue about players wanting to play in the SEC/BIG10/ACC instead of the WCC.
Yep exactly. He also somehow recruited a roster that had Timea Gardiner, Talia VonOelhoffen, Reagen Beers, Donovyn Hunter. Historically, he's done more with less talent. Not to mention, Corvallis is not the easiest place to recruit too. Maybe 2nd worst only to Pullman in the old Pac12.
RE: WBB news - qwerty49 - 04-13-2026
(04-13-2026, 05:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(04-13-2026, 03:16 PM)Nurdyguy Wrote:
Apropos nothing, I saw this article [https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7165839/2026/04/02/uconn-women-men-march-madness-financial-nil-comparison] about what UConn spends on its men’s and women’s basketball programs. The answer is $34 million between the two basketball programs. It doesn’t break down expenses between the men and women, though revenues are broken down ($11.9 million in revenue for the MBB team vs. $8.5 million for the women’s team). I thus find it a bit curious that the article keeps talking about “investment” in the team; spending $34 million to get back $20.4 million makes it one of the lousiest investments ever. These “investments” don’t even count NIL payments to players.
BC
With all due respect, your BB arithmetic may be accurate (ie not affected by FB) but your analysis is a bit too simplistic. The marketing and sales process is pretty complicated. For the school, "Seller Benefits" are not just limited to revenue intake -- existing brand awareness and brand equity are two very important, long-term, cumulative marketing factors that add to and influence a "buyer's" choice. It's tough to quantify the revenue equivalent of either of those intangible brand factors but you see them in play at the supermarket every day. When it comes to hoops, UConn has consistently had eye-level shelf space for at least the last decade; as much as we wish, we simply have not.
RE: WBB news - Goose - 04-13-2026
(04-13-2026, 03:16 PM)Nurdyguy Wrote: I agree that, given past history, Stanford is unlikely to adapt to the transfer/NIL era, as the self-imposed limitations our revenue sports are suffering under are tolerated by our alumni and key donors, and the Stanford Administration refuses to change. I'll still cheer for all Stanford teams to win as many games as possible, while understanding that our inability and lack of will to adapt to the transfer/NIL era will severely limit our ability to attract good coaches and players, so our mediocrity in revenue sports will continue. So be it.IMO you are still missing the point. It is not that the "Stanford Administration refuses to change". While it is indeed probable that the various administrators involved undoubtedly have their own ideas about what the Stanford transfer admissions policy should be, Stanford Admissions has several constituencies that it MUST satisfy. In this case, the roadblock to transfer free-for-all is the Academic side of the University. Even if the "Stanford Administration" wanted to (which it probably doesn't) it could not adopt an admissions policy that would deliver to Stanford sports an essentially unimpeded flow of transfers in. The "real" part of the University wouldn't stand for it and that isn't a battle the Administrators could win or want to fight.
IMO it is worthwhile to examine three cases of schools Stanford must compete with. The poster child for relaxed admissions and transfer admissions is ASU. They have 194,000 students across all campus and online programs. They admit a fair number of "regular" freshman students who have a GPA of 1.9. Thus, it is quite easy to accept a large number of athletes each year without skewing the statistics. Athletic admissions are always a de minimis factor. They have a transfer acceptance rate of 90.6%. Pretty much a free-for-all.
There are about 33,000 undergraduate students at UCLA. They have an admission rate of approximately 9% for first-time students. According to Google AI "UCLA admits approximately 6,000 to 6,500 transfer students annually." The transfer admission acceptance rate is 23%. One could admit 50 athletes as transfers every year and it would constitute 0.83% of the transfer admissions. Again, de minimis. The faculty simply can't go nuts over such small numbers percentage-wise. The are a lot of state schools that are in a similar situation. Many of the football powers are "big" schools. They can get what they need through the transfer portal without moving the meter.
Lastly we can consider Duke, a school much more like Stanford in size than the two previous examples. Duke has been suggested as a "model Stanford should emulate". Duke had an undergraduate enrollment of 6,523 in the 2024 academic year. In 2024 Stanford had 7,904, slightly larger than Duke. Their acceptance rate is listed as "4 to 8%'. Apparently some years Duke accepts a lot of people that chose to go elsewhere. When that happens they compensate the next year(s). In 2024 Duke accepted only 77 transfer students. This represented an acceptance rate of 3%. Duke has been trying to increase the number of transfers and is targeting about 100 per year. In 2024 Stanford admitted 65 transfer students. The acceptance rate was 1.58%. While the numbers are different, they are arguably not THAT different. Now the problem. Duke football added 13 transfers. Duke basketball added 5 transfers. Duke men's tennis added 6 transfers. According to Google AI "Approximately 28% of all incoming transfers to Duke are athletes." In 2024 it was 31%, so 28% is obviously not a "hard limit". There is no way that even 28% can be called de minimis. The Stanford faculty would say that level of athletic bias is totally unacceptable. It wouldn't be tolerated, period. I would unfortunately agree with them. Thank Wally, but that is how it is.
RE: WBB news - Nurdyguy - 04-13-2026
(04-13-2026, 06:30 PM)Goose Wrote:(04-13-2026, 03:16 PM)Nurdyguy Wrote: I agree that, given past history, Stanford is unlikely to adapt to the transfer/NIL era, as the self-imposed limitations our revenue sports are suffering under are tolerated by our alumni and key donors, and the Stanford Administration refuses to change. I'll still cheer for all Stanford teams to win as many games as possible, while understanding that our inability and lack of will to adapt to the transfer/NIL era will severely limit our ability to attract good coaches and players, so our mediocrity in revenue sports will continue. So be it.IMO you are still missing the point. It is not that the "Stanford Administration refuses to change". While it is indeed probable that the various administrators involved undoubtedly have their own ideas about what the Stanford transfer admissions policy should be, Stanford Admissions has several constituencies that it MUST satisfy. In this case, the roadblock to transfer free-for-all is the Academic side of the University. Even if the "Stanford Administration" wanted to (which it probably doesn't) it could not adopt an admissions policy that would deliver to Stanford sports an essentially unimpeded flow of transfers in. The "real" part of the University wouldn't stand for it and that isn't a battle the Administrators could win or want to fight.
IMO it is worthwhile to examine three cases of schools Stanford must compete with. The poster child for relaxed admissions and transfer admissions is ASU. They have 194,000 students across all campus and online programs. They admit a fair number of "regular" freshman students who have a GPA of 1.9. Thus, it is quite easy to accept a large number of athletes each year without skewing the statistics. Athletic admissions are always a de minimis factor. They have a transfer acceptance rate of 90.6%. Pretty much a free-for-all.
There are about 33,000 undergraduate students at UCLA. They have an admission rate of approximately 9% for first-time students. According to Google AI "UCLA admits approximately 6,000 to 6,500 transfer students annually." The transfer admission acceptance rate is 23%. One could admit 50 athletes as transfers every year and it would constitute 0.83% of the transfer admissions. Again, de minimis. The faculty simply can't go nuts over such small numbers percentage-wise. The are a lot of state schools that are in a similar situation. Many of the football powers are "big" schools. They can get what they need through the transfer portal without moving the meter.
Lastly we can consider Duke, a school much more like Stanford in size than the two previous examples. Duke has been suggested as a "model Stanford should emulate". Duke had an undergraduate enrollment of 6,523 in the 2024 academic year. In 2024 Stanford had 7,904, slightly larger than Duke. Their acceptance rate is listed as "4 to 8%'. Apparently some years Duke accepts a lot of people that chose to go elsewhere. When that happens they compensate the next year(s). In 2024 Duke accepted only 77 transfer students. This represented an acceptance rate of 3%. Duke has been trying to increase the number of transfers and is targeting about 100 per year. In 2024 Stanford admitted 65 transfer students. The acceptance rate was 1.58%. While the numbers are different, they are arguably not THAT different. Now the problem. Duke football added 13 transfers. Duke basketball added 5 transfers. Duke men's tennis added 6 transfers. According to Google AI "Approximately 28% of all incoming transfers to Duke are athletes." In 2024 it was 31%, so 28% is obviously not a "hard limit". There is no way that even 28% can be called de minimis. The Stanford faculty would say that level of athletic bias is totally unacceptable. It wouldn't be tolerated, period. I would unfortunately agree with them. Thank Wally, but that is how it is.
I agree that Stanford is not likely to adapt to the realities of the transfer era, and thus, we will not be competitive in revenue sports again. At least we can enjoy our success in non-revenue sports, for now...