WBB: Stanford 65 Louisville 74 - 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: Stanford 65 Louisville 74 (/thread-25455.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: Stanford 65 Louisville 74 (/thread-25455.html)
76lsjumb - 76lsjumb - 02-09-2025
While it may very well be true that Tara would not have been able to do a better job with this team than Kate has done, that begs the question. The real question, it seems to me, is whether there are other coaches that would have done a better job than EITHER Kate or Tara?
RE: 76lsjumb - here4WBB - 02-09-2025
(02-09-2025, 06:03 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: While it may very well be true that Tara would not have been able to do a better job with this team than Kate has done, that begs the question. The real question, it seems to me, is whether there are other coaches that would have done a better job than EITHER Kate or Tara?
Add the condition that the coach is playing in a new conference without years of familiarity with coaches and teams ....
RE: 76lsjumb - 81alum - 02-09-2025
(02-09-2025, 06:03 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: While it may very well be true that Tara would not have been able to do a better job with this team than Kate has done, that begs the question. The real question, it seems to me, is whether there are other coaches that would have done a better job than EITHER Kate or Tara?My opinion only....NO. Not given the unique Stanford environment that is so unfriendly to transfers, that is catching up in NIL, that is switching to a new league that penalizes our team by making them spend much more time over the season on planes thatn 16/18th of the league....etc. In fact, a coach from outside the Stanford environment would have been an even greater disaster, learning all the Stanford restrictions on the fly, etc....
If you seriously want to abandon the TVD legacy and start from scratch, then at least you need some lead time. Also, ask yourself this...how many of next year's outstanding recruits would have come to Stanford if they did not think Kate Paye was continuing the TVD legacy of excellence? If they thought that Kate had no connection to Tara? I think that kind of wholesale change away from TVD and her coaching legacy is a recipe to reduce Stanford to the level (at best) of Gonzaga or Harvard.
I know you did not make the Holly Warlick analogy...but others have. Kate Paye is not Holly Warlick. Kate may wind up not being a successful coach....that remains to be seen, my optimism aside. But Kate IS far, far brighter and accomplished than Holly Warlick ever was. Sheer smarts may not be enough to make a good coach...but Kate is in fact light years ahead of a Holly Warlick in almost any measure of smarts. So if Kate fails, it won't be for anything like the same reasons that Holly Warlick failed.
lsmant@aol.com - lsmant - 02-09-2025
Ever so much gratitude to 81alum. Your posts are more than informative. They are heartfelt and honest. They are thoughtful and careful. They are encouraging. They provide perspective and hope and encourage me to be more patient and supportive, even if it is difficult at times. Thank you!
RE: WBB: Stanford 65 Louisville 74 - BillBradley - 02-09-2025
I like Kate and really do want her to succeed. No doubt, she has a great basketball mind. She can X and O with the best of them, I'm sure. But Kate is lacking a couple major things that are no fault of her own. 1) Head coaching experience 2) Credibility. Those things might not come into play as much if she was coaching our most recent Natty team. She may or may not have won a national championship had she coached that team, but with the talent and upperclassmen leadership on the court she very well could have. Head coaching experience and credibility come into play with teams that have LESS talent and the team starts racking up losses, which is what's happening now. She simply does not have Tara's experience on handling situations - what to do, what to say, now to motivate, what to let go vs. what to be concerned about, how to problem solve...And it's only human nature for players, after the losses mount, to question the decisions. I'm sure not all the players trusted Tara 100%. But this group would have trusted her way more than Kate. It's just the way it is when your leader doesn't have experience and things aren't going well. IMO, Tara would have won a handful more games because of this. We wouldn't have beaten Notre Dame or NC State, and we wouldn't be anything like 20-3, but my guess is we'd be something like 16-7 vs. 11-12. Just my opinion.
RE: 76lsjumb - BostonCard - 02-09-2025
(02-09-2025, 06:03 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: While it may very well be true that Tara would not have been able to do a better job with this team than Kate has done, that begs the question. The real question, it seems to me, is whether there are other coaches that would have done a better job than EITHER Kate or Tara?
It is of course an unfalsifiable question, and if I had to bet on Tara, Kate or “the field”, given the large possible universe of coaches, it seems likely that someone out there likely would have had better results than what we’ve seen. The real question is not whether there is someone out there, but rather who, specifically would have been better (and would have come). I have some thoughts in mind on some coaches who might have been better, but it is ultimately an unfalsifiable question.
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford 65 Louisville 74 - Card10Fan - 02-09-2025
I think my disappointment is more that THIS team is less than the sum of it's parts. Yes, we lost a ton of talent and Kate stepped into a less than ideal situation. There are all sorts of challenges, I understand. Yet, I still believe we have enough talent to be playing better than we are collectively. We have enough talent to be in the NCAA tournament this year. Because those things have not happened and we are more than likely going to break a 37 year stretch of tournament appearances, the coaching is questioned and I think its valid to do so. Now maybe some of this season's happenings have been out of Coach Payes control, she is still the coach of this program. I think don't think a single fan can honestly look at this season and say wow, our coaching has been superb and we are peaking at the right time and overachieving.
That said, I'm not ready to give up on her yet. I think next years class will be tremendous. Kate Paye is incredibly smart and more than capable of turning things back around. I hope she does. Irrelevancy can happen very quickly though in college athletics. There really can't be a 5 year plan. Things have to happen much quicker and we need to be back in the competitive mix next season or I fear recruiting is going to fall off very fast.
Stanford is a storied proud WBB program. If they had actually opened up the position, there would be been a number of great candidates that applied I have no doubt. Tara was making almost 2.5 million a year. If we were willing to pay, we would attract the very best coaching candidates in the country.
RE: WBB: Stanford 65 Louisville 74 - crackpot - 02-09-2025
(02-09-2025, 09:03 PM)BillBradley Wrote: I like Kate and really do want her to succeed. No doubt, she has a great basketball mind. She can X and O with the best of them, I'm sure. But Kate is lacking a couple major things that are no fault of her own. 1) Head coaching experience 2) Credibility. Those things might not come into play as much if she was coaching our most recent Natty team. She may or may not have won a national championship had she coached that team, but with the talent and upperclassmen leadership on the court she very well could have. Head coaching experience and credibility come into play with teams that have LESS talent and the team starts racking up losses, which is what's happening now. She simply does not have Tara's experience on handling situations - what to do, what to say, now to motivate, what to let go vs. what to be concerned about, how to problem solve...And it's only human nature for players, after the losses mount, to question the decisions. I'm sure not all the players trusted Tara 100%. But this group would have trusted her way more than Kate. It's just the way it is when your leader doesn't have experience and things aren't going well. IMO, Tara would have won a handful more games because of this. We wouldn't have beaten Notre Dame or NC State, and we wouldn't be anything like 20-3, but my guess is we'd be something like 16-7 vs. 11-12. Just my opinion.
One thing that Tara had that Kate does not have: Kate doing the scout. We finally returned to the Final Four after a long drought the year Kate joined the coaching staff.
76lsjumb - 76lsjumb - 02-09-2025
(02-09-2025, 07:36 PM)here4WBB Wrote:(02-09-2025, 06:03 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: While it may very well be true that Tara would not have been able to do a better job with this team than Kate has done, that begs the question. The real question, it seems to me, is whether there are other coaches that would have done a better job than EITHER Kate or Tara?
Add the condition that the coach is playing in a new conference without years of familiarity with coaches and teams ....
I’m responding to this since it is by far the shortest of the replies to my earlier comment, but I think the following addresses most of the points in those as well.
First, I very much hope that Kate turns things around next season and succeeds, and I also readily concede that there were a multitude of highly significant and unusual factors to deal with this season that (hopefully) won’t be quite so adversely impactful in the future. For that reason, I’m withholding judgment on Kate’s general coaching prowess. My comment was more intended to convey y sense that saying that Kate is likely doing as well as Tara would have done was not, at least to me, exculpatory for Kate, as much as an indictment of Tara… and an accurate one.
As for the notion that Kate was probably in the better position and has probably done a better job than others outside of Stanford, I would offer Kyle Smith as my counter. Facing many of the same hurdles as Kate, AND coming from outside of Stanford, I think he has done a much better job THIS season in building a team that appears to be improving, along with individual players who also appear to be improving individually. I don’t immediately see why that couldn’t be the case with the right coach on the women’s side as well.
(02-09-2025, 08:22 PM)81alum Wrote:(02-09-2025, 06:03 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: While it may very well be true that Tara would not have been able to do a better job with this team than Kate has done, that begs the question. The real question, it seems to me, is whether there are other coaches that would have done a better job than EITHER Kate or Tara?My opinion only....NO. Not given the unique Stanford environment that is so unfriendly to transfers, that is catching up in NIL, that is switching to a new league that penalizes our team by making them spend much more time over the season on planes thatn 16/18th of the league....etc. In fact, a coach from outside the Stanford environment would have been an even greater disaster, learning all the Stanford restrictions on the fly, etc....
If you seriously want to abandon the TVD legacy and start from scratch, then at least you need some lead time. Also, ask yourself this...how many of next year's outstanding recruits would have come to Stanford if they did not think Kate Paye was continuing the TVD legacy of excellence? If they thought that Kate had no connection to Tara? I think that kind of wholesale change away from TVD and her coaching legacy is a recipe to reduce Stanford to the level (at best) of Gonzaga or Harvard.
I know you did not make the Holly Warlick analogy...but others have. Kate Paye is not Holly Warlick. Kate may wind up not being a successful coach....that remains to be seen, my optimism aside. But Kate IS far, far brighter and accomplished than Holly Warlick ever was. Sheer smarts may not be enough to make a good coach...but Kate is in fact light years ahead of a Holly Warlick in almost any measure of smarts. So if Kate fails, it won't be for anything like the same reasons that Holly Warlick failed.
Actually, I did make the Holly Warlick analogy… and noted that, in Holly Warlick’s first season she won the SEC and took Tennessee to the Elite Eight, and she did so while having to replace all five starters from the previous season. Kate may very well be much smarter than Holly, but I’m guessing we won’t be going to the Elite Eight this season…
RE: 76lsjumb - 81alum - 02-10-2025
(02-09-2025, 10:03 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: Actually, I did make the Holly Warlick analogy… and noted that, in Holly Warlick’s first season she won the SEC and took Tennessee to the Elite Eight, and she did so while having to replace all five starters from the previous season. Kate may very well be much smarter than Holly, but I’m guessing we won’t be going to the Elite Eight this season…Sorry about my confusion. The simple answer is Warlick inherited a much stronger roster, and she inherited it in an era when transferring out was not a viable option. I haven't counted them up but I think there were half a dozen on that team that became WNBA players. I don't think that is likely on the current Stanford roster.
RE: 76lsjumb - 81alum - 02-10-2025
(02-10-2025, 06:49 AM)81alum Wrote:OK, this proved to be a very interesting historical comparison and one that deserved a serious answer! Thanks for starting me on this path. I did go back and look over the Tennessee 2012-13 roster that was Warlick's first year. Following are the players she inherited that went on the the WNBA. Some of them did not last long, but still...(02-09-2025, 10:03 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: Actually, I did make the Holly Warlick analogy… and noted that, in Holly Warlick’s first season she won the SEC and took Tennessee to the Elite Eight, and she did so while having to replace all five starters from the previous season. Kate may very well be much smarter than Holly, but I’m guessing we won’t be going to the Elite Eight this season…Sorry about my confusion. The simple answer is Warlick inherited a much stronger roster, and she inherited it in an era when transferring out was not a viable option. I haven't counted them up but I think there were half a dozen on that team that became WNBA players. I don't think that is likely on the current Stanford roster.
1. Jasmine Jones
2. Kamiko Williams
3. Ariel Massengale
4. Meighan Simmons
5. Cierra Burdick
6. Bashaara Graves
7. Isabelle Harrison
Also, Andraya Carter was expected to be a WNBA player but a series of injuries toward the end of her college days ended that.
Basically, Warlick took over before WBB began its trend toward parity across many schools, and she had an absolutely loaded roster. In those years I would visit the Vols board before our game with them to compare notes with their fans--it was always a friendly exchange. My impression is that many Vol fans became rapidly disillusioned with Warlick because they thought she was underperforming with the copious talent she had inherited. And it turns out those fans were right--as the numerous professional careers later could attest. I only had a gut feeling about that until going back to check--but 7 future pros!
I don't think we will ever see teams like that again--no one is able to stockpile so many stars and have them sit on the bench for a couple of years the way a few powerhouses used to. Most of those 7 players probably would have transferred out rather than sit behind the 5 starters you pointed to, if today's transfer rules and NIL money were beckoning in 2012. But they couldn't, and they didn't, and so Warlick was able to reload with talent that Pat had recruited.
RE: WBB: Stanford 65 Louisville 74 - jonnyss - 02-10-2025
someone mentioned in an earlier post that kate was a star player. that's actually not what i recall. iirc kate was a competent contributor on some excellent teams. to compare to more recent players, she was a ros gold-onwude or an anna wilson, not a jennifer azzi or a candice wiggins.
certainly, having been a star player isn't required to become a successful coach. take geno auriemma, for one. that said, dawn staley, kim mulkey, niele ivey - and, of course, pat summitt - were all dominant players, the hannah hidalgos of their era. and it's perhaps significant that all were point guards, which kate was not.
hopefully, we can liken kate to steve kerr - a smart, likable person who was a decent player. then again, steve kerr was decent as a pro, but an all-american in college who set an NCAA record for 3-point shooting.
RE: WBB: Stanford 65 Louisville 74 - 81alum - 02-10-2025
(02-10-2025, 12:05 PM)jonnyss Wrote: someone mentioned in an earlier post that kate was a star player. that's actually not what i recall. iirc kate was a competent contributor on some excellent teams. to compare to more recent players, she was a ros gold-onwude or an anna wilson, not a jennifer azzi or a candice wiggins.I don't remember Kate being a star player either. She was a senior in 94-95...She started alongside Kate Starbird, Anita Kaplan, Jamila Wideman, and (sometimes) Rachel Hemmer or Olympia Scott. Kristen Folkl and Bobbi Kelsey and Vanessa Nygaard were also on the team. I thought Kate was a point guard, though, but I could easily be wrong. She led the team in assists with 146 to 79 turnovers. She averaged 9.4 ppg, shot 56 treys at 39%, had 44 steals on the year but was only a 75% free throw shooter. I think she was a walk-on at first, right? Maybe the reason we don't remember her being a star was that she was eclipsed by so many other truly great players on that team. But wouldn't we all love to have a guard with those numbers on the team right now!
certainly, having been a star player isn't required to become a successful coach. take geno auriemma, for one. that said, dawn staley, kim mulkey, niele ivey - and, of course, pat summitt - were all dominant players, the hannah hidalgos of their era. and it's perhaps significant that all were point guards, which kate was not.
hopefully, we can liken kate to steve kerr - a smart, likable person who was a decent player. then again, steve kerr was decent as a pro, but an all-american in college who set an NCAA record for 3-point shooting.
RE: WBB: Stanford 65 Louisville 74 - Hieronymus - 02-10-2025
(02-10-2025, 12:31 PM)81alum Wrote:(02-10-2025, 12:05 PM)jonnyss Wrote: someone mentioned in an earlier post that kate was a star player. that's actually not what i recall. iirc kate was a competent contributor on some excellent teams. to compare to more recent players, she was a ros gold-onwude or an anna wilson, not a jennifer azzi or a candice wiggins.I don't remember Kate being a star player either. She was a senior in 94-95...She started alongside Kate Starbird, Anita Kaplan, Jamila Wideman, and (sometimes) Rachel Hemmer or Olympia Scott. Kristen Folkl and Bobbi Kelsey and Vanessa Nygaard were also on the team. I thought Kate was a point guard, though, but I could easily be wrong. She led the team in assists with 146 to 79 turnovers. She averaged 9.4 ppg, shot 56 treys at 39%, had 44 steals on the year but was only a 75% free throw shooter. I think she was a walk-on at first, right? Maybe the reason we don't remember her being a star was that she was eclipsed by so many other truly great players on that team. But wouldn't we all love to have a guard with those numbers on the team right now!
certainly, having been a star player isn't required to become a successful coach. take geno auriemma, for one. that said, dawn staley, kim mulkey, niele ivey - and, of course, pat summitt - were all dominant players, the hannah hidalgos of their era. and it's perhaps significant that all were point guards, which kate was not.
hopefully, we can liken kate to steve kerr - a smart, likable person who was a decent player. then again, steve kerr was decent as a pro, but an all-american in college who set an NCAA record for 3-point shooting.
Yes she started out as a walk on. I would concur with solid starter, but not a star. And yes she was a PG I think, though maybe Wideman was really the PG? She was considered a PG I know in high school.
Last thought- my memory says she was a starter that year and 93-94,
I checked the UConn v Stanford tourney game. Paye was the SG. Wideman was the PG…..
RE: WBB: Stanford 65 Louisville 74 - martyup - 02-10-2025
When comparing Kyle Smith to KP, keep in mind that the mens team has arguably the MVP of the ACC and one of the top scorers and rebounders in the nation. The MBB team has much more talent than the WBB team this season.
RE: WBB: Stanford 65 Louisville 74 - jacket3ree - 02-10-2025
The Holly Warlick comparison seems natural because of the Summit-VanDerveer comparison, both coaches were local products that played for Summit and VanDerveer, and both coaches were longtime assistants under the respective legends. Warlick for 27 years; Paye for 17 years. Paye would do well to replicate Holly Warlick.
Warlick was good at Tennessee (172-67 or .720, without a title), just not Summit good (1098-208 or .841 and 8 titles). Warlick had records of 27-8, 29-6, 30-6, 22-14, 20-12, 25-8, and was let go in 2019 after 19-13 and a first round exit. She never missed the tournament and made it to the Elite Eight 3 times in 7 years.
Kelli Harper was better at Tennessee (0.675) than she was at any of her previous stops. She was .599 at Western Carolina, .522 at NC State, and .599 at Missouri State and coming off a Sweet Sixteen when Tennessee tabbed her to take over from Warlick. Had she not been a link back to Summit glory, would Tennessee have hired her? Her record before Knoxville didn't suggest that she would light it up on the big stage, particularly looking at her time in Raleigh. She finished buried in the ACC most years and had one first round exit to go with a couple of early exits from the WNIT plus a losing record in four years. In Knoxville she always finished third or fourth in the SEC, made the tournament every year they had one, and got to two Sweet Sixteens.
Tennessee's last title was in 2008, four years before Summit stepped aside. Not my place to assess their collective patience.
It is really hard to follow the legend that put a place on the map. Gene Bartow was outstanding and took UCLA to a Final Four his first year, but while he had a better winning percentage than Wooden, he wasn't Wooden. Jim Harrick's Tyus Edney-fueled 1995 aside, they've never recaptured the magic. I worry less about comparisons to Tennessee. If Paye turns out to be the next Warlick or even Harper, that wouldn't be the worst thing. I worry more about becoming the next ODU or La Tech. Whatever happened to those once-dominant programs? (Hint: nothing very good.)
(02-10-2025, 01:22 PM)martyup Wrote: When comparing Kyle Smith to KP, keep in mind that the mens team has arguably the MVP of the ACC and one of the top scorers and rebounders in the nation. The MBB team has much more talent than the WBB team this season.
Too early to make that comparison, but coaches do get the talent. Paye should have had a leg up on Smith given that she was the Associate Head Coach last year while Smith was running Wazzou.
76lsjumb - 76lsjumb - 02-10-2025
(02-10-2025, 01:22 PM)martyup Wrote: When comparing Kyle Smith to KP, keep in mind that the mens team has arguably the MVP of the ACC and one of the top scorers and rebounders in the nation. The MBB team has much more talent than the WBB team this season.I did keep that in mind. IIRC, that MVP candidate was in the transfer portal at the same time as Kiki IriaFEN. KS talked his star into leaving the portal and staying at Stanford. KP, well,…
RE: WBB: Stanford 65 Louisville 74 - BobK - 02-10-2025
Kiki graduated.
Reynaud hadn’t yet
Big Diff
RE: 76lsjumb - JohnR34231 - 02-10-2025
(02-10-2025, 01:45 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(02-10-2025, 01:22 PM)martyup Wrote: When comparing Kyle Smith to KP, keep in mind that the mens team has arguably the MVP of the ACC and one of the top scorers and rebounders in the nation. The MBB team has much more talent than the WBB team this season.I did keep that in mind. IIRC, that MVP candidate was in the transfer portal at the same time as Kiki IriaFEN. KS talked his star into leaving the portal and staying at Stanford. KP, well,…
But didn't he also have two excellent players leave? Or was that impossible for him to stop?
RE: 76lsjumb - 76lsjumb - 02-10-2025
(02-10-2025, 01:52 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(02-10-2025, 01:45 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(02-10-2025, 01:22 PM)martyup Wrote: When comparing Kyle Smith to KP, keep in mind that the mens team has arguably the MVP of the ACC and one of the top scorers and rebounders in the nation. The MBB team has much more talent than the WBB team this season.I did keep that in mind. IIRC, that MVP candidate was in the transfer portal at the same time as Kiki IriaFEN. KS talked his star into leaving the portal and staying at Stanford. KP, well,…
But didn't he also have two excellent players leave? Or was that impossible for him to stop?
I assume you're referring to Stoyakevic [sp?] and Angel. Yes, they left. But I'd argue that he replaced them with two pretty good transfers -- Blakes and Sellers, so that was, arguably, a net wash.