WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 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 49 Duke 74 (/thread-25409.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 49 Duke 74 (/thread-25409.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - 81alum - 01-20-2025
(01-20-2025, 06:33 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote: Would we be in a better position if NIL doesn't exist? Yes, but blaming NIL solely doesn't fully explain the step back we've taken.I'm not sure I agree with this, though. Many of the problems you accurately recite predated NIL and held us back from time to time then--the lack of elite guards, for example. So this is nothing new and not a "step back" but business as usual. Swain is a remarkable success and I hope will reverse that long standing problem.
But I would say that the difference between last year and this year is almost entirely due to the toxic NIL/transfer stew. Note that I am not saying that Iriafen and Betts made the wrong decisions for them, nor am I blaming them for using this new system to their advantage. But under the old system they would be playing for Stanford, and under the new system they are not.
The new system makes it difficult to impossible to plan roster management four years in advance--which is what Tara always did. The majority of our players were recruited and developed into starters 1,2, or 3 years into their college careers. Only a few started straight out of high school. It took two years to develop Kiki into the truly great, elite player she became. And then poof. It is my understanding with her that she wanted to stay and could have stayed for this year, but was put under significant pressure by her family, who urged her to take the $800k and come home to play in front of them. I don't think any of us are in a position to criticize her--that much money for some families would be life changing. But the fact remains: she is gone. Thankfully, with a degree.
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - Maple Leaf - 01-20-2025
(01-20-2025, 08:38 AM)81alum Wrote:(01-20-2025, 06:33 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote: Would we be in a better position if NIL doesn't exist? Yes, but blaming NIL solely doesn't fully explain the step back we've taken.I'm not sure I agree with this, though. Many of the problems you accurately recite predated NIL and held us back from time to time then--the lack of elite guards, for example. So this is nothing new and not a "step back" but business as usual. Swain is a remarkable success and I hope will reverse that long standing problem.
But I would say that the difference between last year and this year is almost entirely due to the toxic NIL/transfer stew. Note that I am not saying that Iriafen and Betts made the wrong decisions for them, nor am I blaming them for using this new system to their advantage. But under the old system they would be playing for Stanford, and under the new system they are not.
The new system makes it difficult to impossible to plan roster management four years in advance--which is what Tara always did. The majority of our players were recruited and developed into starters 1,2, or 3 years into their college careers. Only a few started straight out of high school. It took two years to develop Kiki into the truly great, elite player she became. And then poof. It is my understanding with her that she wanted to stay and could have stayed for this year, but was put under significant pressure by her family, who urged her to take the $800k and come home to play in front of them. I don't think any of us are in a position to criticize her--that much money for some families would be life changing. But the fact remains: she is gone. Thankfully, with a degree.
excellent points!!!
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - BillBradley - 01-20-2025
(01-20-2025, 10:04 AM)Maple Leaf Wrote:I certainly understand your point 81, and if all you are saying is "we would have been way better with Betts and Iriafen" then I'm 100% with you. But I'm not so sure it stops there with your position. I think it's important that when discussing topics like performance, recruiting, and coaching that the default position doesn't become "well, how do you expect we compete with these stupid rules in place?". The effort I saw on the court against Duke most definitely had nothing to do with NIL or the transfer portal. This team has enough in the cupboards to finish in the top half of the conference and make the tournament, even without Betts and Iriafen. That's where I think the line should be drawn. As their level of competitiveness continues to slip, I don't think the line of thinking should be "geez, the effects of the NIL and the transfer portal were way worse than I thought."(01-20-2025, 08:38 AM)81alum Wrote:(01-20-2025, 06:33 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote: Would we be in a better position if NIL doesn't exist? Yes, but blaming NIL solely doesn't fully explain the step back we've taken.I'm not sure I agree with this, though. Many of the problems you accurately recite predated NIL and held us back from time to time then--the lack of elite guards, for example. So this is nothing new and not a "step back" but business as usual. Swain is a remarkable success and I hope will reverse that long standing problem.
But I would say that the difference between last year and this year is almost entirely due to the toxic NIL/transfer stew. Note that I am not saying that Iriafen and Betts made the wrong decisions for them, nor am I blaming them for using this new system to their advantage. But under the old system they would be playing for Stanford, and under the new system they are not.
The new system makes it difficult to impossible to plan roster management four years in advance--which is what Tara always did. The majority of our players were recruited and developed into starters 1,2, or 3 years into their college careers. Only a few started straight out of high school. It took two years to develop Kiki into the truly great, elite player she became. And then poof. It is my understanding with her that she wanted to stay and could have stayed for this year, but was put under significant pressure by her family, who urged her to take the $800k and come home to play in front of them. I don't think any of us are in a position to criticize her--that much money for some families would be life changing. But the fact remains: she is gone. Thankfully, with a degree.
excellent points!!!
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - crackpot - 01-20-2025
Would it be a blessing in disguise if we don't make the NCAA tournament and, instead, have a chance to make a mark in the WNIT? I'm thinking about Arizona in 2019 winning it all, then in the next NCAA tournament missing out on the championship by one point.
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - M T - 01-20-2025
(01-20-2025, 11:14 AM)BillBradley Wrote: The effort I saw on the court against Duke most definitely had nothing to do with NIL or the transfer portal.
The players' effort in the Duke and NC State losses has been exemplary. Being blessed with Tara, we fans have rarely been in the position of watching the team we cheer for be in a hopeless situation in games. This team righted the ship after disastrous quarters and at least played even.
----
Thinking about loss of concentration and dialing it in, too bad the announcers lost it.
----
I can imagine reasons why VanDerveer might have crossed the country and taken in this game. But does anyone have a clue why Muir was in the area? I think he would not have traveled just for this game. I didn't watch all of the men's game against North Carolina. Were they there for that as well?
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - PVTree - 01-20-2025
Could Muir have taken a pit stop while heading to the NCAA championship game in Atlanta?
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - paloalto - 01-20-2025
(01-20-2025, 11:59 AM)M T Wrote:(01-20-2025, 11:14 AM)BillBradley Wrote: The effort I saw on the court against Duke most definitely had nothing to do with NIL or the transfer portal.
But does anyone have a clue why Muir was in the area? I think he would not have traveled just for this game.
One reason might be his daughter attends Duke. She plays for their WVB team. There are probably other reasons in addition to that.
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - M T - 01-20-2025
(01-20-2025, 12:08 PM)paloalto Wrote:(01-20-2025, 11:59 AM)M T Wrote:(01-20-2025, 11:14 AM)BillBradley Wrote: The effort I saw on the court against Duke most definitely had nothing to do with NIL or the transfer portal.
But does anyone have a clue why Muir was in the area? I think he would not have traveled just for this game.
One reason might be his daughter attends Duke. She plays for their WVB team. There are probably other reasons in addition to that.
Thanks, that definitely explains it. Parents need little excuse to go see their child who is off at school. I figured the girl next to him was his daughter. I remember now that she has been mentioned here.
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - TheFarm07 - 01-20-2025
(01-20-2025, 08:38 AM)81alum Wrote:(01-20-2025, 06:33 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote: Would we be in a better position if NIL doesn't exist? Yes, but blaming NIL solely doesn't fully explain the step back we've taken.I'm not sure I agree with this, though. Many of the problems you accurately recite predated NIL and held us back from time to time then--the lack of elite guards, for example. So this is nothing new and not a "step back" but business as usual. Swain is a remarkable success and I hope will reverse that long standing problem.
But I would say that the difference between last year and this year is almost entirely due to the toxic NIL/transfer stew. Note that I am not saying that Iriafen and Betts made the wrong decisions for them, nor am I blaming them for using this new system to their advantage. But under the old system they would be playing for Stanford, and under the new system they are not.
The new system makes it difficult to impossible to plan roster management four years in advance--which is what Tara always did. The majority of our players were recruited and developed into starters 1,2, or 3 years into their college careers. Only a few started straight out of high school. It took two years to develop Kiki into the truly great, elite player she became. And then poof. It is my understanding with her that she wanted to stay and could have stayed for this year, but was put under significant pressure by her family, who urged her to take the $800k and come home to play in front of them. I don't think any of us are in a position to criticize her--that much money for some families would be life changing. But the fact remains: she is gone. Thankfully, with a degree.
Certainly Stanford has been the one of the most, if not the most disadvantaged school by NIL. I don't think I am going out on a limb here to say, the vast majority of CardBoarders would agree that we wish the old ways would come back.
I was also unaware of the pressure Kiki was under to chase the $$, which as you pointed out, is a result of what is now basically legalized bribery.
Unfortunately, that is how the system is and we'll need to adapt or get left behind. An overarching point is that in this age of NIL, player satisfaction is more important than ever. As distasteful as it is, our NIL office (for lack of a better term) must be uber-competitive and I hope the administration recognizes that and be willing to go toe-to-toe with other schools. And for some players, $$ might be the end-all and be-all. I am hoping that in addition to the monetary compensation, we can have a program that can attract elite recruits of all 5 positions.
My illustration of our PG/G misses compared to the forward/post successes we have makes me wonder why we haven't been as successful and we need to change that.
In summary, this has been my overall reply to the team's current state: NIL majorly sucks, but we need to adapt to this gross new world if we want to retain our place as a premier program in wbb. But we have issues beyond NIL (which doesn't help), including elite guard recruitment.
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - 81alum - 01-20-2025
(01-20-2025, 12:29 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote: In summary, this has been my overall reply to the team's current state: NIL majorly sucks, but we need to adapt to this gross new world if we want to retain our place as a premier program in wbb. But we have issues beyond NIL (which doesn't help), including elite guard recruitment.Here is a possible way to combat the NIL problem that would probably have worked for Iriafen: always MATCH whatever offers other teams make when poaching our players. I think that is an ethical compromise I could live with--just raise enough money to neutralize all incoming bribes. Beyond that we continue with a modest program that compensates all players equally. This is, by the way, the way many universities manage their faculty--the stars get offers from elsewhere and the administration will match the offer to keep them in place. Of course, they are professionals.
Now, with regard to what changes the coaches should make...it is pretty clear what they need to do and it will take at least a couple of recruiting cycles to get there.
1) We are now in a guard-oriented league and Stanford needs to focus more on guard recruitment than post recruitment. We still need outstanding posts--but it is unlikely we will be playing twin towers anytime soon. The guards we recruit must be good all-rounders and not specialists. They need the height and length and quickness to defend, they must be "naturals" at the dribble-drive layups, and they must have respectable three point jump shots. In other words, we need Lexie types more than Jump types. The second coming of Wiggins would be better yet. If we can only get a specialist, she needs to be a defensive specialist--a perimeter lock-down defender. We need a Gold-Onwude more than we need a Karlie. The pure three point shooters who don't bring much else to the table can be taken out of games by really good defensive teams.
2) Since we have to expect that there will still be occasional transfers out, and since there will seldom be successful transfers in--and even when there are they can't be planned for--our offensive scheme needs to change. We need an offense that is simpler to learn. The Princeton is notorious for taking several years to fully master. We can never count on 4 years of player development again. I can't say what that offense should be, and to a great degree it has to take advantage of whatever particular talents our players have. But no player is going to become adept at running the Princeton in less than at least a couple of years.
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - BobK - 01-20-2025
Some confusion here. Lifetine cardinal is the NIL group for Stanford and not part of Stanford but a separate corporation.
We did match a usc offer usc upped it plus kiki graduated in three years with the purpose of going to usc
The budget for lifetine Cardinal for WBB is in place. I urge you to join. Or at least look into it
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - 81alum - 01-20-2025
(01-20-2025, 01:23 PM)BobK Wrote: Some confusion here. Lifetine cardinal is the NIL group for Stanford and not part of Stanford but a separate corporation.So Lifetime Cardinal came up with $800k and Kiki took the $800k from USC instead?
We did match a usc offer usc upped it plus kiki graduated in three years with the purpose of going to usc
The budget for lifetine Cardinal for WBB is in place. I urge you to join. Or at least look into it
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - JohnR34231 - 01-20-2025
(01-20-2025, 01:25 PM)81alum Wrote:(01-20-2025, 01:23 PM)BobK Wrote: Some confusion here. Lifetine cardinal is the NIL group for Stanford and not part of Stanford but a separate corporation.So Lifetime Cardinal came up with $800k and Kiki took the $800k from USC instead?
We did match a usc offer usc upped it plus kiki graduated in three years with the purpose of going to usc
The budget for lifetine Cardinal for WBB is in place. I urge you to join. Or at least look into it
Sounds like what BobK is saying is we matched U$C's offer and then they increased it. Presumably we refused to get in a bidding war and things were done at $800K. Also 81Alum is saying she wanted to stay and BobK is saying she graduated in 3 years so she could leave.
So some differences of opinion here.
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - 81alum - 01-20-2025
(01-20-2025, 01:45 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:Bob always knows more inside stuff than I do ;) I trust his judgment. I'm only reporting what someone who sits near to me at Maples, and who is fairly well plugged in to the WBB establishment, told me. So maybe slightly more than a rumor.(01-20-2025, 01:25 PM)81alum Wrote:(01-20-2025, 01:23 PM)BobK Wrote: Some confusion here. Lifetine cardinal is the NIL group for Stanford and not part of Stanford but a separate corporation.So Lifetime Cardinal came up with $800k and Kiki took the $800k from USC instead?
We did match a usc offer usc upped it plus kiki graduated in three years with the purpose of going to usc
The budget for lifetine Cardinal for WBB is in place. I urge you to join. Or at least look into it
Sounds like what BobK is saying is we matched U$C's offer and then they increased it. Presumably we refused to get in a bidding war and things were done at $800K. Also 81Alum is saying she wanted to stay and BobK is saying she graduated in 3 years so she could leave.
So some differences of opinion here.
In any case there is no doubt she graduated, but there is also no doubt that she did not NEED to graduate if she wanted to stay for a fourth year, something she was originally inclined to do. Once she decided to leave then exercising the graduation option was obvious.
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - TheFarm07 - 01-20-2025
(01-20-2025, 01:07 PM)81alum Wrote:(01-20-2025, 12:29 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote: In summary, this has been my overall reply to the team's current state: NIL majorly sucks, but we need to adapt to this gross new world if we want to retain our place as a premier program in wbb. But we have issues beyond NIL (which doesn't help), including elite guard recruitment.Here is a possible way to combat the NIL problem that would probably have worked for Iriafen: always MATCH whatever offers other teams make when poaching our players. I think that is an ethical compromise I could live with--just raise enough money to neutralize all incoming bribes. Beyond that we continue with a modest program that compensates all players equally. This is, by the way, the way many universities manage their faculty--the stars get offers from elsewhere and the administration will match the offer to keep them in place. Of course, they are professionals.
Now, with regard to what changes the coaches should make...it is pretty clear what they need to do and it will take at least a couple of recruiting cycles to get there.
1) We are now in a guard-oriented league and Stanford needs to focus more on guard recruitment than post recruitment. We still need outstanding posts--but it is unlikely we will be playing twin towers anytime soon. The guards we recruit must be good all-rounders and not specialists. They need the height and length and quickness to defend, they must be "naturals" at the dribble-drive layups, and they must have respectable three point jump shots. In other words, we need Lexie types more than Jump types. The second coming of Wiggins would be better yet. If we can only get a specialist, she needs to be a defensive specialist--a perimeter lock-down defender. We need a Gold-Onwude more than we need a Karlie. The pure three point shooters who don't bring much else to the table can be taken out of games by really good defensive teams.
2) Since we have to expect that there will still be occasional transfers out, and since there will seldom be successful transfers in--and even when there are they can't be planned for--our offensive scheme needs to change. We need an offense that is simpler to learn. The Princeton is notorious for taking several years to fully master. We can never count on 4 years of player development again. I can't say what that offense should be, and to a great degree it has to take advantage of whatever particular talents our players have. But no player is going to become adept at running the Princeton in less than at least a couple of years.
100% agree with these two points 81alum. The question is, whether Paye recognizes this and adapts accordingly.
On the second point, I know Tara had the triangle system when we had Appel, the Ogwumike sisters and then changed after Chiney graduated when we didn't have a dominant post for a few years, but I've been intrigued if her peers (Geno, Summitt, Staley, Mulkey, etc.) have a particular "system" they are known for. From my knowledge, these other coaches weren't known for implementing a specific strategy throughout their tenure.
If not, I wonder why Tara decided to stick to a specific one, especially the Princeton, that we've seen the limitations of, the last few years.
Potentially relatedly, do you think running the Princeton offense might have been a turnoff for some elite guards who like to direct traffic and run the offense through them? From my understanding, the Princeton is less guard-centric of a strategy and so recruits who are used to controlling their team's offense might not be as enthusiastic of going into a system where their freedom to improvise/conduct the offense might be limited.
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - jonnyss - 01-20-2025
it was interesting to watch this replay of the men's victory over unc and hear the announcers repeatedly praise the many creative and successful inbounds plays. maybe the women could run some of these plays?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oYCYSMrTrY
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - bl82 - 01-20-2025
(01-20-2025, 04:35 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote: Potentially relatedly, do you think running the Princeton offense might have been a turnoff for some elite guards who like to direct traffic and run the offense through them? From my understanding, the Princeton is less guard-centric of a strategy and so recruits who are used to controlling their team's offense might not be as enthusiastic of going into a system where their freedom to improvise/conduct the offense might be limited.
Great question and one I too would like to get to the bottom of. Also, should we expect Kate to have more or less system flexibility than Tara going forward?
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - fullmetal - 01-20-2025
I wonder if those plays were designed to take advantage of particular opponents' tendencies. But a common braintrust between both teams would be very interesting. Creative thinking requires new ideas and different perspectives.
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - 81alum - 01-20-2025
(01-20-2025, 05:07 PM)jonnyss Wrote: it was interesting to watch this replay of the men's victory over unc and hear the announcers repeatedly praise the many creative and successful inbounds plays. maybe the women could run some of these plays?That is instructive, but one of the few bright spots in the women's loss at Duke were our inbounds plays. So much better than prior games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oYCYSMrTrY
RE: WBB: Stanford 49 Duke 74 - Card10Fan - 01-20-2025
(01-20-2025, 01:23 PM)BobK Wrote: Some confusion here. Lifetine cardinal is the NIL group for Stanford and not part of Stanford but a separate corporation.
We did match a usc offer usc upped it plus kiki graduated in three years with the purpose of going to usc
The budget for lifetine Cardinal for WBB is in place. I urge you to join. Or at least look into it
My guess would be we offered Iriafen 300k(ish) and USC upped the ante alot and offered 800k. Is that close? I want to know more about Lifetime Cardinal and what we are actually offering/doing for our players. Does joining/giving automatically provide more answers to those questions?