The CardBoard
WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - 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 -- 2024-2025 Season (/thread-25247.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - JohnR34231 - 01-27-2025

Yeah, I recall in the Haley Jones interview Betts said the problem was that she didn't get enough "support" while at Stanford.
Also, Close said that when she arrived at UCLA she was a ten in ability but only a five in confidence so the latter was what they spent a lot of time working on. So it looks like mental health issues were indeed an issue.
Also when I see her play at UCLA she looks a lot more athletic than she did at Stanford. Apparently, this was something she also worked on.
Over the last three years or so we have lost McDonald's All Americans who were on the roster with eligibility left and struck out on most of our high-profile recruits (Rice, Watkins, Hildago to name a few). Perhaps that was at least partially due to the idea that Tara was going to retire, but something was definitely wrong. It has caused us to go from one of the top teams in the nation to an at best average one. We have an excellent recruiting class coming in so maybe that is turning around. I sure hope so,

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - petersalas - 01-27-2025

There was also an article that said her mother was not happy that they couldn’t guarantee what Betts role would be like in the future. And you know Tara doesn't give any guarantees like that. 

(01-27-2025, 12:19 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(01-26-2025, 09:00 PM)81alum Wrote:  RE: Betts, announcers and fans began commenting during her freshman year on how hard it was to get Betts playing time, and so when she left, everyone naturally assumed that the playing time had something to do with it.  At some point (perhaps the Haley Jones interview) she denied it had anything to do with playing time and laughed at how mistaken people were about her.  She has noted mental health concerns.  That could mean a lot of things, many of which might have nothing to do with basketball.   She might have felt she did not fit in to the Stanford environment outside of basketball, or maybe it did have something to do with relationships on the team or with the coaches.  We don't know.

The playing time comment wasn’t an assumption; her mother was on record saying that she didn’t think Stanford used Betts “effectively” which I think was code for “enough”.

BC


RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - 81alum - 01-27-2025

(01-27-2025, 03:37 AM)M T Wrote:  
(01-26-2025, 09:00 PM)81alum Wrote:  But your average Stanford student does not see their parents every weekend and does not have them talking to their professors on a regular basis, the way a WBB player might have her parents hovering over her, following along to away games, talking to coaches, etc.  I've always thought there is something unwholesome about that, and sometimes it has bad ramifications for the player and for the team.

I would have thought you would be very aware that most college students live with or near to their parents.
A 2020 study indicated 57% of new college students didn't move away from home.  It indicated that the schools with the farthest pull are CalTech, MIT, and Stanford—students avg. more than 1,000 miles to attend.  Similar numbers were found in 2018.

A study released in 2022 by researchers at Harvard and the US Census Bureau indicated
  • Nearly 60% of young adults live within 10 miles of where they grew up
  • 80% of young adults live within 100 miles of where they grew up

The distance between Stanford students & their parents is abnormally great.  There is little weaning for the students that get uprooted to travel half-way across the country to take up residence.  Most college students (and their parents) have time to transition from their home town and birth family to a life on their own.  Perhaps the communication available in this century allows for continued contact, despite the physical distance.

I am not arguing that it is better or worse to have that separation. I know it is better for some and worse for others.  I am only suggesting that the average Stanford student is more separated from their parents than most others of their age group.  If Stanford athletes happen to see their parents an extra handful of times a year, they are still probably more separated than the majority of their age group.  (Indeed, I suspect that NCAA freshmen on scholarships have fewer interactions with their parents than other freshmen, as they likely travelled farther from home to college.)

I will refrain from speculating on how that separation affected me versus my siblings who stayed relatively close to home.  We were each different people at age 18 and so it would be hard to differentiate the effect of this distance on subsequent maturation and family relationships.
Yes, MT, indeed I am aware.  Only about 30% of my students live on campus.  I have had some students living at home in abusive situations who were desperate to live on campus and could not, for financial reasons.  And of course I have had students who live on campus who would have been better off at home.

But this illustrates my point, which I did not make very well.  Stanford is an elite residential university--a major part of the "Stanford experience" is living there, with all of the concomitant benefits that go with that--I won't catalog them.  That kind of experience--living away from home on a college campus--is not for every student at that stage of their lives.  Not all are ready for it and some will never be.  But for the most parts students sort themselves out--those who know that the elite, suburban, Stanford experience is not right for them don't apply.  And--for the most part--the students coming to Stanford are there to take advantage of the unique environment.  It is important that those who DO come can benefit from the residential experience, or they may feel out of place or downright miserable.  I had a friend in my freshman dorm, for example, who hated Stanford and left.  It was not sufficiently urban for him.

Not all athletes--even those with the grades and the talent to succeed--will necessarily fit the "Stanford experience."  Perhaps Betts was one of them, and was simply unhappy and needed a change of environment.
(01-27-2025, 12:19 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  The playing time comment wasn’t an assumption; her mother was on record saying that she didn’t think Stanford used Betts “effectively” which I think was code for “enough”.

BC
Yes, I know she said that.  And Lauren said something else.  It is a rabbit hole to try to sort out what happened.  I do know that there have been occasions in the past where the parents of a Stanford WBB player were highly problematic.

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - BobK - 01-27-2025

Betts played with Brink with Brink on defense in the paint Betts on defense roamed. Betts was unable to guard players while roaming. Maybe she got embarrassed and Mom thought that also.
Stanford played Betts over Prechtel so certainly gave Betts a chance to play

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - TheFarm07 - 01-27-2025

Thank you all for your insights & thoughts about Betts and her situation. I'm disappointed that it didn't work out for her here at Stanford on multiple levels. And while it's nice to see her thrive and fulfill her promise, it's also frustrating that it's not being done here, but at UCLA.

On a brighter note, this is a headline we haven't seen in a couple years. Let's hope that we see this headline on repeat every year:

Stanford, Tennessee signees lead McDonald's All American girls' rosters

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/43587592/stanford-tennessee-signees-lead-mcdonald-all-american-girls-rosters

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - liveoak - 01-27-2025

(01-27-2025, 05:39 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:  Yeah, I recall in the Haley Jones interview Betts said the problem was that she didn't get enough "support" while at Stanford.
Also, Close said that when she arrived at UCLA she was a ten in ability but only a five in confidence so the latter was what they spent a lot of time working on. So it looks like mental health issues were indeed an issue.
Also when I see her play at UCLA she looks a lot more athletic than she did at Stanford. Apparently, this was something she also worked on.
Over the last three years or so we have lost McDonald's All Americans who were on the roster with eligibility left and struck out on most of our high-profile recruits (Rice, Watkins, Hildago to name a few). Perhaps that was at least partially due to the idea that Tara was going to retire, but something was definitely wrong. It has caused us to go from one of the top teams in the nation to an at best average one. We have an excellent recruiting class coming in so maybe that is turning around. I sure hope so,

Stanford has had a number of high-talent players transfer in the last several years and several high-profile recruits did not come to Stanford. This   leads me to believe that there is a reason for this inside the program...and this should be looked at.
(01-27-2025, 07:43 AM)BobK Wrote:  Betts played with Brink with Brink on defense in the paint Betts on defense roamed.  Betts was unable to guard players while roaming. Maybe she got embarrassed and Mom thought that also. 
Stanford played Betts over Prechtel so certainly gave Betts a chance to play

Betts was not as mobile as a freshman as she was now and her offensive moves weren't as well developed. Two years later, she is much improved and is now a dominant center. As a freshman or even a sophomore, however, she was not going to be better than Brink nor start in front of her.

She looks great now at UCLA and I wish her every success.

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - BostonCard - 01-27-2025

(01-27-2025, 07:06 AM)81alum Wrote:  Yes, I know she said that.  And Lauren said something else.  It is a rabbit hole to try to sort out what happened.  I do know that there have been occasions in the past where the parents of a Stanford WBB player were highly problematic.

Probably trying to distill the reason for her transfer is a fool's errand, and I liked 2006alum's comment that it was "overdetermined".  In addition to the public comments there are likely private reasons that have not been shared, either because it would be impolite, or because it might not be a "good look", or because they are hard to articulate.  That being said, I think the two reasons that have been stated publicly are probably both true, and who knows which was the more important one.  Moreover, the two may be related; someone who is under intense pressure as the #1 recruit in the country who is not seeing a lot of playing time and struggling with mental health might internalize playing time decisions and it could exacerbate whatever she was feeling.

BC

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - BillBradley - 01-28-2025

(01-27-2025, 10:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(01-27-2025, 07:06 AM)81alum Wrote:  Yes, I know she said that.  And Lauren said something else.  It is a rabbit hole to try to sort out what happened.  I do know that there have been occasions in the past where the parents of a Stanford WBB player were highly problematic.

Probably trying to distill the reason for her transfer is a fool's errand, and I liked 2006alum's comment that it was "overdetermined".  In addition to the public comments there are likely private reasons that have not been shared, either because it would be impolite, or because it might not be a "good look", or because they are hard to articulate.  That being said, I think the two reasons that have been stated publicly are probably both true, and who knows which was the more important one.  Moreover, the two may be related; someone who is under intense pressure as the #1 recruit in the country who is not seeing a lot of playing time and struggling with mental health might internalize playing time decisions and it could exacerbate whatever she was feeling.

BC
And there was a third, not-stated-publicly reason that likely factored in, which, IMO, was probably more influential in her decision than her future playing time or her happiness on the Farm. It's that darn NIL thing. Between Lauren and her sister, the family will be receiving far more money at UCLA than at Stanford. Over their 7 years, it will probably be north of a couple million dollars.

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - crackpot - 01-28-2025

BTW, just emailed KRON at BreakingNews@kron4.com (that's the only email they list) to ask them about their plans for airing the North Carolina game this Sunday, scheduled for The CW.

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - JohnR34231 - 01-28-2025

Well, with the three McD AA's coming in it will be interesting if KP can get them enough playing time (and enough NIL) to keep them around.
Next year's team will have a lot of young talent, and it will be tough to keep everyone happy.

Mudhead - Mudhead - 01-28-2025

(01-28-2025, 10:39 AM)BillBradley Wrote:  
(01-27-2025, 10:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(01-27-2025, 07:06 AM)81alum Wrote:  Yes, I know she said that.  And Lauren said something else.  It is a rabbit hole to try to sort out what happened.  I do know that there have been occasions in the past where the parents of a Stanford WBB player were highly problematic.

Probably trying to distill the reason for her transfer is a fool's errand, and I liked 2006alum's comment that it was "overdetermined".  In addition to the public comments there are likely private reasons that have not been shared, either because it would be impolite, or because it might not be a "good look", or because they are hard to articulate.  That being said, I think the two reasons that have been stated publicly are probably both true, and who knows which was the more important one.  Moreover, the two may be related; someone who is under intense pressure as the #1 recruit in the country who is not seeing a lot of playing time and struggling with mental health might internalize playing time decisions and it could exacerbate whatever she was feeling.

BC
And there was a third, not-stated-publicly reason that likely factored in, which, IMO, was probably more influential in her decision than her future playing time or her happiness on the Farm. It's that darn NIL thing. Between Lauren and her sister, the family will be receiving far more money at UCLA than at Stanford. Over their 7 years, it will probably be north of a couple million dollars.

If NIL was a major reason we should learn from that. Don’t recruit top talent if you are t prepared to pay high NIL.  When Betts was here , I think we were under the illusion that a .stanford degree would somehow trump big $.  The old world in which the Stanford degree was enough to give us the edge with top Athletes is now a thing of the past. Sad as that may be, it is. We must adapt or give up on top people.

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - BostonCard - 01-28-2025

Brink had a pretty lucrative NIL deal, and Stanford was willing to shell out mid-six figures to keep Iriafen but got outbid by USC.  So, I don't think it is solely a question of not being prepared to pay NIL but rather a question of how to allocate the money.

Also, discussion of NIL payments will be moot going forward once the House Settlement is in place.  As I understand the settlement, players will still be able to get NIL payments for actual use of their name, image or likeness but will not be able to be funneled money by a collective just to play at a particular school.  Schools will be able to pay athletes directly (a bit north of $20 million/year) but that will need to be divided amongst all athletes, so paying a top high school recruit who is currently on the bench behind an all-American player just so they don't go elsewhere will be a tough sell.

BC

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - BosCard - 01-28-2025

(01-28-2025, 01:18 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:  Well, with the three McD AA's coming in it will be interesting if KP can get them enough playing time (and enough NIL) to keep them around.
Next year's team will have a lot of young talent, and it will be tough to keep everyone happy.

I respectfully disagree about playing time.  Yes we had this problem 2 years ago when Brink, Jones, Iriafen and Betts were all competing for two spots (along with Belibi and Prechtel) but this year starting spots and playing time are wide wide open.  The only player that has really earned their starting position is Agara.  If someone (even a freshman) was playing really well on offense or defense then they would start.  It’s going to be the same next year when it will be Agara and 4 wide open starting spots.  I have a hunch that Swain and Somfai will earn their starting spots quickly.  My guess for the other two would be Clardy and Ogden.  Both are amongst our best perimeter defenders and I think Coach Paye really values defense and sees Duke’s current team as the blueprint for how to get back into the national rankings i.e. through an elite defense.

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - BillBradley - 01-28-2025

(01-28-2025, 01:54 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Also, discussion of NIL payments will be moot going forward once the House Settlement is in place.  As I understand the settlement, players will still be able to get NIL payments for actual use of their name, image or likeness but will not be able to be funneled money by a collective just to play at a particular school.  Schools will be able to pay athletes directly (a bit north of $20 million/year) but that will need to be divided amongst all athletes, so paying a top high school recruit who is currently on the bench behind an all-American player just so they don't go elsewhere will be a tough sell.

BC
Not sure about that. I don't pretend to be an expert on this subject, but here's a couple things worth mentioning...
1) Schools have to opt-in to the revenue sharing. Also, sports revenues vary widely from school to school, even in the major conferences. Seems like there is some built-in inequity right out of the gate.
2) Yes, the schools themselves will have to adhere to more strict standards and there will be more transparency, but there is no oversight to NIL deals not closely tied to the school. In other words, there are loopholes that will surely be exploited (i.e. "Hey Lauren's agent, I'm the owner of ABC Cosmetics here in Los Angeles. I heard Lauren might be coming to UCLA and we wanted to explore options on how Lauren might be able to help us reach the college demographic as one of our spokespeople..."). From this article, which I thought was a good summary on the topic: "Instead, restrictions will focus only on groups of entities and individuals closely affiliated with the schools," such as collectives. 
https://natlawreview.com/article/taking-it-house-preliminary-approval-settlement-house-v-ncaa-could-bring

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - BostonCard - 01-28-2025

I think my statement that "players will still be able to get NIL payments for actual use of their name, image or likeness but will not be able to be funneled money by a collective just to play at a particular school." is compatible with the article, which states:

Quote:restrictions will focus only on groups "of entities and individuals closely affiliated with the schools," such as collectives. Any NIL deals involving these "associated entities or individuals" must be approved through a third-party clearinghouse. The NCAA will not be responsible for reviewing these agreements; instead, they will be subject to neutral arbitration. An arbitrator will determine whether the NIL deals serve a "valid business purpose" or are merely pay-for-play schemes disguised as NIL agreements.

My point was that in thinking about future players, we will not have to worry about recruiting "top talent if you aren't prepared to pay high NIL" since "we" (defined as a Stanford-affiliated collective) would not be able to pay high NILs.  The best we can hope for is that someone is able to identify an NIL deal that serves a valid business purpose for top talent that comes to Stanford.  I think Cameron Brink demonstrated that this is possible.

BC

Mudhead - Mudhead - 01-28-2025

(01-28-2025, 06:23 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  I think my statement that "players will still be able to get NIL payments for actual use of their name, image or likeness but will not be able to be funneled money by a collective just to play at a particular school." is compatible with the article, which states:

Quote:restrictions will focus only on groups "of entities and individuals closely affiliated with the schools," such as collectives. Any NIL deals involving these "associated entities or individuals" must be approved through a third-party clearinghouse. The NCAA will not be responsible for reviewing these agreements; instead, they will be subject to neutral arbitration. An arbitrator will determine whether the NIL deals serve a "valid business purpose" or are merely pay-for-play schemes disguised as NIL agreements.

My point was that in thinking about future players, we will not have to worry about recruiting "top talent if you aren't prepared to pay high NIL" since "we" (defined as a Stanford-affiliated collective) would not be able to pay high NILs.  The best we can hope for is that someone is able to identify an NIL deal that serves a valid business purpose for top talent that comes to Stanford.  I think Cameron Brink demonstrated that this is possible.

BC
I think it is nice to long for a world where NIL deals , or some version of them,  won’t be critical to Women’s  basketball. But we shouldn’t plan on it until and unless it becomes a reality. I am pretty  sure this Genie isn’t going back into the bottle.  Top Talent will go the the biggest reward. Once upon a time, that was a Stanford  degree. I just don’t think it is anymore and neither does the top talent that is voting with foot movement.   You may be right and that would be nice. I wouldn’t plan on it and I hope 
Stanford doesn’t either. 

 my basic point has been that we need to understand why top talent is not choosing to stay at Stanford. If it has nothing to do with NIL, great. Let’s find out what it is and fix it.

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - Card10Fan - 01-29-2025

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/college/article/talana-lepolo-s-return-uncertain-stanford-20052267.php

Lack of transparency just leads to more speciation. I understand player privacy but lots of teams disclose player injuries and timeline or updates. It’s not forbidden  It seems so stupid no one wants to comment on Lepolo. I assume we won’t see her again the rest of the year as the article kind of alludes to.

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - qwerty49 - 01-29-2025

(01-29-2025, 01:27 PM)Card10Fan Wrote:  https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/college/article/talana-lepolo-s-return-uncertain-stanford-20052267.php

Lack of transparency just leads to more speciation. I understand player privacy but lots of teams disclose player injuries and timeline or updates. It’s not forbidden  It seems so stupid no one wants to comment on Lepolo. I assume we won’t see her again the rest of the year as the article kind of alludes to.

Care to summarize for those of us who don't subscribe to the Chron?

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - oldalum - 01-29-2025

try this gift link to the Chron article

RE: WBB -- 2024-2025 Season - triangle2 - 01-29-2025

Because the team isn't saying anything, it's reasonable to conclude that Lepolo hasn't consented to release the information. Unless the player decides to disclose, FERPA prohibits Stanford from releasing information known to the school relating to her medical condition. 20 USC 1232(g). I know as a fan, I'd love to know what's going on. But, the information about Lepolo's injury is hers alone; as a parent, I have to respect Stanford for, you know, following the law and protecting her privacy.

It is true that in the olden days, injury information leaked like a sieve. I'm glad to see that leaking isn't the dominant paradigm, particularly at Stanford. I hope that whatever the injury is, it's neither career ending nor something that has lifelong implications for her. I say this while staring at my own total knee replacement scar and thinking about how my college athlete experience contributed to it.