Grading Kate Paye's Performance

Grading Kate Paye's Performance - 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: Grading Kate Paye's Performance (/thread-25440.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - Hieronymus - 02-11-2026

(02-10-2026, 04:42 PM)BillBradley Wrote:
(02-10-2026, 03:47 PM)Hieronymus Wrote: Stanford (still?) on the last 4 in line in ESPN’s bracketology. Net ranking has slipped to 42 which would be 11 seed territory - ESPN has the same 11 seed. So best case right now, they are on the bubble and just barely hanging on. The season isn’t a loss yet, but it is on life support.

Incredibly all 4 last in teams are ACC. 3 of the last 6 games are against these last in teams - UVA, VT and Clemson. I expect they have to at least beat Miami, FSU, and SMU plus 1 of the other three games. They may need to win 2 of those 3; so at least 4-2 plus 1-2 ACC tourney wins or 5-1 with 0-1 ACC tourney wins down the stretch or they are likely out. The good news is the 3 tougher games are all at home, and the 3 easier away teams have been terrible at home (2-16).

3-3 I think means having to win the ACC tournament or at least coming really close.
I'm a little less bullish. I think to be safe (conservatively), they need to win all 6 and then lose to a ranked team in the tourney. If they go 5-1, and lose to a ranked team in the tourney, they will be in danger of not making it. If they go 4-2 and take another loss in the tourney, I don't think they make it.

Can't believe this is where things stand. Bad losses to FGCU, Ga Tech, and Cal really hurt.

I don’t really disagree - I did say likely. Conference tournament upsets or bad breaks for us across our competitors could still push us out in my scenarios.

5 combined wins is the bare minimum to have a chance. 6 wins is better, and “safe” probably takes 7 more combined wins.

RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - yvonne - 02-11-2026

Wow, I thought this was Kate's second season. That's how long it's been.

This season is painful. It reminds me of something John Madden said, "It's not good to be the guy that comes after the guy. You want to be the guy who comes after the guy who comes after the guy." I think he was talking about quarterbacks, specifically Dallas quarterbacks in this case, but the same could be said about coaches. Nevertheless, I wonder if, in hiring internally, Stanford hired someone who knows Tara's system but lacks Tara's instinct for making changes and knowing which changes to make.

Also, for those making comparisons to Tara's first years, at that point Stanford had not had a women's basketball tradition of winning and women's basketball was no nearly as popular as it is now. The urgency to win is higher and the difficulty of winning is also higher.

RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - 81alum - 02-11-2026

I kind of checked out of this season almost before it began due to changes in collegiate sports more generally. I don't know if this disappointing season could have been different with other coaching or not. There is another possibility that should be considered alongside the coaching.

Perhaps the changes in college sports--the professionalization of college athletics--is harming Stanford WBB more seriously than some are willing to admit. That the golden era of Stanford WBB is ending not because of coaching changes but because of outside factors.

The two questions I would ask:
1) What is the total payroll for Stanford WBB players? What is the total payroll for our competitor's teams?
2) What is the total experience level for the Stanford WBB rotation? How does this compare with our competitor's teams?

If these are both similar, then I think the coaching and injuries are the only explanations. But if our competitors are paying their teams much more and are attracting hoards of highly experienced players away from other universities--then I fear our era is over, and no coach--not even a young Geno or a young Tara--would be doing much better.

But....I don't know whether these things are true. Heather I think pointed out that when our men played North Carolina the difference in payroll was between 10s of millions vs something like 5 million--an absolutely grotesque difference. I have not heard whether something similar is going on for our women.

RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - BobK - 02-11-2026

Well each power 4 school has a limit to pay athletes about $20M
I’m not going to get into details however football gets the majority. However the money raised for WBB thru Lifetime Cardinal was significant. It was transferred to Stanford when the rules about schools paying players was approved. Stanford is paying some to me excellent money.
NIL is seperate from the school payout. And in some cases it’s brobdingnagian for athletes , For Stanford athletes I have no clue. However Stanford WBB has had a person working on NIL for a year and a half or more. And as we all know just added a GM and NIL part of her duties.
Maybe the problem is money or lack of to the 3 entering next season. And thus hurt recruiting. I don’t know. My bottom line the problem this season is not money

RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - SkiBum80 - 02-11-2026

(02-11-2026, 01:11 PM)81alum Wrote: I kind of checked out of this season almost before it began due to changes in collegiate sports more generally. I don't know if this disappointing season could have been different with other coaching or not. There is another possibility that should be considered alongside the coaching.

Perhaps the changes in college sports--the professionalization of college athletics--is harming Stanford WBB more seriously than some are willing to admit. That the golden era of Stanford WBB is ending not because of coaching changes but because of outside factors.

The two questions I would ask:
1) What is the total payroll for Stanford WBB players? What is the total payroll for our competitor's teams?
2) What is the total experience level for the Stanford WBB rotation? How does this compare with our competitor's teams?

If these are both similar, then I think the coaching and injuries are the only explanations. But if our competitors are paying their teams much more and are attracting hoards of highly experienced players away from other universities--then I fear our era is over, and no coach--not even a young Geno or a young Tara--would be doing much better.

But....I don't know whether these things are true. Heather I think pointed out that when our men played North Carolina the difference in payroll was between 10s of millions vs something like 5 million--an absolutely grotesque difference. I have not heard whether something similar is going on for our women.

These are good questions.
I'm just wondering whether you'll get an accurate answer to 1) on this, a public board.
Regardless, if you look at the 3 bad losses as noted by Bill Bradley, FGCU, GT, CAL, then our relative payroll is hard to point to as a reason, given my guesses about the comparisons.
Further, if you look at the effects of the uncertain payroll levels, which shows up in recruiting, with our very successful freshman recruiting class we got 3 in top 40, total of 4 in top 80 ranked recruits. Between the 3 bad loss teams, they got a total of 1 (Cal) top recruit.
If the explanation is that it always takes awhile for freshman to have an impact, then Okorie would like to have a word.

RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - crackpot - 02-11-2026

(02-11-2026, 01:47 PM)BobK Wrote: Well each power 4 school has a limit to pay athletes about $20M
I’m not going to get into details however football gets the majority. However the money raised for WBB thru Lifetime Cardinal was significant. It was transferred to Stanford when the rules about schools paying players was approved. Stanford is paying some to me excellent money.
NIL is seperate from the school payout. And in some cases it’s brobdingnagian for athletes , For Stanford athletes I have no clue. However Stanford WBB has had a person working on NIL for a year and a half or more. And as we all know just added a GM and NIL part of her duties.
Maybe the problem is money or lack of to the 3 entering next season. And thus hurt recruiting. I don’t know. My bottom line the problem this season is not money

Yeah. IIRC, we're never going to be the highest paying, but we'll be highly competitive. And firing up the NIL side of things is also helpful. And it's definitely one side where women's sports can make up some of what they don't make via the measly (as a share, not overall) share from revenue sharing.

RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - paloalto - 02-12-2026

With all the discussion about NIL/RS, I still have no idea what the pay is to Stanford athletes in Olympic sports. Everything is talked about in vague generalities.

https://x.com/joel_haas1/status/2020180716194349308?s=61

RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - stopandpop - 02-12-2026

(02-10-2026, 04:42 PM)BillBradley Wrote:
(02-10-2026, 03:47 PM)Hieronymus Wrote: Stanford (still?) on the last 4 in line in ESPN’s bracketology. Net ranking has slipped to 42 which would be 11 seed territory - ESPN has the same 11 seed. So best case right now, they are on the bubble and just barely hanging on. The season isn’t a loss yet, but it is on life support.

Incredibly all 4 last in teams are ACC. 3 of the last 6 games are against these last in teams - UVA, VT and Clemson. I expect they have to at least beat Miami, FSU, and SMU plus 1 of the other three games. They may need to win 2 of those 3; so at least 4-2 plus 1-2 ACC tourney wins or 5-1 with 0-1 ACC tourney wins down the stretch or they are likely out. The good news is the 3 tougher games are all at home, and the 3 easier away teams have been terrible at home (2-16).

3-3 I think means having to win the ACC tournament or at least coming really close.
I'm a little less bullish. I think to be safe (conservatively), they need to win all 6 and then lose to a ranked team in the tourney. If they go 5-1, and lose to a ranked team in the tourney, they will be in danger of not making it. If they go 4-2 and take another loss in the tourney, I don't think they make it.

Can't believe this is where things stand. Bad losses to FGCU, Ga Tech, and Cal really hurt.

The worst of those losses was to FGCU; a team with a new coach and coming into the game with a poor record. Instead of drawing up plays to get the ball inside where Stanford had an advantage, Coach Paye elected to rely on the 3-ball; the result- 4 of 21 attempts. Points in the paint- FGCU 36, Stanford 26. Stevenson played 25+ minutes (0 for 0 shooting). Eschmeyer 6 minutes (1 of 1). Somfai only 6pts.

This loss to a mid-major; a team Stanford should have quickly put away, was a warning sign for how the season would unfold. FGCU (just like every other team they have played) knew exactly how to defend Stanford and Coach Paye was not been able to adjust then and now.

Certainly, there have been other factors that have impacted the team's performance. I believe that a healthy Nunu Agara could have been a difference maker in a few of Stanford's losses, but when I step back and take a broader view of the season, the thing that stands out has been this 'lack of adjustment' in the offense.

RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - 81alum - 02-12-2026

(02-12-2026, 01:39 PM)stopandpop Wrote: . but when I step back and take a broader view of the season, the thing that stands out has been this 'lack of adjustment' in the offense.

I would say it is not just a lock of adjustment as this season goes along--I was surprised to see so little adjustment prior to last season after Kiki left, and shocked to see essentially the same offense at the beginning of this season. Last season I sort of understood since there was relatively little time to install something new after the catastrophe of losing our franchise player. But this season--with three talented freshmen arriving--seemed like the perfect time to install something new. Even in Tara's last two years the offense was wearing thin--opponents were figuring it out too well.

What should the offense look like? Beats me. But Tara famously switched up offenses from time to time to respond to the players she had and the evolution of the game. We need to stay a step ahead of the opposition, not a step behind them.

Add to this the fact that the ACC is famously a guard-oriented league, and Stanford has famously been NOT a guard oriented team--and the switch in conferences has also taken a toll.

RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - BobK - 02-12-2026

It was my understanding that Stanford is paying six sports however my info is now 4 months old roughly.
New AD fairly new president and Provost so it could have changed.
Softball has a zoom about pay and NiL late last year
Football MBB WBB WVB softball and I think women’s soccer

RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - hoopy - 02-12-2026

If Nunu and Talana are injured why are they not on the bench? We don't see them in any videos.
The other two are. I can't remember another time when injured players just disappear.
I wonder if something else is going on.

RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - crackpot - 02-12-2026

(02-12-2026, 03:38 PM)hoopy Wrote: If Nunu and Talana are injured why are they not on the bench? We don't see them in any videos.
The other two are. I can't remember another time when injured players just disappear.
I wonder if something else is going on.

If Nunu has had a concussion, being in a loud environment like a gym could be painful.

Also, we don't have any right to know what is wrong with either.

RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - hoopy - 02-12-2026

Did Stanford ever say they are both injured?
We just keep hearing they are not available.
Usually when someone is in concussion protocol, they announce it. No reason to hide it.
Also often with most other injuries.
I agree that each person's health status is private,
but what if they are not available for some other reason?
Maybe at chalk talk someone will ask if they are expected back this year,
or even if they are still with the team.

RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - Card10Fan - 02-12-2026

(02-12-2026, 03:38 PM)hoopy Wrote: If Nunu and Talana are injured why are they not on the bench? We don't see them in any videos.
The other two are. I can't remember another time when injured players just disappear.
I wonder if something else is going on.

I wonder this too. If Nunu is in concussion and staying away from loud noice, that makes some sense. Hoping everything is alright with Talana. Agreed it's weird neither seems to be around the program at all right now either in practice or on the bench at games.

It's fine if Stanford chooses to not disclose injuries or personal matters. But every other program in the country does so it can be made public. It happens all the time. Clearly it's a choice the coaches or WBB program made. In acting so privy, it just leads to be more wild speculation of what may or may not be going on with players. I disagree with the constant secrecy.

All in all, we are all just hoping for the best with Talana and Nunu. I hope to see them both in uniform again this season whether that's realistic or not.

(02-11-2026, 01:47 PM)BobK Wrote: Well each power 4 school has a limit to pay athletes about $20M
I’m not going to get into details however football gets the majority. However the money raised for WBB thru Lifetime Cardinal was significant. It was transferred to Stanford when the rules about schools paying players was approved. Stanford is paying some to me excellent money.
NIL is seperate from the school payout. And in some cases it’s brobdingnagian for athletes , For Stanford athletes I have no clue. However Stanford WBB has had a person working on NIL for a year and a half or more. And as we all know just added a GM and NIL part of her duties.
Maybe the problem is money or lack of to the 3 entering next season. And thus hurt recruiting. I don’t know. My bottom line the problem this season is not money

agree with this. collective is not the issue this season. lifetime cardinal had raised (i want to say between 1.5-2.25mil) to use for the WBB roster this season hence we retained our top players and had a great recruiting class come in.

if we want to talk about being invested in the WBB program, tara in her coaching final years was making at least 2.3milion a year herself maybe more. kate pay is on a much much much cheaper contract and rightly so. even spending 1.5-2 million on a head coach would find stanford an elite coach.

RE: Grading Kate Paye's Performance - petersalas - 02-12-2026

Nunu is here today. Unavailable, but here with the team in warm ups.

But dang it.. so is Chuck Gonzales..

RE: Grading Kate Paye's Performance - martyup - 02-12-2026

I started a game thread.

RE: Grading Kate Paye's Performance - mbdude - 02-12-2026

I think Tara will have some say about Paye's tenure, whether asked or not

RE: Grading Kate Paye's Performance - Card10Fan - 02-12-2026

At this point anyone grading Paye above a C- has not watched a game this season. I think a D or F (for this season) might even be appropriate.

We are about to have our 4th straight home loss. 6 of the last 7. She continues to set the wrong type of program records. Paye and staff continues to take the program to new program lows.

It is UNTHINKABLE to lose 4 in a row at home. Did that ever happen in Tara’s 35+ year career?! No one is using injuries as an excuse.

RE: Grading Kate Paye's Performance - SkiBum80 - 02-12-2026

Coach Payes season is reminding me of Coach Haase.
Some good wins. Enough to make you think the team was gonna be ok, pretty good.
But the success not sustained, and riddled by bad losses.
To me the most egregious comparison is that both Coaches teams had/have 2 big shortcomings in my mind:
A lack of defensive intensity. Especially in regards to knowing well their role and position in regards to teammates.
A lack of ball control offense. So many Coach Haase games ended up with assists outweighed by turnovers. Tonight we had more than twice as many TO’s as Assists.
Thats just not a recipe for sustained winning.
Hoping Coach P can turn it around. But not seeing it happen yet.

RE: Grading Kate Paye's Performance - chimera - 02-12-2026

I've been holding off commenting, waiting to see if the team could get it together. It is clear now the season is lost. Actually it was clear to me something was off way back when we lost to a bad mid-major in Vegas (FGCU loss). That should never, ever have happened. FGCU is bad and losing to other bad teams. That was the warning, as was noted above.

What's wrong? Everything. The defense started the season better than the horrid one of last season. Now it is back to being not very good. The offense is a mess. We keep jacking up threes because the offense is not giving players enough other options. News flash to Kate Paye - we don't shoot threes well, in fact we are downright bad as a team, like 5 or 6 percentage points worse than a typical Stanford team and very streaky to boot. We have more talent than last season but we lack shooters needed to space the offense. Can't run this offense without a three ball gunner or two.  Also, we have almost no post game, cannot make good entry passes and barely even try. Maybe we'd hit threes better if we had some inside out passing?? If we can't shoot threes well and don't feed the post, we are pretty simple to defend. We have some good drivers but they have to navigate a crowd when defenses don't need to worry much about shooters. I could go on but we all know what we see. What we don't see is change or innovation, just the same old, same old that is not working.

We don't make good use of the bench. Shay hardly played until they were desperate, and then proved her herself useful so she finally made the rotation that she should have been in from the start. Same with Eschmeyer. Kate refuses to play Amborn or Ezike even when we are way down very late. Why not give them a chance? Heck, why not just give them a few minutes as a reward for all their hard work like coaches usually do when a game is out of hand? Since we shoot poorly maybe give Amborn some run, see if she steps up in games? You desperately need shooting yet don't ever put in someone who might be great at it??? Why?

Granted that it is hard to plan an offense when your team is not a good three ball shooting team, this is still on the coaches. The turnovers, the sluggish offense, the lack of intensity and focus, the declining defense, all that is on the coaches. We are losing to mediocre teams. We are losing badly at home. Regression, not improvement, is the name of the game. I am not a coach. I can't say how to make all this stuff better. All I can say for sure is I know a poorly coached team when I see one. I thought that last season when the defense, the one thing effort and intensity can carry, was bad. I thought that when we lost to FGCU. I've been thinking that a lot lately. We do not look well coached. We have more talent even with the injuries than the teams that are beating us.

I doubt Kate gets fired after this year. I think she should be. As much as we all wanted her to succeed, and I very much did, she is failing. I'd call this season a D, avoiding an F only because we played ok for a while and beat UW, Oregon and UNC (feels like ages ago). The team just blew a must win home game against a team with a similar NET who was very beatable. They lost meekly. The score differential got worse as the game went on. That's just sad. I thought before the season that not making the NCAAs would be a disaster, maybe a program killing disaster. As I don't think there is more than a 2% chance we sniff the NCAAs, aside from some good young players showing out, I'd call this season a disaster and a reason to start over with a new HC.