Stanford 49 Ole Miss 54 season ends

Stanford 49 Ole Miss 54 season ends - 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: Stanford 49 Ole Miss 54 season ends (/thread-24112.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - chimera - 03-20-2023

(03-20-2023, 12:41 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote:
(03-20-2023, 12:15 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote:
(03-19-2023, 11:33 PM)81alum Wrote: While Tara is quite famous for her flexibility in changing offensive schemes to suit her personnel, this year she failed to find a scheme that worked for the people she had. We were told that she tried a new system after the dreadful USC loss--so she was rather desperately trying to find something that worked better as the weaknesses of our offense became apparent.

I'm not enough of a coach to know what system would have worked better. Perhaps with all the great post depth we should go back to the "triangle" from the old Appel/Ogwumike days. Tara abandoned the "triangle" after Chiney graduated since by then we had inexperienced posts and much better guards--Lili Thompson and Amber Orrange--and she wanted to screen for them and make them into the main engines of the next offense. That lasted several years, but then with Jones coming and the arrival of "position less basketball" Tara left that offense to go the the Princeton, and we won a national championship with it. There were horrific growing pains with the Princeton, but eventually it jelled. But then with the loss of all our experienced guards she left the Princeton and installed the "flow", and, in my opinion, the "flow" flopped--either the scheme did not fit our personnel, or the personnel lacked the requisite skills to run it properly.

I must ask, and I've already asked this before. This seems an awfully lot of changing systems just for a few years and making players, who I also strongly believe are students first, to learn a whole new playbook and philosophy halfway through their collegiate careers. Do other coaches, especially the top tier ones (and this doesn't have to be limited to the women's game or college basketball, for that matter), change things so dramatically so often?

Obviously, you adjust your playbook on what your strengths & weaknesses are with the roster. Add in a few plays here and there to emphasize who your best players are, put others away for a while if they don't fit, etc. But it sounds like (correct me if I am wrong), but these are of immense proportions wholesale changes to your greater offensive philosophy and while there is something to be admired about being flexible and open, there is a point where diminishing returns.

(03-19-2023, 11:33 PM)81alum Wrote: I'm inclined to think Tara recruits the best players she can regardless of position, and then tries to mold the offense around whoever she gets. We sometime forget it is Stanford--and it is not football--meaning there are no allowances in WBB for players who can't meet the highest academic standards. We can get great players, but we can't pick and choose them by position. So in recent years she has hit the jackpot with big players and struck out on the elite guards (I would count Jones as a wing, personally)--Osborne, Rice, Watkins. Apparently we came close in each case. This has created an imbalance of talent on this team--a much stronger frontcourt than backcourt.

It seems historically, our strikeout rate with those elite recruits (top 5 to 10 recruits that have high ceilings and/or lower ranked guards that really played above their HS rankings) that do get in are much higher with guards than wings, forwards & posts.

Correct me if I am wrong, but really Katie Lou Samuelson and Timea Gardiner are the only really top-tier recruits who were admitted or had a high chance of being admitted that were not guards who turned us down.

But the laundry list of big-time guards that have really impacted their program that chose elsewhere (who were admitted or had a favorable admittance chance) is much longer (Watkins, Rice, Osborne, Miles, Citron, going back further - Diggins, Bird)

Yep Stanford cannot recruit elite point guards (we have one that will be elite coming in 2025?). Negative recruiting goes back to maybe Jackie Gemelos days or even before that. But I don’t think Tara and Kate have done much to counteract what schools/coaches tell recruits. Haley mentioned some of the negative recruiting in her recent interview but didn’t name names obviously. All I know is that your program’s reputation for 30+ years has been to pressure your guards and disrupt your offense and ordinarily you would overhaul your guard development program several times until that was no longer the narrative. If Tara’s record speaks for itself, so does this issue.

Re: Offensive system

It is odd to change your offensive system every year or mid-year. I cannot think of another Top 10 coach that does that mostly because it often takes years to perfect your offensive system/philosophy as a coach. I don’t know how you can ever really teach something you don’t really know yourself. Princeton is very complex and has so many variations and takes years to perfect.

In an earlier post in this thread you complained that Tara did nothing or not enough to fix the apparent problems on offense this season. Now you complain she made too many changes mid-season and generally makes too many changes with schemes. Pick a winner. You totally undercut any point you are making when you keep complaining about both doing and not doing, changing and not changing. The whole Lepolo thing is getting so, so old. We know, we know, you hate her game, we know. If people don't want to engage with you this is why. Bashing one player over and over, and that is what you are doing when you keep on about it like this, is off-putting. Contradictory complaints are off-putting.

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - cardfan1996 - 03-20-2023

(03-20-2023, 08:23 AM)BosCard Wrote:
(03-20-2023, 12:41 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote:
(03-20-2023, 12:15 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote:
(03-19-2023, 11:33 PM)81alum Wrote: While Tara is quite famous for her flexibility in changing offensive schemes to suit her personnel, this year she failed to find a scheme that worked for the people she had. We were told that she tried a new system after the dreadful USC loss--so she was rather desperately trying to find something that worked better as the weaknesses of our offense became apparent.

I'm not enough of a coach to know what system would have worked better. Perhaps with all the great post depth we should go back to the "triangle" from the old Appel/Ogwumike days. Tara abandoned the "triangle" after Chiney graduated since by then we had inexperienced posts and much better guards--Lili Thompson and Amber Orrange--and she wanted to screen for them and make them into the main engines of the next offense. That lasted several years, but then with Jones coming and the arrival of "position less basketball" Tara left that offense to go the the Princeton, and we won a national championship with it. There were horrific growing pains with the Princeton, but eventually it jelled. But then with the loss of all our experienced guards she left the Princeton and installed the "flow", and, in my opinion, the "flow" flopped--either the scheme did not fit our personnel, or the personnel lacked the requisite skills to run it properly.

I must ask, and I've already asked this before. This seems an awfully lot of changing systems just for a few years and making players, who I also strongly believe are students first, to learn a whole new playbook and philosophy halfway through their collegiate careers. Do other coaches, especially the top tier ones (and this doesn't have to be limited to the women's game or college basketball, for that matter), change things so dramatically so often?

Obviously, you adjust your playbook on what your strengths & weaknesses are with the roster. Add in a few plays here and there to emphasize who your best players are, put others away for a while if they don't fit, etc. But it sounds like (correct me if I am wrong), but these are of immense proportions wholesale changes to your greater offensive philosophy and while there is something to be admired about being flexible and open, there is a point where diminishing returns.

(03-19-2023, 11:33 PM)81alum Wrote: I'm inclined to think Tara recruits the best players she can regardless of position, and then tries to mold the offense around whoever she gets. We sometime forget it is Stanford--and it is not football--meaning there are no allowances in WBB for players who can't meet the highest academic standards. We can get great players, but we can't pick and choose them by position. So in recent years she has hit the jackpot with big players and struck out on the elite guards (I would count Jones as a wing, personally)--Osborne, Rice, Watkins. Apparently we came close in each case. This has created an imbalance of talent on this team--a much stronger frontcourt than backcourt.

It seems historically, our strikeout rate with those elite recruits (top 5 to 10 recruits that have high ceilings and/or lower ranked guards that really played above their HS rankings) that do get in are much higher with guards than wings, forwards & posts.

Correct me if I am wrong, but really Katie Lou Samuelson and Timea Gardiner are the only really top-tier recruits who were admitted or had a high chance of being admitted that were not guards who turned us down.

But the laundry list of big-time guards that have really impacted their program that chose elsewhere (who were admitted or had a favorable admittance chance) is much longer (Watkins, Rice, Osborne, Miles, Citron, going back further - Diggins, Bird)

Yep Stanford cannot recruit elite point guards (we have one that will be elite coming in 2025?). Negative recruiting goes back to maybe Jackie Gemelos days or even before that. But I don’t think Tara and Kate have done much to counteract what schools/coaches tell recruits. Haley mentioned some of the negative recruiting in her recent interview but didn’t name names obviously. All I know is that your program’s reputation for 30+ years has been to pressure your guards and disrupt your offense and ordinarily you would overhaul your guard development program several times until that was no longer the narrative. If Tara’s record speaks for itself, so does this issue.

Re: Offensive system

It is odd to change your offensive system every year or mid-year. I cannot think of another Top 10 coach that does that mostly because it often takes years to perfect your offensive system/philosophy as a coach. I don’t know how you can ever really teach something you don’t really know yourself. Princeton is very complex and has so many variations and takes years to perfect.

I completely agree with you that the lack of scoring/attacking guards has been our problem over the years and this year as well. Yes our half court offense wasn’t great but lots of teams struggle in the half court against good defenses. Another part of our problem is that we don’t get easy baskets from our defense by attacking the basket in transition. Look at how many times Ole Miss attacked the basket in transition and scored or got an and one. We on the other hand had Emma-Nnopu getting stripped and Nivar getting a charge. We need more players with the speed and the body control and the mindset to attack and finish in those situations. I think the coaches understand this which is why I’m hopeful for the future. Nivar is probably amongst the best on our team at this and she got a lot of playing time. Even though she made mistakes Tara didn’t yank her which I hope is a sign that she wants the team to do this and not be afraid of making mistakes.

Did Nivar’s playing time during the season (from November to February) reflect all the time she got out on the floor yesterday? Tara didn’t really play her much until Lepolo got injured. As many people on the board know, I’ve been advocating for Nivar’s and Bosgana’s skillset over Lepolo/Agnes since November. I also told you what my scouting report would be for that starting 5 (faceguard Jump and drop everyone else in the lane and make Lepolo beat you) long before the 2nd game at Cal or the Creighton game even. I was told I needed to be humble blah blah blah, and that Lepolo was not Marta Jr. And the latter was right because Marta could at least pass with “touch” into the post and wouldn’t have missed as many passing windows throughout the season. This early end to the season was predictable in the Fall and Tara could have pivoted any time but she stubbornly went with what made her comfortable (Lepolo/Agnes) vs what was the best basketball move (Nivar/Bosgana). So no, the fact that Nivar played a lot today when Tara all of a sudden became desperate for her skillset doesn’t mean by next November Nivar will get more playing time. I wish lessons were going to be learned but sadly I expect a retread.

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - chimera - 03-20-2023

(03-20-2023, 09:05 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote:
(03-20-2023, 08:23 AM)BosCard Wrote:
(03-20-2023, 12:41 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote:
(03-20-2023, 12:15 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote:
(03-19-2023, 11:33 PM)81alum Wrote: While Tara is quite famous for her flexibility in changing offensive schemes to suit her personnel, this year she failed to find a scheme that worked for the people she had. We were told that she tried a new system after the dreadful USC loss--so she was rather desperately trying to find something that worked better as the weaknesses of our offense became apparent.

I'm not enough of a coach to know what system would have worked better. Perhaps with all the great post depth we should go back to the "triangle" from the old Appel/Ogwumike days. Tara abandoned the "triangle" after Chiney graduated since by then we had inexperienced posts and much better guards--Lili Thompson and Amber Orrange--and she wanted to screen for them and make them into the main engines of the next offense. That lasted several years, but then with Jones coming and the arrival of "position less basketball" Tara left that offense to go the the Princeton, and we won a national championship with it. There were horrific growing pains with the Princeton, but eventually it jelled. But then with the loss of all our experienced guards she left the Princeton and installed the "flow", and, in my opinion, the "flow" flopped--either the scheme did not fit our personnel, or the personnel lacked the requisite skills to run it properly.

I must ask, and I've already asked this before. This seems an awfully lot of changing systems just for a few years and making players, who I also strongly believe are students first, to learn a whole new playbook and philosophy halfway through their collegiate careers. Do other coaches, especially the top tier ones (and this doesn't have to be limited to the women's game or college basketball, for that matter), change things so dramatically so often?

Obviously, you adjust your playbook on what your strengths & weaknesses are with the roster. Add in a few plays here and there to emphasize who your best players are, put others away for a while if they don't fit, etc. But it sounds like (correct me if I am wrong), but these are of immense proportions wholesale changes to your greater offensive philosophy and while there is something to be admired about being flexible and open, there is a point where diminishing returns.

(03-19-2023, 11:33 PM)81alum Wrote: I'm inclined to think Tara recruits the best players she can regardless of position, and then tries to mold the offense around whoever she gets. We sometime forget it is Stanford--and it is not football--meaning there are no allowances in WBB for players who can't meet the highest academic standards. We can get great players, but we can't pick and choose them by position. So in recent years she has hit the jackpot with big players and struck out on the elite guards (I would count Jones as a wing, personally)--Osborne, Rice, Watkins. Apparently we came close in each case. This has created an imbalance of talent on this team--a much stronger frontcourt than backcourt.

It seems historically, our strikeout rate with those elite recruits (top 5 to 10 recruits that have high ceilings and/or lower ranked guards that really played above their HS rankings) that do get in are much higher with guards than wings, forwards & posts.

Correct me if I am wrong, but really Katie Lou Samuelson and Timea Gardiner are the only really top-tier recruits who were admitted or had a high chance of being admitted that were not guards who turned us down.

But the laundry list of big-time guards that have really impacted their program that chose elsewhere (who were admitted or had a favorable admittance chance) is much longer (Watkins, Rice, Osborne, Miles, Citron, going back further - Diggins, Bird)

Yep Stanford cannot recruit elite point guards (we have one that will be elite coming in 2025?). Negative recruiting goes back to maybe Jackie Gemelos days or even before that. But I don’t think Tara and Kate have done much to counteract what schools/coaches tell recruits. Haley mentioned some of the negative recruiting in her recent interview but didn’t name names obviously. All I know is that your program’s reputation for 30+ years has been to pressure your guards and disrupt your offense and ordinarily you would overhaul your guard development program several times until that was no longer the narrative. If Tara’s record speaks for itself, so does this issue.

Re: Offensive system

It is odd to change your offensive system every year or mid-year. I cannot think of another Top 10 coach that does that mostly because it often takes years to perfect your offensive system/philosophy as a coach. I don’t know how you can ever really teach something you don’t really know yourself. Princeton is very complex and has so many variations and takes years to perfect.

I completely agree with you that the lack of scoring/attacking guards has been our problem over the years and this year as well. Yes our half court offense wasn’t great but lots of teams struggle in the half court against good defenses. Another part of our problem is that we don’t get easy baskets from our defense by attacking the basket in transition. Look at how many times Ole Miss attacked the basket in transition and scored or got an and one. We on the other hand had Emma-Nnopu getting stripped and Nivar getting a charge. We need more players with the speed and the body control and the mindset to attack and finish in those situations. I think the coaches understand this which is why I’m hopeful for the future. Nivar is probably amongst the best on our team at this and she got a lot of playing time. Even though she made mistakes Tara didn’t yank her which I hope is a sign that she wants the team to do this and not be afraid of making mistakes.

Did Nivar’s playing time during the season (from November to February) reflect all the time she got out on the floor yesterday? Tara didn’t really play her much until Lepolo got injured. As many people on the board know, I’ve been advocating for Nivar’s and Bosgana’s skillset over Lepolo/Agnes since November. I also told you what my scouting report would be for that starting 5 (faceguard Jump and drop everyone else in the lane and make Lepolo beat you) long before the 2nd game at Cal or the Creighton game even. I was told I needed to be humble blah blah blah, and that Lepolo was not Marta Jr. And the latter was right because Marta could at least pass with “touch” into the post and wouldn’t have missed as many passing windows throughout the season. This early end to the season was predictable in the Fall and Tara could have pivoted any time but she stubbornly went with what made her comfortable (Lepolo/Agnes) vs what was the best basketball move (Nivar/Bosgana). So no, the fact that Nivar played a lot today when Tara all of a sudden became desperate for her skillset doesn’t mean by next November Nivar will get more playing time. I wish lessons were going to be learned but sadly I expect a retread.

Back to your Tara didn't do anything theme, I see. Nivar has been playing a lot more in the past couple of months. Her time on court yesterday was not an anomaly. Why you want to project from a player earning more time this year to her not playing next year is a mystery. Big assumption there, and you know what they say about assumptions.

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - cardfan1996 - 03-20-2023

(03-20-2023, 09:05 AM)chimera Wrote:
(03-20-2023, 12:41 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote:
(03-20-2023, 12:15 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote:
(03-19-2023, 11:33 PM)81alum Wrote: While Tara is quite famous for her flexibility in changing offensive schemes to suit her personnel, this year she failed to find a scheme that worked for the people she had. We were told that she tried a new system after the dreadful USC loss--so she was rather desperately trying to find something that worked better as the weaknesses of our offense became apparent.

I'm not enough of a coach to know what system would have worked better. Perhaps with all the great post depth we should go back to the "triangle" from the old Appel/Ogwumike days. Tara abandoned the "triangle" after Chiney graduated since by then we had inexperienced posts and much better guards--Lili Thompson and Amber Orrange--and she wanted to screen for them and make them into the main engines of the next offense. That lasted several years, but then with Jones coming and the arrival of "position less basketball" Tara left that offense to go the the Princeton, and we won a national championship with it. There were horrific growing pains with the Princeton, but eventually it jelled. But then with the loss of all our experienced guards she left the Princeton and installed the "flow", and, in my opinion, the "flow" flopped--either the scheme did not fit our personnel, or the personnel lacked the requisite skills to run it properly.

I must ask, and I've already asked this before. This seems an awfully lot of changing systems just for a few years and making players, who I also strongly believe are students first, to learn a whole new playbook and philosophy halfway through their collegiate careers. Do other coaches, especially the top tier ones (and this doesn't have to be limited to the women's game or college basketball, for that matter), change things so dramatically so often?

Obviously, you adjust your playbook on what your strengths & weaknesses are with the roster. Add in a few plays here and there to emphasize who your best players are, put others away for a while if they don't fit, etc. But it sounds like (correct me if I am wrong), but these are of immense proportions wholesale changes to your greater offensive philosophy and while there is something to be admired about being flexible and open, there is a point where diminishing returns.

(03-19-2023, 11:33 PM)81alum Wrote: I'm inclined to think Tara recruits the best players she can regardless of position, and then tries to mold the offense around whoever she gets. We sometime forget it is Stanford--and it is not football--meaning there are no allowances in WBB for players who can't meet the highest academic standards. We can get great players, but we can't pick and choose them by position. So in recent years she has hit the jackpot with big players and struck out on the elite guards (I would count Jones as a wing, personally)--Osborne, Rice, Watkins. Apparently we came close in each case. This has created an imbalance of talent on this team--a much stronger frontcourt than backcourt.

It seems historically, our strikeout rate with those elite recruits (top 5 to 10 recruits that have high ceilings and/or lower ranked guards that really played above their HS rankings) that do get in are much higher with guards than wings, forwards & posts.

Correct me if I am wrong, but really Katie Lou Samuelson and Timea Gardiner are the only really top-tier recruits who were admitted or had a high chance of being admitted that were not guards who turned us down.

But the laundry list of big-time guards that have really impacted their program that chose elsewhere (who were admitted or had a favorable admittance chance) is much longer (Watkins, Rice, Osborne, Miles, Citron, going back further - Diggins, Bird)

Yep Stanford cannot recruit elite point guards (we have one that will be elite coming in 2025?). Negative recruiting goes back to maybe Jackie Gemelos days or even before that. But I don’t think Tara and Kate have done much to counteract what schools/coaches tell recruits. Haley mentioned some of the negative recruiting in her recent interview but didn’t name names obviously. All I know is that your program’s reputation for 30+ years has been to pressure your guards and disrupt your offense and ordinarily you would overhaul your guard development program several times until that was no longer the narrative. If Tara’s record speaks for itself, so does this issue.

Re: Offensive system

It is odd to change your offensive system every year or mid-year. I cannot think of another Top 10 coach that does that mostly because it often takes years to perfect your offensive system/philosophy as a coach. I don’t know how you can ever really teach something you don’t really know yourself. Princeton is very complex and has so many variations and takes years to perfect.

In an earlier post in this thread you complained that Tara did nothing or not enough to fix the apparent problems on offense this season. Now you complain she made too many changes mid-season and generally makes too many changes with schemes. Pick a winner. You totally undercut any point you are making when you keep complaining about both doing and not doing, changing and not changing. The whole Lepolo thing is getting so, so old. We know, we know, you hate her game, we know. If people don't want to engage with you this is why. Bashing one player over and over, and that is what you are doing when you keep on about it like this, is off-putting. Contradictory complaints are off-putting.

If you can’t distinguish my long and never ending advocacy for personnel changes on the floor vs changing your entire offensive system year to year or mid year, I don’t know what to tell you. I don’t think I am contradicting myself.

And I really don’t care about people that don’t engage me. That wasn’t the criticism. It was the people who chose to engage me by breaking board rules over and over again that was a problem for me. My commentary as annoying to you and others as it may have been was within board rules. I focused strictly on basketball skills or lack thereof.

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - chimera - 03-20-2023

(03-20-2023, 09:17 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote:
(03-20-2023, 09:05 AM)chimera Wrote:
(03-20-2023, 12:41 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote:
(03-20-2023, 12:15 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote:
(03-19-2023, 11:33 PM)81alum Wrote: While Tara is quite famous for her flexibility in changing offensive schemes to suit her personnel, this year she failed to find a scheme that worked for the people she had. We were told that she tried a new system after the dreadful USC loss--so she was rather desperately trying to find something that worked better as the weaknesses of our offense became apparent.

I'm not enough of a coach to know what system would have worked better. Perhaps with all the great post depth we should go back to the "triangle" from the old Appel/Ogwumike days. Tara abandoned the "triangle" after Chiney graduated since by then we had inexperienced posts and much better guards--Lili Thompson and Amber Orrange--and she wanted to screen for them and make them into the main engines of the next offense. That lasted several years, but then with Jones coming and the arrival of "position less basketball" Tara left that offense to go the the Princeton, and we won a national championship with it. There were horrific growing pains with the Princeton, but eventually it jelled. But then with the loss of all our experienced guards she left the Princeton and installed the "flow", and, in my opinion, the "flow" flopped--either the scheme did not fit our personnel, or the personnel lacked the requisite skills to run it properly.

I must ask, and I've already asked this before. This seems an awfully lot of changing systems just for a few years and making players, who I also strongly believe are students first, to learn a whole new playbook and philosophy halfway through their collegiate careers. Do other coaches, especially the top tier ones (and this doesn't have to be limited to the women's game or college basketball, for that matter), change things so dramatically so often?

Obviously, you adjust your playbook on what your strengths & weaknesses are with the roster. Add in a few plays here and there to emphasize who your best players are, put others away for a while if they don't fit, etc. But it sounds like (correct me if I am wrong), but these are of immense proportions wholesale changes to your greater offensive philosophy and while there is something to be admired about being flexible and open, there is a point where diminishing returns.

(03-19-2023, 11:33 PM)81alum Wrote: I'm inclined to think Tara recruits the best players she can regardless of position, and then tries to mold the offense around whoever she gets. We sometime forget it is Stanford--and it is not football--meaning there are no allowances in WBB for players who can't meet the highest academic standards. We can get great players, but we can't pick and choose them by position. So in recent years she has hit the jackpot with big players and struck out on the elite guards (I would count Jones as a wing, personally)--Osborne, Rice, Watkins. Apparently we came close in each case. This has created an imbalance of talent on this team--a much stronger frontcourt than backcourt.

It seems historically, our strikeout rate with those elite recruits (top 5 to 10 recruits that have high ceilings and/or lower ranked guards that really played above their HS rankings) that do get in are much higher with guards than wings, forwards & posts.

Correct me if I am wrong, but really Katie Lou Samuelson and Timea Gardiner are the only really top-tier recruits who were admitted or had a high chance of being admitted that were not guards who turned us down.

But the laundry list of big-time guards that have really impacted their program that chose elsewhere (who were admitted or had a favorable admittance chance) is much longer (Watkins, Rice, Osborne, Miles, Citron, going back further - Diggins, Bird)

Yep Stanford cannot recruit elite point guards (we have one that will be elite coming in 2025?). Negative recruiting goes back to maybe Jackie Gemelos days or even before that. But I don’t think Tara and Kate have done much to counteract what schools/coaches tell recruits. Haley mentioned some of the negative recruiting in her recent interview but didn’t name names obviously. All I know is that your program’s reputation for 30+ years has been to pressure your guards and disrupt your offense and ordinarily you would overhaul your guard development program several times until that was no longer the narrative. If Tara’s record speaks for itself, so does this issue.

Re: Offensive system

It is odd to change your offensive system every year or mid-year. I cannot think of another Top 10 coach that does that mostly because it often takes years to perfect your offensive system/philosophy as a coach. I don’t know how you can ever really teach something you don’t really know yourself. Princeton is very complex and has so many variations and takes years to perfect.

In an earlier post in this thread you complained that Tara did nothing or not enough to fix the apparent problems on offense this season. Now you complain she made too many changes mid-season and generally makes too many changes with schemes. Pick a winner. You totally undercut any point you are making when you keep complaining about both doing and not doing, changing and not changing. The whole Lepolo thing is getting so, so old. We know, we know, you hate her game, we know. If people don't want to engage with you this is why. Bashing one player over and over, and that is what you are doing when you keep on about it like this, is off-putting. Contradictory complaints are off-putting.

If you can’t distinguish my long and never ending advocacy for personnel changes on the floor vs changing your entire offensive system year to year or mid year, I don’t know what to tell you. I don’t think I am contradicting myself.

And I really don’t care about people that don’t engage me. That wasn’t the criticism. It was the people who chose to engage me by breaking board rules over and over again that was a problem for me. My commentary as annoying to you and others as it may have been was within board rules. I focused strictly on basketball skills or lack thereof.

Personnel changes were made. They were not the ones you (or I) wanted, but they were made all throughout the season. Over the season we aw much more of Nivar and Betts, less of Emma-Nnopu and Iriafen (what happened with her??!), more of Brink at the 5, much less of her at the 4, etc. You can rightly say that the changes you wanted were not made, but you can't say personnel changes were not made. Well, you can if all you want to do is complain about something regardless of what actually happened. You know, many people agree at least somewhat with some of what you advocate. You lose people when you make overarching complaints. You don't mind if people don't engage? Good, because I will not engage you any further.

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - Jskass - 03-20-2023

Bottom line is worst showing for team w 2 All Americans so coaching, lack of other personnel, chemistry, or a combination thereof.

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - Spiny_Norman - 03-20-2023

Since everyone is in a cranky mood, I will add some of my own cranky comments.

We have become used to seeing and enjoying the noticeable improvement of Stanford teams over the course of a season and Stanford players over the course of their careers. That was missing this year. We saw as much regression as progress from the team. Individually, aside from Brink, who really improved this year compared to last season? We have heard constantly that coaches look for big jumps in performance between freshman and sophomore seasons. The 2nd year players Iriafen, Bosgana and Demetre showed flashes of what might be, but none of it was sustainable. By the end of the season, none were more than role players. And what happened to Ashten Prechtel? Her scoring average declined every year she played at Stanford.

The critical comments about the offense are entirely warranted. I won't repeat what so many have already said other than to add that to my untrained eyes the decision making by the guards appeared to be slow and the team chemistry was lacking compared to prior Stanford teams, e.g., knowing where your teammate will be cutting and getting them the ball in the right place before the defenders can react. There wasn't a lot of "flow" to the flow offense.

A major concern that developed this year was rebounding. Aside from Brink and Belibi, Stanford's bigs don't play that big. Demetre is 6-3, Prechtel is 6-5, Iriafen is 6-3. None of them is strong on the glass. Betts could be a Hoover under the boards, but she needs to be stronger and quicker. In Stanford's losses (and some of the wins), it seemed that the team got pushed around on the defensive boards and gave up a lot of 2nd chance points. With the departure of Belibi and Prechtel, Stanford is only going to have 3 forwards and 1 center on the roster next season along with 10+ guards. Where will the rebounding come from aside from Brink?

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - CompSci87 - 03-20-2023

(03-19-2023, 10:32 PM)81alum Wrote: Ashton already has her MA and wants to play pro, so I imagine she will be overseas next year. Jones will be in the WNBA. Belibi to Harvard but Tara doesn't know whether she will play ball there. She wants to be a pediatrician--I presume the Harvard program is either med school or something preparatory for med school.

Jump coming back is really, really good news.

Picking over Tara's comments, she noted that Brink was not 100% tonight, but that "we could not have asked for more from her."

I believe Ivy League schools don't allow grad students to participate on the athletic teams. At least, I heard of players who went elsewhere to use their COVID year because of that.

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - qwerty49 - 03-20-2023

(03-20-2023, 07:38 AM)mbdude Wrote: Stanford was 12 of 37 in the paint, 10 of 32 on layups

These are the key stats IMHO. 31% on layups is incredibly poor, especially when there’s no Boston or Brink waiting in the paint on D.

It’s especially annoying for Iriafen, who has good moves and athleticism but can’t seem to finish consistently. (Could that be a reason for her diminished PT?)

We’re so lucky we get one more year from Cam, but to say there’s room for improvement around her is an understatement. Let’s hope everyone has a productive off-season.

Baez87 - Baez87 - 03-20-2023

Cardboard Wisdom…
As my wife and I were having coffee this morning trying to salve our disappointment from the Cardinal's loss, we stumbled onto an article by Olympic gold medalist Oliver Fix. Fix's article entitled “Hawaii Was Hell Until Hooponopono Ke Ala,” described his struggle with defeat.
He shared that he was perplexed by the conditions of the world until he found a teacher of the Hawaiian wisdom tradition, Hooponopono Ke Ala (which translates into “make the path that is right, more right”).
Fix was taught that “Nothing is wrong — all is in right place, right time, right being (a concept that Hawaiians call 'pono')."
His teacher urged him to “Stop resisting what is." Adding that, "Blame, shame, resentment is all just drama or 'pilikia'! Completely useless.”
Perhaps we can all salve our disappointment by venturing inward, rather than outward, in our search for solace.

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - 81alum - 03-20-2023

(03-20-2023, 12:15 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote: I must ask, and I've already asked this before. This seems an awfully lot of changing systems just for a few years and making players, who I also strongly believe are students first, to learn a whole new playbook and philosophy halfway through their collegiate careers. Do other coaches, especially the top tier ones (and this doesn't have to be limited to the women's game or college basketball, for that matter), change things so dramatically so often?

Well, I'd rather Tara answer that question and that some intrepid reporter ask it. However, I do think there is something unique about Stanford. Those coaches who perfect a single system for many years are able to recruit and develop talent specifically for that system. Tara has shown she can get top players to come to Stanford, but she can't always get top players of a particular type that would fit a particular system. The Stanford talent pool is a lot smaller than the talent pools for other elite programs, and transfers are almost non-existent. (Ole Miss was a team built almost entirely out of transfers, for example, another reason I find the loss so galling.) So for any coach to be successful at Stanford you have to take the best talent you can get and build a system around whatever it is.

Tara herself did not understand this for a long time. She ran the old Triangle seemingly forever. She was getting criticized for using this old-school offense and not "modernizing" the team. Some speculated that perhaps she was too old and too old-fashioned. But the Triangle was specifically designed to feature marquee post players, and for most of those years we did have those players. Sometimes we had much more--like Wiggins--who was made more effective by the dominant inside threat.

So what was Tara to do when Chiney graduated? The balance of talent had shifted from the post to our guards, and continuing to play the triangle had already gotten difficult when we were Chiney and the Chinettes. So she went to a new system that featured slashing guards like Lili and pull-up guards like Amber. Bonnie and Karlie helped to keep the spacing. To have stayed with the triangle would have been a disaster at that point, since we had not recruited anyone of the caliber of the Appel/Nneka/Chiney sort. It probably was not for lack of trying.

Basketball was evolving, too, and the three point shot constantly grew in importance. The idea of "positionlesss basketball" meant that offenses could be employed that shuffled players interchangeably between the five positions. This required that everyone be able to pass the ball effectively, and that the "bigs" be able to hit jumpers and especially threes. Alana Smith was the epitome of this by her senior year, and we were drifting in that positionless direction even before Tara spent a summer with friendly coaches at Davis learning the Princeton and then installing it on our team

The Princeton is a system that is especially good when you have 5 mobile players who all can pass, shoot, and drive. It also takes at least a year if not two of muscle memory on the part of all players, to the point that the cuts and the passes are completely in sync. It really is like learning the choreography of a complex ballet. If your players know it well enough, it does not matter if the defense knows what you are going to do, since your players will always be a split second faster than the defenders can react. It was, in a sense, the ideal system for Haley Jones, who is a great passer and can play 1-5. I think it may have been a recruiting tool to convince her to come to Stanford that she could play in such a system. And after the core of our team learned it well, it took us to a national championship.

Now enter Lauren Betts, also a number one recruit. The Princeton is exactly, completely, the wrong system for her to be playing in. I could easily see her asking Tara, "if I come, are you going to keep running the Princeton?" Also keep in mind that running the Princeton almost guarantees that you can't use any of your freshmen, and given the enormous loss of experience when the Hulls and Wilson graduated you just can't afford to tell your freshmen guards that they can't play for a year. So it was essential that the Princeton go and something else come in.

So no, I do not fault Tara for switching up our offense. In fact, I admire her for being creative enough to do it, to learn new things, and to build around the players she has. We simply had to switch the offense this year, but the particular scheme we switched to did not work. That is on the coaches. And I am not the person to say what scheme would have worked better--but the failure of this one is plain to see.

It will be interesting to see if Tara abandons the Flow next year, concluding it would be "good money after bad", or whether she thinks it has just been a steeper learning curve than they expected and they need to stick to it. Throwing away a whole year of training on the new system will be a momentous decision if they come to it.

My sense is that it is that the Flow is a lost cause and we need to scrap this offensive scheme and start over. The reason I say that is that in previous offensive scheme switches there was a learning curve in which we lost games early in the season, but then our team played better together and improved. In our 2015-16 year, for example, we lost 8 games--significantly worse than this year. But we improved as the season went on and made it to the elite 8 in the end. This year was the opposite. It was defenses against our offense that improved as the season wore on, and we had more and more problems. Our offense was too easy for defenses to "solve," and they did it better and better as time wore on. Time for something that instead gives our offense an increasing advantage as our players perfect it.

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - TheFarm07 - 03-20-2023

(03-20-2023, 01:16 PM)81alum Wrote: So no, I do not fault Tara for switching up our offense. In fact, I admire her for being creative enough to do it, to learn new things, and to build around the players she has. We simply had to switch the offense this year, but the particular scheme we switched to did not work. That is on the coaches. And I am not the person to say what scheme would have worked better--but the failure of this one is plain to see.

Thank you 81alum for taking the time to answer thoughtfully with detail. I know with our admissions requirements, it makes it more difficult to target the players we would like and therefore in some respects forces Tara to change things more broadly based on available personnel and their strengths & weaknesses.

I'll be the first to admit I am not an x's and o's kind of guy, so I don't have an expansive knowledge of the various offensive strategies and philosophies.

As we discussed not just in the last 24 hours, but throughout this season, our struggles can't just be traced to one individual thing. Sure, we didn't adopt the flow offense as well as envisioned, but then there was smaller adjustments that a number of posters have highlighted that weren't made, head-scratching decision-making and perhaps even the lack of "grit."

It's been a disappointment for sure. I find this discussion somewhat carthartic but I hope we are able to channel our frustrations respectfully. We may disagree and get frustrated with other contributors for a variety of reasons but I hope we can keep it civil and take a deep breath before responding.

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - Branner77 - 03-20-2023

Here's what GoStanford said about Fran Belibi and Ashten Prechtel back in early 2019. They showed so much promise as freshmen. Did either of them get better during their Stanford careers and if not, was it them, or the coaching, or both?

https://gostanford.com/news/2019/1/24/womens-basketball-mcdonalds-all-americans.aspx

[b]STANFORD, Calif. –[/b] "Incoming freshmen Fran Belibi, Haley Jones and Ashten Prechtel will participate in the 18th annual McDonald's All-American Game on March 27 in Atlanta.

The three future Cardinal, who signed with Stanford in November, all landed on the 12-member West Team. Of the 24 girls selected to be McDonald's All-Americans, Stanford and South Carolina have the most players suiting up next fall with three commits each. The girls' game begins at 2 p.m. PT and will be televised live on ESPN2.

Belibi, Jones and Prechtel will add their names to an exclusive list of 21 Cardinal women's basketball alumnae to be featured in the nation's premier high school basketball all-star event, including six current Stanford players in DiJonai Carrington, Nadia Fingall, Anna Wilson, Maya Dodson, Kiana Williams and Jenna Brown.

Stanford's incoming class, which also includes five-star talent Hannah Jump from nearby Pinewood School, is ranked second nationally by espnW HoopGurlz.

Belibi, a 6-foot-1 forward, is the No. 23 prospect in the espnW HoopGurlz Top 100. In her first three seasons at Regis Jesuit in Aurora, Colo., she started 54 of 78 games played and amassed 938 points, 674 rebounds, 120 assists, 153 steals and 162 blocked shots.

In 15 games this season she's averaging 22.3 points and 13.1 rebounds and has been featured on SportsCenter a number of times for her viral dunks.

Another five-star talent is the 6-foot-5 Ashten Prechtel, who is the No. 16 overall player in the espnW HoopGurlz Top 100. A mobile and versatile center at both ends of the floor, Prechtel averaged 18.4 points, 14.3 rebounds and 3.0 blocks for Discovery Canyon in Colorado Springs, Colo. as a junior last season."

Hieronymus - Hieronymus - 03-20-2023

(03-20-2023, 02:15 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote:
(03-20-2023, 01:16 PM)81alum Wrote: So no, I do not fault Tara for switching up our offense. In fact, I admire her for being creative enough to do it, to learn new things, and to build around the players she has. We simply had to switch the offense this year, but the particular scheme we switched to did not work. That is on the coaches. And I am not the person to say what scheme would have worked better--but the failure of this one is plain to see.

Thank you 81alum for taking the time to answer thoughtfully with detail. I know with our admissions requirements, it makes it more difficult to target the players we would like and therefore in some respects forces Tara to change things more broadly based on available personnel and their strengths & weaknesses.

I'll be the first to admit I am not an x's and o's kind of guy, so I don't have an expansive knowledge of the various offensive strategies and philosophies.

As we discussed not just in the last 24 hours, but throughout this season, our struggles can't just be traced to one individual thing. Sure, we didn't adopt the flow offense as well as envisioned, but then there was smaller adjustments that a number of posters have highlighted that weren't made, head-scratching decision-making and perhaps even the lack of "grit."

It's been a disappointment for sure. I find this discussion somewhat carthartic but I hope we are able to channel our frustrations respectfully. We may disagree and get frustrated with other contributors for a variety of reasons but I hope we can keep it civil and take a deep breath before responding.

Agree that changes were made but none of it worked. I wanted to see bigger and instead we got smaller with more time for young guards that didn’t grow into the roles.

1. Clearly Tara wanted the team to run, and on the rare occasion they did/could they looked good. But those moments were really rare against good teams.
2. Guard rebounding continued to be the weirdest problem ever. If i exclude Davis for them, I still get a 14 - 6 deficit for Stanford. You can see the issues, but they never got fixed. Game decider in a game like this.
3. The young guards never developed and Kiki faded away as the year went on.
4. In tough games overall the whole bench would disappear as again was the case in this game.
5. Some tough end game execution all year, which revisited us in spades in this one. Last 3 plays - 3 turnovers and Cam never touches the ball. Unfortunately Jones was a major, major part of that.

The one big plus for me is Cam’s growth. Betts was also a plus. We will see next year if the other players improve. I worry though that I see too many athletic limitations in some of the players for them to really step up. We will see. And I don’t see anybody on the roster now becoming an off the dribble threat in a year.

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - spike5882 - 03-20-2023

I also, as many have, avoided commenting until coming off after the game (as a fan). I note fan because that’s what we are.

I am sure the girls are disappointed, as Haley said in the press conference. As a fan, I am also disappointed.

I’ve read comments about changing the offense too much, or not changing it enough. At the end of the day though, what I felt was lacking was change within the game itself. It wasn’t about an offensive scheme, it was about a lack of changing based on what’s in front of you.

Bosgana did not play. We had multiple stretches of 4 minutes plus where we did not score. And no changes were made. That is not ok. That is not about players not performing. Yes, maybe certain ones were not. But we have a bench full of high school all-americans.

In our stretch leading to our national championship, Prechtle came out against Louisville and saved us. Bosgana has shown she has the grit and will penetrate and score, and at least open up the outside shot for others. Betts has shown she can be phenomenal if allowed more minutes. Demetre has talent. So much was left sitting on the bench during the runs. I’m not talking about the minutes players got when it was going back and forth. In the moments that we didn’t score for minutes and minutes at a time, nothing was done. That’s not on the players. That’s not on Lepolo. Look at Jones’ shooting percentage. At some point, you have to take people out to see who can produce in the moment. This did not happen last night, and really it didn’t happen all season. Hannah hasn’t done much for the last two months (granted it is because people started guarding her, and which showed she doesn’t know how to produce individually). Our lineup consisted of certain players for the whole season and that had been determined from the get go. There were a few things here and there tweaked, but the in game coaching was terrible all season, particularly last night ??‍♂️

I said it a few minutes before the game ended and I still believe it now … the loss last night was on the coaches.

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - BostonCard - 03-20-2023

As others have noted, our problems with guards have come down to failure to sign the top ones. Page Bueckers (HG #1, PN #1), Azzi Fudd (HG#1, PN #1), Olivia Miles (HG #8, PN #4), Kiki Rice (HG #2, PN #2), and next year, Judea Watkins (HG #1, PN #2), were all elite guards who had Stanford in their top 2-3 but elected to sign elsewhere. Having any one of them on the team (and healthy, as I note that Bueckers, and Miles are both out of the tournament with injuries, and Fudd has been injured much of the year), probably is the difference between a very good season and an exceptional season.

You can, of course, criticize Vanderveer for failing to close the deal on them; at the end of the recruiting buck ends with her. But I don't think you can really say that she has neglected recruiting elite guards. Moreover, it is hard to know if the choices reflect an undercurrent or if they each represent unique circumstances.

A few other miscellaneous observations:
For all the handwringing about our offense, we averaged 76.1 ppg this year, which is one of the better offensive years in recent memory. Only in 2021 (77.7 ppg) and 2014 (76.7 ppg) have we scored more in the past 10 years. Going back further, only in 2011 (79.3 ppg), 2006 (78.6 ppg), 2005 (77.8 ppg) and 2002 (80.3 ppg) have we exceeded our scoring output in this century. This season wasn't a barn buster, but it was clearly above the median in scoring for Stanford.

Our shooting percentage (.455) was also better than most years (excepting 2021 and 2014 in the last 10).

I think where we struggled was in our three point shooting, as we exceeded only 2018 in the last 10 years, which explains why the strategy of packing the paint worked well against us. I think if we were able to shoot a little bit better from three point range, we might have negated that strategy better. Hannah Jump went 100/227 for us (44%), which meant that the rest of the team went 140/467, which is just under 30%. I think if we can get another three point shooter to reliably step up, that should open things up for Brink and Betts inside. We should be looking for Demetre (32/97, 33%), Talana Lepolo (25/67, 37%), Agnes Emma-Nnopu (20/47, 42%), and Elena Bosgana (17/53, 32%) to step up. To be an effective second option, they will need to give us 40+ threes with about a three point shooting percentage in the upper 30's.

BC

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - chrisk - 03-20-2023

Down goes Indiana.

Stanford is not alone as a #1 seed losing at home.

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - BostonCard - 03-20-2023

One other thing. Our rebounding average of 45.7 rebounds per game this last year was he best of the Vanderveer era (as best I can tell), and many years it wasn't even close. We got out-rebounded last night, and we've been out rebounded in a few of our key losses this year, but as a whole, rebounding was a strength of this team. Our rebounding margin for the season was +13.1, and we captured 73% of the rebounds at the opponents end of the court while getting 40% of our own misses. Last night, we only managed to corral 57% of Ole Miss' misses (try saying that three times fast), and had a rebounding margin of -5 (18 below our season average). I think if we had managed to keep rebounding even, we would have won the game.

BC

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - BillBradley - 03-20-2023

(03-20-2023, 07:11 PM)BostonCard Wrote: As others have noted, our problems with guards have come down to failure to sign the top ones. Page Bueckers (HG #1, PN #1), Azzi Fudd (HG#1, PN #1), Olivia Miles (HG #8, PN #4), Kiki Rice (HG #2, PN #2), and next year, Judea Watkins (HG #1, PN #2), were all elite guards who had Stanford in their top 2-3 but elected to sign elsewhere. Having any one of them on the team (and healthy, as I note that Bueckers, and Miles are both out of the tournament with injuries, and Fudd has been injured much of the year), probably is the difference between a very good season and an exceptional season.

You can, of course, criticize Vanderveer for failing to close the deal on them; at the end of the recruiting buck ends with her. But I don't think you can really say that she has neglected recruiting elite guards. Moreover, it is hard to know if the choices reflect an undercurrent or if they each represent unique circumstances.

A few other miscellaneous observations:
For all the handwringing about our offense, we averaged 76.1 ppg this year, which is one of the better offensive years in recent memory. Only in 2021 (77.7 ppg) and 2014 (76.7 ppg) have we scored more in the past 10 years. Going back further, only in 2011 (79.3 ppg), 2006 (78.6 ppg), 2005 (77.8 ppg) and 2002 (80.3 ppg) have we exceeded our scoring output in this century. This season wasn't a barn buster, but it was clearly above the median in scoring for Stanford.

Our shooting percentage (.455) was also better than most years (excepting 2021 and 2014 in the last 10).

I think where we struggled was in our three point shooting, as we exceeded only 2018 in the last 10 years, which explains why the strategy of packing the paint worked well against us. I think if we were able to shoot a little bit better from three point range, we might have negated that strategy better. Hannah Jump went 100/227 for us (44%), which meant that the rest of the team went 140/467, which is just under 30%. I think if we can get another three point shooter to reliably step up, that should open things up for Brink and Betts inside. We should be looking for Demetre (32/97, 33%), Talana Lepolo (25/67, 37%), Agnes Emma-Nnopu (20/47, 42%), and Elena Bosgana (17/53, 32%) to step up. To be an effective second option, they will need to give us 40+ threes with about a three point shooting percentage in the upper 30's.

BC

Yeah, but those stats are averages for the season and averages don't tell the whole story. We played more cupcakes/outliers this year. I haven't done this, but it would be way more meaningful to compare this season's offensive output in Feb/March against prior seasons Feb/March. Or against Quad 1 teams. Or even against P12. I would guess the numbers wouldn't hold up to prior years.

Personally, I was quite happy with our offensive output earlier in the season. So many differences back then to where we ended up. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall after that USC game where everything changed.

RE: Stanford vs. Ole Miss Sunday 6:30 - BostonCard - 03-20-2023

The Pac-12 was probably stronger than average this season. Our strength of schedule was ranked 7th by Massey, and we played #1 South Carolina, #10 Utah (twice), #14 Tennessee, #15 UCLA (three times), #21 Colorado (twice), #24 Arizona (twice), #27 Oregon (twice), #28 Creighton, and #30 Washington State.

That's 15 games (out of 35 total) against top-30 teams. That was NOT a creampuff schedule.

BC