[cardfan1996]

1996, I think you're beating a dead horse here. I think you've said that a half dozen times. For now, Tara is coach, Kate is first mate, and the team we have is the team we'll have next season. We have who we have. Let's focus on our analysis about how to make the most of it. We won't get someone from the portal, we won't get new recruits, and we aren't ditching our coaches.

You can focus your analysis on futile efforts to land 6 recruits for the next class. It won’t happen until there is some sort of reconciliation (and maybe a lot of money thrown into the collective). Some of you do not have the ability to see what is right in front of your eyes (you are watching social media and reporting back but not very observant).

[cardfan1996]

1996, I think you're beating a dead horse here. I think you've said that a half dozen times. For now, Tara is coach, Kate is first mate, and the team we have is the team we'll have next season. We have who we have. Let's focus on our analysis about how to make the most of it. We won't get someone from the portal, we won't get new recruits, and we aren't ditching our coaches.

You can focus your analysis on futile efforts to land 6 recruits for the next class. It won’t happen until there is some sort of reconciliation (and maybe a lot of money thrown into the collective). Some of you do not have the ability to see what is right in front of your eyes (you are watching social media and reporting back but not very observant).

[2006alum]

1996, I think you're beating a dead horse here. I think you've said that a half dozen times. For now, Tara is coach, Kate is first mate, and the team we have is the team we'll have next season. We have who we have. Let's focus on our analysis about how to make the most of it. We won't get someone from the portal, we won't get new recruits, and we aren't ditching our coaches.

You can focus your analysis on futile efforts to land 6 recruits for the next class. It won’t happen until there is some sort of reconciliation (and maybe a lot of money thrown into the collective). Some of you do not have the ability to see what is right in front of your eyes (you are watching social media and reporting back but not very observant).

1996, you're verging on ad hominem territory here. Check the board rules. We have zero tolerance for that, these days. You're welcome to play nice, or else you're welcome to find another forum to sh!tpost on Stanford's teams, players, coaches, and fans.

[2006alum]

1996, I think you're beating a dead horse here. I think you've said that a half dozen times. For now, Tara is coach, Kate is first mate, and the team we have is the team we'll have next season. We have who we have. Let's focus on our analysis about how to make the most of it. We won't get someone from the portal, we won't get new recruits, and we aren't ditching our coaches.

You can focus your analysis on futile efforts to land 6 recruits for the next class. It won’t happen until there is some sort of reconciliation (and maybe a lot of money thrown into the collective). Some of you do not have the ability to see what is right in front of your eyes (you are watching social media and reporting back but not very observant).

1996, you're verging on ad hominem territory here. Check the board rules. We have zero tolerance for that, these days. You're welcome to play nice, or else you're welcome to find another forum to sh!tpost on Stanford's teams, players, coaches, and fans.

[cardfan1996]

1996, I think you're beating a dead horse here. I think you've said that a half dozen times. For now, Tara is coach, Kate is first mate, and the team we have is the team we'll have next season. We have who we have. Let's focus on our analysis about how to make the most of it. We won't get someone from the portal, we won't get new recruits, and we aren't ditching our coaches.

You can focus your analysis on futile efforts to land 6 recruits for the next class. It won’t happen until there is some sort of reconciliation (and maybe a lot of money thrown into the collective). Some of you do not have the ability to see what is right in front of your eyes (you are watching social media and reporting back but not very observant).

1996, you're verging on ad hominem territory here. Check the board rules. We have zero tolerance for that, these days. You're welcome to play nice, or else you're welcome to find another forum to sh!tpost on Stanford's teams, players, coaches, and fans.

Eh, if that rather mild statement re: certain posters not being observant gets me kicked off when there have been several aggressive attacks with name calling against me and others and nothing ever comes of it, then I frankly do not care. 

I don’t have to talk about what you are interested in and you do not have to talk about what I am interested in. My redirecting the discussion of 2023-24 season in light of my observations is not personal to you.

[cardfan1996]

1996, I think you're beating a dead horse here. I think you've said that a half dozen times. For now, Tara is coach, Kate is first mate, and the team we have is the team we'll have next season. We have who we have. Let's focus on our analysis about how to make the most of it. We won't get someone from the portal, we won't get new recruits, and we aren't ditching our coaches.

You can focus your analysis on futile efforts to land 6 recruits for the next class. It won’t happen until there is some sort of reconciliation (and maybe a lot of money thrown into the collective). Some of you do not have the ability to see what is right in front of your eyes (you are watching social media and reporting back but not very observant).

1996, you're verging on ad hominem territory here. Check the board rules. We have zero tolerance for that, these days. You're welcome to play nice, or else you're welcome to find another forum to sh!tpost on Stanford's teams, players, coaches, and fans.

Eh, if that rather mild statement re: certain posters not being observant gets me kicked off when there have been several aggressive attacks with name calling against me and others and nothing ever comes of it, then I frankly do not care. 

I don’t have to talk about what you are interested in and you do not have to talk about what I am interested in. My redirecting the discussion of 2023-24 season in light of my observations is not personal to you.

[old spanish trail]

1996, I think you're beating a dead horse here. I think you've said that a half dozen times. For now, Tara is coach, Kate is first mate, and the team we have is the team we'll have next season. We have who we have. Let's focus on our analysis about how to make the most of it. We won't get someone from the portal, we won't get new recruits, and we aren't ditching our coaches.

You can focus your analysis on futile efforts to land 6 recruits for the next class. It won’t happen until there is some sort of reconciliation (and maybe a lot of money thrown into the collective). Some of you do not have the ability to see what is right in front of your eyes (you are watching social media and reporting back but not very observant).

1996, you're verging on ad hominem territory here. Check the board rules. We have zero tolerance for that, these days. You're welcome to play nice, or else you're welcome to find another forum to sh!tpost on Stanford's teams, players, coaches, and fans.

Eh, if that rather mild statement re: certain posters not being observant gets me kicked off when there have been several aggressive attacks with name calling against me and others and nothing ever comes of it, then I frankly do not care. 

I don’t have to talk about what you are interested in and you do not have to talk about what I am interested in. My redirecting the discussion of 2023-24 season in light of my observations is not personal to you.

Come on, man.

[old spanish trail]

1996, I think you're beating a dead horse here. I think you've said that a half dozen times. For now, Tara is coach, Kate is first mate, and the team we have is the team we'll have next season. We have who we have. Let's focus on our analysis about how to make the most of it. We won't get someone from the portal, we won't get new recruits, and we aren't ditching our coaches.

You can focus your analysis on futile efforts to land 6 recruits for the next class. It won’t happen until there is some sort of reconciliation (and maybe a lot of money thrown into the collective). Some of you do not have the ability to see what is right in front of your eyes (you are watching social media and reporting back but not very observant).

1996, you're verging on ad hominem territory here. Check the board rules. We have zero tolerance for that, these days. You're welcome to play nice, or else you're welcome to find another forum to sh!tpost on Stanford's teams, players, coaches, and fans.

Eh, if that rather mild statement re: certain posters not being observant gets me kicked off when there have been several aggressive attacks with name calling against me and others and nothing ever comes of it, then I frankly do not care. 

I don’t have to talk about what you are interested in and you do not have to talk about what I am interested in. My redirecting the discussion of 2023-24 season in light of my observations is not personal to you.

Come on, man.

[spike5882]

No real dog in this fight, but how is what he/she is saying any different than what was said daily about David Shaw on the board (or Haase) for the last year or two? Yet, there weren’t threats of them being kicked off for bashing either. It does seem like a double standard when somebody is critical of Tara and her decisions. While I don’t agree with all of what is said, I find it no more extreme than those that sugar coat everything that Tara does. Just based on my observations on how people respond on the board here.

As far as next season, I personally am excited to hopefully see a new system in place with new players.  I think we relied on Haley Jones to create; and to be honest I don’t think that is her strong suit.  While she was a phenomenal player, I am really looking forward to a team with out her and think there is more potential for this team to develop throughout the season.

[spike5882]

No real dog in this fight, but how is what he/she is saying any different than what was said daily about David Shaw on the board (or Haase) for the last year or two? Yet, there weren’t threats of them being kicked off for bashing either. It does seem like a double standard when somebody is critical of Tara and her decisions. While I don’t agree with all of what is said, I find it no more extreme than those that sugar coat everything that Tara does. Just based on my observations on how people respond on the board here.

As far as next season, I personally am excited to hopefully see a new system in place with new players.  I think we relied on Haley Jones to create; and to be honest I don’t think that is her strong suit.  While she was a phenomenal player, I am really looking forward to a team with out her and think there is more potential for this team to develop throughout the season.

[jonnyss]

 Some of you do not have the ability to see what is right in front of your eyes (you are watching social media and reporting back but not very observant).

the various comments one way or the other about last year's team and next year's team are opinions about basketball.

this comment is not about the team or the coaches or transfers or nil; so it is not similar to complaints about shaw or haase. it's about some of the fans who post, so seems ad hominem to me as well.  

while i would agree that it's not the first ad hominem post, i understand the moderator to say they are asking us to avoid such comments moving forward.

[jonnyss]

 Some of you do not have the ability to see what is right in front of your eyes (you are watching social media and reporting back but not very observant).

the various comments one way or the other about last year's team and next year's team are opinions about basketball.

this comment is not about the team or the coaches or transfers or nil; so it is not similar to complaints about shaw or haase. it's about some of the fans who post, so seems ad hominem to me as well.  

while i would agree that it's not the first ad hominem post, i understand the moderator to say they are asking us to avoid such comments moving forward.

[2006alum]

while i would agree that it's not the first ad hominem post, i understand the moderator to say they are asking us to avoid such comments moving forward.

Bingo. FWIW, multiple people complained about 1996's post, which is part of what prompted my response. (We can't read everything on this site closely.) It's not at all necessary to insult other posters in order to express your disagreement with them. And we always prefer to nip that in the bud before we have to more formally enforce the board's rules.

[2006alum]

while i would agree that it's not the first ad hominem post, i understand the moderator to say they are asking us to avoid such comments moving forward.

Bingo. FWIW, multiple people complained about 1996's post, which is part of what prompted my response. (We can't read everything on this site closely.) It's not at all necessary to insult other posters in order to express your disagreement with them. And we always prefer to nip that in the bud before we have to more formally enforce the board's rules.

[qwerty49]

No real dog in this fight, but how is what he/she is saying any different than what was said daily about David Shaw on the board (or Haase) for the last year or two? Yet, there weren’t threats of them being kicked off for bashing either. It does seem like a double standard when somebody is critical of Tara and her decisions.  While I don’t agree with all of what is said, I find it no more extreme than those that sugar coat everything that Tara does. Just based on my observations on how people respond on the board here.

As far as next season, I personally am excited to hopefully see a new system in place with new players.  I think we relied on Haley Jones to create; and to be honest I don’t think that is her strong suit.  While she was a phenomenal player, I am really looking forward to a team with out her and think there is more potential for this team to develop throughout the season.

This.  

Thanks, Spike.  Good post.  On all points.

[qwerty49]

No real dog in this fight, but how is what he/she is saying any different than what was said daily about David Shaw on the board (or Haase) for the last year or two? Yet, there weren’t threats of them being kicked off for bashing either. It does seem like a double standard when somebody is critical of Tara and her decisions.  While I don’t agree with all of what is said, I find it no more extreme than those that sugar coat everything that Tara does. Just based on my observations on how people respond on the board here.

As far as next season, I personally am excited to hopefully see a new system in place with new players.  I think we relied on Haley Jones to create; and to be honest I don’t think that is her strong suit.  While she was a phenomenal player, I am really looking forward to a team with out her and think there is more potential for this team to develop throughout the season.

This.  

Thanks, Spike.  Good post.  On all points.

[Mudhead]

I agree with both paragraphs. As much as I thought criticisms of Shaw and Hasse were overly astringent, they were in bounds for this board. Criticisms of Tara are also fair game and have  not been too strong. 

Jones was clearly not in best position for her and, ultimately, for the team.  we failed to recruit and have ready a point guard and paid the price. If we continue to fail in this regard, we will have same result. That is fair comment . I believe it is accurate as well, but better minds could disagree .

No real dog in this fight, but how is what he/she is saying any different than what was said daily about David Shaw on the board (or Haase) for the last year or two? Yet, there weren’t threats of them being kicked off for bashing either. It does seem like a double standard when somebody is critical of Tara and her decisions.  While I don’t agree with all of what is said, I find it no more extreme than those that sugar coat everything that Tara does. Just based on my observations on how people respond on the board here.

As far as next season, I personally am excited to hopefully see a new system in place with new players.  I think we relied on Haley Jones to create; and to be honest I don’t think that is her strong suit.  While she was a phenomenal player, I am really looking forward to a team with out her and think there is more potential for this team to develop throughout the season.

[Mudhead]

I agree with both paragraphs. As much as I thought criticisms of Shaw and Hasse were overly astringent, they were in bounds for this board. Criticisms of Tara are also fair game and have  not been too strong. 

Jones was clearly not in best position for her and, ultimately, for the team.  we failed to recruit and have ready a point guard and paid the price. If we continue to fail in this regard, we will have same result. That is fair comment . I believe it is accurate as well, but better minds could disagree .

No real dog in this fight, but how is what he/she is saying any different than what was said daily about David Shaw on the board (or Haase) for the last year or two? Yet, there weren’t threats of them being kicked off for bashing either. It does seem like a double standard when somebody is critical of Tara and her decisions.  While I don’t agree with all of what is said, I find it no more extreme than those that sugar coat everything that Tara does. Just based on my observations on how people respond on the board here.

As far as next season, I personally am excited to hopefully see a new system in place with new players.  I think we relied on Haley Jones to create; and to be honest I don’t think that is her strong suit.  While she was a phenomenal player, I am really looking forward to a team with out her and think there is more potential for this team to develop throughout the season.

[chimera]

To me there are differences between the Shaw and Haase criticisms and some of the stuff we get about Tara.  Shaw's recent teams did poorly for several years, Haase's teams have never been better than mediocre his whole time at Stanford, while Tara's team won a championship in 2021, made the F4 in 2022 and slipped only this past season when they still went 29-6 and tied for first in the conference.  We don't have a bad WBB team.  We had one somewhat down year where expectations were not met.  That doesn't make it a terrible year.  We do have a bad FB team and a mediocre MBB team.  Discussion of the coaching of those teams should reflect that reality.

Calling Tara bad, mediocre, etc, not only does not make sense given her record (yes, even recent record), but shuts off any productive conversation.  All one can do is to agree that Tara is bad, which I think the vast majority on here do not agree with, or dispute that and get called a homer or apologist.  One can think Tara is an excellent coach who did not do a great job last season without thinking she is mediocre overall.  One can think she is very good overall but has areas that could be better.  There is more nuance in how I think most people view the coaching than we get credit for on here by those who are very negative about Tara. It is never fair to say "the board" is this or that.  The board is individual posters.  We don't coordinate what we write. It is very off putting to read that the board holds a certain position.  It is a lazy tactic.  If people disagree, talk to those people, not some amorphous "board."  

The repetition of the same negative posts is also a problem.  I know several of us find it annoying to read the same critical posts over and over, same stuff regurgitated, mostly general bashing like Tara is mediocre or never does this, always does that, never learns, etc., etc.  There is really no way to respond such that a productive conversation happens.  I guess the idea is we should all join in and pile on, and when that doesn't happen the poster can complain about the board being too pro Tara.  Well, you kind of forced people into that.  It isn't really fair to say anyone is too pro Tara when you set things up so that if someone doesn't go very negative, they are an apologist.  If someone has a specific complaint or criticism, like the rotation is blah blah, but it should instead be blah, blah, great, we can discuss that specific thing.  We are all just guessing when we predict the future.  Nobody on here knows the future, although a few of us seem to think they do (usually a negative future at that).

[chimera]

To me there are differences between the Shaw and Haase criticisms and some of the stuff we get about Tara.  Shaw's recent teams did poorly for several years, Haase's teams have never been better than mediocre his whole time at Stanford, while Tara's team won a championship in 2021, made the F4 in 2022 and slipped only this past season when they still went 29-6 and tied for first in the conference.  We don't have a bad WBB team.  We had one somewhat down year where expectations were not met.  That doesn't make it a terrible year.  We do have a bad FB team and a mediocre MBB team.  Discussion of the coaching of those teams should reflect that reality.

Calling Tara bad, mediocre, etc, not only does not make sense given her record (yes, even recent record), but shuts off any productive conversation.  All one can do is to agree that Tara is bad, which I think the vast majority on here do not agree with, or dispute that and get called a homer or apologist.  One can think Tara is an excellent coach who did not do a great job last season without thinking she is mediocre overall.  One can think she is very good overall but has areas that could be better.  There is more nuance in how I think most people view the coaching than we get credit for on here by those who are very negative about Tara. It is never fair to say "the board" is this or that.  The board is individual posters.  We don't coordinate what we write. It is very off putting to read that the board holds a certain position.  It is a lazy tactic.  If people disagree, talk to those people, not some amorphous "board."  

The repetition of the same negative posts is also a problem.  I know several of us find it annoying to read the same critical posts over and over, same stuff regurgitated, mostly general bashing like Tara is mediocre or never does this, always does that, never learns, etc., etc.  There is really no way to respond such that a productive conversation happens.  I guess the idea is we should all join in and pile on, and when that doesn't happen the poster can complain about the board being too pro Tara.  Well, you kind of forced people into that.  It isn't really fair to say anyone is too pro Tara when you set things up so that if someone doesn't go very negative, they are an apologist.  If someone has a specific complaint or criticism, like the rotation is blah blah, but it should instead be blah, blah, great, we can discuss that specific thing.  We are all just guessing when we predict the future.  Nobody on here knows the future, although a few of us seem to think they do (usually a negative future at that).

[stopandpop]

Trying to move on here.  The recent ESPN Way too early top 25 picks showing Stanford at 16 seems about right for now.  That would mean we are right on the cusp of hosting or not hosting rounds 1 and 2 in next season's NCAA tournament.  Of course lots can (and most likely) will change, one way or the other.  If we bundle up all the potential positives in player development over the next several months, we may find ourselves in a much better position to compete, especially at guard and wing, although I remain concerned about the lack of support in the post when Cam and/or Kiki need a breather or have foul issues.

Disappointed with ESPN's description of Ogden, continuing to list her at 5'11 when grew to be 6'1 at least a year ago in HS.  Same with Nunu, typically listed at 5'11 who is now 6'2.  Lazy reporting, relying on old out-of-date scouting reports.

[stopandpop]

Trying to move on here.  The recent ESPN Way too early top 25 picks showing Stanford at 16 seems about right for now.  That would mean we are right on the cusp of hosting or not hosting rounds 1 and 2 in next season's NCAA tournament.  Of course lots can (and most likely) will change, one way or the other.  If we bundle up all the potential positives in player development over the next several months, we may find ourselves in a much better position to compete, especially at guard and wing, although I remain concerned about the lack of support in the post when Cam and/or Kiki need a breather or have foul issues.

Disappointed with ESPN's description of Ogden, continuing to list her at 5'11 when grew to be 6'1 at least a year ago in HS.  Same with Nunu, typically listed at 5'11 who is now 6'2.  Lazy reporting, relying on old out-of-date scouting reports.

[Softball Fan]

To me there are differences between the Shaw and Haase criticisms and some of the stuff we get about Tara.  Shaw's recent teams did poorly for several years, Haase's teams have never been better than mediocre his whole time at Stanford, while Tara's team won a championship in 2021, made the F4 in 2022 and slipped only this past season when they still went 29-6 and tied for first in the conference.  We don't have a bad WBB team.  We had one somewhat down year where expectations were not met.  That doesn't make it a terrible year.  We do have a bad FB team and a mediocre MBB team.  Discussion of the coaching of those teams should reflect that reality.

Calling Tara bad, mediocre, etc, not only does not make sense given her record (yes, even recent record), but shuts off any productive conversation.  All one can do is to agree that Tara is bad, which I think the vast majority on here do not agree with, or dispute that and get called a homer or apologist.  One can think Tara is an excellent coach who did not do a great job last season without thinking she is mediocre overall.  One can think she is very good overall but has areas that could be better.  There is more nuance in how I think most people view the coaching than we get credit for on here by those who are very negative about Tara. It is never fair to say "the board" is this or that.  The board is individual posters.  We don't coordinate what we write. It is very off putting to read that the board holds a certain position.  It is a lazy tactic.  If people disagree, talk to those people, not some amorphous "board."  

The repetition of the same negative posts is also a problem.  I know several of us find it annoying to read the same critical posts over and over, same stuff regurgitated, mostly general bashing like Tara is mediocre or never does this, always does that, never learns, etc., etc.  There is really no way to respond such that a productive conversation happens.  I guess the idea is we should all join in and pile on, and when that doesn't happen the poster can complain about the board being too pro Tara.  Well, you kind of forced people into that.  It isn't really fair to say anyone is too pro Tara when you set things up so that if someone doesn't go very negative, they are an apologist.  If someone has a specific complaint or criticism, like the rotation is blah blah, but it should instead be blah, blah, great, we can discuss that specific thing.  We are all just guessing when we predict the future.  Nobody on here knows the future, although a few of us seem to think they do (usually a negative future at that).

This message board should be open to all points of view on Stanford sports; whether you agree with them or not; whether you like them or not.  

Cardboarders constantly blasted, insulted, demeaned, and belittled coach Shaw along with almost all aspects of the football program week in and week out.  Criticism should be allowed across all sports or toward no sports.  There should not be selective rules based on whether you like the sport or coach.  There are fans who see things differently than you.

My issue is those who want to cherry pick how board rules are applied.  Also, IMO you repeated your opinions far more often on this thread than those with a more critical viewpoint of how the season transpired.

I personally don't have a problem with any post on this thread.  I enjoy reading it.  My only issue is for someone to try coercing a fan into either not posting honest opinions or stop posting.

---

Disappointed with ESPN's description of Ogden, continuing to list her at 5'11 when grew to be 6'1 at least a year ago in HS.  Same with Nunu, typically listed at 5'11 who is now 6'2.  Lazy reporting, relying on old out-of-date scouting reports.

Quite possibly it is lazy reporting.  But my experience is clubs will add an inch or two to a player's height.  Parents will inflate the height of their kid.  How do you know who is giving the correct height?

[Softball Fan]

To me there are differences between the Shaw and Haase criticisms and some of the stuff we get about Tara.  Shaw's recent teams did poorly for several years, Haase's teams have never been better than mediocre his whole time at Stanford, while Tara's team won a championship in 2021, made the F4 in 2022 and slipped only this past season when they still went 29-6 and tied for first in the conference.  We don't have a bad WBB team.  We had one somewhat down year where expectations were not met.  That doesn't make it a terrible year.  We do have a bad FB team and a mediocre MBB team.  Discussion of the coaching of those teams should reflect that reality.

Calling Tara bad, mediocre, etc, not only does not make sense given her record (yes, even recent record), but shuts off any productive conversation.  All one can do is to agree that Tara is bad, which I think the vast majority on here do not agree with, or dispute that and get called a homer or apologist.  One can think Tara is an excellent coach who did not do a great job last season without thinking she is mediocre overall.  One can think she is very good overall but has areas that could be better.  There is more nuance in how I think most people view the coaching than we get credit for on here by those who are very negative about Tara. It is never fair to say "the board" is this or that.  The board is individual posters.  We don't coordinate what we write. It is very off putting to read that the board holds a certain position.  It is a lazy tactic.  If people disagree, talk to those people, not some amorphous "board."  

The repetition of the same negative posts is also a problem.  I know several of us find it annoying to read the same critical posts over and over, same stuff regurgitated, mostly general bashing like Tara is mediocre or never does this, always does that, never learns, etc., etc.  There is really no way to respond such that a productive conversation happens.  I guess the idea is we should all join in and pile on, and when that doesn't happen the poster can complain about the board being too pro Tara.  Well, you kind of forced people into that.  It isn't really fair to say anyone is too pro Tara when you set things up so that if someone doesn't go very negative, they are an apologist.  If someone has a specific complaint or criticism, like the rotation is blah blah, but it should instead be blah, blah, great, we can discuss that specific thing.  We are all just guessing when we predict the future.  Nobody on here knows the future, although a few of us seem to think they do (usually a negative future at that).

This message board should be open to all points of view on Stanford sports; whether you agree with them or not; whether you like them or not.  

Cardboarders constantly blasted, insulted, demeaned, and belittled coach Shaw along with almost all aspects of the football program week in and week out.  Criticism should be allowed across all sports or toward no sports.  There should not be selective rules based on whether you like the sport or coach.  There are fans who see things differently than you.

My issue is those who want to cherry pick how board rules are applied.  Also, IMO you repeated your opinions far more often on this thread than those with a more critical viewpoint of how the season transpired.

I personally don't have a problem with any post on this thread.  I enjoy reading it.  My only issue is for someone to try coercing a fan into either not posting honest opinions or stop posting.

---

Disappointed with ESPN's description of Ogden, continuing to list her at 5'11 when grew to be 6'1 at least a year ago in HS.  Same with Nunu, typically listed at 5'11 who is now 6'2.  Lazy reporting, relying on old out-of-date scouting reports.

Quite possibly it is lazy reporting.  But my experience is clubs will add an inch or two to a player's height.  Parents will inflate the height of their kid.  How do you know who is giving the correct height?

[chimera]

To me there are differences between the Shaw and Haase criticisms and some of the stuff we get about Tara.  Shaw's recent teams did poorly for several years, Haase's teams have never been better than mediocre his whole time at Stanford, while Tara's team won a championship in 2021, made the F4 in 2022 and slipped only this past season when they still went 29-6 and tied for first in the conference.  We don't have a bad WBB team.  We had one somewhat down year where expectations were not met.  That doesn't make it a terrible year.  We do have a bad FB team and a mediocre MBB team.  Discussion of the coaching of those teams should reflect that reality.

Calling Tara bad, mediocre, etc, not only does not make sense given her record (yes, even recent record), but shuts off any productive conversation.  All one can do is to agree that Tara is bad, which I think the vast majority on here do not agree with, or dispute that and get called a homer or apologist.  One can think Tara is an excellent coach who did not do a great job last season without thinking she is mediocre overall.  One can think she is very good overall but has areas that could be better.  There is more nuance in how I think most people view the coaching than we get credit for on here by those who are very negative about Tara. It is never fair to say "the board" is this or that.  The board is individual posters.  We don't coordinate what we write. It is very off putting to read that the board holds a certain position.  It is a lazy tactic.  If people disagree, talk to those people, not some amorphous "board."  

The repetition of the same negative posts is also a problem.  I know several of us find it annoying to read the same critical posts over and over, same stuff regurgitated, mostly general bashing like Tara is mediocre or never does this, always does that, never learns, etc., etc.  There is really no way to respond such that a productive conversation happens.  I guess the idea is we should all join in and pile on, and when that doesn't happen the poster can complain about the board being too pro Tara.  Well, you kind of forced people into that.  It isn't really fair to say anyone is too pro Tara when you set things up so that if someone doesn't go very negative, they are an apologist.  If someone has a specific complaint or criticism, like the rotation is blah blah, but it should instead be blah, blah, great, we can discuss that specific thing.  We are all just guessing when we predict the future.  Nobody on here knows the future, although a few of us seem to think they do (usually a negative future at that).

This message board should be open to all points of view on Stanford sports; whether you agree with them or not; whether you like them or not.  

Cardboarders constantly blasted, insulted, demeaned, and belittled coach Shaw along with almost all aspects of the football program week in and week out.  Criticism should be allowed across all sports or toward no sports.  There should not be selective rules based on whether you like the sport or coach.  There are fans who see things differently than you.

My issue is those who want to cherry pick how board rules are applied.  Also, IMO you repeated your opinions far more often on this thread than those with a more critical viewpoint of how the season transpired.

I personally don't have a problem with any post on this thread.  I enjoy reading it.  My only issue is for someone to try coercing a fan into either not posting honest opinions or stop posting.

---

Disappointed with ESPN's description of Ogden, continuing to list her at 5'11 when grew to be 6'1 at least a year ago in HS.  Same with Nunu, typically listed at 5'11 who is now 6'2.  Lazy reporting, relying on old out-of-date scouting reports.

Quite possibly it is lazy reporting.  But my experience is clubs will add an inch or two to a player's height.  Parents will inflate the height of their kid.  How do you know who is giving the correct height?

I am not a mod so what I said has nothing to do with rules, just to me what makes a discussion more worthwhile.  I never particularly liked some of the comments on Shaw.  I don't really care much about the FB team so I never engaged on any of that.   My issue with negative labels for a coach or player or implications that coaches are incompetent and such is that nuanced discussion gets lost when discussions turn into a "so and so is mediocre, no so and so is not mediocre" kind of thing.  That's what I am trying to push back against, not the fact that someone has a negative view of Tara.  

I guess you missed all my posts over the season that were critical about a lot of things.  I try to be specific when I think something is not working well, so maybe none of that sticks with people and they think I don't do that, I don't know.  I'm more into nuance than the Tara is kinda an idiot or a saint sort of stuff.  

You think I post too much?  Probably true, and I will try to post less in this thread from now on and others.  This isn't really fun for anyone, I don't think.

[chimera]

To me there are differences between the Shaw and Haase criticisms and some of the stuff we get about Tara.  Shaw's recent teams did poorly for several years, Haase's teams have never been better than mediocre his whole time at Stanford, while Tara's team won a championship in 2021, made the F4 in 2022 and slipped only this past season when they still went 29-6 and tied for first in the conference.  We don't have a bad WBB team.  We had one somewhat down year where expectations were not met.  That doesn't make it a terrible year.  We do have a bad FB team and a mediocre MBB team.  Discussion of the coaching of those teams should reflect that reality.

Calling Tara bad, mediocre, etc, not only does not make sense given her record (yes, even recent record), but shuts off any productive conversation.  All one can do is to agree that Tara is bad, which I think the vast majority on here do not agree with, or dispute that and get called a homer or apologist.  One can think Tara is an excellent coach who did not do a great job last season without thinking she is mediocre overall.  One can think she is very good overall but has areas that could be better.  There is more nuance in how I think most people view the coaching than we get credit for on here by those who are very negative about Tara. It is never fair to say "the board" is this or that.  The board is individual posters.  We don't coordinate what we write. It is very off putting to read that the board holds a certain position.  It is a lazy tactic.  If people disagree, talk to those people, not some amorphous "board."  

The repetition of the same negative posts is also a problem.  I know several of us find it annoying to read the same critical posts over and over, same stuff regurgitated, mostly general bashing like Tara is mediocre or never does this, always does that, never learns, etc., etc.  There is really no way to respond such that a productive conversation happens.  I guess the idea is we should all join in and pile on, and when that doesn't happen the poster can complain about the board being too pro Tara.  Well, you kind of forced people into that.  It isn't really fair to say anyone is too pro Tara when you set things up so that if someone doesn't go very negative, they are an apologist.  If someone has a specific complaint or criticism, like the rotation is blah blah, but it should instead be blah, blah, great, we can discuss that specific thing.  We are all just guessing when we predict the future.  Nobody on here knows the future, although a few of us seem to think they do (usually a negative future at that).

This message board should be open to all points of view on Stanford sports; whether you agree with them or not; whether you like them or not.  

Cardboarders constantly blasted, insulted, demeaned, and belittled coach Shaw along with almost all aspects of the football program week in and week out.  Criticism should be allowed across all sports or toward no sports.  There should not be selective rules based on whether you like the sport or coach.  There are fans who see things differently than you.

My issue is those who want to cherry pick how board rules are applied.  Also, IMO you repeated your opinions far more often on this thread than those with a more critical viewpoint of how the season transpired.

I personally don't have a problem with any post on this thread.  I enjoy reading it.  My only issue is for someone to try coercing a fan into either not posting honest opinions or stop posting.

---

Disappointed with ESPN's description of Ogden, continuing to list her at 5'11 when grew to be 6'1 at least a year ago in HS.  Same with Nunu, typically listed at 5'11 who is now 6'2.  Lazy reporting, relying on old out-of-date scouting reports.

Quite possibly it is lazy reporting.  But my experience is clubs will add an inch or two to a player's height.  Parents will inflate the height of their kid.  How do you know who is giving the correct height?

I am not a mod so what I said has nothing to do with rules, just to me what makes a discussion more worthwhile.  I never particularly liked some of the comments on Shaw.  I don't really care much about the FB team so I never engaged on any of that.   My issue with negative labels for a coach or player or implications that coaches are incompetent and such is that nuanced discussion gets lost when discussions turn into a "so and so is mediocre, no so and so is not mediocre" kind of thing.  That's what I am trying to push back against, not the fact that someone has a negative view of Tara.  

I guess you missed all my posts over the season that were critical about a lot of things.  I try to be specific when I think something is not working well, so maybe none of that sticks with people and they think I don't do that, I don't know.  I'm more into nuance than the Tara is kinda an idiot or a saint sort of stuff.  

You think I post too much?  Probably true, and I will try to post less in this thread from now on and others.  This isn't really fun for anyone, I don't think.

[stopandpop]

To me there are differences between the Shaw and Haase criticisms and some of the stuff we get about Tara.  Shaw's recent teams did poorly for several years, Haase's teams have never been better than mediocre his whole time at Stanford, while Tara's team won a championship in 2021, made the F4 in 2022 and slipped only this past season when they still went 29-6 and tied for first in the conference.  We don't have a bad WBB team.  We had one somewhat down year where expectations were not met.  That doesn't make it a terrible year.  We do have a bad FB team and a mediocre MBB team.  Discussion of the coaching of those teams should reflect that reality.

Calling Tara bad, mediocre, etc, not only does not make sense given her record (yes, even recent record), but shuts off any productive conversation.  All one can do is to agree that Tara is bad, which I think the vast majority on here do not agree with, or dispute that and get called a homer or apologist.  One can think Tara is an excellent coach who did not do a great job last season without thinking she is mediocre overall.  One can think she is very good overall but has areas that could be better.  There is more nuance in how I think most people view the coaching than we get credit for on here by those who are very negative about Tara. It is never fair to say "the board" is this or that.  The board is individual posters.  We don't coordinate what we write. It is very off putting to read that the board holds a certain position.  It is a lazy tactic.  If people disagree, talk to those people, not some amorphous "board."  

The repetition of the same negative posts is also a problem.  I know several of us find it annoying to read the same critical posts over and over, same stuff regurgitated, mostly general bashing like Tara is mediocre or never does this, always does that, never learns, etc., etc.  There is really no way to respond such that a productive conversation happens.  I guess the idea is we should all join in and pile on, and when that doesn't happen the poster can complain about the board being too pro Tara.  Well, you kind of forced people into that.  It isn't really fair to say anyone is too pro Tara when you set things up so that if someone doesn't go very negative, they are an apologist.  If someone has a specific complaint or criticism, like the rotation is blah blah, but it should instead be blah, blah, great, we can discuss that specific thing.  We are all just guessing when we predict the future.  Nobody on here knows the future, although a few of us seem to think they do (usually a negative future at that).

This message board should be open to all points of view on Stanford sports; whether you agree with them or not; whether you like them or not.  

Cardboarders constantly blasted, insulted, demeaned, and belittled coach Shaw along with almost all aspects of the football program week in and week out.  Criticism should be allowed across all sports or toward no sports.  There should not be selective rules based on whether you like the sport or coach.  There are fans who see things differently than you.

My issue is those who want to cherry pick how board rules are applied.  Also, IMO you repeated your opinions far more often on this thread than those with a more critical viewpoint of how the season transpired.

I personally don't have a problem with any post on this thread.  I enjoy reading it.  My only issue is for someone to try coercing a fan into either not posting honest opinions or stop posting.

---

Disappointed with ESPN's description of Ogden, continuing to list her at 5'11 when grew to be 6'1 at least a year ago in HS.  Same with Nunu, typically listed at 5'11 who is now 6'2.  Lazy reporting, relying on old out-of-date scouting reports.

Quite possibly it is lazy reporting.  But my experience is clubs will add an inch or two to a player's height.  Parents will inflate the height of their kid.  How do you know who is giving the correct height?

Stanford's introduction of the 3 freshmen class in their Stanford uniforms list their heights as follows:  Nunu Agara (6'2); Chloe Clardy (5'9) and Courtney Ogden (6'1).  I would have to assume that Stanford confirmed their respective heights at the time of their signing, but perhaps long time Stanford posters can weigh-in on how that process happens.

Some personal observations; Demetre looks a tad shorter than Iriafen (though both are listed at 6'3) when they stand next to each other.  But Iriafen looks at least 2" shorter than Brink when the two of them stand together.  I have said earlier that Brink is 6'5, but she's listed at 6'4.  There do seem to be some discrepancies between listed height and actual height.

On a national level, height discrepancies (listed vs. actual) are not all that uncommon; it's been going on for decades.

[stopandpop]

To me there are differences between the Shaw and Haase criticisms and some of the stuff we get about Tara.  Shaw's recent teams did poorly for several years, Haase's teams have never been better than mediocre his whole time at Stanford, while Tara's team won a championship in 2021, made the F4 in 2022 and slipped only this past season when they still went 29-6 and tied for first in the conference.  We don't have a bad WBB team.  We had one somewhat down year where expectations were not met.  That doesn't make it a terrible year.  We do have a bad FB team and a mediocre MBB team.  Discussion of the coaching of those teams should reflect that reality.

Calling Tara bad, mediocre, etc, not only does not make sense given her record (yes, even recent record), but shuts off any productive conversation.  All one can do is to agree that Tara is bad, which I think the vast majority on here do not agree with, or dispute that and get called a homer or apologist.  One can think Tara is an excellent coach who did not do a great job last season without thinking she is mediocre overall.  One can think she is very good overall but has areas that could be better.  There is more nuance in how I think most people view the coaching than we get credit for on here by those who are very negative about Tara. It is never fair to say "the board" is this or that.  The board is individual posters.  We don't coordinate what we write. It is very off putting to read that the board holds a certain position.  It is a lazy tactic.  If people disagree, talk to those people, not some amorphous "board."  

The repetition of the same negative posts is also a problem.  I know several of us find it annoying to read the same critical posts over and over, same stuff regurgitated, mostly general bashing like Tara is mediocre or never does this, always does that, never learns, etc., etc.  There is really no way to respond such that a productive conversation happens.  I guess the idea is we should all join in and pile on, and when that doesn't happen the poster can complain about the board being too pro Tara.  Well, you kind of forced people into that.  It isn't really fair to say anyone is too pro Tara when you set things up so that if someone doesn't go very negative, they are an apologist.  If someone has a specific complaint or criticism, like the rotation is blah blah, but it should instead be blah, blah, great, we can discuss that specific thing.  We are all just guessing when we predict the future.  Nobody on here knows the future, although a few of us seem to think they do (usually a negative future at that).

This message board should be open to all points of view on Stanford sports; whether you agree with them or not; whether you like them or not.  

Cardboarders constantly blasted, insulted, demeaned, and belittled coach Shaw along with almost all aspects of the football program week in and week out.  Criticism should be allowed across all sports or toward no sports.  There should not be selective rules based on whether you like the sport or coach.  There are fans who see things differently than you.

My issue is those who want to cherry pick how board rules are applied.  Also, IMO you repeated your opinions far more often on this thread than those with a more critical viewpoint of how the season transpired.

I personally don't have a problem with any post on this thread.  I enjoy reading it.  My only issue is for someone to try coercing a fan into either not posting honest opinions or stop posting.

---

Disappointed with ESPN's description of Ogden, continuing to list her at 5'11 when grew to be 6'1 at least a year ago in HS.  Same with Nunu, typically listed at 5'11 who is now 6'2.  Lazy reporting, relying on old out-of-date scouting reports.

Quite possibly it is lazy reporting.  But my experience is clubs will add an inch or two to a player's height.  Parents will inflate the height of their kid.  How do you know who is giving the correct height?

Stanford's introduction of the 3 freshmen class in their Stanford uniforms list their heights as follows:  Nunu Agara (6'2); Chloe Clardy (5'9) and Courtney Ogden (6'1).  I would have to assume that Stanford confirmed their respective heights at the time of their signing, but perhaps long time Stanford posters can weigh-in on how that process happens.

Some personal observations; Demetre looks a tad shorter than Iriafen (though both are listed at 6'3) when they stand next to each other.  But Iriafen looks at least 2" shorter than Brink when the two of them stand together.  I have said earlier that Brink is 6'5, but she's listed at 6'4.  There do seem to be some discrepancies between listed height and actual height.

On a national level, height discrepancies (listed vs. actual) are not all that uncommon; it's been going on for decades.

[stopandpop]

As previously announced, there will home games with Indiana and Duke on the 2023 non-conference schedule.  

No official word yet, but Stanford will play in a tournament somewhere in Las Vegas around the Thanksgiving holiday. It will not be @ the T-Mobile Arena.

UNLV hosts a Thanksgiving tourney @ their Thomas and Mack Center (nice venue) and then there's The Southpoint Shootout (also during Thanksgiving) at the Southpoint Hotel & Casino.  Their arena has often been used for rodeos and it's miles from the Strip.  I suspect it will not be there. 

There could be another tournament and venue, but I'm currently not aware of one.  If I learn anything more I'll let you know.

[stopandpop]

As previously announced, there will home games with Indiana and Duke on the 2023 non-conference schedule.  

No official word yet, but Stanford will play in a tournament somewhere in Las Vegas around the Thanksgiving holiday. It will not be @ the T-Mobile Arena.

UNLV hosts a Thanksgiving tourney @ their Thomas and Mack Center (nice venue) and then there's The Southpoint Shootout (also during Thanksgiving) at the Southpoint Hotel & Casino.  Their arena has often been used for rodeos and it's miles from the Strip.  I suspect it will not be there. 

There could be another tournament and venue, but I'm currently not aware of one.  If I learn anything more I'll let you know.

[Card10Fan]

As previously announced, there will home games with Indiana and Duke on the 2023 non-conference schedule.  

No official word yet, but Stanford will play in a tournament somewhere in Las Vegas around the Thanksgiving holiday. It will not be @ the T-Mobile Arena.

UNLV hosts a Thanksgiving tourney @ their Thomas and Mack Center (nice venue) and then there's The Southpoint Shootout (also during Thanksgiving) at the Southpoint Hotel & Casino.  Their arena has often been used for rodeos and it's miles from the Strip.  I suspect it will not be there. 

There could be another tournament and venue, but I'm currently not aware of one.  If I learn anything more I'll let you know.

Vegas hosts several holiday tournaments. The SouthPointe tourney has had the biggest names in the past. I would guess that’s the one we are in. 

We also have road games at Creighton, at Tennessee, at South Carolina
And possibly at Gonzaga

The schedule looks very very challenging at this point.

I’m wondering how the search for a new assistant coach is going too?

[Card10Fan]

As previously announced, there will home games with Indiana and Duke on the 2023 non-conference schedule.  

No official word yet, but Stanford will play in a tournament somewhere in Las Vegas around the Thanksgiving holiday. It will not be @ the T-Mobile Arena.

UNLV hosts a Thanksgiving tourney @ their Thomas and Mack Center (nice venue) and then there's The Southpoint Shootout (also during Thanksgiving) at the Southpoint Hotel & Casino.  Their arena has often been used for rodeos and it's miles from the Strip.  I suspect it will not be there. 

There could be another tournament and venue, but I'm currently not aware of one.  If I learn anything more I'll let you know.

Vegas hosts several holiday tournaments. The SouthPointe tourney has had the biggest names in the past. I would guess that’s the one we are in. 

We also have road games at Creighton, at Tennessee, at South Carolina
And possibly at Gonzaga

The schedule looks very very challenging at this point.

I’m wondering how the search for a new assistant coach is going too?

[crackpot]

I’m wondering how the search for a new assistant coach is going too?

Bird's available...

[crackpot]

I’m wondering how the search for a new assistant coach is going too?

Bird's available...

[petersalas]

I just tweeted something about the opening to her lol.

https://twitter.com/stancard10/status/16...QaSyTEUwgA

I’m wondering how the search for a new assistant coach is going too?

Bird's available...

[petersalas]

I just tweeted something about the opening to her lol.

https://twitter.com/stancard10/status/16...QaSyTEUwgA

I’m wondering how the search for a new assistant coach is going too?

Bird's available...

[WBB fan]

I just tweeted something about the opening to her lol.

https://twitter.com/stancard10/status/16...QaSyTEUwgA

I’m wondering how the search for a new assistant coach is going too?

Bird's available...

Don't know if any of you are serious about Bird as a possibility or just tossing ideas around, but . . . , no matter how good a coach she might be, I have to ask: How good would it be for Stanford to have ALL three assistants be people who played for Tara? Seems to me that whoever the new assistant is, she (even a he!) should be someone who does not have a previous link to Stanford, could bring in new ideas and perspectives

[WBB fan]

I just tweeted something about the opening to her lol.

https://twitter.com/stancard10/status/16...QaSyTEUwgA

I’m wondering how the search for a new assistant coach is going too?

Bird's available...

Don't know if any of you are serious about Bird as a possibility or just tossing ideas around, but . . . , no matter how good a coach she might be, I have to ask: How good would it be for Stanford to have ALL three assistants be people who played for Tara? Seems to me that whoever the new assistant is, she (even a he!) should be someone who does not have a previous link to Stanford, could bring in new ideas and perspectives

[stopandpop]

As previously announced, there will home games with Indiana and Duke on the 2023 non-conference schedule.  

No official word yet, but Stanford will play in a tournament somewhere in Las Vegas around the Thanksgiving holiday. It will not be @ the T-Mobile Arena.

UNLV hosts a Thanksgiving tourney @ their Thomas and Mack Center (nice venue) and then there's The Southpoint Shootout (also during Thanksgiving) at the Southpoint Hotel & Casino.  Their arena has often been used for rodeos and it's miles from the Strip.  I suspect it will not be there. 

There could be another tournament and venue, but I'm currently not aware of one.  If I learn anything more I'll let you know.

Vegas hosts several holiday tournaments. The SouthPointe tourney has had the biggest names in the past. I would guess that’s the one we are in. 

We also have road games at Creighton, at Tennessee, at South Carolina
And possibly at Gonzaga

The schedule looks very very challenging at this point.

I’m wondering how the search for a new assistant coach is going too?

I doubt it's @ South Point.  Stanford will play at an arena used totally for basketball while the South Point venue is not.

Historically, the Blue Jays are very tough to beat in their small arena, so yes- the pre-conference road schedule is shaping up to be tough.

I would be in favor of a coach not associated with Stanford with recruitment ties to schools outside California and who might be able to tap into players to help fill some of our performance gaps (i.e. guards who can create and score).

[stopandpop]

As previously announced, there will home games with Indiana and Duke on the 2023 non-conference schedule.  

No official word yet, but Stanford will play in a tournament somewhere in Las Vegas around the Thanksgiving holiday. It will not be @ the T-Mobile Arena.

UNLV hosts a Thanksgiving tourney @ their Thomas and Mack Center (nice venue) and then there's The Southpoint Shootout (also during Thanksgiving) at the Southpoint Hotel & Casino.  Their arena has often been used for rodeos and it's miles from the Strip.  I suspect it will not be there. 

There could be another tournament and venue, but I'm currently not aware of one.  If I learn anything more I'll let you know.

Vegas hosts several holiday tournaments. The SouthPointe tourney has had the biggest names in the past. I would guess that’s the one we are in. 

We also have road games at Creighton, at Tennessee, at South Carolina
And possibly at Gonzaga

The schedule looks very very challenging at this point.

I’m wondering how the search for a new assistant coach is going too?

I doubt it's @ South Point.  Stanford will play at an arena used totally for basketball while the South Point venue is not.

Historically, the Blue Jays are very tough to beat in their small arena, so yes- the pre-conference road schedule is shaping up to be tough.

I would be in favor of a coach not associated with Stanford with recruitment ties to schools outside California and who might be able to tap into players to help fill some of our performance gaps (i.e. guards who can create and score).