[81alum]

I don't think it is all that mysterious as to why we get to the final four so many times but have not won it all since the early 90s.  Our players overall are not always as talented as the players of the winning teams.  We get to the final four despite not having quite as much physical talent as the UConns or Tennessees because Tara is one of the best coaches in the history of basketball, and by the end of the season she often has her team playing at a much higher level than other coaches could possibly do with equivalent talent.  But by the time we get to the end of the line we are playing against teams with a little more talent who are also on successful streaks with highly successful coaches.  Tara's defensive schemes can always find a way to control 1 and sometimes 2 superstars, but she cannot scheme effectively against teams with 3, 4, or 5 talented offensive weapons.  The only way to defend teams with that level of talent is to have players who can defend them one-on-one, and that comes down to physical talent more than coaching alone. 

Why is our talent level not quite as strong as some of these other programs?  It is obvious--admissions.  We spend too much time bemoaning the loss of Lou Samuelson or Pivec who made it in and chose to go elsewhere, when the reality is that dozens of elite athletes know they will never have a chance getting in to Stanford so they never even consider coming here.  We get players who are bright and very coachable and who are always talented and sometimes of elite caliber, but we don't get the most elite players in high enough numbers to become a consistently dominant powerhouse. 

That seems to me to be true of 2008, 9, and 10 and 12.  2011 was the tragedy because I think we had better talent than A&M--that is the case that casts my theory into some doubt. The stars were lined up for us that year, and we did not quite get it done.

So how did we do it in 1990 and 1992?  Stanford jumped on the Title IX bandwagon and hired an excellent WBB coach and put resources into recruiting, scholarships, etc. before WBB had become popular in all other parts of the country.  There were vast swathes of America in which girls continued to be discouraged from athletics, but in the 1980s Stanford pushed its women's programs as part of the school's commitment to equal opportunity.  Just read about Tara's experiences early in her coaching career as she repeatedly encountered subtle and not so subtle instances of discrimination against WBB around the country.  I'm proud that Stanford pushed women's athletics, but it was a shrewd move.  It got Stanford out to a significant head start in WBB compared with numerous other schools--a few like Tennessee of course excepted.  (Heck, down the street at SJSU the school had to be ordered to give an equivalent number of women's scholarships by a court order, the resistance was so significant.)  To this day Stanford benefits from pushing women's programs more effectively than other schools.  How many Director's cups would we have won if it were based on men's sports alone?

Well, as a result of the great success of Tara, Pat Summit and other pioneers, WBB has become a major sport at nearly all Div I schools, and the level of competition is far higher now than in the 1980s and early 1990s.  It is a lot harder to win a national championship in 2017 than in 1992.  Even the Pac 12 has become competitive.  The landscape has changed, and it is probably as tough for Tara to win a national championship today as it is for David Shaw, and for similar reasons.  Still, the stars may yet align for Shaw or for Vanderveer, but I will enjoy the remarkable successes of these bright and talented coaches whether they get the final trophy or not.

[81alum]

I don't think it is all that mysterious as to why we get to the final four so many times but have not won it all since the early 90s.  Our players overall are not always as talented as the players of the winning teams.  We get to the final four despite not having quite as much physical talent as the UConns or Tennessees because Tara is one of the best coaches in the history of basketball, and by the end of the season she often has her team playing at a much higher level than other coaches could possibly do with equivalent talent.  But by the time we get to the end of the line we are playing against teams with a little more talent who are also on successful streaks with highly successful coaches.  Tara's defensive schemes can always find a way to control 1 and sometimes 2 superstars, but she cannot scheme effectively against teams with 3, 4, or 5 talented offensive weapons.  The only way to defend teams with that level of talent is to have players who can defend them one-on-one, and that comes down to physical talent more than coaching alone. 

Why is our talent level not quite as strong as some of these other programs?  It is obvious--admissions.  We spend too much time bemoaning the loss of Lou Samuelson or Pivec who made it in and chose to go elsewhere, when the reality is that dozens of elite athletes know they will never have a chance getting in to Stanford so they never even consider coming here.  We get players who are bright and very coachable and who are always talented and sometimes of elite caliber, but we don't get the most elite players in high enough numbers to become a consistently dominant powerhouse. 

That seems to me to be true of 2008, 9, and 10 and 12.  2011 was the tragedy because I think we had better talent than A&M--that is the case that casts my theory into some doubt. The stars were lined up for us that year, and we did not quite get it done.

So how did we do it in 1990 and 1992?  Stanford jumped on the Title IX bandwagon and hired an excellent WBB coach and put resources into recruiting, scholarships, etc. before WBB had become popular in all other parts of the country.  There were vast swathes of America in which girls continued to be discouraged from athletics, but in the 1980s Stanford pushed its women's programs as part of the school's commitment to equal opportunity.  Just read about Tara's experiences early in her coaching career as she repeatedly encountered subtle and not so subtle instances of discrimination against WBB around the country.  I'm proud that Stanford pushed women's athletics, but it was a shrewd move.  It got Stanford out to a significant head start in WBB compared with numerous other schools--a few like Tennessee of course excepted.  (Heck, down the street at SJSU the school had to be ordered to give an equivalent number of women's scholarships by a court order, the resistance was so significant.)  To this day Stanford benefits from pushing women's programs more effectively than other schools.  How many Director's cups would we have won if it were based on men's sports alone?

Well, as a result of the great success of Tara, Pat Summit and other pioneers, WBB has become a major sport at nearly all Div I schools, and the level of competition is far higher now than in the 1980s and early 1990s.  It is a lot harder to win a national championship in 2017 than in 1992.  Even the Pac 12 has become competitive.  The landscape has changed, and it is probably as tough for Tara to win a national championship today as it is for David Shaw, and for similar reasons.  Still, the stars may yet align for Shaw or for Vanderveer, but I will enjoy the remarkable successes of these bright and talented coaches whether they get the final trophy or not.