[TheFarm07]

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. 

I agree with your explanation 81. It speaks volumes about Tara's coaching abilities that despite the restrictions on the available recruits because of the school's admissions standards, that she has been able to maintain the women's basketball program as one of the premiere and winning programs in college basketball over the last 30 years. All but a select few schools would be envious of the sustained success she has had.

We've talked about it before, trying to pinpoint the differences between women's basketball and other women's programs at Stanford that has had relative more success winning national titles (women's volleyball, women's water polo, women's tennis to name a few) and the socioeconomic causation that might be the reason why more HS girls basketball players don't have the academic credentials to pass admissions. I wish our recent success would inspire a few more to focus on academics in order to better their chances of getting in.

That's why it hurts when a premiere recruit like Katie Lou, who was admitted, decides to go somewhere else. Another program can brush off a recruit's decision pretty quickly, even within the same recruiting class, but we might have to wait a couple more years or even more for another National Player of the Year-potential recruit to come along with the grades to qualify.

[TheFarm07]

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. 

I agree with your explanation 81. It speaks volumes about Tara's coaching abilities that despite the restrictions on the available recruits because of the school's admissions standards, that she has been able to maintain the women's basketball program as one of the premiere and winning programs in college basketball over the last 30 years. All but a select few schools would be envious of the sustained success she has had.

We've talked about it before, trying to pinpoint the differences between women's basketball and other women's programs at Stanford that has had relative more success winning national titles (women's volleyball, women's water polo, women's tennis to name a few) and the socioeconomic causation that might be the reason why more HS girls basketball players don't have the academic credentials to pass admissions. I wish our recent success would inspire a few more to focus on academics in order to better their chances of getting in.

That's why it hurts when a premiere recruit like Katie Lou, who was admitted, decides to go somewhere else. Another program can brush off a recruit's decision pretty quickly, even within the same recruiting class, but we might have to wait a couple more years or even more for another National Player of the Year-potential recruit to come along with the grades to qualify.