[81alum]

On the other end of the spectrum, does it really matter much to their academics if a player transfers from one big state school to another? I doubt it. When it comes to the major sports, these players are consumed by the time, effort, commitment required to compete. They spend way more time on their sport then they do their academics. They are athlete-students, not student-athletes. Your question of "why should academic institutions be in the athletics business?" is on point. For many schools and sports, the answer IMO is "they shouldn't". Athletics have evolved to a point where things just don't make sense anymore under an educational system umbrella. I'm quite sure in 50 years the organization of "sports for 18 to 23 year olds" won't even resemble what we have now.

BillBradley, I love your posts.  You come across as an incredibly reasonable and knowledgeable person!  There is only one statement you make that I would dispute.  Having spent 30 years off-and-on as an academic advisor at a big state school, I can emphatically say that it does make a big difference when a player transfers from one big state school to another--especially (but not exclusively) across state lines.  The general education package required by the UC and the CSU, for example, is vastly different from the packages required by Texas or Florida. 

In short, all transfers come with an academic price.  Players that transfer several times are setting themselves up for academic disaster.  I wonder how many of them ever graduate from any institution.

I especially agree with your last observations.  I have thought for years--and my conviction grows stronger and not weaker--that all college sports need to follow the baseball model.  There need to be choices.  Those who want to focus on the sport exclusively should have the option of minor leagues.  Those who are serious about an education should have college teams--with clear restrictions that prioritize their academics.

---

So, what about the challenges and opportunities our team will be facing in 2023-2024?   May I throw out a few questions, which I prefer doing?

Big picture question:  From your perspectives, what (if any) lessons from 2022-2023 do you think were learned and likely to be addressed next season?  I still have visions of UCLA overcoming our 16 point lead in the PAC-12 semi's and definitely visions of Mississippi in our 2nd. round game.

If Tara elects to use the transfer portal for a grad transfer, what kind of player (and position) do you think the team needs to have an immediate impact?

Brink (arguably) has become a transformational player and likely will be on the short list for POY.  We are fortunate to have her one more season and (with her), a good opportunity in 2023-2024 to return to the Regionals and hopefully to another Final Four.  But getting there may likely require changes.  What do you think we might see that would make the team more potent and less vulnerable?  In a way, this relates to the first question.

Thank you all and fire away!

Stop, in my opinion you are asking many of the right questions.  I wish any of us had good answers!  Tara has to work with what she has, plus maybe a single transfer student, and whatever the incoming freshmen give her. 

We as fans don't know how much work our returning student-athletes are willing to put in during the off season to dramatically improve certain facets of their game.  Those who think they may have a pro career will probably put in a lot of extra hours and may indeed come back with major improvements.  I have hope that Jump will develop more mobility, that Brink will develop a more reliable three point shot, that Iriafen will develop her mid range jumper, etc.  Those are all reasonable expectations, but in the past, such expectations are realized maybe 50% of the time.  I think they may be inspired when they see what happens to Haley Jones.  I predict her draft stock will diminish as WNBA coaches realize that the fact that she did not develop a three point shot, and that her mid range jumper was not consistent--makes it hard to figure out where to play her.  Tara had a hard time figuring out where to play her, too.  So remaining pro-prospects on the roster may be inspired to diversify their games.

We as fans also don't know how polished our incoming freshmen will be--particularly on defense.  Tara's mantra is that she recruits offense and teaches defense.  If any of the three are able to be strong defenders early, they are likely to make first year contributions.  Courtney Ogden is the most accomplished of the three on offense, so paradoxically a lot will hinge on her defense--if she can play college-level defense early then I expect to see her logging a lot of minutes to give us a much needed offensive boost.  Otherwise, it won't be until her sophomore year.

If I had to say one thing that needs improvement on offense it is this:  we desperately need to become a much better screening team.  Static offenses where you pass the ball to an "open" player who shoots are becoming more and more problematic.  We need to create shots, and that often means losing a defender with a screen.  We were not good with screens last year, and that makes a "flow" offense "unflowable." 

More than anything else, I would like to see us become a really, really, really good screening team.  And that requires a lot of practice to develop the timing between the bigs and the guards.  And that means knowing who the bigs and the guards are going to be--too many of either and the consistency and timing will fail.  Often the quality of the screen depends on one particular guard developing timing with one particular "big."  The timing is not usually interchangeable like widgets in a factory.  So having a consistent lineup helps.  If this works, it also sets up Cam to receive a lot of pick-and-rolls after she screens, provided she does not foul out on offensive screens as she has been want to do.

[81alum]

On the other end of the spectrum, does it really matter much to their academics if a player transfers from one big state school to another? I doubt it. When it comes to the major sports, these players are consumed by the time, effort, commitment required to compete. They spend way more time on their sport then they do their academics. They are athlete-students, not student-athletes. Your question of "why should academic institutions be in the athletics business?" is on point. For many schools and sports, the answer IMO is "they shouldn't". Athletics have evolved to a point where things just don't make sense anymore under an educational system umbrella. I'm quite sure in 50 years the organization of "sports for 18 to 23 year olds" won't even resemble what we have now.

BillBradley, I love your posts.  You come across as an incredibly reasonable and knowledgeable person!  There is only one statement you make that I would dispute.  Having spent 30 years off-and-on as an academic advisor at a big state school, I can emphatically say that it does make a big difference when a player transfers from one big state school to another--especially (but not exclusively) across state lines.  The general education package required by the UC and the CSU, for example, is vastly different from the packages required by Texas or Florida. 

In short, all transfers come with an academic price.  Players that transfer several times are setting themselves up for academic disaster.  I wonder how many of them ever graduate from any institution.

I especially agree with your last observations.  I have thought for years--and my conviction grows stronger and not weaker--that all college sports need to follow the baseball model.  There need to be choices.  Those who want to focus on the sport exclusively should have the option of minor leagues.  Those who are serious about an education should have college teams--with clear restrictions that prioritize their academics.

---

So, what about the challenges and opportunities our team will be facing in 2023-2024?   May I throw out a few questions, which I prefer doing?

Big picture question:  From your perspectives, what (if any) lessons from 2022-2023 do you think were learned and likely to be addressed next season?  I still have visions of UCLA overcoming our 16 point lead in the PAC-12 semi's and definitely visions of Mississippi in our 2nd. round game.

If Tara elects to use the transfer portal for a grad transfer, what kind of player (and position) do you think the team needs to have an immediate impact?

Brink (arguably) has become a transformational player and likely will be on the short list for POY.  We are fortunate to have her one more season and (with her), a good opportunity in 2023-2024 to return to the Regionals and hopefully to another Final Four.  But getting there may likely require changes.  What do you think we might see that would make the team more potent and less vulnerable?  In a way, this relates to the first question.

Thank you all and fire away!

Stop, in my opinion you are asking many of the right questions.  I wish any of us had good answers!  Tara has to work with what she has, plus maybe a single transfer student, and whatever the incoming freshmen give her. 

We as fans don't know how much work our returning student-athletes are willing to put in during the off season to dramatically improve certain facets of their game.  Those who think they may have a pro career will probably put in a lot of extra hours and may indeed come back with major improvements.  I have hope that Jump will develop more mobility, that Brink will develop a more reliable three point shot, that Iriafen will develop her mid range jumper, etc.  Those are all reasonable expectations, but in the past, such expectations are realized maybe 50% of the time.  I think they may be inspired when they see what happens to Haley Jones.  I predict her draft stock will diminish as WNBA coaches realize that the fact that she did not develop a three point shot, and that her mid range jumper was not consistent--makes it hard to figure out where to play her.  Tara had a hard time figuring out where to play her, too.  So remaining pro-prospects on the roster may be inspired to diversify their games.

We as fans also don't know how polished our incoming freshmen will be--particularly on defense.  Tara's mantra is that she recruits offense and teaches defense.  If any of the three are able to be strong defenders early, they are likely to make first year contributions.  Courtney Ogden is the most accomplished of the three on offense, so paradoxically a lot will hinge on her defense--if she can play college-level defense early then I expect to see her logging a lot of minutes to give us a much needed offensive boost.  Otherwise, it won't be until her sophomore year.

If I had to say one thing that needs improvement on offense it is this:  we desperately need to become a much better screening team.  Static offenses where you pass the ball to an "open" player who shoots are becoming more and more problematic.  We need to create shots, and that often means losing a defender with a screen.  We were not good with screens last year, and that makes a "flow" offense "unflowable." 

More than anything else, I would like to see us become a really, really, really good screening team.  And that requires a lot of practice to develop the timing between the bigs and the guards.  And that means knowing who the bigs and the guards are going to be--too many of either and the consistency and timing will fail.  Often the quality of the screen depends on one particular guard developing timing with one particular "big."  The timing is not usually interchangeable like widgets in a factory.  So having a consistent lineup helps.  If this works, it also sets up Cam to receive a lot of pick-and-rolls after she screens, provided she does not foul out on offensive screens as she has been want to do.