[MV72018]

...let’s see whether Tara has changed last year’s boring and ineffective O approach or, more likely, in spite of all the talk about change, it’s the same old approach of hoisting threes (at a dismal 20-30% success rate), almost no drives to the hoop with finishes or dishes, and dumping it to Brink for tough layups or ill-advised mid-range jumpers or outside shots.

Maybe you want to find an exciting, losing coach to go cheer for?

Translation: 'Tara has won a lot at Stanford, therefore she should be immune from criticism.' That classic mentality clearly still exists on this board. But after last year's disappointments it was encouraging to see that many of the board's most thoughtful and sophisticated posters recognized that there was a need for significant change in Stanford's O scheme. As for M T's masterpiece of sarcasm. I'd prefer to see Tara be flexible enough to make needed changes in the O scheme and realize even greater success as a result of doing so.

[MV72018]

...let’s see whether Tara has changed last year’s boring and ineffective O approach or, more likely, in spite of all the talk about change, it’s the same old approach of hoisting threes (at a dismal 20-30% success rate), almost no drives to the hoop with finishes or dishes, and dumping it to Brink for tough layups or ill-advised mid-range jumpers or outside shots.

Maybe you want to find an exciting, losing coach to go cheer for?

Translation: 'Tara has won a lot at Stanford, therefore she should be immune from criticism.' That classic mentality clearly still exists on this board. But after last year's disappointments it was encouraging to see that many of the board's most thoughtful and sophisticated posters recognized that there was a need for significant change in Stanford's O scheme. As for M T's masterpiece of sarcasm. I'd prefer to see Tara be flexible enough to make needed changes in the O scheme and realize even greater success as a result of doing so.