[TheFarm07]

In summary, this has been my overall reply to the team's current state: NIL majorly sucks, but we need to adapt to this gross new world if we want to retain our place as a premier program in wbb. But we have issues beyond NIL (which doesn't help), including elite guard recruitment.

Here is a possible way to combat the NIL problem that would probably have worked for Iriafen:  always MATCH whatever offers other teams make when poaching our players.  I think that is an ethical compromise I could live with--just raise enough money to neutralize all incoming bribes.  Beyond that we continue with a modest program that compensates all players equally.  This is, by the way, the way many universities manage their faculty--the stars get offers from elsewhere and the administration will match the offer to keep them in place.  Of course, they are professionals.

Now, with regard to what changes the coaches should make...it is pretty clear what they need to do and it will take at least a couple of recruiting cycles to get there.

1) We are now in a guard-oriented league and Stanford needs to focus more on guard recruitment than post recruitment.  We still need outstanding posts--but it is unlikely we will be playing twin towers anytime soon.  The guards we recruit must be good all-rounders and not specialists.  They need the height and length and quickness to defend, they must be "naturals" at the dribble-drive layups, and they must have respectable three point jump shots.  In other words, we need Lexie types more than Jump types.  The second coming of Wiggins would be better yet.  If we can only get a specialist, she needs to be a defensive specialist--a perimeter lock-down defender.  We need a Gold-Onwude more than we need a Karlie.  The pure three point shooters who don't bring much else to the table can be taken out of games by really good defensive teams. 

2) Since we have to expect that there will still be occasional transfers out, and since there will seldom be successful transfers in--and even when there are they can't be planned for--our offensive scheme needs to change.  We need an offense that is simpler to learn.  The Princeton is notorious for taking several years to fully master.  We can never count on 4 years of player development again.  I can't say what that offense should be, and to a great degree it has to take advantage of whatever particular talents our players have.  But no player is going to become adept at running the Princeton in less than at least a couple of years.

100% agree with these two points 81alum. The question is, whether Paye recognizes this and adapts accordingly.

On the second point, I know Tara had the triangle system when we had Appel, the Ogwumike sisters and then changed after Chiney graduated when we didn't have a dominant post for a few years, but I've been intrigued if her peers (Geno, Summitt, Staley, Mulkey, etc.) have a particular "system" they are known for. From my knowledge, these other coaches weren't known for implementing a specific strategy throughout their tenure. 

If not, I wonder why Tara decided to stick to a specific one, especially the Princeton, that we've seen the limitations of, the last few years.

Potentially relatedly, do you think running the Princeton offense might have been a turnoff for some elite guards who like to direct traffic and run the offense through them? From my understanding, the Princeton is less guard-centric of a strategy and so recruits who are used to controlling their team's offense might not be as enthusiastic of going into a system where their freedom to improvise/conduct the offense might be limited.

[TheFarm07]

In summary, this has been my overall reply to the team's current state: NIL majorly sucks, but we need to adapt to this gross new world if we want to retain our place as a premier program in wbb. But we have issues beyond NIL (which doesn't help), including elite guard recruitment.

Here is a possible way to combat the NIL problem that would probably have worked for Iriafen:  always MATCH whatever offers other teams make when poaching our players.  I think that is an ethical compromise I could live with--just raise enough money to neutralize all incoming bribes.  Beyond that we continue with a modest program that compensates all players equally.  This is, by the way, the way many universities manage their faculty--the stars get offers from elsewhere and the administration will match the offer to keep them in place.  Of course, they are professionals.

Now, with regard to what changes the coaches should make...it is pretty clear what they need to do and it will take at least a couple of recruiting cycles to get there.

1) We are now in a guard-oriented league and Stanford needs to focus more on guard recruitment than post recruitment.  We still need outstanding posts--but it is unlikely we will be playing twin towers anytime soon.  The guards we recruit must be good all-rounders and not specialists.  They need the height and length and quickness to defend, they must be "naturals" at the dribble-drive layups, and they must have respectable three point jump shots.  In other words, we need Lexie types more than Jump types.  The second coming of Wiggins would be better yet.  If we can only get a specialist, she needs to be a defensive specialist--a perimeter lock-down defender.  We need a Gold-Onwude more than we need a Karlie.  The pure three point shooters who don't bring much else to the table can be taken out of games by really good defensive teams. 

2) Since we have to expect that there will still be occasional transfers out, and since there will seldom be successful transfers in--and even when there are they can't be planned for--our offensive scheme needs to change.  We need an offense that is simpler to learn.  The Princeton is notorious for taking several years to fully master.  We can never count on 4 years of player development again.  I can't say what that offense should be, and to a great degree it has to take advantage of whatever particular talents our players have.  But no player is going to become adept at running the Princeton in less than at least a couple of years.

100% agree with these two points 81alum. The question is, whether Paye recognizes this and adapts accordingly.

On the second point, I know Tara had the triangle system when we had Appel, the Ogwumike sisters and then changed after Chiney graduated when we didn't have a dominant post for a few years, but I've been intrigued if her peers (Geno, Summitt, Staley, Mulkey, etc.) have a particular "system" they are known for. From my knowledge, these other coaches weren't known for implementing a specific strategy throughout their tenure. 

If not, I wonder why Tara decided to stick to a specific one, especially the Princeton, that we've seen the limitations of, the last few years.

Potentially relatedly, do you think running the Princeton offense might have been a turnoff for some elite guards who like to direct traffic and run the offense through them? From my understanding, the Princeton is less guard-centric of a strategy and so recruits who are used to controlling their team's offense might not be as enthusiastic of going into a system where their freedom to improvise/conduct the offense might be limited.