[BillBradley]

What does it mean for a team to "become more athletic"?  I heard this phrase used by Heather Oesterle at a chalk talk during the year, I've heard it used by various TV announcers and also by other Cardboarders.  The ACC is a more "athletic" league than the old Pac 12, we are told.  But it is not as if we would ever say our players were not "athletes." 

Possibilities:  greater quickness and speed, greater tolerance for scoring in traffic, higher level of intensity on defense. 

Is this all it means?

It also reminds me that Stanford, in other sports, often had an easier time recruiting "skill players" than "athletes."  It seems that high academic achievement can go together quite easily with a focus on developing certain skills in sports.  Both require learning and practice.  But natural or genetic athleticism may have no correlation to academic achievement--nice when they overlap but purely by chance.

Was the old Pac 12 a league that emphasized "skill," meaning the kinds of things that practice can teach, while the ACC is a league that emphasizes "athleticism," meaning innate speed and quickness?  Is that what people mean by the comparison?  And if so, is there something overly simplistic with it?

It does really matter for our recruitment and long term competitiveness that we get this right--whatever "this" is.

I don't think there's any nuance to this question. The term "an athletic player" in basketball means being fast, laterally quick, strong, a higher jumper, etc. All these things are measurable. Some players are born with it, others have to work at it. Players can definitely become more athletic. Strength and conditioning coaches use training techniques to improve all of these things. For example, it's not uncommon for players to add many inches to their vertical leap over time.

For coaches to make their team more athletic, they can 1) recruit better athletes and 2) improve the athleticism of their existing players. 

My personal opinion is that you can win some games with very skilled players who aren't very athletic, but you will hit a wall against the best teams. You need "athletes" to win championships. Our Natty team was VERY athletic. Cam took us to a whole different level. For her size, she brought a level of speed and quickness that other teams couldn't match. She was very quick to the ball (rebounding/shot blocking). Kiana, Lexie, Lacey, Anna - very fast players and all could defend quick opponents. Haley was really strong and fast for her size. Fran - crazy hops. Tara often talked about how that team was better when they played faster. Unlike this past year's team, which might have been the slowest team we've ever had. We HAVE to have better athletes to compete - it doesn't matter if we're in the P12, ACC, or any of the power conferences. 

What I find interesting about the comment from Oesterle...I think coaches all have their own method to the madness. Boeheim played a lot of zone, so he recruited players with a lot of length and great jumpers to rebound out of the zone. Shaka Smart, Bob Huggins, Nolan Richardson - their teams defend and they recruit players that already have a defensive mindset.  Kelvin Sampson recruits length and wingspan. Tara had a focus on rebounding and Stanford typically had a lot of size on the roster. Tara also liked shooters and more offensively inclined players, claiming it was easier to teach those players how to defend vs. teaching defensive minded players to score. I agree with that approach. The comment from Oesterle, to me, says that the current roster had more offensive minded players (Bosgana, Demetre, Clardy, Heal, Harriel), but they just weren't athletic enough to get open or to defend more athletic teams.

The Stanford coaches want athletes, but they also want a level of skill. Ideally, they get both. It's what everyone wants.They recruited Hidalgo for example, but just didn't get her. The question is...when you can't get the Hidalgo's of the world, who do you go after? There are plenty of high schoolers out there who are pure athletes but less skilled (a good recent example is Emma-Nnopu), but we typically go after size/strength/skill instead (Demetre, Stevenson, Peterson, Umeh).

[BillBradley]

What does it mean for a team to "become more athletic"?  I heard this phrase used by Heather Oesterle at a chalk talk during the year, I've heard it used by various TV announcers and also by other Cardboarders.  The ACC is a more "athletic" league than the old Pac 12, we are told.  But it is not as if we would ever say our players were not "athletes." 

Possibilities:  greater quickness and speed, greater tolerance for scoring in traffic, higher level of intensity on defense. 

Is this all it means?

It also reminds me that Stanford, in other sports, often had an easier time recruiting "skill players" than "athletes."  It seems that high academic achievement can go together quite easily with a focus on developing certain skills in sports.  Both require learning and practice.  But natural or genetic athleticism may have no correlation to academic achievement--nice when they overlap but purely by chance.

Was the old Pac 12 a league that emphasized "skill," meaning the kinds of things that practice can teach, while the ACC is a league that emphasizes "athleticism," meaning innate speed and quickness?  Is that what people mean by the comparison?  And if so, is there something overly simplistic with it?

It does really matter for our recruitment and long term competitiveness that we get this right--whatever "this" is.

I don't think there's any nuance to this question. The term "an athletic player" in basketball means being fast, laterally quick, strong, a higher jumper, etc. All these things are measurable. Some players are born with it, others have to work at it. Players can definitely become more athletic. Strength and conditioning coaches use training techniques to improve all of these things. For example, it's not uncommon for players to add many inches to their vertical leap over time.

For coaches to make their team more athletic, they can 1) recruit better athletes and 2) improve the athleticism of their existing players. 

My personal opinion is that you can win some games with very skilled players who aren't very athletic, but you will hit a wall against the best teams. You need "athletes" to win championships. Our Natty team was VERY athletic. Cam took us to a whole different level. For her size, she brought a level of speed and quickness that other teams couldn't match. She was very quick to the ball (rebounding/shot blocking). Kiana, Lexie, Lacey, Anna - very fast players and all could defend quick opponents. Haley was really strong and fast for her size. Fran - crazy hops. Tara often talked about how that team was better when they played faster. Unlike this past year's team, which might have been the slowest team we've ever had. We HAVE to have better athletes to compete - it doesn't matter if we're in the P12, ACC, or any of the power conferences. 

What I find interesting about the comment from Oesterle...I think coaches all have their own method to the madness. Boeheim played a lot of zone, so he recruited players with a lot of length and great jumpers to rebound out of the zone. Shaka Smart, Bob Huggins, Nolan Richardson - their teams defend and they recruit players that already have a defensive mindset.  Kelvin Sampson recruits length and wingspan. Tara had a focus on rebounding and Stanford typically had a lot of size on the roster. Tara also liked shooters and more offensively inclined players, claiming it was easier to teach those players how to defend vs. teaching defensive minded players to score. I agree with that approach. The comment from Oesterle, to me, says that the current roster had more offensive minded players (Bosgana, Demetre, Clardy, Heal, Harriel), but they just weren't athletic enough to get open or to defend more athletic teams.

The Stanford coaches want athletes, but they also want a level of skill. Ideally, they get both. It's what everyone wants.They recruited Hidalgo for example, but just didn't get her. The question is...when you can't get the Hidalgo's of the world, who do you go after? There are plenty of high schoolers out there who are pure athletes but less skilled (a good recent example is Emma-Nnopu), but we typically go after size/strength/skill instead (Demetre, Stevenson, Peterson, Umeh).