[spike5882]

I know some on this forum believe coaches are infallible but there's a difference between talent gap and coaching deficiencies. I don't think NC State's talent level is 20+ points better this year.

I hope that either Paye quickly recognizes the strategic and tactical errors she made or that we don't wait multiple seasons to be content with mediocrity. But based on past experiences I don't think either option will come to fruition anytime soon.

That's why I wished we would have considered a broader search after Tara's retirement rather than just anoint Paye as the successor because of her ties to the program.

Nobody has said coaches are infallible.  In fact, at least I’ve been pretty explicit (in this very thread) that “Coaches are imperfect and some coaches are better than others. They clearly make mistakes and are prone to biases.” [look it up, it’s on page 2 of this thread].

However, I also note that “even a bad coach is more knowledgeable about the game of basketball, has more information about the team and the players, has spent more time reviewing film and thinking about stuff like playing time and is certainly more motivated to get it right (after all, their employment is dependent on it) than even the most knowledgeable of fan message board warriors is.”

I wonder, who on this message board, if given complete coaching responsibilities for Stanford women’s basketball, would do better than Kate Paye (and, if so, what are you doing on this message board, rather than out there coaching)?  I mean, most people here probably wouldn’t even be able to diagram a basketball play correctly, let alone implement one against a team on the edge of the top-25 (Massey rates them 28).  It’s not that Kate Paye is perfect; far from it.  But it would be nice if posters exhibited a modicum of humility instead of acting like fixing this team would be straightforward if only the coach did [whatever the poster thinks should be done].

BC

I don't think anybody here has ever come close to implying they'd do a better job coaching from a whiteboard. Criticism isn’t the same as claiming superiority.

What is fair—and frankly necessary—is evaluating outcomes and process. Over last season and this season (and some years with Tara, too) we’ve seen a stagnant offense, minimal off-ball movement, and little evidence of adjustment when it’s clearly not working. This isn’t about disliking the Princeton offense in principle; it’s about watching it be run without evolution and without an apparent Plan B, despite having talented players who are not being put in positions to succeed. When the same issues persist year over year, at some point it’s not patience, it’s avoidance in making changes and trying something that could be more effective.

As Stanford alums, we’re wired to expect problem-solving, adaptation, and creative thinking when something isn’t working. It’s a large part of the culture and core of our institution. Many of us alum run organizations or companies where results matter. When a strategy underperforms, you don’t shrug and say “Well, I’m the seasoned expert; let's just keep doing what we have always been doing even though we are now failing.” You diagnose, you iterate, and you try new solutions. 

From the outside, that’s what feels missing here with Paye, and it is being pointed out. Pointing that out isn’t being a keyboard warrior or suggesting we are potentially better coaches; it’s just the kind of high-level accountability that helps bring success that most of us are accustomed to.

[spike5882]

I know some on this forum believe coaches are infallible but there's a difference between talent gap and coaching deficiencies. I don't think NC State's talent level is 20+ points better this year.

I hope that either Paye quickly recognizes the strategic and tactical errors she made or that we don't wait multiple seasons to be content with mediocrity. But based on past experiences I don't think either option will come to fruition anytime soon.

That's why I wished we would have considered a broader search after Tara's retirement rather than just anoint Paye as the successor because of her ties to the program.

Nobody has said coaches are infallible.  In fact, at least I’ve been pretty explicit (in this very thread) that “Coaches are imperfect and some coaches are better than others. They clearly make mistakes and are prone to biases.” [look it up, it’s on page 2 of this thread].

However, I also note that “even a bad coach is more knowledgeable about the game of basketball, has more information about the team and the players, has spent more time reviewing film and thinking about stuff like playing time and is certainly more motivated to get it right (after all, their employment is dependent on it) than even the most knowledgeable of fan message board warriors is.”

I wonder, who on this message board, if given complete coaching responsibilities for Stanford women’s basketball, would do better than Kate Paye (and, if so, what are you doing on this message board, rather than out there coaching)?  I mean, most people here probably wouldn’t even be able to diagram a basketball play correctly, let alone implement one against a team on the edge of the top-25 (Massey rates them 28).  It’s not that Kate Paye is perfect; far from it.  But it would be nice if posters exhibited a modicum of humility instead of acting like fixing this team would be straightforward if only the coach did [whatever the poster thinks should be done].

BC

I don't think anybody here has ever come close to implying they'd do a better job coaching from a whiteboard. Criticism isn’t the same as claiming superiority.

What is fair—and frankly necessary—is evaluating outcomes and process. Over last season and this season (and some years with Tara, too) we’ve seen a stagnant offense, minimal off-ball movement, and little evidence of adjustment when it’s clearly not working. This isn’t about disliking the Princeton offense in principle; it’s about watching it be run without evolution and without an apparent Plan B, despite having talented players who are not being put in positions to succeed. When the same issues persist year over year, at some point it’s not patience, it’s avoidance in making changes and trying something that could be more effective.

As Stanford alums, we’re wired to expect problem-solving, adaptation, and creative thinking when something isn’t working. It’s a large part of the culture and core of our institution. Many of us alum run organizations or companies where results matter. When a strategy underperforms, you don’t shrug and say “Well, I’m the seasoned expert; let's just keep doing what we have always been doing even though we are now failing.” You diagnose, you iterate, and you try new solutions. 

From the outside, that’s what feels missing here with Paye, and it is being pointed out. Pointing that out isn’t being a keyboard warrior or suggesting we are potentially better coaches; it’s just the kind of high-level accountability that helps bring success that most of us are accustomed to.