[fullmetal]

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)?

Side note here.  I agree with your sentiment; we shouldn't assume we have enough knowledge to judge KP's process -- only her results, and even those might need to be contextualized.

However, the "what are you doing on this message board rather than out there coaching" bit brought me back to some thoughts I had earlier.  The pathway to D1 head coach is not for the faint of heart.  Some start at the high school assistant level, some start at the collegiate volunteer/GA level.  It's a long and competitive route, however you slice it.  It means low salaries for a long time before a hypothetical payoff if you happen to rise to the top, assuming a meritocracy of some sort (and the promotion structure is often not meritocratic).  I would say this system doesn't always capture the best coaching talent.  If you have the skills to be a good coach, then you probably also have the skills to make big bucks elsewhere with a wider job market and more paths to promotion.  In some sports, a lot of coaches have family resources subsidizing meager starting salaries before they make it big.  Those who don't have that cushion either grit their teeths or choose a better path for themselves on a different career track.  So no, I don't necessarily think that the coaching funnel incentivizes the best and brightest coaching talent to end up at D1 positions.  Certainly basketball is a popular enough sport where most coaches at a big university are at the top of the game, but I wouldn't discount the chance that really bright minds found other careers due to structural entry barriers.

Back to KP: if we are to moderate our criticism, we should at least be allowed to comment on the results, and the NCST game was a stinker.  We need to know that this kind of game won't happen again, and we would ideally know what KP's staff is doing to make sure that is the case.  In private industry, I'm not sure "flush it and move on" is a sufficient response to your boss when they ask "wtf happened with the missed deadlines and failed execution last quarter."

[fullmetal]

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)?

Side note here.  I agree with your sentiment; we shouldn't assume we have enough knowledge to judge KP's process -- only her results, and even those might need to be contextualized.

However, the "what are you doing on this message board rather than out there coaching" bit brought me back to some thoughts I had earlier.  The pathway to D1 head coach is not for the faint of heart.  Some start at the high school assistant level, some start at the collegiate volunteer/GA level.  It's a long and competitive route, however you slice it.  It means low salaries for a long time before a hypothetical payoff if you happen to rise to the top, assuming a meritocracy of some sort (and the promotion structure is often not meritocratic).  I would say this system doesn't always capture the best coaching talent.  If you have the skills to be a good coach, then you probably also have the skills to make big bucks elsewhere with a wider job market and more paths to promotion.  In some sports, a lot of coaches have family resources subsidizing meager starting salaries before they make it big.  Those who don't have that cushion either grit their teeths or choose a better path for themselves on a different career track.  So no, I don't necessarily think that the coaching funnel incentivizes the best and brightest coaching talent to end up at D1 positions.  Certainly basketball is a popular enough sport where most coaches at a big university are at the top of the game, but I wouldn't discount the chance that really bright minds found other careers due to structural entry barriers.

Back to KP: if we are to moderate our criticism, we should at least be allowed to comment on the results, and the NCST game was a stinker.  We need to know that this kind of game won't happen again, and we would ideally know what KP's staff is doing to make sure that is the case.  In private industry, I'm not sure "flush it and move on" is a sufficient response to your boss when they ask "wtf happened with the missed deadlines and failed execution last quarter."