[Hieronymus]

How many players from that national championship team did the new coach inherit?

Indeed, how much scoring from the preceding year’s team were on the new coach’s team?  The top three scorers were gone, as were the top two rebounders.  Highly rated recruits from the intervening year transferred out.  By my calculation, Kate Paye had no returning player scoring more than 7 ppg or rebounding more than 4 rebounds per game.  I don’t know that Vanderveer, had she stayed would have gone 16-15, but neither would she would have come anywhere near the 30 win average she had the preceding four years.  We all knew that it was going to be a rebuilding year, no matter what, and rather than compare Paye to a different era of basketball, one that was just starting to deal with transfers and NIL, we should compare Paye to what might reasonably have been expected given the hands she was dealt.

I think it is fair to think that Paye could have or should have played the cards she was dealt better, and that maybe a different coach could have gotten at least this year’s team back to the tournament.  But I don’t think any coach is going to the heights we witnessed under Vanderveer without structural changes to the collegiate athletics environment, or Stanford, or both.

BC

I doubt anyone posting here was expecting anything close to the levels we saw under Tara.  First year we all gave Paye a pass - first year for her, forst year for the ACC, etc.  I felt we underachieved last year but also that it was understandable.  This year expectations were not that high, not do like Tara, just make the NCAAs and maybe win a game.  There is plenty enough talent on the roster for that.  If we can't expect that from a coach what exactly are we doing?

Yes, this and 2006alum’s post above get it exactly right. Making the tournament was the minimum bar and winning a game would have been nice. This team had enough even with some injuries to make it happen.

[Hieronymus]

How many players from that national championship team did the new coach inherit?

Indeed, how much scoring from the preceding year’s team were on the new coach’s team?  The top three scorers were gone, as were the top two rebounders.  Highly rated recruits from the intervening year transferred out.  By my calculation, Kate Paye had no returning player scoring more than 7 ppg or rebounding more than 4 rebounds per game.  I don’t know that Vanderveer, had she stayed would have gone 16-15, but neither would she would have come anywhere near the 30 win average she had the preceding four years.  We all knew that it was going to be a rebuilding year, no matter what, and rather than compare Paye to a different era of basketball, one that was just starting to deal with transfers and NIL, we should compare Paye to what might reasonably have been expected given the hands she was dealt.

I think it is fair to think that Paye could have or should have played the cards she was dealt better, and that maybe a different coach could have gotten at least this year’s team back to the tournament.  But I don’t think any coach is going to the heights we witnessed under Vanderveer without structural changes to the collegiate athletics environment, or Stanford, or both.

BC

I doubt anyone posting here was expecting anything close to the levels we saw under Tara.  First year we all gave Paye a pass - first year for her, forst year for the ACC, etc.  I felt we underachieved last year but also that it was understandable.  This year expectations were not that high, not do like Tara, just make the NCAAs and maybe win a game.  There is plenty enough talent on the roster for that.  If we can't expect that from a coach what exactly are we doing?

Yes, this and 2006alum’s post above get it exactly right. Making the tournament was the minimum bar and winning a game would have been nice. This team had enough even with some injuries to make it happen.