[81alum]

Actually, my disappointment--the key turning point--had nothing to do with Kate Paye but came while Tara was still coaching.  It was the loss to Ole Miss in March of 23. 

Since a couple of folks chimed in with reactions to my earlier statement, let me correct the impression I seem to have left.

The game against Ole Miss was certainly "winnable."  Yes the game was overly physical and called poorly.  Yes there seems to have been a problem with our team chemistry.  

My reaction was based more on what I saw from Ol Miss rather than what I saw from Stanford.  The fact that it was possible for a team absolutely dominated by 4th and 5th year transfer players to beat a star-studded team with national championship experience flicked a switch in my mind.  "There is another way of creating championship teams--a sleezier way" it seemed to me, a way that used a strategy utterly unlike anything Stanford had done or could ever do.   The fact that we might have succeeded against such a team was neither here nor there.  My emotional connection to the game was badly damaged by this realization.  

It may or may not have been a turning point for Stanford, but it was a turning point for my enjoyment of the game.

However, if I were to re litigate that loss, I absolutely do think that NIL and knowledge that there was an easy exit for unhappy players did contribute to the poor team chemistry.

[81alum]

Actually, my disappointment--the key turning point--had nothing to do with Kate Paye but came while Tara was still coaching.  It was the loss to Ole Miss in March of 23. 

Since a couple of folks chimed in with reactions to my earlier statement, let me correct the impression I seem to have left.

The game against Ole Miss was certainly "winnable."  Yes the game was overly physical and called poorly.  Yes there seems to have been a problem with our team chemistry.  

My reaction was based more on what I saw from Ol Miss rather than what I saw from Stanford.  The fact that it was possible for a team absolutely dominated by 4th and 5th year transfer players to beat a star-studded team with national championship experience flicked a switch in my mind.  "There is another way of creating championship teams--a sleezier way" it seemed to me, a way that used a strategy utterly unlike anything Stanford had done or could ever do.   The fact that we might have succeeded against such a team was neither here nor there.  My emotional connection to the game was badly damaged by this realization.  

It may or may not have been a turning point for Stanford, but it was a turning point for my enjoyment of the game.

However, if I were to re litigate that loss, I absolutely do think that NIL and knowledge that there was an easy exit for unhappy players did contribute to the poor team chemistry.