[BillBradley]

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.

Just to add to this, NIL and easy transfers absolutely contributed. I'd suggest that the change in transfer rules that allowed you to transfer without sitting out a year - functionally allowing multiple transfer for each player - is the biggest contributor.

Just so I understand...you guys are saying that:
- Players who are unhappy and have options to leave are more likely to contribute to bad chemistry because it's easier for them to checkout knowing that they can takeoff at the end of the season
- Players who are unhappy and have no option to leave will make the best of it
Is that right?

[BillBradley]

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.

Just to add to this, NIL and easy transfers absolutely contributed. I'd suggest that the change in transfer rules that allowed you to transfer without sitting out a year - functionally allowing multiple transfer for each player - is the biggest contributor.

Just so I understand...you guys are saying that:
- Players who are unhappy and have options to leave are more likely to contribute to bad chemistry because it's easier for them to checkout knowing that they can takeoff at the end of the season
- Players who are unhappy and have no option to leave will make the best of it
Is that right?