[unclechuck]

http://www.espn.com/womens-basketball/

[unclechuck]

http://www.espn.com/womens-basketball/

[VFRing98]

We *were* contenders!

[VFRing98]

We *were* contenders!

[Redrum]

...is a great result for me and, I suspect, many or most posters around here.  Screw UConn.  This weekend I have to replace the liner on a frog pond after 15 years of service and, ummm biologic activity.  But afterwards I can take a shower and burn my work clothes.  What do UConn worshippers have to get the smell of defeat off them?

[Redrum]

...is a great result for me and, I suspect, many or most posters around here.  Screw UConn.  This weekend I have to replace the liner on a frog pond after 15 years of service and, ummm biologic activity.  But afterwards I can take a shower and burn my work clothes.  What do UConn worshippers have to get the smell of defeat off them?

[rudruff]

Just glad that there will still be some active college players next year who have beaten them.

[rudruff]

Just glad that there will still be some active college players next year who have beaten them.

[jacketree]

Not quite David Thompson taking down UCLA in terms of aesthetics, but the final minute of that game kept even me from flipping back to the Warriors-Rockets.  Have to say I find Geno Auriemma to be the consummate competitor and sportsman. "We lost to a better team."  I guess it's easy to show class when you've been the best forever, or is it?



What the heck, I'll throw it out there.  It has been a quarter century since Stanford won the title.  I've lost track of the number of Final Four appearances since. But pure random chance suggests Stanford should have another title or four.  Not a small sample size.  Is this just random (hard to win the last two games), bad luck, UCONN, something else?

[jacketree]

Not quite David Thompson taking down UCLA in terms of aesthetics, but the final minute of that game kept even me from flipping back to the Warriors-Rockets.  Have to say I find Geno Auriemma to be the consummate competitor and sportsman. "We lost to a better team."  I guess it's easy to show class when you've been the best forever, or is it?



What the heck, I'll throw it out there.  It has been a quarter century since Stanford won the title.  I've lost track of the number of Final Four appearances since. But pure random chance suggests Stanford should have another title or four.  Not a small sample size.  Is this just random (hard to win the last two games), bad luck, UCONN, something else?

[CompSci87]

We had the bad luck that our best teams were in the years when UConn or Tennessee were even better.

Then there was the 5 on 8 game against Texas A&M...

[CompSci87]

We had the bad luck that our best teams were in the years when UConn or Tennessee were even better.

Then there was the 5 on 8 game against Texas A&M...

[TheFarm07]

I can't speak to our FF performances in the 90s, but we have 7 Final Four appearances in the last 10 years (second only to UConn's 10).

We are 2-7 in these games (7 national semis: 2-5 and 0-2 in our two title games):

1-3 against UConn: (win against them in the '08 semis, semifinal losses in '09 and '14 and national title game loss in '10)
0-1 against Tennessee: (loss against them in the '08 title game)
1-0 against Oklahoma: (win in the '10 semis)
0-1 against Texas A&M: (loss against them in the '11 semis)
0-1 against Baylor: (loss against them in the '12 semis)
0-1 against South Carolina: (loss against them last night in the '17 semis)

Though we've had to play UConn in nearly half of our FF games, we can't just attribute their presence to our losses solely.

In our last 5 games (from the 2010 national title game to last night), we were +14 in the first half (point-wise) and -56 in the second half in those contests. As our roster is certainly quite different than it was back in 2010, maybe it's just because Tara's gameplans work out well in the beginning of these games, but the talent difference was too much to overcome in the second half? In all but the Texas A&M game, our opponent was the favorite.

[TheFarm07]

I can't speak to our FF performances in the 90s, but we have 7 Final Four appearances in the last 10 years (second only to UConn's 10).

We are 2-7 in these games (7 national semis: 2-5 and 0-2 in our two title games):

1-3 against UConn: (win against them in the '08 semis, semifinal losses in '09 and '14 and national title game loss in '10)
0-1 against Tennessee: (loss against them in the '08 title game)
1-0 against Oklahoma: (win in the '10 semis)
0-1 against Texas A&M: (loss against them in the '11 semis)
0-1 against Baylor: (loss against them in the '12 semis)
0-1 against South Carolina: (loss against them last night in the '17 semis)

Though we've had to play UConn in nearly half of our FF games, we can't just attribute their presence to our losses solely.

In our last 5 games (from the 2010 national title game to last night), we were +14 in the first half (point-wise) and -56 in the second half in those contests. As our roster is certainly quite different than it was back in 2010, maybe it's just because Tara's gameplans work out well in the beginning of these games, but the talent difference was too much to overcome in the second half? In all but the Texas A&M game, our opponent was the favorite.

[CompSci87]

I forgot the Baylor game, where Baylor had Griner, a kind of player we'd never faced before. Tara had a nice defensive game plan in that game, but nothing effective on offense. It took too long for Stanford to realize that Nneka could score on Griner by going right at her and using the rim to protect her shots from being blocked, despite Griner's big height and reach advantage. It's still fun watching the two of them battle in their WNBA games.

It's also cool that Stanford won the rematch early the next season at that tounament in Hawaii.

Anyway, national championships are hard! It's frustrating when our team has been in the final 4 so many times without winning one. But getting that far so regularly is quite an accomplishment in itself.

[CompSci87]

I forgot the Baylor game, where Baylor had Griner, a kind of player we'd never faced before. Tara had a nice defensive game plan in that game, but nothing effective on offense. It took too long for Stanford to realize that Nneka could score on Griner by going right at her and using the rim to protect her shots from being blocked, despite Griner's big height and reach advantage. It's still fun watching the two of them battle in their WNBA games.

It's also cool that Stanford won the rematch early the next season at that tounament in Hawaii.

Anyway, national championships are hard! It's frustrating when our team has been in the final 4 so many times without winning one. But getting that far so regularly is quite an accomplishment in itself.

[TheFarm07]

I forgot the Baylor game, where Baylor had Griner, a kind of player we'd never faced before. Tara had a nice defensive game plan in that game, but nothing effective on offense. It took too long for Stanford to realize that Nneka could score on Griner by going right at her and using the rim to protect her shots from being blocked, despite Griner's big height and reach advantage. It's still fun watching the two of them battle in their WNBA games.

I remember in the first half of that game, the offensive strategy was to bring Griner away from the paint into the high post with one of the Ogwumikes and then another player, the other sister usually, but Kokenis on one play, could come around on a backdoor cut and get a better look at the basket. We scored on several successive possessions with that strategy.

Anyway, national championships are hard! It's frustrating when our team has been in the final 4 so many times without winning one. But getting that far so regularly is quite an accomplishment in itself.

Not winning a title should not diminish the incredible accomplishment of reaching 7 out of the last 10 Final Fours, but it is very frustrating not to seal the deal when we get there, especially when we were in winnable situations on a number of occasions.

Of course, in the best of both worlds, we would get there numerous times and win it in a majority of times, a la UConn, but is our history preferable to a school like Texas A&M, who only has 1 FF appearance in the last 10, but made the most of it by winning it all in 2011?

I think it is, by keeping our name in the national spotlight, which hopefully will help on the recruiting trail and you hope that the law of averages will win out and we can capture one sooner than later.

[TheFarm07]

I forgot the Baylor game, where Baylor had Griner, a kind of player we'd never faced before. Tara had a nice defensive game plan in that game, but nothing effective on offense. It took too long for Stanford to realize that Nneka could score on Griner by going right at her and using the rim to protect her shots from being blocked, despite Griner's big height and reach advantage. It's still fun watching the two of them battle in their WNBA games.

I remember in the first half of that game, the offensive strategy was to bring Griner away from the paint into the high post with one of the Ogwumikes and then another player, the other sister usually, but Kokenis on one play, could come around on a backdoor cut and get a better look at the basket. We scored on several successive possessions with that strategy.

Anyway, national championships are hard! It's frustrating when our team has been in the final 4 so many times without winning one. But getting that far so regularly is quite an accomplishment in itself.

Not winning a title should not diminish the incredible accomplishment of reaching 7 out of the last 10 Final Fours, but it is very frustrating not to seal the deal when we get there, especially when we were in winnable situations on a number of occasions.

Of course, in the best of both worlds, we would get there numerous times and win it in a majority of times, a la UConn, but is our history preferable to a school like Texas A&M, who only has 1 FF appearance in the last 10, but made the most of it by winning it all in 2011?

I think it is, by keeping our name in the national spotlight, which hopefully will help on the recruiting trail and you hope that the law of averages will win out and we can capture one sooner than later.

[chimera]

I don't find it problematic that we have not won in all the F4s.  We've never been the favorite any year we made a F4, not one.  It would have been great to win but we never came in with a dominant team and lost.  We were a #1 seed two or three times (I think) but not the top #1 or even the second #1 seed.  It is hard to win when one team, UConn, is winning so many.  Our best teams had to contend with some all-time great UConn teams.  The 2010 title game where we almost beat a UConn team with Moore and Charles, Jayne Appel had the broken foot and went 0-12 or something.  2011 is the only time I felt we probably should have won, but we lost in the semis to Texas A&M in a very tight game.  We could have won that game, probably should have.  There is a lot of luck in these single elimination tourneys.  Making a F4 is an incredible accomplishment. 

[chimera]

I don't find it problematic that we have not won in all the F4s.  We've never been the favorite any year we made a F4, not one.  It would have been great to win but we never came in with a dominant team and lost.  We were a #1 seed two or three times (I think) but not the top #1 or even the second #1 seed.  It is hard to win when one team, UConn, is winning so many.  Our best teams had to contend with some all-time great UConn teams.  The 2010 title game where we almost beat a UConn team with Moore and Charles, Jayne Appel had the broken foot and went 0-12 or something.  2011 is the only time I felt we probably should have won, but we lost in the semis to Texas A&M in a very tight game.  We could have won that game, probably should have.  There is a lot of luck in these single elimination tourneys.  Making a F4 is an incredible accomplishment. 

[81alum]

I don't think it is all that mysterious as to why we get to the final four so many times but have not won it all since the early 90s.  Our players overall are not always as talented as the players of the winning teams.  We get to the final four despite not having quite as much physical talent as the UConns or Tennessees because Tara is one of the best coaches in the history of basketball, and by the end of the season she often has her team playing at a much higher level than other coaches could possibly do with equivalent talent.  But by the time we get to the end of the line we are playing against teams with a little more talent who are also on successful streaks with highly successful coaches.  Tara's defensive schemes can always find a way to control 1 and sometimes 2 superstars, but she cannot scheme effectively against teams with 3, 4, or 5 talented offensive weapons.  The only way to defend teams with that level of talent is to have players who can defend them one-on-one, and that comes down to physical talent more than coaching alone. 

Why is our talent level not quite as strong as some of these other programs?  It is obvious--admissions.  We spend too much time bemoaning the loss of Lou Samuelson or Pivec who made it in and chose to go elsewhere, when the reality is that dozens of elite athletes know they will never have a chance getting in to Stanford so they never even consider coming here.  We get players who are bright and very coachable and who are always talented and sometimes of elite caliber, but we don't get the most elite players in high enough numbers to become a consistently dominant powerhouse. 

That seems to me to be true of 2008, 9, and 10 and 12.  2011 was the tragedy because I think we had better talent than A&M--that is the case that casts my theory into some doubt. The stars were lined up for us that year, and we did not quite get it done.

So how did we do it in 1990 and 1992?  Stanford jumped on the Title IX bandwagon and hired an excellent WBB coach and put resources into recruiting, scholarships, etc. before WBB had become popular in all other parts of the country.  There were vast swathes of America in which girls continued to be discouraged from athletics, but in the 1980s Stanford pushed its women's programs as part of the school's commitment to equal opportunity.  Just read about Tara's experiences early in her coaching career as she repeatedly encountered subtle and not so subtle instances of discrimination against WBB around the country.  I'm proud that Stanford pushed women's athletics, but it was a shrewd move.  It got Stanford out to a significant head start in WBB compared with numerous other schools--a few like Tennessee of course excepted.  (Heck, down the street at SJSU the school had to be ordered to give an equivalent number of women's scholarships by a court order, the resistance was so significant.)  To this day Stanford benefits from pushing women's programs more effectively than other schools.  How many Director's cups would we have won if it were based on men's sports alone?

Well, as a result of the great success of Tara, Pat Summit and other pioneers, WBB has become a major sport at nearly all Div I schools, and the level of competition is far higher now than in the 1980s and early 1990s.  It is a lot harder to win a national championship in 2017 than in 1992.  Even the Pac 12 has become competitive.  The landscape has changed, and it is probably as tough for Tara to win a national championship today as it is for David Shaw, and for similar reasons.  Still, the stars may yet align for Shaw or for Vanderveer, but I will enjoy the remarkable successes of these bright and talented coaches whether they get the final trophy or not.

[81alum]

I don't think it is all that mysterious as to why we get to the final four so many times but have not won it all since the early 90s.  Our players overall are not always as talented as the players of the winning teams.  We get to the final four despite not having quite as much physical talent as the UConns or Tennessees because Tara is one of the best coaches in the history of basketball, and by the end of the season she often has her team playing at a much higher level than other coaches could possibly do with equivalent talent.  But by the time we get to the end of the line we are playing against teams with a little more talent who are also on successful streaks with highly successful coaches.  Tara's defensive schemes can always find a way to control 1 and sometimes 2 superstars, but she cannot scheme effectively against teams with 3, 4, or 5 talented offensive weapons.  The only way to defend teams with that level of talent is to have players who can defend them one-on-one, and that comes down to physical talent more than coaching alone. 

Why is our talent level not quite as strong as some of these other programs?  It is obvious--admissions.  We spend too much time bemoaning the loss of Lou Samuelson or Pivec who made it in and chose to go elsewhere, when the reality is that dozens of elite athletes know they will never have a chance getting in to Stanford so they never even consider coming here.  We get players who are bright and very coachable and who are always talented and sometimes of elite caliber, but we don't get the most elite players in high enough numbers to become a consistently dominant powerhouse. 

That seems to me to be true of 2008, 9, and 10 and 12.  2011 was the tragedy because I think we had better talent than A&M--that is the case that casts my theory into some doubt. The stars were lined up for us that year, and we did not quite get it done.

So how did we do it in 1990 and 1992?  Stanford jumped on the Title IX bandwagon and hired an excellent WBB coach and put resources into recruiting, scholarships, etc. before WBB had become popular in all other parts of the country.  There were vast swathes of America in which girls continued to be discouraged from athletics, but in the 1980s Stanford pushed its women's programs as part of the school's commitment to equal opportunity.  Just read about Tara's experiences early in her coaching career as she repeatedly encountered subtle and not so subtle instances of discrimination against WBB around the country.  I'm proud that Stanford pushed women's athletics, but it was a shrewd move.  It got Stanford out to a significant head start in WBB compared with numerous other schools--a few like Tennessee of course excepted.  (Heck, down the street at SJSU the school had to be ordered to give an equivalent number of women's scholarships by a court order, the resistance was so significant.)  To this day Stanford benefits from pushing women's programs more effectively than other schools.  How many Director's cups would we have won if it were based on men's sports alone?

Well, as a result of the great success of Tara, Pat Summit and other pioneers, WBB has become a major sport at nearly all Div I schools, and the level of competition is far higher now than in the 1980s and early 1990s.  It is a lot harder to win a national championship in 2017 than in 1992.  Even the Pac 12 has become competitive.  The landscape has changed, and it is probably as tough for Tara to win a national championship today as it is for David Shaw, and for similar reasons.  Still, the stars may yet align for Shaw or for Vanderveer, but I will enjoy the remarkable successes of these bright and talented coaches whether they get the final trophy or not.

[TheFarm07]

I don't think it is all that mysterious as to why we get to the final four so many times but have not won it all since the early 90s.  Our players overall are not always as talented as the players of the winning teams.  We get to the final four despite not having quite as much physical talent as the UConns or Tennessees because Tara is one of the best coaches in the history of basketball, and by the end of the season she often has her team playing at a much higher level than other coaches could possibly do with equivalent talent.  But by the time we get to the end of the line we are playing against teams with a little more talent who are also on successful streaks with highly successful coaches.  Tara's defensive schemes can always find a way to control 1 and sometimes 2 superstars, but she cannot scheme effectively against teams with 3, 4, or 5 talented offensive weapons.  The only way to defend teams with that level of talent is to have players who can defend them one-on-one, and that comes down to physical talent more than coaching alone. 

Why is our talent level not quite as strong as some of these other programs?  It is obvious--admissions.  We spend too much time bemoaning the loss of Lou Samuelson or Pivec who made it in and chose to go elsewhere, when the reality is that dozens of elite athletes know they will never have a chance getting in to Stanford so they never even consider coming here.  We get players who are bright and very coachable and who are always talented and sometimes of elite caliber, but we don't get the most elite players in high enough numbers to become a consistently dominant powerhouse. 

I agree with your explanation 81. It speaks volumes about Tara's coaching abilities that despite the restrictions on the available recruits because of the school's admissions standards, that she has been able to maintain the women's basketball program as one of the premiere and winning programs in college basketball over the last 30 years. All but a select few schools would be envious of the sustained success she has had.

We've talked about it before, trying to pinpoint the differences between women's basketball and other women's programs at Stanford that has had relative more success winning national titles (women's volleyball, women's water polo, women's tennis to name a few) and the socioeconomic causation that might be the reason why more HS girls basketball players don't have the academic credentials to pass admissions. I wish our recent success would inspire a few more to focus on academics in order to better their chances of getting in.

That's why it hurts when a premiere recruit like Katie Lou, who was admitted, decides to go somewhere else. Another program can brush off a recruit's decision pretty quickly, even within the same recruiting class, but we might have to wait a couple more years or even more for another National Player of the Year-potential recruit to come along with the grades to qualify.

[TheFarm07]

I don't think it is all that mysterious as to why we get to the final four so many times but have not won it all since the early 90s.  Our players overall are not always as talented as the players of the winning teams.  We get to the final four despite not having quite as much physical talent as the UConns or Tennessees because Tara is one of the best coaches in the history of basketball, and by the end of the season she often has her team playing at a much higher level than other coaches could possibly do with equivalent talent.  But by the time we get to the end of the line we are playing against teams with a little more talent who are also on successful streaks with highly successful coaches.  Tara's defensive schemes can always find a way to control 1 and sometimes 2 superstars, but she cannot scheme effectively against teams with 3, 4, or 5 talented offensive weapons.  The only way to defend teams with that level of talent is to have players who can defend them one-on-one, and that comes down to physical talent more than coaching alone. 

Why is our talent level not quite as strong as some of these other programs?  It is obvious--admissions.  We spend too much time bemoaning the loss of Lou Samuelson or Pivec who made it in and chose to go elsewhere, when the reality is that dozens of elite athletes know they will never have a chance getting in to Stanford so they never even consider coming here.  We get players who are bright and very coachable and who are always talented and sometimes of elite caliber, but we don't get the most elite players in high enough numbers to become a consistently dominant powerhouse. 

I agree with your explanation 81. It speaks volumes about Tara's coaching abilities that despite the restrictions on the available recruits because of the school's admissions standards, that she has been able to maintain the women's basketball program as one of the premiere and winning programs in college basketball over the last 30 years. All but a select few schools would be envious of the sustained success she has had.

We've talked about it before, trying to pinpoint the differences between women's basketball and other women's programs at Stanford that has had relative more success winning national titles (women's volleyball, women's water polo, women's tennis to name a few) and the socioeconomic causation that might be the reason why more HS girls basketball players don't have the academic credentials to pass admissions. I wish our recent success would inspire a few more to focus on academics in order to better their chances of getting in.

That's why it hurts when a premiere recruit like Katie Lou, who was admitted, decides to go somewhere else. Another program can brush off a recruit's decision pretty quickly, even within the same recruiting class, but we might have to wait a couple more years or even more for another National Player of the Year-potential recruit to come along with the grades to qualify.

[oman]

Getting ready to head out to see the final.  Ugg.  Was so psyched to see us.

[oman]

Getting ready to head out to see the final.  Ugg.  Was so psyched to see us.

[paloalto]

Great comment 81alum.  I have seen hype on ESPN about the final match.  It makes me sad Stanford came so close and everything almost fell into place.  I wouldn't want to play UConn, but I actually think we would have a chance to beat Mississippi State.

I agree for the most part about academics precluding some of the best players from applying to Stanford, but I would want it no other way.  In the end college should be about academics first and sports second IMO.  We have a top WVB recruit who is getting all A's in AP and Honors classes with a 4.6 weighted GPA.  She wants to come to Stanford but fears her SAT scores may not meet admission's standards.

[paloalto]

Great comment 81alum.  I have seen hype on ESPN about the final match.  It makes me sad Stanford came so close and everything almost fell into place.  I wouldn't want to play UConn, but I actually think we would have a chance to beat Mississippi State.

I agree for the most part about academics precluding some of the best players from applying to Stanford, but I would want it no other way.  In the end college should be about academics first and sports second IMO.  We have a top WVB recruit who is getting all A's in AP and Honors classes with a 4.6 weighted GPA.  She wants to come to Stanford but fears her SAT scores may not meet admission's standards.

[2006alum]

Definitely, definitely frustrating. Not as bad as 2011, where I really do think we should have won it all, and the Texas A&M game, and particularly the way we choked it away in the last two minutes, was so utterly painful.

However, we need to take the glass half full approach:

If someone had told me in December that we would get to the Final Four, based on who we brought back, how we played last season, and our early loss to Gonzaga, I would have said, "you're joking!"

If someone had told me we'd beat Notre Dame 500 miles from their home court, I would have said, "no way!"

If someone had asked me at the beginning of March if this is one of Tara's two best teams from 2000-present, I would have said, "not a chance!"

But we've only been to the title game twice since then, and those teams had Candice Wiggins, Jayne Appel, Kayla Pederson, Jeanette Pohlen, and Nneka and Chiney Ogwumike. Two WNBA #1 draft picks, a #3 draft pick, and three vets who played multiple seasons in the league. This team was grittier, tougher, and overall played better as a team, but realistically, we were not anywhere close to the talent to be a title game contender.

Yes, any time UConn isn't in the title game, it's a missed opportunity. But remember that Texas A&M went on to beat in the title game a Notre Dame team that had Skylar Diggins Devereaux Peters, Natalie Novosel, Kayla McBride, and Natalie Achonwa.

Yes, it's disappointing. But I'm thrilled to have had a sound basis to have hopeful expectations that could be dashed - when was the last time I was truly disappointed by our men's team? I can't even remember, because it's been so long since I expected much of anything at all...

[2006alum]

Definitely, definitely frustrating. Not as bad as 2011, where I really do think we should have won it all, and the Texas A&M game, and particularly the way we choked it away in the last two minutes, was so utterly painful.

However, we need to take the glass half full approach:

If someone had told me in December that we would get to the Final Four, based on who we brought back, how we played last season, and our early loss to Gonzaga, I would have said, "you're joking!"

If someone had told me we'd beat Notre Dame 500 miles from their home court, I would have said, "no way!"

If someone had asked me at the beginning of March if this is one of Tara's two best teams from 2000-present, I would have said, "not a chance!"

But we've only been to the title game twice since then, and those teams had Candice Wiggins, Jayne Appel, Kayla Pederson, Jeanette Pohlen, and Nneka and Chiney Ogwumike. Two WNBA #1 draft picks, a #3 draft pick, and three vets who played multiple seasons in the league. This team was grittier, tougher, and overall played better as a team, but realistically, we were not anywhere close to the talent to be a title game contender.

Yes, any time UConn isn't in the title game, it's a missed opportunity. But remember that Texas A&M went on to beat in the title game a Notre Dame team that had Skylar Diggins Devereaux Peters, Natalie Novosel, Kayla McBride, and Natalie Achonwa.

Yes, it's disappointing. But I'm thrilled to have had a sound basis to have hopeful expectations that could be dashed - when was the last time I was truly disappointed by our men's team? I can't even remember, because it's been so long since I expected much of anything at all...

[TheFarm07]

Congratulations to Dawn Staley and the South Carolina women's basketball team for claiming their first national championship

Their victory shows (considering how competitive we were with them even though Karlie was injured for the majority of the game) how close we are to winning one of our own

Hopefully, with the talent coming in and if we get an elite post in 2018, we can be cutting down the nets after the national title game sooner than later

[TheFarm07]

Congratulations to Dawn Staley and the South Carolina women's basketball team for claiming their first national championship

Their victory shows (considering how competitive we were with them even though Karlie was injured for the majority of the game) how close we are to winning one of our own

Hopefully, with the talent coming in and if we get an elite post in 2018, we can be cutting down the nets after the national title game sooner than later