[Fan1956]

Fudd might well be in the Dook or South Carolina camp as her final 2.    For sure it's not Stanford, as Stanford is done.

South Carolina?  With Saniya Rivers on board?  Doubtful.  

Of course, SC is an Under Armour school and the Fudds and UA have something going on.

---

I hate when other boards, like the posters on The Boneyard, say "Seems to me the admissions excuse is a thing of the past. It's time to be put to rest." Like that's why Stanford cant win a championship. They're saying Stanford is always a contender for top talent but what they don't understand is anyone can say they're considering Stanford or even put the Cardinal in their top five schools, however that doesn't mean they've been accepted. For all anyone knows they released Stanford as a top school hoping/waiting for admission and when they don't get accepted they chose another school. No player is going to say, "Stanford was actually my top school but I didn't get in so instead i settled for option two." That would be disrespectful to the institution they end up signing with. Admission plays a of immense proportions part. I'm sure there are plenty of young women that Tara would love to recruit but simply doesn't want to expend energy because she knows their marks wont match the admission requirement. 

In fairness, the BY poster was responding to a Stanford fan who said:  "we [Stanford fans] also recognize that the admissions hurdles make our runs to a national championship more limited in likelihood."  

With Stanford's recent recruiting success (several highly ranked players) shouldn't fans here expect a national championship or two?  Why should the expectations here be any different than at UConn or Notre Dame?  Seems that, at least lately, Stanford's academics are helping not hurting recruiting.  

[Fan1956]

Fudd might well be in the Dook or South Carolina camp as her final 2.    For sure it's not Stanford, as Stanford is done.

South Carolina?  With Saniya Rivers on board?  Doubtful.  

Of course, SC is an Under Armour school and the Fudds and UA have something going on.

---

I hate when other boards, like the posters on The Boneyard, say "Seems to me the admissions excuse is a thing of the past. It's time to be put to rest." Like that's why Stanford cant win a championship. They're saying Stanford is always a contender for top talent but what they don't understand is anyone can say they're considering Stanford or even put the Cardinal in their top five schools, however that doesn't mean they've been accepted. For all anyone knows they released Stanford as a top school hoping/waiting for admission and when they don't get accepted they chose another school. No player is going to say, "Stanford was actually my top school but I didn't get in so instead i settled for option two." That would be disrespectful to the institution they end up signing with. Admission plays a of immense proportions part. I'm sure there are plenty of young women that Tara would love to recruit but simply doesn't want to expend energy because she knows their marks wont match the admission requirement. 

In fairness, the BY poster was responding to a Stanford fan who said:  "we [Stanford fans] also recognize that the admissions hurdles make our runs to a national championship more limited in likelihood."  

With Stanford's recent recruiting success (several highly ranked players) shouldn't fans here expect a national championship or two?  Why should the expectations here be any different than at UConn or Notre Dame?  Seems that, at least lately, Stanford's academics are helping not hurting recruiting.  

[BobK]

Well except for the player who would be a frosh at Stanford if not for academics.

[BobK]

Well except for the player who would be a frosh at Stanford if not for academics.

[Maple Leaf]

Well except for the player who would be a frosh at Stanford if not for academics.

And said player is at a position of need, not to mention a top recruit.

[Maple Leaf]

Well except for the player who would be a frosh at Stanford if not for academics.

And said player is at a position of need, not to mention a top recruit.

[CompSci87]

It's been said plenty of times: Stanford's academic reputation is a big draw for those who care about academics and are admissible. But the pool of such players is limited. Some years there are enough to make a great recruiting class. Some years there aren't enough, or at least there aren't enough for "plan B" to be a great recruit too if "plan A" says no or gets unexpectedly dinged.

This situation is a fact, not an excuse.

[CompSci87]

It's been said plenty of times: Stanford's academic reputation is a big draw for those who care about academics and are admissible. But the pool of such players is limited. Some years there are enough to make a great recruiting class. Some years there aren't enough, or at least there aren't enough for "plan B" to be a great recruit too if "plan A" says no or gets unexpectedly dinged.

This situation is a fact, not an excuse.

[CardinalWBBFan]

While it does limit our recruiting pool, I strongly disagree with the statement that admissions makes the possibility of a national championship more unlikely or difficult, and I think our current and future rosters are an example of that — we have as much talent as any other team in the country. 

Tara does not offer unless there is a significant chance a prospect will be admitted, and four top-20 2022s have already been confirmed to have received an offer, plus Betts and Rice who don’t report offers.

[CardinalWBBFan]

While it does limit our recruiting pool, I strongly disagree with the statement that admissions makes the possibility of a national championship more unlikely or difficult, and I think our current and future rosters are an example of that — we have as much talent as any other team in the country. 

Tara does not offer unless there is a significant chance a prospect will be admitted, and four top-20 2022s have already been confirmed to have received an offer, plus Betts and Rice who don’t report offers.

[Softball Fan]

Fudd might well be in the Dook or South Carolina camp as her final 2.    For sure it's not Stanford, as Stanford is done.

South Carolina?  With Saniya Rivers on board?  Doubtful.  

Of course, SC is an Under Armour school and the Fudds and UA have something going on.

---

I hate when other boards, like the posters on The Boneyard, say "Seems to me the admissions excuse is a thing of the past. It's time to be put to rest." Like that's why Stanford cant win a championship. They're saying Stanford is always a contender for top talent but what they don't understand is anyone can say they're considering Stanford or even put the Cardinal in their top five schools, however that doesn't mean they've been accepted. For all anyone knows they released Stanford as a top school hoping/waiting for admission and when they don't get accepted they chose another school. No player is going to say, "Stanford was actually my top school but I didn't get in so instead i settled for option two." That would be disrespectful to the institution they end up signing with. Admission plays a of immense proportions part. I'm sure there are plenty of young women that Tara would love to recruit but simply doesn't want to expend energy because she knows their marks wont match the admission requirement. 

In fairness, the BY poster was responding to a Stanford fan who said:  "we [Stanford fans] also recognize that the admissions hurdles make our runs to a national championship more limited in likelihood."  

With Stanford's recent recruiting success (several highly ranked players) shouldn't fans here expect a national championship or two?  Why should the expectations here be any different than at UConn or Notre Dame?  Seems that, at least lately, Stanford's academics are helping not hurting recruiting.  

I agree.  If Stanford WBB was a perpetual PAC-12 cellar dweller, Stanford fans could say "woe is me with these darn academic impediments".

Look at someone like Andrew Luck; many fans could complain their school had no chance because he was only looking for a college with high academic standards.   WVB two time NPOY Kathryn Plummer got one B in four years of high school taking primarily honors and AP classes.  Fans could complain she was only considering schools with the very highest academics. 

Of course that is only two of hundreds of examples through the years of recruited athletes.   My only point is no school is the absolute best fit for all prep athletes.

[Softball Fan]

Fudd might well be in the Dook or South Carolina camp as her final 2.    For sure it's not Stanford, as Stanford is done.

South Carolina?  With Saniya Rivers on board?  Doubtful.  

Of course, SC is an Under Armour school and the Fudds and UA have something going on.

---

I hate when other boards, like the posters on The Boneyard, say "Seems to me the admissions excuse is a thing of the past. It's time to be put to rest." Like that's why Stanford cant win a championship. They're saying Stanford is always a contender for top talent but what they don't understand is anyone can say they're considering Stanford or even put the Cardinal in their top five schools, however that doesn't mean they've been accepted. For all anyone knows they released Stanford as a top school hoping/waiting for admission and when they don't get accepted they chose another school. No player is going to say, "Stanford was actually my top school but I didn't get in so instead i settled for option two." That would be disrespectful to the institution they end up signing with. Admission plays a of immense proportions part. I'm sure there are plenty of young women that Tara would love to recruit but simply doesn't want to expend energy because she knows their marks wont match the admission requirement. 

In fairness, the BY poster was responding to a Stanford fan who said:  "we [Stanford fans] also recognize that the admissions hurdles make our runs to a national championship more limited in likelihood."  

With Stanford's recent recruiting success (several highly ranked players) shouldn't fans here expect a national championship or two?  Why should the expectations here be any different than at UConn or Notre Dame?  Seems that, at least lately, Stanford's academics are helping not hurting recruiting.  

I agree.  If Stanford WBB was a perpetual PAC-12 cellar dweller, Stanford fans could say "woe is me with these darn academic impediments".

Look at someone like Andrew Luck; many fans could complain their school had no chance because he was only looking for a college with high academic standards.   WVB two time NPOY Kathryn Plummer got one B in four years of high school taking primarily honors and AP classes.  Fans could complain she was only considering schools with the very highest academics. 

Of course that is only two of hundreds of examples through the years of recruited athletes.   My only point is no school is the absolute best fit for all prep athletes.

[2006alum]

While it does limit our recruiting pool, I strongly disagree with the statement that admissions makes the possibility of a national championship more unlikely or difficult, and I think our current and future rosters are an example of that — we have as much talent as any other team in the country. 

Tara does not offer unless there is a significant chance a prospect will be admitted, and four top-20 2022s have already been confirmed to have received an offer, plus Betts and Rice who don’t report offers.

What, then, do you think explains our stretch of five straight recruiting cycles from Chiney's freshman year in 2010 and Kiana Williams' freshman year in 2017 during which we did not enroll a single top 10 recruit? I (and many others on this board) assumed it was the absence of viable admissible recruits at the upper echelons. During that stretch, the only two I know we lost out on who were confirmed as offered and admitted were KLS and Mikayla Pivec (who wasn't even a top 10 recruit). Given how much angst we had about losing those two, I assumed they were pretty rare misses.

And if they weren't, I'm curious why we don't hear more about the others we miss on, as we did with Van Oelhoffen, Miles, and Citron this past cycle. That was an extremely rare set of purportedly admitted recruiting misses, something I have never seen before. I took those lean years, coupled with the absence of viable targets we missed on and Tara's increasing tendency to look abroad, to suggest the we have limited admissible targets among the top recruits. But maybe I'm wrong?

[2006alum]

While it does limit our recruiting pool, I strongly disagree with the statement that admissions makes the possibility of a national championship more unlikely or difficult, and I think our current and future rosters are an example of that — we have as much talent as any other team in the country. 

Tara does not offer unless there is a significant chance a prospect will be admitted, and four top-20 2022s have already been confirmed to have received an offer, plus Betts and Rice who don’t report offers.

What, then, do you think explains our stretch of five straight recruiting cycles from Chiney's freshman year in 2010 and Kiana Williams' freshman year in 2017 during which we did not enroll a single top 10 recruit? I (and many others on this board) assumed it was the absence of viable admissible recruits at the upper echelons. During that stretch, the only two I know we lost out on who were confirmed as offered and admitted were KLS and Mikayla Pivec (who wasn't even a top 10 recruit). Given how much angst we had about losing those two, I assumed they were pretty rare misses.

And if they weren't, I'm curious why we don't hear more about the others we miss on, as we did with Van Oelhoffen, Miles, and Citron this past cycle. That was an extremely rare set of purportedly admitted recruiting misses, something I have never seen before. I took those lean years, coupled with the absence of viable targets we missed on and Tara's increasing tendency to look abroad, to suggest the we have limited admissible targets among the top recruits. But maybe I'm wrong?

[BosCard]

While it does limit our recruiting pool, I strongly disagree with the statement that admissions makes the possibility of a national championship more unlikely or difficult, and I think our current and future rosters are an example of that — we have as much talent as any other team in the country. 

Tara does not offer unless there is a significant chance a prospect will be admitted, and four top-20 2022s have already been confirmed to have received an offer, plus Betts and Rice who don’t report offers.

I think it really depends on the year.  Yes we have been fortunate enough to recruit and get some very talented players recently.  However, that has not always been the case.  In the 6 classes between 2011 and 2016, we didn't recruit a single top-10 player (according to HoopGurlz).  I am sure Tara and team tried to recruit higher rated players but either they didn't want to come or the pool of eligible players was just smaller.  We certainly had good teams during that time but none of the post-Ogwumike teams were national championship favorites or even favorites to reach the final four.  Contrast our recruiting during that period with UConn who signed:

• 2011 #1 - Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis
  
• 2012 #1 - Breanna Stewart
  
• 2012 #2 - Moriah Jefferson
  
• 2012 #6 - Morgan Tuck
  
• 2015 #1 - Katie Lou Samuelson
  
• 2015 #6 - Napheesa Collier
  
• 2016 #3 - Crystal Dangerfield
  

The only player on this list who we were also able to recruit was Samuelson.

[BosCard]

While it does limit our recruiting pool, I strongly disagree with the statement that admissions makes the possibility of a national championship more unlikely or difficult, and I think our current and future rosters are an example of that — we have as much talent as any other team in the country. 

Tara does not offer unless there is a significant chance a prospect will be admitted, and four top-20 2022s have already been confirmed to have received an offer, plus Betts and Rice who don’t report offers.

I think it really depends on the year.  Yes we have been fortunate enough to recruit and get some very talented players recently.  However, that has not always been the case.  In the 6 classes between 2011 and 2016, we didn't recruit a single top-10 player (according to HoopGurlz).  I am sure Tara and team tried to recruit higher rated players but either they didn't want to come or the pool of eligible players was just smaller.  We certainly had good teams during that time but none of the post-Ogwumike teams were national championship favorites or even favorites to reach the final four.  Contrast our recruiting during that period with UConn who signed:

• 2011 #1 - Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis
  
• 2012 #1 - Breanna Stewart
  
• 2012 #2 - Moriah Jefferson
  
• 2012 #6 - Morgan Tuck
  
• 2015 #1 - Katie Lou Samuelson
  
• 2015 #6 - Napheesa Collier
  
• 2016 #3 - Crystal Dangerfield
  

The only player on this list who we were also able to recruit was Samuelson.

[oldalum]

 If Stanford WBB was a perpetual PAC-12 cellar dweller, Stanford fans could say "woe is me with these darn academic impediments".

The debate (which I think you started) has been over whether Stanford's academic requirements at least in part explain our lack of national championships for the past nearly 30 years. So now you have switched to arguing that if our academic standards were an impediment to success, we would be perpetual cellar dweller; therefore, since we are not perpetual cellar dwellers, our academic standards have no adverse effect. Those are very different arguments. The first is at least debatable. The second is a straw man: no one is arguing that high academic standards are an absolute barrier to conference success.

[oldalum]

 If Stanford WBB was a perpetual PAC-12 cellar dweller, Stanford fans could say "woe is me with these darn academic impediments".

The debate (which I think you started) has been over whether Stanford's academic requirements at least in part explain our lack of national championships for the past nearly 30 years. So now you have switched to arguing that if our academic standards were an impediment to success, we would be perpetual cellar dweller; therefore, since we are not perpetual cellar dwellers, our academic standards have no adverse effect. Those are very different arguments. The first is at least debatable. The second is a straw man: no one is arguing that high academic standards are an absolute barrier to conference success.

[Softball Fan]

 If Stanford WBB was a perpetual PAC-12 cellar dweller, Stanford fans could say "woe is me with these darn academic impediments".

The debate (which I think you started) has been over whether Stanford's academic requirements at least in part explain our lack of national championships for the past nearly 30 years. So now you have switched to arguing that if our academic standards were an impediment to success, we would be perpetual cellar dweller; therefore, since we are not perpetual cellar dwellers, our academic standards have no adverse effect. Those are very different arguments. The first is at least debatable. The second is a straw man: no one is arguing that high academic standards are an absolute barrier to conference success.

You can quote me if you like and respond to that quote, but please don't incorrectly paraphrase me.  I used national championships about another sport as an illustration to make a point. I never said anything about NCs for WBB as being the standard for WBB.

 No, I do not use national championships as the sole metric to determine a team's success; certainly not in WBB.  There are many strong programs that have never won a national championship.  It is a difficult thing to do that often results from a team getting hot at a specific time, staying free of injuries, and many other intangibles.

I will argue being a consistent contender for the PAC-12 title is an indication of success.  I do think Stanford WBB is a very successful program.  I bet Tara would make the same argument.


OK, upon reflection this argument is so unproductive and boring, I will not post any more on this topic.  You can have the last word and thereby claim yourself the winner.

[Softball Fan]

 If Stanford WBB was a perpetual PAC-12 cellar dweller, Stanford fans could say "woe is me with these darn academic impediments".

The debate (which I think you started) has been over whether Stanford's academic requirements at least in part explain our lack of national championships for the past nearly 30 years. So now you have switched to arguing that if our academic standards were an impediment to success, we would be perpetual cellar dweller; therefore, since we are not perpetual cellar dwellers, our academic standards have no adverse effect. Those are very different arguments. The first is at least debatable. The second is a straw man: no one is arguing that high academic standards are an absolute barrier to conference success.

You can quote me if you like and respond to that quote, but please don't incorrectly paraphrase me.  I used national championships about another sport as an illustration to make a point. I never said anything about NCs for WBB as being the standard for WBB.

 No, I do not use national championships as the sole metric to determine a team's success; certainly not in WBB.  There are many strong programs that have never won a national championship.  It is a difficult thing to do that often results from a team getting hot at a specific time, staying free of injuries, and many other intangibles.

I will argue being a consistent contender for the PAC-12 title is an indication of success.  I do think Stanford WBB is a very successful program.  I bet Tara would make the same argument.


OK, upon reflection this argument is so unproductive and boring, I will not post any more on this topic.  You can have the last word and thereby claim yourself the winner.

[Jskass]

too much CoVid quarantining leading to people arguing over nonsense. Instead let's be thrilled about our recent recruiting successes and how bright the future is!

[Jskass]

too much CoVid quarantining leading to people arguing over nonsense. Instead let's be thrilled about our recent recruiting successes and how bright the future is!

[Phogge]

Pretty impressive by Plummer. I went to HS with a guy who only got one B. Couldn’t get into Stanford however. Tons of C’s and a few D’s.

[Phogge]

Pretty impressive by Plummer. I went to HS with a guy who only got one B. Couldn’t get into Stanford however. Tons of C’s and a few D’s.

[WBB fan]

too much CoVid quarantining leading to people arguing over nonsense. Instead let's be thrilled about our recent recruiting successes and how bright the future is!

Very well said!!!!

[WBB fan]

too much CoVid quarantining leading to people arguing over nonsense. Instead let's be thrilled about our recent recruiting successes and how bright the future is!

Very well said!!!!

[GK3]

Question for BobK:

Have we had a player in recent years double in basketball and volleyball? Back when, it seemed fairly common, but now?

[GK3]

Question for BobK:

Have we had a player in recent years double in basketball and volleyball? Back when, it seemed fairly common, but now?

[BobK]

Pam McGee was on the basketball team for a year when our posts were hurt
Lindsay Yamasaki
So the most recent is Candice Wiggins but while she practiced she didn’t play in a Game and when basketball started she practiced with the basketball team. So 16 years
So nope

asking about 2023 recruit Meddleson who might be top 10 in both ?

[BobK]

Pam McGee was on the basketball team for a year when our posts were hurt
Lindsay Yamasaki
So the most recent is Candice Wiggins but while she practiced she didn’t play in a Game and when basketball started she practiced with the basketball team. So 16 years
So nope

asking about 2023 recruit Meddleson who might be top 10 in both ?

[BostonCard]

And of course, there was Kristen Folkl, who dominated in both.

BC

[BostonCard]

And of course, there was Kristen Folkl, who dominated in both.

BC

[PalmTree]

Pam  Sara McGee was on the basketball team for a year when our posts were hurt

There, FIFY.....

[PalmTree]

Pam  Sara McGee was on the basketball team for a year when our posts were hurt

There, FIFY.....

[CardinalWBBFan]

Lindy has already added two top-100 recruits in her first year:
https://twitter.com/AZSupremeASGR/status...84896?s=20

[CardinalWBBFan]

Lindy has already added two top-100 recruits in her first year:
https://twitter.com/AZSupremeASGR/status...84896?s=20

[CardinalWBBFan]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEc2Jd_JGRr/...kfkt7q5pcq

[CardinalWBBFan]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEc2Jd_JGRr/...kfkt7q5pcq

[BosCard]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEc2Jd_JGRr/...kfkt7q5pcq

I have a very good feeling about Rice:

1. She and her family seem to highly value academics
   
2. Stanford connection through her aunt
   
3. Plays a position of need for the team and could start as a freshman
   
4. Joining a team loaded with talent in fellow top-10 or USA Basketball players (Jones, Belibi, Brink, Demetre, Iriafen)
   
5. Follows a lot of Stanford players/recruits on instagram (Jones, Belibi, Jump, Brink, Harriel, Iriafen, Demetre, Bosgana)
   
6. The fact that Bosgana and Rice follow each other on instagram.  Bosgana follows almost no US players except her future Stanford teammates.  
   

[BosCard]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEc2Jd_JGRr/...kfkt7q5pcq

I have a very good feeling about Rice:

1. She and her family seem to highly value academics
   
2. Stanford connection through her aunt
   
3. Plays a position of need for the team and could start as a freshman
   
4. Joining a team loaded with talent in fellow top-10 or USA Basketball players (Jones, Belibi, Brink, Demetre, Iriafen)
   
5. Follows a lot of Stanford players/recruits on instagram (Jones, Belibi, Jump, Brink, Harriel, Iriafen, Demetre, Bosgana)
   
6. The fact that Bosgana and Rice follow each other on instagram.  Bosgana follows almost no US players except her future Stanford teammates.