[TheWildJacko]

My bad. They have 1 thread, but you are right: 42 posts. As for the sign-up date, I guess my brain saw what it was expecting.

No less of a clumsy troll job, though.

BC

It's all good. You were spot on about their character.

[TheWildJacko]

My bad. They have 1 thread, but you are right: 42 posts. As for the sign-up date, I guess my brain saw what it was expecting.

No less of a clumsy troll job, though.

BC

It's all good. You were spot on about their character.

[JustAnotherFan]

-- their coaching was better than ours, although I deeply admire Tara as a coach and a wonderful human being.  

What?! How dare you question Tara the Great! It's a Stanford truism that she's a "great" coach. News flash: she's ok. Not terrible, not great. Put another way: great recruiter (in the women's game, how much of that is her versus the university though?), meh coach. The overall record is of course really good, but how many more national titles do we have if Geno is our coach during these last decades. I think a bunch. I was saying all week that I thought we'd lose to UConn because the gap between Geno and Tara is so big. Ok, I'll leave before I get tarred and feathered...

I'd rather 3 national titles in 30 years with Tara than 12 with Geno. Dead serious.

[JustAnotherFan]

-- their coaching was better than ours, although I deeply admire Tara as a coach and a wonderful human being.  

What?! How dare you question Tara the Great! It's a Stanford truism that she's a "great" coach. News flash: she's ok. Not terrible, not great. Put another way: great recruiter (in the women's game, how much of that is her versus the university though?), meh coach. The overall record is of course really good, but how many more national titles do we have if Geno is our coach during these last decades. I think a bunch. I was saying all week that I thought we'd lose to UConn because the gap between Geno and Tara is so big. Ok, I'll leave before I get tarred and feathered...

I'd rather 3 national titles in 30 years with Tara than 12 with Geno. Dead serious.

[petersalas]

Well I woke up disappointed in the outcome, not in the team. It was a great and special season regardless of the loss. Watching the game yesterday, it didn’t feel as Stanford lost the game to the UConn team on the floor but lost it to the name on the jersey and the legacy because they didn’t play the way they had most of the season and after those 3 early losses. I had a feeling the missed free throws were going to cost them and they did.. it was a 5 point loss and they missed 5 free throws… during the game it seemed Stanford missed so many shots, which they did.. but nonetheless still made more baskets than UConn.. the difference was in the free throws… things don’t always go the way we hope, but nothing will take away from the awesome memories throughout the season.

[petersalas]

Well I woke up disappointed in the outcome, not in the team. It was a great and special season regardless of the loss. Watching the game yesterday, it didn’t feel as Stanford lost the game to the UConn team on the floor but lost it to the name on the jersey and the legacy because they didn’t play the way they had most of the season and after those 3 early losses. I had a feeling the missed free throws were going to cost them and they did.. it was a 5 point loss and they missed 5 free throws… during the game it seemed Stanford missed so many shots, which they did.. but nonetheless still made more baskets than UConn.. the difference was in the free throws… things don’t always go the way we hope, but nothing will take away from the awesome memories throughout the season.

[crackpot]

-- their coaching was better than ours, although I deeply admire Tara as a coach and a wonderful human being.  

What?! How dare you question Tara the Great! It's a Stanford truism that she's a "great" coach. News flash: she's ok. Not terrible, not great. Put another way: great recruiter (in the women's game, how much of that is her versus the university though?), meh coach. The overall record is of course really good, but how many more national titles do we have if Geno is our coach during these last decades. I think a bunch. I was saying all week that I thought we'd lose to UConn because the gap between Geno and Tara is so big. Ok, I'll leave before I get tarred and feathered...

I'd rather 3 national titles in 30 years with Tara than 12 with Geno. Dead serious.

Totally agree.

As for coaching abilities, let's put it another way. Say that 10 years ago, Geno and Tara were forced to switch jobs. Tara coaches the Huskies, and Geno the Cardinal. Same admission requirements as usual, same support. Who do you think is going to come out with more wins, more championships? There is no freakin' way Geno could find success at Stanford.

[crackpot]

-- their coaching was better than ours, although I deeply admire Tara as a coach and a wonderful human being.  

What?! How dare you question Tara the Great! It's a Stanford truism that she's a "great" coach. News flash: she's ok. Not terrible, not great. Put another way: great recruiter (in the women's game, how much of that is her versus the university though?), meh coach. The overall record is of course really good, but how many more national titles do we have if Geno is our coach during these last decades. I think a bunch. I was saying all week that I thought we'd lose to UConn because the gap between Geno and Tara is so big. Ok, I'll leave before I get tarred and feathered...

I'd rather 3 national titles in 30 years with Tara than 12 with Geno. Dead serious.

Totally agree.

As for coaching abilities, let's put it another way. Say that 10 years ago, Geno and Tara were forced to switch jobs. Tara coaches the Huskies, and Geno the Cardinal. Same admission requirements as usual, same support. Who do you think is going to come out with more wins, more championships? There is no freakin' way Geno could find success at Stanford.

[FarmTeam]

-- their coaching was better than ours, although I deeply admire Tara as a coach and a wonderful human being.  

What?! How dare you question Tara the Great! It's a Stanford truism that she's a "great" coach. News flash: she's ok. Not terrible, not great. Put another way: great recruiter (in the women's game, how much of that is her versus the university though?), meh coach. The overall record is of course really good, but how many more national titles do we have if Geno is our coach during these last decades. I think a bunch. I was saying all week that I thought we'd lose to UConn because the gap between Geno and Tara is so big. Ok, I'll leave before I get tarred and feathered...

I'm sorry, but this is kind of a $h!t post. You're an a$h@le to post that about Tara. It's fu%#ING false and you know it.

---

And by the way, are you happy that you were right? it sounds like you are. if so, good for you. enjoy our loss if it proves whatever point you were trying to make. I for one am heartbroken, but I feel nothing but love for Tara and the team. Unlike you, it seems.

Look at how many posts the poster has and when they registered.

Don’t feed the trolls.

Your reaction is exactly what they were going for.

BC

Hmm, I'm an alum and season ticketholder on the men's side. And former varsity athlete (not basketball). Yes, joined in April last year and have been moderately active in some of the football and men's basketball discussions. You all are almost a self-parody you're so far up in Tara's mythology. Do you actually watch the games or just look at the win-loss record? People roast Shaw (deservedly so lately but that's a diff issue) and other coaches on here but apparently Tara is above criticism? I've never thought she was a great in-game or x's-and-o's coach. Go back and read the in-game discussion and then think about it. They lost this game in part because Tara didn't make the right adjustments and didn't steady the team. In other words, they got out-coached. Shocker.

[FarmTeam]

-- their coaching was better than ours, although I deeply admire Tara as a coach and a wonderful human being.  

What?! How dare you question Tara the Great! It's a Stanford truism that she's a "great" coach. News flash: she's ok. Not terrible, not great. Put another way: great recruiter (in the women's game, how much of that is her versus the university though?), meh coach. The overall record is of course really good, but how many more national titles do we have if Geno is our coach during these last decades. I think a bunch. I was saying all week that I thought we'd lose to UConn because the gap between Geno and Tara is so big. Ok, I'll leave before I get tarred and feathered...

I'm sorry, but this is kind of a $h!t post. You're an a$h@le to post that about Tara. It's fu%#ING false and you know it.

---

And by the way, are you happy that you were right? it sounds like you are. if so, good for you. enjoy our loss if it proves whatever point you were trying to make. I for one am heartbroken, but I feel nothing but love for Tara and the team. Unlike you, it seems.

Look at how many posts the poster has and when they registered.

Don’t feed the trolls.

Your reaction is exactly what they were going for.

BC

Hmm, I'm an alum and season ticketholder on the men's side. And former varsity athlete (not basketball). Yes, joined in April last year and have been moderately active in some of the football and men's basketball discussions. You all are almost a self-parody you're so far up in Tara's mythology. Do you actually watch the games or just look at the win-loss record? People roast Shaw (deservedly so lately but that's a diff issue) and other coaches on here but apparently Tara is above criticism? I've never thought she was a great in-game or x's-and-o's coach. Go back and read the in-game discussion and then think about it. They lost this game in part because Tara didn't make the right adjustments and didn't steady the team. In other words, they got out-coached. Shocker.

[chimera]

Eh, go away, you are definitely trolling.  Anyone who rarely posts but comes onto a board to bash a coach whose team just lost in the F4 is just a troll, looking to inflict more pain just when a fan base is feeling bad.  Instead you provide laughter as your posts are jokes.  Tara is not perfect, no coach is, not even sainted Geno.  But to call her a mediocre coach is laughable.  I guess you had to wait a year to post this garbage given they won it all last year.  But how could that be?  Crap coaches don't do that...

[chimera]

Eh, go away, you are definitely trolling.  Anyone who rarely posts but comes onto a board to bash a coach whose team just lost in the F4 is just a troll, looking to inflict more pain just when a fan base is feeling bad.  Instead you provide laughter as your posts are jokes.  Tara is not perfect, no coach is, not even sainted Geno.  But to call her a mediocre coach is laughable.  I guess you had to wait a year to post this garbage given they won it all last year.  But how could that be?  Crap coaches don't do that...

[jonnyss]

6. We played excellent defense overall except we let down critically on Westbrook with her threes, leaving her wide open. I think Belibi was the culprit, but perhaps it was a coaching mistake not to have someone else guarding Westbrook.

fran ran out at the last second to defend westbrook, so it looked like her fault; but, yes,  it was likely the coaches' call to double in the post. rebecca lobo said stanford was intentionally leaving westbrook open, daring her to shoot - much as uconn did with haley at the 3-point line. that's not a coaching mistake. the odds say their 30% 3-point shooter will miss and our 40% shooter (lexie) will make. just didn't happen yesterday. in addition,  imo fran likely wasn't assigned to defend westbrook. with fran, cam, and haley in the game, they usually play 5, 4, and 3. westbrook was playing the 3, so haley or maybe cam should have been ready to leave the double and run out when the ball went to westbrook.

[jonnyss]

6. We played excellent defense overall except we let down critically on Westbrook with her threes, leaving her wide open. I think Belibi was the culprit, but perhaps it was a coaching mistake not to have someone else guarding Westbrook.

fran ran out at the last second to defend westbrook, so it looked like her fault; but, yes,  it was likely the coaches' call to double in the post. rebecca lobo said stanford was intentionally leaving westbrook open, daring her to shoot - much as uconn did with haley at the 3-point line. that's not a coaching mistake. the odds say their 30% 3-point shooter will miss and our 40% shooter (lexie) will make. just didn't happen yesterday. in addition,  imo fran likely wasn't assigned to defend westbrook. with fran, cam, and haley in the game, they usually play 5, 4, and 3. westbrook was playing the 3, so haley or maybe cam should have been ready to leave the double and run out when the ball went to westbrook.

[FarmTeam]

Eh, go away, you are definitely trolling.  Anyone who rarely posts but comes onto a board to bash a coach whose team just lost in the F4 is just a troll, looking to inflict more pain just when a fan base is feeling bad.  Instead you provide laughter as your posts are jokes.  Tara is not perfect, no coach is, not even sainted Geno.  But to call her a mediocre coach is laughable.  I guess you had to wait a year to post this garbage given they won it all last year.  But how could that be?  Crap coaches don't do that...

I'll do one more because I'm stubborn. You clearly are blindly loyal fan who loves the win-loss record and who watches the scoreboard but not the game. Nothing wrong with that. But Tara was flat-out out-coached last night. I was rooting for them of course, but it was totally predictable if you've watched Tara's teams for decades, especially against Geno. It pisses me off when the players are let down by the coach (see: Haase, Jerod, as a particularly egregious example). Success in college hoops, like all college sports, is more a function of talent than coaching. If you want to judge the whole package including recruiting, then, sure, Tara is a "great coach." But I was referring to "coach" in the sense of x's-and-o's and in-game play and adjustments. Pretty meh there.

[FarmTeam]

Eh, go away, you are definitely trolling.  Anyone who rarely posts but comes onto a board to bash a coach whose team just lost in the F4 is just a troll, looking to inflict more pain just when a fan base is feeling bad.  Instead you provide laughter as your posts are jokes.  Tara is not perfect, no coach is, not even sainted Geno.  But to call her a mediocre coach is laughable.  I guess you had to wait a year to post this garbage given they won it all last year.  But how could that be?  Crap coaches don't do that...

I'll do one more because I'm stubborn. You clearly are blindly loyal fan who loves the win-loss record and who watches the scoreboard but not the game. Nothing wrong with that. But Tara was flat-out out-coached last night. I was rooting for them of course, but it was totally predictable if you've watched Tara's teams for decades, especially against Geno. It pisses me off when the players are let down by the coach (see: Haase, Jerod, as a particularly egregious example). Success in college hoops, like all college sports, is more a function of talent than coaching. If you want to judge the whole package including recruiting, then, sure, Tara is a "great coach." But I was referring to "coach" in the sense of x's-and-o's and in-game play and adjustments. Pretty meh there.

[MV72018]

Stanford got its butt kicked on the boards: 46-37. 
Strange indeed. Was it primarily a matter of bad 
luck, bad positioning, or being out-hustled?

[MV72018]

Stanford got its butt kicked on the boards: 46-37. 
Strange indeed. Was it primarily a matter of bad 
luck, bad positioning, or being out-hustled?

[OutsiderFan]

The age old question:

Would Geno beat Tara if the players switched teams?

[OutsiderFan]

The age old question:

Would Geno beat Tara if the players switched teams?

[dcnav]

Not sure where to post this. Curious if anyone knows if Jenna Brown is back next year? I believe, if she is, that all our scholies are taken. Was hoping we'd have a shot at Abby Meyers, but maybe there is no hope for that.

[dcnav]

Not sure where to post this. Curious if anyone knows if Jenna Brown is back next year? I believe, if she is, that all our scholies are taken. Was hoping we'd have a shot at Abby Meyers, but maybe there is no hope for that.

[Softball Fan]

Why can Shaw be relentlessly criticized but any criticism of Tara is met with profanity and claims of troll?  Why can football threads be filled to the brim with insults of Shaw but one post questioning Tara's coaching decisions is brutally attacked?

FWIW I don't think it was coaching.  Tara can't go into the game and make the shots.  The players had a sub-par shooting game from almost everywhere on the court and there's not too much the coaches can do about that.  It happens and you can never predict when it's going to happen.

I feel it was a great season for the team.  It's very difficult to win an NC.  So many things can go wrong.  I appreciate when any Stanford sports team makes it to the final four.  Having said that, I don't have a problem with criticism of a coach/player as long as it is a genuine and honest opinion.

There are some cardboarders who can vouch for my connection and loyalty to Stanford.  I try to be what I consider objective in evaluating coaches/players and that doesn't seem to be tolerated well on the WBB or WVB threads.  My warning level was increased for a few comments on the WVB thread which were far less incendiary than some comments here.

I don't want to be banned but if I'm banned for this post, so be it.

[Softball Fan]

Why can Shaw be relentlessly criticized but any criticism of Tara is met with profanity and claims of troll?  Why can football threads be filled to the brim with insults of Shaw but one post questioning Tara's coaching decisions is brutally attacked?

FWIW I don't think it was coaching.  Tara can't go into the game and make the shots.  The players had a sub-par shooting game from almost everywhere on the court and there's not too much the coaches can do about that.  It happens and you can never predict when it's going to happen.

I feel it was a great season for the team.  It's very difficult to win an NC.  So many things can go wrong.  I appreciate when any Stanford sports team makes it to the final four.  Having said that, I don't have a problem with criticism of a coach/player as long as it is a genuine and honest opinion.

There are some cardboarders who can vouch for my connection and loyalty to Stanford.  I try to be what I consider objective in evaluating coaches/players and that doesn't seem to be tolerated well on the WBB or WVB threads.  My warning level was increased for a few comments on the WVB thread which were far less incendiary than some comments here.

I don't want to be banned but if I'm banned for this post, so be it.

[dcnav]

The thing about the game that I wondered about was why Anna wasn't played in the second half. Was she injured? We missed her defense.

[dcnav]

The thing about the game that I wondered about was why Anna wasn't played in the second half. Was she injured? We missed her defense.

[BostonCard]

The troll’s posts are still up. As far as I can tell, their posts didn’t violate any rules, per se. But they were high noise and low signal.

As any loss, there are criticisms that can be leveled against Vanderveer. In a game where we had a decided advantage inside, we seemed to go away from it in the decisive stretch of the fourth quarter where UConn’s lead went from one point to eight. So, someone who criticized Tara for not feeding the ball inside, would be making legitimate criticisms.

On the other hand, someone who merely posits that Vanderveer is a mediocre coach without details on what she did wrong doesn’t add much to the discussion; such a post seems to me to be designed to provoke at a time when the board might be a bit miffed at the outcome. That is what trolls do.

As for Shaw, I think many of those criticisms are over the top.  He shouldn’t be above criticism, of course, but too many posts start out with “Shaw is [stubborn, lazy, incompetent, etc.]” and too few start with “Shaw did…”

BC

[BostonCard]

The troll’s posts are still up. As far as I can tell, their posts didn’t violate any rules, per se. But they were high noise and low signal.

As any loss, there are criticisms that can be leveled against Vanderveer. In a game where we had a decided advantage inside, we seemed to go away from it in the decisive stretch of the fourth quarter where UConn’s lead went from one point to eight. So, someone who criticized Tara for not feeding the ball inside, would be making legitimate criticisms.

On the other hand, someone who merely posits that Vanderveer is a mediocre coach without details on what she did wrong doesn’t add much to the discussion; such a post seems to me to be designed to provoke at a time when the board might be a bit miffed at the outcome. That is what trolls do.

As for Shaw, I think many of those criticisms are over the top.  He shouldn’t be above criticism, of course, but too many posts start out with “Shaw is [stubborn, lazy, incompetent, etc.]” and too few start with “Shaw did…”

BC

[81alum]

Haley also made a couple of critical, head-scratching decisions in the 4th quarter when the game was in doubt:

At 2:45 left in the fourth quarter, she attempted a three-pointer with 20 seconds left on the shot clock. She was not that open, her specialty is not three point shooting and we were only down by 6, that was a poor decision.

At another point, Jones had an open lane to the basket but then she tried passing it to Prechtel and the ball got intercepted and turned over.

A significant reason we won last year's national semis against South Carolina and Arizona was that Jones knew she couldn't stop her in the paint with her midrange jumpers and her agility/maneuverability around the net.

While she had glimpses of it in tonight's game, she lapsed into her poor decision making choices at the worst time.

---

11. Finally, I don't want to use the word choke or even wilted because everyone takes those as perjoratives and I don't mean to convey that kind of negative tone, but the mindset or emotions of our players didn't seem right. It wasn't a matter of not hustling, being aggressive, tough, or play with energy. They were fine and maybe even better than usual. Perhaps it was the pressure or expectations of winning and going after a repeat title that caused them to do things uncharacteristically or not be confident. The body language and demeanor just seemed off. Maybe somebody else who agrees that we were not ourselves can better describe what I'm trying to say.

I agree with all of your points but I wanted to highlight this. Especially on offense, all game long, for whatever reason, we seemed to second-guess ourselves and just was operating at less than full speed. It felt like I was watching the game on half speed sometimes. The passes weren't crisp, they were a lot of standing around and the players looked indecisive.

Yes, there was something not right with our team chemistry.  Rather than playing like we were the defending national champions, each miss seemed to erode our confidence.  Tara said in the sideline interview that we were not moving the ball enough or getting it inside enough, but even after telling her players this they seemed to make poor decisions and failed to carry out those instructions.  UConn plays sound defense but certainly nothing worse than we have overcome many times in the past--so it seems to me it was more the occasion than the defense that was the difference.  Geno said about the same thing--they won because we had an off night.  As evidence of this are the three point shots that began to fall at the very end when impending defeat finally made us fully focused.     Jones in the presser said the same thing--it wasn't anything special the UConn defense was doing, but the shots just weren't going in. 

UConn played just well enough to win, and we largely beat ourselves.  It is a psychological more than a physical loss, and that makes it more disappointing, not least for the players themselves.  That is the danger of the NCAA's one-and-done system, you cannot afford to have any one of the 6 potential games be an off-night.  I do think that this year we have been a better team than UConn, but not at the one moment where it counted.

All that said, I remain filled with admiration and love for our team, as well as hope for more wonderful seasons to come.  It says a lot, compared with some past years, that getting to the final four and not to the title game is seen as any sort of "disappointment."

[81alum]

Haley also made a couple of critical, head-scratching decisions in the 4th quarter when the game was in doubt:

At 2:45 left in the fourth quarter, she attempted a three-pointer with 20 seconds left on the shot clock. She was not that open, her specialty is not three point shooting and we were only down by 6, that was a poor decision.

At another point, Jones had an open lane to the basket but then she tried passing it to Prechtel and the ball got intercepted and turned over.

A significant reason we won last year's national semis against South Carolina and Arizona was that Jones knew she couldn't stop her in the paint with her midrange jumpers and her agility/maneuverability around the net.

While she had glimpses of it in tonight's game, she lapsed into her poor decision making choices at the worst time.

---

11. Finally, I don't want to use the word choke or even wilted because everyone takes those as perjoratives and I don't mean to convey that kind of negative tone, but the mindset or emotions of our players didn't seem right. It wasn't a matter of not hustling, being aggressive, tough, or play with energy. They were fine and maybe even better than usual. Perhaps it was the pressure or expectations of winning and going after a repeat title that caused them to do things uncharacteristically or not be confident. The body language and demeanor just seemed off. Maybe somebody else who agrees that we were not ourselves can better describe what I'm trying to say.

I agree with all of your points but I wanted to highlight this. Especially on offense, all game long, for whatever reason, we seemed to second-guess ourselves and just was operating at less than full speed. It felt like I was watching the game on half speed sometimes. The passes weren't crisp, they were a lot of standing around and the players looked indecisive.

Yes, there was something not right with our team chemistry.  Rather than playing like we were the defending national champions, each miss seemed to erode our confidence.  Tara said in the sideline interview that we were not moving the ball enough or getting it inside enough, but even after telling her players this they seemed to make poor decisions and failed to carry out those instructions.  UConn plays sound defense but certainly nothing worse than we have overcome many times in the past--so it seems to me it was more the occasion than the defense that was the difference.  Geno said about the same thing--they won because we had an off night.  As evidence of this are the three point shots that began to fall at the very end when impending defeat finally made us fully focused.     Jones in the presser said the same thing--it wasn't anything special the UConn defense was doing, but the shots just weren't going in. 

UConn played just well enough to win, and we largely beat ourselves.  It is a psychological more than a physical loss, and that makes it more disappointing, not least for the players themselves.  That is the danger of the NCAA's one-and-done system, you cannot afford to have any one of the 6 potential games be an off-night.  I do think that this year we have been a better team than UConn, but not at the one moment where it counted.

All that said, I remain filled with admiration and love for our team, as well as hope for more wonderful seasons to come.  It says a lot, compared with some past years, that getting to the final four and not to the title game is seen as any sort of "disappointment."

[TheWildJacko]

Why can Shaw be relentlessly criticized but any criticism of Tara is met with profanity and claims of troll?  Why can football threads be filled to the brim with insults of Shaw but one post questioning Tara's coaching decisions is brutally attacked?

FWIW I don't think it was coaching.  Tara can't go into the game and make the shots.  The players had a sub-par shooting game from almost everywhere on the court and there's not too much the coaches can do about that.  It happens and you can never predict when it's going to happen.

I feel it was a great season for the team.  It's very difficult to win an NC.  So many things can go wrong.  I appreciate when any Stanford sports team makes it to the final four.  Having said that, I don't have a problem with criticism of a coach/player as long as it is a genuine and honest opinion.

There are some cardboarders who can vouch for my connection and loyalty to Stanford.  I try to be what I consider objective in evaluating coaches/players and that doesn't seem to be tolerated well on the WBB or WVB threads.  My warning level was increased for a few comments on the WVB thread which were far less incendiary than some comments here.

I don't want to be banned but if I'm banned for this post, so be it.

I have no problem with anyone criticizing Tara’s coaching decisions. I don’t think she coached her best game last night. If they had questioned her coaching decisions in the game, or had anything specific at all about the game, I actually probably would have agreed with them. But that’s not what they did (at least not in the first post). Instead, they come in and say she’s not a great coach (not just not a great coach, but a “meh” coach, which is pretty insulting, and come on, read the room—that’s just a d!ckish thing to say following a season-ending Final Four loss), how they’ve been saying all week that we’re going to lose because Geno is a much better coach (basically gloating that they were right), and that all our wins are due to her recruiting, but that the recruiting is probably due to the school and not her. So, a whole bunch of massively unfounded claims with nothing of substance regarding the actual game.

So yes, I responded harshly, and while I normally don’t like to use profanity on message boards, I actually think that comment deserved it.

ETA: They also later said they believe “Success in college hoops, like all college sports, is more a function of talent than coaching,” which in addition to being completely contradictory to their previous posts—do we blame our loss on the coaching or do we blame it on the players’ lack of talent (because if success isn’t a function of coaching then why blame the coach)?—is also just totally not based in reality. Good coaching matters. Talent matters. You need both to win, plus a lot of luck. Plenty of loaded teams have underperformed because they don’t have a Tara, Geno or Pat at the helm. And also, good coaches attract good players. Do they think Stanford just magically became a WBB superpower on its own?

[TheWildJacko]

Why can Shaw be relentlessly criticized but any criticism of Tara is met with profanity and claims of troll?  Why can football threads be filled to the brim with insults of Shaw but one post questioning Tara's coaching decisions is brutally attacked?

FWIW I don't think it was coaching.  Tara can't go into the game and make the shots.  The players had a sub-par shooting game from almost everywhere on the court and there's not too much the coaches can do about that.  It happens and you can never predict when it's going to happen.

I feel it was a great season for the team.  It's very difficult to win an NC.  So many things can go wrong.  I appreciate when any Stanford sports team makes it to the final four.  Having said that, I don't have a problem with criticism of a coach/player as long as it is a genuine and honest opinion.

There are some cardboarders who can vouch for my connection and loyalty to Stanford.  I try to be what I consider objective in evaluating coaches/players and that doesn't seem to be tolerated well on the WBB or WVB threads.  My warning level was increased for a few comments on the WVB thread which were far less incendiary than some comments here.

I don't want to be banned but if I'm banned for this post, so be it.

I have no problem with anyone criticizing Tara’s coaching decisions. I don’t think she coached her best game last night. If they had questioned her coaching decisions in the game, or had anything specific at all about the game, I actually probably would have agreed with them. But that’s not what they did (at least not in the first post). Instead, they come in and say she’s not a great coach (not just not a great coach, but a “meh” coach, which is pretty insulting, and come on, read the room—that’s just a d!ckish thing to say following a season-ending Final Four loss), how they’ve been saying all week that we’re going to lose because Geno is a much better coach (basically gloating that they were right), and that all our wins are due to her recruiting, but that the recruiting is probably due to the school and not her. So, a whole bunch of massively unfounded claims with nothing of substance regarding the actual game.

So yes, I responded harshly, and while I normally don’t like to use profanity on message boards, I actually think that comment deserved it.

ETA: They also later said they believe “Success in college hoops, like all college sports, is more a function of talent than coaching,” which in addition to being completely contradictory to their previous posts—do we blame our loss on the coaching or do we blame it on the players’ lack of talent (because if success isn’t a function of coaching then why blame the coach)?—is also just totally not based in reality. Good coaching matters. Talent matters. You need both to win, plus a lot of luck. Plenty of loaded teams have underperformed because they don’t have a Tara, Geno or Pat at the helm. And also, good coaches attract good players. Do they think Stanford just magically became a WBB superpower on its own?

[treetop11]

Stanford got its butt kicked on the boards: 46-37. 
Strange indeed. Was it primarily a matter of bad 
luck, bad positioning, or being out-hustled?

I saw some of all of the above, but mostly bad positioning and a couple of times, not strong enough.

---

Still have the game zooming around in my head, so wanted to post some thoughts now so maybe I can sleep tonight. 
- Interesting move by Geno to start the game in a zone. I thought that was very risky, but it paid off. 
- I have a theory on Lexie's game...she did an awesome job defensively on Bueckers. Holding her to 14 points was tremendous. Sometimes that sort of defensive assignment ends up taking all your focus and energy. She just couldn't seem to find her rhythm on offense. I so wish her 3 would have gone in to cut the lead to 2 with 45 seconds left!
- The offensive foul on Haley with around a minute left...half of Edwards foot was over the charge line. Why didn't that get reviewed? That was a pretty big call. Haley would have gotten 2 shots and instead they got 2. The inconsistencies in instant replay review drive me nuts. They'll spend forever looking to see who's fingernail hit it last or how many tenths of a second to put on the clock, but they won't look at a foot on a line?
- My two keys to the game were met: 1) Keep Bueckers under her average (check, average 14.8, held to 14)  2) Don't let Fudd go off from the 3-pt line (check - she made zero and only had 2 baskets before making free throws in the end). They only had 39 points as a team after 3 quarters. If you would have told me that would be the case before the tip (and we only made 11 turnovers and they made 19), I would have thought the game was in the bag. Guess I didn't think there was a universe where we shot that poorly.
- Big time credit to UConn for winning the game at the line. 16-20 from the line and 15-17 in the 4th is big time.
- How about Lacie's game. 9 boards, 2 steals, 0 turnovers in 40 minutes.
- I didn't like the sub to put Kiki in for Cam to start the 4th. Why? Did Cam need a rest? She only had 2 fouls? Kiki's been sitting cold on the bench all game - it's just such a tough spot to be in to have to go in and guard a UConn big in the heat of a Final Four battle, and for a freshman to boot. 
- Loved Emma coming in at the end for the press and what a play she made!
- I think it was a mistake to play Hannah so much in the second half in Anna's place. She wasn't being that effective on offense. The one thing about Anna is she makes plays and she's a winner. I think she needed to be on the court in the 4th. 
- When they played with only one big in the first half and we went with our big lineup of Hulls, Haley, Cam, and Fran, it didn't work because we couldn't guard them on the perimeter. Give Westbrook credit for hitting those 3's. Those were of immense proportions for them.
- Happy to see Prechtel give some solid minutes and can a couple shots. 
- Felt like the refs did a reasonable job tonight with the foul calls. Still a few I would have let go, but 32 is way better than 46. 
- I know they won, but I still think we are better. Just not our night. 

Obviously a tremendous year for the team. I am going to really miss this group of seniors.

Yes, I didn't like the Kiki sub-in. It didn't work out having Jump in there, but that decision, I can understand. Tara was looking for an offensive spark because we weren't clicking and missing threes. Usually, Jump may even miss her first or even second shot, but there nails a few. She did not last night and really hasn't shot well in recent games. I'm a big Jump fan but disappointed that her play has trailed off lately. 
Officiating seemed pretty good overall, but very interesting about your observation on the Haley charge, didn't see that. Question though; even if the defender is inside the arc or has a foot in, can a player still be called for a charge with a deliberate shove or push off? as opposed to just body banging?

[treetop11]

Stanford got its butt kicked on the boards: 46-37. 
Strange indeed. Was it primarily a matter of bad 
luck, bad positioning, or being out-hustled?

I saw some of all of the above, but mostly bad positioning and a couple of times, not strong enough.

---

Still have the game zooming around in my head, so wanted to post some thoughts now so maybe I can sleep tonight. 
- Interesting move by Geno to start the game in a zone. I thought that was very risky, but it paid off. 
- I have a theory on Lexie's game...she did an awesome job defensively on Bueckers. Holding her to 14 points was tremendous. Sometimes that sort of defensive assignment ends up taking all your focus and energy. She just couldn't seem to find her rhythm on offense. I so wish her 3 would have gone in to cut the lead to 2 with 45 seconds left!
- The offensive foul on Haley with around a minute left...half of Edwards foot was over the charge line. Why didn't that get reviewed? That was a pretty big call. Haley would have gotten 2 shots and instead they got 2. The inconsistencies in instant replay review drive me nuts. They'll spend forever looking to see who's fingernail hit it last or how many tenths of a second to put on the clock, but they won't look at a foot on a line?
- My two keys to the game were met: 1) Keep Bueckers under her average (check, average 14.8, held to 14)  2) Don't let Fudd go off from the 3-pt line (check - she made zero and only had 2 baskets before making free throws in the end). They only had 39 points as a team after 3 quarters. If you would have told me that would be the case before the tip (and we only made 11 turnovers and they made 19), I would have thought the game was in the bag. Guess I didn't think there was a universe where we shot that poorly.
- Big time credit to UConn for winning the game at the line. 16-20 from the line and 15-17 in the 4th is big time.
- How about Lacie's game. 9 boards, 2 steals, 0 turnovers in 40 minutes.
- I didn't like the sub to put Kiki in for Cam to start the 4th. Why? Did Cam need a rest? She only had 2 fouls? Kiki's been sitting cold on the bench all game - it's just such a tough spot to be in to have to go in and guard a UConn big in the heat of a Final Four battle, and for a freshman to boot. 
- Loved Emma coming in at the end for the press and what a play she made!
- I think it was a mistake to play Hannah so much in the second half in Anna's place. She wasn't being that effective on offense. The one thing about Anna is she makes plays and she's a winner. I think she needed to be on the court in the 4th. 
- When they played with only one big in the first half and we went with our big lineup of Hulls, Haley, Cam, and Fran, it didn't work because we couldn't guard them on the perimeter. Give Westbrook credit for hitting those 3's. Those were of immense proportions for them.
- Happy to see Prechtel give some solid minutes and can a couple shots. 
- Felt like the refs did a reasonable job tonight with the foul calls. Still a few I would have let go, but 32 is way better than 46. 
- I know they won, but I still think we are better. Just not our night. 

Obviously a tremendous year for the team. I am going to really miss this group of seniors.

Yes, I didn't like the Kiki sub-in. It didn't work out having Jump in there, but that decision, I can understand. Tara was looking for an offensive spark because we weren't clicking and missing threes. Usually, Jump may even miss her first or even second shot, but there nails a few. She did not last night and really hasn't shot well in recent games. I'm a big Jump fan but disappointed that her play has trailed off lately. 
Officiating seemed pretty good overall, but very interesting about your observation on the Haley charge, didn't see that. Question though; even if the defender is inside the arc or has a foot in, can a player still be called for a charge with a deliberate shove or push off? as opposed to just body banging?

[BostonCard]

https://www.basketballwiki.net/index.php...emi-Circle

It sounds like the contact has to occur within the semi-circle, so it is not based on whether a player is touching the line or not.  That being said, I thought it was a blocking foul for more mundane reasons; the defender hadn’t established position and was still shuffling her feet when the contact occurred.  So I thought it should have been a blocking foul and not a charge.  But this is the sort of judgment call that refs make all the time and sometimes get wrong.  Overall, I thought the refs did a good job.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.basketballwiki.net/index.php...emi-Circle

It sounds like the contact has to occur within the semi-circle, so it is not based on whether a player is touching the line or not.  That being said, I thought it was a blocking foul for more mundane reasons; the defender hadn’t established position and was still shuffling her feet when the contact occurred.  So I thought it should have been a blocking foul and not a charge.  But this is the sort of judgment call that refs make all the time and sometimes get wrong.  Overall, I thought the refs did a good job.

BC

[kat0189]

I would like to see a pity verbal to help us heal from this loss.

Juju? Olivia? Joyce? Kendall? Hidalgo or Briggs? Be our silver lining...

[kat0189]

I would like to see a pity verbal to help us heal from this loss.

Juju? Olivia? Joyce? Kendall? Hidalgo or Briggs? Be our silver lining...

[BillBradley]

Stanford got its butt kicked on the boards: 46-37. 
Strange indeed. Was it primarily a matter of bad 
luck, bad positioning, or being out-hustled?

I saw some of all of the above, but mostly bad positioning and a couple of times, not strong enough.

---

Still have the game zooming around in my head, so wanted to post some thoughts now so maybe I can sleep tonight. 
- Interesting move by Geno to start the game in a zone. I thought that was very risky, but it paid off. 
- I have a theory on Lexie's game...she did an awesome job defensively on Bueckers. Holding her to 14 points was tremendous. Sometimes that sort of defensive assignment ends up taking all your focus and energy. She just couldn't seem to find her rhythm on offense. I so wish her 3 would have gone in to cut the lead to 2 with 45 seconds left!
- The offensive foul on Haley with around a minute left...half of Edwards foot was over the charge line. Why didn't that get reviewed? That was a pretty big call. Haley would have gotten 2 shots and instead they got 2. The inconsistencies in instant replay review drive me nuts. They'll spend forever looking to see who's fingernail hit it last or how many tenths of a second to put on the clock, but they won't look at a foot on a line?
- My two keys to the game were met: 1) Keep Bueckers under her average (check, average 14.8, held to 14)  2) Don't let Fudd go off from the 3-pt line (check - she made zero and only had 2 baskets before making free throws in the end). They only had 39 points as a team after 3 quarters. If you would have told me that would be the case before the tip (and we only made 11 turnovers and they made 19), I would have thought the game was in the bag. Guess I didn't think there was a universe where we shot that poorly.
- Big time credit to UConn for winning the game at the line. 16-20 from the line and 15-17 in the 4th is big time.
- How about Lacie's game. 9 boards, 2 steals, 0 turnovers in 40 minutes.
- I didn't like the sub to put Kiki in for Cam to start the 4th. Why? Did Cam need a rest? She only had 2 fouls? Kiki's been sitting cold on the bench all game - it's just such a tough spot to be in to have to go in and guard a UConn big in the heat of a Final Four battle, and for a freshman to boot. 
- Loved Emma coming in at the end for the press and what a play she made!
- I think it was a mistake to play Hannah so much in the second half in Anna's place. She wasn't being that effective on offense. The one thing about Anna is she makes plays and she's a winner. I think she needed to be on the court in the 4th. 
- When they played with only one big in the first half and we went with our big lineup of Hulls, Haley, Cam, and Fran, it didn't work because we couldn't guard them on the perimeter. Give Westbrook credit for hitting those 3's. Those were of immense proportions for them.
- Happy to see Prechtel give some solid minutes and can a couple shots. 
- Felt like the refs did a reasonable job tonight with the foul calls. Still a few I would have let go, but 32 is way better than 46. 
- I know they won, but I still think we are better. Just not our night. 

Obviously a tremendous year for the team. I am going to really miss this group of seniors.

Yes, I didn't like the Kiki sub-in. It didn't work out having Jump in there, but that decision, I can understand. Tara was looking for an offensive spark because we weren't clicking and missing threes. Usually, Jump may even miss her first or even second shot, but there nails a few. She did not last night and really hasn't shot well in recent games. I'm a big Jump fan but disappointed that her play has trailed off lately. 
Officiating seemed pretty good overall, but very interesting about your observation on the Haley charge, didn't see that. Question though; even if the defender is inside the arc or has a foot in, can a player still be called for a charge with a deliberate shove or push off? as opposed to just body banging?

re: rebounding...there's more to the story. O-boards were even at 12 apiece. They got more defensive rebounds because we missed way more shots than they did so they had many more opportunities. I guess we could be criticized for not getting more o-boards, but in the end I don't think you can point to rebounding as one of the main differentiators in the game. I look at it like it was pretty even and both teams held serve.

[BillBradley]

Stanford got its butt kicked on the boards: 46-37. 
Strange indeed. Was it primarily a matter of bad 
luck, bad positioning, or being out-hustled?

I saw some of all of the above, but mostly bad positioning and a couple of times, not strong enough.

---

Still have the game zooming around in my head, so wanted to post some thoughts now so maybe I can sleep tonight. 
- Interesting move by Geno to start the game in a zone. I thought that was very risky, but it paid off. 
- I have a theory on Lexie's game...she did an awesome job defensively on Bueckers. Holding her to 14 points was tremendous. Sometimes that sort of defensive assignment ends up taking all your focus and energy. She just couldn't seem to find her rhythm on offense. I so wish her 3 would have gone in to cut the lead to 2 with 45 seconds left!
- The offensive foul on Haley with around a minute left...half of Edwards foot was over the charge line. Why didn't that get reviewed? That was a pretty big call. Haley would have gotten 2 shots and instead they got 2. The inconsistencies in instant replay review drive me nuts. They'll spend forever looking to see who's fingernail hit it last or how many tenths of a second to put on the clock, but they won't look at a foot on a line?
- My two keys to the game were met: 1) Keep Bueckers under her average (check, average 14.8, held to 14)  2) Don't let Fudd go off from the 3-pt line (check - she made zero and only had 2 baskets before making free throws in the end). They only had 39 points as a team after 3 quarters. If you would have told me that would be the case before the tip (and we only made 11 turnovers and they made 19), I would have thought the game was in the bag. Guess I didn't think there was a universe where we shot that poorly.
- Big time credit to UConn for winning the game at the line. 16-20 from the line and 15-17 in the 4th is big time.
- How about Lacie's game. 9 boards, 2 steals, 0 turnovers in 40 minutes.
- I didn't like the sub to put Kiki in for Cam to start the 4th. Why? Did Cam need a rest? She only had 2 fouls? Kiki's been sitting cold on the bench all game - it's just such a tough spot to be in to have to go in and guard a UConn big in the heat of a Final Four battle, and for a freshman to boot. 
- Loved Emma coming in at the end for the press and what a play she made!
- I think it was a mistake to play Hannah so much in the second half in Anna's place. She wasn't being that effective on offense. The one thing about Anna is she makes plays and she's a winner. I think she needed to be on the court in the 4th. 
- When they played with only one big in the first half and we went with our big lineup of Hulls, Haley, Cam, and Fran, it didn't work because we couldn't guard them on the perimeter. Give Westbrook credit for hitting those 3's. Those were of immense proportions for them.
- Happy to see Prechtel give some solid minutes and can a couple shots. 
- Felt like the refs did a reasonable job tonight with the foul calls. Still a few I would have let go, but 32 is way better than 46. 
- I know they won, but I still think we are better. Just not our night. 

Obviously a tremendous year for the team. I am going to really miss this group of seniors.

Yes, I didn't like the Kiki sub-in. It didn't work out having Jump in there, but that decision, I can understand. Tara was looking for an offensive spark because we weren't clicking and missing threes. Usually, Jump may even miss her first or even second shot, but there nails a few. She did not last night and really hasn't shot well in recent games. I'm a big Jump fan but disappointed that her play has trailed off lately. 
Officiating seemed pretty good overall, but very interesting about your observation on the Haley charge, didn't see that. Question though; even if the defender is inside the arc or has a foot in, can a player still be called for a charge with a deliberate shove or push off? as opposed to just body banging?

re: rebounding...there's more to the story. O-boards were even at 12 apiece. They got more defensive rebounds because we missed way more shots than they did so they had many more opportunities. I guess we could be criticized for not getting more o-boards, but in the end I don't think you can point to rebounding as one of the main differentiators in the game. I look at it like it was pretty even and both teams held serve.