[Maple Leaf]

Terrible night and just too tight. Never seen so many bunnies missed. Yes Reffing terrible but not on them.

The number of missed bunnies reminded me of Stanford's loss to the domers the year the little green things won their last national championship.

[Maple Leaf]

Terrible night and just too tight. Never seen so many bunnies missed. Yes Reffing terrible but not on them.

The number of missed bunnies reminded me of Stanford's loss to the domers the year the little green things won their last national championship.

[81alum]

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

[81alum]

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

[petersalas]

I’m so bitter, but it makes me sick seeing how much coaches complain to refs, which makes refs start making calls against the other team. They are taking notes from Dawn Staley. It’s like refs are afraid to call what they think they should be calling.. it happened Vs South Carolina and it happened today.. I sit on the visitor bench side and know the coaches have an impact.

[petersalas]

I’m so bitter, but it makes me sick seeing how much coaches complain to refs, which makes refs start making calls against the other team. They are taking notes from Dawn Staley. It’s like refs are afraid to call what they think they should be calling.. it happened Vs South Carolina and it happened today.. I sit on the visitor bench side and know the coaches have an impact.

[chimera]

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

I am not enjoying all the silly stuff about people "getting run off the board" and all that.  If you state an opinion and others disagree, that is not getting run off, that is a discussion board.  It's cool if people take positions that are not popular, but they have to also take the pushback from opposing opinions.  Stop the martyr stuff.  Tara is not a poor coach.  The record speaks for itself.  She has her strengths and weaknesses, as do we all.  I don't think this was one of her better seasons.  I imagine she would agree.  

I replied with that quote because I think it was the essence of the problem all year - the offense was just not up to Stanford standards.  Maybe the reason we had so many games like this game with "silly" turnovers and less involvement from players other than Jones, Brink, and Jump was that the offense was simply not working well and players tried to do too much, make plays that were not there.  The team was less than the sum of its parts on offense.  That is not the fault of any player.  Not Lepolo's fault.  Not Jones' fault for trying to take on difficult drives.  The player and ball movement was never there.  It was a stagnant offense against aggressive, physical defenses.  I am not a coach so I have no idea if this was the best way or if there was a better way.  All I know is in never looked right.  I was not surprised at the way the game played out.  Sad for the players, disappointed that the great crowd got no joy, but not at all surprised.

Goodbye Funky Four, may your future endeavors be successful.  It's been a pleasure.  Good news on Jump.  Hope we run an offense that gets her open more next season.  Good luck to Belibi at Harvard.  If she plays ball there I will be rooting for her and them.  Good luck to Jones in the pros.  She's been a pleasure to watch.  I will be watching her and rooting for her in WNBA.  I don't know where Ashten will end up, but if she decides to play somewhere else I will root for her (knock wood it is at somewhere I can do that and root for the whole team too, if she does play another season elsewhere).

[chimera]

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

I am not enjoying all the silly stuff about people "getting run off the board" and all that.  If you state an opinion and others disagree, that is not getting run off, that is a discussion board.  It's cool if people take positions that are not popular, but they have to also take the pushback from opposing opinions.  Stop the martyr stuff.  Tara is not a poor coach.  The record speaks for itself.  She has her strengths and weaknesses, as do we all.  I don't think this was one of her better seasons.  I imagine she would agree.  

I replied with that quote because I think it was the essence of the problem all year - the offense was just not up to Stanford standards.  Maybe the reason we had so many games like this game with "silly" turnovers and less involvement from players other than Jones, Brink, and Jump was that the offense was simply not working well and players tried to do too much, make plays that were not there.  The team was less than the sum of its parts on offense.  That is not the fault of any player.  Not Lepolo's fault.  Not Jones' fault for trying to take on difficult drives.  The player and ball movement was never there.  It was a stagnant offense against aggressive, physical defenses.  I am not a coach so I have no idea if this was the best way or if there was a better way.  All I know is in never looked right.  I was not surprised at the way the game played out.  Sad for the players, disappointed that the great crowd got no joy, but not at all surprised.

Goodbye Funky Four, may your future endeavors be successful.  It's been a pleasure.  Good news on Jump.  Hope we run an offense that gets her open more next season.  Good luck to Belibi at Harvard.  If she plays ball there I will be rooting for her and them.  Good luck to Jones in the pros.  She's been a pleasure to watch.  I will be watching her and rooting for her in WNBA.  I don't know where Ashten will end up, but if she decides to play somewhere else I will root for her (knock wood it is at somewhere I can do that and root for the whole team too, if she does play another season elsewhere).

[Maple Leaf]

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

I am not enjoying all the silly stuff about people "getting run off the board" and all that.  If you state an opinion and others disagree, that is not getting run off, that is a discussion board.  It's cool if people take positions that are not popular, but they have to also take the pushback from opposing opinions.  Stop the martyr stuff.  Tara is not a poor coach.  The record speaks for itself.  She has her strengths and weaknesses, as do we all.  I don't think this was one of her better seasons.  I imagine she would agree.  

I replied with that quote because I think it was the essence of the problem all year - the offense was just not up to Stanford standards.  Maybe the reason we had so many games like this game with "silly" turnovers and less involvement from players other than Jones, Brink, and Jump was that the offense was simply not working well and players tried to do too much, make plays that were not there.  The team was less than the sum of its parts on offense.  That is not the fault of any player.  Not Lepolo's fault.  Not Jones' fault for trying to take on difficult drives.  The player and ball movement was never there.  It was a stagnant offense against aggressive, physical defenses.  I am not a coach so I have no idea if this was the best way or if there was a better way.  All I know is in never looked right.  I was not surprised at the way the game played out.  Sad for the players, disappointed that the great crowd got no joy, but not at all surprised.

Goodbye Funky Four, may your future endeavors be successful.  It's been a pleasure.  Good news on Jump.  Hope we run an offense that gets her open more next season.  Good luck to Belibi at Harvard.  If she plays ball there I will be rooting for her and them.  Good luck to Jones in the pros.  She's been a pleasure to watch.  I will be watching her and rooting for her in WNBA.  I don't know where Ashten will end up, but if she decides to play somewhere else I will root for her (knock wood it is at somewhere I can do that and root for the whole team too, if she does play another season elsewhere).

Totally agree with this post.

[Maple Leaf]

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

I am not enjoying all the silly stuff about people "getting run off the board" and all that.  If you state an opinion and others disagree, that is not getting run off, that is a discussion board.  It's cool if people take positions that are not popular, but they have to also take the pushback from opposing opinions.  Stop the martyr stuff.  Tara is not a poor coach.  The record speaks for itself.  She has her strengths and weaknesses, as do we all.  I don't think this was one of her better seasons.  I imagine she would agree.  

I replied with that quote because I think it was the essence of the problem all year - the offense was just not up to Stanford standards.  Maybe the reason we had so many games like this game with "silly" turnovers and less involvement from players other than Jones, Brink, and Jump was that the offense was simply not working well and players tried to do too much, make plays that were not there.  The team was less than the sum of its parts on offense.  That is not the fault of any player.  Not Lepolo's fault.  Not Jones' fault for trying to take on difficult drives.  The player and ball movement was never there.  It was a stagnant offense against aggressive, physical defenses.  I am not a coach so I have no idea if this was the best way or if there was a better way.  All I know is in never looked right.  I was not surprised at the way the game played out.  Sad for the players, disappointed that the great crowd got no joy, but not at all surprised.

Goodbye Funky Four, may your future endeavors be successful.  It's been a pleasure.  Good news on Jump.  Hope we run an offense that gets her open more next season.  Good luck to Belibi at Harvard.  If she plays ball there I will be rooting for her and them.  Good luck to Jones in the pros.  She's been a pleasure to watch.  I will be watching her and rooting for her in WNBA.  I don't know where Ashten will end up, but if she decides to play somewhere else I will root for her (knock wood it is at somewhere I can do that and root for the whole team too, if she does play another season elsewhere).

Totally agree with this post.

[81alum]

Ashton already has her MA and wants to play pro, so I imagine she will be overseas next year.  Jones will be in the WNBA.  Belibi to Harvard but Tara doesn't know whether she will play ball there.  She wants to be a pediatrician--I presume the Harvard program is either med school or something preparatory for med school. 

Jump coming back is really, really good news.

Picking over Tara's comments, she noted that Brink was not 100% tonight, but that "we could not have asked for more from her."

[81alum]

Ashton already has her MA and wants to play pro, so I imagine she will be overseas next year.  Jones will be in the WNBA.  Belibi to Harvard but Tara doesn't know whether she will play ball there.  She wants to be a pediatrician--I presume the Harvard program is either med school or something preparatory for med school. 

Jump coming back is really, really good news.

Picking over Tara's comments, she noted that Brink was not 100% tonight, but that "we could not have asked for more from her."

[MV72018]

Jayda Curry had a 4.5 GPA in high school.  We really need a player like her to transfer.  Or Nivar to become more of a scorer.  Or Clardy and Ogden to be those athletic scoring guards/wings.  Brink needs more help next year.

That's for sure, BC. And the help she needs is not just other viable scoring options to keep people from doubling and tripling her, but better coaching that can develop an offense that flows rather than being slow and static.

[MV72018]

Jayda Curry had a 4.5 GPA in high school.  We really need a player like her to transfer.  Or Nivar to become more of a scorer.  Or Clardy and Ogden to be those athletic scoring guards/wings.  Brink needs more help next year.

That's for sure, BC. And the help she needs is not just other viable scoring options to keep people from doubling and tripling her, but better coaching that can develop an offense that flows rather than being slow and static.

[cardfan1996]

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

Okay but the offense has struggled all year, and the only change she ever made was putting Agnes or Kiki in the starting lineup, and she had a lot more “offensive” options to compliment Brink’s  or Haley’s skillset.

I am glad she said “it is on [her].” That’s refreshing. Because the announcers kept saying from the beginning of the game and throughout the game that Tara said her team was in for a “rude awakening” re: Ole Miss’ defense. Those were her exact words to the announcers pregame and I kept thinking: aren’t you the coach? Why would your team be in for a rude awakening if you prepared them? Isn’t that your job?

[cardfan1996]

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

Okay but the offense has struggled all year, and the only change she ever made was putting Agnes or Kiki in the starting lineup, and she had a lot more “offensive” options to compliment Brink’s  or Haley’s skillset.

I am glad she said “it is on [her].” That’s refreshing. Because the announcers kept saying from the beginning of the game and throughout the game that Tara said her team was in for a “rude awakening” re: Ole Miss’ defense. Those were her exact words to the announcers pregame and I kept thinking: aren’t you the coach? Why would your team be in for a rude awakening if you prepared them? Isn’t that your job?

[lsmant]

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

I am not enjoying all the silly stuff about people "getting run off the board" and all that.  If you state an opinion and others disagree, that is not getting run off, that is a discussion board.  It's cool if people take positions that are not popular, but they have to also take the pushback from opposing opinions.  Stop the martyr stuff.  Tara is not a poor coach.  The record speaks for itself.  She has her strengths and weaknesses, as do we all.  I don't think this was one of her better seasons.  I imagine she would agree.  

I replied with that quote because I think it was the essence of the problem all year - the offense was just not up to Stanford standards.  Maybe the reason we had so many games like this game with "silly" turnovers and less involvement from players other than Jones, Brink, and Jump was that the offense was simply not working well and players tried to do too much, make plays that were not there.  The team was less than the sum of its parts on offense.  That is not the fault of any player.  Not Lepolo's fault.  Not Jones' fault for trying to take on difficult drives.  The player and ball movement was never there.  It was a stagnant offense against aggressive, physical defenses.  I am not a coach so I have no idea if this was the best way or if there was a better way.  All I know is in never looked right.  I was not surprised at the way the game played out.  Sad for the players, disappointed that the great crowd got no joy, but not at all surprised.

Goodbye Funky Four, may your future endeavors be successful.  It's been a pleasure.  Good news on Jump.  Hope we run an offense that gets her open more next season.  Good luck to Belibi at Harvard.  If she plays ball there I will be rooting for her and them.  Good luck to Jones in the pros.  She's been a pleasure to watch.  I will be watching her and rooting for her in WNBA.  I don't know where Ashten will end up, but if she decides to play somewhere else I will root for her (knock wood it is at somewhere I can do that and root for the whole team too, if she does play another season elsewhere).

Once again, thanks to the two of you for your posts which reflect my thoughts and feelings so accurately. See you when volleyball starts up!

[lsmant]

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

I am not enjoying all the silly stuff about people "getting run off the board" and all that.  If you state an opinion and others disagree, that is not getting run off, that is a discussion board.  It's cool if people take positions that are not popular, but they have to also take the pushback from opposing opinions.  Stop the martyr stuff.  Tara is not a poor coach.  The record speaks for itself.  She has her strengths and weaknesses, as do we all.  I don't think this was one of her better seasons.  I imagine she would agree.  

I replied with that quote because I think it was the essence of the problem all year - the offense was just not up to Stanford standards.  Maybe the reason we had so many games like this game with "silly" turnovers and less involvement from players other than Jones, Brink, and Jump was that the offense was simply not working well and players tried to do too much, make plays that were not there.  The team was less than the sum of its parts on offense.  That is not the fault of any player.  Not Lepolo's fault.  Not Jones' fault for trying to take on difficult drives.  The player and ball movement was never there.  It was a stagnant offense against aggressive, physical defenses.  I am not a coach so I have no idea if this was the best way or if there was a better way.  All I know is in never looked right.  I was not surprised at the way the game played out.  Sad for the players, disappointed that the great crowd got no joy, but not at all surprised.

Goodbye Funky Four, may your future endeavors be successful.  It's been a pleasure.  Good news on Jump.  Hope we run an offense that gets her open more next season.  Good luck to Belibi at Harvard.  If she plays ball there I will be rooting for her and them.  Good luck to Jones in the pros.  She's been a pleasure to watch.  I will be watching her and rooting for her in WNBA.  I don't know where Ashten will end up, but if she decides to play somewhere else I will root for her (knock wood it is at somewhere I can do that and root for the whole team too, if she does play another season elsewhere).

Once again, thanks to the two of you for your posts which reflect my thoughts and feelings so accurately. See you when volleyball starts up!

[MV72018]

1. Six Stanford players off the bench racked up 53 minutes of playing time and scored a rousing total of 3 points in the entire game! 

2. Two of the starters were non-factors: Iriakin (0 points) and Lepolo (2 points) in 37 minutes. Both of them desperately need to develop a reliable shot or it will be 5 defenders of theirs on 3 offensive players of ours. 

3. Brink, Jones, and Jump scored 44 of Stanford's 49 points. 

Mind-boggling. Only 8 assists in this game for Stanford.

---

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

Okay but the offense has struggled all year, and the only change she ever made was putting Agnes or Kiki in the starting lineup, and she had a lot more “offensive” options to compliment Brink’s  or Haley’s skillset.

I am glad she said “it is on [her].” That’s refreshing. Because the announcers kept saying from the beginning of the game and throughout the game that Tara said her team was in for a “rude awakening” re: Ole Miss’ defense. Those were her exact words to the announcers pregame and I kept thinking: aren’t you the coach? Why would your team be in for a rude awakening if you prepared them? Isn’t that your job?

Precisely. She had ample time to prepare them after an easy game (after the first quarter) against SHU. Didn't the other coaches have specific game plans and plays ready to install on Saturday and go over again early today? What a strange thing for Tara to say before the game. Sounds almost fatalistic. Looking forward, this will not be the last time Tara's team will face this kind of athletic defense. It's going to happen with increasing frequency. So Tara needs to change both the kinds of players she recruits and the O she installs. Will she? Remains to be seen.

[MV72018]

1. Six Stanford players off the bench racked up 53 minutes of playing time and scored a rousing total of 3 points in the entire game! 

2. Two of the starters were non-factors: Iriakin (0 points) and Lepolo (2 points) in 37 minutes. Both of them desperately need to develop a reliable shot or it will be 5 defenders of theirs on 3 offensive players of ours. 

3. Brink, Jones, and Jump scored 44 of Stanford's 49 points. 

Mind-boggling. Only 8 assists in this game for Stanford.

---

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

Okay but the offense has struggled all year, and the only change she ever made was putting Agnes or Kiki in the starting lineup, and she had a lot more “offensive” options to compliment Brink’s  or Haley’s skillset.

I am glad she said “it is on [her].” That’s refreshing. Because the announcers kept saying from the beginning of the game and throughout the game that Tara said her team was in for a “rude awakening” re: Ole Miss’ defense. Those were her exact words to the announcers pregame and I kept thinking: aren’t you the coach? Why would your team be in for a rude awakening if you prepared them? Isn’t that your job?

Precisely. She had ample time to prepare them after an easy game (after the first quarter) against SHU. Didn't the other coaches have specific game plans and plays ready to install on Saturday and go over again early today? What a strange thing for Tara to say before the game. Sounds almost fatalistic. Looking forward, this will not be the last time Tara's team will face this kind of athletic defense. It's going to happen with increasing frequency. So Tara needs to change both the kinds of players she recruits and the O she installs. Will she? Remains to be seen.

[cardfan1996]

So Lepolo had more turnovers than points? And Tara and Kate made her guard a WNBA prospect the entire game and she kept going under screens (as she has the entire year). There is no way she should have been playing most of the 2nd half.

---

1. Six Stanford players off the bench racked up 53 minutes of playing time and scored a rousing total of 3 points in the entire game! 

2. Two of the starter were non-factors: Iriakin (0 points) and Lepolo (2 points) in 37 minutes. Both of them desperately need to develop a reliable shot.  

3. Brink, Jones, and Jump scored 44 of Stanford's 49 points. 

Mind-boggling. Only 8 assists in this game for Stanford.

---

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

Okay but the offense has struggled all year, and the only change she ever made was putting Agnes or Kiki in the starting lineup, and she had a lot more “offensive” options to compliment Brink’s  or Haley’s skillset.

I am glad she said “it is on [her].” That’s refreshing. Because the announcers kept saying from the beginning of the game and throughout the game that Tara said her team was in for a “rude awakening” re: Ole Miss’ defense. Those were her exact words to the announcers pregame and I kept thinking: aren’t you the coach? Why would your team be in for a rude awakening if you prepared them? Isn’t that your job?

Precisely. She had ample time to prepare them after an easy game (after the first quarter) against SHU. Didn't the other coaches have specific game plans and plays ready to install on Saturday and go over again early today? What a strange thing for Tara to say before the game. Sounds almost fatalistic. Looking forward, this will not be the last time Tara's team will face this kind of athletic defense. It's going to happen with increasing frequency. So Tara needs to change both the kinds of players she recruits and the O she installs. Will she? Remains to be seen.

I’ve given up hope. She had so many chances to pivot this year and every reason to with Haley’s last year and Brink’s breakout season. And it never happened. I am old enough to remember when after the Arizona game she admitted she was the problem and something about her “getting out of the way” and nothing ever came of that revelation. I don’t expect anything to come of “it’s on me.” I fully expect Lepolo and Agnes to start next year. And Tara will go to her summer home and emerge with an entirely new offensive system that no one can teach or run where Agnes is the co-point guard.

[cardfan1996]

So Lepolo had more turnovers than points? And Tara and Kate made her guard a WNBA prospect the entire game and she kept going under screens (as she has the entire year). There is no way she should have been playing most of the 2nd half.

---

1. Six Stanford players off the bench racked up 53 minutes of playing time and scored a rousing total of 3 points in the entire game! 

2. Two of the starter were non-factors: Iriakin (0 points) and Lepolo (2 points) in 37 minutes. Both of them desperately need to develop a reliable shot.  

3. Brink, Jones, and Jump scored 44 of Stanford's 49 points. 

Mind-boggling. Only 8 assists in this game for Stanford.

---

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

Okay but the offense has struggled all year, and the only change she ever made was putting Agnes or Kiki in the starting lineup, and she had a lot more “offensive” options to compliment Brink’s  or Haley’s skillset.

I am glad she said “it is on [her].” That’s refreshing. Because the announcers kept saying from the beginning of the game and throughout the game that Tara said her team was in for a “rude awakening” re: Ole Miss’ defense. Those were her exact words to the announcers pregame and I kept thinking: aren’t you the coach? Why would your team be in for a rude awakening if you prepared them? Isn’t that your job?

Precisely. She had ample time to prepare them after an easy game (after the first quarter) against SHU. Didn't the other coaches have specific game plans and plays ready to install on Saturday and go over again early today? What a strange thing for Tara to say before the game. Sounds almost fatalistic. Looking forward, this will not be the last time Tara's team will face this kind of athletic defense. It's going to happen with increasing frequency. So Tara needs to change both the kinds of players she recruits and the O she installs. Will she? Remains to be seen.

I’ve given up hope. She had so many chances to pivot this year and every reason to with Haley’s last year and Brink’s breakout season. And it never happened. I am old enough to remember when after the Arizona game she admitted she was the problem and something about her “getting out of the way” and nothing ever came of that revelation. I don’t expect anything to come of “it’s on me.” I fully expect Lepolo and Agnes to start next year. And Tara will go to her summer home and emerge with an entirely new offensive system that no one can teach or run where Agnes is the co-point guard.

[amytmueller]

I just finished watching the Ole Miss presser and encourage you to do the same.  Coach Yo is very likable, and very much the opposite of Tara, personality-wise.  Makes me want to root for them going forward.

Like all of you, I'm very disappointed in the way this season ended.  But I think we mostly knew that we were not a championship caliber team, and knew that our offense, when faced with stifling defenses, would be the problem.  We looked great against weak teams, but could not score against great defenses.

Happy to hear that Hannah is coming back, good luck to Haley, Fran, and Ashten!  Already looking forward to next year.

[amytmueller]

I just finished watching the Ole Miss presser and encourage you to do the same.  Coach Yo is very likable, and very much the opposite of Tara, personality-wise.  Makes me want to root for them going forward.

Like all of you, I'm very disappointed in the way this season ended.  But I think we mostly knew that we were not a championship caliber team, and knew that our offense, when faced with stifling defenses, would be the problem.  We looked great against weak teams, but could not score against great defenses.

Happy to hear that Hannah is coming back, good luck to Haley, Fran, and Ashten!  Already looking forward to next year.

[81alum]

Since Candace Wiggins Stanford hasn't had anyone with real ability to take it hard to the hoop and finish or dish to the wings. It seems clear that Tara's preferred strategy is to go for a talented, very big 5, surround her with a couple of accurate outside shooters, and a guard who can set things up and feed the posts. 

McPhee was superb at slashing to the hoop.  Lexie could do it well, too, though not as well as McPhee.  Tara would love to have a Wiggins or a McPhee on this team, but she doesn't.  She went hard after Rice, but did not get her.

I'm inclined to think Tara recruits the best players she can regardless of position, and then tries to mold the offense around whoever she gets.  We sometime forget it is Stanford--and it is not football--meaning there are no allowances in WBB for players who can't meet the highest academic standards.  We can get great players, but we can't pick and choose them by position.  So in recent years she has hit the jackpot with big players and struck out on the elite guards (I would count Jones as a wing, personally)--Osborne, Rice, Watkins.  Apparently we came close in each case.  This has created an imbalance of talent on this team--a much stronger frontcourt than backcourt.

In her presser Tara was very supportive of Lepolo and Nivar, but it is clear that she feels that they need experience to more fully develop and be able to exert leadership in running the offense.  It is perfectly plausible that merely "good" guards can fit within a system and be very successful, but in the absence of elite talent what is needed is experience, which we sorely lacked.

So, I was asked what the problem was this year?  It is obvious: offense.  Our defense was excellent statistically, but our offense sputtered.  Why is that?  I do think it was spacing the floor, and agree that the main problem was that our perimeter shooting was not strong enough to open space inside.  

This year's offensive scheme did not work.  We abandoned the Princeton which our graduating guards Lexie-Lacie-Wilson had spent years learning, and went to the "flow" offense since it was supposedly simpler for our new guards to learn.  Jump had never been a starter, Emma-Nnopu had barely played, Nivar and Lepolo were freshmen.  Well, the new scheme turned out to work poorly for this group.  The "flow" needs to flow--the ball needs to be in constant motion, whether via pass or dribble. But often our ball handlers stopped that motion while looking for an opening, and when they did the defense tightened up on them. To counter this, it is my impression that the "flow" needs a lot of quality screening, and we never became a good screening team this year.  When Brink tried to screen she got called for many offensive fouls--a very slender "big" does not make for a great screener.  Many of the teams we played against ran screens much better than we did.  Just note the difficulties getting Jump open for three point attempts.

While Tara is quite famous for her flexibility in changing offensive schemes to suit her personnel, this year she failed to find a scheme that worked for the people she had.  We were told that she tried a new system after the dreadful USC loss--so she was rather desperately trying to find something that worked better as the weaknesses of our offense became apparent.

I'm not enough of a coach to know what system would have worked better.  Perhaps with all the great post depth we should go back to the "triangle" from the old Appel/Ogwumike days.  Tara abandoned the "triangle" after Chiney graduated since by then we had inexperienced posts and much better guards--Lili Thompson and Amber Orrange--and she wanted to screen for them and make them into the main engines of the next offense.  That lasted several years, but then with Jones coming and the arrival of "position less basketball" Tara left that offense to go the the Princeton, and we won a national championship with it.  There were horrific growing pains with the Princeton, but eventually it jelled.  But then with the loss of all our experienced guards she left the Princeton and installed the "flow", and, in my opinion, the "flow" flopped--either the scheme did not fit our personnel, or the personnel lacked the requisite skills to run it properly.

That is the best I can do late at night before a work day, heartsick for our team.

[81alum]

Since Candace Wiggins Stanford hasn't had anyone with real ability to take it hard to the hoop and finish or dish to the wings. It seems clear that Tara's preferred strategy is to go for a talented, very big 5, surround her with a couple of accurate outside shooters, and a guard who can set things up and feed the posts. 

McPhee was superb at slashing to the hoop.  Lexie could do it well, too, though not as well as McPhee.  Tara would love to have a Wiggins or a McPhee on this team, but she doesn't.  She went hard after Rice, but did not get her.

I'm inclined to think Tara recruits the best players she can regardless of position, and then tries to mold the offense around whoever she gets.  We sometime forget it is Stanford--and it is not football--meaning there are no allowances in WBB for players who can't meet the highest academic standards.  We can get great players, but we can't pick and choose them by position.  So in recent years she has hit the jackpot with big players and struck out on the elite guards (I would count Jones as a wing, personally)--Osborne, Rice, Watkins.  Apparently we came close in each case.  This has created an imbalance of talent on this team--a much stronger frontcourt than backcourt.

In her presser Tara was very supportive of Lepolo and Nivar, but it is clear that she feels that they need experience to more fully develop and be able to exert leadership in running the offense.  It is perfectly plausible that merely "good" guards can fit within a system and be very successful, but in the absence of elite talent what is needed is experience, which we sorely lacked.

So, I was asked what the problem was this year?  It is obvious: offense.  Our defense was excellent statistically, but our offense sputtered.  Why is that?  I do think it was spacing the floor, and agree that the main problem was that our perimeter shooting was not strong enough to open space inside.  

This year's offensive scheme did not work.  We abandoned the Princeton which our graduating guards Lexie-Lacie-Wilson had spent years learning, and went to the "flow" offense since it was supposedly simpler for our new guards to learn.  Jump had never been a starter, Emma-Nnopu had barely played, Nivar and Lepolo were freshmen.  Well, the new scheme turned out to work poorly for this group.  The "flow" needs to flow--the ball needs to be in constant motion, whether via pass or dribble. But often our ball handlers stopped that motion while looking for an opening, and when they did the defense tightened up on them. To counter this, it is my impression that the "flow" needs a lot of quality screening, and we never became a good screening team this year.  When Brink tried to screen she got called for many offensive fouls--a very slender "big" does not make for a great screener.  Many of the teams we played against ran screens much better than we did.  Just note the difficulties getting Jump open for three point attempts.

While Tara is quite famous for her flexibility in changing offensive schemes to suit her personnel, this year she failed to find a scheme that worked for the people she had.  We were told that she tried a new system after the dreadful USC loss--so she was rather desperately trying to find something that worked better as the weaknesses of our offense became apparent.

I'm not enough of a coach to know what system would have worked better.  Perhaps with all the great post depth we should go back to the "triangle" from the old Appel/Ogwumike days.  Tara abandoned the "triangle" after Chiney graduated since by then we had inexperienced posts and much better guards--Lili Thompson and Amber Orrange--and she wanted to screen for them and make them into the main engines of the next offense.  That lasted several years, but then with Jones coming and the arrival of "position less basketball" Tara left that offense to go the the Princeton, and we won a national championship with it.  There were horrific growing pains with the Princeton, but eventually it jelled.  But then with the loss of all our experienced guards she left the Princeton and installed the "flow", and, in my opinion, the "flow" flopped--either the scheme did not fit our personnel, or the personnel lacked the requisite skills to run it properly.

That is the best I can do late at night before a work day, heartsick for our team.

[cardfan1996]

I am so pissed for Cam mostly. What a generational talent and she does it the right way with being mentored by Paul Gasol, and seeking out all the right trainers for her professional development. And she was obviously still very much ill.  She deserved more from her coaches this entire year. She definitely would have been PAC-12 player of the year and First team All-American if her coaches surrounded her with players on the court the other teams would actually guard. She is almost pro-ready and has put herself in a great position for next year’s draft. Interestingly enough, she’d probably go #1 this year.

---

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

I am not enjoying all the silly stuff about people "getting run off the board" and all that.  If you state an opinion and others disagree, that is not getting run off, that is a discussion board.  It's cool if people take positions that are not popular, but they have to also take the pushback from opposing opinions.  Stop the martyr stuff.  Tara is not a poor coach.  The record speaks for itself.  She has her strengths and weaknesses, as do we all.  I don't think this was one of her better seasons.  I imagine she would agree.  

I replied with that quote because I think it was the essence of the problem all year - the offense was just not up to Stanford standards.  Maybe the reason we had so many games like this game with "silly" turnovers and less involvement from players other than Jones, Brink, and Jump was that the offense was simply not working well and players tried to do too much, make plays that were not there.  The team was less than the sum of its parts on offense.  That is not the fault of any player.  Not Lepolo's fault.  Not Jones' fault for trying to take on difficult drives.  The player and ball movement was never there.  It was a stagnant offense against aggressive, physical defenses.  I am not a coach so I have no idea if this was the best way or if there was a better way.  All I know is in never looked right.  I was not surprised at the way the game played out.  Sad for the players, disappointed that the great crowd got no joy, but not at all surprised.

Goodbye Funky Four, may your future endeavors be successful.  It's been a pleasure.  Good news on Jump.  Hope we run an offense that gets her open more next season.  Good luck to Belibi at Harvard.  If she plays ball there I will be rooting for her and them.  Good luck to Jones in the pros.  She's been a pleasure to watch.  I will be watching her and rooting for her in WNBA.  I don't know where Ashten will end up, but if she decides to play somewhere else I will root for her (knock wood it is at somewhere I can do that and root for the whole team too, if she does play another season elsewhere).

Being called names (which I was several times) is not pushback. I actually enjoy pushback especially if I learn something new I didn’t know about basketball. Sadly that didn’t happen with the “pushback.”

[cardfan1996]

I am so pissed for Cam mostly. What a generational talent and she does it the right way with being mentored by Paul Gasol, and seeking out all the right trainers for her professional development. And she was obviously still very much ill.  She deserved more from her coaches this entire year. She definitely would have been PAC-12 player of the year and First team All-American if her coaches surrounded her with players on the court the other teams would actually guard. She is almost pro-ready and has put herself in a great position for next year’s draft. Interestingly enough, she’d probably go #1 this year.

---

And, for all those who claim Tara does not take responsibility, she does. 

"This last month has been really hard.  We tried to rest our team as much as possible.  We needed to be playing better than we are right now.  I think our offense really struggled, and when that happens people try to do it by themselves, and I saw that throughout the whole game.  Both Haley and Cam felt like they needed to do it by themselves and that's on me.  We worked really hard every day to run offense, move the ball, set screens, and we struggled with it."

I am not enjoying all the silly stuff about people "getting run off the board" and all that.  If you state an opinion and others disagree, that is not getting run off, that is a discussion board.  It's cool if people take positions that are not popular, but they have to also take the pushback from opposing opinions.  Stop the martyr stuff.  Tara is not a poor coach.  The record speaks for itself.  She has her strengths and weaknesses, as do we all.  I don't think this was one of her better seasons.  I imagine she would agree.  

I replied with that quote because I think it was the essence of the problem all year - the offense was just not up to Stanford standards.  Maybe the reason we had so many games like this game with "silly" turnovers and less involvement from players other than Jones, Brink, and Jump was that the offense was simply not working well and players tried to do too much, make plays that were not there.  The team was less than the sum of its parts on offense.  That is not the fault of any player.  Not Lepolo's fault.  Not Jones' fault for trying to take on difficult drives.  The player and ball movement was never there.  It was a stagnant offense against aggressive, physical defenses.  I am not a coach so I have no idea if this was the best way or if there was a better way.  All I know is in never looked right.  I was not surprised at the way the game played out.  Sad for the players, disappointed that the great crowd got no joy, but not at all surprised.

Goodbye Funky Four, may your future endeavors be successful.  It's been a pleasure.  Good news on Jump.  Hope we run an offense that gets her open more next season.  Good luck to Belibi at Harvard.  If she plays ball there I will be rooting for her and them.  Good luck to Jones in the pros.  She's been a pleasure to watch.  I will be watching her and rooting for her in WNBA.  I don't know where Ashten will end up, but if she decides to play somewhere else I will root for her (knock wood it is at somewhere I can do that and root for the whole team too, if she does play another season elsewhere).

Being called names (which I was several times) is not pushback. I actually enjoy pushback especially if I learn something new I didn’t know about basketball. Sadly that didn’t happen with the “pushback.”

[TheFarm07]

While Tara is quite famous for her flexibility in changing offensive schemes to suit her personnel, this year she failed to find a scheme that worked for the people she had.  We were told that she tried a new system after the dreadful USC loss--so she was rather desperately trying to find something that worked better as the weaknesses of our offense became apparent.

I'm not enough of a coach to know what system would have worked better.  Perhaps with all the great post depth we should go back to the "triangle" from the old Appel/Ogwumike days.  Tara abandoned the "triangle" after Chiney graduated since by then we had inexperienced posts and much better guards--Lili Thompson and Amber Orrange--and she wanted to screen for them and make them into the main engines of the next offense.  That lasted several years, but then with Jones coming and the arrival of "position less basketball" Tara left that offense to go the the Princeton, and we won a national championship with it.  There were horrific growing pains with the Princeton, but eventually it jelled.  But then with the loss of all our experienced guards she left the Princeton and installed the "flow", and, in my opinion, the "flow" flopped--either the scheme did not fit our personnel, or the personnel lacked the requisite skills to run it properly.

I must ask, and I've already asked this before. This seems an awfully lot of changing systems just for a few years and making players, who I also strongly believe are students first, to learn a whole new playbook and philosophy halfway through their collegiate careers. Do other coaches, especially the top tier ones (and this doesn't have to be limited to the women's game or college basketball, for that matter), change things so dramatically so often?

Obviously, you adjust your playbook on what your strengths & weaknesses are with the roster. Add in a few plays here and there to emphasize who your best players are, put others away for a while if they don't fit, etc. But it sounds like (correct me if I am wrong), but these are brobdingnagian wholesale changes to your greater offensive philosophy and while there is something to be admired about being flexible and open, there is a point where diminishing returns.

---

I'm inclined to think Tara recruits the best players she can regardless of position, and then tries to mold the offense around whoever she gets.  We sometime forget it is Stanford--and it is not football--meaning there are no allowances in WBB for players who can't meet the highest academic standards.  We can get great players, but we can't pick and choose them by position.  So in recent years she has hit the jackpot with big players and struck out on the elite guards (I would count Jones as a wing, personally)--Osborne, Rice, Watkins.  Apparently we came close in each case.  This has created an imbalance of talent on this team--a much stronger frontcourt than backcourt.

It seems historically, our strikeout rate with those elite recruits (top 5 to 10 recruits that have high ceilings and/or lower ranked guards that really played above their HS rankings) that do get in are much higher with guards than wings, forwards & posts. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but really Katie Lou Samuelson and Timea Gardiner are the only really top-tier recruits who were admitted or had a high chance of being admitted that were not guards who turned us down.

But the laundry list of big-time guards that have really impacted their program that chose elsewhere (who were admitted or had a favorable admittance chance) is much longer (Watkins, Rice, Osborne, Miles, Citron, going back further - Diggins, Bird)

[TheFarm07]

While Tara is quite famous for her flexibility in changing offensive schemes to suit her personnel, this year she failed to find a scheme that worked for the people she had.  We were told that she tried a new system after the dreadful USC loss--so she was rather desperately trying to find something that worked better as the weaknesses of our offense became apparent.

I'm not enough of a coach to know what system would have worked better.  Perhaps with all the great post depth we should go back to the "triangle" from the old Appel/Ogwumike days.  Tara abandoned the "triangle" after Chiney graduated since by then we had inexperienced posts and much better guards--Lili Thompson and Amber Orrange--and she wanted to screen for them and make them into the main engines of the next offense.  That lasted several years, but then with Jones coming and the arrival of "position less basketball" Tara left that offense to go the the Princeton, and we won a national championship with it.  There were horrific growing pains with the Princeton, but eventually it jelled.  But then with the loss of all our experienced guards she left the Princeton and installed the "flow", and, in my opinion, the "flow" flopped--either the scheme did not fit our personnel, or the personnel lacked the requisite skills to run it properly.

I must ask, and I've already asked this before. This seems an awfully lot of changing systems just for a few years and making players, who I also strongly believe are students first, to learn a whole new playbook and philosophy halfway through their collegiate careers. Do other coaches, especially the top tier ones (and this doesn't have to be limited to the women's game or college basketball, for that matter), change things so dramatically so often?

Obviously, you adjust your playbook on what your strengths & weaknesses are with the roster. Add in a few plays here and there to emphasize who your best players are, put others away for a while if they don't fit, etc. But it sounds like (correct me if I am wrong), but these are brobdingnagian wholesale changes to your greater offensive philosophy and while there is something to be admired about being flexible and open, there is a point where diminishing returns.

---

I'm inclined to think Tara recruits the best players she can regardless of position, and then tries to mold the offense around whoever she gets.  We sometime forget it is Stanford--and it is not football--meaning there are no allowances in WBB for players who can't meet the highest academic standards.  We can get great players, but we can't pick and choose them by position.  So in recent years she has hit the jackpot with big players and struck out on the elite guards (I would count Jones as a wing, personally)--Osborne, Rice, Watkins.  Apparently we came close in each case.  This has created an imbalance of talent on this team--a much stronger frontcourt than backcourt.

It seems historically, our strikeout rate with those elite recruits (top 5 to 10 recruits that have high ceilings and/or lower ranked guards that really played above their HS rankings) that do get in are much higher with guards than wings, forwards & posts. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but really Katie Lou Samuelson and Timea Gardiner are the only really top-tier recruits who were admitted or had a high chance of being admitted that were not guards who turned us down.

But the laundry list of big-time guards that have really impacted their program that chose elsewhere (who were admitted or had a favorable admittance chance) is much longer (Watkins, Rice, Osborne, Miles, Citron, going back further - Diggins, Bird)

[cardfan1996]

While Tara is quite famous for her flexibility in changing offensive schemes to suit her personnel, this year she failed to find a scheme that worked for the people she had.  We were told that she tried a new system after the dreadful USC loss--so she was rather desperately trying to find something that worked better as the weaknesses of our offense became apparent.

I'm not enough of a coach to know what system would have worked better.  Perhaps with all the great post depth we should go back to the "triangle" from the old Appel/Ogwumike days.  Tara abandoned the "triangle" after Chiney graduated since by then we had inexperienced posts and much better guards--Lili Thompson and Amber Orrange--and she wanted to screen for them and make them into the main engines of the next offense.  That lasted several years, but then with Jones coming and the arrival of "position less basketball" Tara left that offense to go the the Princeton, and we won a national championship with it.  There were horrific growing pains with the Princeton, but eventually it jelled.  But then with the loss of all our experienced guards she left the Princeton and installed the "flow", and, in my opinion, the "flow" flopped--either the scheme did not fit our personnel, or the personnel lacked the requisite skills to run it properly.

I must ask, and I've already asked this before. This seems an awfully lot of changing systems just for a few years and making players, who I also strongly believe are students first, to learn a whole new playbook and philosophy halfway through their collegiate careers. Do other coaches, especially the top tier ones (and this doesn't have to be limited to the women's game or college basketball, for that matter), change things so dramatically so often?

Obviously, you adjust your playbook on what your strengths & weaknesses are with the roster. Add in a few plays here and there to emphasize who your best players are, put others away for a while if they don't fit, etc. But it sounds like (correct me if I am wrong), but these are of immense proportions wholesale changes to your greater offensive philosophy and while there is something to be admired about being flexible and open, there is a point where diminishing returns.

---

I'm inclined to think Tara recruits the best players she can regardless of position, and then tries to mold the offense around whoever she gets.  We sometime forget it is Stanford--and it is not football--meaning there are no allowances in WBB for players who can't meet the highest academic standards.  We can get great players, but we can't pick and choose them by position.  So in recent years she has hit the jackpot with big players and struck out on the elite guards (I would count Jones as a wing, personally)--Osborne, Rice, Watkins.  Apparently we came close in each case.  This has created an imbalance of talent on this team--a much stronger frontcourt than backcourt.

It seems historically, our strikeout rate with those elite recruits (top 5 to 10 recruits that have high ceilings and/or lower ranked guards that really played above their HS rankings) that do get in are much higher with guards than wings, forwards & posts. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but really Katie Lou Samuelson and Timea Gardiner are the only really top-tier recruits who were admitted or had a high chance of being admitted that were not guards who turned us down.

But the laundry list of big-time guards that have really impacted their program that chose elsewhere (who were admitted or had a favorable admittance chance) is much longer (Watkins, Rice, Osborne, Miles, Citron, going back further - Diggins, Bird)

Yep Stanford cannot recruit elite point guards (we have one that will be elite coming in 2025?). Negative recruiting goes back to maybe Jackie Gemelos days or even before that. But I don’t think Tara and Kate have done much to counteract what schools/coaches tell recruits. Haley mentioned some of the negative recruiting in her recent interview but didn’t name names obviously. All I know is that your program’s reputation for 30+ years has been to pressure your guards and disrupt your offense and ordinarily you would overhaul your guard development program several times until that was no longer the narrative. If Tara’s record speaks for itself, so does this issue.

Re: Offensive system

It is odd to change your offensive system every year or mid-year. I cannot think of another Top 10 coach that does that mostly because it often takes years to perfect your offensive system/philosophy as a coach. I don’t know how you can ever really teach something you don’t really know yourself. Princeton is very complex and has so many variations and takes years to perfect.

[cardfan1996]

While Tara is quite famous for her flexibility in changing offensive schemes to suit her personnel, this year she failed to find a scheme that worked for the people she had.  We were told that she tried a new system after the dreadful USC loss--so she was rather desperately trying to find something that worked better as the weaknesses of our offense became apparent.

I'm not enough of a coach to know what system would have worked better.  Perhaps with all the great post depth we should go back to the "triangle" from the old Appel/Ogwumike days.  Tara abandoned the "triangle" after Chiney graduated since by then we had inexperienced posts and much better guards--Lili Thompson and Amber Orrange--and she wanted to screen for them and make them into the main engines of the next offense.  That lasted several years, but then with Jones coming and the arrival of "position less basketball" Tara left that offense to go the the Princeton, and we won a national championship with it.  There were horrific growing pains with the Princeton, but eventually it jelled.  But then with the loss of all our experienced guards she left the Princeton and installed the "flow", and, in my opinion, the "flow" flopped--either the scheme did not fit our personnel, or the personnel lacked the requisite skills to run it properly.

I must ask, and I've already asked this before. This seems an awfully lot of changing systems just for a few years and making players, who I also strongly believe are students first, to learn a whole new playbook and philosophy halfway through their collegiate careers. Do other coaches, especially the top tier ones (and this doesn't have to be limited to the women's game or college basketball, for that matter), change things so dramatically so often?

Obviously, you adjust your playbook on what your strengths & weaknesses are with the roster. Add in a few plays here and there to emphasize who your best players are, put others away for a while if they don't fit, etc. But it sounds like (correct me if I am wrong), but these are of immense proportions wholesale changes to your greater offensive philosophy and while there is something to be admired about being flexible and open, there is a point where diminishing returns.

---

I'm inclined to think Tara recruits the best players she can regardless of position, and then tries to mold the offense around whoever she gets.  We sometime forget it is Stanford--and it is not football--meaning there are no allowances in WBB for players who can't meet the highest academic standards.  We can get great players, but we can't pick and choose them by position.  So in recent years she has hit the jackpot with big players and struck out on the elite guards (I would count Jones as a wing, personally)--Osborne, Rice, Watkins.  Apparently we came close in each case.  This has created an imbalance of talent on this team--a much stronger frontcourt than backcourt.

It seems historically, our strikeout rate with those elite recruits (top 5 to 10 recruits that have high ceilings and/or lower ranked guards that really played above their HS rankings) that do get in are much higher with guards than wings, forwards & posts. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but really Katie Lou Samuelson and Timea Gardiner are the only really top-tier recruits who were admitted or had a high chance of being admitted that were not guards who turned us down.

But the laundry list of big-time guards that have really impacted their program that chose elsewhere (who were admitted or had a favorable admittance chance) is much longer (Watkins, Rice, Osborne, Miles, Citron, going back further - Diggins, Bird)

Yep Stanford cannot recruit elite point guards (we have one that will be elite coming in 2025?). Negative recruiting goes back to maybe Jackie Gemelos days or even before that. But I don’t think Tara and Kate have done much to counteract what schools/coaches tell recruits. Haley mentioned some of the negative recruiting in her recent interview but didn’t name names obviously. All I know is that your program’s reputation for 30+ years has been to pressure your guards and disrupt your offense and ordinarily you would overhaul your guard development program several times until that was no longer the narrative. If Tara’s record speaks for itself, so does this issue.

Re: Offensive system

It is odd to change your offensive system every year or mid-year. I cannot think of another Top 10 coach that does that mostly because it often takes years to perfect your offensive system/philosophy as a coach. I don’t know how you can ever really teach something you don’t really know yourself. Princeton is very complex and has so many variations and takes years to perfect.

[Jskass]

Glad for the successes they had and oh so weary. Kind of makes me wonder when Bosgana will be used more. She may not be the solution but her style as assets are
More inline with what is needed. Aggressive on offense and defense. I bet she won’t just leave 3 pointers open.

[Jskass]

Glad for the successes they had and oh so weary. Kind of makes me wonder when Bosgana will be used more. She may not be the solution but her style as assets are
More inline with what is needed. Aggressive on offense and defense. I bet she won’t just leave 3 pointers open.

[mbdude]

It's really tough seeing all the "major upset" stories this morning; worse is we will be seeing/hearing them for quite a while

Women's NCAA tournament: How Ole Miss upset 1-seed Stanford in March Madness (espn.com)

Mississippi had 1 fg in 4th qtr!!! Stanford was 12 of 37 in the paint, 10 of 32 on layups

[mbdude]

It's really tough seeing all the "major upset" stories this morning; worse is we will be seeing/hearing them for quite a while

Women's NCAA tournament: How Ole Miss upset 1-seed Stanford in March Madness (espn.com)

Mississippi had 1 fg in 4th qtr!!! Stanford was 12 of 37 in the paint, 10 of 32 on layups

[cardfan1996]

If you look at the Arizona (2021 championship game), Texas games last year, the UConn game, the USC games this year, the 2nd Colorado game and the Ole Miss game, we either don’t reach 50 points or barely reach 50 points against really good defensive-minded teams regardless of personnel. I am sure I can go back much further than 2021 (probably 15+ years back) and find the same pattern so it seems to me no matter the offensive schemes or the relative talent of the players on the perimeter, Tara and co. can’t seem to devise an offensive system and coach to that system that handles a ball hawking defense-minded opponent.

[cardfan1996]

If you look at the Arizona (2021 championship game), Texas games last year, the UConn game, the USC games this year, the 2nd Colorado game and the Ole Miss game, we either don’t reach 50 points or barely reach 50 points against really good defensive-minded teams regardless of personnel. I am sure I can go back much further than 2021 (probably 15+ years back) and find the same pattern so it seems to me no matter the offensive schemes or the relative talent of the players on the perimeter, Tara and co. can’t seem to devise an offensive system and coach to that system that handles a ball hawking defense-minded opponent.

[BosCard]

While Tara is quite famous for her flexibility in changing offensive schemes to suit her personnel, this year she failed to find a scheme that worked for the people she had.  We were told that she tried a new system after the dreadful USC loss--so she was rather desperately trying to find something that worked better as the weaknesses of our offense became apparent.

I'm not enough of a coach to know what system would have worked better.  Perhaps with all the great post depth we should go back to the "triangle" from the old Appel/Ogwumike days.  Tara abandoned the "triangle" after Chiney graduated since by then we had inexperienced posts and much better guards--Lili Thompson and Amber Orrange--and she wanted to screen for them and make them into the main engines of the next offense.  That lasted several years, but then with Jones coming and the arrival of "position less basketball" Tara left that offense to go the the Princeton, and we won a national championship with it.  There were horrific growing pains with the Princeton, but eventually it jelled.  But then with the loss of all our experienced guards she left the Princeton and installed the "flow", and, in my opinion, the "flow" flopped--either the scheme did not fit our personnel, or the personnel lacked the requisite skills to run it properly.

I must ask, and I've already asked this before. This seems an awfully lot of changing systems just for a few years and making players, who I also strongly believe are students first, to learn a whole new playbook and philosophy halfway through their collegiate careers. Do other coaches, especially the top tier ones (and this doesn't have to be limited to the women's game or college basketball, for that matter), change things so dramatically so often?

Obviously, you adjust your playbook on what your strengths & weaknesses are with the roster. Add in a few plays here and there to emphasize who your best players are, put others away for a while if they don't fit, etc. But it sounds like (correct me if I am wrong), but these are of immense proportions wholesale changes to your greater offensive philosophy and while there is something to be admired about being flexible and open, there is a point where diminishing returns.

---

I'm inclined to think Tara recruits the best players she can regardless of position, and then tries to mold the offense around whoever she gets.  We sometime forget it is Stanford--and it is not football--meaning there are no allowances in WBB for players who can't meet the highest academic standards.  We can get great players, but we can't pick and choose them by position.  So in recent years she has hit the jackpot with big players and struck out on the elite guards (I would count Jones as a wing, personally)--Osborne, Rice, Watkins.  Apparently we came close in each case.  This has created an imbalance of talent on this team--a much stronger frontcourt than backcourt.

It seems historically, our strikeout rate with those elite recruits (top 5 to 10 recruits that have high ceilings and/or lower ranked guards that really played above their HS rankings) that do get in are much higher with guards than wings, forwards & posts. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but really Katie Lou Samuelson and Timea Gardiner are the only really top-tier recruits who were admitted or had a high chance of being admitted that were not guards who turned us down.

But the laundry list of big-time guards that have really impacted their program that chose elsewhere (who were admitted or had a favorable admittance chance) is much longer (Watkins, Rice, Osborne, Miles, Citron, going back further - Diggins, Bird)

Yep Stanford cannot recruit elite point guards (we have one that will be elite coming in 2025?). Negative recruiting goes back to maybe Jackie Gemelos days or even before that. But I don’t think Tara and Kate have done much to counteract what schools/coaches tell recruits. Haley mentioned some of the negative recruiting in her recent interview but didn’t name names obviously. All I know is that your program’s reputation for 30+ years has been to pressure your guards and disrupt your offense and ordinarily you would overhaul your guard development program several times until that was no longer the narrative. If Tara’s record speaks for itself, so does this issue.

Re: Offensive system

It is odd to change your offensive system every year or mid-year. I cannot think of another Top 10 coach that does that mostly because it often takes years to perfect your offensive system/philosophy as a coach. I don’t know how you can ever really teach something you don’t really know yourself. Princeton is very complex and has so many variations and takes years to perfect.

I completely agree with you that the lack of scoring/attacking guards has been our problem over the years and this year as well.  Yes our half court offense wasn’t great but lots of teams struggle in the half court against good defenses.  Another part of our problem is that we don’t get easy baskets from our defense by attacking the basket in transition.  Look at how many times Ole Miss attacked the basket in transition and scored or got an and one.  We on the other hand had Emma-Nnopu getting stripped and Nivar getting a charge. We need more players with the speed and the body control and the mindset to attack and finish in those situations.  I think the coaches understand this which is why I’m hopeful for the future.  Nivar is probably amongst the best on our team at this and she got a lot of playing time.  Even though she made mistakes Tara didn’t yank her which I hope is a sign that she wants the team to do this and not be afraid of making mistakes.

[BosCard]

While Tara is quite famous for her flexibility in changing offensive schemes to suit her personnel, this year she failed to find a scheme that worked for the people she had.  We were told that she tried a new system after the dreadful USC loss--so she was rather desperately trying to find something that worked better as the weaknesses of our offense became apparent.

I'm not enough of a coach to know what system would have worked better.  Perhaps with all the great post depth we should go back to the "triangle" from the old Appel/Ogwumike days.  Tara abandoned the "triangle" after Chiney graduated since by then we had inexperienced posts and much better guards--Lili Thompson and Amber Orrange--and she wanted to screen for them and make them into the main engines of the next offense.  That lasted several years, but then with Jones coming and the arrival of "position less basketball" Tara left that offense to go the the Princeton, and we won a national championship with it.  There were horrific growing pains with the Princeton, but eventually it jelled.  But then with the loss of all our experienced guards she left the Princeton and installed the "flow", and, in my opinion, the "flow" flopped--either the scheme did not fit our personnel, or the personnel lacked the requisite skills to run it properly.

I must ask, and I've already asked this before. This seems an awfully lot of changing systems just for a few years and making players, who I also strongly believe are students first, to learn a whole new playbook and philosophy halfway through their collegiate careers. Do other coaches, especially the top tier ones (and this doesn't have to be limited to the women's game or college basketball, for that matter), change things so dramatically so often?

Obviously, you adjust your playbook on what your strengths & weaknesses are with the roster. Add in a few plays here and there to emphasize who your best players are, put others away for a while if they don't fit, etc. But it sounds like (correct me if I am wrong), but these are of immense proportions wholesale changes to your greater offensive philosophy and while there is something to be admired about being flexible and open, there is a point where diminishing returns.

---

I'm inclined to think Tara recruits the best players she can regardless of position, and then tries to mold the offense around whoever she gets.  We sometime forget it is Stanford--and it is not football--meaning there are no allowances in WBB for players who can't meet the highest academic standards.  We can get great players, but we can't pick and choose them by position.  So in recent years she has hit the jackpot with big players and struck out on the elite guards (I would count Jones as a wing, personally)--Osborne, Rice, Watkins.  Apparently we came close in each case.  This has created an imbalance of talent on this team--a much stronger frontcourt than backcourt.

It seems historically, our strikeout rate with those elite recruits (top 5 to 10 recruits that have high ceilings and/or lower ranked guards that really played above their HS rankings) that do get in are much higher with guards than wings, forwards & posts. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but really Katie Lou Samuelson and Timea Gardiner are the only really top-tier recruits who were admitted or had a high chance of being admitted that were not guards who turned us down.

But the laundry list of big-time guards that have really impacted their program that chose elsewhere (who were admitted or had a favorable admittance chance) is much longer (Watkins, Rice, Osborne, Miles, Citron, going back further - Diggins, Bird)

Yep Stanford cannot recruit elite point guards (we have one that will be elite coming in 2025?). Negative recruiting goes back to maybe Jackie Gemelos days or even before that. But I don’t think Tara and Kate have done much to counteract what schools/coaches tell recruits. Haley mentioned some of the negative recruiting in her recent interview but didn’t name names obviously. All I know is that your program’s reputation for 30+ years has been to pressure your guards and disrupt your offense and ordinarily you would overhaul your guard development program several times until that was no longer the narrative. If Tara’s record speaks for itself, so does this issue.

Re: Offensive system

It is odd to change your offensive system every year or mid-year. I cannot think of another Top 10 coach that does that mostly because it often takes years to perfect your offensive system/philosophy as a coach. I don’t know how you can ever really teach something you don’t really know yourself. Princeton is very complex and has so many variations and takes years to perfect.

I completely agree with you that the lack of scoring/attacking guards has been our problem over the years and this year as well.  Yes our half court offense wasn’t great but lots of teams struggle in the half court against good defenses.  Another part of our problem is that we don’t get easy baskets from our defense by attacking the basket in transition.  Look at how many times Ole Miss attacked the basket in transition and scored or got an and one.  We on the other hand had Emma-Nnopu getting stripped and Nivar getting a charge. We need more players with the speed and the body control and the mindset to attack and finish in those situations.  I think the coaches understand this which is why I’m hopeful for the future.  Nivar is probably amongst the best on our team at this and she got a lot of playing time.  Even though she made mistakes Tara didn’t yank her which I hope is a sign that she wants the team to do this and not be afraid of making mistakes.