[Softball Fan]

Although every possible perspective about the team, transfers, and the coming year has been repeated many times here, I don't have a problem at all with it.  I can always choose to not click on the thread if so inclined.

Small input on vocab.   I didn't read the SF Chronicle article so didn't see the context.  Normally the term "rising junior" means the player will be a junior in the coming year.  It's not generally used as a phrase about ability.

Edit: just saw 81alum's post so my point about rising junior has already been made.

[Softball Fan]

Although every possible perspective about the team, transfers, and the coming year has been repeated many times here, I don't have a problem at all with it.  I can always choose to not click on the thread if so inclined.

Small input on vocab.   I didn't read the SF Chronicle article so didn't see the context.  Normally the term "rising junior" means the player will be a junior in the coming year.  It's not generally used as a phrase about ability.

Edit: just saw 81alum's post so my point about rising junior has already been made.

[justafan]

I haven't seen this posted anywhere so I'm adding a link to a video of Clardy playing for Conway in the 6A Arkansas State Championship game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTLuqmbzfko
She was MVP and is interviewed at the end.

[justafan]

I haven't seen this posted anywhere so I'm adding a link to a video of Clardy playing for Conway in the 6A Arkansas State Championship game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTLuqmbzfko
She was MVP and is interviewed at the end.

[joemontes]

I haven't seen this posted anywhere so I'm adding a link to a video of Clardy playing for Conway in the 6A Arkansas State Championship game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTLuqmbzfko
She was MVP and is interviewed at the end.

Her game looks very promising. Hopefully, she gets some minutes at SG. Not sure if she can play PG though.

[joemontes]

I haven't seen this posted anywhere so I'm adding a link to a video of Clardy playing for Conway in the 6A Arkansas State Championship game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTLuqmbzfko
She was MVP and is interviewed at the end.

Her game looks very promising. Hopefully, she gets some minutes at SG. Not sure if she can play PG though.

[BillBradley]

One of my biggest concerns is not point guard play, or offense, or even having players who are athletic enough to defend.  The place I am most concerned is rebounding.  There were signs of weakness last year, and one of our best rebounders (Jones) is gone.  Brink can't do it all, and if she tries she will foul out.  Iriafen needs to become a rebounding monster, and perhaps one of the freshmen will show themselves capable.

At this point, I would not be surprised if we wound up 4th in the Pac 12.  I could see us doing better than that if the puzzle pieces come together well.  And Tara may be able to solve the puzzle better next year than she was able to last year--less of that constant niggling concern about rotating so many players to try (and fail) to keep everyone happy.  It looks more straightforward to me, which may help the team to build cohesion and focus.  That is the hope.

But UCLA, USC, and Utah all look like strong teams for next year.  And some of the other conference teams--like Washington and even Arizona State--will improve.  It will be a brutal conference. 

I certainly won't go into the season expecting that we will contend for a natty, as I did a year ago.  How much of that is my new found realism, and how much of it is simply a psychological defense mechanism, will only be apparent after seeing us play.

Echo your concern on rebounding. Our bigs (incl Demetre) should hold their own, but we aren't deep. Jump has to get a handful of boards every game and Bosgana will need to rebound her tail off.

A 4th place finish is as good a guess as any, but ever the optimist I still think we could win the conference. I've already posted on the strengths of our team next year so I won't repeat. I see Utah as the clear favorite. Great guards, experienced, P12 POY, ...but they are so reliant on the long ball they could stumble a few times. Playing at places like AZ, Ore, OSU, WA, WSU - they aren't gimmes. UCLA and USC have obvious talent, but seen a lot of teams loaded with talent over the years who never amounted to much. It's all about the music they make. Plus, 18-19 year olds only go so far. The vaunted Kiki Rice logged 1 basket, 1 assist, and 2 turnovers in her 25 minutes on the biggest stage last year. She had some good games, but was also pretty unimpressive in many. I'm going to wait to see the finished products before dishing out accolades to either of the California BIG-10 teams :>

[BillBradley]

One of my biggest concerns is not point guard play, or offense, or even having players who are athletic enough to defend.  The place I am most concerned is rebounding.  There were signs of weakness last year, and one of our best rebounders (Jones) is gone.  Brink can't do it all, and if she tries she will foul out.  Iriafen needs to become a rebounding monster, and perhaps one of the freshmen will show themselves capable.

At this point, I would not be surprised if we wound up 4th in the Pac 12.  I could see us doing better than that if the puzzle pieces come together well.  And Tara may be able to solve the puzzle better next year than she was able to last year--less of that constant niggling concern about rotating so many players to try (and fail) to keep everyone happy.  It looks more straightforward to me, which may help the team to build cohesion and focus.  That is the hope.

But UCLA, USC, and Utah all look like strong teams for next year.  And some of the other conference teams--like Washington and even Arizona State--will improve.  It will be a brutal conference. 

I certainly won't go into the season expecting that we will contend for a natty, as I did a year ago.  How much of that is my new found realism, and how much of it is simply a psychological defense mechanism, will only be apparent after seeing us play.

Echo your concern on rebounding. Our bigs (incl Demetre) should hold their own, but we aren't deep. Jump has to get a handful of boards every game and Bosgana will need to rebound her tail off.

A 4th place finish is as good a guess as any, but ever the optimist I still think we could win the conference. I've already posted on the strengths of our team next year so I won't repeat. I see Utah as the clear favorite. Great guards, experienced, P12 POY, ...but they are so reliant on the long ball they could stumble a few times. Playing at places like AZ, Ore, OSU, WA, WSU - they aren't gimmes. UCLA and USC have obvious talent, but seen a lot of teams loaded with talent over the years who never amounted to much. It's all about the music they make. Plus, 18-19 year olds only go so far. The vaunted Kiki Rice logged 1 basket, 1 assist, and 2 turnovers in her 25 minutes on the biggest stage last year. She had some good games, but was also pretty unimpressive in many. I'm going to wait to see the finished products before dishing out accolades to either of the California BIG-10 teams :>

[bl82]

Great summary, 81alum. I will only add that Bosgana is an excellent rebounder for her position. Iriafen can also be relentless on the boards. For her, it’s all about staying out of foul trouble. I also think Ogden will significantly surprise to the upside across the full spectrum of the skill set.

[bl82]

Great summary, 81alum. I will only add that Bosgana is an excellent rebounder for her position. Iriafen can also be relentless on the boards. For her, it’s all about staying out of foul trouble. I also think Ogden will significantly surprise to the upside across the full spectrum of the skill set.

[stopandpop]

Can someone please come and slap me in the face?  That would be more enjoyable than reading this thread.

Come on, Chimera!  I would NEVER slap you in the face.  I'm a happy warrior and I deeply enjoy reading your comments and reactions to mine.  They are great distractions from some bad stuff facing me, so PLEASE continue.  One request.  In the spirit of Carl Perkins song "Blue Suede Shoes", you can do anything (criticizing, schooling me, etc.), but when you say: "If you want to follow a team that can grab whoever they want out of the portal you are in the wrong place" PLEASE don't question my love for this team.  You don't know my background and how I became a Stanford WBB fan, or how I have supported the Cardinal since.  Not as long as you nor many others, but I have this tough love for them and it's strong.

And for Bob K.  Please continue to educate me on how Stanford Admissions works.  The latest SF Chronicle story definitely helped me understand more.  But comments from you and others (i.e. "You should know"), are unfair because I don't know what you know and I never will.

After reading the Chronicle story about Tara going with 12 players and all the challenges about transfers, I'm still befuddled by your earlier comment: "But I did post that Tara is trying to add a player through the portal fact."  Please help me understand what you meant because it seems inconsistent with the story.

I do have a question for everyone.  The article said: "She (Tara) and her staff were in contact with Ivy League coaches who have fifth year players Leaving their respective programs before the 2024-2025 season."  Does this suggest that Tara and her staff would only be interested in Ivy League players and no players from other schools?  I welcome your thoughts.

[stopandpop]

Can someone please come and slap me in the face?  That would be more enjoyable than reading this thread.

Come on, Chimera!  I would NEVER slap you in the face.  I'm a happy warrior and I deeply enjoy reading your comments and reactions to mine.  They are great distractions from some bad stuff facing me, so PLEASE continue.  One request.  In the spirit of Carl Perkins song "Blue Suede Shoes", you can do anything (criticizing, schooling me, etc.), but when you say: "If you want to follow a team that can grab whoever they want out of the portal you are in the wrong place" PLEASE don't question my love for this team.  You don't know my background and how I became a Stanford WBB fan, or how I have supported the Cardinal since.  Not as long as you nor many others, but I have this tough love for them and it's strong.

And for Bob K.  Please continue to educate me on how Stanford Admissions works.  The latest SF Chronicle story definitely helped me understand more.  But comments from you and others (i.e. "You should know"), are unfair because I don't know what you know and I never will.

After reading the Chronicle story about Tara going with 12 players and all the challenges about transfers, I'm still befuddled by your earlier comment: "But I did post that Tara is trying to add a player through the portal fact."  Please help me understand what you meant because it seems inconsistent with the story.

I do have a question for everyone.  The article said: "She (Tara) and her staff were in contact with Ivy League coaches who have fifth year players Leaving their respective programs before the 2024-2025 season."  Does this suggest that Tara and her staff would only be interested in Ivy League players and no players from other schools?  I welcome your thoughts.

[PVTree]

Addressing your last question, my take is that since it is known that the Ivy League does not offer scholarships to graduate players, all graduating Ivy League players would need to go elsewhere if they want to continue playing (and have eligibility).

In addition, ivy League players are usually good students also so I suspect Tara tries to find out from ivy League coaches if any of their players are interested in Stanford as an option.

I don't take it as this is the only league Tara looks at, but it is known in advance who may be a transfer candidate. With all the other conferences, Tara needs to wait for the student athletes to put their names in the portal. You can't count on any of them transferring.

[PVTree]

Addressing your last question, my take is that since it is known that the Ivy League does not offer scholarships to graduate players, all graduating Ivy League players would need to go elsewhere if they want to continue playing (and have eligibility).

In addition, ivy League players are usually good students also so I suspect Tara tries to find out from ivy League coaches if any of their players are interested in Stanford as an option.

I don't take it as this is the only league Tara looks at, but it is known in advance who may be a transfer candidate. With all the other conferences, Tara needs to wait for the student athletes to put their names in the portal. You can't count on any of them transferring.

[CompSci87]

And for Bob K.  Please continue to educate me on how Stanford Admissions works.  The latest SF Chronicle story definitely helped me understand more.  But comments from you and others (i.e. "You should know"), are unfair because I don't know what you know and I never will.

After reading the Chronicle story about Tara going with 12 players and all the challenges about transfers, I'm still befuddled by your earlier comment: "But I did post that Tara is trying to add a player through the portal fact."  Please help me understand what you meant because it seems inconsistent with the story.

I'm not Bob, but this shouldn't be so befuddling. Tara and her staff looked at the portal, as Bob was saying, but -- and this was fresh news in the Chron story -- they weren't able to find anyone who could be admitted for the 2023-2024 season and who would contribute, so they have given up on adding a transfer for this season. As the article said, they are looking into who might become available next season and beyond.

[CompSci87]

And for Bob K.  Please continue to educate me on how Stanford Admissions works.  The latest SF Chronicle story definitely helped me understand more.  But comments from you and others (i.e. "You should know"), are unfair because I don't know what you know and I never will.

After reading the Chronicle story about Tara going with 12 players and all the challenges about transfers, I'm still befuddled by your earlier comment: "But I did post that Tara is trying to add a player through the portal fact."  Please help me understand what you meant because it seems inconsistent with the story.

I'm not Bob, but this shouldn't be so befuddling. Tara and her staff looked at the portal, as Bob was saying, but -- and this was fresh news in the Chron story -- they weren't able to find anyone who could be admitted for the 2023-2024 season and who would contribute, so they have given up on adding a transfer for this season. As the article said, they are looking into who might become available next season and beyond.

[81alum]

As I mull over what happened this year, and what could happen in the future, I have come to realize how helpless Stanford is with regard to the portal.

We were committed to 15 scholarships next year--the maximum.  Jump came back and we gained three freshmen, while graduating Belibi, Prechtel, and Jones.  This year we must have been at 14 scholarships since next year is +1.  (I think Green is a walk-on, correct?)  In any case, the math for next year was that all 15 scholarships were taken.

Keep in mind that to get grad transfers, the prospects usually need to apply in November--even Ivy league players.  But when did we learn that we had three players going in the portal, thus releasing slots for next year?  April.

Under what circumstances should Tara have been clairvoyant and start recruiting grad transfers 6 months or more before we knew whether we would have a scholarship to offer them?  In fact, doing so would 1) have started a rumor mill, and 2) would have been unethical to recruit when every scholarship was taken, and 3) would not have worked, since most players--including Ivy Leaguers--can count to 15.

In short, the very first time Tara could have known she needed to recruit a grad transfer for next year was when one of our three portal players told her she was leaving.  I doubt very much that they did so until after the season was over.

Schools that can recruit and admit in a matter of weeks can use the portal on a year to year basis.  We will always have a one year delay between players leaving via the portal and incoming grad recruits to replace them.

The exception seems to me to be high school recruits who were recruited for next year's class and narrowly missed our cut.  If they have not committed before April of their high school senior year, then we could call them up and say "we know we turned you down in November, but guess what, we have a slot for you now."  However, are those the sort of players we want to be competitive?  But who else will have a completed application?

So here is a Bob question:  how many scholarships will we have for 2024-25?  All the normal graduations, plus Jump, plus the 3 three transfers out?  That would be a scholarship-palooza, no?  Is that 6 for one year?  Memories of the six-pack dance in my head.

[81alum]

As I mull over what happened this year, and what could happen in the future, I have come to realize how helpless Stanford is with regard to the portal.

We were committed to 15 scholarships next year--the maximum.  Jump came back and we gained three freshmen, while graduating Belibi, Prechtel, and Jones.  This year we must have been at 14 scholarships since next year is +1.  (I think Green is a walk-on, correct?)  In any case, the math for next year was that all 15 scholarships were taken.

Keep in mind that to get grad transfers, the prospects usually need to apply in November--even Ivy league players.  But when did we learn that we had three players going in the portal, thus releasing slots for next year?  April.

Under what circumstances should Tara have been clairvoyant and start recruiting grad transfers 6 months or more before we knew whether we would have a scholarship to offer them?  In fact, doing so would 1) have started a rumor mill, and 2) would have been unethical to recruit when every scholarship was taken, and 3) would not have worked, since most players--including Ivy Leaguers--can count to 15.

In short, the very first time Tara could have known she needed to recruit a grad transfer for next year was when one of our three portal players told her she was leaving.  I doubt very much that they did so until after the season was over.

Schools that can recruit and admit in a matter of weeks can use the portal on a year to year basis.  We will always have a one year delay between players leaving via the portal and incoming grad recruits to replace them.

The exception seems to me to be high school recruits who were recruited for next year's class and narrowly missed our cut.  If they have not committed before April of their high school senior year, then we could call them up and say "we know we turned you down in November, but guess what, we have a slot for you now."  However, are those the sort of players we want to be competitive?  But who else will have a completed application?

So here is a Bob question:  how many scholarships will we have for 2024-25?  All the normal graduations, plus Jump, plus the 3 three transfers out?  That would be a scholarship-palooza, no?  Is that 6 for one year?  Memories of the six-pack dance in my head.

[BobK]

A 6 pack it is.

[BobK]

A 6 pack it is.

[BillBradley]

If things don't change, we are going to start seeing our men's and women's basketball teams with large freshman classes. I'd say 3 is a lot to lose in one year and hopefully that won't repeat. But even before this past season we lost JVG. So maybe we'll start losing 1-2 players per year. Given that it's not much of an option to replenish via the portal, we're going to have to replenish with freshman recruits. The trickle down effect is going to be larger incoming classes. And it's really tough to win when half your team is freshmen. Teams need the physical, mental, and emotional maturity of experienced upperclassmen. Stanford basketball will need its talent to matriculate in order to be a top team. 

What really needs to be done is to figure out how to stop the players from leaving. If the degree is not enough anymore, then the rest of it really matters. From the player experience, to the student experience, to the NIL money, etc. Player A - who didn't enjoy her hoops season (coaching, teammates, playing time, whatever), and isn't that into the latest no-fun Stanford campus life, and also isn't receiving any/much compensation for playing is way more likely to leave than Player B - who maybe didn't play much as a freshman, but enjoys being a Stanford student and is making <$insert figure here>.

[BillBradley]

If things don't change, we are going to start seeing our men's and women's basketball teams with large freshman classes. I'd say 3 is a lot to lose in one year and hopefully that won't repeat. But even before this past season we lost JVG. So maybe we'll start losing 1-2 players per year. Given that it's not much of an option to replenish via the portal, we're going to have to replenish with freshman recruits. The trickle down effect is going to be larger incoming classes. And it's really tough to win when half your team is freshmen. Teams need the physical, mental, and emotional maturity of experienced upperclassmen. Stanford basketball will need its talent to matriculate in order to be a top team. 

What really needs to be done is to figure out how to stop the players from leaving. If the degree is not enough anymore, then the rest of it really matters. From the player experience, to the student experience, to the NIL money, etc. Player A - who didn't enjoy her hoops season (coaching, teammates, playing time, whatever), and isn't that into the latest no-fun Stanford campus life, and also isn't receiving any/much compensation for playing is way more likely to leave than Player B - who maybe didn't play much as a freshman, but enjoys being a Stanford student and is making <$insert figure here>.

[Softball Fan]

A 6 pack it is.

Is 6 pack in one year a blessing or a curse? 

I don't see any way Stanford can recruit six players for fall 2024 who will contribute to the team.  I don't follow WBB closely enough to know who is available beyond those already being recruited by Stanford.  I suspect time is running out to find uncommitted top-notch players for fall 2024.

Maybe focus on Europe or possibly Australia.  I think Stanford should at least explore the possibilities and maybe travel over to Europe and show some interest in high academic achievers who might want to play for an American university.

I think getting potential grad school starters through the transfer portal is one step away from being a pipe dream into the foreseeable future.  There are too many hurdles; i.e. NIL deals demanded by established star players; application deadlines for Masters degrees.

[Softball Fan]

A 6 pack it is.

Is 6 pack in one year a blessing or a curse? 

I don't see any way Stanford can recruit six players for fall 2024 who will contribute to the team.  I don't follow WBB closely enough to know who is available beyond those already being recruited by Stanford.  I suspect time is running out to find uncommitted top-notch players for fall 2024.

Maybe focus on Europe or possibly Australia.  I think Stanford should at least explore the possibilities and maybe travel over to Europe and show some interest in high academic achievers who might want to play for an American university.

I think getting potential grad school starters through the transfer portal is one step away from being a pipe dream into the foreseeable future.  There are too many hurdles; i.e. NIL deals demanded by established star players; application deadlines for Masters degrees.

[BobK]

Only 11 of the top 50 recruits in the 2024 class are committed.
Yes 6 is not likely but that’s how many we have at this moment for the class

[BobK]

Only 11 of the top 50 recruits in the 2024 class are committed.
Yes 6 is not likely but that’s how many we have at this moment for the class

[CompSci87]

The last time we had a class of 6, they didn't all contribute, but that was more because of injuries than because we took players who didn't have potential. At least, IIRC.

The staff has looked at a lot of players and may still be able to expand the 2024 class easily by offering additional player(s) who are interested and have talent but who there was no room for prior to the departures.

Tara really likes to carry 15. The program has 15 fully endowed scholarships, and if no one better is available, she's willing to give a scholarship to someone who will probably only be a practice player, to give that person a chance for a Stanford education and a great experience as a student athlete. Sometimes that may be a walk-on who is only given an open scholarship for one year. Sometimes it may be a full 4-year scholarship for someone who's a bit of a reach.

[CompSci87]

The last time we had a class of 6, they didn't all contribute, but that was more because of injuries than because we took players who didn't have potential. At least, IIRC.

The staff has looked at a lot of players and may still be able to expand the 2024 class easily by offering additional player(s) who are interested and have talent but who there was no room for prior to the departures.

Tara really likes to carry 15. The program has 15 fully endowed scholarships, and if no one better is available, she's willing to give a scholarship to someone who will probably only be a practice player, to give that person a chance for a Stanford education and a great experience as a student athlete. Sometimes that may be a walk-on who is only given an open scholarship for one year. Sometimes it may be a full 4-year scholarship for someone who's a bit of a reach.

[pauloalto]

So here is a Bob question:  how many scholarships will we have for 2024-25?  All the normal graduations, plus Jump, plus the 3 three transfers out?  That would be a scholarship-palooza, no?  Is that 6 for one year?  Memories of the six-pack dance in my head.

Current scholarships after announced transfers ...




Please let me know if anything needs correcting!

[pauloalto]

So here is a Bob question:  how many scholarships will we have for 2024-25?  All the normal graduations, plus Jump, plus the 3 three transfers out?  That would be a scholarship-palooza, no?  Is that 6 for one year?  Memories of the six-pack dance in my head.

Current scholarships after announced transfers ...




Please let me know if anything needs correcting!

[Maple Leaf]

Women's college basketball Way-Too-Early Top 25 rankings for 2023-24 - ESPN

updated rankings, Stanford down to #16
Utah @ #3
ucla @ #4
usc @ #18
Colorado @ #21
WSU @ #23

[Maple Leaf]

Women's college basketball Way-Too-Early Top 25 rankings for 2023-24 - ESPN

updated rankings, Stanford down to #16
Utah @ #3
ucla @ #4
usc @ #18
Colorado @ #21
WSU @ #23

[Jskass]

CompSci, I wonder if this year's experience may be altering Tara's philosophy of a full 15. Perhaps if we only had 12-14 some of the issues would have been alleviated (better chemistry, playing time, etc.)?

The last time we had a class of 6, they didn't all contribute, but that was more because of injuries than because we took players who didn't have potential. At least, IIRC.

The staff has looked at a lot of players and may still be able to expand the 2024 class easily by offering additional player(s) who are interested and have talent but who there was no room for prior to the departures.

Tara really likes to carry 15. The program has 15 fully endowed scholarships, and if no one better is available, she's willing to give a scholarship to someone who will probably only be a practice player, to give that person a chance for a Stanford education and a great experience as a student athlete. Sometimes that may be a walk-on who is only given an open scholarship for one year. Sometimes it may be a full 4-year scholarship for someone who's a bit of a reach.

[Jskass]

CompSci, I wonder if this year's experience may be altering Tara's philosophy of a full 15. Perhaps if we only had 12-14 some of the issues would have been alleviated (better chemistry, playing time, etc.)?

The last time we had a class of 6, they didn't all contribute, but that was more because of injuries than because we took players who didn't have potential. At least, IIRC.

The staff has looked at a lot of players and may still be able to expand the 2024 class easily by offering additional player(s) who are interested and have talent but who there was no room for prior to the departures.

Tara really likes to carry 15. The program has 15 fully endowed scholarships, and if no one better is available, she's willing to give a scholarship to someone who will probably only be a practice player, to give that person a chance for a Stanford education and a great experience as a student athlete. Sometimes that may be a walk-on who is only given an open scholarship for one year. Sometimes it may be a full 4-year scholarship for someone who's a bit of a reach.

[cardfan1996]

You are a good analyst, Card1996, but your dissing of Tara et al is wearing thin. We have enjoyed a terrific program for years. Now and then there is a downer.

Just think of me as balancing all the unnecessary praise. Frankly, I have given her a break because I’ve been exercising extreme restraint not to focus on, and overreact to the “bad optics” of the 4 people who left as well as some other “related bad optics”  that has bothered me for decades about her. I am sure it has crossed at least some of your minds who are not totally consumed with lecturing me and her other critics.

Looking back, I think the beginning of the end of Tara’s era started after S. Carolina game and by the 1st quarter of Creighton, you could tell nothing would ever be the same again. As an optimist, I’d hope it could be rectified. But as a realist, there is no coming back from certain actions on the floor, because the poison eventually spreads to the entire team.

As a card carrying member of the “Tara should retire” club, to be fair to her, it is not totally her fault but there were decisions she should have made throughout her time at Stanford to protect her legacy. That being said, she needs to fall on sword now because she is not bigger than the program. And she needs to take Kate and company with her.

[cardfan1996]

You are a good analyst, Card1996, but your dissing of Tara et al is wearing thin. We have enjoyed a terrific program for years. Now and then there is a downer.

Just think of me as balancing all the unnecessary praise. Frankly, I have given her a break because I’ve been exercising extreme restraint not to focus on, and overreact to the “bad optics” of the 4 people who left as well as some other “related bad optics”  that has bothered me for decades about her. I am sure it has crossed at least some of your minds who are not totally consumed with lecturing me and her other critics.

Looking back, I think the beginning of the end of Tara’s era started after S. Carolina game and by the 1st quarter of Creighton, you could tell nothing would ever be the same again. As an optimist, I’d hope it could be rectified. But as a realist, there is no coming back from certain actions on the floor, because the poison eventually spreads to the entire team.

As a card carrying member of the “Tara should retire” club, to be fair to her, it is not totally her fault but there were decisions she should have made throughout her time at Stanford to protect her legacy. That being said, she needs to fall on sword now because she is not bigger than the program. And she needs to take Kate and company with her.

[2006alum]

1996, I think you're beating a dead horse here. I think you've said that a half dozen times. For now, Tara is coach, Kate is first mate, and the team we have is the team we'll have next season. We have who we have. Let's focus on our analysis about how to make the most of it. We won't get someone from the portal, we won't get new recruits, and we aren't ditching our coaches.

[2006alum]

1996, I think you're beating a dead horse here. I think you've said that a half dozen times. For now, Tara is coach, Kate is first mate, and the team we have is the team we'll have next season. We have who we have. Let's focus on our analysis about how to make the most of it. We won't get someone from the portal, we won't get new recruits, and we aren't ditching our coaches.

[JohnR34231]

1996, I think you're beating a dead horse here. I think you've said that a half dozen times. For now, Tara is coach, Kate is first mate, and the team we have is the team we'll have next season. We have who we have. Let's focus on our analysis about how to make the most of it. We won't get someone from the portal, we won't get new recruits, and we aren't ditching our coaches.

Is this going to be Shaw redux here? I hope not.

[JohnR34231]

1996, I think you're beating a dead horse here. I think you've said that a half dozen times. For now, Tara is coach, Kate is first mate, and the team we have is the team we'll have next season. We have who we have. Let's focus on our analysis about how to make the most of it. We won't get someone from the portal, we won't get new recruits, and we aren't ditching our coaches.

Is this going to be Shaw redux here? I hope not.