[BobK]

Powell played 11 years averaged 9.5 ppg
Wiggins played 8 years averaged 8.6 ppg

Both had some very good years

[BobK]

Powell played 11 years averaged 9.5 ppg
Wiggins played 8 years averaged 8.6 ppg

Both had some very good years

[BostonCard]

Candace Parker, a contemporary of Candice Wiggins, had the following accolades:

• 3× WNBA champion (2016, 2021, 2023)
  
• WNBA Finals MVP (2016)
  
• 2× WNBA MVP (2008, 2013)
  
• 7× WNBA All-Star (2011, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2022)
  
• WNBA All-Star Game MVP (2013)
  
• 7× All-WNBA First Team (2008, 2012–2014, 2017, 2020, 2022)
  
• 3× All-WNBA Second Team (2009, 2015, 2018)
  
• 2× WNBA All-Defensive Second Team (2009, 2012)
  
• WNBA Rookie of the Year (2008)
  
• WNBA All-Rookie Team (2008)
  
• WNBA Defensive Player of the Year (2020)
  
• WNBA assists leader (2015)
  
• 3× WNBA rebounding leader (2008, 2009, 2020)
  
• 2× WNBA blocks leader (2009, 2012)
  
• 3× WNBA peak performer (2008, 2009, 2020)
  
• WNBA 20th Anniversary Team (2016)
  
• WNBA 25th Anniversary Team (2021)
  

BC

[BostonCard]

Candace Parker, a contemporary of Candice Wiggins, had the following accolades:

• 3× WNBA champion (2016, 2021, 2023)
  
• WNBA Finals MVP (2016)
  
• 2× WNBA MVP (2008, 2013)
  
• 7× WNBA All-Star (2011, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2022)
  
• WNBA All-Star Game MVP (2013)
  
• 7× All-WNBA First Team (2008, 2012–2014, 2017, 2020, 2022)
  
• 3× All-WNBA Second Team (2009, 2015, 2018)
  
• 2× WNBA All-Defensive Second Team (2009, 2012)
  
• WNBA Rookie of the Year (2008)
  
• WNBA All-Rookie Team (2008)
  
• WNBA Defensive Player of the Year (2020)
  
• WNBA assists leader (2015)
  
• 3× WNBA rebounding leader (2008, 2009, 2020)
  
• 2× WNBA blocks leader (2009, 2012)
  
• 3× WNBA peak performer (2008, 2009, 2020)
  
• WNBA 20th Anniversary Team (2016)
  
• WNBA 25th Anniversary Team (2021)
  

BC

[2006alum]

Candace Parker, a contemporary of Candice Wiggins, had the following accolades:

• 3× WNBA champion (2016, 2021, 2023)
  
• WNBA Finals MVP (2016)
  
• 2× WNBA MVP (2008, 2013)
  
• 7× WNBA All-Star (2011, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2022)
  
• WNBA All-Star Game MVP (2013)
  
• 7× All-WNBA First Team (2008, 2012–2014, 2017, 2020, 2022)
  
• 3× All-WNBA Second Team (2009, 2015, 2018)
  
• 2× WNBA All-Defensive Second Team (2009, 2012)
  
• WNBA Rookie of the Year (2008)
  
• WNBA All-Rookie Team (2008)
  
• WNBA Defensive Player of the Year (2020)
  
• WNBA assists leader (2015)
  
• 3× WNBA rebounding leader (2008, 2009, 2020)
  
• 2× WNBA blocks leader (2009, 2012)
  
• 3× WNBA peak performer (2008, 2009, 2020)
  
• WNBA 20th Anniversary Team (2016)
  
• WNBA 25th Anniversary Team (2021)
  

BC

CP also has the record for second most dunks in the college game, is probably the closest female player to the LeBron James point forward model, and is the only rookie to win WNBA POY. Comparing Wiggins to one of the game's GOATs is not a very reasonable comparison, even if they were drafted the same year.

---

It's too bad, the WNBA is a tough league but it's also not a great look for Stanford.

I see it as a great look for Tara. The WNBA coaches never could match their plays to the players. Tara did.

I see it as a double edged sword. No doubt Tara will go down as one of the game's all time best Xs & Os tacticians/chess masters. But I never felt like she was an amazing player development coach, almost precisely because she molded her schemes around the players rather than push the players to develop themselves, especially as one on one options. It's very telling that one of the worst players for our system (DiJonai Carrington) has blossomed into one of the best pro players. I think it made sense overall because in most years Tara was not going to get to recruit the best athletes, but it is why I think our alumni pro record underwhelms compared to their shelves and shelves of collegiate accolades.

[2006alum]

Candace Parker, a contemporary of Candice Wiggins, had the following accolades:

• 3× WNBA champion (2016, 2021, 2023)
  
• WNBA Finals MVP (2016)
  
• 2× WNBA MVP (2008, 2013)
  
• 7× WNBA All-Star (2011, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2022)
  
• WNBA All-Star Game MVP (2013)
  
• 7× All-WNBA First Team (2008, 2012–2014, 2017, 2020, 2022)
  
• 3× All-WNBA Second Team (2009, 2015, 2018)
  
• 2× WNBA All-Defensive Second Team (2009, 2012)
  
• WNBA Rookie of the Year (2008)
  
• WNBA All-Rookie Team (2008)
  
• WNBA Defensive Player of the Year (2020)
  
• WNBA assists leader (2015)
  
• 3× WNBA rebounding leader (2008, 2009, 2020)
  
• 2× WNBA blocks leader (2009, 2012)
  
• 3× WNBA peak performer (2008, 2009, 2020)
  
• WNBA 20th Anniversary Team (2016)
  
• WNBA 25th Anniversary Team (2021)
  

BC

CP also has the record for second most dunks in the college game, is probably the closest female player to the LeBron James point forward model, and is the only rookie to win WNBA POY. Comparing Wiggins to one of the game's GOATs is not a very reasonable comparison, even if they were drafted the same year.

---

It's too bad, the WNBA is a tough league but it's also not a great look for Stanford.

I see it as a great look for Tara. The WNBA coaches never could match their plays to the players. Tara did.

I see it as a double edged sword. No doubt Tara will go down as one of the game's all time best Xs & Os tacticians/chess masters. But I never felt like she was an amazing player development coach, almost precisely because she molded her schemes around the players rather than push the players to develop themselves, especially as one on one options. It's very telling that one of the worst players for our system (DiJonai Carrington) has blossomed into one of the best pro players. I think it made sense overall because in most years Tara was not going to get to recruit the best athletes, but it is why I think our alumni pro record underwhelms compared to their shelves and shelves of collegiate accolades.

[BostonCard]

1734145206[/url]']
CP also has the record for second most dunks in the college game, is probably the closest female player to the LeBron James point forward model, and is the only rookie to win WNBA POY. Comparing Wiggins to one of the game's GOATs is not a very reasonable comparison, even if they were drafted the same year.

If you don’t like Parker, here are the WNBA accomplishments of Sylvia Fowles, drafted just ahead of Wiggins:

2× WNBA champion (2015, 2017)
2× WNBA Finals MVP (2015, 2017)
WNBA MVP (2017)
8× WNBA All-Star (2009, 2011, 2013, 2017–2019, 2021, 2022)
3× All-WNBA First Team (2010, 2013, 2017)
5× All-WNBA Second Team (2011, 2012, 2016, 2021, 2022)
4x WNBA Defensive Player of the Year (2011, 2013, 2016, 2021)
8x WNBA All-Defensive First Team (2010–2013, 2016, 2017, 2021, 2022)
3× WNBA All-Defensive Second Team (2008, 2014, 2018)
2× WNBA blocks leader (2010, 2011)
3× WNBA rebounding champion (2013, 2018, 2022)
3× WNBA Peak Performer (2013, 2018, 2022)
WNBA All-Rookie Team (2008)
Kim Perrot Sportsmanship Award (2022)
WNBA 25th Anniversary Team (2021)

I love Wiggins, but I don’t think she had the WNBA career that we would have wanted for her or that the Lynx were hoping for her when they drafted her third overall.  I only brought up Parker because many on here considered Wiggins as impactful as Parker in college, and argued she should have won the Naismith award instead of Parker (I believe Wiggins won the Wade that year).  They played different positions on different teams, but the “Ice” vs. “Ace” debate was real, and while you can make the case for each of them in college, in the pros it was night and day.

Since I am a Stanford fan, and not a WNBA fan, I don’t care that her WNBA career wasn’t as accomplished as Parkers.

BC

[BostonCard]

1734145206[/url]']
CP also has the record for second most dunks in the college game, is probably the closest female player to the LeBron James point forward model, and is the only rookie to win WNBA POY. Comparing Wiggins to one of the game's GOATs is not a very reasonable comparison, even if they were drafted the same year.

If you don’t like Parker, here are the WNBA accomplishments of Sylvia Fowles, drafted just ahead of Wiggins:

2× WNBA champion (2015, 2017)
2× WNBA Finals MVP (2015, 2017)
WNBA MVP (2017)
8× WNBA All-Star (2009, 2011, 2013, 2017–2019, 2021, 2022)
3× All-WNBA First Team (2010, 2013, 2017)
5× All-WNBA Second Team (2011, 2012, 2016, 2021, 2022)
4x WNBA Defensive Player of the Year (2011, 2013, 2016, 2021)
8x WNBA All-Defensive First Team (2010–2013, 2016, 2017, 2021, 2022)
3× WNBA All-Defensive Second Team (2008, 2014, 2018)
2× WNBA blocks leader (2010, 2011)
3× WNBA rebounding champion (2013, 2018, 2022)
3× WNBA Peak Performer (2013, 2018, 2022)
WNBA All-Rookie Team (2008)
Kim Perrot Sportsmanship Award (2022)
WNBA 25th Anniversary Team (2021)

I love Wiggins, but I don’t think she had the WNBA career that we would have wanted for her or that the Lynx were hoping for her when they drafted her third overall.  I only brought up Parker because many on here considered Wiggins as impactful as Parker in college, and argued she should have won the Naismith award instead of Parker (I believe Wiggins won the Wade that year).  They played different positions on different teams, but the “Ice” vs. “Ace” debate was real, and while you can make the case for each of them in college, in the pros it was night and day.

Since I am a Stanford fan, and not a WNBA fan, I don’t care that her WNBA career wasn’t as accomplished as Parkers.

BC

[jonnyss]

 It's very telling that one of the worst players for our system (DiJonai Carrington) has blossomed into one of the best pro players. I think it made sense overall because in most years Tara was not going to get to recruit the best athletes, but it is why I think our alumni pro record underwhelms compared to their shelves and shelves of collegiate accolades.

i was a great fan of dijonai. she was injured in high school and again for her early years at stanford. when she was getting healthy, tara chose to play haley ahead of her rather than finding room for both on the court. dijonai then transferred and had an outstanding senior year for baylor (on that last-second miss in the loss to uconn in the semi's, she was fouled!). of course, with tara's line-up we did win a national championship!

hmmm...fwiw, haley and dijonai have somewhat similar size and skills, though haley is more smooth and dijonai more aggressive.  maybe haley can blossom, too!

[jonnyss]

 It's very telling that one of the worst players for our system (DiJonai Carrington) has blossomed into one of the best pro players. I think it made sense overall because in most years Tara was not going to get to recruit the best athletes, but it is why I think our alumni pro record underwhelms compared to their shelves and shelves of collegiate accolades.

i was a great fan of dijonai. she was injured in high school and again for her early years at stanford. when she was getting healthy, tara chose to play haley ahead of her rather than finding room for both on the court. dijonai then transferred and had an outstanding senior year for baylor (on that last-second miss in the loss to uconn in the semi's, she was fouled!). of course, with tara's line-up we did win a national championship!

hmmm...fwiw, haley and dijonai have somewhat similar size and skills, though haley is more smooth and dijonai more aggressive.  maybe haley can blossom, too!

[CompSci87]

USC beat UConn today, 72-70. I watched a couple minutes of the game on my phone while walking to the Creamery for dinner, but couldn't make much of it on the small screen.

[CompSci87]

USC beat UConn today, 72-70. I watched a couple minutes of the game on my phone while walking to the Creamery for dinner, but couldn't make much of it on the small screen.

[M T]

I get so frustrated with referees making their own rules.  I happened to notice a rerun of the USC @ UConn game.  Unfortunately, both teams can't both lose.  I tuned in late in the 3rd quarter when  UConn was down 16.

But immediately I see an obvious carry of the ball by UConn that then becomes a 3-pt basket.  Then they get a steal, and immediately a UConn player takes a stroll before dribbling the ball.  At 1:311 in the 3rd quarter, the player receives a  pass with her right foot on the ground and left foot up in the middle of a step.  So her right foot is her pivot.  She finishes her step with the left foot down.  She obviously thinks her left foot is her pivot foot and steps with her right foot.  She then takes a step with her right foot.  Since the right foot was her pivot foot, she shouid have been called for a travel therel.

But no call by these refs. Ok, maybe they ignored the first travel and decided her left foot is her pivot foot.  So, she then proceeds to begin another step, with her left foot as she releases the ball to dribble.. Even if the officials had mistakenly thought her left foot was her pivot foot, as soon as she lifts her left foot and the ball hasn't touched the ground, she has traveled.  (The ball does hit the ground just before she finishes the step with her left foot but that doesn't matter.)  So, the official should have called traveling there.  That full step was clearly a travel even if her left foot was thought to be her pivot foot.

That set of refs were  Karen Preato, Katie Lukanich, Jeffrey Smith

Two more controversial calls happened right after that but I wasn't able to review them.  Then a UConn player took a pass and took 4 footfalls before scoring.  Heal got called for 3 footfalls (properly).  But her uniform didn't say "Connecticut".
With the lack of enforcement that I saw,  UConn quickly gained back 10 points.  I had better things to do that watch two teams play in a game in which unwritten and inconsistent rules could let either team gain an advantage simply by the whims of the refs.

Rule 9. Section 5. Traveling
...
Art. 4. A player who catches the ball while moving or ends a dribble may stop
and establish a pivot foot as follows:
a. When both feet are off the playing court ....
b. When one foot is on the playing court:
    1. That foot shall be the pivot foot when the other foot touches in a step;
   ....
Art. 5. After coming to a stop and establishing the pivot foot:
a. The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the playing court, before
the ball is released on a pass or try for goal;
b. The pivot foot shall not be lifted before the ball is released to start a
dribble.

 

The first point of emphasis in the rule book is "Enforcing the rules as written"

When officials do
not enforce the playing rules, it impacts the purpose of the playing rules. There
is no room for personal philosophies or using “game management” to ignore
enforcing a playing rule. ... Coaches should continue to familiarize themselves with the
rules and teach the rules to their players; when players know what is legal or
illegal, it reduces the number of stoppages for illegal acts and makes for a more
enjoyable game.

[M T]

I get so frustrated with referees making their own rules.  I happened to notice a rerun of the USC @ UConn game.  Unfortunately, both teams can't both lose.  I tuned in late in the 3rd quarter when  UConn was down 16.

But immediately I see an obvious carry of the ball by UConn that then becomes a 3-pt basket.  Then they get a steal, and immediately a UConn player takes a stroll before dribbling the ball.  At 1:311 in the 3rd quarter, the player receives a  pass with her right foot on the ground and left foot up in the middle of a step.  So her right foot is her pivot.  She finishes her step with the left foot down.  She obviously thinks her left foot is her pivot foot and steps with her right foot.  She then takes a step with her right foot.  Since the right foot was her pivot foot, she shouid have been called for a travel therel.

But no call by these refs. Ok, maybe they ignored the first travel and decided her left foot is her pivot foot.  So, she then proceeds to begin another step, with her left foot as she releases the ball to dribble.. Even if the officials had mistakenly thought her left foot was her pivot foot, as soon as she lifts her left foot and the ball hasn't touched the ground, she has traveled.  (The ball does hit the ground just before she finishes the step with her left foot but that doesn't matter.)  So, the official should have called traveling there.  That full step was clearly a travel even if her left foot was thought to be her pivot foot.

That set of refs were  Karen Preato, Katie Lukanich, Jeffrey Smith

Two more controversial calls happened right after that but I wasn't able to review them.  Then a UConn player took a pass and took 4 footfalls before scoring.  Heal got called for 3 footfalls (properly).  But her uniform didn't say "Connecticut".
With the lack of enforcement that I saw,  UConn quickly gained back 10 points.  I had better things to do that watch two teams play in a game in which unwritten and inconsistent rules could let either team gain an advantage simply by the whims of the refs.

Rule 9. Section 5. Traveling
...
Art. 4. A player who catches the ball while moving or ends a dribble may stop
and establish a pivot foot as follows:
a. When both feet are off the playing court ....
b. When one foot is on the playing court:
    1. That foot shall be the pivot foot when the other foot touches in a step;
   ....
Art. 5. After coming to a stop and establishing the pivot foot:
a. The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the playing court, before
the ball is released on a pass or try for goal;
b. The pivot foot shall not be lifted before the ball is released to start a
dribble.

 

The first point of emphasis in the rule book is "Enforcing the rules as written"

When officials do
not enforce the playing rules, it impacts the purpose of the playing rules. There
is no room for personal philosophies or using “game management” to ignore
enforcing a playing rule. ... Coaches should continue to familiarize themselves with the
rules and teach the rules to their players; when players know what is legal or
illegal, it reduces the number of stoppages for illegal acts and makes for a more
enjoyable game.

[Hoops9092]

USC beat UConn today, 72-70. I watched a couple minutes of the game on my phone while walking to the Creamery for dinner, but couldn't make much of it on the small screen.

Juju was just phenomenal. It was a clinic watching her score in that first half. She was much more efficient in this game too than I had recalled in prior big games, leading the game in scoring with 25 points on 16 shots (compared to Iriafen's 21 shots and Bueckers' 22 shots). Also had just 3 turnovers. Happy for her and USC getting the big win on the road.

[Hoops9092]

USC beat UConn today, 72-70. I watched a couple minutes of the game on my phone while walking to the Creamery for dinner, but couldn't make much of it on the small screen.

Juju was just phenomenal. It was a clinic watching her score in that first half. She was much more efficient in this game too than I had recalled in prior big games, leading the game in scoring with 25 points on 16 shots (compared to Iriafen's 21 shots and Bueckers' 22 shots). Also had just 3 turnovers. Happy for her and USC getting the big win on the road.

[81alum]

Happy for her and USC getting the big win on the road.

Very very hard for me to be happy for anything that USC--the money grubbing cheating slimy Pac-12 destroying school--does.  On the other hand, their opponent was UConn. 

That presents a moral dilemma.

[81alum]

Happy for her and USC getting the big win on the road.

Very very hard for me to be happy for anything that USC--the money grubbing cheating slimy Pac-12 destroying school--does.  On the other hand, their opponent was UConn. 

That presents a moral dilemma.

[crackpot]

Happy for her and USC getting the big win on the road.

Very very hard for me to be happy for anything that USC--the money grubbing cheating slimy Pac-12 destroying school--does.  On the other hand, their opponent was UConn. 

That presents a moral dilemma.

Right? I feel so dirty and in need of a shower after rooting for them. Happy for Kiki, though.

[crackpot]

Happy for her and USC getting the big win on the road.

Very very hard for me to be happy for anything that USC--the money grubbing cheating slimy Pac-12 destroying school--does.  On the other hand, their opponent was UConn. 

That presents a moral dilemma.

Right? I feel so dirty and in need of a shower after rooting for them. Happy for Kiki, though.

[Maple Leaf]

https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/431...nson-coach

Former Stanford point guard Jamila Wideman hired by the Mystics of the WNBA

[Maple Leaf]

https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/431...nson-coach

Former Stanford point guard Jamila Wideman hired by the Mystics of the WNBA

[81alum]

Let me just say, I care not one tiny little bit what anybody does in the pros.  The allure of women's basketball to me was precisely BECAUSE it had no reasonable professional outlet and so the college level was the highest level of play.  That meant that college WBB was not only the highest level, but the motivations of the players were more-or-less "pure."  They were doing it for the love of the game and for the sake of being provided an education.  Knowing that made watching the game that much sweeter for me.  For that reason I much preferred WBB to MBB, where all the players seemed to be chasing (mostly unsuccessfully) a professional career. 

The main difference between MBB and WBB used to be that the male players all thought they would be pros even though they would not, while the female players knew full well they were playing for different motives.

I know my attitude is contradicted by Tara's own efforts to promote WBB and "elevate" it to the men's level.  I know that the success of WBB professionally--phenomenally so this last couple of years--is itself a marker of greater social equality.  I can appreciate that without enjoying it.

I do not like professional sports in general, and so WBB becoming more professionalized is at best a mixed blessing to me.  I am a dinosaur from the Triassic period, who genuinely believes in the amateur ideal and also thinks that such an ideal is a particularly good fit for an elite academic institution like Stanford. 

I also recognize that college sports are radically changing, and leaving me behind.  So be it.  I'll just tune them out to the degree they depart from what interests and motivates me.  Maybe a rare few others feel likewise.

[81alum]

Let me just say, I care not one tiny little bit what anybody does in the pros.  The allure of women's basketball to me was precisely BECAUSE it had no reasonable professional outlet and so the college level was the highest level of play.  That meant that college WBB was not only the highest level, but the motivations of the players were more-or-less "pure."  They were doing it for the love of the game and for the sake of being provided an education.  Knowing that made watching the game that much sweeter for me.  For that reason I much preferred WBB to MBB, where all the players seemed to be chasing (mostly unsuccessfully) a professional career. 

The main difference between MBB and WBB used to be that the male players all thought they would be pros even though they would not, while the female players knew full well they were playing for different motives.

I know my attitude is contradicted by Tara's own efforts to promote WBB and "elevate" it to the men's level.  I know that the success of WBB professionally--phenomenally so this last couple of years--is itself a marker of greater social equality.  I can appreciate that without enjoying it.

I do not like professional sports in general, and so WBB becoming more professionalized is at best a mixed blessing to me.  I am a dinosaur from the Triassic period, who genuinely believes in the amateur ideal and also thinks that such an ideal is a particularly good fit for an elite academic institution like Stanford. 

I also recognize that college sports are radically changing, and leaving me behind.  So be it.  I'll just tune them out to the degree they depart from what interests and motivates me.  Maybe a rare few others feel likewise.

[Jskass]

More and more with you 81alum. We have a few years still w volleyball until it catches up. Final four was great and yes purer than WBB has become.

[Jskass]

More and more with you 81alum. We have a few years still w volleyball until it catches up. Final four was great and yes purer than WBB has become.

[lsmant]

Let me just say, I care not one tiny little bit what anybody does in the pros.  The allure of women's basketball to me was precisely BECAUSE it had no reasonable professional outlet and so the college level was the highest level of play.  That meant that college WBB was not only the highest level, but the motivations of the players were more-or-less "pure."  They were doing it for the love of the game and for the sake of being provided an education.  Knowing that made watching the game that much sweeter for me.  For that reason I much preferred WBB to MBB, where all the players seemed to be chasing (mostly unsuccessfully) a professional career. 

The main difference between MBB and WBB used to be that the male players all thought they would be pros even though they would not, while the female players knew full well they were playing for different motives.

I know my attitude is contradicted by Tara's own efforts to promote WBB and "elevate" it to the men's level.  I know that the success of WBB professionally--phenomenally so this last couple of years--is itself a marker of greater social equality.  I can appreciate that without enjoying it.

I do not like professional sports in general, and so WBB becoming more professionalized is at best a mixed blessing to me.  I am a dinosaur from the Triassic period, who genuinely believes in the amateur ideal and also thinks that such an ideal is a particularly good fit for an elite academic institution like Stanford. 

I also recognize that college sports are radically changing, and leaving me behind.  So be it.  I'll just tune them out to the degree they depart from what interests and motivates me.  Maybe a rare few others feel likewise.

Totally with you. Thanks for all you do and say!

[lsmant]

Let me just say, I care not one tiny little bit what anybody does in the pros.  The allure of women's basketball to me was precisely BECAUSE it had no reasonable professional outlet and so the college level was the highest level of play.  That meant that college WBB was not only the highest level, but the motivations of the players were more-or-less "pure."  They were doing it for the love of the game and for the sake of being provided an education.  Knowing that made watching the game that much sweeter for me.  For that reason I much preferred WBB to MBB, where all the players seemed to be chasing (mostly unsuccessfully) a professional career. 

The main difference between MBB and WBB used to be that the male players all thought they would be pros even though they would not, while the female players knew full well they were playing for different motives.

I know my attitude is contradicted by Tara's own efforts to promote WBB and "elevate" it to the men's level.  I know that the success of WBB professionally--phenomenally so this last couple of years--is itself a marker of greater social equality.  I can appreciate that without enjoying it.

I do not like professional sports in general, and so WBB becoming more professionalized is at best a mixed blessing to me.  I am a dinosaur from the Triassic period, who genuinely believes in the amateur ideal and also thinks that such an ideal is a particularly good fit for an elite academic institution like Stanford. 

I also recognize that college sports are radically changing, and leaving me behind.  So be it.  I'll just tune them out to the degree they depart from what interests and motivates me.  Maybe a rare few others feel likewise.

Totally with you. Thanks for all you do and say!

[BillBradley]

Let me just say, I care not one tiny little bit what anybody does in the pros.  The allure of women's basketball to me was precisely BECAUSE it had no reasonable professional outlet and so the college level was the highest level of play.  That meant that college WBB was not only the highest level, but the motivations of the players were more-or-less "pure."  They were doing it for the love of the game and for the sake of being provided an education.  Knowing that made watching the game that much sweeter for me.  For that reason I much preferred WBB to MBB, where all the players seemed to be chasing (mostly unsuccessfully) a professional career. 

The main difference between MBB and WBB used to be that the male players all thought they would be pros even though they would not, while the female players knew full well they were playing for different motives.

I know my attitude is contradicted by Tara's own efforts to promote WBB and "elevate" it to the men's level.  I know that the success of WBB professionally--phenomenally so this last couple of years--is itself a marker of greater social equality.  I can appreciate that without enjoying it.

I do not like professional sports in general, and so WBB becoming more professionalized is at best a mixed blessing to me.  I am a dinosaur from the Triassic period, who genuinely believes in the amateur ideal and also thinks that such an ideal is a particularly good fit for an elite academic institution like Stanford. 

I also recognize that college sports are radically changing, and leaving me behind.  So be it.  I'll just tune them out to the degree they depart from what interests and motivates me.  Maybe a rare few others feel likewise.

re: interest in professional sports, I get where you're coming from. I too would rather watch college or even high school sports. But for me it's because i like the imperfections. In the pros, there's times when no one can stop the offense. They are just so good at what they do. Coaches are less impactful in the pros, there are far fewer upsets, etc. But the college game, especially basketball, is very unpredictable. That's what I love about it.

I disagree though with the "purity of motivation" argument wrt the current college sports environment. The notion that collegiate athletes before NIL and the transfer portal were playing for the love of the game and to get an education is simply not true (IMO). I highly doubt that Maya Moore, Diana Turasi, Brittany Griner, or even the Ogwumike's had their education as top of mind over basketball. Playing a major sport in college dominates your life. And even though monetary compensation wasn't legal for them, the athletes weren't playing college basketball without fame, greed, pride, or arrogance, just to name a few of the awful vices that exist in sports. Those things naturally come with a competitive environment.  All that's happening now is that avarice has been added to the mix. My point being, I don't think it's fair to couch the "pre-NIL athlete" as pure, while the post-NIL athletes are just money-grubbers. All D1 athletes have motivations that can be construed as ugly. Did we enjoy watching Cameron Brink as a senior less than Cameron Brink as a freshman just because she got paid? I know I enjoyed last year's season much less because they struggled down the stretch and didn't win it all! It had nothing to do with the NIL involved.

I will also go on record, again, to say that I don't believe anyone on this board who says they have lost the enjoyment of watching college sports just because of NIL and the transfer portal. I think people (myself included) aren't enjoying this Stanford women's basketball team as much as past teams because, frankly, they aren't as good! But I'm quite sure that if this Stanford team finds the formula and goes on a late season run, all the way to the national championship, 81 and others will enjoy that run just as much as our past national championships, even though the players are getting compensated.

[BillBradley]

Let me just say, I care not one tiny little bit what anybody does in the pros.  The allure of women's basketball to me was precisely BECAUSE it had no reasonable professional outlet and so the college level was the highest level of play.  That meant that college WBB was not only the highest level, but the motivations of the players were more-or-less "pure."  They were doing it for the love of the game and for the sake of being provided an education.  Knowing that made watching the game that much sweeter for me.  For that reason I much preferred WBB to MBB, where all the players seemed to be chasing (mostly unsuccessfully) a professional career. 

The main difference between MBB and WBB used to be that the male players all thought they would be pros even though they would not, while the female players knew full well they were playing for different motives.

I know my attitude is contradicted by Tara's own efforts to promote WBB and "elevate" it to the men's level.  I know that the success of WBB professionally--phenomenally so this last couple of years--is itself a marker of greater social equality.  I can appreciate that without enjoying it.

I do not like professional sports in general, and so WBB becoming more professionalized is at best a mixed blessing to me.  I am a dinosaur from the Triassic period, who genuinely believes in the amateur ideal and also thinks that such an ideal is a particularly good fit for an elite academic institution like Stanford. 

I also recognize that college sports are radically changing, and leaving me behind.  So be it.  I'll just tune them out to the degree they depart from what interests and motivates me.  Maybe a rare few others feel likewise.

re: interest in professional sports, I get where you're coming from. I too would rather watch college or even high school sports. But for me it's because i like the imperfections. In the pros, there's times when no one can stop the offense. They are just so good at what they do. Coaches are less impactful in the pros, there are far fewer upsets, etc. But the college game, especially basketball, is very unpredictable. That's what I love about it.

I disagree though with the "purity of motivation" argument wrt the current college sports environment. The notion that collegiate athletes before NIL and the transfer portal were playing for the love of the game and to get an education is simply not true (IMO). I highly doubt that Maya Moore, Diana Turasi, Brittany Griner, or even the Ogwumike's had their education as top of mind over basketball. Playing a major sport in college dominates your life. And even though monetary compensation wasn't legal for them, the athletes weren't playing college basketball without fame, greed, pride, or arrogance, just to name a few of the awful vices that exist in sports. Those things naturally come with a competitive environment.  All that's happening now is that avarice has been added to the mix. My point being, I don't think it's fair to couch the "pre-NIL athlete" as pure, while the post-NIL athletes are just money-grubbers. All D1 athletes have motivations that can be construed as ugly. Did we enjoy watching Cameron Brink as a senior less than Cameron Brink as a freshman just because she got paid? I know I enjoyed last year's season much less because they struggled down the stretch and didn't win it all! It had nothing to do with the NIL involved.

I will also go on record, again, to say that I don't believe anyone on this board who says they have lost the enjoyment of watching college sports just because of NIL and the transfer portal. I think people (myself included) aren't enjoying this Stanford women's basketball team as much as past teams because, frankly, they aren't as good! But I'm quite sure that if this Stanford team finds the formula and goes on a late season run, all the way to the national championship, 81 and others will enjoy that run just as much as our past national championships, even though the players are getting compensated.

[Jskass]

It's complicated - not sure those comments are mutually exclusive. Elements of truth all the way around, and certainly agree that having a weak team dominates all the logic and (negative) emotions, whereas they did not matter very much when we had Brink and Iriafen! Anyhow - maybe discuss at halftime or over a beer? We'll be in town returning to NorCal from cold New England in time to cheer loudly for the team 1/09 and 1/12.

[Jskass]

It's complicated - not sure those comments are mutually exclusive. Elements of truth all the way around, and certainly agree that having a weak team dominates all the logic and (negative) emotions, whereas they did not matter very much when we had Brink and Iriafen! Anyhow - maybe discuss at halftime or over a beer? We'll be in town returning to NorCal from cold New England in time to cheer loudly for the team 1/09 and 1/12.

[BillBradley]

It's complicated - not sure those comments are mutually exclusive. Elements of truth all the way around, and certainly agree that having a weak team dominates all the logic and (negative) emotions, whereas they did not matter very much when we had Brink and Iriafen! Anyhow - maybe discuss at halftime or over a beer? We'll be in town returning to NorCal from cold New England in time to cheer loudly for the team 1/09 and 1/12.

Would love to join, but I'm out of state...Nonetheless, I think it's a very interesting topic. So many people are swearing off college athletics in my crowd just because the players are getting compensated now and it makes me sad.

[BillBradley]

It's complicated - not sure those comments are mutually exclusive. Elements of truth all the way around, and certainly agree that having a weak team dominates all the logic and (negative) emotions, whereas they did not matter very much when we had Brink and Iriafen! Anyhow - maybe discuss at halftime or over a beer? We'll be in town returning to NorCal from cold New England in time to cheer loudly for the team 1/09 and 1/12.

Would love to join, but I'm out of state...Nonetheless, I think it's a very interesting topic. So many people are swearing off college athletics in my crowd just because the players are getting compensated now and it makes me sad.

[BostonCard]

1735581681[/url]']
I will also go on record, again, to say that I don't believe anyone on this board who says they have lost the enjoyment of watching college sports just because of NIL and the transfer portal. I think people (myself included) aren't enjoying this Stanford women's basketball team as much as past teams because, frankly, they aren't as good! But I'm quite sure that if this Stanford team finds the formula and goes on a late season run, all the way to the national championship, 81 and others will enjoy that run just as much as our past national championships, even though the players are getting compensated.

I agree with most of what you wrote.  I don’t think knowing that players are being paid for use of their name, image, and likeness bothers me much, though I somewhat differentiate between true sponsorships (ie, Nike paying an athlete to put them on a billboard with a shoe) versus collectives where boosters are just funneling money to a player in order for them to play for a specific team.  If we are going to do that, I’d much rather it all be above board and have the school pay athletes directly.

Where I disagree is that I think the transfer portal has definitely reduced my enjoyment of the game.  Part of what makes college sports special is that there was both continuity from year to year and natural rejuvination as players graduate and new recruits come in.  A lot of the enjoyment and satisfaction comes from watching a player like Kiki Iriafen go from being a reserve with a lot of potential her freshman year to showing flashes of what she could do her sophomore year to being one of the stars last year.  I would have loved to see that evolution play out her senior year, with her being the leader and star of the team.  I would have loved the same from Betts, and I am pretty sure we would have witnessed it, but for the transfer portal.  To be fair, I don’t begrudge Betts and Iriafen (or the other players) their choices; not having been there, I don’t know why the decided to go elsewhere (and, in Iriafen’s case, she had already earned her degree), and if Stanford or the Stanford women’s basketball team is not working out for a player, by all means they should be entitled to do what is best for them.  That being said, the overall student transfer rate is infinitesimal; the transfer rate for athletes (especially in football and basketball) is substantially higher, and I think that’s a problem.  As long as there are a finite number of slots for Stanford students, it is the school’s responsibility to allocate those wisely, and part of that is to allocate them to students (both at large students and student-athletes) who are most likely to fully take advantage of the opportunity.  To my mind, staying until they leave with their degree is a major part of that (not the only, of course).

BC

[BostonCard]

1735581681[/url]']
I will also go on record, again, to say that I don't believe anyone on this board who says they have lost the enjoyment of watching college sports just because of NIL and the transfer portal. I think people (myself included) aren't enjoying this Stanford women's basketball team as much as past teams because, frankly, they aren't as good! But I'm quite sure that if this Stanford team finds the formula and goes on a late season run, all the way to the national championship, 81 and others will enjoy that run just as much as our past national championships, even though the players are getting compensated.

I agree with most of what you wrote.  I don’t think knowing that players are being paid for use of their name, image, and likeness bothers me much, though I somewhat differentiate between true sponsorships (ie, Nike paying an athlete to put them on a billboard with a shoe) versus collectives where boosters are just funneling money to a player in order for them to play for a specific team.  If we are going to do that, I’d much rather it all be above board and have the school pay athletes directly.

Where I disagree is that I think the transfer portal has definitely reduced my enjoyment of the game.  Part of what makes college sports special is that there was both continuity from year to year and natural rejuvination as players graduate and new recruits come in.  A lot of the enjoyment and satisfaction comes from watching a player like Kiki Iriafen go from being a reserve with a lot of potential her freshman year to showing flashes of what she could do her sophomore year to being one of the stars last year.  I would have loved to see that evolution play out her senior year, with her being the leader and star of the team.  I would have loved the same from Betts, and I am pretty sure we would have witnessed it, but for the transfer portal.  To be fair, I don’t begrudge Betts and Iriafen (or the other players) their choices; not having been there, I don’t know why the decided to go elsewhere (and, in Iriafen’s case, she had already earned her degree), and if Stanford or the Stanford women’s basketball team is not working out for a player, by all means they should be entitled to do what is best for them.  That being said, the overall student transfer rate is infinitesimal; the transfer rate for athletes (especially in football and basketball) is substantially higher, and I think that’s a problem.  As long as there are a finite number of slots for Stanford students, it is the school’s responsibility to allocate those wisely, and part of that is to allocate them to students (both at large students and student-athletes) who are most likely to fully take advantage of the opportunity.  To my mind, staying until they leave with their degree is a major part of that (not the only, of course).

BC