[jonnyss]

Of course Becky Hammon has an amazing track record, but I wonder if Stanford will pay $2.3 million before seeing success AT Stanford.

agreed. presumably, the athletic department would have to lay off 3 or 4 administrators to raise the extra salary.  ; ^ )

that said, do we as fans have a right at least to ask for someone really tops? if we want tara results, don't we lobby hard to replace tara with someone (almost) as good as tara?

texas wants results - they hire vic schaefer. lsu wants results - they poach kim mulkey. we find it "inexcusable" not to make the tournament - don't we then appeal for a top-tier coach rather than a promising candidate?

[jonnyss]

Of course Becky Hammon has an amazing track record, but I wonder if Stanford will pay $2.3 million before seeing success AT Stanford.

agreed. presumably, the athletic department would have to lay off 3 or 4 administrators to raise the extra salary.  ; ^ )

that said, do we as fans have a right at least to ask for someone really tops? if we want tara results, don't we lobby hard to replace tara with someone (almost) as good as tara?

texas wants results - they hire vic schaefer. lsu wants results - they poach kim mulkey. we find it "inexcusable" not to make the tournament - don't we then appeal for a top-tier coach rather than a promising candidate?

[Card10Fan]

For those not happy with the state of the WBB program right now, email our new AD those concerns. Will be sending one emphasizing the standards and expectations for this proud program need to be higher than the current results on the court. Also the importance of investing in women's basketball as an athletic department. 

jdona@stanford.edu
athleticdirector@stanford.edu

[Card10Fan]

For those not happy with the state of the WBB program right now, email our new AD those concerns. Will be sending one emphasizing the standards and expectations for this proud program need to be higher than the current results on the court. Also the importance of investing in women's basketball as an athletic department. 

jdona@stanford.edu
athleticdirector@stanford.edu

[Hieronymus]

Currently tied with Miami at 5-9 in conference in 12th place. At this point, you would hope for 8-10 at the end of the season and that they climb a spot or 2 to 10th or 11th. With the very weird structure of the ACC tournament, the 10th - 18th seeds play an extra game and the top 4 seeds get an extra bye. We will likely be in that extra game zone since jumping 8-6 ND for 9th is very unlikely. That first game unfortunately is much more a risk than an opportunity. It’s a chance for a bad loss or a fairly meaningless win minus the chance to keep playing. We may need to win the ACC tourney and at least make the finals though so the extra game doesn’t really matter much.

[Hieronymus]

Currently tied with Miami at 5-9 in conference in 12th place. At this point, you would hope for 8-10 at the end of the season and that they climb a spot or 2 to 10th or 11th. With the very weird structure of the ACC tournament, the 10th - 18th seeds play an extra game and the top 4 seeds get an extra bye. We will likely be in that extra game zone since jumping 8-6 ND for 9th is very unlikely. That first game unfortunately is much more a risk than an opportunity. It’s a chance for a bad loss or a fairly meaningless win minus the chance to keep playing. We may need to win the ACC tourney and at least make the finals though so the extra game doesn’t really matter much.

[Spiny_Norman]

Sabreena Merchant has written an article in the Athletic about Tennessee women's basketball, its struggles this season and its downward trajectory since Pat Summitt retired. I read some paragraphs and thought you could replace "Tennessee" with "Stanford" and it would still be accurate. The story is a cautionary one for Stanford Athletics administrators and fans. 

This especially resonated.

There has yet to be a DI program in the modern era to maintain success after the retirement of a coaching legend. Stanford missed the tournament after Tara VanDerveer’s departure in 2024 and will likely do so again. Notre Dame has stalled in the Sweet 16 since Muffet McGraw left, as has Baylor after Kim Mulkey moved to LSU. Tennessee is in uncharted territory. Despite its self-perception as a power in women’s basketball, the market revealed last offseason that the Tennessee head coaching position was no longer a prestige job — because Tennessee was no longer a prestige program.

A perfunctory NCAA Tournament appearance is the likely endgame of the 2025-26 season. And it’s unclear what Tennessee can even do about it. The Lady Vols are chasing ghosts.

They have to retain Caldwell, despite an uninspiring basketball product and public comments that haven’t exactly earned her much goodwill from the alumnae. She’ll likely stay because she was the best coach who wanted to take this job, and it’s better to keep building than restart the clock.

And this.

But Tennessee can’t behave that way anymore, cutting coaches with the expectation a line of candidates will be waiting outside Thompson-Boling Arena. It doesn’t have the cache to draw the top options in the coaching carousel. The best coaches in the country seem more interested in building up new programs rather than resuscitating once-proud institutions. Even Kara Lawson, the Duke coach and a champion with the Volunteers who cites Summitt as her foremost coaching inspiration, reportedly turned down the job before Caldwell was hired.
 
This is what Tennessee is, a middle of the pack SEC team. Perhaps reinvestment in facilities, an increased NIL fund or higher coaching salaries will make it a more attractive destination. More likely, if the program takes a step forward, it is because Caldwell figures out how to navigate the SEC or lands a star recruit, not unlike how Mikayla Blakes gave life to Vanderbilt.
 
The expectations for Tennessee can’t be what they were. The athletic department signaled as much when it hired Caldwell. Whatever she does can’t be judged against Summitt. It’s a different era in college basketball, and a different era in Knoxville. It’s her task to prove she can build a competitive DI program regardless of what preceded her.

Link (which should be accessible to all). 
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7065182...l-share-ta

[Spiny_Norman]

Sabreena Merchant has written an article in the Athletic about Tennessee women's basketball, its struggles this season and its downward trajectory since Pat Summitt retired. I read some paragraphs and thought you could replace "Tennessee" with "Stanford" and it would still be accurate. The story is a cautionary one for Stanford Athletics administrators and fans. 

This especially resonated.

There has yet to be a DI program in the modern era to maintain success after the retirement of a coaching legend. Stanford missed the tournament after Tara VanDerveer’s departure in 2024 and will likely do so again. Notre Dame has stalled in the Sweet 16 since Muffet McGraw left, as has Baylor after Kim Mulkey moved to LSU. Tennessee is in uncharted territory. Despite its self-perception as a power in women’s basketball, the market revealed last offseason that the Tennessee head coaching position was no longer a prestige job — because Tennessee was no longer a prestige program.

A perfunctory NCAA Tournament appearance is the likely endgame of the 2025-26 season. And it’s unclear what Tennessee can even do about it. The Lady Vols are chasing ghosts.

They have to retain Caldwell, despite an uninspiring basketball product and public comments that haven’t exactly earned her much goodwill from the alumnae. She’ll likely stay because she was the best coach who wanted to take this job, and it’s better to keep building than restart the clock.

And this.

But Tennessee can’t behave that way anymore, cutting coaches with the expectation a line of candidates will be waiting outside Thompson-Boling Arena. It doesn’t have the cache to draw the top options in the coaching carousel. The best coaches in the country seem more interested in building up new programs rather than resuscitating once-proud institutions. Even Kara Lawson, the Duke coach and a champion with the Volunteers who cites Summitt as her foremost coaching inspiration, reportedly turned down the job before Caldwell was hired.
 
This is what Tennessee is, a middle of the pack SEC team. Perhaps reinvestment in facilities, an increased NIL fund or higher coaching salaries will make it a more attractive destination. More likely, if the program takes a step forward, it is because Caldwell figures out how to navigate the SEC or lands a star recruit, not unlike how Mikayla Blakes gave life to Vanderbilt.
 
The expectations for Tennessee can’t be what they were. The athletic department signaled as much when it hired Caldwell. Whatever she does can’t be judged against Summitt. It’s a different era in college basketball, and a different era in Knoxville. It’s her task to prove she can build a competitive DI program regardless of what preceded her.

Link (which should be accessible to all). 
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7065182...l-share-ta

[jonnyss]

[quote="Spiny_Norman" pid='446210' dateline='1771963362']
Sabreena Merchant has written an article in the Athletic about Tennessee women's basketball, its struggles this season and its downward trajectory since Pat Summitt retired. I read some paragraphs and thought you could replace "Tennessee" with "Stanford" and it would still be accurate. The story is a cautionary one for Stanford Athletics administrators and fans. 

[quote]Tennessee doesn’t have the cache to draw the top options in the coaching carousel. 

Link (which should be accessible to all). 
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7065182...l-share-ta
[/quote]

nice article, thanks for posting. plus, the auto-correct typo makes me laugh.

oh, wait! i thought it autocorrected to cache from "doesn't have the cachet." but it could have autocorrected from "doesn't have the cash!" (or both)

in that case i will offer that stanford does have the cachet - though maybe not the cash.

[jonnyss]

[quote="Spiny_Norman" pid='446210' dateline='1771963362']
Sabreena Merchant has written an article in the Athletic about Tennessee women's basketball, its struggles this season and its downward trajectory since Pat Summitt retired. I read some paragraphs and thought you could replace "Tennessee" with "Stanford" and it would still be accurate. The story is a cautionary one for Stanford Athletics administrators and fans. 

[quote]Tennessee doesn’t have the cache to draw the top options in the coaching carousel. 

Link (which should be accessible to all). 
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7065182...l-share-ta
[/quote]

nice article, thanks for posting. plus, the auto-correct typo makes me laugh.

oh, wait! i thought it autocorrected to cache from "doesn't have the cachet." but it could have autocorrected from "doesn't have the cash!" (or both)

in that case i will offer that stanford does have the cachet - though maybe not the cash.

[Mudhead]

Thank you for posting Tennessee WBB article and for pointing out its relevance to Stanford. I think our problems are a lot deeper than whether we have the right head coach… and we, like Tennessee have fallen from the elite. 

The fall is more than two years old. It began when we as an institution, as a department as coaches and as fans thought we could ignore the tide of NIL , transfer portals and the new realities of College sports.  Arrogance does usually come before the fall.

 My big questions? How long can this new reality , which seems unstable, last?  Do we want to be part of the new reality if it lasts a decade?  Is there a “Stanford Way” that keeps what we have treasured about Stanford athletes and athletics and succeeds in this new reality?

I don’t have answers. I have little interest in Stanford operating a second rate or Ivy like program.  Or am I enamored of uSC and Texas Tech.

[Mudhead]

Thank you for posting Tennessee WBB article and for pointing out its relevance to Stanford. I think our problems are a lot deeper than whether we have the right head coach… and we, like Tennessee have fallen from the elite. 

The fall is more than two years old. It began when we as an institution, as a department as coaches and as fans thought we could ignore the tide of NIL , transfer portals and the new realities of College sports.  Arrogance does usually come before the fall.

 My big questions? How long can this new reality , which seems unstable, last?  Do we want to be part of the new reality if it lasts a decade?  Is there a “Stanford Way” that keeps what we have treasured about Stanford athletes and athletics and succeeds in this new reality?

I don’t have answers. I have little interest in Stanford operating a second rate or Ivy like program.  Or am I enamored of uSC and Texas Tech.

[BostonCard]

I don’t have answers. I have little interest in Stanford operating a second rate or Ivy like program.  Or am I enamored of uSC and Texas Tech.

Was that meant to say “Nor am I enamored of USC and Texas Tech” (as in, nor do you want a program whose success is simply predicated in a large donor buying it, which is what I assume the reference is).

BC

[BostonCard]

I don’t have answers. I have little interest in Stanford operating a second rate or Ivy like program.  Or am I enamored of uSC and Texas Tech.

Was that meant to say “Nor am I enamored of USC and Texas Tech” (as in, nor do you want a program whose success is simply predicated in a large donor buying it, which is what I assume the reference is).

BC

[Mudhead]

1771997032[/url]']

1771978931[/url]']
I don’t have answers. I have little interest in Stanford operating a second rate or Ivy like program.  Or am I enamored of uSC and Texas Tech.

Was that meant to say “Nor am I enamored of USC and Texas Tech” (as in, nor do you want a program whose success is simply predicated in a large donor buying it, which is what I assume the reference is).

BC

You got it. Thanks for editing . Large thumbs, small screen not a great combination.

[Mudhead]

1771997032[/url]']

1771978931[/url]']
I don’t have answers. I have little interest in Stanford operating a second rate or Ivy like program.  Or am I enamored of uSC and Texas Tech.

Was that meant to say “Nor am I enamored of USC and Texas Tech” (as in, nor do you want a program whose success is simply predicated in a large donor buying it, which is what I assume the reference is).

BC

You got it. Thanks for editing . Large thumbs, small screen not a great combination.

[HalloHaleakala]

Sabreena Merchant has written an article in the Athletic about Tennessee women's basketball, its struggles this season and its downward trajectory since Pat Summitt retired. I read some paragraphs and thought you could replace "Tennessee" with "Stanford" and it would still be accurate. The story is a cautionary one for Stanford Athletics administrators and fans. 

This especially resonated.

There has yet to be a DI program in the modern era to maintain success after the retirement of a coaching legend. Stanford missed the tournament after Tara VanDerveer’s departure in 2024 and will likely do so again. Notre Dame has stalled in the Sweet 16 since Muffet McGraw left, as has Baylor after Kim Mulkey moved to LSU. Tennessee is in uncharted territory. Despite its self-perception as a power in women’s basketball, the market revealed last offseason that the Tennessee head coaching position was no longer a prestige job — because Tennessee was no longer a prestige program.

A perfunctory NCAA Tournament appearance is the likely endgame of the 2025-26 season. And it’s unclear what Tennessee can even do about it. The Lady Vols are chasing ghosts.

They have to retain Caldwell, despite an uninspiring basketball product and public comments that haven’t exactly earned her much goodwill from the alumnae. She’ll likely stay because she was the best coach who wanted to take this job, and it’s better to keep building than restart the clock.

And this.

But Tennessee can’t behave that way anymore, cutting coaches with the expectation a line of candidates will be waiting outside Thompson-Boling Arena. It doesn’t have the cache to draw the top options in the coaching carousel. The best coaches in the country seem more interested in building up new programs rather than resuscitating once-proud institutions. Even Kara Lawson, the Duke coach and a champion with the Volunteers who cites Summitt as her foremost coaching inspiration, reportedly turned down the job before Caldwell was hired.
 
This is what Tennessee is, a middle of the pack SEC team. Perhaps reinvestment in facilities, an increased NIL fund or higher coaching salaries will make it a more attractive destination. More likely, if the program takes a step forward, it is because Caldwell figures out how to navigate the SEC or lands a star recruit, not unlike how Mikayla Blakes gave life to Vanderbilt.
 
The expectations for Tennessee can’t be what they were. The athletic department signaled as much when it hired Caldwell. Whatever she does can’t be judged against Summitt. It’s a different era in college basketball, and a different era in Knoxville. It’s her task to prove she can build a competitive DI program regardless of what preceded her.

Link (which should be accessible to all). 
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7065182...l-share-ta

Interesting tidbit about Lawson. I believe, though, that she'll ultimately be Brenda Frese's successor at Maryland. She's from Greater Washington, DC and, as I understand, has always kind of kept tabs on the team and the area in general.

[HalloHaleakala]

Sabreena Merchant has written an article in the Athletic about Tennessee women's basketball, its struggles this season and its downward trajectory since Pat Summitt retired. I read some paragraphs and thought you could replace "Tennessee" with "Stanford" and it would still be accurate. The story is a cautionary one for Stanford Athletics administrators and fans. 

This especially resonated.

There has yet to be a DI program in the modern era to maintain success after the retirement of a coaching legend. Stanford missed the tournament after Tara VanDerveer’s departure in 2024 and will likely do so again. Notre Dame has stalled in the Sweet 16 since Muffet McGraw left, as has Baylor after Kim Mulkey moved to LSU. Tennessee is in uncharted territory. Despite its self-perception as a power in women’s basketball, the market revealed last offseason that the Tennessee head coaching position was no longer a prestige job — because Tennessee was no longer a prestige program.

A perfunctory NCAA Tournament appearance is the likely endgame of the 2025-26 season. And it’s unclear what Tennessee can even do about it. The Lady Vols are chasing ghosts.

They have to retain Caldwell, despite an uninspiring basketball product and public comments that haven’t exactly earned her much goodwill from the alumnae. She’ll likely stay because she was the best coach who wanted to take this job, and it’s better to keep building than restart the clock.

And this.

But Tennessee can’t behave that way anymore, cutting coaches with the expectation a line of candidates will be waiting outside Thompson-Boling Arena. It doesn’t have the cache to draw the top options in the coaching carousel. The best coaches in the country seem more interested in building up new programs rather than resuscitating once-proud institutions. Even Kara Lawson, the Duke coach and a champion with the Volunteers who cites Summitt as her foremost coaching inspiration, reportedly turned down the job before Caldwell was hired.
 
This is what Tennessee is, a middle of the pack SEC team. Perhaps reinvestment in facilities, an increased NIL fund or higher coaching salaries will make it a more attractive destination. More likely, if the program takes a step forward, it is because Caldwell figures out how to navigate the SEC or lands a star recruit, not unlike how Mikayla Blakes gave life to Vanderbilt.
 
The expectations for Tennessee can’t be what they were. The athletic department signaled as much when it hired Caldwell. Whatever she does can’t be judged against Summitt. It’s a different era in college basketball, and a different era in Knoxville. It’s her task to prove she can build a competitive DI program regardless of what preceded her.

Link (which should be accessible to all). 
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7065182...l-share-ta

Interesting tidbit about Lawson. I believe, though, that she'll ultimately be Brenda Frese's successor at Maryland. She's from Greater Washington, DC and, as I understand, has always kind of kept tabs on the team and the area in general.

[BillBradley]

It's pretty simple to evaluate KP's performance the past two years. Looking solely at how the team has played, no AD would conclude that Kate is the right person for this job. The reasons for Donahoe to keep her would be:
1) He is convinced that she is through the "learning curve" and going forward she will be a great coach for us.
2) He feels like Stanford owes it to her to keep her. She is a great representative of the university (true) and has given decades of her life to the program. 

My take...#1 is really a reach. Possible, sure, but in my mind it's a bridge too far. For #2, we do owe her a lot. But I don't think you express that gratitude by risking the fate of the program. Show the gratitude with a great package and a heartfelt thank you.

Scott Rueck would be my choice.

[BillBradley]

It's pretty simple to evaluate KP's performance the past two years. Looking solely at how the team has played, no AD would conclude that Kate is the right person for this job. The reasons for Donahoe to keep her would be:
1) He is convinced that she is through the "learning curve" and going forward she will be a great coach for us.
2) He feels like Stanford owes it to her to keep her. She is a great representative of the university (true) and has given decades of her life to the program. 

My take...#1 is really a reach. Possible, sure, but in my mind it's a bridge too far. For #2, we do owe her a lot. But I don't think you express that gratitude by risking the fate of the program. Show the gratitude with a great package and a heartfelt thank you.

Scott Rueck would be my choice.

[82lsju]

It's pretty simple to evaluate KP's performance the past two years. Looking solely at how the team has played, no AD would conclude that Kate is the right person for this job. The reasons for Donahoe to keep her would be:
1) He is convinced that she is through the "learning curve" and going forward she will be a great coach for us.
2) He feels like Stanford owes it to her to keep her. She is a great representative of the university (true) and has given decades of her life to the program. 

My take...#1 is really a reach. Possible, sure, but in my mind it's a bridge too far. For #2, we do owe her a lot. But I don't think you express that gratitude by risking the fate of the program. Show the gratitude with a great package and a heartfelt thank you.

Scott Rueck would be my choice.

given Tara is still a special advisor to the AD he might be a little less likely to fire Paye if she did not support the decision....

[82lsju]

It's pretty simple to evaluate KP's performance the past two years. Looking solely at how the team has played, no AD would conclude that Kate is the right person for this job. The reasons for Donahoe to keep her would be:
1) He is convinced that she is through the "learning curve" and going forward she will be a great coach for us.
2) He feels like Stanford owes it to her to keep her. She is a great representative of the university (true) and has given decades of her life to the program. 

My take...#1 is really a reach. Possible, sure, but in my mind it's a bridge too far. For #2, we do owe her a lot. But I don't think you express that gratitude by risking the fate of the program. Show the gratitude with a great package and a heartfelt thank you.

Scott Rueck would be my choice.

given Tara is still a special advisor to the AD he might be a little less likely to fire Paye if she did not support the decision....

[BillBradley]

It's pretty simple to evaluate KP's performance the past two years. Looking solely at how the team has played, no AD would conclude that Kate is the right person for this job. The reasons for Donahoe to keep her would be:
1) He is convinced that she is through the "learning curve" and going forward she will be a great coach for us.
2) He feels like Stanford owes it to her to keep her. She is a great representative of the university (true) and has given decades of her life to the program. 

My take...#1 is really a reach. Possible, sure, but in my mind it's a bridge too far. For #2, we do owe her a lot. But I don't think you express that gratitude by risking the fate of the program. Show the gratitude with a great package and a heartfelt thank you.

Scott Rueck would be my choice.

given Tara is still a special advisor to the AD he might be a little less likely to fire Paye if she did not support the decision....

Yeah, that's a good point.

[BillBradley]

It's pretty simple to evaluate KP's performance the past two years. Looking solely at how the team has played, no AD would conclude that Kate is the right person for this job. The reasons for Donahoe to keep her would be:
1) He is convinced that she is through the "learning curve" and going forward she will be a great coach for us.
2) He feels like Stanford owes it to her to keep her. She is a great representative of the university (true) and has given decades of her life to the program. 

My take...#1 is really a reach. Possible, sure, but in my mind it's a bridge too far. For #2, we do owe her a lot. But I don't think you express that gratitude by risking the fate of the program. Show the gratitude with a great package and a heartfelt thank you.

Scott Rueck would be my choice.

given Tara is still a special advisor to the AD he might be a little less likely to fire Paye if she did not support the decision....

Yeah, that's a good point.

[crackpot]

Scott Rueck would be my choice.

He is a great choice. But I think if he was going to jump ship, he would have done so when the conference imploded, like Kyle did.

[crackpot]

Scott Rueck would be my choice.

He is a great choice. But I think if he was going to jump ship, he would have done so when the conference imploded, like Kyle did.

[BostonCard]

I think (maybe hope) that a lot of what looks like "bad coaching" is actually freshman inexperience.  This year, true freshmen played 36% of available minutes.  We started two freshmen, both of whom played at least 65% of available minutes.  I have data going back to 2021, here's how many minutes freshmen played:

2021: 14.5% (tops was Cameron Brink, who played 44.3% of available minutes despite being a top three recruit and a generational talent)
2022: 6.1% (this class featured future WNBA player Kiki iriafen, who played 15.1% of minutes)
2023: 23.8% (Lepolo was the lead minute eater in this class, she was in 62% of the time, but the headliner was Lauren Betts, who only played 22.6% of the time despite being a #1 recruit and one of the top players in the country now)
2024: 16.4% (this class featured our current juniors, Agara, Ogden, and Clardy who are now starters; Agara led in minutes but only played 34.4% of the time)
2025: 10.8% (Shay Ijiwoye had the most minutes at 38.9%)

2026, freshmen had 50% more playing time than any of the preceding five years.  Some of that is that the trio of freshmen who saw substantial playing time are very good recruits, but I don't think they are quite at the level of Brink, Iriafen (though we will see), or Betts, all of whom got fewer minutes than Somfai and Swain, and only Brink got more minutes than Eschmeyer.  I think that points to the lack of depth on the team, exacerbated by injuries to Lepolo and Agara.  I'm pretty certain that had these players been playing any time before 2025 they would have gotten under 20% of available minutes each and less than 15% of available minutes as a class.  And while I think VanDerveer was a bit conservative about playing freshmen compared to other coaches there was a good reason for it.  Look at our current junior class; they barely contributed as freshmen, but Clardy and Agara became substantially more productive as sophomores, and Ogden turned a corner this year.

36% of available minutes played means that we pretty much had two freshmen in at all times. Freshmen players are going to make freshmen mistakes.  If you have two freshmen in, you double the chances that at least one of them is out of position, turns the wrong way, runs the wrong play, loses track of the player she is tasked with defending, dribbles through trouble instead of passing, or otherwise screws things up.  Think of, for example, how many times Swain would drive and just fail to make the layup; I would venture that she will finish much better with experience.  A lot of that looks like disorganized chaos, which one would ascribe to coaching, but no amount of coaching can substitute for experience.

The trouble, of course, is that in this day and age, we don't have the luxury of being able to count on talented freshmen staying through graduation.  In different era, we would have had Betts and Nivar anchoring the team along with Lepolo and our juniors, and Somfai and Swain would have come in off the bench, instead of being depended on to start.  It would be unfortunate (but not unexpected) if one or more of them transfer away for NIL money, or a different academic or athletic environment.  So while normally I would have been quite bullish about a team with three seniors and two sophomores all with starting experience, I'm going to hold my breath until we know what we have next year.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think (maybe hope) that a lot of what looks like "bad coaching" is actually freshman inexperience.  This year, true freshmen played 36% of available minutes.  We started two freshmen, both of whom played at least 65% of available minutes.  I have data going back to 2021, here's how many minutes freshmen played:

2021: 14.5% (tops was Cameron Brink, who played 44.3% of available minutes despite being a top three recruit and a generational talent)
2022: 6.1% (this class featured future WNBA player Kiki iriafen, who played 15.1% of minutes)
2023: 23.8% (Lepolo was the lead minute eater in this class, she was in 62% of the time, but the headliner was Lauren Betts, who only played 22.6% of the time despite being a #1 recruit and one of the top players in the country now)
2024: 16.4% (this class featured our current juniors, Agara, Ogden, and Clardy who are now starters; Agara led in minutes but only played 34.4% of the time)
2025: 10.8% (Shay Ijiwoye had the most minutes at 38.9%)

2026, freshmen had 50% more playing time than any of the preceding five years.  Some of that is that the trio of freshmen who saw substantial playing time are very good recruits, but I don't think they are quite at the level of Brink, Iriafen (though we will see), or Betts, all of whom got fewer minutes than Somfai and Swain, and only Brink got more minutes than Eschmeyer.  I think that points to the lack of depth on the team, exacerbated by injuries to Lepolo and Agara.  I'm pretty certain that had these players been playing any time before 2025 they would have gotten under 20% of available minutes each and less than 15% of available minutes as a class.  And while I think VanDerveer was a bit conservative about playing freshmen compared to other coaches there was a good reason for it.  Look at our current junior class; they barely contributed as freshmen, but Clardy and Agara became substantially more productive as sophomores, and Ogden turned a corner this year.

36% of available minutes played means that we pretty much had two freshmen in at all times. Freshmen players are going to make freshmen mistakes.  If you have two freshmen in, you double the chances that at least one of them is out of position, turns the wrong way, runs the wrong play, loses track of the player she is tasked with defending, dribbles through trouble instead of passing, or otherwise screws things up.  Think of, for example, how many times Swain would drive and just fail to make the layup; I would venture that she will finish much better with experience.  A lot of that looks like disorganized chaos, which one would ascribe to coaching, but no amount of coaching can substitute for experience.

The trouble, of course, is that in this day and age, we don't have the luxury of being able to count on talented freshmen staying through graduation.  In different era, we would have had Betts and Nivar anchoring the team along with Lepolo and our juniors, and Somfai and Swain would have come in off the bench, instead of being depended on to start.  It would be unfortunate (but not unexpected) if one or more of them transfer away for NIL money, or a different academic or athletic environment.  So while normally I would have been quite bullish about a team with three seniors and two sophomores all with starting experience, I'm going to hold my breath until we know what we have next year.

BC

[CompSci87]

I think (maybe hope) that a lot of what looks like "bad coaching" is actually freshman inexperience.  This year, true freshmen played 36% of available minutes.  We started two freshmen, both of whom played at least 65% of available minutes.  I have data going back to 2021, here's how many minutes freshmen played:

2021: 14.5% (tops was Cameron Brink, who played 44.3% of available minutes despite being a top three recruit and a generational talent)
2022: 6.1% (this class featured future WNBA player Kiki iriafen, who played 15.1% of minutes)
2023: 23.8% (Lepolo was the lead minute eater in this class, she was in 62% of the time, but the headliner was Lauren Betts, who only played 22.6% of the time despite being a #1 recruit and one of the top players in the country now)
2024: 16.4% (this class featured our current juniors, Agara, Ogden, and Clardy who are now starters; Agara led in minutes but only played 34.4% of the time)
2025: 10.8% (Shay Ijiwoye had the most minutes at 38.9%)

2026, freshmen had 50% more playing time than any of the preceding five years.  Some of that is that the trio of freshmen who saw substantial playing time are very good recruits, but I don't think they are quite at the level of Brink, Iriafen (though we will see), or Betts, all of whom got fewer minutes than Somfai and Swain, and only Brink got more minutes than Eschmeyer.  I think that points to the lack of depth on the team, exacerbated by injuries to Lepolo and Agara.  I'm pretty certain that had these players been playing any time before 2025 they would have gotten under 20% of available minutes each and less than 15% of available minutes as a class.  And while I think VanDerveer was a bit conservative about playing freshmen compared to other coaches there was a good reason for it.  Look at our current junior class; they barely contributed as freshmen, but Clardy and Agara became substantially more productive as sophomores, and Ogden turned a corner this year.

36% of available minutes played means that we pretty much had two freshmen in at all times. Freshmen players are going to make freshmen mistakes.  If you have two freshmen in, you double the chances that at least one of them is out of position, turns the wrong way, runs the wrong play, loses track of the player she is tasked with defending, dribbles through trouble instead of passing, or otherwise screws things up.  Think of, for example, how many times Swain would drive and just fail to make the layup; I would venture that she will finish much better with experience.  A lot of that looks like disorganized chaos, which one would ascribe to coaching, but no amount of coaching can substitute for experience.

The trouble, of course, is that in this day and age, we don't have the luxury of being able to count on talented freshmen staying through graduation.  In different era, we would have had Betts and Nivar anchoring the team along with Lepolo and our juniors, and Somfai and Swain would have come in off the bench, instead of being depended on to start.  It would be unfortunate (but not unexpected) if one or more of them transfer away for NIL money, or a different academic or athletic environment.  So while normally I would have been quite bullish about a team with three seniors and two sophomores all with starting experience, I'm going to hold my breath until we know what we have next year.

BC

Great post, BC.

[CompSci87]

I think (maybe hope) that a lot of what looks like "bad coaching" is actually freshman inexperience.  This year, true freshmen played 36% of available minutes.  We started two freshmen, both of whom played at least 65% of available minutes.  I have data going back to 2021, here's how many minutes freshmen played:

2021: 14.5% (tops was Cameron Brink, who played 44.3% of available minutes despite being a top three recruit and a generational talent)
2022: 6.1% (this class featured future WNBA player Kiki iriafen, who played 15.1% of minutes)
2023: 23.8% (Lepolo was the lead minute eater in this class, she was in 62% of the time, but the headliner was Lauren Betts, who only played 22.6% of the time despite being a #1 recruit and one of the top players in the country now)
2024: 16.4% (this class featured our current juniors, Agara, Ogden, and Clardy who are now starters; Agara led in minutes but only played 34.4% of the time)
2025: 10.8% (Shay Ijiwoye had the most minutes at 38.9%)

2026, freshmen had 50% more playing time than any of the preceding five years.  Some of that is that the trio of freshmen who saw substantial playing time are very good recruits, but I don't think they are quite at the level of Brink, Iriafen (though we will see), or Betts, all of whom got fewer minutes than Somfai and Swain, and only Brink got more minutes than Eschmeyer.  I think that points to the lack of depth on the team, exacerbated by injuries to Lepolo and Agara.  I'm pretty certain that had these players been playing any time before 2025 they would have gotten under 20% of available minutes each and less than 15% of available minutes as a class.  And while I think VanDerveer was a bit conservative about playing freshmen compared to other coaches there was a good reason for it.  Look at our current junior class; they barely contributed as freshmen, but Clardy and Agara became substantially more productive as sophomores, and Ogden turned a corner this year.

36% of available minutes played means that we pretty much had two freshmen in at all times. Freshmen players are going to make freshmen mistakes.  If you have two freshmen in, you double the chances that at least one of them is out of position, turns the wrong way, runs the wrong play, loses track of the player she is tasked with defending, dribbles through trouble instead of passing, or otherwise screws things up.  Think of, for example, how many times Swain would drive and just fail to make the layup; I would venture that she will finish much better with experience.  A lot of that looks like disorganized chaos, which one would ascribe to coaching, but no amount of coaching can substitute for experience.

The trouble, of course, is that in this day and age, we don't have the luxury of being able to count on talented freshmen staying through graduation.  In different era, we would have had Betts and Nivar anchoring the team along with Lepolo and our juniors, and Somfai and Swain would have come in off the bench, instead of being depended on to start.  It would be unfortunate (but not unexpected) if one or more of them transfer away for NIL money, or a different academic or athletic environment.  So while normally I would have been quite bullish about a team with three seniors and two sophomores all with starting experience, I'm going to hold my breath until we know what we have next year.

BC

Great post, BC.

[Spiny_Norman]

In an ideal world, a lot of the minutes that Eschmeyer and Swain played would instead have gone to seniors Betts and Nivar. 

Has Stanford played a season before with almost no contribution from seniors?

[Spiny_Norman]

In an ideal world, a lot of the minutes that Eschmeyer and Swain played would instead have gone to seniors Betts and Nivar. 

Has Stanford played a season before with almost no contribution from seniors?

[Card10Fan]

She's underachieved relative to the talent on the roster. We finished below preseason ACC projections in both her seasons. Missed the NCAA tourney in both her seasons. The eye test does not say that Stanford is a well coached basketball team (and I watched or attended 95% of the games this season). 

Maybe most importantly right now, we seem poised to lose some key players/starters to the portal this offseason and are bringing in a subpar recruiting class. What gives fans any confidence next year will be better with a likely less talented roster due to departures that are upcoming?

Grade: D

[Card10Fan]

She's underachieved relative to the talent on the roster. We finished below preseason ACC projections in both her seasons. Missed the NCAA tourney in both her seasons. The eye test does not say that Stanford is a well coached basketball team (and I watched or attended 95% of the games this season). 

Maybe most importantly right now, we seem poised to lose some key players/starters to the portal this offseason and are bringing in a subpar recruiting class. What gives fans any confidence next year will be better with a likely less talented roster due to departures that are upcoming?

Grade: D

[ljw63]

I think (maybe hope) that a lot of what looks like "bad coaching" is actually freshman inexperience.  This year, true freshmen played 36% of available minutes.  We started two freshmen, both of whom played at least 65% of available minutes.  I have data going back to 2021, here's how many minutes freshmen played:

2021: 14.5% (tops was Cameron Brink, who played 44.3% of available minutes despite being a top three recruit and a generational talent)
2022: 6.1% (this class featured future WNBA player Kiki iriafen, who played 15.1% of minutes)
2023: 23.8% (Lepolo was the lead minute eater in this class, she was in 62% of the time, but the headliner was Lauren Betts, who only played 22.6% of the time despite being a #1 recruit and one of the top players in the country now)
2024: 16.4% (this class featured our current juniors, Agara, Ogden, and Clardy who are now starters; Agara led in minutes but only played 34.4% of the time)
2025: 10.8% (Shay Ijiwoye had the most minutes at 38.9%)

2026, freshmen had 50% more playing time than any of the preceding five years.  Some of that is that the trio of freshmen who saw substantial playing time are very good recruits, but I don't think they are quite at the level of Brink, Iriafen (though we will see), or Betts, all of whom got fewer minutes than Somfai and Swain, and only Brink got more minutes than Eschmeyer.  I think that points to the lack of depth on the team, exacerbated by injuries to Lepolo and Agara.  I'm pretty certain that had these players been playing any time before 2025 they would have gotten under 20% of available minutes each and less than 15% of available minutes as a class.  And while I think VanDerveer was a bit conservative about playing freshmen compared to other coaches there was a good reason for it.  Look at our current junior class; they barely contributed as freshmen, but Clardy and Agara became substantially more productive as sophomores, and Ogden turned a corner this year.

36% of available minutes played means that we pretty much had two freshmen in at all times. Freshmen players are going to make freshmen mistakes.  If you have two freshmen in, you double the chances that at least one of them is out of position, turns the wrong way, runs the wrong play, loses track of the player she is tasked with defending, dribbles through trouble instead of passing, or otherwise screws things up.  Think of, for example, how many times Swain would drive and just fail to make the layup; I would venture that she will finish much better with experience.  A lot of that looks like disorganized chaos, which one would ascribe to coaching, but no amount of coaching can substitute for experience.

The trouble, of course, is that in this day and age, we don't have the luxury of being able to count on talented freshmen staying through graduation.  In different era, we would have had Betts and Nivar anchoring the team along with Lepolo and our juniors, and Somfai and Swain would have come in off the bench, instead of being depended on to start.  It would be unfortunate (but not unexpected) if one or more of them transfer away for NIL money, or a different academic or athletic environment.  So while normally I would have been quite bullish about a team with three seniors and two sophomores all with starting experience, I'm going to hold my breath until we know what we have next year.

BC

Great post, BC.

With only a few seconds to go in the Miami game, we were behind by 6 points and only had minuscule odds of tying the game with two threes. The coach has two choices – put in your best three point shooters and hope for a miracle or give up. If the decision is to give up I would assume you would put in your two seniors. If you go for the miracle (which I think would be the right decision) you would bring in Eschmeyer and Amborn. So, I look on the court and see Stephenson whom the coach must believe is a really likely to take and make a three point shoot despite the data. In a nutshell, that is symbolic of our coaching strategy. The coaches seemed to have no idea who should be on the court in various situations throughout the year.


I watched some of the Duke-Louisville game and I saw more plays run on offense in 40 minutes than I saw Stanford run all year. On defense Stanford seemed to be quite good in the zone, but used it sparingly all year. Our man to man defense was occasionally good but often sub-par.


We played a lot of freshmen this year but even so, I thought Eschmeyer played too little and Amborn and Ezike hardly played at all. Maybe they aren't very good but I really question whether the coaches can identify talent at all.

[ljw63]

I think (maybe hope) that a lot of what looks like "bad coaching" is actually freshman inexperience.  This year, true freshmen played 36% of available minutes.  We started two freshmen, both of whom played at least 65% of available minutes.  I have data going back to 2021, here's how many minutes freshmen played:

2021: 14.5% (tops was Cameron Brink, who played 44.3% of available minutes despite being a top three recruit and a generational talent)
2022: 6.1% (this class featured future WNBA player Kiki iriafen, who played 15.1% of minutes)
2023: 23.8% (Lepolo was the lead minute eater in this class, she was in 62% of the time, but the headliner was Lauren Betts, who only played 22.6% of the time despite being a #1 recruit and one of the top players in the country now)
2024: 16.4% (this class featured our current juniors, Agara, Ogden, and Clardy who are now starters; Agara led in minutes but only played 34.4% of the time)
2025: 10.8% (Shay Ijiwoye had the most minutes at 38.9%)

2026, freshmen had 50% more playing time than any of the preceding five years.  Some of that is that the trio of freshmen who saw substantial playing time are very good recruits, but I don't think they are quite at the level of Brink, Iriafen (though we will see), or Betts, all of whom got fewer minutes than Somfai and Swain, and only Brink got more minutes than Eschmeyer.  I think that points to the lack of depth on the team, exacerbated by injuries to Lepolo and Agara.  I'm pretty certain that had these players been playing any time before 2025 they would have gotten under 20% of available minutes each and less than 15% of available minutes as a class.  And while I think VanDerveer was a bit conservative about playing freshmen compared to other coaches there was a good reason for it.  Look at our current junior class; they barely contributed as freshmen, but Clardy and Agara became substantially more productive as sophomores, and Ogden turned a corner this year.

36% of available minutes played means that we pretty much had two freshmen in at all times. Freshmen players are going to make freshmen mistakes.  If you have two freshmen in, you double the chances that at least one of them is out of position, turns the wrong way, runs the wrong play, loses track of the player she is tasked with defending, dribbles through trouble instead of passing, or otherwise screws things up.  Think of, for example, how many times Swain would drive and just fail to make the layup; I would venture that she will finish much better with experience.  A lot of that looks like disorganized chaos, which one would ascribe to coaching, but no amount of coaching can substitute for experience.

The trouble, of course, is that in this day and age, we don't have the luxury of being able to count on talented freshmen staying through graduation.  In different era, we would have had Betts and Nivar anchoring the team along with Lepolo and our juniors, and Somfai and Swain would have come in off the bench, instead of being depended on to start.  It would be unfortunate (but not unexpected) if one or more of them transfer away for NIL money, or a different academic or athletic environment.  So while normally I would have been quite bullish about a team with three seniors and two sophomores all with starting experience, I'm going to hold my breath until we know what we have next year.

BC

Great post, BC.

With only a few seconds to go in the Miami game, we were behind by 6 points and only had minuscule odds of tying the game with two threes. The coach has two choices – put in your best three point shooters and hope for a miracle or give up. If the decision is to give up I would assume you would put in your two seniors. If you go for the miracle (which I think would be the right decision) you would bring in Eschmeyer and Amborn. So, I look on the court and see Stephenson whom the coach must believe is a really likely to take and make a three point shoot despite the data. In a nutshell, that is symbolic of our coaching strategy. The coaches seemed to have no idea who should be on the court in various situations throughout the year.


I watched some of the Duke-Louisville game and I saw more plays run on offense in 40 minutes than I saw Stanford run all year. On defense Stanford seemed to be quite good in the zone, but used it sparingly all year. Our man to man defense was occasionally good but often sub-par.


We played a lot of freshmen this year but even so, I thought Eschmeyer played too little and Amborn and Ezike hardly played at all. Maybe they aren't very good but I really question whether the coaches can identify talent at all.

[bl82]

And how the heck did MA become our “designated inbounded” for critical inbounds plays?!?

[bl82]

And how the heck did MA become our “designated inbounded” for critical inbounds plays?!?

[chimera]

The issue I see with BostonCard's post is that the team did not improve over the course of the season.  By season's end they freshmen had enough experience that combined with the junior class that was plenty experienced, the team should have been better than they were.  Bottom line is last year at this time we all thought the team should make the NCAAs this season.  It was NCAAs or bust.  Now it is that again but we are in a deeper hole.  Kate had to show she was up to the task.  She didn't do that.  If players leave next year won't be better, probably be worse, and then what?  Program as we know it is on life support now.  Next year????

[chimera]

The issue I see with BostonCard's post is that the team did not improve over the course of the season.  By season's end they freshmen had enough experience that combined with the junior class that was plenty experienced, the team should have been better than they were.  Bottom line is last year at this time we all thought the team should make the NCAAs this season.  It was NCAAs or bust.  Now it is that again but we are in a deeper hole.  Kate had to show she was up to the task.  She didn't do that.  If players leave next year won't be better, probably be worse, and then what?  Program as we know it is on life support now.  Next year????