[BostonCard]

my observation is that it is usually better to be the person after the successor to a "legend" than to be the successor....

Usually, but the successor to Steve Jobs did pretty well for himself.  Maybe the exception that proves the rule, but when I looked it up, some 35% of CEOs are promoted internally, and typically that happens when the previous guy (or gal) did well, because if the previous person did poorly there usually clamoring for fresh blood.

Interestingly I decided to look it up and found this link:

https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/c...sel-study/

I’m having trouble opening the original link (bad gateway) but the AI summary (so caveat emptor) says the following:

College Football (FBS): Data shows roughly 16% (or roughly 1 in 6) coaching hires are internal promotions.
Men’s Basketball: Research indicates 17.9% of Division-I head coaching hires since 2014 were internal promotions.
Success Rate: Internal hires are sometimes perceived as a safer choice, and they have historically shown, on average, a 4.02% improvement in winning percentage over their predecessors, though results vary widely.
The "Pipeline": While internal promotions for the top job are low, the pipeline often feeds from lower-level positions to coordinator roles rather than directly to head coach.

Again, considering that internal hires usually follow a successful coaching run, the fact that they are able to improve on their predecessor is surprising.

BC

[BostonCard]

my observation is that it is usually better to be the person after the successor to a "legend" than to be the successor....

Usually, but the successor to Steve Jobs did pretty well for himself.  Maybe the exception that proves the rule, but when I looked it up, some 35% of CEOs are promoted internally, and typically that happens when the previous guy (or gal) did well, because if the previous person did poorly there usually clamoring for fresh blood.

Interestingly I decided to look it up and found this link:

https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/c...sel-study/

I’m having trouble opening the original link (bad gateway) but the AI summary (so caveat emptor) says the following:

College Football (FBS): Data shows roughly 16% (or roughly 1 in 6) coaching hires are internal promotions.
Men’s Basketball: Research indicates 17.9% of Division-I head coaching hires since 2014 were internal promotions.
Success Rate: Internal hires are sometimes perceived as a safer choice, and they have historically shown, on average, a 4.02% improvement in winning percentage over their predecessors, though results vary widely.
The "Pipeline": While internal promotions for the top job are low, the pipeline often feeds from lower-level positions to coordinator roles rather than directly to head coach.

Again, considering that internal hires usually follow a successful coaching run, the fact that they are able to improve on their predecessor is surprising.

BC

[82lsju]

my observation is that it is usually better to be the person after the successor to a "legend" than to be the successor....

Usually, but the successor to Steve Jobs did pretty well for himself.  Maybe the exception that proves the rule, but when I looked it up, some 35% of CEOs are promoted internally, and typically that happens when the previous guy (or gal) did well, because if the previous person did poorly there usually clamoring for fresh blood.

Interestingly I decided to look it up and found this link:

https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/c...sel-study/

I’m having trouble opening the original link (bad gateway) but the AI summary (so caveat emptor) says the following:

College Football (FBS): Data shows roughly 16% (or roughly 1 in 6) coaching hires are internal promotions.
Men’s Basketball: Research indicates 17.9% of Division-I head coaching hires since 2014 were internal promotions.
Success Rate: Internal hires are sometimes perceived as a safer choice, and they have historically shown, on average, a 4.02% improvement in winning percentage over their predecessors, though results vary widely.
The "Pipeline": While internal promotions for the top job are low, the pipeline often feeds from lower-level positions to coordinator roles rather than directly to head coach.

Again, considering that internal hires usually follow a successful coaching run, the fact that they are able to improve on their predecessor is surprising.

BC

I think of Jobs first successor at Apple as John Sculley, even though Jobs was not Apple's CEO then but was apparently the one to make the call to hire Sculley, and Sculley, and the next several CEOs, did not work out all that well at Apple

[82lsju]

my observation is that it is usually better to be the person after the successor to a "legend" than to be the successor....

Usually, but the successor to Steve Jobs did pretty well for himself.  Maybe the exception that proves the rule, but when I looked it up, some 35% of CEOs are promoted internally, and typically that happens when the previous guy (or gal) did well, because if the previous person did poorly there usually clamoring for fresh blood.

Interestingly I decided to look it up and found this link:

https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/c...sel-study/

I’m having trouble opening the original link (bad gateway) but the AI summary (so caveat emptor) says the following:

College Football (FBS): Data shows roughly 16% (or roughly 1 in 6) coaching hires are internal promotions.
Men’s Basketball: Research indicates 17.9% of Division-I head coaching hires since 2014 were internal promotions.
Success Rate: Internal hires are sometimes perceived as a safer choice, and they have historically shown, on average, a 4.02% improvement in winning percentage over their predecessors, though results vary widely.
The "Pipeline": While internal promotions for the top job are low, the pipeline often feeds from lower-level positions to coordinator roles rather than directly to head coach.

Again, considering that internal hires usually follow a successful coaching run, the fact that they are able to improve on their predecessor is surprising.

BC

I think of Jobs first successor at Apple as John Sculley, even though Jobs was not Apple's CEO then but was apparently the one to make the call to hire Sculley, and Sculley, and the next several CEOs, did not work out all that well at Apple

[BostonCard]

My recollection is that Scully was an external hire (from Pepsi, if I’m remembering).  Tim Cook, who was promoted internally, did turn out ok.

BC

[BostonCard]

My recollection is that Scully was an external hire (from Pepsi, if I’m remembering).  Tim Cook, who was promoted internally, did turn out ok.

BC

[82lsju]

My recollection is that Scully was an external hire (from Pepsi, if I’m remembering).  Tim Cook, who was promoted internally, did turn out ok.

BC

he was and he was picked by Jobs, Sculley in a power struggle got the board to take away Jobs operating responsibilities and Jobs then left to start Next, which was not commercially successful, Apple later bought Next in 1996 and got Jobs back, the underlying Next tech became their core operating system.  Cook came to Apple in 1997 from Compaq and became CEO in 2011.

in an unrelated item here's a fun read on a 50 year employee at Apple (he's still there)

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/techn...=url-share

[82lsju]

My recollection is that Scully was an external hire (from Pepsi, if I’m remembering).  Tim Cook, who was promoted internally, did turn out ok.

BC

he was and he was picked by Jobs, Sculley in a power struggle got the board to take away Jobs operating responsibilities and Jobs then left to start Next, which was not commercially successful, Apple later bought Next in 1996 and got Jobs back, the underlying Next tech became their core operating system.  Cook came to Apple in 1997 from Compaq and became CEO in 2011.

in an unrelated item here's a fun read on a 50 year employee at Apple (he's still there)

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/techn...=url-share

[SkiBum80]

My recollection is that Scully was an external hire (from Pepsi, if I’m remembering).  Tim Cook, who was promoted internally, did turn out ok.

BC

he was and he was picked by Jobs, Sculley in a power struggle got the board to take away Jobs operating responsibilities and Jobs then left to start Next, which was not commercially successful, Apple later bought Next in 1996 and got Jobs back, the underlying Next tech became their core operating system.  Cook came to Apple in 1997 from Compaq and became CEO in 2011.

in an unrelated item here's a fun read on a 50 year employee at Apple (he's still there)

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/techn...=url-share

Thanks the link
Great read
I love the last sentence of article, really highlights their thinking for long term success

[SkiBum80]

My recollection is that Scully was an external hire (from Pepsi, if I’m remembering).  Tim Cook, who was promoted internally, did turn out ok.

BC

he was and he was picked by Jobs, Sculley in a power struggle got the board to take away Jobs operating responsibilities and Jobs then left to start Next, which was not commercially successful, Apple later bought Next in 1996 and got Jobs back, the underlying Next tech became their core operating system.  Cook came to Apple in 1997 from Compaq and became CEO in 2011.

in an unrelated item here's a fun read on a 50 year employee at Apple (he's still there)

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/techn...=url-share

Thanks the link
Great read
I love the last sentence of article, really highlights their thinking for long term success

[81alum]

Actually, my disappointment--the key turning point--had nothing to do with Kate Paye but came while Tara was still coaching.  It was the loss to Ole Miss in March of 23. 

Since a couple of folks chimed in with reactions to my earlier statement, let me correct the impression I seem to have left.

The game against Ole Miss was certainly "winnable."  Yes the game was overly physical and called poorly.  Yes there seems to have been a problem with our team chemistry.  

My reaction was based more on what I saw from Ol Miss rather than what I saw from Stanford.  The fact that it was possible for a team absolutely dominated by 4th and 5th year transfer players to beat a star-studded team with national championship experience flicked a switch in my mind.  "There is another way of creating championship teams--a sleezier way" it seemed to me, a way that used a strategy utterly unlike anything Stanford had done or could ever do.   The fact that we might have succeeded against such a team was neither here nor there.  My emotional connection to the game was badly damaged by this realization.  

It may or may not have been a turning point for Stanford, but it was a turning point for my enjoyment of the game.

However, if I were to re litigate that loss, I absolutely do think that NIL and knowledge that there was an easy exit for unhappy players did contribute to the poor team chemistry.

[81alum]

Actually, my disappointment--the key turning point--had nothing to do with Kate Paye but came while Tara was still coaching.  It was the loss to Ole Miss in March of 23. 

Since a couple of folks chimed in with reactions to my earlier statement, let me correct the impression I seem to have left.

The game against Ole Miss was certainly "winnable."  Yes the game was overly physical and called poorly.  Yes there seems to have been a problem with our team chemistry.  

My reaction was based more on what I saw from Ol Miss rather than what I saw from Stanford.  The fact that it was possible for a team absolutely dominated by 4th and 5th year transfer players to beat a star-studded team with national championship experience flicked a switch in my mind.  "There is another way of creating championship teams--a sleezier way" it seemed to me, a way that used a strategy utterly unlike anything Stanford had done or could ever do.   The fact that we might have succeeded against such a team was neither here nor there.  My emotional connection to the game was badly damaged by this realization.  

It may or may not have been a turning point for Stanford, but it was a turning point for my enjoyment of the game.

However, if I were to re litigate that loss, I absolutely do think that NIL and knowledge that there was an easy exit for unhappy players did contribute to the poor team chemistry.

[2006alum]

Obviously NIL and the portal don't help Stanford's cause, and that coupled with moving to the ACC and Tara retiring are all good reasons to find these challenging times for Stanford WBB. 

But we haven't even used the players we have well, and as of a year ago we were still recruiting top players, even in the era of NIL, no Tara, and the ACC 

So to me, the fundamental issue is the coaching staff and what seems to be a toxic culture. It shows in our offensive sputtering and misuse of players. It shows in multiple portal entrants *pointedly* omitting any reference to the coaches and even implying they were transferring specifically for a better environment. Reread Lara's announcement - she saw a future at Stanford and was so disappointed with the reality.

I guess I'd rather focus on what we can control and that's the leadership of our team.

[2006alum]

Obviously NIL and the portal don't help Stanford's cause, and that coupled with moving to the ACC and Tara retiring are all good reasons to find these challenging times for Stanford WBB. 

But we haven't even used the players we have well, and as of a year ago we were still recruiting top players, even in the era of NIL, no Tara, and the ACC 

So to me, the fundamental issue is the coaching staff and what seems to be a toxic culture. It shows in our offensive sputtering and misuse of players. It shows in multiple portal entrants *pointedly* omitting any reference to the coaches and even implying they were transferring specifically for a better environment. Reread Lara's announcement - she saw a future at Stanford and was so disappointed with the reality.

I guess I'd rather focus on what we can control and that's the leadership of our team.

[jacket3ree]

*********
Hi Jacket3ree,

1. Hope all is well.

2. Great insightful post by you, as always.

3. Was wondering what your 6th bullet point was, it didnt seem to post.

I like that you always wish us well; which is much appreciated as are your posts. That missing 6th bullet point is a stupid habit from posting elsewhere, from our collective nerd childhoods.  Rule No. 6: There is no Rule No. 6. (From an old Monty Python sketch titled "The Bruces" where they made fun of Australians, who don't take themselves too seriously.)


Thanks for the explanation 81alumn. Makes perfect sense. Transfers don't bother me. My dad attended two universities, two institutes, and one school of mines, netting two degrees. Some of my best friends as an undergraduate transferred in from elsewhere. A few transferred out. Most of my friends at Stanford came from other programs; oddly enough several from ACC schools, which made the give and take of the football and hoops seasons fun for me because GT had really good seasons in both sports that year. One of the few Stanford kids in the program I am still collaborating with today, 40 years later. (Literally - project meeting this afternoon.) I think athletes should have freedom of movement and happiness just like regular students. Whether they translate that into a meaningful educational experience is up to them. I've got other things to worry about.

No way for me to know the veracity of the toxic environment "allegations". If true this is an entirely different kind of flying altogether. Players can easily vote with their feet and I think that is a good thing. Of course the amount of money out there for the stars is ludicrous. Like half of everything else in life. As Dawn Staley said, we move on.

[jacket3ree]

*********
Hi Jacket3ree,

1. Hope all is well.

2. Great insightful post by you, as always.

3. Was wondering what your 6th bullet point was, it didnt seem to post.

I like that you always wish us well; which is much appreciated as are your posts. That missing 6th bullet point is a stupid habit from posting elsewhere, from our collective nerd childhoods.  Rule No. 6: There is no Rule No. 6. (From an old Monty Python sketch titled "The Bruces" where they made fun of Australians, who don't take themselves too seriously.)


Thanks for the explanation 81alumn. Makes perfect sense. Transfers don't bother me. My dad attended two universities, two institutes, and one school of mines, netting two degrees. Some of my best friends as an undergraduate transferred in from elsewhere. A few transferred out. Most of my friends at Stanford came from other programs; oddly enough several from ACC schools, which made the give and take of the football and hoops seasons fun for me because GT had really good seasons in both sports that year. One of the few Stanford kids in the program I am still collaborating with today, 40 years later. (Literally - project meeting this afternoon.) I think athletes should have freedom of movement and happiness just like regular students. Whether they translate that into a meaningful educational experience is up to them. I've got other things to worry about.

No way for me to know the veracity of the toxic environment "allegations". If true this is an entirely different kind of flying altogether. Players can easily vote with their feet and I think that is a good thing. Of course the amount of money out there for the stars is ludicrous. Like half of everything else in life. As Dawn Staley said, we move on.

[Spiny_Norman]

If true this is an entirely different kind of flying altogether.

I see what you did there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wxp-NxJny8&t=82s

[Spiny_Norman]

If true this is an entirely different kind of flying altogether.

I see what you did there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wxp-NxJny8&t=82s

[BillBradley]

If true this is an entirely different kind of flying altogether.

I see what you did there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wxp-NxJny8&t=82s

Most excellent. References to Airplane and Monty Python in one post. You're a very naughty boy jacket3ree...

Transfers don't bother me either and I also like that athletes have options now. I know many dark stories from college athletics. I'm all for giving people opportunities to make their life better. That said, given the unique environment at Stanford, our teams need to keep their players. This means they need to offer both a great athletic experience and competitive compensation.

Side note - on the "enjoyment of basketball with all this transferring"...I totally understand/respect people's opinions about building teams through the portal. Personally, I've been surprised at both the quality of the play and the connectivity of many of the teams. I don't think all the transferring has had a negative impact on the quality of play. Seems logical that teams built with transfers would struggle to build togetherness on the court vs. teams who have played together for years. But wow - the Michigan men's team and the UCLA women's team were firing on all cylinders and it was very apparent how much they cared for each other. For me, this was a very fun basketball season and March Madness tourney (aside from the Stanford Women's Basketball Team...).

[BillBradley]

If true this is an entirely different kind of flying altogether.

I see what you did there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wxp-NxJny8&t=82s

Most excellent. References to Airplane and Monty Python in one post. You're a very naughty boy jacket3ree...

Transfers don't bother me either and I also like that athletes have options now. I know many dark stories from college athletics. I'm all for giving people opportunities to make their life better. That said, given the unique environment at Stanford, our teams need to keep their players. This means they need to offer both a great athletic experience and competitive compensation.

Side note - on the "enjoyment of basketball with all this transferring"...I totally understand/respect people's opinions about building teams through the portal. Personally, I've been surprised at both the quality of the play and the connectivity of many of the teams. I don't think all the transferring has had a negative impact on the quality of play. Seems logical that teams built with transfers would struggle to build togetherness on the court vs. teams who have played together for years. But wow - the Michigan men's team and the UCLA women's team were firing on all cylinders and it was very apparent how much they cared for each other. For me, this was a very fun basketball season and March Madness tourney (aside from the Stanford Women's Basketball Team...).

[liveoak]

Actually, my disappointment--the key turning point--had nothing to do with Kate Paye but came while Tara was still coaching.  It was the loss to Ole Miss in March of 23. 

Since a couple of folks chimed in with reactions to my earlier statement, let me correct the impression I seem to have left.

The game against Ole Miss was certainly "winnable."  Yes the game was overly physical and called poorly.  Yes there seems to have been a problem with our team chemistry.  

My reaction was based more on what I saw from Ol Miss rather than what I saw from Stanford.  The fact that it was possible for a team absolutely dominated by 4th and 5th year transfer players to beat a star-studded team with national championship experience flicked a switch in my mind.  "There is another way of creating championship teams--a sleezier way" it seemed to me, a way that used a strategy utterly unlike anything Stanford had done or could ever do.   The fact that we might have succeeded against such a team was neither here nor there.  My emotional connection to the game was badly damaged by this realization.  

It may or may not have been a turning point for Stanford, but it was a turning point for my enjoyment of the game.

However, if I were to re litigate that loss, I absolutely do think that NIL and knowledge that there was an easy exit for unhappy players did contribute to the poor team chemistry.

Just to add to this, NIL and easy transfers absolutely contributed. I'd suggest that the change in transfer rules that allowed you to transfer without sitting out a year - functionally allowing multiple transfer for each player - is the biggest contributor.

[liveoak]

Actually, my disappointment--the key turning point--had nothing to do with Kate Paye but came while Tara was still coaching.  It was the loss to Ole Miss in March of 23. 

Since a couple of folks chimed in with reactions to my earlier statement, let me correct the impression I seem to have left.

The game against Ole Miss was certainly "winnable."  Yes the game was overly physical and called poorly.  Yes there seems to have been a problem with our team chemistry.  

My reaction was based more on what I saw from Ol Miss rather than what I saw from Stanford.  The fact that it was possible for a team absolutely dominated by 4th and 5th year transfer players to beat a star-studded team with national championship experience flicked a switch in my mind.  "There is another way of creating championship teams--a sleezier way" it seemed to me, a way that used a strategy utterly unlike anything Stanford had done or could ever do.   The fact that we might have succeeded against such a team was neither here nor there.  My emotional connection to the game was badly damaged by this realization.  

It may or may not have been a turning point for Stanford, but it was a turning point for my enjoyment of the game.

However, if I were to re litigate that loss, I absolutely do think that NIL and knowledge that there was an easy exit for unhappy players did contribute to the poor team chemistry.

Just to add to this, NIL and easy transfers absolutely contributed. I'd suggest that the change in transfer rules that allowed you to transfer without sitting out a year - functionally allowing multiple transfer for each player - is the biggest contributor.

[BillBradley]

Actually, my disappointment--the key turning point--had nothing to do with Kate Paye but came while Tara was still coaching.  It was the loss to Ole Miss in March of 23. 

Since a couple of folks chimed in with reactions to my earlier statement, let me correct the impression I seem to have left.

The game against Ole Miss was certainly "winnable."  Yes the game was overly physical and called poorly.  Yes there seems to have been a problem with our team chemistry.  

My reaction was based more on what I saw from Ol Miss rather than what I saw from Stanford.  The fact that it was possible for a team absolutely dominated by 4th and 5th year transfer players to beat a star-studded team with national championship experience flicked a switch in my mind.  "There is another way of creating championship teams--a sleezier way" it seemed to me, a way that used a strategy utterly unlike anything Stanford had done or could ever do.   The fact that we might have succeeded against such a team was neither here nor there.  My emotional connection to the game was badly damaged by this realization.  

It may or may not have been a turning point for Stanford, but it was a turning point for my enjoyment of the game.

However, if I were to re litigate that loss, I absolutely do think that NIL and knowledge that there was an easy exit for unhappy players did contribute to the poor team chemistry.

Just to add to this, NIL and easy transfers absolutely contributed. I'd suggest that the change in transfer rules that allowed you to transfer without sitting out a year - functionally allowing multiple transfer for each player - is the biggest contributor.

Just so I understand...you guys are saying that:
- Players who are unhappy and have options to leave are more likely to contribute to bad chemistry because it's easier for them to checkout knowing that they can takeoff at the end of the season
- Players who are unhappy and have no option to leave will make the best of it
Is that right?

[BillBradley]

Actually, my disappointment--the key turning point--had nothing to do with Kate Paye but came while Tara was still coaching.  It was the loss to Ole Miss in March of 23. 

Since a couple of folks chimed in with reactions to my earlier statement, let me correct the impression I seem to have left.

The game against Ole Miss was certainly "winnable."  Yes the game was overly physical and called poorly.  Yes there seems to have been a problem with our team chemistry.  

My reaction was based more on what I saw from Ol Miss rather than what I saw from Stanford.  The fact that it was possible for a team absolutely dominated by 4th and 5th year transfer players to beat a star-studded team with national championship experience flicked a switch in my mind.  "There is another way of creating championship teams--a sleezier way" it seemed to me, a way that used a strategy utterly unlike anything Stanford had done or could ever do.   The fact that we might have succeeded against such a team was neither here nor there.  My emotional connection to the game was badly damaged by this realization.  

It may or may not have been a turning point for Stanford, but it was a turning point for my enjoyment of the game.

However, if I were to re litigate that loss, I absolutely do think that NIL and knowledge that there was an easy exit for unhappy players did contribute to the poor team chemistry.

Just to add to this, NIL and easy transfers absolutely contributed. I'd suggest that the change in transfer rules that allowed you to transfer without sitting out a year - functionally allowing multiple transfer for each player - is the biggest contributor.

Just so I understand...you guys are saying that:
- Players who are unhappy and have options to leave are more likely to contribute to bad chemistry because it's easier for them to checkout knowing that they can takeoff at the end of the season
- Players who are unhappy and have no option to leave will make the best of it
Is that right?

[Nobadeer]

Somewhat relatedly regarding team chemistry and locker room dynamics, Haley Jones, last seen on the Dallas Wings, was the 13th pick in the WNBA expansion draft. Her new team is the Portland Fire.

"Fire" is not the first nickname that comes to my mind for a team in Oregon, but apparently there was a legendary urban fire in PDX in the 1800s.

[Nobadeer]

Somewhat relatedly regarding team chemistry and locker room dynamics, Haley Jones, last seen on the Dallas Wings, was the 13th pick in the WNBA expansion draft. Her new team is the Portland Fire.

"Fire" is not the first nickname that comes to my mind for a team in Oregon, but apparently there was a legendary urban fire in PDX in the 1800s.

[PVTree]

Somewhat relatedly regarding team chemistry and locker room dynamics, Haley Jones, last seen on the Dallas Wings, was the 13th pick in the WNBA expansion draft. Her new team is the Portland Fire.

"Fire" is not the first nickname that comes to my mind for a team in Oregon, but apparently there was a legendary urban fire in PDX in the 1800s.

I associate fire with my home town of Chicago. They also had a small fire thanks to Mrs. O'leary's cow.

[PVTree]

Somewhat relatedly regarding team chemistry and locker room dynamics, Haley Jones, last seen on the Dallas Wings, was the 13th pick in the WNBA expansion draft. Her new team is the Portland Fire.

"Fire" is not the first nickname that comes to my mind for a team in Oregon, but apparently there was a legendary urban fire in PDX in the 1800s.

I associate fire with my home town of Chicago. They also had a small fire thanks to Mrs. O'leary's cow.

[PalmTree]

Somewhat relatedly regarding team chemistry and locker room dynamics, Haley Jones, last seen on the Dallas Wings, was the 13th pick in the WNBA expansion draft. Her new team is the Portland Fire.

Well, kind of fitting seeing as how her old team (that would be us) has it's own five-alarmer going down....

[PalmTree]

Somewhat relatedly regarding team chemistry and locker room dynamics, Haley Jones, last seen on the Dallas Wings, was the 13th pick in the WNBA expansion draft. Her new team is the Portland Fire.

Well, kind of fitting seeing as how her old team (that would be us) has it's own five-alarmer going down....

[Griffins78]

This is not a new problem driven by Gen Z character and values or by NIL $. Stanford WBB has been seeing transfers out at a higher rate for several years starting before Kate became HC. Here are the more recent transfers out:

• Nunu Agara (Forward): Entered portal.
  
• Lara Somfai (Forward): Committed to TCU.
  
• Courtney Ogden (Forward) Entered portal.
  
• Harper Peterson (Forward): Entered portal.
  
• Mary Ashley Stevenson (Forward): Entered portal.
  
• Carly Amborn (Guard): Entered portal
  
• Chloe Clardy (Guard): Entered portal
  
• Tess Heal (Guard): Transferred to Kansas State.
  
• Jzaniya Harriel (Guard): Transferred to SMU
  
• Kiki Iriafen (Forward): Transferred to USC
  
• Lauren Betts (Center): transferred to UCLA
  
• Indya Nivar (Guard): Transferred to North Carolina
  
• Agnes Emma-Nnopu (Forward): Transferred to TCU
  
• Jana Van Gytenbeek (Guard): Transferred to Baylor
  

To me, that’s a lot of losses. As others have said, especially for a program that cannot recruit ANY player (they have to get in to Stanford) and cannot go to the transfer portal to recruit ANY player, Stanford has to be exceptional at retaining players. 

Similarly, as others have pointed out we “missed” on landing lots of phenomenal players, some that one would think Stanford would be their dream school. It isn’t always money

I was sad but generally thought athletes were making a mistake looking for more playing time or wanting to play closer to home, didn’t have the grades or AP classes, or as people have said, didn’t like the “strict structured” approach and now want NIL $.

Now, looking back, as I said, without my fan cardinal colored glasses, there have been signs of a culture that was toxic for some or many players for a long time. Most of that time, players were stuck. I’ve talked to former players and the behind the scene stories are not the kind of program I thought we had and have loved for 30 years.

Now players have a choice and they have been voting to not come to Stanford or for a few years, to leave. There could be lots of reasons but the HC and the coaching staff have more impact on a player’s experience and there are enough indicators that this is an important part of the problem.

We don’t have all the information about what goes on behind the curtain and the reasons players leave or never come at all. But I really hope JD is looking and managing this well. From the outside looking in it doesn’t look like it. I would expect more engagement with the players, former players and the season ticket holders and the remnants of the once powerful Stanford Fast Break Club.

I am holding on to my season tickets for now but am not excited about attending any games.

[Griffins78]

This is not a new problem driven by Gen Z character and values or by NIL $. Stanford WBB has been seeing transfers out at a higher rate for several years starting before Kate became HC. Here are the more recent transfers out:

• Nunu Agara (Forward): Entered portal.
  
• Lara Somfai (Forward): Committed to TCU.
  
• Courtney Ogden (Forward) Entered portal.
  
• Harper Peterson (Forward): Entered portal.
  
• Mary Ashley Stevenson (Forward): Entered portal.
  
• Carly Amborn (Guard): Entered portal
  
• Chloe Clardy (Guard): Entered portal
  
• Tess Heal (Guard): Transferred to Kansas State.
  
• Jzaniya Harriel (Guard): Transferred to SMU
  
• Kiki Iriafen (Forward): Transferred to USC
  
• Lauren Betts (Center): transferred to UCLA
  
• Indya Nivar (Guard): Transferred to North Carolina
  
• Agnes Emma-Nnopu (Forward): Transferred to TCU
  
• Jana Van Gytenbeek (Guard): Transferred to Baylor
  

To me, that’s a lot of losses. As others have said, especially for a program that cannot recruit ANY player (they have to get in to Stanford) and cannot go to the transfer portal to recruit ANY player, Stanford has to be exceptional at retaining players. 

Similarly, as others have pointed out we “missed” on landing lots of phenomenal players, some that one would think Stanford would be their dream school. It isn’t always money

I was sad but generally thought athletes were making a mistake looking for more playing time or wanting to play closer to home, didn’t have the grades or AP classes, or as people have said, didn’t like the “strict structured” approach and now want NIL $.

Now, looking back, as I said, without my fan cardinal colored glasses, there have been signs of a culture that was toxic for some or many players for a long time. Most of that time, players were stuck. I’ve talked to former players and the behind the scene stories are not the kind of program I thought we had and have loved for 30 years.

Now players have a choice and they have been voting to not come to Stanford or for a few years, to leave. There could be lots of reasons but the HC and the coaching staff have more impact on a player’s experience and there are enough indicators that this is an important part of the problem.

We don’t have all the information about what goes on behind the curtain and the reasons players leave or never come at all. But I really hope JD is looking and managing this well. From the outside looking in it doesn’t look like it. I would expect more engagement with the players, former players and the season ticket holders and the remnants of the once powerful Stanford Fast Break Club.

I am holding on to my season tickets for now but am not excited about attending any games.

[SearchingForTheTruth]

5 are grad transfers.

1775796292[/url]']
This is not a new problem driven by Gen Z character and values or by NIL $. Stanford WBB has been seeing transfers out at a higher rate for several years starting before Kate became HC. Here are the more recent transfers out:

• Nunu Agara (Forward): Entered portal.
  
• Lara Somfai (Forward): Committed to TCU.
  
• Courtney Ogden (Forward) Entered portal.
  
• Harper Peterson (Forward): Entered portal.
  
• Mary Ashley Stevenson (Forward): Entered portal.
  
• Carly Amborn (Guard): Entered portal
  
• Chloe Clardy (Guard): Entered portal
  
• Tess Heal (Guard): Transferred to Kansas State.
  
• Jzaniya Harriel (Guard): Transferred to SMU
  
• Kiki Iriafen (Forward): Transferred to USC
  
• Lauren Betts (Center): transferred to UCLA
  
• Indya Nivar (Guard): Transferred to North Carolina
  
• Agnes Emma-Nnopu (Forward): Transferred to TCU
  
• Jana Van Gytenbeek (Guard): Transferred to Baylor
  

To me, that’s a lot of losses. As others have said, especially for a program that cannot recruit ANY player (they have to get in to Stanford) and cannot go to the transfer portal to recruit ANY player, Stanford has to be exceptional at retaining players. 

Similarly, as others have pointed out we “missed” on landing lots of phenomenal players, some that one would think Stanford would be their dream school. It isn’t always money

I was sad but generally thought athletes were making a mistake looking for more playing time or wanting to play closer to home, didn’t have the grades or AP classes, or as people have said, didn’t like the “strict structured” approach and now want NIL $.

Now, looking back, as I said, without my fan cardinal colored glasses, there have been signs of a culture that was toxic for some or many players for a long time. Most of that time, players were stuck. I’ve talked to former players and the behind the scene stories are not the kind of program I thought we had and have loved for 30 years.

Now players have a choice and they have been voting to not come to Stanford or for a few years, to leave. There could be lots of reasons but the HC and the coaching staff have more impact on a player’s experience and there are enough indicators that this is an important part of the problem.

We don’t have all the information about what goes on behind the curtain and the reasons players leave or never come at all. But I really hope JD is looking and managing this well. From the outside looking in it doesn’t look like it. I would expect more engagement with the players, former players and the season ticket holders and the remnants of the once powerful Stanford Fast Break Club.

I am holding on to my season tickets for now but am not excited about attending any games.

[SearchingForTheTruth]

5 are grad transfers.

1775796292[/url]']
This is not a new problem driven by Gen Z character and values or by NIL $. Stanford WBB has been seeing transfers out at a higher rate for several years starting before Kate became HC. Here are the more recent transfers out:

• Nunu Agara (Forward): Entered portal.
  
• Lara Somfai (Forward): Committed to TCU.
  
• Courtney Ogden (Forward) Entered portal.
  
• Harper Peterson (Forward): Entered portal.
  
• Mary Ashley Stevenson (Forward): Entered portal.
  
• Carly Amborn (Guard): Entered portal
  
• Chloe Clardy (Guard): Entered portal
  
• Tess Heal (Guard): Transferred to Kansas State.
  
• Jzaniya Harriel (Guard): Transferred to SMU
  
• Kiki Iriafen (Forward): Transferred to USC
  
• Lauren Betts (Center): transferred to UCLA
  
• Indya Nivar (Guard): Transferred to North Carolina
  
• Agnes Emma-Nnopu (Forward): Transferred to TCU
  
• Jana Van Gytenbeek (Guard): Transferred to Baylor
  

To me, that’s a lot of losses. As others have said, especially for a program that cannot recruit ANY player (they have to get in to Stanford) and cannot go to the transfer portal to recruit ANY player, Stanford has to be exceptional at retaining players. 

Similarly, as others have pointed out we “missed” on landing lots of phenomenal players, some that one would think Stanford would be their dream school. It isn’t always money

I was sad but generally thought athletes were making a mistake looking for more playing time or wanting to play closer to home, didn’t have the grades or AP classes, or as people have said, didn’t like the “strict structured” approach and now want NIL $.

Now, looking back, as I said, without my fan cardinal colored glasses, there have been signs of a culture that was toxic for some or many players for a long time. Most of that time, players were stuck. I’ve talked to former players and the behind the scene stories are not the kind of program I thought we had and have loved for 30 years.

Now players have a choice and they have been voting to not come to Stanford or for a few years, to leave. There could be lots of reasons but the HC and the coaching staff have more impact on a player’s experience and there are enough indicators that this is an important part of the problem.

We don’t have all the information about what goes on behind the curtain and the reasons players leave or never come at all. But I really hope JD is looking and managing this well. From the outside looking in it doesn’t look like it. I would expect more engagement with the players, former players and the season ticket holders and the remnants of the once powerful Stanford Fast Break Club.

I am holding on to my season tickets for now but am not excited about attending any games.

[liveoak]

Actually, my disappointment--the key turning point--had nothing to do with Kate Paye but came while Tara was still coaching.  It was the loss to Ole Miss in March of 23. 

Since a couple of folks chimed in with reactions to my earlier statement, let me correct the impression I seem to have left.

The game against Ole Miss was certainly "winnable."  Yes the game was overly physical and called poorly.  Yes there seems to have been a problem with our team chemistry.  

My reaction was based more on what I saw from Ol Miss rather than what I saw from Stanford.  The fact that it was possible for a team absolutely dominated by 4th and 5th year transfer players to beat a star-studded team with national championship experience flicked a switch in my mind.  "There is another way of creating championship teams--a sleezier way" it seemed to me, a way that used a strategy utterly unlike anything Stanford had done or could ever do.   The fact that we might have succeeded against such a team was neither here nor there.  My emotional connection to the game was badly damaged by this realization.  

It may or may not have been a turning point for Stanford, but it was a turning point for my enjoyment of the game.

However, if I were to re litigate that loss, I absolutely do think that NIL and knowledge that there was an easy exit for unhappy players did contribute to the poor team chemistry.

Just to add to this, NIL and easy transfers absolutely contributed. I'd suggest that the change in transfer rules that allowed you to transfer without sitting out a year - functionally allowing multiple transfer for each player - is the biggest contributor.

Just so I understand...you guys are saying that:
- Players who are unhappy and have options to leave are more likely to contribute to bad chemistry because it's easier for them to checkout knowing that they can takeoff at the end of the season
- Players who are unhappy and have no option to leave will make the best of it
Is that right?

I can't speak for 81alum. I do believe that dealing with NIL and having the ability to transfer without sitting out a year did have an effect on the chemistry of that particular team. 

I would also modify my comment to say... that the change in transfer rules that allowed you to transfer without sitting out a year - functionally allowing multiple transfers for each player - is the biggest contributor to the change in the way teams are created and operate.

I believe that players that are unhappy do contribute to bad team chemistry - not sure being able to transfer out generally has a lot to do with it - and it's up to the coaches to deal with that fairly and properly.

Players that are unhappy for whatever reason should be able to leave.

[liveoak]

Actually, my disappointment--the key turning point--had nothing to do with Kate Paye but came while Tara was still coaching.  It was the loss to Ole Miss in March of 23. 

Since a couple of folks chimed in with reactions to my earlier statement, let me correct the impression I seem to have left.

The game against Ole Miss was certainly "winnable."  Yes the game was overly physical and called poorly.  Yes there seems to have been a problem with our team chemistry.  

My reaction was based more on what I saw from Ol Miss rather than what I saw from Stanford.  The fact that it was possible for a team absolutely dominated by 4th and 5th year transfer players to beat a star-studded team with national championship experience flicked a switch in my mind.  "There is another way of creating championship teams--a sleezier way" it seemed to me, a way that used a strategy utterly unlike anything Stanford had done or could ever do.   The fact that we might have succeeded against such a team was neither here nor there.  My emotional connection to the game was badly damaged by this realization.  

It may or may not have been a turning point for Stanford, but it was a turning point for my enjoyment of the game.

However, if I were to re litigate that loss, I absolutely do think that NIL and knowledge that there was an easy exit for unhappy players did contribute to the poor team chemistry.

Just to add to this, NIL and easy transfers absolutely contributed. I'd suggest that the change in transfer rules that allowed you to transfer without sitting out a year - functionally allowing multiple transfer for each player - is the biggest contributor.

Just so I understand...you guys are saying that:
- Players who are unhappy and have options to leave are more likely to contribute to bad chemistry because it's easier for them to checkout knowing that they can takeoff at the end of the season
- Players who are unhappy and have no option to leave will make the best of it
Is that right?

I can't speak for 81alum. I do believe that dealing with NIL and having the ability to transfer without sitting out a year did have an effect on the chemistry of that particular team. 

I would also modify my comment to say... that the change in transfer rules that allowed you to transfer without sitting out a year - functionally allowing multiple transfers for each player - is the biggest contributor to the change in the way teams are created and operate.

I believe that players that are unhappy do contribute to bad team chemistry - not sure being able to transfer out generally has a lot to do with it - and it's up to the coaches to deal with that fairly and properly.

Players that are unhappy for whatever reason should be able to leave.

[Griffins78]

As we ponder the kind of coach we might need or want it is worth watching the ESPN doc, “Celebrating Pat Summit.” “She cares” and how she made people feel is what stands out. Players, staff, fans, recruits, other teams

[Griffins78]

As we ponder the kind of coach we might need or want it is worth watching the ESPN doc, “Celebrating Pat Summit.” “She cares” and how she made people feel is what stands out. Players, staff, fans, recruits, other teams