[martyup]

I have just received an invitation to the Coach's Swing in LA on May 15. I will definitely be attending.
. . .
Maybe I will have a chance to talk with John Donahoe or one of his staff members to gauge their concern about WBB.

[martyup]

I have just received an invitation to the Coach's Swing in LA on May 15. I will definitely be attending.
. . .
Maybe I will have a chance to talk with John Donahoe or one of his staff members to gauge their concern about WBB.

[chimera]

I've already expressed my thoughts on the coaching.  I agree with the concerns posted in this thread.  Stanford WBB as we have known it is dead.  I bet much of the roster departs.  The portal will take but not give much back.  I am trying to figure out why I am still paying attention.  I feel like I am watching a slow motion train wreck.  This was the year it had to be right.  Had to make the NCAAs.  Had to have a strong season.  Did not happen and there will be no second chance next year.  The fat lady has sung.

[chimera]

I've already expressed my thoughts on the coaching.  I agree with the concerns posted in this thread.  Stanford WBB as we have known it is dead.  I bet much of the roster departs.  The portal will take but not give much back.  I am trying to figure out why I am still paying attention.  I feel like I am watching a slow motion train wreck.  This was the year it had to be right.  Had to make the NCAAs.  Had to have a strong season.  Did not happen and there will be no second chance next year.  The fat lady has sung.

[Card10Fan]

I have just received an invitation to the Coach's Swing in LA on May 15. I will definitely be attending. 

Coaches/admins on the invitation are John Donahoe, Andrew Luck, Tavita Pritchard, Tabitha Yim, Kyle Smith and Kate Paye. Honestly I don't know what to say to Coach Paye. Her reports at these events are bland. She seems uncomfortable interacting with the attendees. She needs to be working the crowd to regain their trust that the program is headed in the right direction. But that is not at all her personality.

Maybe I will have a chance to talk with John Donahoe or one of his staff members to gauge their concern about WBB.

Paye is pretty scripted and looks like she's not totally comfortable in those types of settings or in front of the media.  Tara was a little bit that way but also knew how to turn it on and is very humorous in her own way. 

If you get a chance, talk to Donahoe! I've sent emails this season to him regarding overall sentiment and my disappointment in the state of the women's basketball program. He's willing to listen!

[Card10Fan]

I have just received an invitation to the Coach's Swing in LA on May 15. I will definitely be attending. 

Coaches/admins on the invitation are John Donahoe, Andrew Luck, Tavita Pritchard, Tabitha Yim, Kyle Smith and Kate Paye. Honestly I don't know what to say to Coach Paye. Her reports at these events are bland. She seems uncomfortable interacting with the attendees. She needs to be working the crowd to regain their trust that the program is headed in the right direction. But that is not at all her personality.

Maybe I will have a chance to talk with John Donahoe or one of his staff members to gauge their concern about WBB.

Paye is pretty scripted and looks like she's not totally comfortable in those types of settings or in front of the media.  Tara was a little bit that way but also knew how to turn it on and is very humorous in her own way. 

If you get a chance, talk to Donahoe! I've sent emails this season to him regarding overall sentiment and my disappointment in the state of the women's basketball program. He's willing to listen!

[mbdude]

paye is very scripted. she has a postgame speech for wins and 1 losses. and just rattles them off at warp speed

[mbdude]

paye is very scripted. she has a postgame speech for wins and 1 losses. and just rattles them off at warp speed

[joemontes]

I've already expressed my thoughts on the coaching.  I agree with the concerns posted in this thread.  Stanford WBB as we have known it is dead.  I bet much of the roster departs.  The portal will take but not give much back.  I am trying to figure out why I am still paying attention.  I feel like I am watching a slow motion train wreck.  This was the year it had to be right.  Had to make the NCAAs.  Had to have a strong season.  Did not happen and there will be no second chance next year.  The fat lady has sung.

(Noddingly) Yup! I am with you on this. Nonetheless, it was a great 35-year (1990-2024) spectator experience for me as a Stanford WBB fanatic. The 3rd most successful NCAA WBB program during that 35-year span. Now joining the ranks of Louisiana Tech and Tennessee as a former WBB power.

[joemontes]

I've already expressed my thoughts on the coaching.  I agree with the concerns posted in this thread.  Stanford WBB as we have known it is dead.  I bet much of the roster departs.  The portal will take but not give much back.  I am trying to figure out why I am still paying attention.  I feel like I am watching a slow motion train wreck.  This was the year it had to be right.  Had to make the NCAAs.  Had to have a strong season.  Did not happen and there will be no second chance next year.  The fat lady has sung.

(Noddingly) Yup! I am with you on this. Nonetheless, it was a great 35-year (1990-2024) spectator experience for me as a Stanford WBB fanatic. The 3rd most successful NCAA WBB program during that 35-year span. Now joining the ranks of Louisiana Tech and Tennessee as a former WBB power.

[TonyLima]

I've already expressed my thoughts on the coaching.  I agree with the concerns posted in this thread.  Stanford WBB as we have known it is dead.  I bet much of the roster departs.  The portal will take but not give much back.  I am trying to figure out why I am still paying attention.  I feel like I am watching a slow motion train wreck.  This was the year it had to be right.  Had to make the NCAAs.  Had to have a strong season.  Did not happen and there will be no second chance next year.  The fat lady has sung.

(Noddingly) Yup! I am with you on this. Nonetheless, it was a great 35-year (1990-2024) spectator experience for me as a Stanford WBB fanatic. The 3rd most successful NCAA WBB program during that 35-year span. Now joining the ranks of Louisiana Tech and Tennessee as a former WBB power.

Speaking of singing,

“All we are saying
is give Paye a chance …”

[TonyLima]

I've already expressed my thoughts on the coaching.  I agree with the concerns posted in this thread.  Stanford WBB as we have known it is dead.  I bet much of the roster departs.  The portal will take but not give much back.  I am trying to figure out why I am still paying attention.  I feel like I am watching a slow motion train wreck.  This was the year it had to be right.  Had to make the NCAAs.  Had to have a strong season.  Did not happen and there will be no second chance next year.  The fat lady has sung.

(Noddingly) Yup! I am with you on this. Nonetheless, it was a great 35-year (1990-2024) spectator experience for me as a Stanford WBB fanatic. The 3rd most successful NCAA WBB program during that 35-year span. Now joining the ranks of Louisiana Tech and Tennessee as a former WBB power.

Speaking of singing,

“All we are saying
is give Paye a chance …”

[PalmTree]

I've already expressed my thoughts on the coaching.  I agree with the concerns posted in this thread.  Stanford WBB as we have known it is dead.  I bet much of the roster departs.  The portal will take but not give much back.  I am trying to figure out why I am still paying attention.  I feel like I am watching a slow motion train wreck.  This was the year it had to be right.  Had to make the NCAAs.  Had to have a strong season.  Did not happen and there will be no second chance next year.  The fat lady has sung.

(Noddingly) Yup! I am with you on this. Nonetheless, it was a great 35-year (1990-2024) spectator experience for me as a Stanford WBB fanatic. The 3rd most successful NCAA WBB program during that 35-year span. Now joining the ranks of Louisiana Tech and Tennessee as a former WBB power.

Speaking of singing,

“All we are saying
is give Paye a chance …”

Well - she's already had a couple of shots at it, and.....pfffft

[PalmTree]

I've already expressed my thoughts on the coaching.  I agree with the concerns posted in this thread.  Stanford WBB as we have known it is dead.  I bet much of the roster departs.  The portal will take but not give much back.  I am trying to figure out why I am still paying attention.  I feel like I am watching a slow motion train wreck.  This was the year it had to be right.  Had to make the NCAAs.  Had to have a strong season.  Did not happen and there will be no second chance next year.  The fat lady has sung.

(Noddingly) Yup! I am with you on this. Nonetheless, it was a great 35-year (1990-2024) spectator experience for me as a Stanford WBB fanatic. The 3rd most successful NCAA WBB program during that 35-year span. Now joining the ranks of Louisiana Tech and Tennessee as a former WBB power.

Speaking of singing,

“All we are saying
is give Paye a chance …”

Well - she's already had a couple of shots at it, and.....pfffft

[M T]

Well - she's already had a couple of shots at it, and.....pfffft

Yeah, any coach that goes 12-15 and 14-13 in the first two seasons ought to be run out of town on a rail!

(Paye went 16-15 and 21-14.)

[M T]

Well - she's already had a couple of shots at it, and.....pfffft

Yeah, any coach that goes 12-15 and 14-13 in the first two seasons ought to be run out of town on a rail!

(Paye went 16-15 and 21-14.)

[76lsjumb]

Well - she's already had a couple of shots at it, and.....pfffft

Yeah, any coach that goes 12-15 and 14-13 in the first two seasons ought to be run out of town on a rail!

(Paye went 16-15 and 21-14.)

Well, that depends. Did the coach take over a team that hadn’t won more than 9 games in each of the preceding 3 years, or a team that had won no fewer than 29 games per season in that period (and a national championship in the year before that period)?

[76lsjumb]

Well - she's already had a couple of shots at it, and.....pfffft

Yeah, any coach that goes 12-15 and 14-13 in the first two seasons ought to be run out of town on a rail!

(Paye went 16-15 and 21-14.)

Well, that depends. Did the coach take over a team that hadn’t won more than 9 games in each of the preceding 3 years, or a team that had won no fewer than 29 games per season in that period (and a national championship in the year before that period)?

[BostonCard]

How many players from that national championship team did the new coach inherit?

Indeed, how much scoring from the preceding year’s team were on the new coach’s team?  The top three scorers were gone, as were the top two rebounders.  Highly rated recruits from the intervening year transferred out.  By my calculation, Kate Paye had no returning player scoring more than 7 ppg or rebounding more than 4 rebounds per game.  I don’t know that Vanderveer, had she stayed would have gone 16-15, but neither would she would have come anywhere near the 30 win average she had the preceding four years.  We all knew that it was going to be a rebuilding year, no matter what, and rather than compare Paye to a different era of basketball, one that was just starting to deal with transfers and NIL, we should compare Paye to what might reasonably have been expected given the hands she was dealt.

I think it is fair to think that Paye could have or should have played the cards she was dealt better, and that maybe a different coach could have gotten at least this year’s team back to the tournament.  But I don’t think any coach is going to the heights we witnessed under Vanderveer without structural changes to the collegiate athletics environment, or Stanford, or both.

BC

[BostonCard]

How many players from that national championship team did the new coach inherit?

Indeed, how much scoring from the preceding year’s team were on the new coach’s team?  The top three scorers were gone, as were the top two rebounders.  Highly rated recruits from the intervening year transferred out.  By my calculation, Kate Paye had no returning player scoring more than 7 ppg or rebounding more than 4 rebounds per game.  I don’t know that Vanderveer, had she stayed would have gone 16-15, but neither would she would have come anywhere near the 30 win average she had the preceding four years.  We all knew that it was going to be a rebuilding year, no matter what, and rather than compare Paye to a different era of basketball, one that was just starting to deal with transfers and NIL, we should compare Paye to what might reasonably have been expected given the hands she was dealt.

I think it is fair to think that Paye could have or should have played the cards she was dealt better, and that maybe a different coach could have gotten at least this year’s team back to the tournament.  But I don’t think any coach is going to the heights we witnessed under Vanderveer without structural changes to the collegiate athletics environment, or Stanford, or both.

BC

[triangle2]

What I want to know is whether the administration has genuinely opened the door to taking kids from the portal for WBB - meaning, will Stanford accept rising sophomore through grad transfer students, and is there now an expedited process to accept such students during the portal period. Because if the answer to that question ranges from "hell no" to "we can accept on occasion an exceptionally academically qualified student who is a rising sophomore or a grad transfer only," then no one is going to be able to resurrect the program. 

Per On3, 8 Iowa St. players will be going into the portal, and that doesn't (yet) include Audi Crooks. It's another Oregon State extinction level event in progress. Unless there is serious NCAA reform, this is the new normal, and most teams are going to see annual departures. Stanford can't field a competitive team if they insist on playing with rules that virtually no one else follows. Of course, as a fan, I might choose my kids' club soccer games over this hot mess.

[triangle2]

What I want to know is whether the administration has genuinely opened the door to taking kids from the portal for WBB - meaning, will Stanford accept rising sophomore through grad transfer students, and is there now an expedited process to accept such students during the portal period. Because if the answer to that question ranges from "hell no" to "we can accept on occasion an exceptionally academically qualified student who is a rising sophomore or a grad transfer only," then no one is going to be able to resurrect the program. 

Per On3, 8 Iowa St. players will be going into the portal, and that doesn't (yet) include Audi Crooks. It's another Oregon State extinction level event in progress. Unless there is serious NCAA reform, this is the new normal, and most teams are going to see annual departures. Stanford can't field a competitive team if they insist on playing with rules that virtually no one else follows. Of course, as a fan, I might choose my kids' club soccer games over this hot mess.

[Jskass]

While I think the question is complex with various elements such as inherited players, NIL, transfer portal -- it therefore makes sense to give a pass to KP's first year as a total rebuild. However, when watching this year's NCAA tournament complete with various teams we beat early in the year, it became so so apparent that something is seriously amiss in coaching when the team falls apart the second half the way we did -- even giving credit to various ACC teams (ND, UVA and Syracuse) as better than previously thought. Was unbelievable to see Oregon, WA, Gonzaga, and of course having beaten UNC too...

[Jskass]

While I think the question is complex with various elements such as inherited players, NIL, transfer portal -- it therefore makes sense to give a pass to KP's first year as a total rebuild. However, when watching this year's NCAA tournament complete with various teams we beat early in the year, it became so so apparent that something is seriously amiss in coaching when the team falls apart the second half the way we did -- even giving credit to various ACC teams (ND, UVA and Syracuse) as better than previously thought. Was unbelievable to see Oregon, WA, Gonzaga, and of course having beaten UNC too...

[2006alum]

While I think the question is complex with various elements such as inherited players, NIL, transfer portal -- it therefore makes sense to give a pass to KP's first year as a total rebuild. However, when watching this year's NCAA tournament complete with various teams we beat early in the year, it became so so apparent that something is seriously amiss in coaching when the team falls apart the second half the way we did -- even giving credit to various ACC teams (ND, UVA and Syracuse) as better than previously thought. Was unbelievable to see Oregon, WA, Gonzaga, and of course having beaten UNC too...

This is exactly what I was thinking. I think KP got dealt a terrible hand - as BC pointed out, she did not inherit a ton from Tara, and with the collapse of the Pac-12, and having to scout and travel to all new ACC conference opponents, dealing with the portal and NIL, etc., it's fair to say this should be considered from a fairly clean slate.

But: we had too much talent this year not to play in the tournament, and we just didn't look like a well coached team. The thing that I kept coming back to was our offense - we did not have crisp passing, we rarely ever used hard screens, we seemed almost incapable of passing inside, and a lot of our points came off fast breaks or in transition. In short, our half court offense sucked, and didn't even especially suit our personnel (how is 4 out supposed to work when none of your players are reliably above 35% 3 pt shooting but Ogden?) The most telling stat for me was that we had 14.4 turnovers per game but only 12.5 assists - that's right, for the year, our A:TO ratio was hovering near .8.

So I think what I need to is that we have a new mind running our offense and better utilizing our personnel. That doesn't HAVE to be a change at the top, but there does need to be a meaningful change somewhere in the coaching roster.

[2006alum]

While I think the question is complex with various elements such as inherited players, NIL, transfer portal -- it therefore makes sense to give a pass to KP's first year as a total rebuild. However, when watching this year's NCAA tournament complete with various teams we beat early in the year, it became so so apparent that something is seriously amiss in coaching when the team falls apart the second half the way we did -- even giving credit to various ACC teams (ND, UVA and Syracuse) as better than previously thought. Was unbelievable to see Oregon, WA, Gonzaga, and of course having beaten UNC too...

This is exactly what I was thinking. I think KP got dealt a terrible hand - as BC pointed out, she did not inherit a ton from Tara, and with the collapse of the Pac-12, and having to scout and travel to all new ACC conference opponents, dealing with the portal and NIL, etc., it's fair to say this should be considered from a fairly clean slate.

But: we had too much talent this year not to play in the tournament, and we just didn't look like a well coached team. The thing that I kept coming back to was our offense - we did not have crisp passing, we rarely ever used hard screens, we seemed almost incapable of passing inside, and a lot of our points came off fast breaks or in transition. In short, our half court offense sucked, and didn't even especially suit our personnel (how is 4 out supposed to work when none of your players are reliably above 35% 3 pt shooting but Ogden?) The most telling stat for me was that we had 14.4 turnovers per game but only 12.5 assists - that's right, for the year, our A:TO ratio was hovering near .8.

So I think what I need to is that we have a new mind running our offense and better utilizing our personnel. That doesn't HAVE to be a change at the top, but there does need to be a meaningful change somewhere in the coaching roster.

[chimera]

How many players from that national championship team did the new coach inherit?

Indeed, how much scoring from the preceding year’s team were on the new coach’s team?  The top three scorers were gone, as were the top two rebounders.  Highly rated recruits from the intervening year transferred out.  By my calculation, Kate Paye had no returning player scoring more than 7 ppg or rebounding more than 4 rebounds per game.  I don’t know that Vanderveer, had she stayed would have gone 16-15, but neither would she would have come anywhere near the 30 win average she had the preceding four years.  We all knew that it was going to be a rebuilding year, no matter what, and rather than compare Paye to a different era of basketball, one that was just starting to deal with transfers and NIL, we should compare Paye to what might reasonably have been expected given the hands she was dealt.

I think it is fair to think that Paye could have or should have played the cards she was dealt better, and that maybe a different coach could have gotten at least this year’s team back to the tournament.  But I don’t think any coach is going to the heights we witnessed under Vanderveer without structural changes to the collegiate athletics environment, or Stanford, or both.

BC

I doubt anyone posting here was expecting anything close to the levels we saw under Tara.  First year we all gave Paye a pass - first year for her, forst year for the ACC, etc.  I felt we underachieved last year but also that it was understandable.  This year expectations were not that high, not do like Tara, just make the NCAAs and maybe win a game.  There is plenty enough talent on the roster for that.  If we can't expect that from a coach what exactly are we doing?

[chimera]

How many players from that national championship team did the new coach inherit?

Indeed, how much scoring from the preceding year’s team were on the new coach’s team?  The top three scorers were gone, as were the top two rebounders.  Highly rated recruits from the intervening year transferred out.  By my calculation, Kate Paye had no returning player scoring more than 7 ppg or rebounding more than 4 rebounds per game.  I don’t know that Vanderveer, had she stayed would have gone 16-15, but neither would she would have come anywhere near the 30 win average she had the preceding four years.  We all knew that it was going to be a rebuilding year, no matter what, and rather than compare Paye to a different era of basketball, one that was just starting to deal with transfers and NIL, we should compare Paye to what might reasonably have been expected given the hands she was dealt.

I think it is fair to think that Paye could have or should have played the cards she was dealt better, and that maybe a different coach could have gotten at least this year’s team back to the tournament.  But I don’t think any coach is going to the heights we witnessed under Vanderveer without structural changes to the collegiate athletics environment, or Stanford, or both.

BC

I doubt anyone posting here was expecting anything close to the levels we saw under Tara.  First year we all gave Paye a pass - first year for her, forst year for the ACC, etc.  I felt we underachieved last year but also that it was understandable.  This year expectations were not that high, not do like Tara, just make the NCAAs and maybe win a game.  There is plenty enough talent on the roster for that.  If we can't expect that from a coach what exactly are we doing?

[Hieronymus]

How many players from that national championship team did the new coach inherit?

Indeed, how much scoring from the preceding year’s team were on the new coach’s team?  The top three scorers were gone, as were the top two rebounders.  Highly rated recruits from the intervening year transferred out.  By my calculation, Kate Paye had no returning player scoring more than 7 ppg or rebounding more than 4 rebounds per game.  I don’t know that Vanderveer, had she stayed would have gone 16-15, but neither would she would have come anywhere near the 30 win average she had the preceding four years.  We all knew that it was going to be a rebuilding year, no matter what, and rather than compare Paye to a different era of basketball, one that was just starting to deal with transfers and NIL, we should compare Paye to what might reasonably have been expected given the hands she was dealt.

I think it is fair to think that Paye could have or should have played the cards she was dealt better, and that maybe a different coach could have gotten at least this year’s team back to the tournament.  But I don’t think any coach is going to the heights we witnessed under Vanderveer without structural changes to the collegiate athletics environment, or Stanford, or both.

BC

I doubt anyone posting here was expecting anything close to the levels we saw under Tara.  First year we all gave Paye a pass - first year for her, forst year for the ACC, etc.  I felt we underachieved last year but also that it was understandable.  This year expectations were not that high, not do like Tara, just make the NCAAs and maybe win a game.  There is plenty enough talent on the roster for that.  If we can't expect that from a coach what exactly are we doing?

Yes, this and 2006alum’s post above get it exactly right. Making the tournament was the minimum bar and winning a game would have been nice. This team had enough even with some injuries to make it happen.

[Hieronymus]

How many players from that national championship team did the new coach inherit?

Indeed, how much scoring from the preceding year’s team were on the new coach’s team?  The top three scorers were gone, as were the top two rebounders.  Highly rated recruits from the intervening year transferred out.  By my calculation, Kate Paye had no returning player scoring more than 7 ppg or rebounding more than 4 rebounds per game.  I don’t know that Vanderveer, had she stayed would have gone 16-15, but neither would she would have come anywhere near the 30 win average she had the preceding four years.  We all knew that it was going to be a rebuilding year, no matter what, and rather than compare Paye to a different era of basketball, one that was just starting to deal with transfers and NIL, we should compare Paye to what might reasonably have been expected given the hands she was dealt.

I think it is fair to think that Paye could have or should have played the cards she was dealt better, and that maybe a different coach could have gotten at least this year’s team back to the tournament.  But I don’t think any coach is going to the heights we witnessed under Vanderveer without structural changes to the collegiate athletics environment, or Stanford, or both.

BC

I doubt anyone posting here was expecting anything close to the levels we saw under Tara.  First year we all gave Paye a pass - first year for her, forst year for the ACC, etc.  I felt we underachieved last year but also that it was understandable.  This year expectations were not that high, not do like Tara, just make the NCAAs and maybe win a game.  There is plenty enough talent on the roster for that.  If we can't expect that from a coach what exactly are we doing?

Yes, this and 2006alum’s post above get it exactly right. Making the tournament was the minimum bar and winning a game would have been nice. This team had enough even with some injuries to make it happen.

[qwerty49]

So I think what I need to is that we have a new mind running our offense and better utilizing our personnel. That doesn't HAVE to be a change at the top, but there does need to be a meaningful change somewhere in the coaching roster.

This. At a minimum. Xs and Os and player development are fundamental and this team has been lacking. 

The other dimension is recruiting and from what I’ve seen Kate lacks the personality/credibility to be successful there. Tara was not exactly extroverted but she had the “living legend” gravitas. Maybe there are some NIL tools in the bag that Kate can learn to use to help her recruiting efforts? I confess that whole area is still a relative mystery to me. 

The press conferences are not exactly inspirational. Her vibe is just off IMHO.

[qwerty49]

So I think what I need to is that we have a new mind running our offense and better utilizing our personnel. That doesn't HAVE to be a change at the top, but there does need to be a meaningful change somewhere in the coaching roster.

This. At a minimum. Xs and Os and player development are fundamental and this team has been lacking. 

The other dimension is recruiting and from what I’ve seen Kate lacks the personality/credibility to be successful there. Tara was not exactly extroverted but she had the “living legend” gravitas. Maybe there are some NIL tools in the bag that Kate can learn to use to help her recruiting efforts? I confess that whole area is still a relative mystery to me. 

The press conferences are not exactly inspirational. Her vibe is just off IMHO.

[Card10Fan]

For those not watching, Columbia is beating BYU in the WBIT championship game at halftime:  42-24

Columbia has ZERO McDonald's All Americans on their roster. Fundamental basketball with great coaching. 

[Card10Fan]

For those not watching, Columbia is beating BYU in the WBIT championship game at halftime:  42-24

Columbia has ZERO McDonald's All Americans on their roster. Fundamental basketball with great coaching. 

[MV72018]

The fundamental and basic mistake was letting Tara unilaterally choose her successor. Zero search. Unacceptable.

[MV72018]

The fundamental and basic mistake was letting Tara unilaterally choose her successor. Zero search. Unacceptable.

[2006alum]

The fundamental and basic mistake was letting Tara unilaterally choose her successor. Zero search. Unacceptable.

I think the fundamental mistake was keeping Muir long enough that he oversaw that process. He let our revenue sports wither on the vine way too long.

[2006alum]

The fundamental and basic mistake was letting Tara unilaterally choose her successor. Zero search. Unacceptable.

I think the fundamental mistake was keeping Muir long enough that he oversaw that process. He let our revenue sports wither on the vine way too long.

[PalmTree]

I think the fundamental mistake was keeping Muir long enough that he oversaw that process. He let our revenue sports wither on the vine way too long.

^^^This......^^^

[PalmTree]

I think the fundamental mistake was keeping Muir long enough that he oversaw that process. He let our revenue sports wither on the vine way too long.

^^^This......^^^