[Card10Fan]

I had a private dinner wtih Fred LUskin (stanford foregiveness project) in fall of 2024, and learned that he was getting involved with the team and consistently sitting behind the bench.   THis gave me optimism that we could and would address some of the negativity on the team that happened in the Betts year.  Does anyone know if this past season he was involved?  stating the obvious, any efforts did not seem to "stick" this year in terms of increasing morale & reducing defections.

This is a good question. You are right in that after that year with Betts and the other transfers, Tara was committed to finding some solutions including Luskin and some other new leadership strategies.

[Card10Fan]

I had a private dinner wtih Fred LUskin (stanford foregiveness project) in fall of 2024, and learned that he was getting involved with the team and consistently sitting behind the bench.   THis gave me optimism that we could and would address some of the negativity on the team that happened in the Betts year.  Does anyone know if this past season he was involved?  stating the obvious, any efforts did not seem to "stick" this year in terms of increasing morale & reducing defections.

This is a good question. You are right in that after that year with Betts and the other transfers, Tara was committed to finding some solutions including Luskin and some other new leadership strategies.

[here4WBB]

I had a private dinner wtih Fred LUskin (stanford foregiveness project) in fall of 2024, and learned that he was getting involved with the team and consistently sitting behind the bench.   THis gave me optimism that we could and would address some of the negativity on the team that happened in the Betts year.  Does anyone know if this past season he was involved?  stating the obvious, any efforts did not seem to "stick" this year in terms of increasing morale & reducing defections.

This is a good question. You are right in that after that year with Betts and the other transfers, Tara was committed to finding some solutions, including Luskin and some other new leadership strategies.
_____________________________________________
Luskin was a guest speaker at Tara's class this winter.  He spoke only about his involvement when Tara was coach, and he spoke of his time with the team only in the past. Tara was very careful not to talk about Kaye or the 2025-2026 team except at the very end, when she showed some good play examples in her X's-and-O's segment.  Tara did say that bringing in Luskin was a hard sell to the rest of the coaching team; they were skeptical and reluctant to give him any of their practice time.

[here4WBB]

I had a private dinner wtih Fred LUskin (stanford foregiveness project) in fall of 2024, and learned that he was getting involved with the team and consistently sitting behind the bench.   THis gave me optimism that we could and would address some of the negativity on the team that happened in the Betts year.  Does anyone know if this past season he was involved?  stating the obvious, any efforts did not seem to "stick" this year in terms of increasing morale & reducing defections.

This is a good question. You are right in that after that year with Betts and the other transfers, Tara was committed to finding some solutions, including Luskin and some other new leadership strategies.
_____________________________________________
Luskin was a guest speaker at Tara's class this winter.  He spoke only about his involvement when Tara was coach, and he spoke of his time with the team only in the past. Tara was very careful not to talk about Kaye or the 2025-2026 team except at the very end, when she showed some good play examples in her X's-and-O's segment.  Tara did say that bringing in Luskin was a hard sell to the rest of the coaching team; they were skeptical and reluctant to give him any of their practice time.

[stopandpop]

"Vanderveer can't accept that fact and throw her under the bus because Vanderveer believes that (firing her) would tarnish her own legacy; that she failed to pass on the torch to someone who could succeed.  I think this is all about TVD's ego; that she somehow believes KP MUST eventually succeed before Tara officially retires and fades into the sunset, knowing the program and her legacy is in safe hands. "

I seldom post on this board, but the above evidenceless assertion that concludes that Tara Vanderveer's ego is the reason Kate Paye will be
retained (another unsupported assertion) despite being the reason for all the departures (a further conjecture) is the most rank speculation that degrades the discussion here., not to mention demeans a great coach without a shred of evidence.

Any facts you could give here that would reduce the speculation would be welcomed.

As I said in the original post, it's just my speculation.  I may be dead wrong, but I look at their long-term relationship (Tara and Kate) and I would be stunned if Tara had no emotional investment in Paye's success.  Please free to attack it my opinion.  For someone battling incurable cancer, stuff like that doesn't bother me in the least; in fact, it's enjoyable banter.  I have zero evidence, but I'll continue to say Donahoe has little or no power when it comes to making the coaching decision.  He proved it by not responding back to you.  Tara is pulling the strings.

[stopandpop]

"Vanderveer can't accept that fact and throw her under the bus because Vanderveer believes that (firing her) would tarnish her own legacy; that she failed to pass on the torch to someone who could succeed.  I think this is all about TVD's ego; that she somehow believes KP MUST eventually succeed before Tara officially retires and fades into the sunset, knowing the program and her legacy is in safe hands. "

I seldom post on this board, but the above evidenceless assertion that concludes that Tara Vanderveer's ego is the reason Kate Paye will be
retained (another unsupported assertion) despite being the reason for all the departures (a further conjecture) is the most rank speculation that degrades the discussion here., not to mention demeans a great coach without a shred of evidence.

Any facts you could give here that would reduce the speculation would be welcomed.

As I said in the original post, it's just my speculation.  I may be dead wrong, but I look at their long-term relationship (Tara and Kate) and I would be stunned if Tara had no emotional investment in Paye's success.  Please free to attack it my opinion.  For someone battling incurable cancer, stuff like that doesn't bother me in the least; in fact, it's enjoyable banter.  I have zero evidence, but I'll continue to say Donahoe has little or no power when it comes to making the coaching decision.  He proved it by not responding back to you.  Tara is pulling the strings.

[Jskass]

"Vanderveer can't accept that fact and throw her under the bus because Vanderveer believes that (firing her) would tarnish her own legacy; that she failed to pass on the torch to someone who could succeed.  I think this is all about TVD's ego; that she somehow believes KP MUST eventually succeed before Tara officially retires and fades into the sunset, knowing the program and her legacy is in safe hands. "

I seldom post on this board, but the above evidenceless assertion that concludes that Tara Vanderveer's ego is the reason Kate Paye will be
retained (another unsupported assertion) despite being the reason for all the departures (a further conjecture) is the most rank speculation that degrades the discussion here., not to mention demeans a great coach without a shred of evidence.

Any facts you could give here that would reduce the speculation would be welcomed.

As I said in the original post, it's just my speculation.  I may be dead wrong, but I look at their long-term relationship (Tara and Kate) and I would be stunned if Tara had no emotional investment in Paye's success.  Please free to attack it my opinion.  For someone battling incurable cancer, stuff like that doesn't bother me in the least; in fact, it's enjoyable banter.  I have zero evidence, but I'll continue to say Donahoe has little or no power when it comes to making the coaching decision.  He proved it by not responding back to you.  Tara is pulling the strings.

I am very sorry about your health and hope there is a cure or treatment.  I also imagine that does put things into perspective. It seems logical to conclude that either Donahoe has little/no power OR that he chose not to use it, but I have not read any evidence that Tara is "pulling the strings." In fact, it could just as easily be a myriad of other things (the scholarship, the financials vs. legal aspects, not wanting to seem 'rash' or what we would call reasonable, etc.). My money is on financials vs. legal (that not strong enough case to get out of the contract's financials -- another downside of having a coach who is a lawyer). And no I do not hate lawyers - two in my immediate family -- though skill set not obviously transferable to coaching.

[Jskass]

"Vanderveer can't accept that fact and throw her under the bus because Vanderveer believes that (firing her) would tarnish her own legacy; that she failed to pass on the torch to someone who could succeed.  I think this is all about TVD's ego; that she somehow believes KP MUST eventually succeed before Tara officially retires and fades into the sunset, knowing the program and her legacy is in safe hands. "

I seldom post on this board, but the above evidenceless assertion that concludes that Tara Vanderveer's ego is the reason Kate Paye will be
retained (another unsupported assertion) despite being the reason for all the departures (a further conjecture) is the most rank speculation that degrades the discussion here., not to mention demeans a great coach without a shred of evidence.

Any facts you could give here that would reduce the speculation would be welcomed.

As I said in the original post, it's just my speculation.  I may be dead wrong, but I look at their long-term relationship (Tara and Kate) and I would be stunned if Tara had no emotional investment in Paye's success.  Please free to attack it my opinion.  For someone battling incurable cancer, stuff like that doesn't bother me in the least; in fact, it's enjoyable banter.  I have zero evidence, but I'll continue to say Donahoe has little or no power when it comes to making the coaching decision.  He proved it by not responding back to you.  Tara is pulling the strings.

I am very sorry about your health and hope there is a cure or treatment.  I also imagine that does put things into perspective. It seems logical to conclude that either Donahoe has little/no power OR that he chose not to use it, but I have not read any evidence that Tara is "pulling the strings." In fact, it could just as easily be a myriad of other things (the scholarship, the financials vs. legal aspects, not wanting to seem 'rash' or what we would call reasonable, etc.). My money is on financials vs. legal (that not strong enough case to get out of the contract's financials -- another downside of having a coach who is a lawyer). And no I do not hate lawyers - two in my immediate family -- though skill set not obviously transferable to coaching.

[BobK]

Of course the AD has the power

[BobK]

Of course the AD has the power

[Hieronymus]

Of course the AD has the power

This. Of course Tara must have influence, but the buck stops with the AD. If the AD refuses to exercise that power or is happy with the current state, that is on him not Tara. Full stop. I don’t care how much influence she may or may not have.

[Hieronymus]

Of course the AD has the power

This. Of course Tara must have influence, but the buck stops with the AD. If the AD refuses to exercise that power or is happy with the current state, that is on him not Tara. Full stop. I don’t care how much influence she may or may not have.

[76lsjumb]

Of course the AD has the power

This. Of course Tara must have influence, but the buck stops with the AD. If the AD refuses to exercise that power or is happy with the current state, that is on him not Tara. Full stop. I don’t care how much influence she may or may not have.

Absolutely. I mean, just go into Maples and look at the floor. Right there, in giant letters, on both ends, it says: “JOHN”…  :-)

[76lsjumb]

Of course the AD has the power

This. Of course Tara must have influence, but the buck stops with the AD. If the AD refuses to exercise that power or is happy with the current state, that is on him not Tara. Full stop. I don’t care how much influence she may or may not have.

Absolutely. I mean, just go into Maples and look at the floor. Right there, in giant letters, on both ends, it says: “JOHN”…  :-)

[Card10Fan]

Of course the AD has the power

This. Of course Tara must have influence, but the buck stops with the AD. If the AD refuses to exercise that power or is happy with the current state, that is on him not Tara. Full stop. I don’t care how much influence she may or may not have.

Even if AD has power, Donahoe just made reference over the weekend to how much Tara Vanderveer vouched for him to to get the AD job. Would he be willing to cross her if Tara really wants Paye to get another year when he's in his first year on the job? I'm not sure. I also got another email response from the AD but no mention if aything will still be shared publicly. His words. 

 "I can assure you that we are engaged and focused on this topic."  

[Card10Fan]

Of course the AD has the power

This. Of course Tara must have influence, but the buck stops with the AD. If the AD refuses to exercise that power or is happy with the current state, that is on him not Tara. Full stop. I don’t care how much influence she may or may not have.

Even if AD has power, Donahoe just made reference over the weekend to how much Tara Vanderveer vouched for him to to get the AD job. Would he be willing to cross her if Tara really wants Paye to get another year when he's in his first year on the job? I'm not sure. I also got another email response from the AD but no mention if aything will still be shared publicly. His words. 

 "I can assure you that we are engaged and focused on this topic."  

[M T]

Ok, that's it for me.  This thread is long past being worth even looking at.
Once upon a time, the CardBoard was an interesting place to discuss WBB.   Not any more.

Thanks for the few that have stepped up and tried to redirect or reframe the conversation.

By the way, I looked at some stats on this thread over the weekend.  It is interesting that a very posters are driving this thread.

[M T]

Ok, that's it for me.  This thread is long past being worth even looking at.
Once upon a time, the CardBoard was an interesting place to discuss WBB.   Not any more.

Thanks for the few that have stepped up and tried to redirect or reframe the conversation.

By the way, I looked at some stats on this thread over the weekend.  It is interesting that a very posters are driving this thread.

[spike5882]

Ok, that's it for me.  This thread is long past being worth even looking at.
Once upon a time, the CardBoard was an interesting place to discuss WBB.   Not any more.

Thanks for the few that have stepped up and tried to redirect or reframe the conversation.

By the way, I looked at some stats on this thread over the weekend.  It is interesting that a very posters are driving this thread.

There really isn’t much to discuss right now. The program’s in a rough spot, most of the roster is gone, recruiting’s slipped — so people are mostly just waiting to see what happens.

If the idea is that discussion about letting Kate Paye go should be “reframed,” that’s kind of the issue in my opinion. For years — even before Tara retired — any suggestion that the program might need a new direction was met pretty aggressively. That hasn’t really changed.

I follow WBB and Stanford sports rather religiously, but I mostly stay quiet on this board for that reason. If your view isn’t fully aligned with the staff, it tends to get shut down fast. So instead, I just read and keep those conversations among the people I talk to almost daily on the outside about the WBB program. 

Honestly, this board would be a lot more interesting if people could talk about the program — and WBB more broadly — a bit more candidly, without everything seemingly needing to fit just one narrative.  Whenever there is opposing opinion, it just gets shut down.  And the result is a rather pretty boring board/discussion.

[spike5882]

Ok, that's it for me.  This thread is long past being worth even looking at.
Once upon a time, the CardBoard was an interesting place to discuss WBB.   Not any more.

Thanks for the few that have stepped up and tried to redirect or reframe the conversation.

By the way, I looked at some stats on this thread over the weekend.  It is interesting that a very posters are driving this thread.

There really isn’t much to discuss right now. The program’s in a rough spot, most of the roster is gone, recruiting’s slipped — so people are mostly just waiting to see what happens.

If the idea is that discussion about letting Kate Paye go should be “reframed,” that’s kind of the issue in my opinion. For years — even before Tara retired — any suggestion that the program might need a new direction was met pretty aggressively. That hasn’t really changed.

I follow WBB and Stanford sports rather religiously, but I mostly stay quiet on this board for that reason. If your view isn’t fully aligned with the staff, it tends to get shut down fast. So instead, I just read and keep those conversations among the people I talk to almost daily on the outside about the WBB program. 

Honestly, this board would be a lot more interesting if people could talk about the program — and WBB more broadly — a bit more candidly, without everything seemingly needing to fit just one narrative.  Whenever there is opposing opinion, it just gets shut down.  And the result is a rather pretty boring board/discussion.

[martyup]

Ok, that's it for me.  This thread is long past being worth even looking at.
Once upon a time, the CardBoard was an interesting place to discuss WBB.   Not any more.

Thanks for the few that have stepped up and tried to redirect or reframe the conversation.

By the way, I looked at some stats on this thread over the weekend.  It is interesting that a very posters are driving this thread.

There really isn’t much to discuss right now. The program’s in a rough spot, most of the roster is gone, recruiting’s slipped — so people are mostly just waiting to see what happens.

If the idea is that discussion about letting Kate Paye go should be “reframed,” that’s kind of the issue in my opinion. For years — even before Tara retired — any suggestion that the program might need a new direction was met pretty aggressively. That hasn’t really changed.

I follow WBB and Stanford sports rather religiously, but I mostly stay quiet on this board for that reason. If your view isn’t fully aligned with the staff, it tends to get shut down fast. So instead, I just read and keep those conversations among the people I talk to almost daily on the outside about the WBB program. 

Honestly, this board would be a lot more interesting if people could talk about the program — and WBB more broadly — a bit more candidly, without everything seemingly needing to fit just one narrative.  Whenever there is opposing opinion, it just gets shut down.  And the result is a rather pretty boring board/discussion.

Members are free to speak their mind about Stanford sports on this board.  There are very few restrictions, including political opinions and ad hominem.  I'm not sure how any member can be "shut down" for voicing their opinion.  Someone posting a differing opinion on a subject does not equate to "shutting down" your opinion.  What is boring is when everyone has the same opinion.

When a member makes allegations against players, coaches, or the Stanford administration, it is fair game to call those allegations into question.  People can decide for themselves what to believe.  

When members question coaching decisions, it is fair game to post counter arguments.  There is no sports related "third rail" on the Cardboard (other than Tara being the GOAT) :•)

So, please feel free to "talk about the program — and WBB more broadly — a bit more candidly."

[martyup]

Ok, that's it for me.  This thread is long past being worth even looking at.
Once upon a time, the CardBoard was an interesting place to discuss WBB.   Not any more.

Thanks for the few that have stepped up and tried to redirect or reframe the conversation.

By the way, I looked at some stats on this thread over the weekend.  It is interesting that a very posters are driving this thread.

There really isn’t much to discuss right now. The program’s in a rough spot, most of the roster is gone, recruiting’s slipped — so people are mostly just waiting to see what happens.

If the idea is that discussion about letting Kate Paye go should be “reframed,” that’s kind of the issue in my opinion. For years — even before Tara retired — any suggestion that the program might need a new direction was met pretty aggressively. That hasn’t really changed.

I follow WBB and Stanford sports rather religiously, but I mostly stay quiet on this board for that reason. If your view isn’t fully aligned with the staff, it tends to get shut down fast. So instead, I just read and keep those conversations among the people I talk to almost daily on the outside about the WBB program. 

Honestly, this board would be a lot more interesting if people could talk about the program — and WBB more broadly — a bit more candidly, without everything seemingly needing to fit just one narrative.  Whenever there is opposing opinion, it just gets shut down.  And the result is a rather pretty boring board/discussion.

Members are free to speak their mind about Stanford sports on this board.  There are very few restrictions, including political opinions and ad hominem.  I'm not sure how any member can be "shut down" for voicing their opinion.  Someone posting a differing opinion on a subject does not equate to "shutting down" your opinion.  What is boring is when everyone has the same opinion.

When a member makes allegations against players, coaches, or the Stanford administration, it is fair game to call those allegations into question.  People can decide for themselves what to believe.  

When members question coaching decisions, it is fair game to post counter arguments.  There is no sports related "third rail" on the Cardboard (other than Tara being the GOAT) :•)

So, please feel free to "talk about the program — and WBB more broadly — a bit more candidly."

[BostonCard]

Interesting, I think that recently the program critics have had a louder voice than program supporters.  I think someone coming on this board with a criticism of the program and especially of the coaches would probably be met with mostly approval, while I think someone trying to defend the coaches is more likely to be met with “are you watching the same team that I am?”

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting, I think that recently the program critics have had a louder voice than program supporters.  I think someone coming on this board with a criticism of the program and especially of the coaches would probably be met with mostly approval, while I think someone trying to defend the coaches is more likely to be met with “are you watching the same team that I am?”

BC

[Jskass]

I think there has been a 180 - reflecting realities.

[Jskass]

I think there has been a 180 - reflecting realities.

[crackpot]

I think there has been a 180 - reflecting realities.

Or 360. : )

Me:

1994: Gee, great player but absolutely no sense of humor
2008: I guess she saves all her energy for strategy
2017: Wow, that's some All About Eve s*** going on
2022: Maybe she's trying
2023: Remind self to not ask question at chalk talk
2024: Oof
2025: I assume the players experience something different than what I see
Jan 2026: Something serious has happened in the program bringing this team and coaching staff together.
Apr 2026: Oh. Players united against a bullying coach. Should've trusted my instincts.

[crackpot]

I think there has been a 180 - reflecting realities.

Or 360. : )

Me:

1994: Gee, great player but absolutely no sense of humor
2008: I guess she saves all her energy for strategy
2017: Wow, that's some All About Eve s*** going on
2022: Maybe she's trying
2023: Remind self to not ask question at chalk talk
2024: Oof
2025: I assume the players experience something different than what I see
Jan 2026: Something serious has happened in the program bringing this team and coaching staff together.
Apr 2026: Oh. Players united against a bullying coach. Should've trusted my instincts.

[FarmTeam]

Interesting, I think that recently the program critics have had a louder voice than program supporters.  I think someone coming on this board with a criticism of the program and especially of the coaches would probably be met with mostly approval, while I think someone trying to defend the coaches is more likely to be met with “are you watching the same team that I am?”

BC

Really?! WBB has been traditionally the third rail of this board, and of Stanford fandom in general. I had the "gall" to criticize Tara as an x's and o's coach a few years ago and practically got run off the board. Said she was obviously a hugely successful coach, buoyed by fantastic recruiting over the years, but didn't think her x's and o's coaching was anywhere near Gino Auriemma's. (I stand by those comments by the way.) Shaw, Haase, etc could be criticized to the moon, but certainly not WBB until now. 

By the way, reaction at the time? "You are troll. Don't feed the trolls. This is not a serious poster. I can't delete those troll posts because not technically a violation of the rules" etc etc. Who posted such angry attacks? None other than our esteemed moderator, BostonCard.

[FarmTeam]

Interesting, I think that recently the program critics have had a louder voice than program supporters.  I think someone coming on this board with a criticism of the program and especially of the coaches would probably be met with mostly approval, while I think someone trying to defend the coaches is more likely to be met with “are you watching the same team that I am?”

BC

Really?! WBB has been traditionally the third rail of this board, and of Stanford fandom in general. I had the "gall" to criticize Tara as an x's and o's coach a few years ago and practically got run off the board. Said she was obviously a hugely successful coach, buoyed by fantastic recruiting over the years, but didn't think her x's and o's coaching was anywhere near Gino Auriemma's. (I stand by those comments by the way.) Shaw, Haase, etc could be criticized to the moon, but certainly not WBB until now. 

By the way, reaction at the time? "You are troll. Don't feed the trolls. This is not a serious poster. I can't delete those troll posts because not technically a violation of the rules" etc etc. Who posted such angry attacks? None other than our esteemed moderator, BostonCard.

[BostonCard]

I should re-emphasize the word “recently”, and to be fair time horizons vary, but certainly this last season has seen the critics emerge with the upper hand.

BC

[BostonCard]

I should re-emphasize the word “recently”, and to be fair time horizons vary, but certainly this last season has seen the critics emerge with the upper hand.

BC

[martyup]

Interesting, I think that recently the program critics have had a louder voice than program supporters.  I think someone coming on this board with a criticism of the program and especially of the coaches would probably be met with mostly approval, while I think someone trying to defend the coaches is more likely to be met with “are you watching the same team that I am?”

BC

Really?! WBB has been traditionally the third rail of this board, and of Stanford fandom in general. I had the "gall" to criticize Tara as an x's and o's coach a few years ago and practically got run off the board. Said she was obviously a hugely successful coach, buoyed by fantastic recruiting over the years, but didn't think her x's and o's coaching was anywhere near Gino Auriemma's. (I stand by those comments by the way.) Shaw, Haase, etc could be criticized to the moon, but certainly not WBB until now. 

By the way, reaction at the time? "You are troll. Don't feed the trolls. This is not a serious poster. I can't delete those troll posts because not technically a violation of the rules" etc etc. Who posted such angry attacks? None other than our esteemed moderator, BostonCard.

When you question the basketball IQ of a WBB coaching GOAT, who had recently led her team to a National Championship, and claim her to be inferior to another WBB coach who is fairly unpopular on this board, you should expect strong pushback.  If you are too thin skinned to read that pushback, you shouldn't make such posts, even if they are not technical violations of the rules.

Did BC actually post "You are a troll?"  I find that uncharacteristic of BC.

[martyup]

Interesting, I think that recently the program critics have had a louder voice than program supporters.  I think someone coming on this board with a criticism of the program and especially of the coaches would probably be met with mostly approval, while I think someone trying to defend the coaches is more likely to be met with “are you watching the same team that I am?”

BC

Really?! WBB has been traditionally the third rail of this board, and of Stanford fandom in general. I had the "gall" to criticize Tara as an x's and o's coach a few years ago and practically got run off the board. Said she was obviously a hugely successful coach, buoyed by fantastic recruiting over the years, but didn't think her x's and o's coaching was anywhere near Gino Auriemma's. (I stand by those comments by the way.) Shaw, Haase, etc could be criticized to the moon, but certainly not WBB until now. 

By the way, reaction at the time? "You are troll. Don't feed the trolls. This is not a serious poster. I can't delete those troll posts because not technically a violation of the rules" etc etc. Who posted such angry attacks? None other than our esteemed moderator, BostonCard.

When you question the basketball IQ of a WBB coaching GOAT, who had recently led her team to a National Championship, and claim her to be inferior to another WBB coach who is fairly unpopular on this board, you should expect strong pushback.  If you are too thin skinned to read that pushback, you shouldn't make such posts, even if they are not technical violations of the rules.

Did BC actually post "You are a troll?"  I find that uncharacteristic of BC.

[BostonCard]

When you question the basketball IQ of a WBB coaching GOAT, who had recently led her team to a National Championship, and claim her to be inferior to another WBB coach who is fairly unpopular on this board, you should expect strong pushback.  If you are too thin skinned to read that pushback, you shouldn't make such posts, even if they are not technical violations of the rules.

Did BC actually post "You are a troll?"  I find that uncharacteristic of BC.

I did, indeed.  You can read the post I was reacting to here: https://thecardboard.org/board/thread-23...#pid349837

And I stand by my assessment that the poster was trying to draw a reaction rather than come to foster discussion about the merits or not about the coach at the time.  To be fair to FarmTeam, I misread their registration date and looked only at the number of threads they started so I was wrong (and admitted it at the time) in saying the poster had only registered to rage bait.

Throughout the years, there have been legitimate criticisms about Vanderveer’s coaching, the most salient of which was whether her structured style of play turned off athletic creative guards (especially the last few years), but for the most part, her overall record has held up quite well.

BC

[BostonCard]

When you question the basketball IQ of a WBB coaching GOAT, who had recently led her team to a National Championship, and claim her to be inferior to another WBB coach who is fairly unpopular on this board, you should expect strong pushback.  If you are too thin skinned to read that pushback, you shouldn't make such posts, even if they are not technical violations of the rules.

Did BC actually post "You are a troll?"  I find that uncharacteristic of BC.

I did, indeed.  You can read the post I was reacting to here: https://thecardboard.org/board/thread-23...#pid349837

And I stand by my assessment that the poster was trying to draw a reaction rather than come to foster discussion about the merits or not about the coach at the time.  To be fair to FarmTeam, I misread their registration date and looked only at the number of threads they started so I was wrong (and admitted it at the time) in saying the poster had only registered to rage bait.

Throughout the years, there have been legitimate criticisms about Vanderveer’s coaching, the most salient of which was whether her structured style of play turned off athletic creative guards (especially the last few years), but for the most part, her overall record has held up quite well.

BC

[martyup]

I did, indeed.  You can read the post I was reacting to here: https://thecardboard.org/board/thread-23...#pid349837

Ah, thanks for the context.  We had just been knocked out of the NCAA tourney by UCONN.  Everyone's emotions were high.  Those posts were very provocative to Stanford WBB fans.  

According to one definition:

Internet trolls are people who want to provoke and upset others online for their own amusement.

Those posts do seem to fit this definition . . .

[martyup]

I did, indeed.  You can read the post I was reacting to here: https://thecardboard.org/board/thread-23...#pid349837

Ah, thanks for the context.  We had just been knocked out of the NCAA tourney by UCONN.  Everyone's emotions were high.  Those posts were very provocative to Stanford WBB fans.  

According to one definition:

Internet trolls are people who want to provoke and upset others online for their own amusement.

Those posts do seem to fit this definition . . .

[FarmTeam]

When you question the basketball IQ of a WBB coaching GOAT, who had recently led her team to a National Championship, and claim her to be inferior to another WBB coach who is fairly unpopular on this board, you should expect strong pushback.  If you are too thin skinned to read that pushback, you shouldn't make such posts, even if they are not technical violations of the rules.

Did BC actually post "You are a troll?"  I find that uncharacteristic of BC.

I did, indeed.  You can read the post I was reacting to here: https://thecardboard.org/board/thread-23...#pid349837

And I stand by my assessment that the poster was trying to draw a reaction rather than come to foster discussion about the merits or not about the coach at the time.  To be fair to FarmTeam, I misread their registration date and looked only at the number of threads they started so I was wrong (and admitted it at the time) in saying the poster had only registered to rage bait.

Throughout the years, there have been legitimate criticisms about Vanderveer’s coaching, the most salient of which was whether her structured style of play turned off athletic creative guards (especially the last few years), but for the most part, her overall record has held up quite well.

BC

Umm, no. I've posted a ton on this board. And have said, as I did in that thread, that I'm a Stanford alum, a WBB fan (though admittedly much more focused on MBB than WBB), and have always thought that Tara didn't walk on water as a coach. Never particularly enjoyed watching their style of play, though of course I enjoyed the win-loss record. The natty win over Arizona was almost embarrassing in that regard: they eked out a win to a team that they had destroyed twice during the season because Tara simply Tara'd it, i.e., got outcoached. Thank god she was a great recruiter. For the record, I tend to be hard on coaches because as a former Stanford athlete I had a bad one, and think it's a crime, or at least a shame, when athletes' hard work is undermined by coaching. If anything, I was reacting to the ridiculous notion that Tara was beyond reproach as a coach (read the thread). She wasn't and isn't.

And you overreacted. Yet you police the board on stuff like that all the time. I don't remember any apology either.

By the way, reading it now I'll stand by this statement: "I was saying all week that I thought we'd lose to UConn because the gap between Geno and Tara is so big." 

But it's not worth re-litigating now. :-)

[FarmTeam]

When you question the basketball IQ of a WBB coaching GOAT, who had recently led her team to a National Championship, and claim her to be inferior to another WBB coach who is fairly unpopular on this board, you should expect strong pushback.  If you are too thin skinned to read that pushback, you shouldn't make such posts, even if they are not technical violations of the rules.

Did BC actually post "You are a troll?"  I find that uncharacteristic of BC.

I did, indeed.  You can read the post I was reacting to here: https://thecardboard.org/board/thread-23...#pid349837

And I stand by my assessment that the poster was trying to draw a reaction rather than come to foster discussion about the merits or not about the coach at the time.  To be fair to FarmTeam, I misread their registration date and looked only at the number of threads they started so I was wrong (and admitted it at the time) in saying the poster had only registered to rage bait.

Throughout the years, there have been legitimate criticisms about Vanderveer’s coaching, the most salient of which was whether her structured style of play turned off athletic creative guards (especially the last few years), but for the most part, her overall record has held up quite well.

BC

Umm, no. I've posted a ton on this board. And have said, as I did in that thread, that I'm a Stanford alum, a WBB fan (though admittedly much more focused on MBB than WBB), and have always thought that Tara didn't walk on water as a coach. Never particularly enjoyed watching their style of play, though of course I enjoyed the win-loss record. The natty win over Arizona was almost embarrassing in that regard: they eked out a win to a team that they had destroyed twice during the season because Tara simply Tara'd it, i.e., got outcoached. Thank god she was a great recruiter. For the record, I tend to be hard on coaches because as a former Stanford athlete I had a bad one, and think it's a crime, or at least a shame, when athletes' hard work is undermined by coaching. If anything, I was reacting to the ridiculous notion that Tara was beyond reproach as a coach (read the thread). She wasn't and isn't.

And you overreacted. Yet you police the board on stuff like that all the time. I don't remember any apology either.

By the way, reading it now I'll stand by this statement: "I was saying all week that I thought we'd lose to UConn because the gap between Geno and Tara is so big." 

But it's not worth re-litigating now. :-)