[stopandpop]

To me there are differences between the Shaw and Haase criticisms and some of the stuff we get about Tara.  Shaw's recent teams did poorly for several years, Haase's teams have never been better than mediocre his whole time at Stanford, while Tara's team won a championship in 2021, made the F4 in 2022 and slipped only this past season when they still went 29-6 and tied for first in the conference.  We don't have a bad WBB team.  We had one somewhat down year where expectations were not met.  That doesn't make it a terrible year.  We do have a bad FB team and a mediocre MBB team.  Discussion of the coaching of those teams should reflect that reality.

Calling Tara bad, mediocre, etc, not only does not make sense given her record (yes, even recent record), but shuts off any productive conversation.  All one can do is to agree that Tara is bad, which I think the vast majority on here do not agree with, or dispute that and get called a homer or apologist.  One can think Tara is an excellent coach who did not do a great job last season without thinking she is mediocre overall.  One can think she is very good overall but has areas that could be better.  There is more nuance in how I think most people view the coaching than we get credit for on here by those who are very negative about Tara. It is never fair to say "the board" is this or that.  The board is individual posters.  We don't coordinate what we write. It is very off putting to read that the board holds a certain position.  It is a lazy tactic.  If people disagree, talk to those people, not some amorphous "board."  

The repetition of the same negative posts is also a problem.  I know several of us find it annoying to read the same critical posts over and over, same stuff regurgitated, mostly general bashing like Tara is mediocre or never does this, always does that, never learns, etc., etc.  There is really no way to respond such that a productive conversation happens.  I guess the idea is we should all join in and pile on, and when that doesn't happen the poster can complain about the board being too pro Tara.  Well, you kind of forced people into that.  It isn't really fair to say anyone is too pro Tara when you set things up so that if someone doesn't go very negative, they are an apologist.  If someone has a specific complaint or criticism, like the rotation is blah blah, but it should instead be blah, blah, great, we can discuss that specific thing.  We are all just guessing when we predict the future.  Nobody on here knows the future, although a few of us seem to think they do (usually a negative future at that).

This message board should be open to all points of view on Stanford sports; whether you agree with them or not; whether you like them or not.  

Cardboarders constantly blasted, insulted, demeaned, and belittled coach Shaw along with almost all aspects of the football program week in and week out.  Criticism should be allowed across all sports or toward no sports.  There should not be selective rules based on whether you like the sport or coach.  There are fans who see things differently than you.

My issue is those who want to cherry pick how board rules are applied.  Also, IMO you repeated your opinions far more often on this thread than those with a more critical viewpoint of how the season transpired.

I personally don't have a problem with any post on this thread.  I enjoy reading it.  My only issue is for someone to try coercing a fan into either not posting honest opinions or stop posting.

---

Disappointed with ESPN's description of Ogden, continuing to list her at 5'11 when grew to be 6'1 at least a year ago in HS.  Same with Nunu, typically listed at 5'11 who is now 6'2.  Lazy reporting, relying on old out-of-date scouting reports.

Quite possibly it is lazy reporting.  But my experience is clubs will add an inch or two to a player's height.  Parents will inflate the height of their kid.  How do you know who is giving the correct height?

Stanford's introduction of the 3 freshmen class in their Stanford uniforms list their heights as follows:  Nunu Agara (6'2); Chloe Clardy (5'9) and Courtney Ogden (6'1).  I would have to assume that Stanford confirmed their respective heights at the time of their signing, but perhaps long time Stanford posters can weigh-in on how that process happens.

Some personal observations; Demetre looks a tad shorter than Iriafen (though both are listed at 6'3) when they stand next to each other.  But Iriafen looks at least 2" shorter than Brink when the two of them stand together.  I have said earlier that Brink is 6'5, but she's listed at 6'4.  There do seem to be some discrepancies between listed height and actual height.

On a national level, height discrepancies (listed vs. actual) are not all that uncommon; it's been going on for decades.

[stopandpop]

To me there are differences between the Shaw and Haase criticisms and some of the stuff we get about Tara.  Shaw's recent teams did poorly for several years, Haase's teams have never been better than mediocre his whole time at Stanford, while Tara's team won a championship in 2021, made the F4 in 2022 and slipped only this past season when they still went 29-6 and tied for first in the conference.  We don't have a bad WBB team.  We had one somewhat down year where expectations were not met.  That doesn't make it a terrible year.  We do have a bad FB team and a mediocre MBB team.  Discussion of the coaching of those teams should reflect that reality.

Calling Tara bad, mediocre, etc, not only does not make sense given her record (yes, even recent record), but shuts off any productive conversation.  All one can do is to agree that Tara is bad, which I think the vast majority on here do not agree with, or dispute that and get called a homer or apologist.  One can think Tara is an excellent coach who did not do a great job last season without thinking she is mediocre overall.  One can think she is very good overall but has areas that could be better.  There is more nuance in how I think most people view the coaching than we get credit for on here by those who are very negative about Tara. It is never fair to say "the board" is this or that.  The board is individual posters.  We don't coordinate what we write. It is very off putting to read that the board holds a certain position.  It is a lazy tactic.  If people disagree, talk to those people, not some amorphous "board."  

The repetition of the same negative posts is also a problem.  I know several of us find it annoying to read the same critical posts over and over, same stuff regurgitated, mostly general bashing like Tara is mediocre or never does this, always does that, never learns, etc., etc.  There is really no way to respond such that a productive conversation happens.  I guess the idea is we should all join in and pile on, and when that doesn't happen the poster can complain about the board being too pro Tara.  Well, you kind of forced people into that.  It isn't really fair to say anyone is too pro Tara when you set things up so that if someone doesn't go very negative, they are an apologist.  If someone has a specific complaint or criticism, like the rotation is blah blah, but it should instead be blah, blah, great, we can discuss that specific thing.  We are all just guessing when we predict the future.  Nobody on here knows the future, although a few of us seem to think they do (usually a negative future at that).

This message board should be open to all points of view on Stanford sports; whether you agree with them or not; whether you like them or not.  

Cardboarders constantly blasted, insulted, demeaned, and belittled coach Shaw along with almost all aspects of the football program week in and week out.  Criticism should be allowed across all sports or toward no sports.  There should not be selective rules based on whether you like the sport or coach.  There are fans who see things differently than you.

My issue is those who want to cherry pick how board rules are applied.  Also, IMO you repeated your opinions far more often on this thread than those with a more critical viewpoint of how the season transpired.

I personally don't have a problem with any post on this thread.  I enjoy reading it.  My only issue is for someone to try coercing a fan into either not posting honest opinions or stop posting.

---

Disappointed with ESPN's description of Ogden, continuing to list her at 5'11 when grew to be 6'1 at least a year ago in HS.  Same with Nunu, typically listed at 5'11 who is now 6'2.  Lazy reporting, relying on old out-of-date scouting reports.

Quite possibly it is lazy reporting.  But my experience is clubs will add an inch or two to a player's height.  Parents will inflate the height of their kid.  How do you know who is giving the correct height?

Stanford's introduction of the 3 freshmen class in their Stanford uniforms list their heights as follows:  Nunu Agara (6'2); Chloe Clardy (5'9) and Courtney Ogden (6'1).  I would have to assume that Stanford confirmed their respective heights at the time of their signing, but perhaps long time Stanford posters can weigh-in on how that process happens.

Some personal observations; Demetre looks a tad shorter than Iriafen (though both are listed at 6'3) when they stand next to each other.  But Iriafen looks at least 2" shorter than Brink when the two of them stand together.  I have said earlier that Brink is 6'5, but she's listed at 6'4.  There do seem to be some discrepancies between listed height and actual height.

On a national level, height discrepancies (listed vs. actual) are not all that uncommon; it's been going on for decades.