[Card10Fan]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...098110007/

USA Today article on it too. Word spreads fast.

[Card10Fan]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...098110007/

USA Today article on it too. Word spreads fast.

[crackpot]

I've been deeply disturbed by all of these reports but attempting to be objective, and I realize that coaching almost always involves some disgruntlement.  But this article cements the deal.  It is obvious--that for whatever reason--Paye's approach is not working for our athletes.  It is odd to me that someone who has been a Stanford WBB player would have such trouble understanding how to relate to our student athletes. There must have been a generational shift in attitudes and communication styles.

Frankly, I wonder if this is a shift that will occur in coaching more generally.  The old-style coach as authoritarian leader who can brook no dissent is over in an era when the players are professionals who have lots of options.  Coaxing the most out of our athletes will take more empathy.  Willl the coach as psychologist replace the coach as military commander?

Of course the best coaches have in the past been both.  But Pat, Geno, and Tara were not the touchy-feely kind that Cori is.  Kate is far from the touchy-feely kind either.  Early on there were those on this board who feared that Kate would not be tough enough.  Perhaps she has been too tough.

The biggest mystery to me though is not how this happened, but why administration decided not to intervene, and much earlier.  Hard to imagine the situation improving when this story is available for recruits and potential transfers to read.

---

Just after I posted I remember something from a chalk talk early on.  Not sure it was this year, but it was after Kate took over.  Someone (and it was not Kate) said something about expecting more from athletes now that they were being paid.  I took it to mean that they might be treated more like professionals and less like college students.  Perhaps this was the philosophy that was adopted, and perhaps it backfired and was perceived as too cold blooded or harsh?  

It could be that professionalizing the sport created sharply different expectations--that coaches felt they could demand more, but that athletes felt they no longer had to put up with harsh treatment.

My recollection is the same.

I've been wondering if KP has a lot of resentment around these players getting paid, yet she had to arrive as a walk-on.

[crackpot]

I've been deeply disturbed by all of these reports but attempting to be objective, and I realize that coaching almost always involves some disgruntlement.  But this article cements the deal.  It is obvious--that for whatever reason--Paye's approach is not working for our athletes.  It is odd to me that someone who has been a Stanford WBB player would have such trouble understanding how to relate to our student athletes. There must have been a generational shift in attitudes and communication styles.

Frankly, I wonder if this is a shift that will occur in coaching more generally.  The old-style coach as authoritarian leader who can brook no dissent is over in an era when the players are professionals who have lots of options.  Coaxing the most out of our athletes will take more empathy.  Willl the coach as psychologist replace the coach as military commander?

Of course the best coaches have in the past been both.  But Pat, Geno, and Tara were not the touchy-feely kind that Cori is.  Kate is far from the touchy-feely kind either.  Early on there were those on this board who feared that Kate would not be tough enough.  Perhaps she has been too tough.

The biggest mystery to me though is not how this happened, but why administration decided not to intervene, and much earlier.  Hard to imagine the situation improving when this story is available for recruits and potential transfers to read.

---

Just after I posted I remember something from a chalk talk early on.  Not sure it was this year, but it was after Kate took over.  Someone (and it was not Kate) said something about expecting more from athletes now that they were being paid.  I took it to mean that they might be treated more like professionals and less like college students.  Perhaps this was the philosophy that was adopted, and perhaps it backfired and was perceived as too cold blooded or harsh?  

It could be that professionalizing the sport created sharply different expectations--that coaches felt they could demand more, but that athletes felt they no longer had to put up with harsh treatment.

My recollection is the same.

I've been wondering if KP has a lot of resentment around these players getting paid, yet she had to arrive as a walk-on.

[Goose]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...098110007/

USA Today article on it too. Word spreads fast.

I wonder if the AD just assumed that none of this would ever become public? OTOH the powers that be may have known it would  but decided there was nothing they could do to prevent  it.

If coach Paye started out with a confrontational style and went downhill from there it is IMO improbable things will get better.  Even coaches that are disciplinarians don't start out with  being harsh. They know how to be strict but fair. When they become simply mean they lose the locker room. It seems that may be the case here.

[Goose]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...098110007/

USA Today article on it too. Word spreads fast.

I wonder if the AD just assumed that none of this would ever become public? OTOH the powers that be may have known it would  but decided there was nothing they could do to prevent  it.

If coach Paye started out with a confrontational style and went downhill from there it is IMO improbable things will get better.  Even coaches that are disciplinarians don't start out with  being harsh. They know how to be strict but fair. When they become simply mean they lose the locker room. It seems that may be the case here.

[North Sonoma Coast]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...098110007/

USA Today article on it too. Word spreads fast.

I wonder if the AD just assumed that none of this would ever become public? OTOH the powers that be may have known it would  but decided there was nothing they could do to prevent  it.

If coach Paye started out with a confrontational style and went downhill from there it is IMO improbable things will get better.  Even coaches that are disciplinarians don't start out with  being harsh. They know how to be strict but fair. When they become simply mean they lose the locker room. It seems that may be the case here.

My cynical speculation has been that the AD allowed this W̆̆BB disaster to occur so that the AD would have more funds for MBB, specifically for paying Ebuka Ocorie. Stanford's not closing out Paye's contract, not hiring a decent new coach, not paying Sofmei and others, and not having to pay future stars, who will now avoid Paye like the plague, left Stanford with a surplus for MBB and other sports.

Any AD who allows Paye to continue does not care about the future of WBB. A violation of the spirit if not the letter of Title IX.

This article will be distributed by other programs, if only subrosa, to every potential Stanford recruit. You already can see the effect in 2027-28 and 2028-29 recruiting.

A once distinguished WB̆B program has been, or will be, trashed.

[North Sonoma Coast]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...098110007/

USA Today article on it too. Word spreads fast.

I wonder if the AD just assumed that none of this would ever become public? OTOH the powers that be may have known it would  but decided there was nothing they could do to prevent  it.

If coach Paye started out with a confrontational style and went downhill from there it is IMO improbable things will get better.  Even coaches that are disciplinarians don't start out with  being harsh. They know how to be strict but fair. When they become simply mean they lose the locker room. It seems that may be the case here.

My cynical speculation has been that the AD allowed this W̆̆BB disaster to occur so that the AD would have more funds for MBB, specifically for paying Ebuka Ocorie. Stanford's not closing out Paye's contract, not hiring a decent new coach, not paying Sofmei and others, and not having to pay future stars, who will now avoid Paye like the plague, left Stanford with a surplus for MBB and other sports.

Any AD who allows Paye to continue does not care about the future of WBB. A violation of the spirit if not the letter of Title IX.

This article will be distributed by other programs, if only subrosa, to every potential Stanford recruit. You already can see the effect in 2027-28 and 2028-29 recruiting.

A once distinguished WB̆B program has been, or will be, trashed.

[SkiBum80]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...098110007/

USA Today article on it too. Word spreads fast.

... OTOH the powers that be may have known it would  but decided there was nothing they could do to prevent  it.

From a distant arm chair, this is my guess. That the article(s) are not really bringing out anything significant that our AD didn't already know. But that all things considered, he and/or advisors decided the best of a bunch of bad options was to commit to Coach KP for another year. Part of this due to the substantial complications of letting her go when all this was starting to come out and be discussed. But also I think all this may effectively act like an informal probation. In that if things don't improve the upcoming season then all signs point to a bye bye after. I could be wrong though. Also the wild card is the roster, in that if the expected 3 incoming transfers don't materialize as planned, then some crisis like this could cause an urgent pivot.

[SkiBum80]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...098110007/

USA Today article on it too. Word spreads fast.

... OTOH the powers that be may have known it would  but decided there was nothing they could do to prevent  it.

From a distant arm chair, this is my guess. That the article(s) are not really bringing out anything significant that our AD didn't already know. But that all things considered, he and/or advisors decided the best of a bunch of bad options was to commit to Coach KP for another year. Part of this due to the substantial complications of letting her go when all this was starting to come out and be discussed. But also I think all this may effectively act like an informal probation. In that if things don't improve the upcoming season then all signs point to a bye bye after. I could be wrong though. Also the wild card is the roster, in that if the expected 3 incoming transfers don't materialize as planned, then some crisis like this could cause an urgent pivot.

[2006alum]

Well, at least now no one can second guess this as idle speculation. 

There's obviously no viable path forward for KP at Stanford because future recruits who have choices will go elsewhere, and recruiting from the mid major decommitment and transfer pool is not the way to build a top 25 program.

So I guess we just wait and let the disaster unfold until it's so objectively bad the AD has to take action and has more time to find the right coach to lead a total overhaul...

[2006alum]

Well, at least now no one can second guess this as idle speculation. 

There's obviously no viable path forward for KP at Stanford because future recruits who have choices will go elsewhere, and recruiting from the mid major decommitment and transfer pool is not the way to build a top 25 program.

So I guess we just wait and let the disaster unfold until it's so objectively bad the AD has to take action and has more time to find the right coach to lead a total overhaul...

[stopandpop]

Well, at least now no one can second guess this as idle speculation. 

There's obviously no viable path forward for KP at Stanford because future recruits who have choices will go elsewhere, and recruiting from the mid major decommitment and transfer pool is not the way to build a top 25 program.

So I guess we just wait and let the disaster unfold until it's so objectively bad the AD has to take action and has more time to find the right coach to lead a total overhaul...

And for those of you who remember, compare how differently the University of Virginia handled similar player abuses by their former head coach, how quickly they fired her (immediately after Virginia's loss in the Sweet 16), how transparent their Athletic Department was, and how they moved to find and hire a very talented replacement.  There is a right way and some very wrong ways to deal with this.

[stopandpop]

Well, at least now no one can second guess this as idle speculation. 

There's obviously no viable path forward for KP at Stanford because future recruits who have choices will go elsewhere, and recruiting from the mid major decommitment and transfer pool is not the way to build a top 25 program.

So I guess we just wait and let the disaster unfold until it's so objectively bad the AD has to take action and has more time to find the right coach to lead a total overhaul...

And for those of you who remember, compare how differently the University of Virginia handled similar player abuses by their former head coach, how quickly they fired her (immediately after Virginia's loss in the Sweet 16), how transparent their Athletic Department was, and how they moved to find and hire a very talented replacement.  There is a right way and some very wrong ways to deal with this.

[OCcardinal]

I'm friends with a (former) team parent. I didn't want to reveal anything said in confidence to me, but now that the fuller story is public, I can at least confirm that those shocking quotes in the article were not made up by the reporter.

The saddest part of the situation to me is that there are transfers who really wanted to get their Stanford degrees.  More than the impact on the team's competitiveness, it guts me that the situation has impacted the trajectory of their lives in that way. 

One surprise from the article - that Talana Lepolo "left the team" in January.  I'm really curious what the story is with that.  I thought she was just injured.  Not having her senior leadership seemed to have a big negative impact this season.

[OCcardinal]

I'm friends with a (former) team parent. I didn't want to reveal anything said in confidence to me, but now that the fuller story is public, I can at least confirm that those shocking quotes in the article were not made up by the reporter.

The saddest part of the situation to me is that there are transfers who really wanted to get their Stanford degrees.  More than the impact on the team's competitiveness, it guts me that the situation has impacted the trajectory of their lives in that way. 

One surprise from the article - that Talana Lepolo "left the team" in January.  I'm really curious what the story is with that.  I thought she was just injured.  Not having her senior leadership seemed to have a big negative impact this season.

[Goose]

From the uastoday article

Three people also told the Standard that Paye is allegedly working to implement a system that would prevent players from taking classes in the summer and larger-than-normal course loads so they can’t graduate early. 

If this is really true Paye has to go now, without any doubt. One of the "big" disputes on this board is the degree to which academic accomplishment should be compromised in the name of athletic success. Any coach who attempts to actually prevent a student taking a heavy course load and/or summer classes is clearly subverting the academic purpose of the University as well as potentially damaging the students academic career. There is a reason the student wants to take a heavy load and/or take classes during the summer. The coach has no business impeding that academic progress.
 
I can see a coach suggesting that a lighter course load during the season in order to foster better athletic performance. However, if the student chooses not to do so, the coach must instead look for ways to facilitate athletic success subject to the students actual course load. The rest of the time, the coach needs to just stay out of the students academic program. That is ostensibly why the student is in school in the first place.
 
It is even more inadmissible to attempt to stymie a students academic career because the coach wants to deny the student the ability to grad transfer. Said student may not be able to get in to a Stanford graduate program, or simply may not want to do so. Denying the student the opportunity to get a year of graduate tuition paid for by an athletic scholarship elsewhere just because they would then have to stay at Stanford is totally inadmissible. If that was even seriously considered all involved should be fired for cause.

[Goose]

From the uastoday article

Three people also told the Standard that Paye is allegedly working to implement a system that would prevent players from taking classes in the summer and larger-than-normal course loads so they can’t graduate early. 

If this is really true Paye has to go now, without any doubt. One of the "big" disputes on this board is the degree to which academic accomplishment should be compromised in the name of athletic success. Any coach who attempts to actually prevent a student taking a heavy course load and/or summer classes is clearly subverting the academic purpose of the University as well as potentially damaging the students academic career. There is a reason the student wants to take a heavy load and/or take classes during the summer. The coach has no business impeding that academic progress.
 
I can see a coach suggesting that a lighter course load during the season in order to foster better athletic performance. However, if the student chooses not to do so, the coach must instead look for ways to facilitate athletic success subject to the students actual course load. The rest of the time, the coach needs to just stay out of the students academic program. That is ostensibly why the student is in school in the first place.
 
It is even more inadmissible to attempt to stymie a students academic career because the coach wants to deny the student the ability to grad transfer. Said student may not be able to get in to a Stanford graduate program, or simply may not want to do so. Denying the student the opportunity to get a year of graduate tuition paid for by an athletic scholarship elsewhere just because they would then have to stay at Stanford is totally inadmissible. If that was even seriously considered all involved should be fired for cause.

[crackpot]

I'm friends with a (former) team parent. I didn't want to reveal anything said in confidence to me, but now that the fuller story is public, I can at least confirm that those shocking quotes in the article were not made up by the reporter.

The saddest part of the situation to me is that there are transfers who really wanted to get their Stanford degrees.  More than the impact on the team's competitiveness, it guts me that the situation has impacted the trajectory of their lives in that way. 

One surprise from the article - that Talana Lepolo "left the team" in January.  I'm really curious what the story is with that.  I thought she was just injured.  Not having her senior leadership seemed to have a big negative impact this season.

Based on a few things I heard (but not the whole story) my brain made links that made me think it was a chronic health condition (not injury). And I really thought that that must have been what brought this team together. While that may or may not be true (or my imagination), this team was close in spite of--er, and/or because of--KP's abusive behavior.

---

From the uastoday article

Three people also told the Standard that Paye is allegedly working to implement a system that would prevent players from taking classes in the summer and larger-than-normal course loads so they can’t graduate early. 

If this is really true Paye has to go now, without any doubt. One of the "big" disputes on this board is the degree to which academic accomplishment should be compromised in the name of athletic success. Any coach who attempts to actually prevent a student taking a heavy course load and/or summer classes is clearly subverting the academic purpose of the University as well as potentially damaging the students academic career. There is a reason the student wants to take a heavy load and/or take classes during the summer. The coach has no business impeding that academic progress.
 
I can see a coach suggesting that a lighter course load during the season in order to foster better athletic performance. However, if the student chooses not to do so, the coach must instead look for ways to facilitate athletic success subject to the students actual course load. The rest of the time, the coach needs to just stay out of the students academic program. That is ostensibly why the student is in school in the first place.
 
It is even more inadmissible to attempt to stymie a students academic career because the coach wants to deny the student the ability to grad transfer. Said student may not be able to get in to a Stanford graduate program, or simply may not want to do so. Denying the student the opportunity to get a year of graduate tuition paid for by an athletic scholarship elsewhere just because they would then have to stay at Stanford is totally inadmissible. If that was even seriously considered all involved should be fired for cause.

Freshman year, HS: "We'd love to have you at Stanford. Here, take these AP courses. Study hard. We like that you value education and are a hard-working over-achiever."

Freshman year, Stanford: "Don't take too many classes. Maybe consider not graduating until after your professional basketball career, if you are good enough to have one. I'll be the judge of that."

[crackpot]

I'm friends with a (former) team parent. I didn't want to reveal anything said in confidence to me, but now that the fuller story is public, I can at least confirm that those shocking quotes in the article were not made up by the reporter.

The saddest part of the situation to me is that there are transfers who really wanted to get their Stanford degrees.  More than the impact on the team's competitiveness, it guts me that the situation has impacted the trajectory of their lives in that way. 

One surprise from the article - that Talana Lepolo "left the team" in January.  I'm really curious what the story is with that.  I thought she was just injured.  Not having her senior leadership seemed to have a big negative impact this season.

Based on a few things I heard (but not the whole story) my brain made links that made me think it was a chronic health condition (not injury). And I really thought that that must have been what brought this team together. While that may or may not be true (or my imagination), this team was close in spite of--er, and/or because of--KP's abusive behavior.

---

From the uastoday article

Three people also told the Standard that Paye is allegedly working to implement a system that would prevent players from taking classes in the summer and larger-than-normal course loads so they can’t graduate early. 

If this is really true Paye has to go now, without any doubt. One of the "big" disputes on this board is the degree to which academic accomplishment should be compromised in the name of athletic success. Any coach who attempts to actually prevent a student taking a heavy course load and/or summer classes is clearly subverting the academic purpose of the University as well as potentially damaging the students academic career. There is a reason the student wants to take a heavy load and/or take classes during the summer. The coach has no business impeding that academic progress.
 
I can see a coach suggesting that a lighter course load during the season in order to foster better athletic performance. However, if the student chooses not to do so, the coach must instead look for ways to facilitate athletic success subject to the students actual course load. The rest of the time, the coach needs to just stay out of the students academic program. That is ostensibly why the student is in school in the first place.
 
It is even more inadmissible to attempt to stymie a students academic career because the coach wants to deny the student the ability to grad transfer. Said student may not be able to get in to a Stanford graduate program, or simply may not want to do so. Denying the student the opportunity to get a year of graduate tuition paid for by an athletic scholarship elsewhere just because they would then have to stay at Stanford is totally inadmissible. If that was even seriously considered all involved should be fired for cause.

Freshman year, HS: "We'd love to have you at Stanford. Here, take these AP courses. Study hard. We like that you value education and are a hard-working over-achiever."

Freshman year, Stanford: "Don't take too many classes. Maybe consider not graduating until after your professional basketball career, if you are good enough to have one. I'll be the judge of that."

[liveoak]

I've been deeply disturbed by all of these reports but attempting to be objective, and I realize that coaching almost always involves some disgruntlement.  But this article cements the deal.  It is obvious--that for whatever reason--Paye's approach is not working for our athletes.  It is odd to me that someone who has been a Stanford WBB player would have such trouble understanding how to relate to our student athletes. There must have been a generational shift in attitudes and communication styles.

Frankly, I wonder if this is a shift that will occur in coaching more generally.  The old-style coach as authoritarian leader who can brook no dissent is over in an era when the players are professionals who have lots of options.  Coaxing the most out of our athletes will take more empathy.  Willl the coach as psychologist replace the coach as military commander?

Of course the best coaches have in the past been both.  But Pat, Geno, and Tara were not the touchy-feely kind that Cori is.  Kate is far from the touchy-feely kind either.  Early on there were those on this board who feared that Kate would not be tough enough.  Perhaps she has been too tough.

The biggest mystery to me though is not how this happened, but why administration decided not to intervene, and much earlier.  Hard to imagine the situation improving when this story is available for recruits and potential transfers to read.

---

Just after I posted I remember something from a chalk talk early on.  Not sure it was this year, but it was after Kate took over.  Someone (and it was not Kate) said something about expecting more from athletes now that they were being paid.  I took it to mean that they might be treated more like professionals and less like college students.  Perhaps this was the philosophy that was adopted, and perhaps it backfired and was perceived as too cold blooded or harsh?  

It could be that professionalizing the sport created sharply different expectations--that coaches felt they could demand more, but that athletes felt they no longer had to put up with harsh treatment.

I would suggest that professionalization has a minor effect on team expectations. Dawn Staley, Kim Mulkey, Geno Auriemma, and many others are demanding coaches - but as far as I can tell, they show their players that they care about them. This has continued into the "professional" era. There are certainly exceptions, but you don't see entire teams from the coaches go into the transfer portal. This has to reflect on Kate, her staff, and the Athletic Department.

---

From the uastoday article

Three people also told the Standard that Paye is allegedly working to implement a system that would prevent players from taking classes in the summer and larger-than-normal course loads so they can’t graduate early. 

If this is really true Paye has to go now, without any doubt. One of the "big" disputes on this board is the degree to which academic accomplishment should be compromised in the name of athletic success. Any coach who attempts to actually prevent a student taking a heavy course load and/or summer classes is clearly subverting the academic purpose of the University as well as potentially damaging the students academic career. There is a reason the student wants to take a heavy load and/or take classes during the summer. The coach has no business impeding that academic progress.
 
I can see a coach suggesting that a lighter course load during the season in order to foster better athletic performance. However, if the student chooses not to do so, the coach must instead look for ways to facilitate athletic success subject to the students actual course load. The rest of the time, the coach needs to just stay out of the students academic program. That is ostensibly why the student is in school in the first place.
 
It is even more inadmissible to attempt to stymie a students academic career because the coach wants to deny the student the ability to grad transfer. Said student may not be able to get in to a Stanford graduate program, or simply may not want to do so. Denying the student the opportunity to get a year of graduate tuition paid for by an athletic scholarship elsewhere just because they would then have to stay at Stanford is totally inadmissible. If that was even seriously considered all involved should be fired for cause.

I agree with this...interfering with student academic accomplishment should not be happening anywhere - and especially at Stanford. Someone who has a bachelors/JD/MBA from Stanford should know that. The idea that coaches would try to restrict student-athletes' course load so they had to spend 4 years instead of 3 to graduate is disgusting. I'm not a lawyer, but is this not actionable in a court of law?

I can't see that anything will change until Kate leaves, and I would suggest a new coach from a different coaching tree in the future.

[liveoak]

I've been deeply disturbed by all of these reports but attempting to be objective, and I realize that coaching almost always involves some disgruntlement.  But this article cements the deal.  It is obvious--that for whatever reason--Paye's approach is not working for our athletes.  It is odd to me that someone who has been a Stanford WBB player would have such trouble understanding how to relate to our student athletes. There must have been a generational shift in attitudes and communication styles.

Frankly, I wonder if this is a shift that will occur in coaching more generally.  The old-style coach as authoritarian leader who can brook no dissent is over in an era when the players are professionals who have lots of options.  Coaxing the most out of our athletes will take more empathy.  Willl the coach as psychologist replace the coach as military commander?

Of course the best coaches have in the past been both.  But Pat, Geno, and Tara were not the touchy-feely kind that Cori is.  Kate is far from the touchy-feely kind either.  Early on there were those on this board who feared that Kate would not be tough enough.  Perhaps she has been too tough.

The biggest mystery to me though is not how this happened, but why administration decided not to intervene, and much earlier.  Hard to imagine the situation improving when this story is available for recruits and potential transfers to read.

---

Just after I posted I remember something from a chalk talk early on.  Not sure it was this year, but it was after Kate took over.  Someone (and it was not Kate) said something about expecting more from athletes now that they were being paid.  I took it to mean that they might be treated more like professionals and less like college students.  Perhaps this was the philosophy that was adopted, and perhaps it backfired and was perceived as too cold blooded or harsh?  

It could be that professionalizing the sport created sharply different expectations--that coaches felt they could demand more, but that athletes felt they no longer had to put up with harsh treatment.

I would suggest that professionalization has a minor effect on team expectations. Dawn Staley, Kim Mulkey, Geno Auriemma, and many others are demanding coaches - but as far as I can tell, they show their players that they care about them. This has continued into the "professional" era. There are certainly exceptions, but you don't see entire teams from the coaches go into the transfer portal. This has to reflect on Kate, her staff, and the Athletic Department.

---

From the uastoday article

Three people also told the Standard that Paye is allegedly working to implement a system that would prevent players from taking classes in the summer and larger-than-normal course loads so they can’t graduate early. 

If this is really true Paye has to go now, without any doubt. One of the "big" disputes on this board is the degree to which academic accomplishment should be compromised in the name of athletic success. Any coach who attempts to actually prevent a student taking a heavy course load and/or summer classes is clearly subverting the academic purpose of the University as well as potentially damaging the students academic career. There is a reason the student wants to take a heavy load and/or take classes during the summer. The coach has no business impeding that academic progress.
 
I can see a coach suggesting that a lighter course load during the season in order to foster better athletic performance. However, if the student chooses not to do so, the coach must instead look for ways to facilitate athletic success subject to the students actual course load. The rest of the time, the coach needs to just stay out of the students academic program. That is ostensibly why the student is in school in the first place.
 
It is even more inadmissible to attempt to stymie a students academic career because the coach wants to deny the student the ability to grad transfer. Said student may not be able to get in to a Stanford graduate program, or simply may not want to do so. Denying the student the opportunity to get a year of graduate tuition paid for by an athletic scholarship elsewhere just because they would then have to stay at Stanford is totally inadmissible. If that was even seriously considered all involved should be fired for cause.

I agree with this...interfering with student academic accomplishment should not be happening anywhere - and especially at Stanford. Someone who has a bachelors/JD/MBA from Stanford should know that. The idea that coaches would try to restrict student-athletes' course load so they had to spend 4 years instead of 3 to graduate is disgusting. I'm not a lawyer, but is this not actionable in a court of law?

I can't see that anything will change until Kate leaves, and I would suggest a new coach from a different coaching tree in the future.

[Goose]

Dawn Staley, Kim Mulkey, Geno Auriemma, and many others are demanding coaches - but as far as I can tell, they show their players that they care about them. This has continued into the "professional" era. There are certainly exceptions, but you don't see entire teams from the coaches go into the transfer portal. This has to reflect on Kate, her staff, and the Athletic Department.

IMO one can't ignore the fact that  Dawn Staley, Kim Mulkey, and Geno Auriemma have been successful coaches for years. That gets them a lot of slack from their players (and the administration). Players will put up with a lot if they are winning. I don't doubt for a second that all three of these coaches put winning above player satisfaction and happiness. That often isn't fair or pleasant,  but winning covers most of the warts. Nobody complains out loud and loyalty to the program keeps a lid on discontent. Kate Paye wasn't winning and had no accumulated "slack" from previous successes. She isn't Tara. All the things she did that the players didn't like came to the fore.
 
Losing also probably made Ms. Paye a lot more testy than she would otherwise have been. I am guessing that the coaches blamed the players and the players blamed the coaches (and probably each other to some extent). It takes a special personality to coach through such a situation. Kate Paye has had little experience with losing. She probably didn't handle it well. The coaches didn't know how to "fix" the problems and that undoubtedly led to frustration. In a situation like that it is easier to blame the players than question what you as coaches are doing wrong.

[Goose]

Dawn Staley, Kim Mulkey, Geno Auriemma, and many others are demanding coaches - but as far as I can tell, they show their players that they care about them. This has continued into the "professional" era. There are certainly exceptions, but you don't see entire teams from the coaches go into the transfer portal. This has to reflect on Kate, her staff, and the Athletic Department.

IMO one can't ignore the fact that  Dawn Staley, Kim Mulkey, and Geno Auriemma have been successful coaches for years. That gets them a lot of slack from their players (and the administration). Players will put up with a lot if they are winning. I don't doubt for a second that all three of these coaches put winning above player satisfaction and happiness. That often isn't fair or pleasant,  but winning covers most of the warts. Nobody complains out loud and loyalty to the program keeps a lid on discontent. Kate Paye wasn't winning and had no accumulated "slack" from previous successes. She isn't Tara. All the things she did that the players didn't like came to the fore.
 
Losing also probably made Ms. Paye a lot more testy than she would otherwise have been. I am guessing that the coaches blamed the players and the players blamed the coaches (and probably each other to some extent). It takes a special personality to coach through such a situation. Kate Paye has had little experience with losing. She probably didn't handle it well. The coaches didn't know how to "fix" the problems and that undoubtedly led to frustration. In a situation like that it is easier to blame the players than question what you as coaches are doing wrong.

[newguy]

86 Kate.
(for the record, that means get rid of, throw out, or eject.)

[newguy]

86 Kate.
(for the record, that means get rid of, throw out, or eject.)

[Nurdyguy]

From the uastoday article

Three people also told the Standard that Paye is allegedly working to implement a system that would prevent players from taking classes in the summer and larger-than-normal course loads so they can’t graduate early. 

If this is really true Paye has to go now, without any doubt. One of the "big" disputes on this board is the degree to which academic accomplishment should be compromised in the name of athletic success. Any coach who attempts to actually prevent a student taking a heavy course load and/or summer classes is clearly subverting the academic purpose of the University as well as potentially damaging the students academic career. There is a reason the student wants to take a heavy load and/or take classes during the summer. The coach has no business impeding that academic progress.
 
I can see a coach suggesting that a lighter course load during the season in order to foster better athletic performance. However, if the student chooses not to do so, the coach must instead look for ways to facilitate athletic success subject to the students actual course load. The rest of the time, the coach needs to just stay out of the students academic program. That is ostensibly why the student is in school in the first place.
 
It is even more inadmissible to attempt to stymie a students academic career because the coach wants to deny the student the ability to grad transfer. Said student may not be able to get in to a Stanford graduate program, or simply may not want to do so. Denying the student the opportunity to get a year of graduate tuition paid for by an athletic scholarship elsewhere just because they would then have to stay at Stanford is totally inadmissible. If that was even seriously considered all involved should be fired for cause.

I'm with Coach Paye on this one.  Athletes graduating in 3 years is ridiculous, and I'd be happy if Stanford ends that.  Stanford will never again compete in revenue sports with Stanford's existing hostility to the transfer portal, PLUS the ease with which athletes can currently graduate in 3 years.  One of the biggest challenges I've seen with our Stanford WBB team over the past few years is a lack of fitness and precision, which you can address with focused work during the offseason.  Over the past few years, too many Stanford WBB players were simply out of shape.  They need to spend MUCH more time on the track and in the weight room during the offseason to fix that.

Athletes should take regular course loads that ensure they can graduate in the standard 4 years while putting in the extra time needed to build their fitness during the offseason.  We should see marked improvement in their strength and stamina each year, which hasn't been the case in recent years.  I get it that Stanford is a school first, but athletes need to commit to their sports too, and graduating in 4 years is not a hardship.  If potential recruits decide not to commit to Stanford because they won't be able to graduate in three years, it's better to know that upfront and recruit a different athlete who wants to be on the team for four years.

[Nurdyguy]

From the uastoday article

Three people also told the Standard that Paye is allegedly working to implement a system that would prevent players from taking classes in the summer and larger-than-normal course loads so they can’t graduate early. 

If this is really true Paye has to go now, without any doubt. One of the "big" disputes on this board is the degree to which academic accomplishment should be compromised in the name of athletic success. Any coach who attempts to actually prevent a student taking a heavy course load and/or summer classes is clearly subverting the academic purpose of the University as well as potentially damaging the students academic career. There is a reason the student wants to take a heavy load and/or take classes during the summer. The coach has no business impeding that academic progress.
 
I can see a coach suggesting that a lighter course load during the season in order to foster better athletic performance. However, if the student chooses not to do so, the coach must instead look for ways to facilitate athletic success subject to the students actual course load. The rest of the time, the coach needs to just stay out of the students academic program. That is ostensibly why the student is in school in the first place.
 
It is even more inadmissible to attempt to stymie a students academic career because the coach wants to deny the student the ability to grad transfer. Said student may not be able to get in to a Stanford graduate program, or simply may not want to do so. Denying the student the opportunity to get a year of graduate tuition paid for by an athletic scholarship elsewhere just because they would then have to stay at Stanford is totally inadmissible. If that was even seriously considered all involved should be fired for cause.

I'm with Coach Paye on this one.  Athletes graduating in 3 years is ridiculous, and I'd be happy if Stanford ends that.  Stanford will never again compete in revenue sports with Stanford's existing hostility to the transfer portal, PLUS the ease with which athletes can currently graduate in 3 years.  One of the biggest challenges I've seen with our Stanford WBB team over the past few years is a lack of fitness and precision, which you can address with focused work during the offseason.  Over the past few years, too many Stanford WBB players were simply out of shape.  They need to spend MUCH more time on the track and in the weight room during the offseason to fix that.

Athletes should take regular course loads that ensure they can graduate in the standard 4 years while putting in the extra time needed to build their fitness during the offseason.  We should see marked improvement in their strength and stamina each year, which hasn't been the case in recent years.  I get it that Stanford is a school first, but athletes need to commit to their sports too, and graduating in 4 years is not a hardship.  If potential recruits decide not to commit to Stanford because they won't be able to graduate in three years, it's better to know that upfront and recruit a different athlete who wants to be on the team for four years.

[Treebound]

Graduating early is not just a concern for WBB.  This happens across multiple sports, including MBB and Football.  Summer classes are an option for those that are on campus for voluntary (highly suggested) workouts and training.   I don't think you can or should limit this, especially at a Stanford where we have an academic focus (as others have pointed out).   

KP clearly lost the team and that's unfortunate.  I continue to believe that Tara was likely the person lobbying for KP to have another year and it is well known that Tara was a key person in recruiting John D to the AD position.   She has a year to turn things around.  Can she actually learn from this and truly change.  I hope so, but there is a great deal of ego there.   I wish her luck.  Stanford should be better than this.

[Treebound]

Graduating early is not just a concern for WBB.  This happens across multiple sports, including MBB and Football.  Summer classes are an option for those that are on campus for voluntary (highly suggested) workouts and training.   I don't think you can or should limit this, especially at a Stanford where we have an academic focus (as others have pointed out).   

KP clearly lost the team and that's unfortunate.  I continue to believe that Tara was likely the person lobbying for KP to have another year and it is well known that Tara was a key person in recruiting John D to the AD position.   She has a year to turn things around.  Can she actually learn from this and truly change.  I hope so, but there is a great deal of ego there.   I wish her luck.  Stanford should be better than this.

[BobK]

We have a soccer player with a masters after soon 3 years

[BobK]

We have a soccer player with a masters after soon 3 years

[82lsju]

Athletes should take regular course loads that ensure they can graduate in the standard 4 years while putting in the extra time needed to build their fitness during the offseason.  We should see marked improvement in their strength and stamina each year, which hasn't been the case in recent years.  I get it that Stanford is a school first, but athletes need to commit to their sports too, and graduating in 4 years is not a hardship.  If potential recruits decide not to commit to Stanford because they won't be able to graduate in three years, it's better to know that upfront and recruit a different athlete who wants to be on the team for four years.

they can still graduate in three years with "regular course loads" if they bring in some AP credits and take a couple of classes each summer (including the one before their frosh year starts).  Football early enrollees have two additional quarters of classes compared to other athletes.

[82lsju]

Athletes should take regular course loads that ensure they can graduate in the standard 4 years while putting in the extra time needed to build their fitness during the offseason.  We should see marked improvement in their strength and stamina each year, which hasn't been the case in recent years.  I get it that Stanford is a school first, but athletes need to commit to their sports too, and graduating in 4 years is not a hardship.  If potential recruits decide not to commit to Stanford because they won't be able to graduate in three years, it's better to know that upfront and recruit a different athlete who wants to be on the team for four years.

they can still graduate in three years with "regular course loads" if they bring in some AP credits and take a couple of classes each summer (including the one before their frosh year starts).  Football early enrollees have two additional quarters of classes compared to other athletes.

[old spanish trail]

Dawn Staley, Kim Mulkey, Geno Auriemma, and many others are demanding coaches - but as far as I can tell, they show their players that they care about them. This has continued into the "professional" era. There are certainly exceptions, but you don't see entire teams from the coaches go into the transfer portal. This has to reflect on Kate, her staff, and the Athletic Department.

IMO one can't ignore the fact that  Dawn Staley, Kim Mulkey, and Geno Auriemma have been successful coaches for years. That gets them a lot of slack from their players (and the administration). Players will put up with a lot if they are winning. I don't doubt for a second that all three of these coaches put winning above player satisfaction and happiness. That often isn't fair or pleasant,  but winning covers most of the warts. Nobody complains out loud and loyalty to the program keeps a lid on discontent. Kate Paye wasn't winning and had no accumulated "slack" from previous successes. She isn't Tara. All the things she did that the players didn't like came to the fore.
 
Losing also probably made Ms. Paye a lot more testy than she would otherwise have been. I am guessing that the coaches blamed the players and the players blamed the coaches (and probably each other to some extent). It takes a special personality to coach through such a situation. Kate Paye has had little experience with losing. She probably didn't handle it well. The coaches didn't know how to "fix" the problems and that undoubtedly led to frustration. In a situation like that it is easier to blame the players than question what you as coaches are doing wrong.

I agree with Goose's whole post.

[old spanish trail]

Dawn Staley, Kim Mulkey, Geno Auriemma, and many others are demanding coaches - but as far as I can tell, they show their players that they care about them. This has continued into the "professional" era. There are certainly exceptions, but you don't see entire teams from the coaches go into the transfer portal. This has to reflect on Kate, her staff, and the Athletic Department.

IMO one can't ignore the fact that  Dawn Staley, Kim Mulkey, and Geno Auriemma have been successful coaches for years. That gets them a lot of slack from their players (and the administration). Players will put up with a lot if they are winning. I don't doubt for a second that all three of these coaches put winning above player satisfaction and happiness. That often isn't fair or pleasant,  but winning covers most of the warts. Nobody complains out loud and loyalty to the program keeps a lid on discontent. Kate Paye wasn't winning and had no accumulated "slack" from previous successes. She isn't Tara. All the things she did that the players didn't like came to the fore.
 
Losing also probably made Ms. Paye a lot more testy than she would otherwise have been. I am guessing that the coaches blamed the players and the players blamed the coaches (and probably each other to some extent). It takes a special personality to coach through such a situation. Kate Paye has had little experience with losing. She probably didn't handle it well. The coaches didn't know how to "fix" the problems and that undoubtedly led to frustration. In a situation like that it is easier to blame the players than question what you as coaches are doing wrong.

I agree with Goose's whole post.

[Goose]

Athletes graduating in 3 years is ridiculous...

Why is it ridiculous, and why is it ridiculous for athletes but not "regular" students? In order to graduate, one needs a minimum of 180 units. That works out to an average of 15 units for 3 quarters in 4 years. Since athletes are currently expected to spend the summer quarter at Stanford working on their sport they can instead take 15 units a quarter for 4 quarters in 3 years. Very straightforward. They are still taking a "standard load". Add to that that it is possible to receive up to 45 units of credit from AP classes taken in high school. Given that to get admitted at all one must take several AP classes it is highly probable the athletes have at least 9 and probably 12 units they can "test out of". They don't even have to average 15 units a quarter and can still easily graduate in 3 years. They can easily schedule things to have two "light" quarters a year that will allow the athlete plenty of time to put in the "focused" work. On top of that, design it yourself majors such as Science, Technology and Society allow the athlete to structure their curriculum to mesh with their sport schedule.
 
Indeed, dedicating one quarter per year solely to athletic endeavor and taking four years to graduate may result in a better athlete at the end of four years. I think that restriction would be a very hard sell to the type of athlete that chooses Stanford in the first place. Some people will be fine with it, but most won't. Being at Stanford all summer and not taking classes can be quite fun, but can also be quite boring. There is a limit on how much time one can spend on athletic pursuits. In any case there is no feasible way to prevent an athlete from graduating in 3 years if you allow other students to do so. 

I get it that Stanford is a school first, but athletes need to commit to their sports too, and graduating in 4 years is not a hardship. If potential recruits decide not to commit to Stanford because they won't be able to graduate in three years, it's better to know that upfront and recruit a different athlete who wants to be on the team for four years.

Who decides it is not a "hardship"? The student is the one who decides what they want to do with their lives. They may change their minds about their goals as they mature while competing at Stanford. The rest of us, and their coaches, don't get a vote. Some students come in fully intending to be "one and done". Do we refuse to recruit such athletes? What about athletes that have an unexpected breakout season and decide to declare for the draft? How do we stop that? Should we stop that, even if we could? Some students decide to transfer without the degree. Is that somehow "better" than being a grad transfer?
 
In the (distant) past when freshman couldn't play NCAA sports, when transfer rules were "different" and when pro sports essentially didn't take one and done players you could expect athletes to remain in school for at least 4 years, maybe 5. Those days are gone and are not coming back. It was also very difficult (but not impossible) to graduate from Stanford in 3 years. The course offerings in Summer quarter were almost impossible to apply to any major requirements. You could learn things, but the courses were of little use in "progress towards a degree". The major requirements were also such that it was virtually impossible to schedule the required classes in 3 consecutive years. Add to that prerequisite entanglements and you had a real challenge. This was true even for psychology majors, which had the fewest required number of major units (45). That too is gone and not coming back.

[Goose]

Athletes graduating in 3 years is ridiculous...

Why is it ridiculous, and why is it ridiculous for athletes but not "regular" students? In order to graduate, one needs a minimum of 180 units. That works out to an average of 15 units for 3 quarters in 4 years. Since athletes are currently expected to spend the summer quarter at Stanford working on their sport they can instead take 15 units a quarter for 4 quarters in 3 years. Very straightforward. They are still taking a "standard load". Add to that that it is possible to receive up to 45 units of credit from AP classes taken in high school. Given that to get admitted at all one must take several AP classes it is highly probable the athletes have at least 9 and probably 12 units they can "test out of". They don't even have to average 15 units a quarter and can still easily graduate in 3 years. They can easily schedule things to have two "light" quarters a year that will allow the athlete plenty of time to put in the "focused" work. On top of that, design it yourself majors such as Science, Technology and Society allow the athlete to structure their curriculum to mesh with their sport schedule.
 
Indeed, dedicating one quarter per year solely to athletic endeavor and taking four years to graduate may result in a better athlete at the end of four years. I think that restriction would be a very hard sell to the type of athlete that chooses Stanford in the first place. Some people will be fine with it, but most won't. Being at Stanford all summer and not taking classes can be quite fun, but can also be quite boring. There is a limit on how much time one can spend on athletic pursuits. In any case there is no feasible way to prevent an athlete from graduating in 3 years if you allow other students to do so. 

I get it that Stanford is a school first, but athletes need to commit to their sports too, and graduating in 4 years is not a hardship. If potential recruits decide not to commit to Stanford because they won't be able to graduate in three years, it's better to know that upfront and recruit a different athlete who wants to be on the team for four years.

Who decides it is not a "hardship"? The student is the one who decides what they want to do with their lives. They may change their minds about their goals as they mature while competing at Stanford. The rest of us, and their coaches, don't get a vote. Some students come in fully intending to be "one and done". Do we refuse to recruit such athletes? What about athletes that have an unexpected breakout season and decide to declare for the draft? How do we stop that? Should we stop that, even if we could? Some students decide to transfer without the degree. Is that somehow "better" than being a grad transfer?
 
In the (distant) past when freshman couldn't play NCAA sports, when transfer rules were "different" and when pro sports essentially didn't take one and done players you could expect athletes to remain in school for at least 4 years, maybe 5. Those days are gone and are not coming back. It was also very difficult (but not impossible) to graduate from Stanford in 3 years. The course offerings in Summer quarter were almost impossible to apply to any major requirements. You could learn things, but the courses were of little use in "progress towards a degree". The major requirements were also such that it was virtually impossible to schedule the required classes in 3 consecutive years. Add to that prerequisite entanglements and you had a real challenge. This was true even for psychology majors, which had the fewest required number of major units (45). That too is gone and not coming back.

[TonyLima]

<bfsnip>

Who decides it is not a "hardship"? The student is the one who decides what they want to do with their lives. They may change their minds about their goals as they mature while competing at Stanford. The rest of us, and their coaches, don't get a vote. Some students come in fully intending to be "one and done". Do we refuse to recruit such athletes? What about athletes that have an unexpected breakout season and decide to declare for the draft? How do we stop that? Should we stop that, even if we could? Some students decide to transfer without the degree. Is that somehow "better" than being a grad transfer?
 
In the (distant) past when freshman couldn't play NCAA sports, when transfer rules were "different" and when pro sports essentially didn't take one and done players you could expect athletes to remain in school for at least 4 years, maybe 5. Those days are gone and are not coming back. It was also very difficult (but not impossible) to graduate from Stanford in 3 years. The course offerings in Summer quarter were almost impossible to apply to any major requirements. You could learn things, but the courses were of little use in "progress towards a degree". The major requirements were also such that it was virtually impossible to schedule the required classes in 3 consecutive years. Add to that prerequisite entanglements and you had a real challenge. This was true even for psychology majors, which had the fewest required number of major units (45). That too is gone and not coming back.

Back in the late 1970s I taught a few undergrad econ classes in summer. They were no different from the other 3 quarters. Of course, not all academic fields are the same. I gotta add that the current team has several econ majors.

[TonyLima]

<bfsnip>

Who decides it is not a "hardship"? The student is the one who decides what they want to do with their lives. They may change their minds about their goals as they mature while competing at Stanford. The rest of us, and their coaches, don't get a vote. Some students come in fully intending to be "one and done". Do we refuse to recruit such athletes? What about athletes that have an unexpected breakout season and decide to declare for the draft? How do we stop that? Should we stop that, even if we could? Some students decide to transfer without the degree. Is that somehow "better" than being a grad transfer?
 
In the (distant) past when freshman couldn't play NCAA sports, when transfer rules were "different" and when pro sports essentially didn't take one and done players you could expect athletes to remain in school for at least 4 years, maybe 5. Those days are gone and are not coming back. It was also very difficult (but not impossible) to graduate from Stanford in 3 years. The course offerings in Summer quarter were almost impossible to apply to any major requirements. You could learn things, but the courses were of little use in "progress towards a degree". The major requirements were also such that it was virtually impossible to schedule the required classes in 3 consecutive years. Add to that prerequisite entanglements and you had a real challenge. This was true even for psychology majors, which had the fewest required number of major units (45). That too is gone and not coming back.

Back in the late 1970s I taught a few undergrad econ classes in summer. They were no different from the other 3 quarters. Of course, not all academic fields are the same. I gotta add that the current team has several econ majors.