[TheFarm07]

Of course their are many we would love to recruit and they would love to come to Stanford but academics are in the way and then there are those who don't want to come who might well have been accepted.

It's not a state secret that Stanford is very hard to get into, it seems baffling that more GBB players don't prepare early when they start high school to do well academically if they want to go to Stanford.

In other women's sports, we often get top recruits and they have to pass the same rigorous standards that WBB players do.

[TheFarm07]

Of course their are many we would love to recruit and they would love to come to Stanford but academics are in the way and then there are those who don't want to come who might well have been accepted.

It's not a state secret that Stanford is very hard to get into, it seems baffling that more GBB players don't prepare early when they start high school to do well academically if they want to go to Stanford.

In other women's sports, we often get top recruits and they have to pass the same rigorous standards that WBB players do.

[81alum]

[quote author=BobK link=topic=11153.msg137904#msg137904 date=1446242201]
Of course their are many we would love to recruit and they would love to come to Stanford but academics are in the way and then there are those who don't want to come who might well have been accepted.

It's not a state secret that Stanford is very hard to get into, it seems baffling that more GBB players don't prepare early when they start high school to do well academically if they want to go to Stanford.

In other women's sports, we often get top recruits and they have to pass the same rigorous standards that WBB players do.
[/quote]
The fact is that admission into Stanford has become much, much harder over the last 5-10 years.  That is true for ALL admits--athletes or not.  It is the most selective school of its size in the world, now, and this creates absolute craziness.  For a while I thought that these ramped-up admissions standards probably did not affect athletes, but now I think they do--at least they seem to outside of football.  I bet if you compared the high school academic records of our WBB team today versus the teams of 5 years ago or 10 years ago you would see significant differences.  Without access to the data it is hard to prove, but I wonder how many of our stars from past teams would actually not be admissible in today's three ring admissions circus.

[81alum]

[quote author=BobK link=topic=11153.msg137904#msg137904 date=1446242201]
Of course their are many we would love to recruit and they would love to come to Stanford but academics are in the way and then there are those who don't want to come who might well have been accepted.

It's not a state secret that Stanford is very hard to get into, it seems baffling that more GBB players don't prepare early when they start high school to do well academically if they want to go to Stanford.

In other women's sports, we often get top recruits and they have to pass the same rigorous standards that WBB players do.
[/quote]
The fact is that admission into Stanford has become much, much harder over the last 5-10 years.  That is true for ALL admits--athletes or not.  It is the most selective school of its size in the world, now, and this creates absolute craziness.  For a while I thought that these ramped-up admissions standards probably did not affect athletes, but now I think they do--at least they seem to outside of football.  I bet if you compared the high school academic records of our WBB team today versus the teams of 5 years ago or 10 years ago you would see significant differences.  Without access to the data it is hard to prove, but I wonder how many of our stars from past teams would actually not be admissible in today's three ring admissions circus.

[BobK]

5-10 years ago we saw the affect of Robin the terrible and without a doubt it was harder for an athlete to get into Stanford under her.    Maybe 20 years ago hard to not agree with you. 

[BobK]

5-10 years ago we saw the affect of Robin the terrible and without a doubt it was harder for an athlete to get into Stanford under her.    Maybe 20 years ago hard to not agree with you. 

[TheFarm07]

[quote author=TheFarm07 link=topic=11153.msg137917#msg137917 date=1446244515]
[quote author=BobK link=topic=11153.msg137904#msg137904 date=1446242201]
Of course their are many we would love to recruit and they would love to come to Stanford but academics are in the way and then there are those who don't want to come who might well have been accepted.

It's not a state secret that Stanford is very hard to get into, it seems baffling that more GBB players don't prepare early when they start high school to do well academically if they want to go to Stanford.

In other women's sports, we often get top recruits and they have to pass the same rigorous standards that WBB players do.
[/quote]
The fact is that admission into Stanford has become much, much harder over the last 5-10 years.  That is true for ALL admits--athletes or not.  It is the most selective school of its size in the world, now, and this creates absolute craziness.  For a while I thought that these ramped-up admissions standards probably did not affect athletes, but now I think they do--at least they seem to outside of football.  I bet if you compared the high school academic records of our WBB team today versus the teams of 5 years ago or 10 years ago you would see significant differences.  Without access to the data it is hard to prove, but I wonder how many of our stars from past teams would actually not be admissible in today's three ring admissions circus.
[/quote]

It just seems like it has affected women's BB more than other sports, though it's hard to compare, because most other sports don't have recruit rankings like basketball (amended: I wasn't sure, I knew VB had recruit rankings, but I wasn't sure of the other sports), but we seem to do better in getting higher ranked recruits in other sports (volleyball, water polo, tennis, soccer, swimming, etc.) even though all of them face the same more rigorous standards

[TheFarm07]

[quote author=TheFarm07 link=topic=11153.msg137917#msg137917 date=1446244515]
[quote author=BobK link=topic=11153.msg137904#msg137904 date=1446242201]
Of course their are many we would love to recruit and they would love to come to Stanford but academics are in the way and then there are those who don't want to come who might well have been accepted.

It's not a state secret that Stanford is very hard to get into, it seems baffling that more GBB players don't prepare early when they start high school to do well academically if they want to go to Stanford.

In other women's sports, we often get top recruits and they have to pass the same rigorous standards that WBB players do.
[/quote]
The fact is that admission into Stanford has become much, much harder over the last 5-10 years.  That is true for ALL admits--athletes or not.  It is the most selective school of its size in the world, now, and this creates absolute craziness.  For a while I thought that these ramped-up admissions standards probably did not affect athletes, but now I think they do--at least they seem to outside of football.  I bet if you compared the high school academic records of our WBB team today versus the teams of 5 years ago or 10 years ago you would see significant differences.  Without access to the data it is hard to prove, but I wonder how many of our stars from past teams would actually not be admissible in today's three ring admissions circus.
[/quote]

It just seems like it has affected women's BB more than other sports, though it's hard to compare, because most other sports don't have recruit rankings like basketball (amended: I wasn't sure, I knew VB had recruit rankings, but I wasn't sure of the other sports), but we seem to do better in getting higher ranked recruits in other sports (volleyball, water polo, tennis, soccer, swimming, etc.) even though all of them face the same more rigorous standards

[BobK]

Volleyball tennis swimming softball baseball and soccer all have recruiting rankings.  However saying entry requirements affects WBB more is a really a guess  :)

[BobK]

Volleyball tennis swimming softball baseball and soccer all have recruiting rankings.  However saying entry requirements affects WBB more is a really a guess  :)

[81alum]

5-10 years ago we saw the affect of Robin the terrible and without a doubt it was harder for an athlete to get into Stanford under her.    Maybe 20 years ago hard to not agree with you.

You know, Bob, I believe you about Robin the terrible, but I wonder if the overall inflation of admissions has recreated a similar effect.  You can't cut the admissions rate in half without it having an effect.

[81alum]

5-10 years ago we saw the affect of Robin the terrible and without a doubt it was harder for an athlete to get into Stanford under her.    Maybe 20 years ago hard to not agree with you.

You know, Bob, I believe you about Robin the terrible, but I wonder if the overall inflation of admissions has recreated a similar effect.  You can't cut the admissions rate in half without it having an effect.

[Mike]

Something that hasn't been mentioned, that would really be interesting to hear, and that we're not likely to be able to find out ... is what other recruiters are saying about us (Stanford WBB) to dissuade prospects from Stanford and to lure them to their schools instead. It might not be fair, or necessarily true, maybe not even be direct, just insinuated, but recruiting is a job like many others and you do what you have to do to get people to your school. I imagine Tara's tight rein on guard play for many years turned off many past PG prospects, just as an example. The triangle might have turned off run-and-gun--type players. I would put Diggins in both those categories, regardless of the fact she chose her hometown college.

I think we can agree that Stanford WBB doesn't get a lot of air time on the East Coast, so I think the strongest (only?) impression a lot of prospects might have is from our appearance in post season play, especially elite-eight and final-four action. And, in that case, what might be more important than how far we advanced in a particular year's tournament, is how we looked and performed in losing that last game. I know for me, our ineptitude/unpreparedness against Tennessee's/UConn's press YEAR-AFTER-YEAR on national television, though many years in the past, is still a burr under my saddle. I'm sure that was used in some fashion in recruiting against us.

I guess what I'm saying is that our prospects are not deciding in a bubble; they're probably hearing at least some anti-Stanford ... let's say propaganda, from competing recruiters that they bring into their considerations, consciously or subconsciously. Oh, to be a fly on the wall during those recruiting visits. 

[Mike]

Something that hasn't been mentioned, that would really be interesting to hear, and that we're not likely to be able to find out ... is what other recruiters are saying about us (Stanford WBB) to dissuade prospects from Stanford and to lure them to their schools instead. It might not be fair, or necessarily true, maybe not even be direct, just insinuated, but recruiting is a job like many others and you do what you have to do to get people to your school. I imagine Tara's tight rein on guard play for many years turned off many past PG prospects, just as an example. The triangle might have turned off run-and-gun--type players. I would put Diggins in both those categories, regardless of the fact she chose her hometown college.

I think we can agree that Stanford WBB doesn't get a lot of air time on the East Coast, so I think the strongest (only?) impression a lot of prospects might have is from our appearance in post season play, especially elite-eight and final-four action. And, in that case, what might be more important than how far we advanced in a particular year's tournament, is how we looked and performed in losing that last game. I know for me, our ineptitude/unpreparedness against Tennessee's/UConn's press YEAR-AFTER-YEAR on national television, though many years in the past, is still a burr under my saddle. I'm sure that was used in some fashion in recruiting against us.

I guess what I'm saying is that our prospects are not deciding in a bubble; they're probably hearing at least some anti-Stanford ... let's say propaganda, from competing recruiters that they bring into their considerations, consciously or subconsciously. Oh, to be a fly on the wall during those recruiting visits. 

[TheFarm07]

Something that hasn't been mentioned, that would really be interesting to hear, and that we're not likely to be able to find out ... is what other recruiters are saying about us (Stanford WBB) to dissuade prospects from Stanford and to lure them to their schools instead. It might not be fair, or necessarily true, maybe not even be direct, just insinuated, but recruiting is a job like many others and you do what you have to do to get people to your school. I imagine Tara's tight rein on guard play for many years turned off many past PG prospects, just as an example. The triangle might have turned off run-and-gun--type players. I would put Diggins in both those categories, regardless of the fact she chose her hometown college.

I think we can agree that Stanford WBB doesn't get a lot of air time on the East Coast, so I think the strongest (only?) impression a lot of prospects might have is from our appearance in post season play, especially elite-eight and final-four action. And, in that case, what might be more important than how far we advanced in a particular year's tournament, is how we looked and performed in losing that last game. I know for me, our ineptitude/unpreparedness against Tennessee's/UConn's press YEAR-AFTER-YEAR on national television, though many years in the past, is still a burr under my saddle. I'm sure that was used in some fashion in recruiting against us.

I guess what I'm saying is that our prospects are not deciding in a bubble; they're probably hearing at least some anti-Stanford ... let's say propaganda, from competing recruiters that they bring into their considerations, consciously or subconsciously. Oh, to be a fly on the wall during those recruiting visits.

That's an interesting theory.  I'm on the East Coast now and without the Pac-12 network out here, it's hard to see any more than maybe 2-3 Stanford games at most on TV and it's usually ESPNU, which I have, but many don't.

Our last games in the Final Fours have not been a good representation of our team's quality (either we hang with our opponent for the first half and then get demolished-2010, 2012, 2014 or we blow a big lead late - 2011)

I also wonder whether Tara's publicized embrace of watching the Warriors and adopting some of their more run-and-gun, guard-oriented kind of play might help

[TheFarm07]

Something that hasn't been mentioned, that would really be interesting to hear, and that we're not likely to be able to find out ... is what other recruiters are saying about us (Stanford WBB) to dissuade prospects from Stanford and to lure them to their schools instead. It might not be fair, or necessarily true, maybe not even be direct, just insinuated, but recruiting is a job like many others and you do what you have to do to get people to your school. I imagine Tara's tight rein on guard play for many years turned off many past PG prospects, just as an example. The triangle might have turned off run-and-gun--type players. I would put Diggins in both those categories, regardless of the fact she chose her hometown college.

I think we can agree that Stanford WBB doesn't get a lot of air time on the East Coast, so I think the strongest (only?) impression a lot of prospects might have is from our appearance in post season play, especially elite-eight and final-four action. And, in that case, what might be more important than how far we advanced in a particular year's tournament, is how we looked and performed in losing that last game. I know for me, our ineptitude/unpreparedness against Tennessee's/UConn's press YEAR-AFTER-YEAR on national television, though many years in the past, is still a burr under my saddle. I'm sure that was used in some fashion in recruiting against us.

I guess what I'm saying is that our prospects are not deciding in a bubble; they're probably hearing at least some anti-Stanford ... let's say propaganda, from competing recruiters that they bring into their considerations, consciously or subconsciously. Oh, to be a fly on the wall during those recruiting visits.

That's an interesting theory.  I'm on the East Coast now and without the Pac-12 network out here, it's hard to see any more than maybe 2-3 Stanford games at most on TV and it's usually ESPNU, which I have, but many don't.

Our last games in the Final Fours have not been a good representation of our team's quality (either we hang with our opponent for the first half and then get demolished-2010, 2012, 2014 or we blow a big lead late - 2011)

I also wonder whether Tara's publicized embrace of watching the Warriors and adopting some of their more run-and-gun, guard-oriented kind of play might help

[81alum]

The obvious underhanded recruiting tricks that are probably used against us are implying that Tara is about to retire.  She was given an new two year contract last summer, no?  Why didn't we give her a much longer contract?  She seems like the kind of person who will coach for as long as she is physically able--she enjoys her job that much.  My guess is that this rumor dissipates the minute the family actually talks to Tara.

One knock that I am sure used to be used against us--with some kids with homophobic parents--was the notion that their children would be going to a liberal den of inequity, with innuendo about sexual orientation.  If you paid attention to what Griner said about Kim Mulkey, or Rene Portland's ban on lesbian basketball players, or the lawsuit just last year at Pepperdine (where Erika Ogwumike is playing now), you know that some programs have harbored and some may still harbor homophobic biases. 

http://espn.go.com/wnba/story/_/id/92890...-sexuality
http://www.outsports.com/2014/12/15/7398...e-portland

One particularly murky episode centers on an underhanded tactic that Geno is alleged to have used to entice a recruit away from Tennessee--rupturing the relationship with Pat and ending their annual games.

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basket...iemma-book

Pat never spoke for the public record about what the specific "recruiting tactic" was that upset her.  Others have suggested that--without hard evidence--that she suspected Geno of homophobic innuendo about her program.  (The public version that emerged was that UConn gave Maya Moore a tour of the ESPN headquarters.  That did undoubtedly happen--and is pretty sickening too--showing the UConn ESPN connection in all its glory.  But was that really enough to rupture the relationship?)

Even if there are no personal attacks on our coaching staff, the University is very public with its support for openness and diversity, and I can see how this used to drive away the parents of some Christian social conservatives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SArCrXjVOr0

For example, polling data suggests that African American Christians oppose gay marriage at a much higher rate than white Americans do now:
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graph...-marriage/

Fortunately, I think the pockets of bigotry have been shrinking and I imagine that this is less of a problem more recently than it may have been in the past.  Most young people are far more open minded on gay rights than their parents--there is a gigantic generation gap on this issue.  Furthermore, we have obviously succeeded in recruiting some players from Christian and conservative families in recent years.  Condi Rice is no doubt helpful in that regard.  But without knowing (and perhaps never knowing) the truth of the rumors about Geno and Mulkey and other prominent coaches, there will always be a doubt in my mind about the kind of conversations they have privately with the parents of socially conservative recruits.

[81alum]

The obvious underhanded recruiting tricks that are probably used against us are implying that Tara is about to retire.  She was given an new two year contract last summer, no?  Why didn't we give her a much longer contract?  She seems like the kind of person who will coach for as long as she is physically able--she enjoys her job that much.  My guess is that this rumor dissipates the minute the family actually talks to Tara.

One knock that I am sure used to be used against us--with some kids with homophobic parents--was the notion that their children would be going to a liberal den of inequity, with innuendo about sexual orientation.  If you paid attention to what Griner said about Kim Mulkey, or Rene Portland's ban on lesbian basketball players, or the lawsuit just last year at Pepperdine (where Erika Ogwumike is playing now), you know that some programs have harbored and some may still harbor homophobic biases. 

http://espn.go.com/wnba/story/_/id/92890...-sexuality
http://www.outsports.com/2014/12/15/7398...e-portland

One particularly murky episode centers on an underhanded tactic that Geno is alleged to have used to entice a recruit away from Tennessee--rupturing the relationship with Pat and ending their annual games.

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basket...iemma-book

Pat never spoke for the public record about what the specific "recruiting tactic" was that upset her.  Others have suggested that--without hard evidence--that she suspected Geno of homophobic innuendo about her program.  (The public version that emerged was that UConn gave Maya Moore a tour of the ESPN headquarters.  That did undoubtedly happen--and is pretty sickening too--showing the UConn ESPN connection in all its glory.  But was that really enough to rupture the relationship?)

Even if there are no personal attacks on our coaching staff, the University is very public with its support for openness and diversity, and I can see how this used to drive away the parents of some Christian social conservatives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SArCrXjVOr0

For example, polling data suggests that African American Christians oppose gay marriage at a much higher rate than white Americans do now:
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graph...-marriage/

Fortunately, I think the pockets of bigotry have been shrinking and I imagine that this is less of a problem more recently than it may have been in the past.  Most young people are far more open minded on gay rights than their parents--there is a gigantic generation gap on this issue.  Furthermore, we have obviously succeeded in recruiting some players from Christian and conservative families in recent years.  Condi Rice is no doubt helpful in that regard.  But without knowing (and perhaps never knowing) the truth of the rumors about Geno and Mulkey and other prominent coaches, there will always be a doubt in my mind about the kind of conversations they have privately with the parents of socially conservative recruits.

[Mike]

Eloquently spoken, 81Alum, as always.

I'm not sure of the protocol involved in doing this, but I'm doing it anyway ... +1.

[Mike]

Eloquently spoken, 81Alum, as always.

I'm not sure of the protocol involved in doing this, but I'm doing it anyway ... +1.

[Jskass]

yes tough to ascertain on the whole Geno-Pat issue and it's exhausting. On the recruiting in general, I do think that there may be either direct or indirect homophobic recruiting -- and it may be targeted at the parents.

Just think of the recruiting success the men coaches have had (e.g., Geno, Jeff Walz at Louisville, then add in schools like KY (even if 2 of them just left), Ohio State, Kelly Graves now at Oregon. Agreed they are excellent coaches but they seem to get more than their share; then you add Notre Dame (as Muffett is married) and Baylor (Mulkey was married, and is the fashionista) -- and I bet we already account for 75% of the top 20 recruits in the country.

Wondering if parents are putting factors other than basketball first, or using it as a factor when all other things are equal. Interesting that we're in 2015 and this is still a factor -- surprising to me because my daughter is going through the college application process right now and I can't imagine having this influencing her decision-making.

[Jskass]

yes tough to ascertain on the whole Geno-Pat issue and it's exhausting. On the recruiting in general, I do think that there may be either direct or indirect homophobic recruiting -- and it may be targeted at the parents.

Just think of the recruiting success the men coaches have had (e.g., Geno, Jeff Walz at Louisville, then add in schools like KY (even if 2 of them just left), Ohio State, Kelly Graves now at Oregon. Agreed they are excellent coaches but they seem to get more than their share; then you add Notre Dame (as Muffett is married) and Baylor (Mulkey was married, and is the fashionista) -- and I bet we already account for 75% of the top 20 recruits in the country.

Wondering if parents are putting factors other than basketball first, or using it as a factor when all other things are equal. Interesting that we're in 2015 and this is still a factor -- surprising to me because my daughter is going through the college application process right now and I can't imagine having this influencing her decision-making.

[BobK]

Kids have their reasons but please note we have a number of very reglious players and have in the past. 

[BobK]

Kids have their reasons but please note we have a number of very reglious players and have in the past. 

[BostonCard]

The public version that emerged was that UConn gave Maya Moore a tour of the ESPN headquarters.  That did undoubtedly happen--and is pretty sickening too--showing the UConn ESPN connection in all its glory.  But was that really enough to rupture the relationship?

That has always seemed to me to be much more of an issue with ESPN -- which ought not to be aiding one program over another -- than with Auriemma, who naturally is going to boost his program any way he can. And the only sensible avenue of protest on this is through the NCAA, which should tell ESPN to knock it off.

We take our football recruits to EA (Electronic Arts; makers of Madden and other games) headquarters up the road in Redwood City, so on the one hand I don't see the big deal (at least from UConn's perspective).  On the other hand, I do kind of agree that it doesn't reflect well on ESPN as an entity that at least theoretically is supposed to be neutral and reporting, though we know that ESPN has never been about neutral reporting, and the inherent conflict of interest they have between maximizing ratings by hyping certain teams and their reporting duties has not been well-managed through the years.

BC

[BostonCard]

The public version that emerged was that UConn gave Maya Moore a tour of the ESPN headquarters.  That did undoubtedly happen--and is pretty sickening too--showing the UConn ESPN connection in all its glory.  But was that really enough to rupture the relationship?

That has always seemed to me to be much more of an issue with ESPN -- which ought not to be aiding one program over another -- than with Auriemma, who naturally is going to boost his program any way he can. And the only sensible avenue of protest on this is through the NCAA, which should tell ESPN to knock it off.

We take our football recruits to EA (Electronic Arts; makers of Madden and other games) headquarters up the road in Redwood City, so on the one hand I don't see the big deal (at least from UConn's perspective).  On the other hand, I do kind of agree that it doesn't reflect well on ESPN as an entity that at least theoretically is supposed to be neutral and reporting, though we know that ESPN has never been about neutral reporting, and the inherent conflict of interest they have between maximizing ratings by hyping certain teams and their reporting duties has not been well-managed through the years.

BC

[81alum]

Bob tipped me off about a recent article about Pivec's commitment:

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/high-...gon-state/

Many expected Pivec, a 4.0 student, to pick Stanford. And while she felt she had a good relationship with longtime coach Tara Vanderveer, she said she worried a bit that Vanderveer might retire before she graduated.  “Stanford has great academics, but there were a few red flags,” she said. “I thought that it may not be as good fit for me…I’m not sure how much longer (Vanderveer) is going to coach…but if I’d chosen Stanford I don’t think she would have been there the whole time.”

Pivec said she likes the atmosphere at OSU, which is coming off its best season in school history as Pac-12 champions, just missing the Sweet 16 after getting upset by Gonzaga. “At some schools, it (basketball) gets to be more like a business and you lose that personal touch with the coaches and the players,” Pivec said. “You definitely want to win, and that’s the ultimate goal, but you can have fun while you’re doing it, too.”

Well, there are only so many possibilities. 

1) Pivec did not get past admissions and is looking for a face-saving excuse.  I don't know how likely this could be with her grades, but Stanford does turn down the majority of the 4.0 students who apply.  In thinking about this from the student-athlete's point-of-view, it takes a strong ego for a high school kid to seek a slot on our program given that something that is generally so private (admission) can become somewhat public, and I would not blame a family or recruit at all for seeking a way of concealing that outcome.  It can create a dilemma that no other Division I scholarship school creates. 

2)  She simply may have connected better with Rueck than with Tara, who does tend to emphasize that students approach the game in a professional, business-like manner.  Tara has lightened up a lot over the decades, though, and it is clear that the players do have a lot of fun together.  It is hard to believe someone would trade a Stanford degree for an Oregon State degree for that reason alone, though.   

3) She may actually believe what she said about Tara and retirement but the information was baseless rumor-mongering.  This might have been information other coaches used to raise those "red flags" in her mind.  "Why only a two year extension?"  etc.  Would the other Pac 12 coaches like Rueck engage in that kind of behavior?  Pretty despicable if true.

4) Finally, and we should ask this ourselves, could there be any truth to the retirement rumors?  Tara has always been impeccably honest in her dealings with everybody, so if she herself is taking it a year at a time and cannot guarantee to a recruit that she will stay for 5 more years, then this could explain the inexplicable--why both Katie Lou and Pivec went elsewhere.  While this may not be the case now, at some point in the future she will consider retirement, and given her honesty her recruits will know of it before it happens.

So...anyone have evidence as to which of the four it is? 

[81alum]

Bob tipped me off about a recent article about Pivec's commitment:

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/high-...gon-state/

Many expected Pivec, a 4.0 student, to pick Stanford. And while she felt she had a good relationship with longtime coach Tara Vanderveer, she said she worried a bit that Vanderveer might retire before she graduated.  “Stanford has great academics, but there were a few red flags,” she said. “I thought that it may not be as good fit for me…I’m not sure how much longer (Vanderveer) is going to coach…but if I’d chosen Stanford I don’t think she would have been there the whole time.”

Pivec said she likes the atmosphere at OSU, which is coming off its best season in school history as Pac-12 champions, just missing the Sweet 16 after getting upset by Gonzaga. “At some schools, it (basketball) gets to be more like a business and you lose that personal touch with the coaches and the players,” Pivec said. “You definitely want to win, and that’s the ultimate goal, but you can have fun while you’re doing it, too.”

Well, there are only so many possibilities. 

1) Pivec did not get past admissions and is looking for a face-saving excuse.  I don't know how likely this could be with her grades, but Stanford does turn down the majority of the 4.0 students who apply.  In thinking about this from the student-athlete's point-of-view, it takes a strong ego for a high school kid to seek a slot on our program given that something that is generally so private (admission) can become somewhat public, and I would not blame a family or recruit at all for seeking a way of concealing that outcome.  It can create a dilemma that no other Division I scholarship school creates. 

2)  She simply may have connected better with Rueck than with Tara, who does tend to emphasize that students approach the game in a professional, business-like manner.  Tara has lightened up a lot over the decades, though, and it is clear that the players do have a lot of fun together.  It is hard to believe someone would trade a Stanford degree for an Oregon State degree for that reason alone, though.   

3) She may actually believe what she said about Tara and retirement but the information was baseless rumor-mongering.  This might have been information other coaches used to raise those "red flags" in her mind.  "Why only a two year extension?"  etc.  Would the other Pac 12 coaches like Rueck engage in that kind of behavior?  Pretty despicable if true.

4) Finally, and we should ask this ourselves, could there be any truth to the retirement rumors?  Tara has always been impeccably honest in her dealings with everybody, so if she herself is taking it a year at a time and cannot guarantee to a recruit that she will stay for 5 more years, then this could explain the inexplicable--why both Katie Lou and Pivec went elsewhere.  While this may not be the case now, at some point in the future she will consider retirement, and given her honesty her recruits will know of it before it happens.

So...anyone have evidence as to which of the four it is? 

[TheFarm07]

Interesting article.  Maybe that is why recruits haven't chosen or considered Stanford lately, though the other top womens bb coaches aren't exactly young either.  I wonder when Tara retires if we will promote from within or choose from outside. 

[TheFarm07]

Interesting article.  Maybe that is why recruits haven't chosen or considered Stanford lately, though the other top womens bb coaches aren't exactly young either.  I wonder when Tara retires if we will promote from within or choose from outside. 

[81alum]

Interesting article.  Maybe that is why recruits haven't chosen or considered Stanford lately, though the other top womens bb coaches aren't exactly young either.  I wonder when Tara retires if we will promote from within or choose from outside.

I would guess it would be Kate Paye, following the Tennessee example of promoting Holly.  Tennessee seems to be doing quite well, although it obviously suffered a few down years during its transition.  If this were arranged in advance it could be communicated with recruits during a transition period.  But can such an arrangement be guaranteed?  What if the Athletic Director leaves and is replaced with someone else? 

I don't want to get too far down the Tara-retirement road just yet.  She is 62 and seems to be very physically and psychologically fit.  Her passion for the game clearly has not slackened at all--in fact, she seems more enthused and energetic working with the changing pieces of the puzzle the last two years than I can remember.  But Pat Summit is only one year older than Tara, so unexpected things happen.  Geno is 61.  Sylvia Hatchell is the same age as Tara.  Vivian Stringer is 67.  Muffett McGraw is 59.  Basically, Tara is not really any older than the leading competition, and given her health, if she wants to continue I could easily see her going another decade.  In fact, if we had to take odds, it would be far more likely that a Type-A male like Geno would need to retire due to health issues than Tara.  We men are not nearly as hardy as women in our sixties, and I think we can all almost read Geno's blood pressure from a distance!

[81alum]

Interesting article.  Maybe that is why recruits haven't chosen or considered Stanford lately, though the other top womens bb coaches aren't exactly young either.  I wonder when Tara retires if we will promote from within or choose from outside.

I would guess it would be Kate Paye, following the Tennessee example of promoting Holly.  Tennessee seems to be doing quite well, although it obviously suffered a few down years during its transition.  If this were arranged in advance it could be communicated with recruits during a transition period.  But can such an arrangement be guaranteed?  What if the Athletic Director leaves and is replaced with someone else? 

I don't want to get too far down the Tara-retirement road just yet.  She is 62 and seems to be very physically and psychologically fit.  Her passion for the game clearly has not slackened at all--in fact, she seems more enthused and energetic working with the changing pieces of the puzzle the last two years than I can remember.  But Pat Summit is only one year older than Tara, so unexpected things happen.  Geno is 61.  Sylvia Hatchell is the same age as Tara.  Vivian Stringer is 67.  Muffett McGraw is 59.  Basically, Tara is not really any older than the leading competition, and given her health, if she wants to continue I could easily see her going another decade.  In fact, if we had to take odds, it would be far more likely that a Type-A male like Geno would need to retire due to health issues than Tara.  We men are not nearly as hardy as women in our sixties, and I think we can all almost read Geno's blood pressure from a distance!

[BobK]

The part about her future as a pro being better at Oregon State got me.
This story caused me to re think all the info I got on acceptance.   

[BobK]

The part about her future as a pro being better at Oregon State got me.
This story caused me to re think all the info I got on acceptance.   

[81alum]

The part about her future as a pro being better at Oregon State got me.
This story caused me to re think all the info I got on acceptance. 

You mean this quote, Bob?

““That’s where I was most comfortable with the coaching staff, who spent a lot of time with me, and the players in the incoming class of 2016 I’ll be playing with,” Pivec said. “I like the basketball environment. I want to play basketball as long as possible, maybe after college as well, and I felt that’s the place I could grow the most as a person and a player.”

Yes, this one does not exactly ring true--although every person is entitled to their own feelings, obviously.

I'm not sure if most students really know very much about the quality of education at Pac 12 universities.  Oregon State has a far worse reputation for undergraduate education than Washington--or Oregon for that matter--which are both respectable academic institutions across the boards.  (Washington has recently become the top public university for California students who go out-of-state, surpassing Oregon.)  Oregon State does have strong programs in agriculture, forestry, natural resources, etc. Maybe Pivec  is interested in one of those. 

But in a basketball sense I can see why she might choose Oregon State over Washington.  Oregon State looks to me to have a more promising program for the next few years than Washington.  BUT I bet the odds of Scott Rueck getting hired away from Oregon State over the next 5 years are at least somewhat high--despite his local connections there.  The more successful he becomes the greater the temptation to leave will become.  And if/when that happens there will be no notice.  If the danger of older coaches is retirement, the danger of young up-and-comers is that they sometimes move up to better opportunities.  See Kevin McGuff.

In any case, we will all get to follow her college basketball career closely, since we will be playing against her!

[81alum]

The part about her future as a pro being better at Oregon State got me.
This story caused me to re think all the info I got on acceptance. 

You mean this quote, Bob?

““That’s where I was most comfortable with the coaching staff, who spent a lot of time with me, and the players in the incoming class of 2016 I’ll be playing with,” Pivec said. “I like the basketball environment. I want to play basketball as long as possible, maybe after college as well, and I felt that’s the place I could grow the most as a person and a player.”

Yes, this one does not exactly ring true--although every person is entitled to their own feelings, obviously.

I'm not sure if most students really know very much about the quality of education at Pac 12 universities.  Oregon State has a far worse reputation for undergraduate education than Washington--or Oregon for that matter--which are both respectable academic institutions across the boards.  (Washington has recently become the top public university for California students who go out-of-state, surpassing Oregon.)  Oregon State does have strong programs in agriculture, forestry, natural resources, etc. Maybe Pivec  is interested in one of those. 

But in a basketball sense I can see why she might choose Oregon State over Washington.  Oregon State looks to me to have a more promising program for the next few years than Washington.  BUT I bet the odds of Scott Rueck getting hired away from Oregon State over the next 5 years are at least somewhat high--despite his local connections there.  The more successful he becomes the greater the temptation to leave will become.  And if/when that happens there will be no notice.  If the danger of older coaches is retirement, the danger of young up-and-comers is that they sometimes move up to better opportunities.  See Kevin McGuff.

In any case, we will all get to follow her college basketball career closely, since we will be playing against her!

[81alum]

Then there's that kid Kim Mulkey, barely 54...

Hah!  But the disadvantage of playing for Kim Mulkey is that she is....Kim Mulkey.

[81alum]

Then there's that kid Kim Mulkey, barely 54...

Hah!  But the disadvantage of playing for Kim Mulkey is that she is....Kim Mulkey.

[TheFarm07]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=11153.msg140316#msg140316 date=1446996688]
Then there's that kid Kim Mulkey, barely 54...

Hah!  But the disadvantage of playing for Kim Mulkey is that she is....Kim Mulkey.
[/quote]

Well that hasn't stopped Mulkey from getting verbal pledges from the #1 prospect Lauren Cox and #8 Natalie Chou for this year's class

How I wish we could someday get one of these top prospects

[TheFarm07]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=11153.msg140316#msg140316 date=1446996688]
Then there's that kid Kim Mulkey, barely 54...

Hah!  But the disadvantage of playing for Kim Mulkey is that she is....Kim Mulkey.
[/quote]

Well that hasn't stopped Mulkey from getting verbal pledges from the #1 prospect Lauren Cox and #8 Natalie Chou for this year's class

How I wish we could someday get one of these top prospects