Stanford loses to Santa Clara

[willtalk]

My previous post was not a slam on Tara specifically, but was directed at the coaches of her era in general. The playing field is much more competitive today.
The good coaches in the past were made to look much better by the lack of competition. I personally had/have a lot of respect for Tara. Though I feel she might have lost her edge after she and Stanford experienced a series of bad luck which cost them a couple NC's.

That aside, the caliber of coaches in WCBB is far superior to what it was years ago. That along with player parity makes it much harder for as team like Stanford (higher entrance requirements}to maintain the superiority they once had over the majority of teams today. Both Tara and Pat were very good coaches that benefited from the death in coaching talent. On an even playing field today they both would not come close to the success they had.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

That aside, the caliber of coaches in WCBB is far superior to what it was years ago. That along with player parity makes it much harder for as team like Stanford (higher entrance requirements}to maintain the superiority they once had over the majority of teams today.

Probably true but Stanford has had some excellent teams. They were probably the 2nd best in the nation both years UConn won titles with Maya. This current Stanford team doesn't have anywhere near that kind of talent.

 

[Zorro]

You can't just treat "coaches of her era" as if they were all deadwood. Actually, Geno is of Tara's era, as is Gary Blair and any number of other bright, innovative coaches. imho, PHS and her successor are the exception, rather than the rule.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

It's the old "era" thing. I think it is very difficult to evaluate how someone who did what they did in a different time would fare if they were starting out today. They are, after all, a product of what they have been, if you think about it.

Tara is a very good coach.

As coaches get older they may find recruiting more difficult, then success is more difficult, which makes recruiting harder, etc., etc. Vivian Stringer has spoken to this in some interview I saw or read. But if they were starting out today, who knows . . .

These are not stupid people and I don't buy into the game "passing them by". It is true that their skill set and their natural coaching styles may not translate as well today as it once did, but Vivian, among many others for example, went to learn the "triangle" when it was a hot thing to do, so they were trying to improve their "game".

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

It's the old "era" thing. I think it is very difficult to evaluate how someone who did what they did in a different time would fare if they were starting out today. They are, after all, a product of what they have been, if you think about it.

Tara is a very good coach.

As coaches get older they may find recruiting more difficult, then success is more difficult, which makes recruiting harder, etc., etc. Vivian Stringer has spoken to this in some interview I saw or read. But if they were starting out today, who knows . . .

These are not stupid people and I don't buy into the game "passing them by". It is true that their skill set and their natural coaching styles may not translate as well today as it once did, but Vivian, among many others for example, went to learn the "triangle" when it was a hot thing to do, so they were trying to improve their "game".

That's true because opposing coaches use the argument that they may not be there for a recruit's entire career. We had that problem in football recruiting the last couple of years as Steve Spurrier neared 70. Many coaches hang on a little too long. It happens in the business world, too. I've seen many co-workers nearing retirement hang on after they've lost their drive.