UConn vs. Stanford

[UConn990411]

It's about the recruiting pool and getting top players. It is easier at UConn because they have a bigger pool, as do most all schools than Stanford. Of course Stanford is a draw, but not all can get it in.

That's a different argument.

If you made me head coach of Stanford or UConn and wiped away both teams' history, where do you think I would have an easier time attracting recruits? If you answer UConn, then you're wrong.

UConn is a very good school, but the reason it attracts recruits more than schools like Duke, UNC, Stanford, etc. is because of Geno plain and simple. They didn't get the huge fan support until after Geno had turned them into a national power.

Tara is one of the finest coaches ever at any level of basketball - all you have to do is watch her teams play to realize that. And she's been unlucky to have her prime years and best years coincide with Pat's and Geno's.

But arguing that a head coach with one national championship is better or even equal to a coach with seven NCs is either blind homerism or lunacy. Or both.

 

[cardfan]

That's a different argument.

If you made me head coach of Stanford or UConn and wiped away both teams' history, where do you think I would have an easier time attracting recruits? If you answer UConn, then you're wrong.

UConn is a very good school, but the reason it attracts recruits more than schools like Duke, UNC, Stanford, etc. is because of Geno plain and simple. They didn't get the huge fan support until after Geno had turned them into a national power.

Tara is one of the finest coaches ever at any level of basketball - all you have to do is watch her teams play to realize that. And she's been unlucky to have her prime years and best years coincide with Pat's and Geno's.

But arguing that a head coach with one national championship is better or even equal to a coach with seven NCs is either blind homerism or lunacy. Or both.

It's not homerism, they are facts. Geno and Tara both started at UConn and Stanford in 1985. I know Geno is a great coach, but I don't agree he is a "better "coach than Tara with her Gold medal, 11 F4s and 2 NCs. He has gotten more talented players, by far. The admissions at Stanford do in fact limit Tara's pool. Do you know who has applied and didn't get in? Players who would have made a huge difference.

Tara won her first NC in 5 years because of Azzi and a few other talented players, but Azzi was the catalyst and began it for us. Of course, Stanford has the name to help recruit, but again, not everyone who wants get in, can, far from it. The AD gave Tara the budget to recruit nationally, which was ahead of many programs, including UConn. Tara also was the first coach to really utilize the 3 pt game. We would have won again in '91 had it not been for injuries to our post players, but we won in again in '92. Fast forward to 1995, 1o years after Geno got there, he won with Lobo and Rizzotti, and built from there because they keep winning, kept getting great players, ESPN/east coast media certainly helps too.

 

[wallman]

I find this argument " remotely " amusing. Anyway I know 3 players that could not get into Stanford. The ones that got in early were the athletes with exceptional scores. But I also think that 1 cardfan is dissing his own players to argue a moot point and 2 Geno is clearly the better coach, just my lowly IQ opinion

 

[UConn990411]

It's not homerism, they are facts. Geno and Tara both started at UConn and Stanford in 1985. I know Geno is a great coach, but I don't agree he is a "better "coach than Tara with her Gold medal, 11 F4s and 2 NCs. He has gotten more talented players, by far. The admissions at Stanford do in fact limit Tara's pool. Do you know who has applied and didn't get in? Players who would have made a huge difference.

You know whose responsibility recruiting is? THE COACH'S.

I'm going to be nice and only call you delusional.

 

[cardfan]

You know whose responsibility recruiting is? THE COACH'S.

I'm going to be nice and only call you delusional.

did you not comprehend anything about recruiting/admissions at Stanford? Hello? Tara does quiet well recruiting, but, and it is a big but, the pool is smaller given the academic requirements and timing (process) of applying to get in.

 

[cardfan]

I find this argument " remotely " amusing. Anyway I know 3 players that could not get into Stanford. The ones that got in early were the athletes with exceptional scores. But I also think that 1 cardfan is dissing his own players to argue a moot point and 2 Geno is clearly the better coach, just my lowly IQ opinion

1) her- I'm not a dood. I thought we discussed this...
2) not dissing our players, at all
3) clearly the better coach? based on what? # NCs or head to head?

 

[doggydaddy]

Stanford do in fact limit Tara's pool. Do you know who has applied and didn't get in? Players who would have made a huge difference.

What you fail to mention are the players that could have gotten into Stanford that didn't even apply because they wanted to go somewhere else. Maybe Geno would have made a diffence in getting those.

It's ok to be a homer. But just don't deny it.

 

[wallman]

Even though I said it in my post, based on my OPINION, which I garnered from watching both coaches for many years and talking to both coaches players!!

 

[Alydar]

Very remotely true. They have changed, very dramatically. A few years ago, there was an article or Q&A series where Tara talked about recruiting process. I'll look for it.

Just meeting minimum entrance requirements will get a recruit in but I'm willing to wager that there are many many applicants who exceed the academic records of those athletes that do not get admitted. Of the 34,000 mentioned as applicants, I'd bet maybe 10,000 or more met the requirements but only 2400 got admitted. I'd bet that any recruit who met the minimum got in ahead of more academically qualified applicants. So there is a lower threshhold for athletes.

 

[cardfan]

What you fail to mention are the players that could have gotten into Stanford that didn't even apply because they wanted to go somewhere else. Maybe Geno would have made a diffence in getting those.

It's ok to be a homer. But just don't deny it.

Maybe...there are other factors too, like location, staying close to home (Lobo, Bird and Diggins). and playing with people you know. Sure, I am of Stanford over UConn, but I know the data and facts regarding recruiting at Stanford.

 

[cardfan]

Just meeting minimum entrance requirements will get a recruit in but I'm willing to wager that there are many many applicants who exceed the academic records of those athletes that do not get admitted. Of the 34,000 mentioned as applicants, I'd bet maybe 10,000 or more met the requirements but only 2400 got admitted. I'd bet that any recruit who met the minimum got in ahead of more academically qualified applicants. So there is a lower threshhold for athletes.

The application and recruitment process is more complicated with many factors. An example of the pool is Stanford coaches can to a summer camp of 100 players, but they can only actively recruit 10 of them, which limits their pool from the get go.

All applicants get points for a variety of areas, including being an athlete, concert pianist, excels in biology or computer science, and legacy (did your family go and do they have $ to donate).

 

[doggydaddy]

I just find it funny that Cardfan calls me arrogant.

 

[cardfan]

I just find it funny that Cardfan calls me arrogant.

dood, I'm just providing facts how recruiting works at Stanford based on hearing it directly from the folks who work there, to the players and parents who went through the process.

I'd love to stay and chat, but gotta run.

Have a great day.

 

[doggydaddy]

dood, I'm just providing facts how recruiting works at Stanford based on hearing it directly from the folks who work there, to the players and parents who went through the process.

I'd love to stay and chat, but gotta run.

Have a great day.

I am turning 60 this month, so I'm really not a dood either.

No, you are saying that Geno is not a better coach than Vandaveer. No facts involved there. You are guessing at who would go to Stanford if Geno was there.

I am SO looking forward to writing up my Stanford/UConn analysis.

 

[semper]

Doggy, let's have bit of early analysis NOW. I'd love to hear a prediction about the ways Geno will be thinking, at least as of today.

 

[OneTrickPony]

I am turning 60 this month, so I'm really not a dood either.

No, you are saying that Geno is not a better coach than Vandaveer. No facts involved there. You are guessing at who would go to Stanford if Geno was there.

I am SO looking forward to writing up my Stanford/UConn analysis.

We're talking California here, DD...age is no hurdle...

The Big Lebowski (3/12) Movie CLIP - I'm the Dude (1998)

 

[Bestiarius]

You are completely wrong about admissions at Stanford. They do not admit athletes early. And yes, they have to meet the same requirements as all students and they follow the same process as the general applicant pool. In 2011, 2, 437 freshman were admitted and just over 34,000 applied.

Can you cite an official source for your allegations? I don't mean a quote from Tara - something from the school.

 

[Phil]

But arguing that a head coach with one national championship is better or even equal to a coach with seven NCs is either blind homerism or lunacy. Or both.

She has two. Which doesn't change the argument much, but there's quite a difference between a coach with one - which can mean being in the right place at the right time with a special player - and two, which speaks to sustained excellence. A lot of coaches have one. Only six have multiple NCs (assuming you credit Barmore with two). That's select company.

 

[msf22b]

I think that this has been a silly arguement.
When you have as much talent as does Stanford plus Tara, you're gonna have a game.
And when you're as good a coach as Tara is, she's going to give her kids every chance to win.
But we all know that the UConn talent and depth is very unusual (to say the least)
But you can only play five at a time.
Should be a great game.
And if we beat the crap out of them, we'll all know its the great coach, the great recruits, and the great vets.
MSF
Puerto Barrios, Guatemala

 

[wallman]

And the great boneyard posters, c'mon spread the love!

 

[cardfan]

I am turning 60 this month, so I'm really not a dood either.

No, you are saying that Geno is not a better coach than Vandaveer. No facts involved there. You are guessing at who would go to Stanford if Geno was there.

I am SO looking forward to writing up my Stanford/UConn analysis.

You've already done your analysis, you have the better players. so you proved my pt- it comes down to talent. My question at the very beginning was what makes Geno a better coach than Tara? NCs or head to head which he leads by one?

The fact remains that Tara won 2 NCs before Geno won before his first, and it took him twice as long to win his first. So what's different? His 7 NCs and all of sudden Tara (VanDerveer) can't coach anymore? That makes no sense. She has 4 straight F4s and 2 NCs in the 90's, a Gold Medal, then 5 straight F4s in 2000's.

If you are basing it all on NCs, his 7 NCs to her 2, than fine, then I say it's because he has more talented players, including one very good one who did not get into Stanford. Also, any coach will tell you winning any championship is more than coaching, it's a lot of luck and stars lining up (match-ups, health of players, calls, etc).

 

[cardfan]

I am turning 60 this month, so I'm really not a dood either.

No, you are saying that Geno is not a better coach than Vandaveer. No facts involved there. You are guessing at who would go to Stanford if Geno was there.

I am SO looking forward to writing up my Stanford/UConn analysis.

Just curious, did you write an analysis before the Dec. 30, 2010 game at Maples (when we were ranked 9th, and broke your 90 game winning streak?) How about the one for the Tampa Final Four in '08? If so, I've love to read them as well. But if you cannot dig them up, I bet you said we were too slow and didn't match up with all your talent and quickness.

 

[Icebear]

I am turning 60 this month, so I'm really not a dood either.

No, you are saying that Geno is not a better coach than Vandaveer. No facts involved there. You are guessing at who would go to Stanford if Geno was there.

I am SO looking forward to writing up my Stanford/UConn analysis.

At 60 closer to dud than dood or dude. And I resemble that remark, too.

 

[JS]

You are completely wrong about admissions at Stanford. They do not admit athletes early.

It's been my understanding for some time that, while there's no formal early admission, there's an informal communication of one's chances that one can, as a practical matter, take to the bank.

Is that wrong?

 

[UConn990411]

You've already done your analysis, you have the better players. so you proved my pt- it comes down to talent. My question at the very beginning was what makes Geno a better coach than Tara? NCs or head to head which he leads by one?

Uh, doesn't Geno lead in both?

You're clearly just trolling at this point.

 

[UConnCat]

You've already done your analysis, you have the better players. so you proved my pt- it comes down to talent. My question at the very beginning was what makes Geno a better coach than Tara? NCs or head to head which he leads by one?

The fact remains that Tara won 2 NCs before Geno won before his first, and it took him twice as long to win his first. So what's different? His 7 NCs and all of sudden Tara (VanDerveer) can't coach anymore? That makes no sense. She has 4 straight F4s and 2 NCs in the 90's, a Gold Medal, then 5 straight F4s in 2000's.

If you are basing it all on NCs, his 7 NCs to her 2, than fine, then I say it's because he has more talented players, including one very good one who did not get into Stanford. Also, any coach will tell you winning any championship is more than coaching, it's a lot of luck and stars lining up (match-ups, health of players, calls, etc).

There's not one post in this thread that has suggested that "Tara can't coach anymore." So let's just stop with the straw man arguments.

Head-to-head match-ups between these two coaches doesn't really say a lot about who is the better coach. As I mentioned in another thread, for much the past 20+ years the teams only played if they happened to meet up in the NCAAs. The teams did not play at all between Dec 1997 and March 2005. Those were years in which UConn dominated WCBB and the teams not playing during those years helps Stanford in terms of its overall record against UConn.

I find it ironic that a Stanford fan is claiming that it's easier to recruit to Storrs than Stanford. It seems to me that every time UConn and Stanford go head to head for a recruit, Stanford wins. It's now at the point where we just assume Stanford will win all recruiting battles between the two schools. The reality is that the so-called small pool of players available to Stanford is not a convincing argument when it comes to basketball, particularly women's basketball in which so many good players are also great students. We're talking 15 scholarships over 4 years. (It's more of an issue with football and Stanford's recent football success tells me that Stanford may have slightly lessened its academic standards, at least for football players.) Let's not fixate too much on which coach has recruited more #1s; Diana and Tina weren't going to Stanford even if they had qualified academically. Year in and year out Stanford has great players on its roster and I think had the most talented roster in the country in 2011. That championship was Stanford's to lose...and it did.

I really don't have strong feelings about who's the better coach. They're both great coaches, but obviously I'm partial to Geno. I don't think there is a coach who prepares a team better for an opponent than Tara, but I don't think she's as good as Geno in her "in-game" adjustments.

 

[cardfan]

It's been my understanding for some time that, while there's no formal early admission, there's an informal communication of one's chances that one can, as a practical matter, take to the bank.

Is that wrong?

Not to take to the bank, per se. The communication is whether they have met the admission requirement deadline and whether they are on track. Tara will not pay for an official school visit if they have not been officially admitted.

The times that I've heard the coaches talk about recruiting, they do not use it as an excuse, at all. However, it is daunting the number of kids they can recruit, which has to be in line with Stanford's admission numbers and acceptance rates. They can't go after all kids at an all star Nike camp, it's usually 10%. When they do see a great bball player, obviously their first question is whether she has the grades and scores to get in. All parties have to be very organized and very committed to the process early on.

It is true that Stanford typically get the players who have been accepted and offered a scholie, minus about 10; including Lobo, Bird, Diggins, a few to UCLA and one to UCSB. But the number of student athletes who are game changers like the O sisters, Appel, Wiggins, don't come around that often, and when they do, they are surrounded by very solid talent, but not necessarily super stars. Sure, Tara has had chances to win more than 2 NCs, but Sally Bell, injuries, bad luck, bad matches ups (TN in '08) ruined some of those chances. That said, in the big picture, I think she is an outstanding coach and has more, with less.

 

[pap49cba]

You are completely wrong about admissions at Stanford. They do not admit athletes early. And yes, they have to meet the same requirements as all students and they follow the same process as the general applicant pool. In 2011, 2, 437 freshman were admitted and just over 34,000 applied.

My best friend's daughter got a swimming scholarship at Stanford and your statement is bull.

 

[cardfan]

There's not one post in this thread that has suggested that "Tara can't coach anymore." So let's just stop with the straw man arguments.

Head-to-head match-ups between these two coaches doesn't really say a lot about who is the better coach. As I mentioned in another thread, for much the past 20+ years the teams only played if they happened to meet up in the NCAAs. The teams did not play at all between Dec 1997 and March 2005. Those were years in which UConn dominated WCBB and the teams not playing during those years helps Stanford in terms of its overall record against UConn.

I find it ironic that a Stanford fan is claiming that it's easier to recruit to Storrs than Stanford. It seems to me that every time UConn and Stanford go head to head for a recruit, Stanford wins. It's now at the point where we just assume Stanford will win all recruiting battles between the two schools. The reality is that the so-called small pool of players available to Stanford is not a convincing argument when it comes to basketball, particularly women's basketball in which so many good players are also great students. We're talking 15 scholarships over 4 years. (It's more of an issue with football and Stanford's recent football success tells me that Stanford may have slightly lessened its academic standards, at least for football players.) Let's not fixate too much on which coach has recruited more #1s; Diana and Tina weren't going to Stanford even if they had qualified academically. Year in and year out Stanford has great players on its roster and I think had the most talented roster in the country in 2011. That championship was Stanford's to lose...and it did.

I really don't have strong feelings about who's the better coach. They're both great coaches, but obviously I'm partial to Geno. I don't think there is a coach who prepares a team better for an opponent than Tara, but I don't think she's as good as Geno in her "in-game" adjustments.

I was being sarcastic vs. straw man/woman. I agree head to head doesn't say a lot, I was asking what DD thought. I know our history quite well as I've been at most all of the games, minus the last 2 at Storrs. You said yourself we had down years, mostly due to losing King to ACLs and Carey for good. We are never that deep in great talent, and when we lose one or two, it is devastating, especially to pg's.

Sure, many people would pick Stanford over Storrs, but UConn is THE team in town with all fan adulation, private jets, and media following. Stanford flys coach and barely makes the local and evening news. It's easy to see why some kids would want the former.

I think they are both great coaches, but I'm not going to say Geno is better coach than Tara because he has more NCs. They have each shown strengths and weaknesses in games and recruiting. Geno got out coached in Tampa and at Maples. She was out coached at Storrs and other F4s, plus Appel having a broken foot didn't help. We got Appel, Yamasaki, both O sisters over UConn, you got Bird, Lobo, Dee, and Tina. We obviously disagree that there are enough talented players who call get into Stanford. Sure, we get some, but not the number you do.

Yes, we were the best team in 1997 and lost. And we were the best team in 2011 and lost as well, with no true pg, again.

 

[cardfan]

Can you cite an official source for your allegations? I don't mean a quote from Tara - something from the school.

It's not an allegation.

Google is a very powerful search tool.