Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Why can't schools like Stanford, most Ivy's, Bucknell, Villanova, Richmond, Ohio State, Rutgers etc... Be more competitive? There are a lot of great schools that would be the right fit for a lot of kids yet they can't find a way to field a competitive team.

Is it coaching or is there simply not enough talent?


Comes down to coaching, not enough quality head coaches. It takes a lot to run a program, a lot more than just x's and o's. Just look at how
much SS has struggled with the learning curve. She can coach kids and make their skills and knowledge of the game better, but that is less than half of it. Its the fund raising, managing personnel, planning travel, etc. All can be overwhelming.


It's called an Athletic Director - they make schedules, plan travel and deal with almost all administrative stuff. If there's one thing SS can do its raise money, what she can't do is evaluate talent and/or recruit it when she stumbles into it. all you've heard for the last several years is the her players don't want to play for her, but are stuck there. Seems to be the exact opposite at SB...


JS is very successful but his players are not exactly thrilled to be playing for him either. Let’s just say he can be a real task master and is not easy on them unless you are one of the chosen ones and I hear even reducing some scholorships along the way .Not sure how some get away with it but NCAA rules in terms of practice times ,length, days in a row etc are just suggestions .