i know lutz is not popular here...

[wsubballfan]

72Shocker, I have to admit I don't frequently agree with your views of the game - I guess we just come at it from different angles. So, please understand I just see it differently when I say I don't buy your statement about not expecting assists from Kiki. In Jane's theory, Kiki is our "go-to" player which would imply defenses key on her which would imply the opportunity to kick to the open player because you have attracted defenders happens to you more frequently than your teammates. In 21 games, Kiki has 22 assists. One time a game she can find an open teammate?

For comparison, I looked at Jill Martin (Drake) - 34, Jayme Sweere (So. Ill) - 61, Rebekah Parker (Evansville) - 75 and then quit looking because it seemed to make my point. With the attention Kiki draws, she should be challenging our guards in the assist category especially if everyone is to believe Jane's assessment that she has really good shooters.

I stand by my previous assessment that shots aren't being made because the passes aren't there to get off good shots. It is not a point of emphasis on this team.......passing is done in desparation (unless someone like Rice decides to change the mentality of the game). There was actually a WSU post in the Mo State game who passed out to a wide-open 3 point shooter and chose to give her a bounce pass???? Of course, by the time it got there, she was covered. No one between you and the other player and you bounce pass? And, on a team where bounce passing INTO the post is strictly forbidden.

It doesn't appear Jane values passing or assists or teamwork; if she did her "stars" would showcase this quality.

[wsubballfan]

I should probably leave well enough alone but I'm going to throw out another couple of public things Jane does that I find embarrassing as a Shocker fan:

When you are losing conference games by an average of 16 points, you don't have a "defensive stopper" - from an article about Taylor and Kyrie in the Eagle.

Stats from the MVC website show:
Scoring - conf onlyy
7.Stephens, Kiki-WSU....... SR 9 52 0 28 132 14.7
Scoring - season
8.Stephens, Kiki-WSU....... SR 21 114 1 53 282 13.4


Rebounding - conf only
10.Stephens, Kiki-WSU....... SR 9 22 37 59 6.6
12.Sudbeck, Marcy-WSU....... JR 9 22 34 56 6.2
Rebounding - season
6.Sudbeck, Marcy-WSU....... JR 20 44 90 134 6.7
10.Stephens, Kiki-WSU....... SR 21 40 87 127 6.0
20.Kinder, Kyrie-WSU........ SR 20 24 77 101 5.1

Assists - conf only
15.Rice, Whitney-WSU........ JR 8 22 2.75

Steals - conf only
13.Rice, Whitney-WSU........ JR 8 10 1.25

Blocked Shots - conf only
1.Bunton, Alex-WSU......... SR 9 17 1.89
13.Sudbeck, Marcy-WSU....... JR 9 6 0.67
Blocked Shots - season
5.Bunton, Alex-WSU......... SR 21 23 1.10
7.Stephens, Kiki-WSU....... SR 21 18 0.86
15.Sudbeck, Marcy-WSU....... JR 20 12 0.60

Off Rebounds - conf only
8.Stephens, Kiki-WSU....... SR 9 22 2.44
Sudbeck, Marcy-WSU....... JR 9 22 2.44
Off Rebounds - season
7. Sudbeck, Marcy-WSU....... JR 20 44 2.20
15.Stephens, Kiki-WSU....... SR 21 40 1.90

Def Rebounds - conf only
12. Stephens, Kiki-WSU....... SR 9 37 4.11
Def Rebounds - season
7. Sudbeck, Marcy-WSU....... JR 20 90 4.50
10.Stephens, Kiki-WSU....... SR 21 87 4.14
13.Kinder, Kyrie-WSU........ SR 20 77 3.85

And, then you get to minutes played and the part I find embarrassing................
Minutes Played - season
14.Stephens, Kiki-WSU....... SR 21 607 28.90
26.Hoyt, Jacie-WSU.......... SO 21 567 27.00

[boyshocker]

Great post wsuballfan, should be considered for post of the year.
Jane has been reactive than pro-active in her coaching. Defense has never been a priority until CG got here, and he has had to force it in. Teamwork is so important, hard to believe she does not see it.

[1972Shocker]

72Shocker, I have to admit I don't frequently agree with your views of the game - I guess we just come at it from different angles. So, please understand I just see it differently when I say I don't buy your statement about not expecting assists from Kiki. In Jane's theory, Kiki is our "go-to" player which would imply defenses key on her which would imply the opportunity to kick to the open player because you have attracted defenders happens to you more frequently than your teammates. In 21 games, Kiki has 22 assists. One time a game she can find an open teammate?

For comparison, I looked at Jill Martin (Drake) - 34, Jayme Sweere (So. Ill) - 61, Rebekah Parker (Evansville) - 75 and then quit looking because it seemed to make my point. With the attention Kiki draws, she should be challenging our guards in the assist category especially if everyone is to believe Jane's assessment that she has really good shooters.

I stand by my previous assessment that shots aren't being made because the passes aren't there to get off good shots. It is not a point of emphasis on this team.......passing is done in desparation (unless someone like Rice decides to change the mentality of the game). There was actually a WSU post in the Mo State game who passed out to a wide-open 3 point shooter and chose to give her a bounce pass???? Of course, by the time it got there, she was covered. No one between you and the other player and you bounce pass? And, on a team where bounce passing INTO the post is strictly forbidden.

It doesn't appear Jane values passing or assists or

teamwork; if she did her "stars" would showcase this quality.

I don't think we look at the game all that much different. I would love to see assists from all over the place. Perhaps I should have said I don't think Jane expects assists from those people. I love teams that have good ball movement and are totally unselfish. Not sure our kids are necessarily selfish, but perhaps certain elements of team play have not been "emphasized" enough by the coaching staff.

Even Kyrie Kinder does not have very many assists which surprised me when I looked at the stats.

Two of the best passes I have seen this year were no look post-to-post passes by Sam Smith that led to wide open layups. Unfortunately, we just don't see this very much. It is the exception to our normal style of play.

I did notice in the MSU game that Kiki did kick the ball out to wide open shooters a couple of times with positive results.

Because of the way we play, opposing defenses will collapse on Kiki so she should have more than a few opporutnities for kick outs. Furhermore, Kiki is athletic enough to penetrate and dish out. As you say it just has not happened enough and you have to conclude that

[ballerfan]

Let's hope Whitney's legs as well as the rest of the bench's legs are ready to play! :clap:

[Snapshot9]

Jane needs to go, any first year coach knows teamwork = success, let alone one that has coached as long as her. I can recognize problems with a team playing within about 10 seconds, so what does that say for a professional coach that can not correct the team's mistakes when she sees them everyday.

Before I mentioned that she is a mediorce coach, I might have to downgrade that to the 'poor' category. These are pretty smart women that have played basketball since they were girls, I doubt that they have much of a problem
'catching on', they are obviously very poorly coached.

Basketball is not Rocket Science, and some of you make excuses for Jane, who has not got it done, or at least having up pointed up in 5 years.

She needs to go, plain and simple.

Schaus, when you make a mistake, you usually have to pay for it, so pay her off, and lets get someone that can do the job.

[dregn]

Out of curiosity, of all those who want jane canned how many:

A. Went to WBB games before Jane or when she started and don't anymore?
B. Still support womens basketball by going to the games?
C. Would start going to games again if Jane was gone regardless of how they did?
D. Would only go to games if they were winning at some point in the future no matter who the coach was?

Just curious in general if it really matters $ wise what JS does with the program. Even the years that WSU went to the NITs the attendence wasn't that much better then it is now except when we played MSU.

[SubGod22]

The only reason I've attended any games the past few years is because I know one of the girls. Otherwise, it probably wouldn't be worth my time and effort. It's not all about winning, but the lack of competing is what kills me. The men are losing, but with a few exceptions they've worked hard and competed. At this point I think Jane has showed that she CAN'T get it done here. Again, I like her as a person, but you get paid to win, or at least compete. The talent on the team is better than what we're seeing. Maybe not good enough to win the Valley, but good enough to compete and not get beat by 30 every other game.

I do know a number of people who were season ticket holders up until a few years ago. They will not return until Jane is gone. And they've been season ticket holders for mens and womens basketball for around 30 years.

[1972Shocker]

Out of curiosity, of all those who want jane canned how many:

A. Went to WBB games before Jane or when she started and don't anymore?
B. Still support womens basketball by going to the games?
C. Would start going to games again if Jane was gone regardless of how they did?
D. Would only go to games if they were winning at some point in the future no matter who the coach was?

Just curious in general if it really matters $ wise what JS does with the program. Even the years that WSU went to the NITs the attendence wasn't that much better then it is now except when we played MSU.

A/B. I went to games before Jane and I still go to games and have had season tickets throughout Jane's tenure. That probably will end next year if Jane is retained.
C. If Jane is replaced as head coach I will probably renew my season tickets although I am anticipating another tough year next year in any case.
D. I would go to games as long as they the Ladies are competitive, playing hard, smart and an entertaining brand of basketball. One problem during Jane's tenure is that the basketball has been pretty ugly and the number of blowout losses excessive.

I have no idea how much difference a consistent winner, who is consistently in the hunt for MVC Championships and who is consistently in the post-season would make on attendance. We really have never had that. Darryl Smith did have the NIT teams in his first 2 years, both losing in the 1st round, but that was followed up by a losing season and then his last team collapsed amid team trumoil losing 11 of their last 13.

Right now I would say the discrepancy between announced attendance and actual attendance is as high as I have ever seen it. Eventually, that difference will narrow, and unless we see a major turnaround, it will be because of dwindling paid attendance.

I see the situation not totally unlike Volleyball. A program pretty much devoid of any winning tradition, No MVC Championships and only two post-season appearances and no post-season wins. There is a little more fan interest than VB had pre-Lamb, but there is no doubt the fan interest is declining rapidly at the present time. Look what has happend with the VB program under Coach Lamb. Repeat that kind of steady improvement and sustained excellence with the Women's BB program and I think you would see a significant improvement in support.

In any case, Jim Schaus has always said one of his primary goals is to maintain excellence throughout the athletic department and it is clear we are not yet achieving that in Women's basketball.

[molly jabali]

i think dregn's questions are fair...i have not been to a game in several years, but i was somewhat feqquent during both the hargrove and smith years.i think the right coach gets the town excited...look at volleyball, and what they draw. it can be done!

[SubGod22]

With the area talent and the way the womens game has developed I think attendance could be as good as VB if a good product is put on the floor. It'll take a little time to get it there but it can happen.