Or is it a matter of circumstances?

I've argued this before, but I'll point out again that some of the things she said might have been misinterpreted based on what she was talking about regarding circumstances.

The smaller rosters she started out with came about due to a lot of transfers out earlier. When she would say that she wasn't going to get many more players, was that because she wanted the smaller roster or was she saying that she didn't want to grab just anyone to fill up the roster? I know people like to talk about just being able to have bodies to put on the court, but if that player isn't at the level of the rest of the team, is that really that helpful? How many times have we seen players put in and the team performance goes way down while they're out there because the opponent can exploit that weakness?

I remember reading a year or so ago that Ivey said that she wanted to have a roster of about 12 players (which is typical). While some might point to the smaller recruiting classes, that might be a case of her trying to learn the delicate balance in recruiting (which even experienced head coaches can have trouble with). Do you concentrate more on the elite players, but risk them going somewhere else or do you go for the great (but not elite) players and risk missing out on an elite player who actually would have come? To mix metaphors, do you swing for the fences or do you go with the bird in the hand?

I think Ivey's strength as a recruiter might make her prone to taking a lot more risks as far as committing to the elite players at the expense of getting good/great players who could capably fill the roster. It's a bit of a tightrope act to get the proper balance.

Edit: I just wanted to add that maybe the Transfer Portal option might play a part in taking risks as well, since she can use that as a backup in case she misses out on the elite recruits.

- Yes, I've seen that quote about 12 players and I was usually the one arguing for 13. But this was pre-portal and pre-Covid, the double-headed monster that has made for swirling eddies in roster management.

- However, I've also heard/read her say she likes to have a tight(er) roster in which everyone plays. Coulda been a press conference or a podcast, but I know I heard it.

- It's her perogative to change her mind...she's a head coach.

- I completely agree that Niele's mission to get the best players that are right for her team is very much a high-wire act and sometimes that player is at the "in" gate by herself (see KK Bransford and Kate Koval). Weirdly, the transfer portal has often helped bail her out. Let's hope it does this spring.

- However, I've got to hope she nails a lot of the '25 and '26 targets to keep the roster at a decent size. However, with Niele, she decides if the quality will continue to outdo the quantity, whether it be 10 or 12.

Roster size as USC's Roster size of 14 for the 2022-23 season made it possible for them to field a team that won the 2024 WBB Tournament. I also remember a comment that Staley made about Roster sizes and she said when the NCAA allows you 15 Scholarship Athletes for Womens Basketball why not take full advantage of that and uplift more Women.

Many coaches can get their preferred number of players, whether it be 10 or 12 or 14/15.

Then, they'd see how it all shakes out in practice, individually and/or collectively. From that they'd play certain numbers of them in the out-of-conference schedule and use that to whittle down to a certain number in crunch games/times.

To paraphrase, Carly Simon, "..that's the way I always heard it should be."

In the days of the portal, doing this is the anti-retention tool: kids want to play (for a variety of reasons - AAU exceptionalism, pro projections, NIL). If they don't, out of here.

Dawn finds she has a certain amount of good players and sticks to playing them -- the whole dang season. And while she has a few key pieces, different players led the team at different times. Her step-change -- keep playing all the good ones -- was the key.

Now, she was blessed with good health last year, too; something Niele and Geno were not. But if you're aiming to get nothing but top-shelf players, why not use them? It helps all concerned.

This coming season may be our best chance to win it all, because after next year we will be losing a number of great players.

I can see Niele selling the notion now of "come join us and win a championship!"

She could point to the South Carolina model of playing a lot of players and how they sacrifice some playing time for the good of the team.

If Kiki or others are interested in that concept, then do whatever you can to grab them. Go Irish!

Go Irish!

I count King as a guard, putting her in that "big athletic guards that mix it up down low" category. She would be guard number 7 on the roster. We had 8 last year. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up picking up another Anna type combo guard just to make sure we have good depth. We do have 3 of our current 6 guards returning from season long injuries.

As for the forwards, I'm guessing that Niele is targeting a 5th year post to fill in for Kylee for one year without messing up the numbers moving forward. That most likely means Kiki or Weimar. There have been a lot of details on Beers and nothing has shown any sign of mutual interest.

Weimar and Karlen have both allegedly visited, so they are obvious candidates. Gardiner allegedly has recent Instagram follows that indicate interest, so she may still be in the mix. I've seen virtually nothing on Kiki, which makes me think we may be in the race still, given the typical lack of information coming out of our program. At this point, I'll probably be a bit disappointed if we don't land 2 of those 4.

Just to add some tea leaf reading that gives me some hope on Kiki, early speculation was focused on USC or UCLA. UCLA is pretty loaded at forward, so it likely doesn't make a ton of sense. There was a Skim Milkey post a week or so ago indicating news for USC, but nothing has materialized. I'm wondering if that was a Kiki visit that didn't result in an expected commitment. Add to that our mystery visitor from earlier this week and the general radio silence and I'm cautiously optimistic in our chances.

- Three?
- Iriafen?

Thanks for clarifying.

Is it coincidence or strategy (Strategery!!) that our roster is constituted in such a way that there are 2 5th years/seniors/juniors and sophs? Hopefully the incoming freshman class picks up one more body and it too can fall into the "two fer" category.

I hope the transfer portal is good to us not only in terms of adding some more great talent - here's to you KiKi and Liuta - but also some players who might be around for more than one year. It'll be a scary exodus of talent if we lose Maddy, Kylee, Soni and Liv all at the same time, which looks pretty certain.

1) It would be helpful for roster continuation if one of the incoming transfers would have more than one year of eligibility. As you noted, this will be that last year of Maddy, Soni and Kylee (and could be for Olivia).
A transfer like Timea Gardiner, for instance, has two years of eligibility.

2) The Class of 2025 is simply huge for Notre Dame WBB. It needs to make up for having one person in two of the last three classes. There will be fewer transfers next year as the covid extension expires.

Hence, HS recruiting will be paramount for virtually all positions, starting with forward (Leah Macy?). For a look at who the Irish are considering (at least those we know about), take a look at the Recruiting Report just above. It's been updated (and will be again, once the portal is completed.)