Washington 91, Stanford 68 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Washington 91, Stanford 68 (/thread-11694.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Washington 91, Stanford 68 (/thread-11694.html)
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - Leftcoast - 03-09-2016
I watched part of today's game and just don't know what to say. The current state of Stanford basketball saddens me. We're not getting beat by great teams - we just got pummeled by a mediocre team that is not even on the March Madness bubble and will struggle to make the NIT.
If you're under 30 then just trust us when we tell you it wasn't always this way.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - Leftcoast - 03-09-2016
I watched part of today's game and just don't know what to say. The current state of Stanford basketball saddens me. We're not getting beat by great teams - we just got pummeled by a mediocre team that is not even on the March Madness bubble and will struggle to make the NIT.
If you're under 30 then just trust us when we tell you it wasn't always this way.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - washingtonismoney - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 03:38 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:I watched part of today's game and just don't know what to say. The current state of Stanford basketball saddens me. We're not getting beat by great teams - we just got pummeled by a mediocre team that is not even on the March Madness bubble and will struggle to make the NIT.
If you're under 30 then just trust us when we tell you it wasn't always this way.
I dunno, people under 30 should probably be able to remember the Lopez years.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - washingtonismoney - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 03:38 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:I watched part of today's game and just don't know what to say. The current state of Stanford basketball saddens me. We're not getting beat by great teams - we just got pummeled by a mediocre team that is not even on the March Madness bubble and will struggle to make the NIT.
If you're under 30 then just trust us when we tell you it wasn't always this way.
I dunno, people under 30 should probably be able to remember the Lopez years.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - cctop - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 03:38 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:If you're under 30 then just trust us when we tell you it wasn't always this way.
And if you're over 50 then you know that is WAS always this way, then it wasn't for a little while, and now it is again.
Stanford:basketball::Washington:football
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - cctop - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 03:38 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:If you're under 30 then just trust us when we tell you it wasn't always this way.
And if you're over 50 then you know that is WAS always this way, then it wasn't for a little while, and now it is again.
Stanford:basketball::Washington:football
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - winflop - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 05:30 PM)cctop link Wrote:[quote author=leftcoast link=topic=14714.msg158216#msg158216 date=1457563133]
If you're under 30 then just trust us when we tell you it wasn't always this way.
And if you're over 50 then you know that is WAS always this way, then it wasn't for a little while, and now it is again.
Stanford:basketball::Washington:football
[/quote]
I'm not (quite) 50 and I remember the pre-Monty years, especially when Dr. Tom basically said that there was no way Stanford could EVER win in MBB as he was walking out the door.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - winflop - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 05:30 PM)cctop link Wrote:[quote author=leftcoast link=topic=14714.msg158216#msg158216 date=1457563133]
If you're under 30 then just trust us when we tell you it wasn't always this way.
And if you're over 50 then you know that is WAS always this way, then it wasn't for a little while, and now it is again.
Stanford:basketball::Washington:football
[/quote]
I'm not (quite) 50 and I remember the pre-Monty years, especially when Dr. Tom basically said that there was no way Stanford could EVER win in MBB as he was walking out the door.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - CornFed - 03-09-2016
Mike Montgomery's tenure was an outlier in the last six decades or more of Stanford MBB.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - CornFed - 03-09-2016
Mike Montgomery's tenure was an outlier in the last six decades or more of Stanford MBB.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - winflop - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 05:51 PM)CornFed link Wrote:Mike Montgomery's tenure was an outlier in the last six decades or more of Stanford MBB.
Well seeing as his tenure accounted for 33% of those 60 years it's hard to call it an outlier.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - winflop - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 05:51 PM)CornFed link Wrote:Mike Montgomery's tenure was an outlier in the last six decades or more of Stanford MBB.
Well seeing as his tenure accounted for 33% of those 60 years it's hard to call it an outlier.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - washingtonismoney - 03-09-2016
Well, that and considering Trent Johnson, who was a mediocre coach with a pretty good Stanford record.
So I'm intrigued why some people think Stanford men's basketball is so special. (As in, specially mediocre, and somehow inevitably so.) Stanford has successful teams in virtually every other sport.
Is it one-and-dones? Stanford obviously doesn't take those. But then again, only a few teams have regular, consistent access to these players. Even granting the premise that one-and-dones are necessary for elite success, that should still allow Stanford to be a top 15 program. And it's well-known that you can counteract one-and-done talent with superior cohesiveness or age. The AP poll features Villanova, Virginia, Xavier, Oklahoma, Oregon, and West Virginia in the top ten -- hardly magnets for one-and-done phenoms.
Is it talent, more generally? Dawkins has recruited many, many four-stars. Virtually every recruiting class people coo over the nice talent he's amassed. And Dawkins has sent a fair share of players on to the NBA as well. Anthony Brown and Dwight Powell are both rotation guys, to take two examples. So, during the Dawkins tenure, we see high school talent go in, and NBA talent come out. It's almost as if something happens in between that is substandard or unusual. Well, who knows. Stanford's doomed.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - washingtonismoney - 03-09-2016
Well, that and considering Trent Johnson, who was a mediocre coach with a pretty good Stanford record.
So I'm intrigued why some people think Stanford men's basketball is so special. (As in, specially mediocre, and somehow inevitably so.) Stanford has successful teams in virtually every other sport.
Is it one-and-dones? Stanford obviously doesn't take those. But then again, only a few teams have regular, consistent access to these players. Even granting the premise that one-and-dones are necessary for elite success, that should still allow Stanford to be a top 15 program. And it's well-known that you can counteract one-and-done talent with superior cohesiveness or age. The AP poll features Villanova, Virginia, Xavier, Oklahoma, Oregon, and West Virginia in the top ten -- hardly magnets for one-and-done phenoms.
Is it talent, more generally? Dawkins has recruited many, many four-stars. Virtually every recruiting class people coo over the nice talent he's amassed. And Dawkins has sent a fair share of players on to the NBA as well. Anthony Brown and Dwight Powell are both rotation guys, to take two examples. So, during the Dawkins tenure, we see high school talent go in, and NBA talent come out. It's almost as if something happens in between that is substandard or unusual. Well, who knows. Stanford's doomed.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - 2006alum - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 05:51 PM)CornFed link Wrote:Mike Montgomery's tenure was an outlier in the last six decades or more of Stanford MBB.
I just don't buy this argument of past failure is proof of future failure. Our football team is a perfect counter-example. By all accounts, Stanford should struggle MUCH more at football than basketball: it requires much larger teams, it requires acquiring many talented players instead of 1-2 standouts a year, and it is a sport that does not traditionally overlap much with academic prowess the way, say, tennis or golf might. And whereas we might be able to focus our attention in ensuring 1-2 basketball players a year make it through admissions, we simply have too many football targets to do that. Indeed, we probably have more football admissions casualties per year than we do plausible basketball recruits in toto.
Further, before Harbaugh, we had ONE, count it ONE, ten win season between 1941 and 2010. We went to ONE Rose Bowl between 1972 and 2011, in which we scored 9 total points, and lost. By all accounts, we had six decades of failure prior to Harbaugh, with a few highlights (Plunkett and Elway) thrown in the mix. Yet we now manage to recruit 15-25 gentlemen a year who are both top football recruits and also scholar-athletes. If we can do that, we can SURELY find 1-3 highly talented basketball players a year who understanding the value of the 40 year decision. I simply refuse to accept that we're inherently incapable of producing that, and I feel like Monty was our Harbaugh who disproved a long and largely desultory prior history.
And given that Fields, Brown, and Powell get regular minutes, and Heustis was also drafted in the first round, I don't even think with Dawkins we are unable to recruit talent. I just don't think we're very good at coaching or developing it. Indeed, when I was at Stanford between 2002-2006, our only NBA player was Josh Childress, and it's hard to argue he's had any more sustained success than our current NBA alums. I knew several of our players fairly well during that time period and I think it's safe to say Monty maximized their potential given their inherent limitations. Our early 2000s teams were much greater than the sum of their parts; the reverse is true now, and it's really painful to see.
Furthermore, whereas the Stanford of the 50s-60s-70s-80s was a good and eventually very good school, it was not drawing attention the same way Harvard and Yale were, so it wasn't an obvious sell on any metric. Today, Stanford has the lowest admissions rate, highest yield, and is consistently both parents' and students' #1 dream school. We should be very competitive for almost any athlete who also cares about academics and has the requisite credentials, and I simply don't understand how that can't be at least 5ish players a year in the top 100. At a minimum, however true it is for basketball, it would seem even more so for football, where we now have nearly a decade of sustained success.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - 2006alum - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 05:51 PM)CornFed link Wrote:Mike Montgomery's tenure was an outlier in the last six decades or more of Stanford MBB.
I just don't buy this argument of past failure is proof of future failure. Our football team is a perfect counter-example. By all accounts, Stanford should struggle MUCH more at football than basketball: it requires much larger teams, it requires acquiring many talented players instead of 1-2 standouts a year, and it is a sport that does not traditionally overlap much with academic prowess the way, say, tennis or golf might. And whereas we might be able to focus our attention in ensuring 1-2 basketball players a year make it through admissions, we simply have too many football targets to do that. Indeed, we probably have more football admissions casualties per year than we do plausible basketball recruits in toto.
Further, before Harbaugh, we had ONE, count it ONE, ten win season between 1941 and 2010. We went to ONE Rose Bowl between 1972 and 2011, in which we scored 9 total points, and lost. By all accounts, we had six decades of failure prior to Harbaugh, with a few highlights (Plunkett and Elway) thrown in the mix. Yet we now manage to recruit 15-25 gentlemen a year who are both top football recruits and also scholar-athletes. If we can do that, we can SURELY find 1-3 highly talented basketball players a year who understanding the value of the 40 year decision. I simply refuse to accept that we're inherently incapable of producing that, and I feel like Monty was our Harbaugh who disproved a long and largely desultory prior history.
And given that Fields, Brown, and Powell get regular minutes, and Heustis was also drafted in the first round, I don't even think with Dawkins we are unable to recruit talent. I just don't think we're very good at coaching or developing it. Indeed, when I was at Stanford between 2002-2006, our only NBA player was Josh Childress, and it's hard to argue he's had any more sustained success than our current NBA alums. I knew several of our players fairly well during that time period and I think it's safe to say Monty maximized their potential given their inherent limitations. Our early 2000s teams were much greater than the sum of their parts; the reverse is true now, and it's really painful to see.
Furthermore, whereas the Stanford of the 50s-60s-70s-80s was a good and eventually very good school, it was not drawing attention the same way Harvard and Yale were, so it wasn't an obvious sell on any metric. Today, Stanford has the lowest admissions rate, highest yield, and is consistently both parents' and students' #1 dream school. We should be very competitive for almost any athlete who also cares about academics and has the requisite credentials, and I simply don't understand how that can't be at least 5ish players a year in the top 100. At a minimum, however true it is for basketball, it would seem even more so for football, where we now have nearly a decade of sustained success.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - winflop - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 06:34 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:So I'm intrigued why some people think Stanford men's basketball is so special.
It's not "so special" but Monty demonstrated that you CAN be competitive in a major conference and at national level here.
(03-09-2016, 06:34 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Is it one-and-dones?
This is one of the most illogical and convoluted arguments I've ever heard, and when Muir tried to make it to me I told him he had to be kidding. Are you going to tell me that Arizona would have been tougher to beat if Sean Elliot, Mike Bibby, Damon Stoudamire, Gilbert Arenas, Chris Mills, Jason Terry, Andre Iguodola, Richard Jefferson, etc. etc. had only played one or two years? Oregon State better with one year of Gary Payton (Sr)? UCLA with one year of Reggie Miller or Don McLean? Give me a friggin break. Stanford's roster is not be materially impacted by one and dones but many of its competitors' are WEAKENED by it not strengthened. If anything, the era of one & dones should have made it EASIER for Stanford to be successful, not harder.
(03-09-2016, 06:34 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Stanford's doomed.
ONLY IF WE ALLOW IT TO BE. I encourage everyone on this board to email Muir and in a civil, respectful tone tell him how you feel about Johnny Dawkins without name-calling or swearing or using the word "fire" etc., etc. Be the good people you are on this board. He needs to hear a loud & clear message from the Stanford fanbase that this level of inconsistency and mediocrity is no longer acceptable, regardless of excuses that have been made for over half a decade now. It's time for a new direction while the program is still on life support.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - winflop - 03-09-2016
(03-09-2016, 06:34 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:So I'm intrigued why some people think Stanford men's basketball is so special.
It's not "so special" but Monty demonstrated that you CAN be competitive in a major conference and at national level here.
(03-09-2016, 06:34 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Is it one-and-dones?
This is one of the most illogical and convoluted arguments I've ever heard, and when Muir tried to make it to me I told him he had to be kidding. Are you going to tell me that Arizona would have been tougher to beat if Sean Elliot, Mike Bibby, Damon Stoudamire, Gilbert Arenas, Chris Mills, Jason Terry, Andre Iguodola, Richard Jefferson, etc. etc. had only played one or two years? Oregon State better with one year of Gary Payton (Sr)? UCLA with one year of Reggie Miller or Don McLean? Give me a friggin break. Stanford's roster is not be materially impacted by one and dones but many of its competitors' are WEAKENED by it not strengthened. If anything, the era of one & dones should have made it EASIER for Stanford to be successful, not harder.
(03-09-2016, 06:34 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Stanford's doomed.
ONLY IF WE ALLOW IT TO BE. I encourage everyone on this board to email Muir and in a civil, respectful tone tell him how you feel about Johnny Dawkins without name-calling or swearing or using the word "fire" etc., etc. Be the good people you are on this board. He needs to hear a loud & clear message from the Stanford fanbase that this level of inconsistency and mediocrity is no longer acceptable, regardless of excuses that have been made for over half a decade now. It's time for a new direction while the program is still on life support.
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - BobK - 03-09-2016
Just for the record under Monty there were 8 1st round picks.Â
Re: Washington 91, Stanford 68 - BobK - 03-09-2016
Just for the record under Monty there were 8 1st round picks.Â