The older we get, the better Monty is

The older we get, the better Monty is - 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: The older we get, the better Monty is (/thread-21617.html)

Pages: 1 2

The older we get, the better Monty is - gailtate - 02-26-2021

Rockin' pavilion. Signature badass basketball. Big time games and coverage. Championships. A Final Four. RELEVANCE.

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - BostonCard - 02-26-2021

Of course, I'm old enough to remember the complaining about Monty and how his teams kept fading in the NCAA tournament. So people got their wish, I guess; our teams no longer fade in the NCAA tournament.

BC

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - gailtate - 02-26-2021

(02-26-2021, 09:11 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Of course, I'm old enough to remember the complaining about Monty and how his teams kept fading in the NCAA tournament. So people got their wish, I guess; our teams no longer fade in the NCAA tournament.

BC

Gawd, how I love to start the day with a hearty guffawing belly-laugh! Thanks, BC.

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - Phogge - 02-26-2021

Well done BC.

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - winflop - 02-26-2021

(02-26-2021, 09:11 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Of course, I'm old enough to remember the complaining about Monty and how his teams kept fading in the NCAA tournament. So people got their wish, I guess; our teams no longer fade in the NCAA tournament.

BC

Well-played. Nothing we could have done to keep Monty from jumping to the NBA and 5-10x increase in pay. Good for him.

I'm not expecting Monty-level results, but there's a BIG gap between that and where Dawkins & now Haase are.

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - CTcard - 02-26-2021

(02-26-2021, 09:11 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Of course, I'm old enough to remember the complaining about Monty and how his teams kept fading in the NCAA tournament. So people got their wish, I guess; our teams no longer fade in the NCAA tournament.

BC

Well put, but there is another facet to comment upon, even if I cannot make quite such a nice quip on the matter.

Outside of the general fade in the tournament comments, the more specific complaints were 1) that Monty's teams were simply not athletic enough, and 2) Monty was far too regimented in his roles for players squashing the necessary individual flair necessary for key wins.

The current Stanford team, at times, is kind of opposite of those Monty teams. They're generally athletic, with fluid roles, a drive-based offense, and good on-ball defense but all coupled to poor shooting, careless ball handling, a tendency to lose track of opposing shooters (often through over-help), and some questionable FT shooting. They kind of remind me of some of the UCLA teams of the late 90s that could never quite understand how they kept losing to Stanford.

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - 81alum - 02-26-2021

Monty and Todd Lichti are reasons 1 and 2 why I became interested in watching basketball at all--I had zero interest in the sport before them. I have always been grateful to Monty for that. My interest in Tara and WBB came next. And for a few glorious years I enjoyed watching the men and the women. I will say that I have enjoyed a few men's games over the last several years. But I still await my fan-enthusiasm to blossom again for MBB.

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - newguy - 02-26-2021

it could always be worse........we could be stuck with Archie Miller, as the Hoosiers are.

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - BostonCard - 02-26-2021

(02-26-2021, 03:55 PM)CTcard Wrote: Well put, but there is another facet to comment upon, even if I cannot make quite such a nice quip on the matter.

Outside of the general fade in the tournament comments, the more specific complaints were 1) that Monty's teams were simply not athletic enough, and 2) Monty was far too regimented in his roles for players squashing the necessary individual flair necessary for key wins.

The current Stanford team, at times, is kind of opposite of those Monty teams. They're generally athletic, with fluid roles, a drive-based offense, and good on-ball defense but all coupled to poor shooting, careless ball handling, a tendency to lose track of opposing shooters (often through over-help), and some questionable FT shooting. They kind of remind me of some of the UCLA teams of the late 90s that could never quite understand how they kept losing to Stanford.

I think the two are somewhat linked, as the generally accepted view of Monty is that he got the most out of his teams in the regular season, but lacked the kind of athletic players that could put the team on their back to win. It was always a bit of a canard, I think, as we had plenty of players who were quite athletic.

In any case, my point was that given a choice between Monty, warts and all, and what we have now... would anyone not change in an instant?

BC

BC

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - JohnR34231 - 02-27-2021

(02-26-2021, 09:11 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Of course, I'm old enough to remember the complaining about Monty and how his teams kept fading in the NCAA tournament. So people got their wish, I guess; our teams no longer fade in the NCAA tournament.

BC

As I think we all realize, sports fans adjust their expectations so no matter how well their teams do, they feel they should have done better.
And it was a little frustrating the year we were ranked #1 in the nation and proceeded to lose in the second round of the tourney.

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - CTcard - 02-27-2021

(02-27-2021, 05:20 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: And it was a little frustrating the year we were ranked #1 in the nation and proceeded to lose in the second round of the tourney.

That would be 2004, losing to Alabama in the second round, and Monty left soon after that game for the Warriors.

It was perhaps the most frustrating loss of the Monty era. Stanford led by 13 with 7 minutes left, attempted an amazing 30 more shots than Bama, had 22 offensive rebounds, outrebounded Bama by 20, but lost on the back of 44 FT attempts by Bama (they made 34, Stanford had 11 attempts).

Approximately the same thing happened in 2000. Stanford had been ranked #1 during the season, but was merely #3 at the time they lost to UNC in the second round.

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - BobK - 02-27-2021

On the other hand playing great winning basketball with a full house of fans and a season ticket waiting list of 2,000
Those were the days.

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - JohnR34231 - 02-27-2021

(02-27-2021, 06:41 AM)CTcard Wrote:
(02-27-2021, 05:20 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: And it was a little frustrating the year we were ranked #1 in the nation and proceeded to lose in the second round of the tourney.

That would be 2004, losing to Alabama in the second round, and Monty left soon after that game for the Warriors.

It was perhaps the most frustrating loss of the Monty era. Stanford led by 13 with 7 minutes left, attempted an amazing 30 more shots than Bama, had 22 offensive rebounds, outrebounded Bama by 20, but lost on the back of 44 FT attempts by Bama (they made 34, Stanford had 11 attempts).

Approximately the same thing happened in 2000. Stanford had been ranked #1 during the season, but was merely #3 at the time they lost to UNC in the second round.

Yeah, I remember there was one diehard fan on the Cardboard who insisted that despite that loss, we were still the #1 team in the nation.
Whatever, guy.

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - Brickcity - 02-27-2021

(02-27-2021, 09:59 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:
(02-27-2021, 06:41 AM)CTcard Wrote:
(02-27-2021, 05:20 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: And it was a little frustrating the year we were ranked #1 in the nation and proceeded to lose in the second round of the tourney.

That would be 2004, losing to Alabama in the second round, and Monty left soon after that game for the Warriors.

It was perhaps the most frustrating loss of the Monty era. Stanford led by 13 with 7 minutes left, attempted an amazing 30 more shots than Bama, had 22 offensive rebounds, outrebounded Bama by 20, but lost on the back of 44 FT attempts by Bama (they made 34, Stanford had 11 attempts).

Approximately the same thing happened in 2000. Stanford had been ranked #1 during the season, but was merely #3 at the time they lost to UNC in the second round.

Yeah, I remember there was one diehard fan on the Cardboard who insisted that despite that loss, we were still the #1 team in the nation.
Whatever, guy.

That guy wasn't me. But, to this day I'd argue that Stanford was at worst the second best team in the country that year (with UConn being the other.) In a single-game elimination tournament, the best team doesn't always win. Doesn't help when the refs inexplicably put the other team on the line 44 times.

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - fullmetal - 02-27-2021

Alabama won by a score of 70-37. Of those seventy points, thirty-four came from the free throw line. Almost half their points were free throws!

Josh Childress, Rob Little, and Matt Haryasz had all fouled out by the game's end, with Childress's final two fouls (an "offensive foul" and holding) coming somewhere in the vicinity of the last five or so minutes...I think he finally sat down with three minutes and change left in the game.

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - JohnR34231 - 02-27-2021

(02-27-2021, 11:25 AM)Brickcity Wrote:
(02-27-2021, 09:59 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:
(02-27-2021, 06:41 AM)CTcard Wrote:
(02-27-2021, 05:20 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: And it was a little frustrating the year we were ranked #1 in the nation and proceeded to lose in the second round of the tourney.

That would be 2004, losing to Alabama in the second round, and Monty left soon after that game for the Warriors.

It was perhaps the most frustrating loss of the Monty era. Stanford led by 13 with 7 minutes left, attempted an amazing 30 more shots than Bama, had 22 offensive rebounds, outrebounded Bama by 20, but lost on the back of 44 FT attempts by Bama (they made 34, Stanford had 11 attempts).

Approximately the same thing happened in 2000. Stanford had been ranked #1 during the season, but was merely #3 at the time they lost to UNC in the second round.

Yeah, I remember there was one diehard fan on the Cardboard who insisted that despite that loss, we were still the #1 team in the nation.
Whatever, guy.

That guy wasn't me. But, to this day I'd argue that Stanford was at worst the second best team in the country that year (with UConn being the other.) In a single-game elimination tournament, the best team doesn't always win. Doesn't help when the refs inexplicably put the other team on the line 44 times.

Yeah, I recall debates on the Cardboard about just how you determine who the "best" team in college basketball is. I don't think a consensus was ever reached although I think most agreed that a single elimination tournament often didn't.
What I drew from the debates is that no matter what method you use, you will have people arguing that it doesn't select the "best" team.
It would be nice if we could get ourselves in a position again where someone could argue we were the best team in the country without looking like a total idiot.

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - baymeadows3408 - 02-27-2021

I have always been more interested in football than basketball, but there was nothing quite like Maples Pavilion during Stanford's modern golden age of basketball. The 6th Man Club and the LSJUMB created a din that was anything unlike you would experience in 90% of football games at Stanford Stadium.

In retrospect, the one-point loss to Kentucky in the 1998 national semifinal might be the most painful loss because we were SO CLOSE to winning it all. At the time, I was disappointed but still had a "happy just to have made it this far" gratitude. Oh, if only the possession arrow had been pointing the other way...

lex24 - lex24 - 02-28-2021

(02-27-2021, 05:20 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:
(02-26-2021, 09:11 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Of course, I'm old enough to remember the complaining about Monty and how his teams kept fading in the NCAA tournament. So people got their wish, I guess; our teams no longer fade in the NCAA tournament.

BC

As I think we all realize, sports fans adjust their expectations so no matter how well their teams do, they feel they should have done better.
And it was a little frustrating the year we were ranked #1 in the nation and proceeded to lose in the second round of the tourney.

Yes. Plus fans think they can coach. It’s easy from the couch.....

RE: lex24 - JohnR34231 - 02-28-2021

(02-28-2021, 08:58 AM)lex24 Wrote:
(02-27-2021, 05:20 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:
(02-26-2021, 09:11 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Of course, I'm old enough to remember the complaining about Monty and how his teams kept fading in the NCAA tournament. So people got their wish, I guess; our teams no longer fade in the NCAA tournament.

BC

As I think we all realize, sports fans adjust their expectations so no matter how well their teams do, they feel they should have done better.
And it was a little frustrating the year we were ranked #1 in the nation and proceeded to lose in the second round of the tourney.

Yes. Plus fans think they can coach. It’s easy from the couch.....

A number of years ago, I heard Ara Parseghian comment "There are two things everybody in this world knows how to do better than anyone else. One is build a fire, and the other is coach a fooball team."
Maybe we nead to add coach a basketball team to that list.

RE: The older we get, the better Monty is - BobK - 02-28-2021

Plus manage a baseball team