[CornFed]

And were we watching the same basketball team? Doctor Tom Davis was 58-59 overall at Stanford and 25-47 in conference play. The Dawkins Era at Stanford is practically Woodenesque in comparison to Davis' teams. About all that can be said for Davis is that he was an improvement over Richard DiBaiso.

I also take issue with this idea that Stanford has no winning basketball tradition outside the Mike Montgomery years. Hate Trent Johnson and label him an under-performer all you want, but it is flatly a lie to say that he did not win at Stanford: He was .625 both overall and in conference play and made the NCAA tournament in three of his four seasons (and the NIT the other).

Moreover, the first 13 seasons of Howie Dallmar's tenure were pretty successful, with the team finishing first, second or third in the conference eight times. (No post-season play, but the NCAA field was much, much smaller in those days and the conference didn't permit participation in the NIT.) It was only his final eight seasons, by which time Johnny Wooden had a death grip on the conference, that the team really slipped.

There were some good years before Dallmar, too, including a stretch in the late 1930s and early 1940s when we won the conference five out of seven seasons and of course won the NCAA tournament in 1942. Montgomery was clearly the best basketball coach in Stanford history, but it's ridiculous to say that outside his tenure we suffered 60 years of failure, or that history proves basketball can't be successful at Stanford.

Actually, you're right garvin, there were some pretty good basketball teams in the early years of Howie Dalmar's tenure.  And we did win the national championship in 1942, but that was outside the time span I referenced.  However, Dallmar's overall record was 8 games under .500 and his teams were an aggregate 28 games under .500 in conference.  He managed to tie for the conference title once, and never led the team to the post-season.  Maybe you call that success.

When Harbaugh arrived, the football team had been to eleven bowl games since 1971 and had played in the Rose Bowl within living memory (actually 2000) of his arrival.  There had been quite a few great seasons over time (nothing like what we've recently enjoyed), and there was no suggestion that we were doomed to mediocrity at best.  Harbaugh and Shaw are outliers in a successful program.  Montgomery was an outlier in a program that had not had success in a very long time.  That makes it an uncomfortable possibility that something about basketball is more difficult, not easier as 2006alum reasons, to succeed in the sport w/ the "Stanford model".

However reasonable that speculation might be, I am not one who has resigned himself to the futility of success in this area.  I do think that finding the right person to coach involves luck as much as analysis, as the experience w/ Dr. Tom demonstrated.  What would have happened if Jim Harbaugh did not have David Shaw on his staff when he arrived.  Even if his impact on the program had been the same, which I think is unlikely, he would have left and we would be stuck with someone as his replacement who did not have David Shaw's respect and familiarity with the Stanford mystique.  Some of that is just serendipity. 

[CornFed]

And were we watching the same basketball team? Doctor Tom Davis was 58-59 overall at Stanford and 25-47 in conference play. The Dawkins Era at Stanford is practically Woodenesque in comparison to Davis' teams. About all that can be said for Davis is that he was an improvement over Richard DiBaiso.

I also take issue with this idea that Stanford has no winning basketball tradition outside the Mike Montgomery years. Hate Trent Johnson and label him an under-performer all you want, but it is flatly a lie to say that he did not win at Stanford: He was .625 both overall and in conference play and made the NCAA tournament in three of his four seasons (and the NIT the other).

Moreover, the first 13 seasons of Howie Dallmar's tenure were pretty successful, with the team finishing first, second or third in the conference eight times. (No post-season play, but the NCAA field was much, much smaller in those days and the conference didn't permit participation in the NIT.) It was only his final eight seasons, by which time Johnny Wooden had a death grip on the conference, that the team really slipped.

There were some good years before Dallmar, too, including a stretch in the late 1930s and early 1940s when we won the conference five out of seven seasons and of course won the NCAA tournament in 1942. Montgomery was clearly the best basketball coach in Stanford history, but it's ridiculous to say that outside his tenure we suffered 60 years of failure, or that history proves basketball can't be successful at Stanford.

Actually, you're right garvin, there were some pretty good basketball teams in the early years of Howie Dalmar's tenure.  And we did win the national championship in 1942, but that was outside the time span I referenced.  However, Dallmar's overall record was 8 games under .500 and his teams were an aggregate 28 games under .500 in conference.  He managed to tie for the conference title once, and never led the team to the post-season.  Maybe you call that success.

When Harbaugh arrived, the football team had been to eleven bowl games since 1971 and had played in the Rose Bowl within living memory (actually 2000) of his arrival.  There had been quite a few great seasons over time (nothing like what we've recently enjoyed), and there was no suggestion that we were doomed to mediocrity at best.  Harbaugh and Shaw are outliers in a successful program.  Montgomery was an outlier in a program that had not had success in a very long time.  That makes it an uncomfortable possibility that something about basketball is more difficult, not easier as 2006alum reasons, to succeed in the sport w/ the "Stanford model".

However reasonable that speculation might be, I am not one who has resigned himself to the futility of success in this area.  I do think that finding the right person to coach involves luck as much as analysis, as the experience w/ Dr. Tom demonstrated.  What would have happened if Jim Harbaugh did not have David Shaw on his staff when he arrived.  Even if his impact on the program had been the same, which I think is unlikely, he would have left and we would be stuck with someone as his replacement who did not have David Shaw's respect and familiarity with the Stanford mystique.  Some of that is just serendipity.