[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14714.msg158300#msg158300 date=1457632980]

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.

I agree that there is some luck and timing on new hires involved here, Cornfed.  The first part of the quote I posted makes me laugh (not at you).  Those of us here in the Monty years remember very similar points being made about football.  Monty had figured out how to position Stanford to the 10% of the hoops recruits that we could actually go after.  He was a very good X's and O's coach and his positioning of the program was resonating.  We started to get more elite players and started to win more.

Football fans lamented that Basketball was easier for Stanford as it required far fewer numbers of athletes and that just getting 1-2 good/great hoops players (Lichti, Collins Twins, Lopi) could make the difference.  I remember hearing that we would never get those kinds of needed numbers of athletes for football, so we were bound for mediocrity with an occasional bowl game.  Oh how far our hoops program has fallen!    We can win here with a talented coach that gets Stanford (think Shaw, Tara, Gould, etc..)
[/quote]

The logic suggests that assembling a highly competitive team should be far easier in basketball than in football, if for no other reason than fewer top players are needed.  And maybe it is.  There are many factors, I presume, leading to the success of a Montgomery or a Harbaugh.  Recruiting is only one of the primary ones.  Doing it at Stanford is much harder for coaches in both sports.  I just have come to believe that it takes a pretty unique individual to successfully coach football or basketball here.  It seems to me that in football we have had a history of impressive coaches who periodically attained acceptable levels of success.  In basketball it doesn't strike me that we have had as many "historic" names coaching our teams, and we have had far fewer periods of acceptable success and they weren't as long (w/ Montgomery being a notable exception). 

I know I can count on all of you to educate me on an appropriate understanding of this comparative history.

[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14714.msg158300#msg158300 date=1457632980]

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.

I agree that there is some luck and timing on new hires involved here, Cornfed.  The first part of the quote I posted makes me laugh (not at you).  Those of us here in the Monty years remember very similar points being made about football.  Monty had figured out how to position Stanford to the 10% of the hoops recruits that we could actually go after.  He was a very good X's and O's coach and his positioning of the program was resonating.  We started to get more elite players and started to win more.

Football fans lamented that Basketball was easier for Stanford as it required far fewer numbers of athletes and that just getting 1-2 good/great hoops players (Lichti, Collins Twins, Lopi) could make the difference.  I remember hearing that we would never get those kinds of needed numbers of athletes for football, so we were bound for mediocrity with an occasional bowl game.  Oh how far our hoops program has fallen!    We can win here with a talented coach that gets Stanford (think Shaw, Tara, Gould, etc..)
[/quote]

The logic suggests that assembling a highly competitive team should be far easier in basketball than in football, if for no other reason than fewer top players are needed.  And maybe it is.  There are many factors, I presume, leading to the success of a Montgomery or a Harbaugh.  Recruiting is only one of the primary ones.  Doing it at Stanford is much harder for coaches in both sports.  I just have come to believe that it takes a pretty unique individual to successfully coach football or basketball here.  It seems to me that in football we have had a history of impressive coaches who periodically attained acceptable levels of success.  In basketball it doesn't strike me that we have had as many "historic" names coaching our teams, and we have had far fewer periods of acceptable success and they weren't as long (w/ Montgomery being a notable exception). 

I know I can count on all of you to educate me on an appropriate understanding of this comparative history.