[CTcard]

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.

Those were:
In the 50s, Stanford was in the 9-team PCC
1955  7-5, 2nd 
1956  10-6, T-3rd
1959  10-6, T-3rd
Starting fall 1959 Stanford was in the 5 team AAWU
1962  8-4, 2nd
1963  7-5, T-1st
WSU joined the AAWU to form a 6 team league
1964  9-6, 2nd
1965  9-5, 2nd
1966  8-6, 3rd
Dallmar total conference record 132-160.
There were clearly some okay years there, but nothing rousing.

I think it is fair to say that over the entire course of Stanford history it has been fairly bad at basketball and fairly good at football. Football's entire historical conference record is 330-288-21. Basketball doesn't publish its version on the history section of the official site but looks to be sub-0.500.

Stanford's overall basketball record is bad enough that Dawkins, going into this season, had the third highest winning percentage of all Stanford basketball coaches since 1927, behind Montgomery and Johnson. [Not sure when one should start counting. In the 1920s and earlier there were lots of 1-2 year coaches that seemed to do the job on the side. The one that 1927 cuts off, Andy Kerr, coached for four seasons with a 0.700 overall winning percentage so perhaps should be included to make Dawkins fourth.]
http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=209659897


There have certainly been deviations in both cases. For basketball the up times were mainly under Montgomery and a couple of short spells of okay (the best of Dallmar, the mid-30 to early 40s under Bunn and Dean, and the hard to assess tenure of Johnson). For football, there's been a few brutal downturns: Curtice, Wiggin-Elway, Buddy-Wlat.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing inherent in the basketball struggles - just not a good program. I have never seen a convincing argument that there is anything inherent in the nature of basketball and Stanford that dooms the team. I think the right guy could build a power at Stanford, but it is incredibly hard to find (luck into) that right guy.

[CTcard]

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.

Those were:
In the 50s, Stanford was in the 9-team PCC
1955  7-5, 2nd 
1956  10-6, T-3rd
1959  10-6, T-3rd
Starting fall 1959 Stanford was in the 5 team AAWU
1962  8-4, 2nd
1963  7-5, T-1st
WSU joined the AAWU to form a 6 team league
1964  9-6, 2nd
1965  9-5, 2nd
1966  8-6, 3rd
Dallmar total conference record 132-160.
There were clearly some okay years there, but nothing rousing.

I think it is fair to say that over the entire course of Stanford history it has been fairly bad at basketball and fairly good at football. Football's entire historical conference record is 330-288-21. Basketball doesn't publish its version on the history section of the official site but looks to be sub-0.500.

Stanford's overall basketball record is bad enough that Dawkins, going into this season, had the third highest winning percentage of all Stanford basketball coaches since 1927, behind Montgomery and Johnson. [Not sure when one should start counting. In the 1920s and earlier there were lots of 1-2 year coaches that seemed to do the job on the side. The one that 1927 cuts off, Andy Kerr, coached for four seasons with a 0.700 overall winning percentage so perhaps should be included to make Dawkins fourth.]
http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=209659897


There have certainly been deviations in both cases. For basketball the up times were mainly under Montgomery and a couple of short spells of okay (the best of Dallmar, the mid-30 to early 40s under Bunn and Dean, and the hard to assess tenure of Johnson). For football, there's been a few brutal downturns: Curtice, Wiggin-Elway, Buddy-Wlat.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing inherent in the basketball struggles - just not a good program. I have never seen a convincing argument that there is anything inherent in the nature of basketball and Stanford that dooms the team. I think the right guy could build a power at Stanford, but it is incredibly hard to find (luck into) that right guy.

[CTcard]

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.

Those were:
In the 50s, Stanford was in the 9-team PCC
1955  7-5, 2nd 
1956  10-6, T-3rd
1959  10-6, T-3rd
Starting fall 1959 Stanford was in the 5 team AAWU
1962  8-4, 2nd
1963  7-5, T-1st
WSU joined the AAWU to form a 6 team league
1964  9-6, 2nd
1965  9-5, 2nd
1966  8-6, 3rd
Dallmar total conference record 132-160.
There were clearly some okay years there, but nothing rousing.

I think it is fair to say that over the entire course of Stanford history it has been fairly bad at basketball and fairly good at football. Football's entire historical conference record is 330-288-21. Basketball doesn't publish its version on the history section of the official site but looks to be sub-0.500.

Stanford's overall basketball record is bad enough that Dawkins, going into this season, had the third highest winning percentage of all Stanford basketball coaches since 1927, behind Montgomery and Johnson. [Not sure when one should start counting. In the 1920s and earlier there were lots of 1-2 year coaches that seemed to do the job on the side. The one that 1927 cuts off, Andy Kerr, coached for four seasons with a 0.700 overall winning percentage so perhaps should be included to make Dawkins fourth.]
http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=209659897


There have certainly been deviations in both cases. For basketball the up times were mainly under Montgomery and a couple of short spells of okay (the best of Dallmar, the mid-30 to early 40s under Bunn and Dean, and the hard to assess tenure of Johnson). For football, there's been a few brutal downturns: Curtice, Wiggin-Elway, Buddy-Wlat.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing inherent in the basketball struggles - just not a good program. I have never seen a convincing argument that there is anything inherent in the nature of basketball and Stanford that dooms the team. I think the right guy could build a power at Stanford, but it is incredibly hard to find (luck into) that right guy.

[CTcard]

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.

Those were:
In the 50s, Stanford was in the 9-team PCC
1955  7-5, 2nd 
1956  10-6, T-3rd
1959  10-6, T-3rd
Starting fall 1959 Stanford was in the 5 team AAWU
1962  8-4, 2nd
1963  7-5, T-1st
WSU joined the AAWU to form a 6 team league
1964  9-6, 2nd
1965  9-5, 2nd
1966  8-6, 3rd
Dallmar total conference record 132-160.
There were clearly some okay years there, but nothing rousing.

I think it is fair to say that over the entire course of Stanford history it has been fairly bad at basketball and fairly good at football. Football's entire historical conference record is 330-288-21. Basketball doesn't publish its version on the history section of the official site but looks to be sub-0.500.

Stanford's overall basketball record is bad enough that Dawkins, going into this season, had the third highest winning percentage of all Stanford basketball coaches since 1927, behind Montgomery and Johnson. [Not sure when one should start counting. In the 1920s and earlier there were lots of 1-2 year coaches that seemed to do the job on the side. The one that 1927 cuts off, Andy Kerr, coached for four seasons with a 0.700 overall winning percentage so perhaps should be included to make Dawkins fourth.]
http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=209659897


There have certainly been deviations in both cases. For basketball the up times were mainly under Montgomery and a couple of short spells of okay (the best of Dallmar, the mid-30 to early 40s under Bunn and Dean, and the hard to assess tenure of Johnson). For football, there's been a few brutal downturns: Curtice, Wiggin-Elway, Buddy-Wlat.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing inherent in the basketball struggles - just not a good program. I have never seen a convincing argument that there is anything inherent in the nature of basketball and Stanford that dooms the team. I think the right guy could build a power at Stanford, but it is incredibly hard to find (luck into) that right guy.

[washingtonismoney]

Wilner's take on the situation is pretty good: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...asketball/

If the numbers he's hearing are accurate -- that Stanford is making $2MM/year less on ticket revenue compared to the tail end of the Johnson/Lopez teams -- then it becomes all the more befuddling Muir (seemingly) won't pull the trigger on this guy.

[washingtonismoney]

Wilner's take on the situation is pretty good: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...asketball/

If the numbers he's hearing are accurate -- that Stanford is making $2MM/year less on ticket revenue compared to the tail end of the Johnson/Lopez teams -- then it becomes all the more befuddling Muir (seemingly) won't pull the trigger on this guy.

[washingtonismoney]

Wilner's take on the situation is pretty good: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...asketball/

If the numbers he's hearing are accurate -- that Stanford is making $2MM/year less on ticket revenue compared to the tail end of the Johnson/Lopez teams -- then it becomes all the more befuddling Muir (seemingly) won't pull the trigger on this guy.

[washingtonismoney]

Wilner's take on the situation is pretty good: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...asketball/

If the numbers he's hearing are accurate -- that Stanford is making $2MM/year less on ticket revenue compared to the tail end of the Johnson/Lopez teams -- then it becomes all the more befuddling Muir (seemingly) won't pull the trigger on this guy.

[BostonCard]

You beat me to it... I thought the article was good enough to deserve its own thread.

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=14723.0

BC

[BostonCard]

You beat me to it... I thought the article was good enough to deserve its own thread.

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=14723.0

BC

[BostonCard]

You beat me to it... I thought the article was good enough to deserve its own thread.

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=14723.0

BC

[BostonCard]

You beat me to it... I thought the article was good enough to deserve its own thread.

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=14723.0

BC

[Treebound]

Garvin and CT, thanks for the context on Dallmar.    With UCLA being so dominate over that period, it makes me wonder how we would have performed in the tourney had we gone as the second place team in the West.  My guess (biased though it may be) is that we would have done well in a smaller tourney.  I'm surprised that once UCLA exerted its dominance, more west coast team were not invited.    Was it the case, like water polo today, that the better teams were out west? 

Enough of my pondering...Time for Muir to act.  It's a pity he wasn't at the Tourney to witness the epic fail.

[Treebound]

Garvin and CT, thanks for the context on Dallmar.    With UCLA being so dominate over that period, it makes me wonder how we would have performed in the tourney had we gone as the second place team in the West.  My guess (biased though it may be) is that we would have done well in a smaller tourney.  I'm surprised that once UCLA exerted its dominance, more west coast team were not invited.    Was it the case, like water polo today, that the better teams were out west? 

Enough of my pondering...Time for Muir to act.  It's a pity he wasn't at the Tourney to witness the epic fail.

[Treebound]

Garvin and CT, thanks for the context on Dallmar.    With UCLA being so dominate over that period, it makes me wonder how we would have performed in the tourney had we gone as the second place team in the West.  My guess (biased though it may be) is that we would have done well in a smaller tourney.  I'm surprised that once UCLA exerted its dominance, more west coast team were not invited.    Was it the case, like water polo today, that the better teams were out west? 

Enough of my pondering...Time for Muir to act.  It's a pity he wasn't at the Tourney to witness the epic fail.

[Treebound]

Garvin and CT, thanks for the context on Dallmar.    With UCLA being so dominate over that period, it makes me wonder how we would have performed in the tourney had we gone as the second place team in the West.  My guess (biased though it may be) is that we would have done well in a smaller tourney.  I'm surprised that once UCLA exerted its dominance, more west coast team were not invited.    Was it the case, like water polo today, that the better teams were out west? 

Enough of my pondering...Time for Muir to act.  It's a pity he wasn't at the Tourney to witness the epic fail.

[winflop]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14714.msg158269#msg158269 date=1457591507]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=14714.msg158255#msg158255 date=1457584539]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14714.msg158240#msg158240 date=1457573665]
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.

[/quote]

I'm not planning on getting anywhere near this thread as a general matter, since I've learned not to get between Trump and his supporters or Dawkins and his detractors.  But I found your comment on one-and-dones puzzling.  I think the argument is that Stanford won't take one-and-dones [and, conversely, one-and-dones aren't likely to do what's necessary to meet admissions requirements], so our recruiting pool is necessarily more limited than other schools, particularly with respect to the most talented players coming out of high school.  Thus, for example, K.al has access to an Ivan Rabb or a Jaylen Brown, but Stanford doesn't.  Sure, K.al might be even better in 2-3 years if Rabb and Brown stick around than it will be if they don't (unless they get replaced by some new, talented one-and-dones), but it seems clear that K.al is DEFINITELY better this year than it would have been without them.  One and dones, as a general matter, are higher quality players than those in the "4-year pool."  Thus, any school that is capable of regularly [or even only occasionally] getting a player from the "one-and-done" pool to supplement its "4-year pool" players should, all other things being equal, be better off than those schools who can't get them.  Seems logical and not particularly convoluted to me, but maybe I'm missing your point.
[/quote]

You're making a different comparison than winflop is.  You're arguing that Stanford would have a better basketball team (on average) if it could recruit the one-and-dones.  That's entirely correct, but it's not the relevant comparison (or perhaps a better way to put it is that it's only half of the relevant comparison).

The comparison winflop is making -- which is the relevant comparison -- is whether having the very, very best players play only one year helps or hurts Stanford relative to other teams.  That changes two things: it makes Stanford unable to recruit those players, and it means those players spend much less time in college.  The first of those hurts Stanford, but the second hurts other teams a lot more.  Very few (if any) of those players would have played for Stanford anyway (how many players did we get during the Montgomery era who would have been one-and-dones today?), so being unable to get them hurts Stanford very little.  And having those players stay for only one year hurts the teams that get them a lot (20 years ago, recruiting one of those guys might mean they'd have an elite player for 3 years, and now it means they only get him for 1 year).
[/quote]

I'd argue that there isn't a SINGLE one-and-done player who could have been admitted to Stanford.  If you're not even interested in getting a college education, you won't have the credentials to get admitted.

[winflop]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14714.msg158269#msg158269 date=1457591507]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=14714.msg158255#msg158255 date=1457584539]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14714.msg158240#msg158240 date=1457573665]
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.

[/quote]

I'm not planning on getting anywhere near this thread as a general matter, since I've learned not to get between Trump and his supporters or Dawkins and his detractors.  But I found your comment on one-and-dones puzzling.  I think the argument is that Stanford won't take one-and-dones [and, conversely, one-and-dones aren't likely to do what's necessary to meet admissions requirements], so our recruiting pool is necessarily more limited than other schools, particularly with respect to the most talented players coming out of high school.  Thus, for example, K.al has access to an Ivan Rabb or a Jaylen Brown, but Stanford doesn't.  Sure, K.al might be even better in 2-3 years if Rabb and Brown stick around than it will be if they don't (unless they get replaced by some new, talented one-and-dones), but it seems clear that K.al is DEFINITELY better this year than it would have been without them.  One and dones, as a general matter, are higher quality players than those in the "4-year pool."  Thus, any school that is capable of regularly [or even only occasionally] getting a player from the "one-and-done" pool to supplement its "4-year pool" players should, all other things being equal, be better off than those schools who can't get them.  Seems logical and not particularly convoluted to me, but maybe I'm missing your point.
[/quote]

You're making a different comparison than winflop is.  You're arguing that Stanford would have a better basketball team (on average) if it could recruit the one-and-dones.  That's entirely correct, but it's not the relevant comparison (or perhaps a better way to put it is that it's only half of the relevant comparison).

The comparison winflop is making -- which is the relevant comparison -- is whether having the very, very best players play only one year helps or hurts Stanford relative to other teams.  That changes two things: it makes Stanford unable to recruit those players, and it means those players spend much less time in college.  The first of those hurts Stanford, but the second hurts other teams a lot more.  Very few (if any) of those players would have played for Stanford anyway (how many players did we get during the Montgomery era who would have been one-and-dones today?), so being unable to get them hurts Stanford very little.  And having those players stay for only one year hurts the teams that get them a lot (20 years ago, recruiting one of those guys might mean they'd have an elite player for 3 years, and now it means they only get him for 1 year).
[/quote]

I'd argue that there isn't a SINGLE one-and-done player who could have been admitted to Stanford.  If you're not even interested in getting a college education, you won't have the credentials to get admitted.

[winflop]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14714.msg158269#msg158269 date=1457591507]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=14714.msg158255#msg158255 date=1457584539]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14714.msg158240#msg158240 date=1457573665]
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.

[/quote]

I'm not planning on getting anywhere near this thread as a general matter, since I've learned not to get between Trump and his supporters or Dawkins and his detractors.  But I found your comment on one-and-dones puzzling.  I think the argument is that Stanford won't take one-and-dones [and, conversely, one-and-dones aren't likely to do what's necessary to meet admissions requirements], so our recruiting pool is necessarily more limited than other schools, particularly with respect to the most talented players coming out of high school.  Thus, for example, K.al has access to an Ivan Rabb or a Jaylen Brown, but Stanford doesn't.  Sure, K.al might be even better in 2-3 years if Rabb and Brown stick around than it will be if they don't (unless they get replaced by some new, talented one-and-dones), but it seems clear that K.al is DEFINITELY better this year than it would have been without them.  One and dones, as a general matter, are higher quality players than those in the "4-year pool."  Thus, any school that is capable of regularly [or even only occasionally] getting a player from the "one-and-done" pool to supplement its "4-year pool" players should, all other things being equal, be better off than those schools who can't get them.  Seems logical and not particularly convoluted to me, but maybe I'm missing your point.
[/quote]

You're making a different comparison than winflop is.  You're arguing that Stanford would have a better basketball team (on average) if it could recruit the one-and-dones.  That's entirely correct, but it's not the relevant comparison (or perhaps a better way to put it is that it's only half of the relevant comparison).

The comparison winflop is making -- which is the relevant comparison -- is whether having the very, very best players play only one year helps or hurts Stanford relative to other teams.  That changes two things: it makes Stanford unable to recruit those players, and it means those players spend much less time in college.  The first of those hurts Stanford, but the second hurts other teams a lot more.  Very few (if any) of those players would have played for Stanford anyway (how many players did we get during the Montgomery era who would have been one-and-dones today?), so being unable to get them hurts Stanford very little.  And having those players stay for only one year hurts the teams that get them a lot (20 years ago, recruiting one of those guys might mean they'd have an elite player for 3 years, and now it means they only get him for 1 year).
[/quote]

I'd argue that there isn't a SINGLE one-and-done player who could have been admitted to Stanford.  If you're not even interested in getting a college education, you won't have the credentials to get admitted.

[winflop]

[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14714.msg158269#msg158269 date=1457591507]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=14714.msg158255#msg158255 date=1457584539]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14714.msg158240#msg158240 date=1457573665]
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.

[/quote]

I'm not planning on getting anywhere near this thread as a general matter, since I've learned not to get between Trump and his supporters or Dawkins and his detractors.  But I found your comment on one-and-dones puzzling.  I think the argument is that Stanford won't take one-and-dones [and, conversely, one-and-dones aren't likely to do what's necessary to meet admissions requirements], so our recruiting pool is necessarily more limited than other schools, particularly with respect to the most talented players coming out of high school.  Thus, for example, K.al has access to an Ivan Rabb or a Jaylen Brown, but Stanford doesn't.  Sure, K.al might be even better in 2-3 years if Rabb and Brown stick around than it will be if they don't (unless they get replaced by some new, talented one-and-dones), but it seems clear that K.al is DEFINITELY better this year than it would have been without them.  One and dones, as a general matter, are higher quality players than those in the "4-year pool."  Thus, any school that is capable of regularly [or even only occasionally] getting a player from the "one-and-done" pool to supplement its "4-year pool" players should, all other things being equal, be better off than those schools who can't get them.  Seems logical and not particularly convoluted to me, but maybe I'm missing your point.
[/quote]

You're making a different comparison than winflop is.  You're arguing that Stanford would have a better basketball team (on average) if it could recruit the one-and-dones.  That's entirely correct, but it's not the relevant comparison (or perhaps a better way to put it is that it's only half of the relevant comparison).

The comparison winflop is making -- which is the relevant comparison -- is whether having the very, very best players play only one year helps or hurts Stanford relative to other teams.  That changes two things: it makes Stanford unable to recruit those players, and it means those players spend much less time in college.  The first of those hurts Stanford, but the second hurts other teams a lot more.  Very few (if any) of those players would have played for Stanford anyway (how many players did we get during the Montgomery era who would have been one-and-dones today?), so being unable to get them hurts Stanford very little.  And having those players stay for only one year hurts the teams that get them a lot (20 years ago, recruiting one of those guys might mean they'd have an elite player for 3 years, and now it means they only get him for 1 year).
[/quote]

I'd argue that there isn't a SINGLE one-and-done player who could have been admitted to Stanford.  If you're not even interested in getting a college education, you won't have the credentials to get admitted.

[winflop]

[quote author=Treebound link=topic=14714.msg158309#msg158309 date=1457641805]
[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.
[/quote]

I'd argue that it's harder to maximize the raw talent on the roster by getting them to play as a team than it is to recruit talented individuals, especially today.  Stanford sells itself pretty well to any kid who can get admitted.  Look no further than the 3- and 4-star recruits who continue to sign LOIs in spite of Dawkins' track record of mediocrity.

What makes a great coach is the ability to get the maximum out of your players, no matter what their talent level.  I can think of no better example than Mark Madsen.  I remember watching him play as a freshman.  He wasn't close to the most talented player on the floor, even at his position sometimes.  But Monty got him to play as well as he could possibly play, and in the context of a team where the players were on the same page.  That's how they got to the Final Four and gave the eventual champion it's toughest game of the year (according to Tubby Smith at the time).

[winflop]

[quote author=Treebound link=topic=14714.msg158309#msg158309 date=1457641805]
[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.
[/quote]

I'd argue that it's harder to maximize the raw talent on the roster by getting them to play as a team than it is to recruit talented individuals, especially today.  Stanford sells itself pretty well to any kid who can get admitted.  Look no further than the 3- and 4-star recruits who continue to sign LOIs in spite of Dawkins' track record of mediocrity.

What makes a great coach is the ability to get the maximum out of your players, no matter what their talent level.  I can think of no better example than Mark Madsen.  I remember watching him play as a freshman.  He wasn't close to the most talented player on the floor, even at his position sometimes.  But Monty got him to play as well as he could possibly play, and in the context of a team where the players were on the same page.  That's how they got to the Final Four and gave the eventual champion it's toughest game of the year (according to Tubby Smith at the time).

[winflop]

[quote author=Treebound link=topic=14714.msg158309#msg158309 date=1457641805]
[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.
[/quote]

I'd argue that it's harder to maximize the raw talent on the roster by getting them to play as a team than it is to recruit talented individuals, especially today.  Stanford sells itself pretty well to any kid who can get admitted.  Look no further than the 3- and 4-star recruits who continue to sign LOIs in spite of Dawkins' track record of mediocrity.

What makes a great coach is the ability to get the maximum out of your players, no matter what their talent level.  I can think of no better example than Mark Madsen.  I remember watching him play as a freshman.  He wasn't close to the most talented player on the floor, even at his position sometimes.  But Monty got him to play as well as he could possibly play, and in the context of a team where the players were on the same page.  That's how they got to the Final Four and gave the eventual champion it's toughest game of the year (according to Tubby Smith at the time).

[winflop]

[quote author=Treebound link=topic=14714.msg158309#msg158309 date=1457641805]
[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.
[/quote]

I'd argue that it's harder to maximize the raw talent on the roster by getting them to play as a team than it is to recruit talented individuals, especially today.  Stanford sells itself pretty well to any kid who can get admitted.  Look no further than the 3- and 4-star recruits who continue to sign LOIs in spite of Dawkins' track record of mediocrity.

What makes a great coach is the ability to get the maximum out of your players, no matter what their talent level.  I can think of no better example than Mark Madsen.  I remember watching him play as a freshman.  He wasn't close to the most talented player on the floor, even at his position sometimes.  But Monty got him to play as well as he could possibly play, and in the context of a team where the players were on the same page.  That's how they got to the Final Four and gave the eventual champion it's toughest game of the year (according to Tubby Smith at the time).