[JohnR34231]

"Stanford football had had a wonderful array of successful seasons and glorious victories over the four decades prior to Harbaugh arriving.  When he did get to Stanford it was at probably the lowest point in the history of the program, or very nearly so.  When Montgomery arrived it was at a relatively high point.  Dr. Tom had gotten some excitement stirring and many people I knew were disappointed that he left and felt certain that his departure indicated that MBB at Stanford just couldn't compete effectively.  What Montgomery achieved was as great an accomplishment as Harbaugh, other that the fact that it was gradual and fairly steady and unfolded over 15 years in order to reach the perception of perennial power."

Were we watching the same football team? I'm all for accentuating the positive and I sometimes decry the Negative Nellies, but to describe pre-Harbaugh football as a "wonderful array of successful seasons" is really putting on the rose colored glasses. There were good years (1992, 1999 and 2001 immediately jump to mind) and there were lousy years (1983 and 1998 are good examples). There was a 10 year span (1981-1990) in which we had a grand total of one winning season.
Unless you are into revisionist history, a mixture of good and not so good is a much better description, at least IMO.

P.S. If you just want to pick out the successful seasons and call them a "wonderful array" I guess you can, but that certainly doesn't correctly describe the way things were.

[JohnR34231]

"Stanford football had had a wonderful array of successful seasons and glorious victories over the four decades prior to Harbaugh arriving.  When he did get to Stanford it was at probably the lowest point in the history of the program, or very nearly so.  When Montgomery arrived it was at a relatively high point.  Dr. Tom had gotten some excitement stirring and many people I knew were disappointed that he left and felt certain that his departure indicated that MBB at Stanford just couldn't compete effectively.  What Montgomery achieved was as great an accomplishment as Harbaugh, other that the fact that it was gradual and fairly steady and unfolded over 15 years in order to reach the perception of perennial power."

Were we watching the same football team? I'm all for accentuating the positive and I sometimes decry the Negative Nellies, but to describe pre-Harbaugh football as a "wonderful array of successful seasons" is really putting on the rose colored glasses. There were good years (1992, 1999 and 2001 immediately jump to mind) and there were lousy years (1983 and 1998 are good examples). There was a 10 year span (1981-1990) in which we had a grand total of one winning season.
Unless you are into revisionist history, a mixture of good and not so good is a much better description, at least IMO.

P.S. If you just want to pick out the successful seasons and call them a "wonderful array" I guess you can, but that certainly doesn't correctly describe the way things were.

[JohnR34231]

"Stanford football had had a wonderful array of successful seasons and glorious victories over the four decades prior to Harbaugh arriving.  When he did get to Stanford it was at probably the lowest point in the history of the program, or very nearly so.  When Montgomery arrived it was at a relatively high point.  Dr. Tom had gotten some excitement stirring and many people I knew were disappointed that he left and felt certain that his departure indicated that MBB at Stanford just couldn't compete effectively.  What Montgomery achieved was as great an accomplishment as Harbaugh, other that the fact that it was gradual and fairly steady and unfolded over 15 years in order to reach the perception of perennial power."

Were we watching the same football team? I'm all for accentuating the positive and I sometimes decry the Negative Nellies, but to describe pre-Harbaugh football as a "wonderful array of successful seasons" is really putting on the rose colored glasses. There were good years (1992, 1999 and 2001 immediately jump to mind) and there were lousy years (1983 and 1998 are good examples). There was a 10 year span (1981-1990) in which we had a grand total of one winning season.
Unless you are into revisionist history, a mixture of good and not so good is a much better description, at least IMO.

P.S. If you just want to pick out the successful seasons and call them a "wonderful array" I guess you can, but that certainly doesn't correctly describe the way things were.

[JohnR34231]

"Stanford football had had a wonderful array of successful seasons and glorious victories over the four decades prior to Harbaugh arriving.  When he did get to Stanford it was at probably the lowest point in the history of the program, or very nearly so.  When Montgomery arrived it was at a relatively high point.  Dr. Tom had gotten some excitement stirring and many people I knew were disappointed that he left and felt certain that his departure indicated that MBB at Stanford just couldn't compete effectively.  What Montgomery achieved was as great an accomplishment as Harbaugh, other that the fact that it was gradual and fairly steady and unfolded over 15 years in order to reach the perception of perennial power."

Were we watching the same football team? I'm all for accentuating the positive and I sometimes decry the Negative Nellies, but to describe pre-Harbaugh football as a "wonderful array of successful seasons" is really putting on the rose colored glasses. There were good years (1992, 1999 and 2001 immediately jump to mind) and there were lousy years (1983 and 1998 are good examples). There was a 10 year span (1981-1990) in which we had a grand total of one winning season.
Unless you are into revisionist history, a mixture of good and not so good is a much better description, at least IMO.

P.S. If you just want to pick out the successful seasons and call them a "wonderful array" I guess you can, but that certainly doesn't correctly describe the way things were.

[winflop]

I believe that it CAN be done MUCH better than the last eight years (because it has), and I do not believe that the one and dones has made it harder to achieve but rather has made it easier.  What I'm unsure about is whether Muir knows how to go out and find the head coach who CAN get it done.  The fact that he's retained one who clearly can't get it done for as long as he has concerns me.

[winflop]

I believe that it CAN be done MUCH better than the last eight years (because it has), and I do not believe that the one and dones has made it harder to achieve but rather has made it easier.  What I'm unsure about is whether Muir knows how to go out and find the head coach who CAN get it done.  The fact that he's retained one who clearly can't get it done for as long as he has concerns me.

[winflop]

I believe that it CAN be done MUCH better than the last eight years (because it has), and I do not believe that the one and dones has made it harder to achieve but rather has made it easier.  What I'm unsure about is whether Muir knows how to go out and find the head coach who CAN get it done.  The fact that he's retained one who clearly can't get it done for as long as he has concerns me.

[winflop]

I believe that it CAN be done MUCH better than the last eight years (because it has), and I do not believe that the one and dones has made it harder to achieve but rather has made it easier.  What I'm unsure about is whether Muir knows how to go out and find the head coach who CAN get it done.  The fact that he's retained one who clearly can't get it done for as long as he has concerns me.

[JohnR34231]

I believe that it CAN be done MUCH better than the last eight years (because it has), and I do not believe that the one and dones has made it harder to achieve but rather has made it easier.  What I'm unsure about is whether Muir knows how to go out and find the head coach who CAN get it done.  The fact that he's retained one who clearly can't get it done for as long as he has concerns me.

Like 76lsjumb says you don't get between Dawkins and his detractors on this board, but it would have been hard for Muir to fire Dawkins after he had just taken Stanford to the Sweet 16 or won the NIT. We'll see what happens this year.

Interesting that the Shawtagonists were saying the same thing in the winter of their discontent in 2014. Shaw was a lousy coach but they weren't sure they wanted him fired because Muir was even more incompetent and would probably get someone worse.

Speaking of not getting between Trump and his supporters, did anyone see the hatchet job they did on Rubio on TV last night? Truly disgusting.

[JohnR34231]

I believe that it CAN be done MUCH better than the last eight years (because it has), and I do not believe that the one and dones has made it harder to achieve but rather has made it easier.  What I'm unsure about is whether Muir knows how to go out and find the head coach who CAN get it done.  The fact that he's retained one who clearly can't get it done for as long as he has concerns me.

Like 76lsjumb says you don't get between Dawkins and his detractors on this board, but it would have been hard for Muir to fire Dawkins after he had just taken Stanford to the Sweet 16 or won the NIT. We'll see what happens this year.

Interesting that the Shawtagonists were saying the same thing in the winter of their discontent in 2014. Shaw was a lousy coach but they weren't sure they wanted him fired because Muir was even more incompetent and would probably get someone worse.

Speaking of not getting between Trump and his supporters, did anyone see the hatchet job they did on Rubio on TV last night? Truly disgusting.

[JohnR34231]

I believe that it CAN be done MUCH better than the last eight years (because it has), and I do not believe that the one and dones has made it harder to achieve but rather has made it easier.  What I'm unsure about is whether Muir knows how to go out and find the head coach who CAN get it done.  The fact that he's retained one who clearly can't get it done for as long as he has concerns me.

Like 76lsjumb says you don't get between Dawkins and his detractors on this board, but it would have been hard for Muir to fire Dawkins after he had just taken Stanford to the Sweet 16 or won the NIT. We'll see what happens this year.

Interesting that the Shawtagonists were saying the same thing in the winter of their discontent in 2014. Shaw was a lousy coach but they weren't sure they wanted him fired because Muir was even more incompetent and would probably get someone worse.

Speaking of not getting between Trump and his supporters, did anyone see the hatchet job they did on Rubio on TV last night? Truly disgusting.

[JohnR34231]

I believe that it CAN be done MUCH better than the last eight years (because it has), and I do not believe that the one and dones has made it harder to achieve but rather has made it easier.  What I'm unsure about is whether Muir knows how to go out and find the head coach who CAN get it done.  The fact that he's retained one who clearly can't get it done for as long as he has concerns me.

Like 76lsjumb says you don't get between Dawkins and his detractors on this board, but it would have been hard for Muir to fire Dawkins after he had just taken Stanford to the Sweet 16 or won the NIT. We'll see what happens this year.

Interesting that the Shawtagonists were saying the same thing in the winter of their discontent in 2014. Shaw was a lousy coach but they weren't sure they wanted him fired because Muir was even more incompetent and would probably get someone worse.

Speaking of not getting between Trump and his supporters, did anyone see the hatchet job they did on Rubio on TV last night? Truly disgusting.

[needle]

I have zero intuition as to the likelihood of this scenario, but is it at least a possibility that Rosco Allen decides to leave Stanford to attend grad school somewhere else (and play basketball, of course)? Or, do people just think he might leave to play pro ball somewhere in Europe?

[needle]

I have zero intuition as to the likelihood of this scenario, but is it at least a possibility that Rosco Allen decides to leave Stanford to attend grad school somewhere else (and play basketball, of course)? Or, do people just think he might leave to play pro ball somewhere in Europe?

[needle]

I have zero intuition as to the likelihood of this scenario, but is it at least a possibility that Rosco Allen decides to leave Stanford to attend grad school somewhere else (and play basketball, of course)? Or, do people just think he might leave to play pro ball somewhere in Europe?

[needle]

I have zero intuition as to the likelihood of this scenario, but is it at least a possibility that Rosco Allen decides to leave Stanford to attend grad school somewhere else (and play basketball, of course)? Or, do people just think he might leave to play pro ball somewhere in Europe?

[ColoradoTree]

If teams like Wichita State and UVA can have solid success without one-and-done players, then why can't we?  Sure, it would  be nice to have access to that one-and-done level of talent, but it strikes me that our incoming talent level isn't necessarily the problem (or, at least, isn't the biggest problem).  With the kids we get, we should have a coaching staff good enough to mold them into a perennial tournament team and gives the top of the Pac-12 mostly competitive games.  Just how far could this roster get with better coaching?  I don't know, and I wouldn't expect conference titles or deep tourney runs.  But it would be nice to see our guys play with controlled fire again, channeled into a well-designed offense.  Our guys play hard, don't get me wrong, but it seems desperate and disorganized.  Which is precisely the point.  When talented players are playing hard and still getting these results, something about the coaching isn't working. 

[ColoradoTree]

If teams like Wichita State and UVA can have solid success without one-and-done players, then why can't we?  Sure, it would  be nice to have access to that one-and-done level of talent, but it strikes me that our incoming talent level isn't necessarily the problem (or, at least, isn't the biggest problem).  With the kids we get, we should have a coaching staff good enough to mold them into a perennial tournament team and gives the top of the Pac-12 mostly competitive games.  Just how far could this roster get with better coaching?  I don't know, and I wouldn't expect conference titles or deep tourney runs.  But it would be nice to see our guys play with controlled fire again, channeled into a well-designed offense.  Our guys play hard, don't get me wrong, but it seems desperate and disorganized.  Which is precisely the point.  When talented players are playing hard and still getting these results, something about the coaching isn't working. 

[ColoradoTree]

If teams like Wichita State and UVA can have solid success without one-and-done players, then why can't we?  Sure, it would  be nice to have access to that one-and-done level of talent, but it strikes me that our incoming talent level isn't necessarily the problem (or, at least, isn't the biggest problem).  With the kids we get, we should have a coaching staff good enough to mold them into a perennial tournament team and gives the top of the Pac-12 mostly competitive games.  Just how far could this roster get with better coaching?  I don't know, and I wouldn't expect conference titles or deep tourney runs.  But it would be nice to see our guys play with controlled fire again, channeled into a well-designed offense.  Our guys play hard, don't get me wrong, but it seems desperate and disorganized.  Which is precisely the point.  When talented players are playing hard and still getting these results, something about the coaching isn't working. 

[ColoradoTree]

If teams like Wichita State and UVA can have solid success without one-and-done players, then why can't we?  Sure, it would  be nice to have access to that one-and-done level of talent, but it strikes me that our incoming talent level isn't necessarily the problem (or, at least, isn't the biggest problem).  With the kids we get, we should have a coaching staff good enough to mold them into a perennial tournament team and gives the top of the Pac-12 mostly competitive games.  Just how far could this roster get with better coaching?  I don't know, and I wouldn't expect conference titles or deep tourney runs.  But it would be nice to see our guys play with controlled fire again, channeled into a well-designed offense.  Our guys play hard, don't get me wrong, but it seems desperate and disorganized.  Which is precisely the point.  When talented players are playing hard and still getting these results, something about the coaching isn't working. 

[Roberton3]

[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).

[Roberton3]

[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).

[Roberton3]

[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).

[Roberton3]

[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).

[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. 

[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. 

[BurgXXIII]

He managed to tie for the conference title once, and never led the team to the post-season.  Maybe you call that success.

The younger fanatics among us don't really understand this. One year during this time period U.SC was the second-best team in the nation and didn't go to the postseason.

[BurgXXIII]

He managed to tie for the conference title once, and never led the team to the post-season.  Maybe you call that success.

The younger fanatics among us don't really understand this. One year during this time period U.SC was the second-best team in the nation and didn't go to the postseason.

[BurgXXIII]

He managed to tie for the conference title once, and never led the team to the post-season.  Maybe you call that success.

The younger fanatics among us don't really understand this. One year during this time period U.SC was the second-best team in the nation and didn't go to the postseason.

[BurgXXIII]

He managed to tie for the conference title once, and never led the team to the post-season.  Maybe you call that success.

The younger fanatics among us don't really understand this. One year during this time period U.SC was the second-best team in the nation and didn't go to the postseason.

[Treebound]

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..)

[Treebound]

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..)

[Treebound]

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..)

[Treebound]

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..)

[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.

[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.