[Leftcoast]

Don't forget that Dayton looked pretty good tonight. 

From a team basketball standpoint (as opposed to pure 1:1 athleticism) they played a well-coached, old school game - off ball screens, plenty of movement away from the ball and active use of the full bench.  Even their 10th and 11th players got significant minutes. 

I was impressed with the dribble penetration and basketball savvy of Dayton's point guard, particularly his ability to see the full court, know where his guys were open and make pin point passes in the lane and in traffic. 

One play late in the second half stood out.  The Dayton guard over penetrated and two Stanford bigs dropped into coverage.  The guard dropped a no-look bounce pass behind to a now wide open forward for an unguarded lay in. Beautiful.  I love Chasson's game but he is playing out of position ( I see him as a 2) and those were dimes he doesn't complete.  The player this Stanford team needed most was a true distributing guard.  Dayton had that tonight.

So, yeah, Dawkins and team need to learn from this loss but don't forget to credit the other guy for a well played game.  We weren't robbed - Dayton deserved to win tonight.

Florida is a bad match for the Flyers but Dayton deserves kudos for a brilliant run to the Elite Eight.

[Leftcoast]

Don't forget that Dayton looked pretty good tonight. 

From a team basketball standpoint (as opposed to pure 1:1 athleticism) they played a well-coached, old school game - off ball screens, plenty of movement away from the ball and active use of the full bench.  Even their 10th and 11th players got significant minutes. 

I was impressed with the dribble penetration and basketball savvy of Dayton's point guard, particularly his ability to see the full court, know where his guys were open and make pin point passes in the lane and in traffic. 

One play late in the second half stood out.  The Dayton guard over penetrated and two Stanford bigs dropped into coverage.  The guard dropped a no-look bounce pass behind to a now wide open forward for an unguarded lay in. Beautiful.  I love Chasson's game but he is playing out of position ( I see him as a 2) and those were dimes he doesn't complete.  The player this Stanford team needed most was a true distributing guard.  Dayton had that tonight.

So, yeah, Dawkins and team need to learn from this loss but don't forget to credit the other guy for a well played game.  We weren't robbed - Dayton deserved to win tonight.

Florida is a bad match for the Flyers but Dayton deserves kudos for a brilliant run to the Elite Eight.

[BostonCard]

Wait, I though Nastic did foul out.  Obviously, it is impossible to know the counterfactual, but a reasonable interpretation is that he would have simply fouled out sooner had Dawkins left him in.  I mean, in general, I agree with you; there is nothing more frustrating than watching a guy get yanked with 2 fouls in the first half (or three early in the second), and then watch him end the game without fouling again.  But in this case, it seems likely Nastic would have fouled out sooner or later, and pulling him allowed him to play a little bit later.

BC

[BostonCard]

Wait, I though Nastic did foul out.  Obviously, it is impossible to know the counterfactual, but a reasonable interpretation is that he would have simply fouled out sooner had Dawkins left him in.  I mean, in general, I agree with you; there is nothing more frustrating than watching a guy get yanked with 2 fouls in the first half (or three early in the second), and then watch him end the game without fouling again.  But in this case, it seems likely Nastic would have fouled out sooner or later, and pulling him allowed him to play a little bit later.

BC

[needle]

The bench had two points total. Not going to win many (any?) games like that.

I get the frustration offensively, as, while there were strong individual offensive efforts, there really wasn't anything like a team effort to help each other get open shots. When does this hurt the most? When you have several players on the floor who don't have a one-on-one offensive game, like the guys on Stanford's bench.

[needle]

The bench had two points total. Not going to win many (any?) games like that.

I get the frustration offensively, as, while there were strong individual offensive efforts, there really wasn't anything like a team effort to help each other get open shots. When does this hurt the most? When you have several players on the floor who don't have a one-on-one offensive game, like the guys on Stanford's bench.

[FarmBoy]

I dreamt last night that Muir did the wrong thing and canned Dawkins following the game. My respect for Muir was so high in my dream! Then I woke up and realized we'll be stuck with this albatross for a few more seasons... No AD of a BCS school is going to hire Dawkins any time soon.

[FarmBoy]

I dreamt last night that Muir did the wrong thing and canned Dawkins following the game. My respect for Muir was so high in my dream! Then I woke up and realized we'll be stuck with this albatross for a few more seasons... No AD of a BCS school is going to hire Dawkins any time soon.

[Renaissance Man]

I found it interesting that Dayton beat us playing the style of basketball that Dawkins tried to implement last year.  It looks pretty good when it is executed well. >:(

[Renaissance Man]

I found it interesting that Dayton beat us playing the style of basketball that Dawkins tried to implement last year.  It looks pretty good when it is executed well. >:(

[JohnR34231]

Given the number of times we've made it to the sweet sixteen over the last three decades (I believe this was only the fifth). I don't think you can be too disappointed with any season in which we get there.

[JohnR34231]

Given the number of times we've made it to the sweet sixteen over the last three decades (I believe this was only the fifth). I don't think you can be too disappointed with any season in which we get there.

[FarmBoy]

Given the number of times we've made it to the sweet sixteen over the last three decades (I believe this was only the fifth). I don't think you can be too disappointed with any season in which we get there.

I don't subscribe to the school of thought that NCAA tournament outcome is the primary measurement of a season. The 2004 season was a fantastic experience, despite the frustrating loss in the 2nd round. Conversely, the 2014 season was very frustrating and disappointing, despite the wile ride of winning 2 consecutive games to put us in the Sweet 16. There are too many random outcomes in a 6 game tournament to take one season's worth of tournament run as an indication of that season's success. In the same vein, I would prefer to win the Pac12 regular season than the tournament. It's a much stronger indication of a team's performance.

[FarmBoy]

Given the number of times we've made it to the sweet sixteen over the last three decades (I believe this was only the fifth). I don't think you can be too disappointed with any season in which we get there.

I don't subscribe to the school of thought that NCAA tournament outcome is the primary measurement of a season. The 2004 season was a fantastic experience, despite the frustrating loss in the 2nd round. Conversely, the 2014 season was very frustrating and disappointing, despite the wile ride of winning 2 consecutive games to put us in the Sweet 16. There are too many random outcomes in a 6 game tournament to take one season's worth of tournament run as an indication of that season's success. In the same vein, I would prefer to win the Pac12 regular season than the tournament. It's a much stronger indication of a team's performance.

[terry]

The bench had two points total. Not going to win many (any?) games like that.

Gage was the designated scorer off the bench, but he was pretty bad for the whole tournament -- 1 for 11 on 3-point attempts.

[terry]

The bench had two points total. Not going to win many (any?) games like that.

Gage was the designated scorer off the bench, but he was pretty bad for the whole tournament -- 1 for 11 on 3-point attempts.

[JohnR34231]

Given the number of times we've made it to the sweet sixteen over the last three decades (I believe this was only the fifth). I don't think you can be too disappointed with any season in which we get there.

I don't subscribe to the school of thought that NCAA tournament outcome is the primary measurement of a season. The 2004 season was a fantastic experience, despite the frustrating loss in the 2nd round. Conversely, the 2014 season was very frustrating and disappointing, despite the wile ride of winning 2 consecutive games to put us in the Sweet 16. There are too many random outcomes in a 6 game tournament to take one season's worth of tournament run as an indication of that season's success. In the same vein, I would prefer to win the Pac12 regular season than the tournament. It's a much stronger indication of a team's performance.

To each his own. I always found it very frustrating when we would do extremely well in the conference and then flame out early in the tournament.

Also, what were we, tied for third in the conference this year? That may not be great, but it's hardly horrible, either.

P.S. I doubt if too many Dayton fans are saying "let's not get too excited about our run to the great eight, because our conference record wasn't all that impressive."

[JohnR34231]

Given the number of times we've made it to the sweet sixteen over the last three decades (I believe this was only the fifth). I don't think you can be too disappointed with any season in which we get there.

I don't subscribe to the school of thought that NCAA tournament outcome is the primary measurement of a season. The 2004 season was a fantastic experience, despite the frustrating loss in the 2nd round. Conversely, the 2014 season was very frustrating and disappointing, despite the wile ride of winning 2 consecutive games to put us in the Sweet 16. There are too many random outcomes in a 6 game tournament to take one season's worth of tournament run as an indication of that season's success. In the same vein, I would prefer to win the Pac12 regular season than the tournament. It's a much stronger indication of a team's performance.

To each his own. I always found it very frustrating when we would do extremely well in the conference and then flame out early in the tournament.

Also, what were we, tied for third in the conference this year? That may not be great, but it's hardly horrible, either.

P.S. I doubt if too many Dayton fans are saying "let's not get too excited about our run to the great eight, because our conference record wasn't all that impressive."

[FarmBoy]

I would be very frustrated by those seasons in which we had an early exit as well. But for some reason this Sweet 16 run didn't give me much pleasure. It felt like we won a 50/50 game against UN and got lucky to get Kansas without one of their key stars. I'm happy for the team that we made it, but winning those two games did nothing to wipe out the months of frustration. In fact they may have worsened it because they cemented JD at the helm for another few years.

What I really want is to see our players reach their potential. They never did that, IMO.

FWIW, Dayton hasn't been to the Sweet 16 since 1984, right? Of course they're thrilled. BUt we've seen 30 win Stanford teams with multiple NBA players on the court. I'd like to think we have a different standard.

[FarmBoy]

I would be very frustrated by those seasons in which we had an early exit as well. But for some reason this Sweet 16 run didn't give me much pleasure. It felt like we won a 50/50 game against UN and got lucky to get Kansas without one of their key stars. I'm happy for the team that we made it, but winning those two games did nothing to wipe out the months of frustration. In fact they may have worsened it because they cemented JD at the helm for another few years.

What I really want is to see our players reach their potential. They never did that, IMO.

FWIW, Dayton hasn't been to the Sweet 16 since 1984, right? Of course they're thrilled. BUt we've seen 30 win Stanford teams with multiple NBA players on the court. I'd like to think we have a different standard.

[76lsjumb]

What made this season [and at least the last 2 as well] so difficult for me as a fan is the inconsistency -- from game to game and even within games.  When you have no idea whether last Sunday's team or last night's team is going to show up from game to game, there is a natural tendency to fear the latter rather than anticipate the former, which makes the whole experience less enjoyable -- or, at least, reduces the length of the enjoyable experience -- even for those games when "good" Stanford shows up.  Similarly, during games --given our penchant for going on 15-2 runs, followed almost immediately by 4-23 runs -- I found it impossible to get unreservedly pumped during the former, because I just knew the latter was inevitably coming.  After a while, the emotional scar tissue builds up to such a degree that the good wins don't build upon each other to produce increasing joy; instead, they just provide a temporary sense of relief that "well, this time, at least, we didn't let it slip away."  And, at the end of the season, my feeling isn't "Man, that was great!"; it's more "Whew, that was tough!"

There was a lot of talk in the post-game comments about this team's "legacy."  All wholly to be expected and perfectly appropriate, and I certainly don't begrudge any of the seniors -- or Dawkins, for that matter -- the opportunity to promote that legacy as much as they are able.  I hope they are 100% correct.  But, I think it may be a few years before the true nature of that legacy can be determined.  If this turns out to be the first of many consecutive trips to the Big Dance, history will likely be kind to this team. 

It seems to me that the "legacy" of the M.onty teams is that they overachieved during the season and then finally went down when they got to the tourney and faced teams that were clearly better.  Right now, I'm afraid the "legacy" of this team is that it underachieved during the season, got lucky during the tourney, and then lost to a team that played better, but was not clearly more talented.  If we don't go back to the tourney next year, I think that sticks.  It's obviously not fair to this year's seniors, who aren't in a position to affect it, but I think that's what happens.  As I watched Minnesota [2012-NIT runner-up; 2013- NCAA #11 seed with big upset win; 2014-NIT Final Four] beat SMU on Wednesday to make it back to MSG for the NIT final four, I wondered whether I was watching our future-- just good enough to be perpetually on the bubble. 

[76lsjumb]

What made this season [and at least the last 2 as well] so difficult for me as a fan is the inconsistency -- from game to game and even within games.  When you have no idea whether last Sunday's team or last night's team is going to show up from game to game, there is a natural tendency to fear the latter rather than anticipate the former, which makes the whole experience less enjoyable -- or, at least, reduces the length of the enjoyable experience -- even for those games when "good" Stanford shows up.  Similarly, during games --given our penchant for going on 15-2 runs, followed almost immediately by 4-23 runs -- I found it impossible to get unreservedly pumped during the former, because I just knew the latter was inevitably coming.  After a while, the emotional scar tissue builds up to such a degree that the good wins don't build upon each other to produce increasing joy; instead, they just provide a temporary sense of relief that "well, this time, at least, we didn't let it slip away."  And, at the end of the season, my feeling isn't "Man, that was great!"; it's more "Whew, that was tough!"

There was a lot of talk in the post-game comments about this team's "legacy."  All wholly to be expected and perfectly appropriate, and I certainly don't begrudge any of the seniors -- or Dawkins, for that matter -- the opportunity to promote that legacy as much as they are able.  I hope they are 100% correct.  But, I think it may be a few years before the true nature of that legacy can be determined.  If this turns out to be the first of many consecutive trips to the Big Dance, history will likely be kind to this team. 

It seems to me that the "legacy" of the M.onty teams is that they overachieved during the season and then finally went down when they got to the tourney and faced teams that were clearly better.  Right now, I'm afraid the "legacy" of this team is that it underachieved during the season, got lucky during the tourney, and then lost to a team that played better, but was not clearly more talented.  If we don't go back to the tourney next year, I think that sticks.  It's obviously not fair to this year's seniors, who aren't in a position to affect it, but I think that's what happens.  As I watched Minnesota [2012-NIT runner-up; 2013- NCAA #11 seed with big upset win; 2014-NIT Final Four] beat SMU on Wednesday to make it back to MSG for the NIT final four, I wondered whether I was watching our future-- just good enough to be perpetually on the bubble. 

[JohnR34231]

What made this season [and at least the last 2 as well] so difficult for me as a fan is the inconsistency -- from game to game and even within games.  When you have no idea whether last Sunday's team or last night's team is going to show up from game to game, there is a natural tendency to fear the latter rather than anticipate the former, which makes the whole experience less enjoyable -- or, at least, reduces the length of the enjoyable experience -- even for those games when "good" Stanford shows up.  Similarly, during games --given our penchant for going on 15-2 runs, followed almost immediately by 4-23 runs -- I found it impossible to get unreservedly pumped during the former, because I just knew the latter was inevitably coming.  After a while, the emotional scar tissue builds up to such a degree that the good wins don't build upon each other to produce increasing joy; instead, they just provide a temporary sense of relief that "well, this time, at least, we didn't let it slip away."  And, at the end of the season, my feeling isn't "Man, that was great!"; it's more "Whew, that was tough!"

There was a lot of talk in the post-game comments about this team's "legacy."  All wholly to be expected and perfectly appropriate, and I certainly don't begrudge any of the seniors -- or Dawkins, for that matter -- the opportunity to promote that legacy as much as they are able.  I hope they are 100% correct.  But, I think it may be a few years before the true nature of that legacy can be determined.  If this turns out to be the first of many consecutive trips to the Big Dance, history will likely be kind to this team. 

It seems to me that the "legacy" of the M.onty teams is that they overachieved during the season and then finally went down when they got to the tourney and faced teams that were clearly better.  Right now, I'm afraid the "legacy" of this team is that it underachieved during the season, got lucky during the tourney, and then lost to a team that played better, but was not clearly more talented.  If we don't go back to the tourney next year, I think that sticks.  It's obviously not fair to this year's seniors, who aren't in a position to affect it, but I think that's what happens.  As I watched Minnesota [2012-NIT runner-up; 2013- NCAA #11 seed with big upset win; 2014-NIT Final Four] beat SMU on Wednesday to make it back to MSG for the NIT final four, I wondered whether I was watching our future-- just good enough to be perpetually on the bubble.

Which is worse, being inconsistent and never knowing whether a performance is going to be good or bad, or knowing you are almost always going to be able to beat mediocre teams but also realizing the moment you get up against someone really good (as you will in the tourney) you will most likely go down? I think it is debatable.

[JohnR34231]

What made this season [and at least the last 2 as well] so difficult for me as a fan is the inconsistency -- from game to game and even within games.  When you have no idea whether last Sunday's team or last night's team is going to show up from game to game, there is a natural tendency to fear the latter rather than anticipate the former, which makes the whole experience less enjoyable -- or, at least, reduces the length of the enjoyable experience -- even for those games when "good" Stanford shows up.  Similarly, during games --given our penchant for going on 15-2 runs, followed almost immediately by 4-23 runs -- I found it impossible to get unreservedly pumped during the former, because I just knew the latter was inevitably coming.  After a while, the emotional scar tissue builds up to such a degree that the good wins don't build upon each other to produce increasing joy; instead, they just provide a temporary sense of relief that "well, this time, at least, we didn't let it slip away."  And, at the end of the season, my feeling isn't "Man, that was great!"; it's more "Whew, that was tough!"

There was a lot of talk in the post-game comments about this team's "legacy."  All wholly to be expected and perfectly appropriate, and I certainly don't begrudge any of the seniors -- or Dawkins, for that matter -- the opportunity to promote that legacy as much as they are able.  I hope they are 100% correct.  But, I think it may be a few years before the true nature of that legacy can be determined.  If this turns out to be the first of many consecutive trips to the Big Dance, history will likely be kind to this team. 

It seems to me that the "legacy" of the M.onty teams is that they overachieved during the season and then finally went down when they got to the tourney and faced teams that were clearly better.  Right now, I'm afraid the "legacy" of this team is that it underachieved during the season, got lucky during the tourney, and then lost to a team that played better, but was not clearly more talented.  If we don't go back to the tourney next year, I think that sticks.  It's obviously not fair to this year's seniors, who aren't in a position to affect it, but I think that's what happens.  As I watched Minnesota [2012-NIT runner-up; 2013- NCAA #11 seed with big upset win; 2014-NIT Final Four] beat SMU on Wednesday to make it back to MSG for the NIT final four, I wondered whether I was watching our future-- just good enough to be perpetually on the bubble.

Which is worse, being inconsistent and never knowing whether a performance is going to be good or bad, or knowing you are almost always going to be able to beat mediocre teams but also realizing the moment you get up against someone really good (as you will in the tourney) you will most likely go down? I think it is debatable.

[OutsiderFan]

This may be controversial, but after watching these regional semi-final games, maybe Stanford just doesn't have the horses, and it really isn't that Dawkins is a horrible coach?

I watched large portions of UT-UM, UConn-ISU, MSU-UVA, UK-UL, SDSU-UA, Bay-Wisc, UD-SU, and a little bit of UCLA-UF.  The thing that stood out to me after watching all those other teams play is Stanford had the fewest number of good players of all of them.  The Friday night games particularly stood out. 

UConn and ISU were probably the weakest teams of the four that played in the final 16 round.  And it is true Stanford beat UConn earlier in the year.  But they weren't getting much from Deandre Daniels then, and he stepped up big.  MSU and UVA are way more talented and deep than Stanford and so too are Louisville and Kentucky.  Michigan and Tennessee aren't that deep, but they've got better players than Stanford.

Powell, Nastic, Huestis, Brown, and Randle are a pretty  good starting five.  But the fact is none of those guys is an All-American or future high level NBA player, like are littered on the rosters of all the other final 16 teams.  Stanford's players just don't have the size, quickness, strength, and/or shooting skills as most other teams have, and Stanford has a weak bench on top of it.

So after stepping back and observing more college hoops in the last two weeks than the rest of the season combined, by probably a factor of five, though it's frustrating to see a team be "inconsistent" and "not live up to their potential," the fact may very well be that Dawkins has actually been a good coach and really gotten a lot out of a limited roster. 

Anthony Brown, Chasson Randle, and Dwight Powell were simply not as good as they needed to be.  Josh Huestis and Nastic were the only guys I saw play at a consistently high level on both O & D, and the only ones who I would say stepped up to another level, Nastic's foul trouble aside.  Randle, Powell, and Brown were all incredibly ordinary and didn't lift their games like players on the better teams did, and Gage was positively a non-factor after the first round.

I just don't know how much Dawkins can be blamed, other than the fact he recruited these guys.  And it seems quite possible they weren't maybe as good as their recruiting hype.  When you factor in the injuries, there wasn't enough to overcome a deep Dayton with more skilled players. 

[OutsiderFan]

This may be controversial, but after watching these regional semi-final games, maybe Stanford just doesn't have the horses, and it really isn't that Dawkins is a horrible coach?

I watched large portions of UT-UM, UConn-ISU, MSU-UVA, UK-UL, SDSU-UA, Bay-Wisc, UD-SU, and a little bit of UCLA-UF.  The thing that stood out to me after watching all those other teams play is Stanford had the fewest number of good players of all of them.  The Friday night games particularly stood out. 

UConn and ISU were probably the weakest teams of the four that played in the final 16 round.  And it is true Stanford beat UConn earlier in the year.  But they weren't getting much from Deandre Daniels then, and he stepped up big.  MSU and UVA are way more talented and deep than Stanford and so too are Louisville and Kentucky.  Michigan and Tennessee aren't that deep, but they've got better players than Stanford.

Powell, Nastic, Huestis, Brown, and Randle are a pretty  good starting five.  But the fact is none of those guys is an All-American or future high level NBA player, like are littered on the rosters of all the other final 16 teams.  Stanford's players just don't have the size, quickness, strength, and/or shooting skills as most other teams have, and Stanford has a weak bench on top of it.

So after stepping back and observing more college hoops in the last two weeks than the rest of the season combined, by probably a factor of five, though it's frustrating to see a team be "inconsistent" and "not live up to their potential," the fact may very well be that Dawkins has actually been a good coach and really gotten a lot out of a limited roster. 

Anthony Brown, Chasson Randle, and Dwight Powell were simply not as good as they needed to be.  Josh Huestis and Nastic were the only guys I saw play at a consistently high level on both O & D, and the only ones who I would say stepped up to another level, Nastic's foul trouble aside.  Randle, Powell, and Brown were all incredibly ordinary and didn't lift their games like players on the better teams did, and Gage was positively a non-factor after the first round.

I just don't know how much Dawkins can be blamed, other than the fact he recruited these guys.  And it seems quite possible they weren't maybe as good as their recruiting hype.  When you factor in the injuries, there wasn't enough to overcome a deep Dayton with more skilled players. 

[washingtonismoney]

I don't know that these teams are "littered" with top talent as you say. Let's take DraftExpress's top 100 prospects for the 2014 draft and rank Sweet 16 teams:

Kentucky: 6
MSU: 4
Arizona: 4
Michigan: 3
UCLA: 3
Louisville: 2
Baylor: 2
Florida: 2
Connecticut: 1
Iowa State: 1
Stanford: 1
Wisconsin: 1
SDSU: 0
Dayton: 0

But with a median of 2 it's not as if Stanford is significantly behind. More importantly, it's not as if Stanford is playing all of these teams. It played Dayton, and if Dayton has accumulated more talent than Stanford, that reflects poorly on Dawkins's evaluations, recruitment or development. (Or all of the above!)

[washingtonismoney]

I don't know that these teams are "littered" with top talent as you say. Let's take DraftExpress's top 100 prospects for the 2014 draft and rank Sweet 16 teams:

Kentucky: 6
MSU: 4
Arizona: 4
Michigan: 3
UCLA: 3
Louisville: 2
Baylor: 2
Florida: 2
Connecticut: 1
Iowa State: 1
Stanford: 1
Wisconsin: 1
SDSU: 0
Dayton: 0

But with a median of 2 it's not as if Stanford is significantly behind. More importantly, it's not as if Stanford is playing all of these teams. It played Dayton, and if Dayton has accumulated more talent than Stanford, that reflects poorly on Dawkins's evaluations, recruitment or development. (Or all of the above!)

[OutsiderFan]

Maybe "littered with NBA players" was a little over the top.  The greater point is those teams sure as heck have more better athletes, and the current Stanford players aren't as skilled as the ones that played in the glory years of the Monty era.  This means Stanford can't make up for less athleticism and depth by being better shooters like maybe they could in the Monty glory years.

[OutsiderFan]

Maybe "littered with NBA players" was a little over the top.  The greater point is those teams sure as heck have more better athletes, and the current Stanford players aren't as skilled as the ones that played in the glory years of the Monty era.  This means Stanford can't make up for less athleticism and depth by being better shooters like maybe they could in the Monty glory years.

[washingtonismoney]

Maybe "littered with NBA players" was a little over the top.  The greater point is those teams sure as heck have more better athletes, and the current Stanford players aren't as skilled as the ones that played in the glory years of the Monty era.  This means Stanford can't make up for less athleticism and depth by being better shooters like maybe they could in the Monty glory years.

Not sure that they "sure as heck" have better athletes. There wasn't much of an athletic edge* to the opposing teams in any of the NCAA games I saw; what did vary -- sometimes in Stanford's favor and sometimes not -- was the quality of Stanford's decision-making. Which, again, goes back to coaching.

* the only category I think Stanford's deficient in is really athletic, big men. But then again that describes basically every team that doesn't have your Embiids or whatever. Powell is a very good athlete and Nastic is very skilled. That puts Stanford ahead of a really big chunk of the field. Huestis is an excellent athlete. Randle is a solid athlete. Brown is average. Gage is below average. Lemmons is below average. I don't see an athletic deficiency at the heart of the team. There's a skills deficiency, a decision-making deficiency and a coaching deficiency. To varying degrees the latter three get back to coaching.

[washingtonismoney]

Maybe "littered with NBA players" was a little over the top.  The greater point is those teams sure as heck have more better athletes, and the current Stanford players aren't as skilled as the ones that played in the glory years of the Monty era.  This means Stanford can't make up for less athleticism and depth by being better shooters like maybe they could in the Monty glory years.

Not sure that they "sure as heck" have better athletes. There wasn't much of an athletic edge* to the opposing teams in any of the NCAA games I saw; what did vary -- sometimes in Stanford's favor and sometimes not -- was the quality of Stanford's decision-making. Which, again, goes back to coaching.

* the only category I think Stanford's deficient in is really athletic, big men. But then again that describes basically every team that doesn't have your Embiids or whatever. Powell is a very good athlete and Nastic is very skilled. That puts Stanford ahead of a really big chunk of the field. Huestis is an excellent athlete. Randle is a solid athlete. Brown is average. Gage is below average. Lemmons is below average. I don't see an athletic deficiency at the heart of the team. There's a skills deficiency, a decision-making deficiency and a coaching deficiency. To varying degrees the latter three get back to coaching.

[FarmBoy]

* the only category I think Stanford's deficient in is really athletic, big men. But then again that describes basically every team that doesn't have your Embiids or whatever.

This has been a stark contrast in my opinion. The teams I'm seeing in the Sweet 16, aside from Dayton, have a couple of powerful 6'9" forwards who can fight for boards and battle underneath for layups. Nastic is great, but his legs don't appear attached to pogo sticks, as far as I can tell. Powell is really too slight to be battling with the likes of the big men from Loisville, Florida, and Kentucky.

[FarmBoy]

* the only category I think Stanford's deficient in is really athletic, big men. But then again that describes basically every team that doesn't have your Embiids or whatever.

This has been a stark contrast in my opinion. The teams I'm seeing in the Sweet 16, aside from Dayton, have a couple of powerful 6'9" forwards who can fight for boards and battle underneath for layups. Nastic is great, but his legs don't appear attached to pogo sticks, as far as I can tell. Powell is really too slight to be battling with the likes of the big men from Loisville, Florida, and Kentucky.

[teejers1]

"I watched large portions of UT-UM, UConn-ISU, MSU-UVA, UK-UL, SDSU-UA, Bay-Wisc, UD-SU, and a little bit of UCLA-UF.  The thing that stood out to me after watching all those other teams play is Stanford had the fewest number of good players of all of them.  The Friday night games particularly stood out."

Outsider, I'll give you UK and Arizona and maybe Michigan as having more better raw athletes than Stanford.  But what stood out most to me in watching last night - especially the UVA-MSU game - was how incredibly well those teams play.  I mean UVA-MSU was a defensive masterpiece by both sides.  The man defenses moved their feet; hedged on high picks and recovered; switched sometimes; and boxed out on every shot (or almost every shot).  I mean, it was an incredible thing to behold.  And THAT is excellent coaching and drilling in practice, to the point that it becomes second nature for those teams to do "all the little things" correctly.  I don't think either MSU or UVA has better athletes than Stanford, I just think they have superior coaching that prepares them to play at a consistently high level.

That should be the ideal for Stanford.  Maybe Dawkins gets there - or at least closer to that goal - but I think it's safe  to say there is work to be done on that front.

[teejers1]

"I watched large portions of UT-UM, UConn-ISU, MSU-UVA, UK-UL, SDSU-UA, Bay-Wisc, UD-SU, and a little bit of UCLA-UF.  The thing that stood out to me after watching all those other teams play is Stanford had the fewest number of good players of all of them.  The Friday night games particularly stood out."

Outsider, I'll give you UK and Arizona and maybe Michigan as having more better raw athletes than Stanford.  But what stood out most to me in watching last night - especially the UVA-MSU game - was how incredibly well those teams play.  I mean UVA-MSU was a defensive masterpiece by both sides.  The man defenses moved their feet; hedged on high picks and recovered; switched sometimes; and boxed out on every shot (or almost every shot).  I mean, it was an incredible thing to behold.  And THAT is excellent coaching and drilling in practice, to the point that it becomes second nature for those teams to do "all the little things" correctly.  I don't think either MSU or UVA has better athletes than Stanford, I just think they have superior coaching that prepares them to play at a consistently high level.

That should be the ideal for Stanford.  Maybe Dawkins gets there - or at least closer to that goal - but I think it's safe  to say there is work to be done on that front.

[washingtonismoney]

The man defenses moved their feet; hedged on high picks and recovered; switched sometimes; and almost boxed out on every shot.  I mean, it was an incredible thing to behold.  And THAT is excellent coaching and drilling in practice, to the point that it becomes second nature for those teams to do "all the little things" correctly. ...

It's interesting that you highlight defensive plays and fundamentals, teejers, because one reason I don't think much of college basketball coaching (in general; Izzo and Bennett are both really good coaches) is that their offensive coaching abilities are stuck somewhere in the beginning of the last decade relative to NBA coaches.

The comparison with college football is revealing. There are a lot of innovators in both college and NFL, in both defense and offense, so that you regularly hear about staffs talking with each other. You don't hear the same thing about college basketball, except sometimes when NBA coaches want to learn about zone D.

[washingtonismoney]

The man defenses moved their feet; hedged on high picks and recovered; switched sometimes; and almost boxed out on every shot.  I mean, it was an incredible thing to behold.  And THAT is excellent coaching and drilling in practice, to the point that it becomes second nature for those teams to do "all the little things" correctly. ...

It's interesting that you highlight defensive plays and fundamentals, teejers, because one reason I don't think much of college basketball coaching (in general; Izzo and Bennett are both really good coaches) is that their offensive coaching abilities are stuck somewhere in the beginning of the last decade relative to NBA coaches.

The comparison with college football is revealing. There are a lot of innovators in both college and NFL, in both defense and offense, so that you regularly hear about staffs talking with each other. You don't hear the same thing about college basketball, except sometimes when NBA coaches want to learn about zone D.

[OutsiderFan]

Does anyone think Wisconsin with Stanford's roster would beat Arizona, or Florida with Stanford's roster would beat Dayton?

Does anyone think Final Four coaches Bo Ryan or Billy Donovan would have fared better than Dawkins (gone further in the tournnament) if their teams had Stanford's roster?

[OutsiderFan]

Does anyone think Wisconsin with Stanford's roster would beat Arizona, or Florida with Stanford's roster would beat Dayton?

Does anyone think Final Four coaches Bo Ryan or Billy Donovan would have fared better than Dawkins (gone further in the tournnament) if their teams had Stanford's roster?