The CardBoard
Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays (/thread-3171.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - 97fan - 03-30-2012

(03-29-2012, 10:17 PM)young_money link Wrote:[quote author=97fan link=topic=5776.msg42481#msg42481 date=1333066099]
Aren't we going to be awfully thin -- I mean that both literally and figuratively -- in the front court next season?

The only guys on the roster next year who are 6'8" or taller are Dwight Powell, John Gage and Stefan Nastic, plus incoming frosh Grant Verhoeven and Rosco Allen. Unfortunately, Gage and Powell are wing players, not post guys. And I think the same is true of Allen.

That seems like a big hole on what should otherwise be a good team.

dude have you even seen Powell play?! He's not remotely close to being a wing player. He just need to bulk up some more and not jack up long jump shots. His defense really improved a ton towards the end of the season too. I think he starts at center next season.
[/quote]

Well, he doesn't like to post up offensively, and he doesn't have good post moves. (Or maybe he's just not strong enough to execute the post moves that he has.) Maybe he doesn't need to be an offensive post-up presence in Dawkins' offense. But Josh Owens will be gone next season, and I can't see Powell filling that role, even after a summer in the weight room.

Given Powell's length and athleticism, I agree that he can do a great job defensively against most bigs.

More generally, I don't want to sound negative about this team's future. I absolutely love Chasson Randle and Josh Huestis. Those guys have incredibly high ceilings. Aaron Bright is loads of fun to watch, and can take over games. Anthony Brown made a lot of progress this year, as did Powell. And everyone is going to have added confidence as a result of the NIT run.

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - teejers1 - 03-30-2012

1.  Dawkins was never going to be shown the door at the end of this season, even if Stanford was denied an NIT bid.  So that whole subject matter was spinning wheels, except to the extent many fans thought that change was inevitable and wanted to get that opinion noted for the record.  I was one of them.  I was wrong (or at least improperly jumped the gun).

2.  What this NIT run really does, imo, is give hope to the fan base.  The players were already on board with Dawkins - only the fans questioned him (at least that's my take generally).  And really, after the way the team played en route to the NIT crown, only those with a personal anti-Dawkins agenda (and I don't know if there is anyone in this camp) would refuse to budge away from the "it'll never work" position.  The defense the team played last night; the way the ball moved offensively; the blocks, the rebounds, the hustle, etc. made it sure look like things finally "clicked" for this squad.  Now, will that transfer to next season early (as opposed to sinking in way late)?  No one knows for sure, but with a strong core group of players coming back, optimism on that front is justified.

3.  So once again, congratulations to the players and Dawkins and his staff for closing the season exceptionally well.  That was fun.  That warrants hope for the future.  And that is all good. 

John Milton on the significance of Stanford's NIT championship - Redrum - 03-30-2012

"Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven."

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - FarmBoy - 03-30-2012

This NIT run has the pessimist in my thinking (well, that's not exactly true, as the pessimist/skeptic in me is always grumbling about something) what happens if next year's Stanford team ends up in the top 4 in the league and an invite to the tourney. Is Dawkins as good as gone at the next decent opportunity to join a "traditional basketball power conference" at a school where fans show up to your games, even if you're battling for middle of the conference? Coming from Duke, it's got to be tough for Dawkins to put together a decent team and not have it supported by the community. And per some of the posts yesterday, the conventional wisdom is that there are 10-15 schools where one could win an NCAA championship, and Stanford probably is not on that list in most people's minds. (not saying I don't think we could, but that conventional wisdom is that you need to be at Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana... etc.)

Clearly, I'm creating problems that don't yet exist, but it goes to the root of why I never liked the Dawkins hire. I hope he proves me wrong by building a winner with the Cardinal and spurning advances from Big East/ACC/B1G/SEC teams, but I have my doubts.

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - 76lsjumb - 03-30-2012

Two thoughts:

1.  Teejers has pretty much nailed it.

2.  For Redrum:  I heard that Milton couldn't shoot the 3 or go to his left.  And, comparing Madison Square Garden to Hell seems a little harsh...

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - FarmBoy - 03-30-2012

garvin - the past is the past. this team started the season winning two preseason NIT home games handily, drubbing UC Davis, beating what was considered a decent Oklahoma St in the NIT semis, and going the distance against Syracuse. The majority of  basketball factory schools are going to be near selling out games after that start. Stanford did not.

We were 10-1 heading into the home match up against Butler. And still attendance was poor. Was the competition weak? Absolutely, but the NIT championship game appearance in itself should have been enough to draw attendance at most schools.

We followed that with conference play that started with a sweep of the LA schools at home, a loss to a decent Oregon team on the road, and an 3OT thriller against OSU. At this point, we were 13-3 (3-1 in the Pac12). Did the fans show up? No, they did not.

There was sufficient evidence that this was a decent basketball team, even with the mid-season swoon that soon came, but I hold that most schools are going to be putting butts in seats with the team we had this year, even if the previous 2 season were underwhelming. And I'm sure Dawkins probably agrees with that.

So, "Heaven" is an early exit in the Pac Tourney? - Redrum - 03-30-2012

Which is what most Pac teams got. 

Actually, if you parse the Milton's meaning as applied,  it's the ruling part that's important.  If you don't like the word "Hell", substitute, maybe,  "oblivion" or "obscurity".  Madison Square Garden might not be Hell proper,  but a 19,000 seat arena less than 1/4 full (per some reports) is on the road to it.  How many people in America remember last year's NIT winner?  Come to think of it, how many could name this year's winner?  What's the NIT champ's payout vs. the payout for the NCAA champ?  Or Final Four? Or Sweet 16?  But this misses the point of the quote.

Good for Stanford!  It really IS better for us and for team development to rule in Hell than sit around as a Pac non-factor filling out NCAA brackets with other teams. 

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - teejers1 - 03-30-2012

Farmboy, you can make the argument that Stanford's early record should have drawn people to Maples.  And maybe that would be the case at other universities.  But the truth is that there has always been a lag time with Stanford fans (see football).

Moreover, there is an argument that discerning hoops fans knew that the record was totally misleading; that the team was inconsistent at best; and that 13-3 proved nothing.  Honestly, that opinion bore out, imo, as the Cardinal stumbled through conference play.  There is no escaping 7th place in the worst Pac 10/12 conference ever. 

BUT, the run to the NIT championship was paved by pretty damn good play against decent to very good opponents, culminating in 2 terrific games in thh last 3 games (home against Nevada, and the championship game).  The defense was enough to get me off the couch yelling at the TV last night, and the offense - especially against Nevada - was beautiful.  To this fan's eyes, there was a qualitiative difference in the level of Stanford's play of late.  THAT play deserves support.  And I hope it comes in the form of improved numbers early next season.

I think it will.

P.S.  Coaching at Stanford is unique in so many respects, including fan enthusiasm/loyalty.  That's just the truth.  If a coach wants the fawning attention and love shown at some other institutions, well, Stanford is not the place.  If a coach is willing to build a winner and enjoys coaching terrific kids (the vast majority are) who will not have you worried about receiving the 3:00 a.m. call from the police, well, Stanford can be a rewarding place.  I've always thought Dawkins was in this latter camp (and was more worried about his ability to build a winner).  But perhaps I was wrong on both counts.  We shall see.

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - terry - 03-30-2012

I haven't studied basketball attendance, but I've spent some time on football attendance. The evidence clearly shows that it takes years to build attendance momentum. In football, it takes two or three consecutive good seasons for attendance to take off. We saw that this year, with attendance picking up in the third straight bowl season.

In addition, attendance depends not only on several winning seasons, but on the expectation of continued winning. If a winning season is viewed as a fluke, the fans don't respond. They respond to the expectation of winning in the future, backed by a record of winning in the past.

If basketball attendance works the same way, then it's no mystery why a good non-conference season didn't boost basketball attendance. A good run for 10 or 12 games doesn't do it. It takes a couple of years, minimum. In my view, we need a strong year in 2012-13. Then we might see attendance pick up in 2013-14.

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - FarmBoy - 03-30-2012

teejers - I don't think our posts are incompatible. I agree that at Stanford it takes time to build a fan following. And perhaps the 13-3 was masking team weaknesses, but as you said, in other environments, the fans would have given the benefit of the doubt and come out to Maples. I'm not saying they're better, just that Dawkins comes from that kind of background and I wonder how he'll respond to the attentions of other basketball-centric programs.

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - 76lsjumb - 03-31-2012

(03-30-2012, 09:37 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I'm not saying they're better, just that Dawkins comes from that kind of background and I wonder how he'll respond to the attentions of other basketball-centric programs.

Well, at least we won't have to worry about Duke...  ;)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/sports/ncaabasketball/dukes-cameron-crazies-lose-their-enthusiasm.html?pagewanted=all

I think it would be great if the Athletic Department announced that anyone who can prove she/he bought tickets to the NIT games at Stanford this season would be given a free [or even discounted] lower reserved seat for a game or two next season as a reciprocal show of support by the University for the real fans who supported the team during the NIT. 

I also think it would be great if I won the lottery.  I don't think either is going to happen...

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - Ratmandoo - 03-31-2012

For the NIT games at Maples, students got in free and got in by getting their ID cards scanned. So the athletic department knows all the students who showed up for these games. Hopefully the marketing department does something with this data to show their appreciation of the fans that did show up during finals week.

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - DC - 03-31-2012

Both the above are good ideas

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - washingtonismoney - 03-31-2012

(03-31-2012, 08:53 AM)garvin link Wrote:If you think attendance at Duke games wouldn't have thinned out after three seasons like the ones Dawkins posted, or that Duke fans would be ecstatic after their team collapsed down the stretch against Syracuse, I believe you are wildly mistaken.

Funny you mention it: for some reason, Duke attendance (among students) has already thinned.

http://www.nj.com/college-basketball/index.ssf/2012/01/duke_student_attendance_at_cameron_indoor_games_declining_report_says.html

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - FarmBoy - 03-31-2012

garvin - show me in my post where i said anything like "Duke fans would be ecstatic after their team collapsed down the stretch against Syracuse, I believe you are wildly mistaken." What I was saying was that the team showed enough quality at the beginning of the season to put butts in seats at most top basketball programs.

Duke students may have cooled off in attendance, but I assure you the stadium is still full of the local fans.

In contrast, Indiana went through probably a worse period than we did the past few years. And despite the crappy teams on the court, they still were ranked in the top 15 nationally. Here's an article that says during the 2010 season, when they went 10-21, they were ranked 11th (http://www.iuhoosiers.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/051710aab.html) Could those numbers be inflated the way we inflate ours? Sure, but every time I've seen Indiana on the TV the past few years, the arena looked pretty darn full to me, despite the crappy team on the court.

I think it's naive to pretend that Stanford fans are just as willing to come out and support mediocre teams as people in locations with nothing to do besides go to the local college sports arena. The bay area has many other alternatives.

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - 76lsjumb - 03-31-2012

garvin -- After getting my head bitten off for my post-Fiesta effort to justify Shaw's late-game play-calling, and in light of my late-season leap from the "give Dawkins a chance" bandwagon to the "he's gotta go" bandwagon [i.e., "I was for him before I was against him"], I wasn't going to get into this discussion.  But your consistency in dumping on Dawkins -- NIT results notwithstanding -- has prompted me to reconsider.

(03-31-2012, 08:53 AM)garvin link Wrote:Despite my negative outlook on Dawkins, I am a hard-core Stanford basketball fan. I routinely stay up until 1 or 2 a.m. to watch the games, and my reward frequently is to see the team fold in the final five minutes. But most fans, at Stanford or anywhere else, are not hard-core. They won't stick around through three awful seasons. If you think attendance at Duke games wouldn't have thinned out after three seasons like the ones Dawkins posted, or that Duke fans would be ecstatic after their team collapsed down the stretch against Syracuse, I believe you are wildly mistaken.

After four seasons, Monty had won 80 games; after four seasons, Dawkins has won 75.  Reasonably close.  After four seasons, Monty was 1-3 in post-season tournaments, with a somewhat embarrassing loss to Siena; after four seasons, Dawkins has won an NIT title.  It took Monty 10 years to win a first-round NCAA game; Dawkins hasn't won one yet [obviously], but I'm just sayin'...

Sure Dawkins took over a program that had had a reasonable amount of post-season success for many years before he got there [and Monty didn't], but all of those players [except Landry Fields] were gone.  Indeed, it isn't crazy to argue that the talent Monty had during his first four years was close to being on par with what Dawkins has had -- including Todd Lichti [still in the record books], Terry Taylor and Kenny Ammann [pretty decent shooters], Greg Butler [I think he played a couple years in the NBA], and, of course, Adam Keefe [in the record books AND played in the NBA].

My point?  Most people would say that Monty was a pretty good coach and good for the Stanford program -- and, indeed, at least subconsciously, if not expressly, sets the standard by which Dawkins is being measured.  At this point in his tenure, I thinnk Dawkins can make a case that he's doing as well as -- and, perhaps, even better -- than Monty at the same point in his career.  Sure, the trajectory may not continue, but, if he isn't given 10 years to win his first NCAA tourney game, he won't have gotten the opportunity that Monty had.

As for crowd size, I think you are entirely correct about interest level for non-hard-core fans, but there is another factor that needs to be considered.  "Back in the day," the pre-season exhibition [i.e., non-counting] games were free, and the ticket prices for at least a couple of the early non-conference games -- i.e., the Bemidji States, etc. -- were nearly so.  Now?  Something like $20.  And, of course, there's the whole "seat license" thing for season-ticket holders.

I do think, to the extent the schedule isn't already locked in for next season -- and it may very well be -- it would be a good idea to schedule some opponents recognized as being tough/legitimate for next season's early non-conference season.  One or two "good wins" over decent teams, even if balance by a couple of "good losses" going into Pac-12 play, would, imho, be much better for our resume [and be more likely to generate local interest and enhance home attendance] than a 15-0 cream-puff non-conference record.  Indeed, we should look at Pac-12 play as the "cream-puff" part of the schedule.

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - 97fan - 03-31-2012

76lsjumb -- Interesting comparison with Monty.

Looking a little deeper, Montgomery actually inherited a very solid nucleus from Tom Davis. Todd Lichti (entering his sophomore season), Howard Wright (entering sophomore season), Terry Taylor (entering sophomore season) and Greg Butler (entering junior season) is not bad. Monty didn't recruit any of those guys.

By contrast, Dawkins inherited a starting five of Mitch Johnson (entering his senior season), Law Hill (entering senior season), Anthony Goods (entering senior season), Landry Fields (entering junior season) and Josh Owens (entering sophomore season). Not as much to build on there.

Of course, it's apples and oranges in the sense that when Monty took over, Stanford had no winning tradition in memory. So Monty had more to overcome in terms of perception of the program. Dawkins had a big leg up there.

But the larger point is that sometimes it takes a coach more than four years to establish a pattern of consistent success. The key is that the program needs to remain on an upward trajectory. If the team regresses next season -- by which I mean, if the team doesn't make the NCAA tournament or at least come close -- then it may make sense to fire Dawkins. Especially if the players have lost confidence in him. But let's keep in mind: the fact that coaches do have a longer leash at Stanford can be an asset. There are some schools where Dawkins would be gone by now, but often those schools would be better off in the long run if they weren't so trigger-happy in firing coaches.

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - 76lsjumb - 03-31-2012

Well, if we're going to call the comparison "ridiculous," let's be completely fair.  Monty had been a head coach for 8 years before he came to Stanford; Dawkins had been a head coach for 0 years.  That's got to count for something.

Also, you may recall that, after his fourth season at Stanford, it appeared for a while that Monty had one foot out the door on his way to Virginia --  http://articles.dailypress.com/1990-04-03/sports/9004030075_1_geiger-stanford-terry-holland -- and it wasn't a wholly unanimous consensus at the time that his leaving would have been the worse thing that could happen to Stanford.  Of course, as it turned out, he didn't leave [thank goodness] and the rest is history.

My point is simply that comparing Dawkins today with Monty circa 1990 [which is to say, Monty before HIS NIT Championship, Conference championships, Final Four appearance, etc.,  -- and , for that matter, his 7-23 overall (2-16 conference) record in his 7th season at Stanford], rather than with present day Monty, provides a legitimate basis for viewing Dawkins much more positively and with greater optimism than you seem willing to acknowledge is rational [or, at least, not ridiculous].  Sure, Dawkins' coaching provides ample opportunities for head-scratching bewilderment [although there seemed to be a lot less of it over the past five games], but Monty's circa 1990 coaching wasn't flawless, either.

Also -- since I'm sure you will note (quite rightly) the raft of injuries that befell Monty's 7-23 team -- it was well-known around here [if not widely publicized generally] that Dwight Powell and Anthony Brown were injured for much of the season, and that Zimmerman was also injured for several weeks in the middle of the season.  Not injured enough for street clothes on the bench (like Gabe Harris), but, given how much better they all played over the last couple of weeks, it seems reasonable to conclude that those injuries did, in fact, adversely impact their respective performances during the middle portion of the season and likely did so to an extent that cost us several games during the Conference season.

If we're all lucky, I'm hoping to take you up on your offer to continue this discussion next year while watching the Card at a First Second Round NCAA sub-regional site TBA. [No play-in games for us!]

One other point -- while I may agree with you that our players were better than k.al's this year, it's not quite accurate to say that "[nobody] thinks the 59ers had the better players."  The Pac-12 coaches had two 59ers on the First Team All-Pac-12, one on the Second Team, and one honorable mention [i.e., 80% of their starting five]; we had...one player on the Second Team [i.e., 20% of our starting five].  But, hey, what do the coaches know...?  ;)


Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - Scooter_Stepford - 03-31-2012

"But, hey, what do the coaches know...?  ;) "

Based on their teams' performances this season, not a whole lot  :P

Re: Stanford-Minnesota: some crazy plays - 76lsjumb - 03-31-2012

(03-31-2012, 10:56 PM)Scooter_Stepford link Wrote:"But, hey, what do the coaches know...?  ;) "

Based on their teams' performances this season, not a whole lot  :P

I can't argue with that...