Hard times for hoops (and FB) - 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: Hard times for hoops (and FB) (/thread-23053.html)
+- 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: Hard times for hoops (and FB) (/thread-23053.html)
Hard times for hoops (and FB) - gailtate - 03-14-2022
From 1995 to 2008, Stanford made the Tournament 12 out of 13 years. That's a damn good run. Since then, the Cardinal have been there once: Johnny's Big Moment in 2014. Ugh.
On a related note, maybe somebody's already asked but since WWII or even before have FB and MBB seen concurrent years worse or as just futile as the last three? I'm thinking this may be new territory. Sure hope it's not the wave of the future.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - msqueri - 03-14-2022
(03-14-2022, 03:07 PM)gailtate Wrote: From 1995 to 2008, Stanford made the Tournament 12 out of 13 years. That's a damn good run. Since then, the Cardinal have been there once: Johnny's Big Moment in 2014. Ugh.
On a related note, maybe somebody's already asked but since WWII or even before have FB and MBB seen concurrent years worse or as just futile as the last three? I'm thinking this may be new territory. Sure hope it's not the wave of the future.
The last time either Stanford football or men's basketball played in the postseason was December 31, 2018, when the football team beat Pitt 14-13. The last time the two biggest sports had a concurrent drought like this was when, on December 27, 1986, Jack Elway's team that lost the Gator Bowl to Clemson broke a postseason drought that was four days away from making it to the eight year mark.
This is our lowest point in 35+ years. I hope this drought doesn't come to rival that stretch in the 80s, especially since it's now easier to make the postseason than it was back then given the proliferation of postseason opportunities.
The optimistic read is that we've been low before and had numerous good years in both sports after the mid-80s. I hope it happens again. But it wasn't Jack Elway and Tom Davis who got us those good years.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - Spiny_Norman - 03-14-2022
Stanford hoops went 47 years between NCAA tournament berths between 1942 and 1989. We are a long way from historic basketball futility.
Overlapping that would be an 11 year bowl drought from January, 1941 to 1952, a 19 year football bowl drought from January, 1952 to 1971 (when there were many fewer bowl games) and an 8 year bowl drought from December, 1978 to December, 1986.
So for many of those 47 years there was no postseason for either basketball or football. Long time Stanford sports fans are very experienced in fan futility.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - Farm93 - 03-14-2022
(03-14-2022, 03:07 PM)gailtate Wrote: From 1995 to 2008, Stanford made the Tournament 12 out of 13 years. That's a damn good run. Since then, the Cardinal have been there once: Johnny's Big Moment in 2014. Ugh.It is a great narrative EXCEPT Stanford went 4-2 in football two years ago, and that was without any OOC games and only one home game. There are just not many seasons in Stanford football history above a .667 winning percentage.
On a related note, maybe somebody's already asked but since WWII or even before have FB and MBB seen concurrent years worse or as just futile as the last three? I'm thinking this may be new territory. Sure hope it's not the wave of the future.
As recently as the 1980-1988 Stanford football really didn't have the level of "success" in any three year span that we have enjoyed in this last three year span. For example, the football team had no wins over USC, no seasons with a .667 or better winning percentage. Depressing territory? Sure. New territory? Nah.
Taking basketball in isolation between 1943 & 1988 it was generally pretty bleak and certainly free of NCAA tournament invitations. So while this is not enjoyable territory it is not exactly new territory for Stanford Basketball.
If you exclude that great stretch under Montgomery, Haase is more or less on par with the historic winning percentage of Stanford hoops. As much as I would like Stanford to try a new path in hoops, I understand with admissions, NIL and the one-way only transfer portal it will be hard for any basketball coach to exceed Stanford's historic ~.570 winning percentage. However, even with my lower expectations I would expect Stanford basketball should at least get into the NCAA tournament once or twice every 6 years.
It is worth noting that even 0 for 46 years would not be new territory for Stanford Hoops, so we have a long way to go before we get to new territory in that sport.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - burger - 03-14-2022
I try not to think about the state of the basketball program now vs. the past. Too depressing.
Want to feel even worse about things post-Montgomery? Recall that for Dawkins' Tourney run, four of his five starters were future NBA players. If Embiid had been healthy for Kansas when we played them in the round of 32, we probably wouldn't have made the sweet 16. We went on to get beaten solidly by 11-seed Dayton in the sweet 16. No one on that Dayton team ever played in the NBA. In retrospect, even our best success in the last 12 years looks pretty underwhelming.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - msqueri - 03-14-2022
(03-14-2022, 03:55 PM)Farm93 Wrote:(03-14-2022, 03:07 PM)gailtate Wrote: From 1995 to 2008, Stanford made the Tournament 12 out of 13 years. That's a damn good run. Since then, the Cardinal have been there once: Johnny's Big Moment in 2014. Ugh.It is a great narrative EXCEPT Stanford went 4-2 in football two years ago, and that was without any OOC games and only one home game. There are just not many seasons in Stanford football history above a .667 winning percentage.
On a related note, maybe somebody's already asked but since WWII or even before have FB and MBB seen concurrent years worse or as just futile as the last three? I'm thinking this may be new territory. Sure hope it's not the wave of the future.
As recently as the 1980-1988 Stanford football really didn't have the level of "success" in any three year span that we have enjoyed in this last three year span. For example, the football team had no wins over USC, no seasons with a .667 or better winning percentage. Depressing territory? Sure. New territory? Nah.
Taking basketball in isolation between 1943 & 1988 it was generally pretty bleak and certainly free of NCAA tournament invitations. So while this is not enjoyable territory it is not exactly new territory for Stanford Basketball.
If you exclude that great stretch under Montgomery, Haase is more or less on par with the historic winning percentage of Stanford hoops. As much as I would like Stanford to try a new path in hoops, I understand with admissions, NIL and the one-way only transfer portal it will be hard for any basketball coach to exceed Stanford's historic ~.570 winning percentage. However, even with my lower expectations I would expect Stanford basketball should at least get into the NCAA tournament once or twice every 6 years.
It is worth noting that even 0 for 46 years would not be new territory for Stanford Hoops, so we have a long way to go before we get to new territory in that sport.
I think Shaw haters should agree not to focus on 2020 being a year without a bowl if Shawpologists can agree not to cite a year with a winning record. The fact is that was not a full season, so trying to use it as a major data point for or against Shaw is a stretch. I try to use it only as one data point in a three year span, and the least meaningful at that. It really goes too far to call it a .667 winning percentage in any sort of comparative sense with past years. A 4-2 season is not the same thing as an 8-4 season. The way 2020 played out should make that intuitive - we were tremendously lucky in a few of those games and it is highly plausible (computer algorithms would say likely) that there would have been somewhat of a reversion to the mean the rest of the year as that was not all that good of a team.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - teejers1 - 03-14-2022
(03-14-2022, 04:10 PM)msqueri Wrote:(03-14-2022, 03:55 PM)Farm93 Wrote:(03-14-2022, 03:07 PM)gailtate Wrote: From 1995 to 2008, Stanford made the Tournament 12 out of 13 years. That's a damn good run. Since then, the Cardinal have been there once: Johnny's Big Moment in 2014. Ugh.It is a great narrative EXCEPT Stanford went 4-2 in football two years ago, and that was without any OOC games and only one home game. There are just not many seasons in Stanford football history above a .667 winning percentage.
On a related note, maybe somebody's already asked but since WWII or even before have FB and MBB seen concurrent years worse or as just futile as the last three? I'm thinking this may be new territory. Sure hope it's not the wave of the future.
As recently as the 1980-1988 Stanford football really didn't have the level of "success" in any three year span that we have enjoyed in this last three year span. For example, the football team had no wins over USC, no seasons with a .667 or better winning percentage. Depressing territory? Sure. New territory? Nah.
Taking basketball in isolation between 1943 & 1988 it was generally pretty bleak and certainly free of NCAA tournament invitations. So while this is not enjoyable territory it is not exactly new territory for Stanford Basketball.
If you exclude that great stretch under Montgomery, Haase is more or less on par with the historic winning percentage of Stanford hoops. As much as I would like Stanford to try a new path in hoops, I understand with admissions, NIL and the one-way only transfer portal it will be hard for any basketball coach to exceed Stanford's historic ~.570 winning percentage. However, even with my lower expectations I would expect Stanford basketball should at least get into the NCAA tournament once or twice every 6 years.
It is worth noting that even 0 for 46 years would not be new territory for Stanford Hoops, so we have a long way to go before we get to new territory in that sport.
I think Shaw haters should agree not to focus on 2020 being a year without a bowl if Shawpologists can agree not to cite a year with a winning record. The fact is that was not a full season, so trying to use it as a major data point for or against Shaw is a stretch. I try to use it only as one data point in a three year span, and the least meaningful at that. It really goes too far to call it a .667 winning percentage in any sort of comparative sense with past years. A 4-2 season is not the same thing as an 8-4 season. The way 2020 played out should make that intuitive - we were tremendously lucky in a few of those games and it is highly plausible (computer algorithms would say likely) that there would have been somewhat of a reversion to the mean the rest of the year as that was not all that good of a team.
The 2020 Stanford football team was a bad team - just as the 2019 and 2021 versions were bad teams.
I will concede, however, that the crater at the end of 2021 was worse than anything we've seen in a long, long time.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - Phogge - 03-14-2022
The team seemed to quit just after midseason. It played surrender football against Cal and the Domers. THAT is what bothers me the most. I turned off Big Game in the third quarter. Unthinkable to somebody who started watching in 1953.
At least some of that is on the head man.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - winflop - 03-14-2022
(03-14-2022, 03:07 PM)gailtate Wrote: From 1995 to 2008, Stanford made the Tournament 12 out of 13 years.
16 times in 22 years across Montgomery & Johnson.
I actually heard back from someone in the AD's office and used this factoid in my reply. I get that the horse has left the barn on Haase being back next year. I told him I hope that Muir has set the bar appropriately and that anything less than an NCAA bid is an unacceptable result next season. I also told him that I'm not changing my perspective and will not be attending MBB or donating to Buck/Cardinal again while Haase is still the coach
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - Giants - 03-14-2022
(03-14-2022, 03:07 PM)gailtate Wrote: From 1995 to 2008, Stanford made the Tournament 12 out of 13 years. That's a damn good run. Since then, the Cardinal have been there once: Johnny's Big Moment in 2014. Ugh.
On a related note, maybe somebody's already asked but since WWII or even before have FB and MBB seen concurrent years worse or as just futile as the last three? I'm thinking this may be new territory. Sure hope it's not the wave of the future.
Men’s Hoops
1979/80 to 1981/82: 25-57
2019/20 to 2021/22: 50-41
No tournament appearances in any of the six years.
Football
1979 to 1981: 15-17-1
2019 to 2021: 11-19
No bowls in any of the six years.
May I suggest the three years ending 1981/82 were just as futile (if not worse) than the most recent three years?
As you can see, I am not a fan of recency bias. Having said that, these are definitely difficult times for the two most prominent men’s sports.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - jacket3ree - 03-14-2022
Let me ask this another way: what was so magical about the late Montgomery (1995 - 2004) years that can't be replicated? Other than about ten years of not-so-recent history, Stanford men's basketball is a wasteland. I'm discounting 1942 intentionally. Outlier.
Brevin Knight et al and their legacy faded out 7 years after he graduated? Johnson had one good year, Dawkins had one good year, and Montgomery had the 1989 flameout against Sienna. Not much else to write home about.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - BostonCard - 03-14-2022
(03-14-2022, 04:10 PM)msqueri Wrote: I think Shaw haters should agree not to focus on 2020 being a year without a bowl if Shawpologists can agree not to cite a year with a winning record. The fact is that was not a full season, so trying to use it as a major data point for or against Shaw is a stretch. I try to use it only as one data point in a three year span, and the least meaningful at that. It really goes too far to call it a .667 winning percentage in any sort of comparative sense with past years. A 4-2 season is not the same thing as an 8-4 season. The way 2020 played out should make that intuitive - we were tremendously lucky in a few of those games and it is highly plausible (computer algorithms would say likely) that there would have been somewhat of a reversion to the mean the rest of the year as that was not all that good of a team.
I agree with this. The sample size (6 games) is much smaller than a regular season. The season was marred by COVID, which interferes with practices, games, scheduling, everything. The schedule wasn’t balanced. The whole season was a mess, so trying to extrapolate anything out of it, good or bad, is fruitless.
Probably best to say that Stanford football has had a two yeara of very poor play surrounding a COVID-marred season.
BC
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - cardcrimson - 03-15-2022
(03-14-2022, 03:44 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: and an 8 year bowl drought from December, 1978 to December, 1986.
How that happened with the players we had was truly an amazing feat.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - winflop - 03-15-2022
(03-14-2022, 04:10 PM)msqueri Wrote: I think Shaw haters should agree not to focus on 2020 being a year without a bowl if Shawpologists can agree not to cite a year with a winning record. The fact is that was not a full season, so trying to use it as a major data point for or against Shaw is a stretch. I try to use it only as one data point in a three year span, and the least meaningful at that. It really goes too far to call it a .667 winning percentage in any sort of comparative sense with past years. A 4-2 season is not the same thing as an 8-4 season. The way 2020 played out should make that intuitive - we were tremendously lucky in a few of those games and it is highly plausible (computer algorithms would say likely) that there would have been somewhat of a reversion to the mean the rest of the year as that was not all that good of a team.
Not a Shawpologist here but I actually will give him credit for the 2020 season. It takes leadership to pull the team through the playing/practicing conditions they dealt with. And I give no criticism for not going to a bowl game. They were eligible, but they were exhausted after a month on the road.
If that had been a 4-8 season I'd be calling for him to be fired now. Instead, I think he deserves the opportunity to fix the mess he's made based on the last two full seasons in particular but also the slide down from the 2016 Rose Bowl to that point.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - Phogge - 03-15-2022
I get Georgia Tech’s point but there was more than the NCAA championship. For two Liusetti years Stanford was better than anybody. The NCAA was won without him.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - bbm233 - 03-15-2022
(03-15-2022, 09:41 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(03-14-2022, 03:44 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: and an 8 year bowl drought from December, 1978 to December, 1986.
How that happened with the players we had was truly an amazing feat.
A surprising number of excellent pros (Elway, Nelson, Muster, Baty, Harry, Margerum, Veris, Cook, Wyman, and more) considering the record. Problem was there were plenty of weak position groups to exploit. The trenches were outmanned, team speed was not good, and the reserves were...reserves.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - murky - 03-15-2022
(03-14-2022, 04:10 PM)msqueri Wrote:(03-14-2022, 03:55 PM)Farm93 Wrote:(03-14-2022, 03:07 PM)gailtate Wrote: From 1995 to 2008, Stanford made the Tournament 12 out of 13 years. That's a damn good run. Since then, the Cardinal have been there once: Johnny's Big Moment in 2014. Ugh.It is a great narrative EXCEPT Stanford went 4-2 in football two years ago, and that was without any OOC games and only one home game. There are just not many seasons in Stanford football history above a .667 winning percentage.
On a related note, maybe somebody's already asked but since WWII or even before have FB and MBB seen concurrent years worse or as just futile as the last three? I'm thinking this may be new territory. Sure hope it's not the wave of the future.
As recently as the 1980-1988 Stanford football really didn't have the level of "success" in any three year span that we have enjoyed in this last three year span. For example, the football team had no wins over USC, no seasons with a .667 or better winning percentage. Depressing territory? Sure. New territory? Nah.
Taking basketball in isolation between 1943 & 1988 it was generally pretty bleak and certainly free of NCAA tournament invitations. So while this is not enjoyable territory it is not exactly new territory for Stanford Basketball.
If you exclude that great stretch under Montgomery, Haase is more or less on par with the historic winning percentage of Stanford hoops. As much as I would like Stanford to try a new path in hoops, I understand with admissions, NIL and the one-way only transfer portal it will be hard for any basketball coach to exceed Stanford's historic ~.570 winning percentage. However, even with my lower expectations I would expect Stanford basketball should at least get into the NCAA tournament once or twice every 6 years.
It is worth noting that even 0 for 46 years would not be new territory for Stanford Hoops, so we have a long way to go before we get to new territory in that sport.
I think Shaw haters should agree not to focus on 2020 being a year without a bowl if Shawpologists can agree not to cite a year with a winning record. The fact is that was not a full season, so trying to use it as a major data point for or against Shaw is a stretch. I try to use it only as one data point in a three year span, and the least meaningful at that. It really goes too far to call it a .667 winning percentage in any sort of comparative sense with past years. A 4-2 season is not the same thing as an 8-4 season. The way 2020 played out should make that intuitive - we were tremendously lucky in a few of those games and it is highly plausible (computer algorithms would say likely) that there would have been somewhat of a reversion to the mean the rest of the year as that was not all that good of a team.
I agree, all bets were off in my mind for 2020, and I also give wide slack for the Covid disruption.
Winning 4 of 6 is better than losing them, but had we lost, I would have discounted them. My biggest concern with the program is the recruiting holes at key positions.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - msqueri - 03-15-2022
(03-15-2022, 10:04 AM)winflop Wrote:(03-14-2022, 04:10 PM)msqueri Wrote: I think Shaw haters should agree not to focus on 2020 being a year without a bowl if Shawpologists can agree not to cite a year with a winning record. The fact is that was not a full season, so trying to use it as a major data point for or against Shaw is a stretch. I try to use it only as one data point in a three year span, and the least meaningful at that. It really goes too far to call it a .667 winning percentage in any sort of comparative sense with past years. A 4-2 season is not the same thing as an 8-4 season. The way 2020 played out should make that intuitive - we were tremendously lucky in a few of those games and it is highly plausible (computer algorithms would say likely) that there would have been somewhat of a reversion to the mean the rest of the year as that was not all that good of a team.
Not a Shawpologist here but I actually will give him credit for the 2020 season. It takes leadership to pull the team through the playing/practicing conditions they dealt with. And I give no criticism for not going to a bowl game. They were eligible, but they were exhausted after a month on the road.
If that had been a 4-8 season I'd be calling for him to be fired now. Instead, I think he deserves the opportunity to fix the mess he's made based on the last two full seasons in particular but also the slide down from the 2016 Rose Bowl to that point.
Credit to a point is fine and for sure the resilience and grittiness amidst COVID chaos is a feather in everybody's cap that year. But it's also the case that if that season were replayed with a full 12 game slate, 4-8 very much could have been on the table. We'll never know how it would have played out if the season could have been played with a normal home/road slate and full season, but.....
In the final analysis, Sagarin ranked us the #75 team in the country. However, Sagarin's "recent" ranking agreed with the analysis that the late season team was considerably better than the early season team (an argument many make given the early season Mills/Wedington COVID cluster). Using the "recent" ranking Sagarin would have had us #61. That's still not good in my book though. I think we should be proud of the resilience of the Road Dogs, but I don't think there is a great case that was a good team.
How would the #61 team in the country have done against the schedule that wasn't to be? Win probabilities according to Sagarin using that "recent" ranking:
William & Mary: 100 percent
@ Arizona: 94 percent
USC: 36 percent
@ Notre Dame: 6 percent
Washington State: 79 percent
BYU: 4 percent
Expected wins: 3.19
4 + 3.19 = 7.19
So there's a case that had we got to play out the string in 2020 a 7-8 win season could have been on the table. But it's important to note that we had close, lucky wins to enable the 4-2 real life record itself. By Sagarin's lights UCLA was a better team than even our late season version.
To me the bottom line is that the 2020 team probably would have been about a 6-7 win team under normal circumstances. If Shaw supporters want to use that to defend him I think they're telling on themselves. The fourth year for our epic 2017 class should not have been a middling, irrelevant, barely bowl, beating a bad ACC team in an unwatched bowl kind of team.
I'll put it this way: if we had gone 7-6 (say 6-6 plus a bowl win) that would have been a 14-23 record over three years. A .378 winning percentage over three years would put Shaw ranking with Scott Frost, Dino Babers, and Geoff Collins as the least successful Power Five coaches in the nation in the last three years. In other words, 4-2 vs. 7-6 vs. 6-7 vs. 8-5 in 2020 would have changed nothing about the reality that our last three years have been bad. Ultimately, then, debates about 2020 are a distraction. We know the reality.
(03-15-2022, 10:44 AM)murky Wrote: I agree, all bets were off in my mind for 2020, and I also give wide slack for the Covid disruption.
Winning 4 of 6 is better than losing them, but had we lost, I would have discounted them. My biggest concern with the program is the recruiting holes at key positions.
Can you say more about recruiting holes at key positions being what has held us back? The 2019 train wreck was the fifth year for the #24 recruiting class in the country, the fourth year for the #16 class, and the third year for the #14 class. The 2020 bad team that admirably gutted its way to a winning record in bad circumstances was the fifth year for the #16 class, fourth year for the #14 class, and third year for the #40 class. The 2021 train wreck that was one of the two lowest points for Stanford football in literally generations was the fifth year for the #14 class, the fourth year for the #40 class, and the third year for the #19 class. Recruiting explanations for those classes ring pretty hollow in light of the quality of recruiting that preceded those classes. Don't take my word for it, look at the 247 talent composite (which, notably, only counts players who were actually on the rosters nationally, excluding NFL departures and other attrition) for those years: #20 in 2019, #20 in 2020, and #25 in 2021.
The only argument left standing to write off those seasons to "recruiting holes" is the one you identified, that we had holes at key positions. The best argument for this is the offensive line situation in 2019. That year there is an extremely strong case that our dereliction of duty in recruiting offensive linemen in quantity completely torpedoed that offense. But that defense sucked too (#79 in both Defensive FEI, my favorite metric, and scoring defense). What was their excuse? Most Power Five teams would gladly have taken Paulson Adebo, Curtis Robinson, Thomas Booker, Michael Williams, Dalyn Wade-Perry, Andres Fox, Joshua Pakola, Stephen Herron, Ryan Johnson, Salim Turner-Muhammad, and Tristan Sinclair as recruits. Not many teams in the nation. The number of teams in the country with this level of defensive recruiting is closer to zero than it to 79.
I love recruiting and focus on it a lot but when I look at the evidence I can't escape the conclusion that what ails us has to have a lot to do with coaching, strength and conditioning, player development, and culture. Recruiting explanations can't explain why David Shaw has never coached a team with worse than top 25 talent but for a several year stretch has delivered results more like a top 75 coach.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - gailtate - 03-15-2022
(03-15-2022, 11:10 AM)msqueri Wrote:(03-15-2022, 10:04 AM)winflop Wrote:(03-14-2022, 04:10 PM)msqueri Wrote: I think Shaw haters should agree not to focus on 2020 being a year without a bowl if Shawpologists can agree not to cite a year with a winning record. The fact is that was not a full season, so trying to use it as a major data point for or against Shaw is a stretch. I try to use it only as one data point in a three year span, and the least meaningful at that. It really goes too far to call it a .667 winning percentage in any sort of comparative sense with past years. A 4-2 season is not the same thing as an 8-4 season. The way 2020 played out should make that intuitive - we were tremendously lucky in a few of those games and it is highly plausible (computer algorithms would say likely) that there would have been somewhat of a reversion to the mean the rest of the year as that was not all that good of a team.
Not a Shawpologist here but I actually will give him credit for the 2020 season. It takes leadership to pull the team through the playing/practicing conditions they dealt with. And I give no criticism for not going to a bowl game. They were eligible, but they were exhausted after a month on the road.
If that had been a 4-8 season I'd be calling for him to be fired now. Instead, I think he deserves the opportunity to fix the mess he's made based on the last two full seasons in particular but also the slide down from the 2016 Rose Bowl to that point.
Credit to a point is fine and for sure the resilience and grittiness amidst COVID chaos is a feather in everybody's cap that year. But it's also the case that if that season were replayed with a full 12 game slate, 4-8 very much could have been on the table. We'll never know how it would have played out if the season could have been played with a normal home/road slate and full season, but.....
In the final analysis, Sagarin ranked us the #75 team in the country. However, Sagarin's "recent" ranking agreed with the analysis that the late season team was considerably better than the early season team (an argument many make given the early season Mills/Wedington COVID cluster). Using the "recent" ranking Sagarin would have had us #61. That's still not good in my book though. I think we should be proud of the resilience of the Road Dogs, but I don't think there is a great case that was a good team.
How would the #61 team in the country have done against the schedule that wasn't to be? Win probabilities according to Sagarin using that "recent" ranking:
William & Mary: 100 percent
@ Arizona: 94 percent
USC: 36 percent
@ Notre Dame: 6 percent
Washington State: 79 percent
BYU: 4 percent
Expected wins: 3.19
4 + 3.19 = 7.19
So there's a case that had we got to play out the string in 2020 a 7-8 win season could have been on the table. But it's important to note that we had close, lucky wins to enable the 4-2 real life record itself. By Sagarin's lights UCLA was a better team than even our late season version.
To me the bottom line is that the 2020 team probably would have been about a 6-7 win team under normal circumstances. If Shaw supporters want to use that to defend him I think they're telling on themselves. The fourth year for our epic 2017 class should not have been a middling, irrelevant, barely bowl, beating a bad ACC team in an unwatched bowl kind of team.
I'll put it this way: if we had gone 7-6 (say 6-6 plus a bowl win) that would have been a 14-23 record over three years. A .378 winning percentage over three years would put Shaw ranking with Scott Frost, Dino Babers, and Geoff Collins as the least successful Power Five coaches in the nation in the last three years. In other words, 4-2 vs. 7-6 vs. 6-7 vs. 8-5 in 2020 would have changed nothing about the reality that our last three years have been bad. Ultimately, then, debates about 2020 are a distraction. We know the reality.
(03-15-2022, 10:44 AM)murky Wrote: I agree, all bets were off in my mind for 2020, and I also give wide slack for the Covid disruption.
Winning 4 of 6 is better than losing them, but had we lost, I would have discounted them. My biggest concern with the program is the recruiting holes at key positions.
Can you say more about recruiting holes at key positions being what has held us back? The 2019 train wreck was the fifth year for the #24 recruiting class in the country, the fourth year for the #16 class, and the third year for the #14 class. The 2020 bad team that admirably gutted its way to a winning record in bad circumstances was the fifth year for the #16 class, fourth year for the #14 class, and third year for the #40 class. The 2021 train wreck that was one of the two lowest points for Stanford football in literally generations was the fifth year for the #14 class, the fourth year for the #40 class, and the third year for the #19 class. Recruiting explanations for those classes ring pretty hollow in light of the quality of recruiting that preceded those classes. Don't take my word for it, look at the 247 talent composite (which, notably, only counts players who were actually on the rosters nationally, excluding NFL departures and other attrition) for those years: #20 in 2019, #20 in 2020, and #25 in 2021.
The only argument left standing to write off those seasons to "recruiting holes" is the one you identified, that we had holes at key positions. The best argument for this is the offensive line situation in 2019. That year there is an extremely strong case that our dereliction of duty in recruiting offensive linemen in quantity completely torpedoed that offense. But that defense sucked too (#79 in both Defensive FEI, my favorite metric, and scoring defense). What was their excuse? Most Power Five teams would gladly have taken Paulson Adebo, Curtis Robinson, Thomas Booker, Michael Williams, Dalyn Wade-Perry, Andres Fox, Joshua Pakola, Stephen Herron, Ryan Johnson, Salim Turner-Muhammad, and Tristan Sinclair as recruits. Not many teams in the nation. The number of teams in the country with this level of defensive recruiting is closer to zero than it to 79.
I love recruiting and focus on it a lot but when I look at the evidence I can't escape the conclusion that what ails us has to have a lot to do with coaching, strength and conditioning, player development, and culture. Recruiting explanations can't explain why David Shaw has never coached a team with worse than top 25 talent but for a several year stretch has delivered results more like a top 75 coach.
And still more evidence that #MuirAndShawMustGo.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - BostonCard - 03-15-2022
(03-15-2022, 04:09 PM)gailtate Wrote: And still more evidence that #MuirAndShawMustGo.
But evidently #HaaseCanStay? Im not sure why you’ve reduced someone’s employment to a hashtag. I agree with you that Provost Drell should give serious consideration to firing Muir; I’ve given my myriad of reasons in another post. While I think the Shaw skeptics have a strengthening case for long term pessimism vis a vis Shaw, he is a coach who as recently as 4 years ago (3 non-COVID seasons ago) got us to 9 wins. From my perspective, he has earned the right to try to resurrect the program. Maybe he won’t, and a few years from now, I will acknowledge that you guys were right, but I think he has earned himself the chance. But if you are so determined to fire a guy who has 8 post season appearances in 11 years coaching (10 if you exclude 2020), why is it ok that the guy who has done bupkis in 6 years doesn’t earn himself a spot on your hashtag?
BC