[Papa John]

Following up on an earlier thread about Johnny Dawkins, Mike Montgomery and building a contender, I did a look back to 1978 at how Stanford teams and one soon-to-be-Stanford-coach-at-Montana "contended." Since I'm not much of a math wiz, I took the final conference standings and divided the number of games behind first place by the number of conference games played per team. If the team finished first in the conference, then I took the number of games that team finished ahead of the second-place teams. Then I took the average of certain "eras" as defined by me.

How do we determine whether or not a team contended? I'm not sure, but given that most teams play two conference games per week, a team that finishes three games behind first was likely mathematically alive for the regular season title until the last week or two of the regular season. Anecdote: the last year with the Lopi, Stanford was in contention until the final week, and that team finished three games behind UCLA. So 3 games out is my cutoff for "in contention."

1978-86, Montana, Montgomery: Tied for 1st place once. Finished an average of 2.125 games out of first in a 14-game season.
Weighted average: -0.143
Number of seasons in contention: 7

1978-86, Stanford, DiBiaso, Davis: Best season was 1985-86, 6 games out of first. Finished an average of 10 games out of first in an 18-game season.
Weighted average: -0.556
Number of seasons in contention: 0

1986-95, Stanford, Montgomery I: Best season was 1988-89, 2 games out of first. Finished an average of 6.2 games out of first in an 18-game season (includes 1992-93, when Stanford finished 15 games out of first!).
Weighted average: -0.346
Number of seasons in contention: 1

1995-2004, Stanford, Montgomery II: Tied for 1st once, won the conference outright three times. Best season was 2003-04, 5 games ahead of second place. Finished an average of 0.667 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.037
Number of seasons in contention: 8!

2004-2008, Stanford, Johnson: Best seasons were 2005-06 and 2007-08, both at three games out of first place. Finished an average of 3.75 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.208
Number of seasons in contention: 2

2008-2016, Stanford, Dawkins: Best seasons were 2011-12 and 2012-13, both at four games out of first place. Finished an average of 5.875 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.326
Number of seasons in contention: 0

A couple of observations: Although Montgomery had no NCAA tournament appearances at Montana (his teams never won the conference tournament), he did develop a consistent contender. And Stanford, during that same time, was mostly atrocious and occasionally not very good. So when Montgomery arrived and contended for a conference crown in his third year, Stanford fans were rightfully excited. But it was during the second half of Monty's tenure that Stanford basketball was something special. There was a dropoff with Trent Johnson and, of course, Dawkins has brought us back to where we were in the late-1980s.

While Dawkins numbers, on average, look better than Montgomery I, I think I'll backtrack on my earlier comment that our impressions of Montgomery I and Dawkins are due only to anchoring. First, note that the year that Stanford made the Sweet 16 under Dawkins, the team finished 5 games out of first, i.e. it was not a contender. Also, in the Montgomery I era, Stanford finished 5, 6, 2, 6, 6, 6, 15, 4 and 6 games out of first place. It's safe to say that the 15 is an outlier, so without that value the team averaged 5.125 games out of first place, more than a half-game better than Dawkins 5.875. Finally, during Montgomery I, Stanford's conference record was 84-78--that includes the disastrous 2-16 season--with five seasons of at least 10 conference wins (i.e. a winning record in conference). So while his teams weren't contending, they were at least winning consistently. Dawkins conference record was 66-78 with two seasons of exactly 10 wins.

Montgomery had a consistent contender at Montana, he developed a consistent winner in his first nine seasons at Stanford that evolved into a consistent contender, and then some!, in his final nine seasons. Dawkins, unfortunately, developed neither a consistent winner nor contender.

So my expectations for the next Stanford coach? His teams regularly finish above .500 in the conference and, by year four, Stanford is a consistent contender for the Pac-12 conference title. We had that from 1995-2008 and we can get it back!

[Papa John]

Following up on an earlier thread about Johnny Dawkins, Mike Montgomery and building a contender, I did a look back to 1978 at how Stanford teams and one soon-to-be-Stanford-coach-at-Montana "contended." Since I'm not much of a math wiz, I took the final conference standings and divided the number of games behind first place by the number of conference games played per team. If the team finished first in the conference, then I took the number of games that team finished ahead of the second-place teams. Then I took the average of certain "eras" as defined by me.

How do we determine whether or not a team contended? I'm not sure, but given that most teams play two conference games per week, a team that finishes three games behind first was likely mathematically alive for the regular season title until the last week or two of the regular season. Anecdote: the last year with the Lopi, Stanford was in contention until the final week, and that team finished three games behind UCLA. So 3 games out is my cutoff for "in contention."

1978-86, Montana, Montgomery: Tied for 1st place once. Finished an average of 2.125 games out of first in a 14-game season.
Weighted average: -0.143
Number of seasons in contention: 7

1978-86, Stanford, DiBiaso, Davis: Best season was 1985-86, 6 games out of first. Finished an average of 10 games out of first in an 18-game season.
Weighted average: -0.556
Number of seasons in contention: 0

1986-95, Stanford, Montgomery I: Best season was 1988-89, 2 games out of first. Finished an average of 6.2 games out of first in an 18-game season (includes 1992-93, when Stanford finished 15 games out of first!).
Weighted average: -0.346
Number of seasons in contention: 1

1995-2004, Stanford, Montgomery II: Tied for 1st once, won the conference outright three times. Best season was 2003-04, 5 games ahead of second place. Finished an average of 0.667 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.037
Number of seasons in contention: 8!

2004-2008, Stanford, Johnson: Best seasons were 2005-06 and 2007-08, both at three games out of first place. Finished an average of 3.75 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.208
Number of seasons in contention: 2

2008-2016, Stanford, Dawkins: Best seasons were 2011-12 and 2012-13, both at four games out of first place. Finished an average of 5.875 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.326
Number of seasons in contention: 0

A couple of observations: Although Montgomery had no NCAA tournament appearances at Montana (his teams never won the conference tournament), he did develop a consistent contender. And Stanford, during that same time, was mostly atrocious and occasionally not very good. So when Montgomery arrived and contended for a conference crown in his third year, Stanford fans were rightfully excited. But it was during the second half of Monty's tenure that Stanford basketball was something special. There was a dropoff with Trent Johnson and, of course, Dawkins has brought us back to where we were in the late-1980s.

While Dawkins numbers, on average, look better than Montgomery I, I think I'll backtrack on my earlier comment that our impressions of Montgomery I and Dawkins are due only to anchoring. First, note that the year that Stanford made the Sweet 16 under Dawkins, the team finished 5 games out of first, i.e. it was not a contender. Also, in the Montgomery I era, Stanford finished 5, 6, 2, 6, 6, 6, 15, 4 and 6 games out of first place. It's safe to say that the 15 is an outlier, so without that value the team averaged 5.125 games out of first place, more than a half-game better than Dawkins 5.875. Finally, during Montgomery I, Stanford's conference record was 84-78--that includes the disastrous 2-16 season--with five seasons of at least 10 conference wins (i.e. a winning record in conference). So while his teams weren't contending, they were at least winning consistently. Dawkins conference record was 66-78 with two seasons of exactly 10 wins.

Montgomery had a consistent contender at Montana, he developed a consistent winner in his first nine seasons at Stanford that evolved into a consistent contender, and then some!, in his final nine seasons. Dawkins, unfortunately, developed neither a consistent winner nor contender.

So my expectations for the next Stanford coach? His teams regularly finish above .500 in the conference and, by year four, Stanford is a consistent contender for the Pac-12 conference title. We had that from 1995-2008 and we can get it back!

[Papa John]

Following up on an earlier thread about Johnny Dawkins, Mike Montgomery and building a contender, I did a look back to 1978 at how Stanford teams and one soon-to-be-Stanford-coach-at-Montana "contended." Since I'm not much of a math wiz, I took the final conference standings and divided the number of games behind first place by the number of conference games played per team. If the team finished first in the conference, then I took the number of games that team finished ahead of the second-place teams. Then I took the average of certain "eras" as defined by me.

How do we determine whether or not a team contended? I'm not sure, but given that most teams play two conference games per week, a team that finishes three games behind first was likely mathematically alive for the regular season title until the last week or two of the regular season. Anecdote: the last year with the Lopi, Stanford was in contention until the final week, and that team finished three games behind UCLA. So 3 games out is my cutoff for "in contention."

1978-86, Montana, Montgomery: Tied for 1st place once. Finished an average of 2.125 games out of first in a 14-game season.
Weighted average: -0.143
Number of seasons in contention: 7

1978-86, Stanford, DiBiaso, Davis: Best season was 1985-86, 6 games out of first. Finished an average of 10 games out of first in an 18-game season.
Weighted average: -0.556
Number of seasons in contention: 0

1986-95, Stanford, Montgomery I: Best season was 1988-89, 2 games out of first. Finished an average of 6.2 games out of first in an 18-game season (includes 1992-93, when Stanford finished 15 games out of first!).
Weighted average: -0.346
Number of seasons in contention: 1

1995-2004, Stanford, Montgomery II: Tied for 1st once, won the conference outright three times. Best season was 2003-04, 5 games ahead of second place. Finished an average of 0.667 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.037
Number of seasons in contention: 8!

2004-2008, Stanford, Johnson: Best seasons were 2005-06 and 2007-08, both at three games out of first place. Finished an average of 3.75 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.208
Number of seasons in contention: 2

2008-2016, Stanford, Dawkins: Best seasons were 2011-12 and 2012-13, both at four games out of first place. Finished an average of 5.875 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.326
Number of seasons in contention: 0

A couple of observations: Although Montgomery had no NCAA tournament appearances at Montana (his teams never won the conference tournament), he did develop a consistent contender. And Stanford, during that same time, was mostly atrocious and occasionally not very good. So when Montgomery arrived and contended for a conference crown in his third year, Stanford fans were rightfully excited. But it was during the second half of Monty's tenure that Stanford basketball was something special. There was a dropoff with Trent Johnson and, of course, Dawkins has brought us back to where we were in the late-1980s.

While Dawkins numbers, on average, look better than Montgomery I, I think I'll backtrack on my earlier comment that our impressions of Montgomery I and Dawkins are due only to anchoring. First, note that the year that Stanford made the Sweet 16 under Dawkins, the team finished 5 games out of first, i.e. it was not a contender. Also, in the Montgomery I era, Stanford finished 5, 6, 2, 6, 6, 6, 15, 4 and 6 games out of first place. It's safe to say that the 15 is an outlier, so without that value the team averaged 5.125 games out of first place, more than a half-game better than Dawkins 5.875. Finally, during Montgomery I, Stanford's conference record was 84-78--that includes the disastrous 2-16 season--with five seasons of at least 10 conference wins (i.e. a winning record in conference). So while his teams weren't contending, they were at least winning consistently. Dawkins conference record was 66-78 with two seasons of exactly 10 wins.

Montgomery had a consistent contender at Montana, he developed a consistent winner in his first nine seasons at Stanford that evolved into a consistent contender, and then some!, in his final nine seasons. Dawkins, unfortunately, developed neither a consistent winner nor contender.

So my expectations for the next Stanford coach? His teams regularly finish above .500 in the conference and, by year four, Stanford is a consistent contender for the Pac-12 conference title. We had that from 1995-2008 and we can get it back!

[Papa John]

Following up on an earlier thread about Johnny Dawkins, Mike Montgomery and building a contender, I did a look back to 1978 at how Stanford teams and one soon-to-be-Stanford-coach-at-Montana "contended." Since I'm not much of a math wiz, I took the final conference standings and divided the number of games behind first place by the number of conference games played per team. If the team finished first in the conference, then I took the number of games that team finished ahead of the second-place teams. Then I took the average of certain "eras" as defined by me.

How do we determine whether or not a team contended? I'm not sure, but given that most teams play two conference games per week, a team that finishes three games behind first was likely mathematically alive for the regular season title until the last week or two of the regular season. Anecdote: the last year with the Lopi, Stanford was in contention until the final week, and that team finished three games behind UCLA. So 3 games out is my cutoff for "in contention."

1978-86, Montana, Montgomery: Tied for 1st place once. Finished an average of 2.125 games out of first in a 14-game season.
Weighted average: -0.143
Number of seasons in contention: 7

1978-86, Stanford, DiBiaso, Davis: Best season was 1985-86, 6 games out of first. Finished an average of 10 games out of first in an 18-game season.
Weighted average: -0.556
Number of seasons in contention: 0

1986-95, Stanford, Montgomery I: Best season was 1988-89, 2 games out of first. Finished an average of 6.2 games out of first in an 18-game season (includes 1992-93, when Stanford finished 15 games out of first!).
Weighted average: -0.346
Number of seasons in contention: 1

1995-2004, Stanford, Montgomery II: Tied for 1st once, won the conference outright three times. Best season was 2003-04, 5 games ahead of second place. Finished an average of 0.667 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.037
Number of seasons in contention: 8!

2004-2008, Stanford, Johnson: Best seasons were 2005-06 and 2007-08, both at three games out of first place. Finished an average of 3.75 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.208
Number of seasons in contention: 2

2008-2016, Stanford, Dawkins: Best seasons were 2011-12 and 2012-13, both at four games out of first place. Finished an average of 5.875 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.326
Number of seasons in contention: 0

A couple of observations: Although Montgomery had no NCAA tournament appearances at Montana (his teams never won the conference tournament), he did develop a consistent contender. And Stanford, during that same time, was mostly atrocious and occasionally not very good. So when Montgomery arrived and contended for a conference crown in his third year, Stanford fans were rightfully excited. But it was during the second half of Monty's tenure that Stanford basketball was something special. There was a dropoff with Trent Johnson and, of course, Dawkins has brought us back to where we were in the late-1980s.

While Dawkins numbers, on average, look better than Montgomery I, I think I'll backtrack on my earlier comment that our impressions of Montgomery I and Dawkins are due only to anchoring. First, note that the year that Stanford made the Sweet 16 under Dawkins, the team finished 5 games out of first, i.e. it was not a contender. Also, in the Montgomery I era, Stanford finished 5, 6, 2, 6, 6, 6, 15, 4 and 6 games out of first place. It's safe to say that the 15 is an outlier, so without that value the team averaged 5.125 games out of first place, more than a half-game better than Dawkins 5.875. Finally, during Montgomery I, Stanford's conference record was 84-78--that includes the disastrous 2-16 season--with five seasons of at least 10 conference wins (i.e. a winning record in conference). So while his teams weren't contending, they were at least winning consistently. Dawkins conference record was 66-78 with two seasons of exactly 10 wins.

Montgomery had a consistent contender at Montana, he developed a consistent winner in his first nine seasons at Stanford that evolved into a consistent contender, and then some!, in his final nine seasons. Dawkins, unfortunately, developed neither a consistent winner nor contender.

So my expectations for the next Stanford coach? His teams regularly finish above .500 in the conference and, by year four, Stanford is a consistent contender for the Pac-12 conference title. We had that from 1995-2008 and we can get it back!

[BobK]

Eric Reveno was fired today

[BobK]

Eric Reveno was fired today

[BobK]

Eric Reveno was fired today

[BobK]

Eric Reveno was fired today

[BobK]

I would guess Carey also with the head coach at Colorado fired. 

[BobK]

I would guess Carey also with the head coach at Colorado fired. 

[BobK]

I would guess Carey also with the head coach at Colorado fired. 

[BobK]

I would guess Carey also with the head coach at Colorado fired. 

[winflop]

Eric Reveno was fired today

No thanks.  There was a reason he was fired, and that same reason is why he shouldn't even be on the long list, much less the short list.

As an assistant?  Different story esp if the HC hire has no Stanford affiliation.

[winflop]

Eric Reveno was fired today

No thanks.  There was a reason he was fired, and that same reason is why he shouldn't even be on the long list, much less the short list.

As an assistant?  Different story esp if the HC hire has no Stanford affiliation.

[winflop]

Eric Reveno was fired today

No thanks.  There was a reason he was fired, and that same reason is why he shouldn't even be on the long list, much less the short list.

As an assistant?  Different story esp if the HC hire has no Stanford affiliation.

[winflop]

Eric Reveno was fired today

No thanks.  There was a reason he was fired, and that same reason is why he shouldn't even be on the long list, much less the short list.

As an assistant?  Different story esp if the HC hire has no Stanford affiliation.

[jacketree]

1986-95, Stanford, Montgomery I: Best season was 1988-89, 2 games out of first. Finished an average of 6.2 games out of first in an 18-game season (includes 1992-93, when Stanford finished 15 games out of first!).
Weighted average: -0.346
Number of seasons in contention: 1

2008-2016, Stanford, Dawkins: Best seasons were 2011-12 and 2012-13, both at four games out of first place. Finished an average of 5.875 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.326
Number of seasons in contention: 0

Nice work Papa John.  So I wasn't completely full of shit when I said it took Monty nine years to get it going, and as tenuous as many feel it is, their first 8 years are pretty comparable on balance.  Monty definitely had a higher variance than Dawkins, so that might have been more interesting.

Just for kicks I looked up the 1989 tournament bracket, to see how the Pac10 did.  So-so, which is what I remember.

No. 1 Arizona lost by a point in the Sweet 16 to  No. 4 UNLV, who would lose by 23 to No. 3 Seton Hall in the Elite Eight.
No. 3 Stanford lost by 2 in the First Round to No. 14 Sienna, who would lose by 13 to No. 11 Minnesota in the Second Round.
No. 6 Oregon State lost by 4 in the First Round to No. 11 Evansville, who would lose by 14 to No. 3 Seton Hall in the Second Round.
No. 7 UCLA lost by 7 in the Second Round to No. 2 North Carolina, who would lose by 5 to No. 3 Michigan in the Sweet 16.

Four out of 10 teams seems about par for the course back then. Wasn't a great tournament for the Pac10.

[jacketree]

1986-95, Stanford, Montgomery I: Best season was 1988-89, 2 games out of first. Finished an average of 6.2 games out of first in an 18-game season (includes 1992-93, when Stanford finished 15 games out of first!).
Weighted average: -0.346
Number of seasons in contention: 1

2008-2016, Stanford, Dawkins: Best seasons were 2011-12 and 2012-13, both at four games out of first place. Finished an average of 5.875 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.326
Number of seasons in contention: 0

Nice work Papa John.  So I wasn't completely full of shit when I said it took Monty nine years to get it going, and as tenuous as many feel it is, their first 8 years are pretty comparable on balance.  Monty definitely had a higher variance than Dawkins, so that might have been more interesting.

Just for kicks I looked up the 1989 tournament bracket, to see how the Pac10 did.  So-so, which is what I remember.

No. 1 Arizona lost by a point in the Sweet 16 to  No. 4 UNLV, who would lose by 23 to No. 3 Seton Hall in the Elite Eight.
No. 3 Stanford lost by 2 in the First Round to No. 14 Sienna, who would lose by 13 to No. 11 Minnesota in the Second Round.
No. 6 Oregon State lost by 4 in the First Round to No. 11 Evansville, who would lose by 14 to No. 3 Seton Hall in the Second Round.
No. 7 UCLA lost by 7 in the Second Round to No. 2 North Carolina, who would lose by 5 to No. 3 Michigan in the Sweet 16.

Four out of 10 teams seems about par for the course back then. Wasn't a great tournament for the Pac10.

[jacketree]

1986-95, Stanford, Montgomery I: Best season was 1988-89, 2 games out of first. Finished an average of 6.2 games out of first in an 18-game season (includes 1992-93, when Stanford finished 15 games out of first!).
Weighted average: -0.346
Number of seasons in contention: 1

2008-2016, Stanford, Dawkins: Best seasons were 2011-12 and 2012-13, both at four games out of first place. Finished an average of 5.875 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.326
Number of seasons in contention: 0

Nice work Papa John.  So I wasn't completely full of shit when I said it took Monty nine years to get it going, and as tenuous as many feel it is, their first 8 years are pretty comparable on balance.  Monty definitely had a higher variance than Dawkins, so that might have been more interesting.

Just for kicks I looked up the 1989 tournament bracket, to see how the Pac10 did.  So-so, which is what I remember.

No. 1 Arizona lost by a point in the Sweet 16 to  No. 4 UNLV, who would lose by 23 to No. 3 Seton Hall in the Elite Eight.
No. 3 Stanford lost by 2 in the First Round to No. 14 Sienna, who would lose by 13 to No. 11 Minnesota in the Second Round.
No. 6 Oregon State lost by 4 in the First Round to No. 11 Evansville, who would lose by 14 to No. 3 Seton Hall in the Second Round.
No. 7 UCLA lost by 7 in the Second Round to No. 2 North Carolina, who would lose by 5 to No. 3 Michigan in the Sweet 16.

Four out of 10 teams seems about par for the course back then. Wasn't a great tournament for the Pac10.

[jacketree]

1986-95, Stanford, Montgomery I: Best season was 1988-89, 2 games out of first. Finished an average of 6.2 games out of first in an 18-game season (includes 1992-93, when Stanford finished 15 games out of first!).
Weighted average: -0.346
Number of seasons in contention: 1

2008-2016, Stanford, Dawkins: Best seasons were 2011-12 and 2012-13, both at four games out of first place. Finished an average of 5.875 games out of first.
Weighted average: -0.326
Number of seasons in contention: 0

Nice work Papa John.  So I wasn't completely full of shit when I said it took Monty nine years to get it going, and as tenuous as many feel it is, their first 8 years are pretty comparable on balance.  Monty definitely had a higher variance than Dawkins, so that might have been more interesting.

Just for kicks I looked up the 1989 tournament bracket, to see how the Pac10 did.  So-so, which is what I remember.

No. 1 Arizona lost by a point in the Sweet 16 to  No. 4 UNLV, who would lose by 23 to No. 3 Seton Hall in the Elite Eight.
No. 3 Stanford lost by 2 in the First Round to No. 14 Sienna, who would lose by 13 to No. 11 Minnesota in the Second Round.
No. 6 Oregon State lost by 4 in the First Round to No. 11 Evansville, who would lose by 14 to No. 3 Seton Hall in the Second Round.
No. 7 UCLA lost by 7 in the Second Round to No. 2 North Carolina, who would lose by 5 to No. 3 Michigan in the Sweet 16.

Four out of 10 teams seems about par for the course back then. Wasn't a great tournament for the Pac10.

[Papa John]

Hey jacketree. Yeah, I thought about including the postseason in my analysis, but it occurred to me that it's the regular season--and really the conference season--that gets folks excited for the postseason. Not the other way around. But if I had included postseason facts, I would have noted that the conference was *really* weak during parts of Dawkins' tenure. But I didn't see the point, since Dawkins is gone.

This was more an exercise to calibrate my expectations for the next coach. As I wrote earlier, it's the consistent winning conference record that Montgomery accomplished, even during his first nine years at Stanford (and before that at Montana), that's the standard to which the next coach should be held, IMO.

[Papa John]

Hey jacketree. Yeah, I thought about including the postseason in my analysis, but it occurred to me that it's the regular season--and really the conference season--that gets folks excited for the postseason. Not the other way around. But if I had included postseason facts, I would have noted that the conference was *really* weak during parts of Dawkins' tenure. But I didn't see the point, since Dawkins is gone.

This was more an exercise to calibrate my expectations for the next coach. As I wrote earlier, it's the consistent winning conference record that Montgomery accomplished, even during his first nine years at Stanford (and before that at Montana), that's the standard to which the next coach should be held, IMO.

[Papa John]

Hey jacketree. Yeah, I thought about including the postseason in my analysis, but it occurred to me that it's the regular season--and really the conference season--that gets folks excited for the postseason. Not the other way around. But if I had included postseason facts, I would have noted that the conference was *really* weak during parts of Dawkins' tenure. But I didn't see the point, since Dawkins is gone.

This was more an exercise to calibrate my expectations for the next coach. As I wrote earlier, it's the consistent winning conference record that Montgomery accomplished, even during his first nine years at Stanford (and before that at Montana), that's the standard to which the next coach should be held, IMO.

[Papa John]

Hey jacketree. Yeah, I thought about including the postseason in my analysis, but it occurred to me that it's the regular season--and really the conference season--that gets folks excited for the postseason. Not the other way around. But if I had included postseason facts, I would have noted that the conference was *really* weak during parts of Dawkins' tenure. But I didn't see the point, since Dawkins is gone.

This was more an exercise to calibrate my expectations for the next coach. As I wrote earlier, it's the consistent winning conference record that Montgomery accomplished, even during his first nine years at Stanford (and before that at Montana), that's the standard to which the next coach should be held, IMO.

[triangle2]

Jacketree,

Respectfully, you're missing the context again. When Mike took over, the consensus opinion was that it was "impossible" to build a winning program at Stanford.  That was essentially the message that Dr. Tom delivered as he let the door hit him in the ass as he left and it was the plain reality of Stanford basketball throughout my childhood.

So, when Mike took us to the tournament in 1989, that was the first time to the tournament since....1942. Using a climbing analogy, in the prior 46 years, we were generally not even in Nepal. Dr. Tom got us briefly to Kathmandu, but Mike dragged the entire program up to base camp and set up tents, allowing us to make repeated assaults on the summit during his entire tenure. And thanks to the Lopi, we stayed at base camp through the Johnson era. I mean, in '89, people in the stands were in tears after the SC game when everyone knew that a 24-5 team wasn't going to get shut out of the NCAA's no matter what happened in the Conference Tournament. And these were the low-keyed "forever" fans from Palo Alto who dutifully sat through decades of misery and happily appreciated Mike Bratz, and Brian Welch, and Rich Kelley while we were getting repeatedly destroyed by UCLA, USC, and Oregon State.

In 1986, just the idea that anyone would even vaguely consider putting us in the tournament was like a marijuana induced dream sequence.

Dawkins, in contrast, arrived on campus after 22 years of success with an entire generation of kids growing up thinking that Stanford meant competitive, NCAA tournament quality basketball. After eight years, base camp has largely been destroyed, and we've fled down the mountain.

Whoever takes over might still be in Nepal, but the trek back from Kathmandu isn't going to be easy.

[triangle2]

Jacketree,

Respectfully, you're missing the context again. When Mike took over, the consensus opinion was that it was "impossible" to build a winning program at Stanford.  That was essentially the message that Dr. Tom delivered as he let the door hit him in the ass as he left and it was the plain reality of Stanford basketball throughout my childhood.

So, when Mike took us to the tournament in 1989, that was the first time to the tournament since....1942. Using a climbing analogy, in the prior 46 years, we were generally not even in Nepal. Dr. Tom got us briefly to Kathmandu, but Mike dragged the entire program up to base camp and set up tents, allowing us to make repeated assaults on the summit during his entire tenure. And thanks to the Lopi, we stayed at base camp through the Johnson era. I mean, in '89, people in the stands were in tears after the SC game when everyone knew that a 24-5 team wasn't going to get shut out of the NCAA's no matter what happened in the Conference Tournament. And these were the low-keyed "forever" fans from Palo Alto who dutifully sat through decades of misery and happily appreciated Mike Bratz, and Brian Welch, and Rich Kelley while we were getting repeatedly destroyed by UCLA, USC, and Oregon State.

In 1986, just the idea that anyone would even vaguely consider putting us in the tournament was like a marijuana induced dream sequence.

Dawkins, in contrast, arrived on campus after 22 years of success with an entire generation of kids growing up thinking that Stanford meant competitive, NCAA tournament quality basketball. After eight years, base camp has largely been destroyed, and we've fled down the mountain.

Whoever takes over might still be in Nepal, but the trek back from Kathmandu isn't going to be easy.

[triangle2]

Jacketree,

Respectfully, you're missing the context again. When Mike took over, the consensus opinion was that it was "impossible" to build a winning program at Stanford.  That was essentially the message that Dr. Tom delivered as he let the door hit him in the ass as he left and it was the plain reality of Stanford basketball throughout my childhood.

So, when Mike took us to the tournament in 1989, that was the first time to the tournament since....1942. Using a climbing analogy, in the prior 46 years, we were generally not even in Nepal. Dr. Tom got us briefly to Kathmandu, but Mike dragged the entire program up to base camp and set up tents, allowing us to make repeated assaults on the summit during his entire tenure. And thanks to the Lopi, we stayed at base camp through the Johnson era. I mean, in '89, people in the stands were in tears after the SC game when everyone knew that a 24-5 team wasn't going to get shut out of the NCAA's no matter what happened in the Conference Tournament. And these were the low-keyed "forever" fans from Palo Alto who dutifully sat through decades of misery and happily appreciated Mike Bratz, and Brian Welch, and Rich Kelley while we were getting repeatedly destroyed by UCLA, USC, and Oregon State.

In 1986, just the idea that anyone would even vaguely consider putting us in the tournament was like a marijuana induced dream sequence.

Dawkins, in contrast, arrived on campus after 22 years of success with an entire generation of kids growing up thinking that Stanford meant competitive, NCAA tournament quality basketball. After eight years, base camp has largely been destroyed, and we've fled down the mountain.

Whoever takes over might still be in Nepal, but the trek back from Kathmandu isn't going to be easy.

[triangle2]

Jacketree,

Respectfully, you're missing the context again. When Mike took over, the consensus opinion was that it was "impossible" to build a winning program at Stanford.  That was essentially the message that Dr. Tom delivered as he let the door hit him in the ass as he left and it was the plain reality of Stanford basketball throughout my childhood.

So, when Mike took us to the tournament in 1989, that was the first time to the tournament since....1942. Using a climbing analogy, in the prior 46 years, we were generally not even in Nepal. Dr. Tom got us briefly to Kathmandu, but Mike dragged the entire program up to base camp and set up tents, allowing us to make repeated assaults on the summit during his entire tenure. And thanks to the Lopi, we stayed at base camp through the Johnson era. I mean, in '89, people in the stands were in tears after the SC game when everyone knew that a 24-5 team wasn't going to get shut out of the NCAA's no matter what happened in the Conference Tournament. And these were the low-keyed "forever" fans from Palo Alto who dutifully sat through decades of misery and happily appreciated Mike Bratz, and Brian Welch, and Rich Kelley while we were getting repeatedly destroyed by UCLA, USC, and Oregon State.

In 1986, just the idea that anyone would even vaguely consider putting us in the tournament was like a marijuana induced dream sequence.

Dawkins, in contrast, arrived on campus after 22 years of success with an entire generation of kids growing up thinking that Stanford meant competitive, NCAA tournament quality basketball. After eight years, base camp has largely been destroyed, and we've fled down the mountain.

Whoever takes over might still be in Nepal, but the trek back from Kathmandu isn't going to be easy.

[BurgXXIII]

and Rich Kelley while we were getting repeatedly destroyed by UCLA

The Maples Miracle?

[BurgXXIII]

and Rich Kelley while we were getting repeatedly destroyed by UCLA

The Maples Miracle?

[BurgXXIII]

and Rich Kelley while we were getting repeatedly destroyed by UCLA

The Maples Miracle?

[BurgXXIII]

and Rich Kelley while we were getting repeatedly destroyed by UCLA

The Maples Miracle?

[triangle2]

  8)

Remember that poster that Stanford used the following year with picture of the crowd storming the court? I wish I could find a copy of that picture because I'm in it...

[triangle2]

  8)

Remember that poster that Stanford used the following year with picture of the crowd storming the court? I wish I could find a copy of that picture because I'm in it...

[triangle2]

  8)

Remember that poster that Stanford used the following year with picture of the crowd storming the court? I wish I could find a copy of that picture because I'm in it...

[triangle2]

  8)

Remember that poster that Stanford used the following year with picture of the crowd storming the court? I wish I could find a copy of that picture because I'm in it...

[jacketree]

Triangle,

I think I get the context.  Stanford hadn't done anything since the War; and Monty definitely did something.  After 13 NCAA trips out of 14 years, Dawkins dropped it down to 1 out of 8.  Not acceptable - I get it.

It is however interesting to me that the difference in their respective first 8 years is not that stark on paper away from context, and as I said before I was new to Stanford basketball in Davis' penultimate year, right before the Chris Monk situation. (Great garage band name, btw.) My personal context was having been at GT when it went from 4-23 with a loss to Presbyterian, to the Elite Eight in Cremins' first four years. So the pre-Brevin Monty years were a bit of a slog for me personally (and GT was in the Lethal Weapon 3 / First Final Four Run years, so honestly my attention was elsewhere).  My other personal context is that I think tournament performance is everything.  Remember 1997 when fifth-place Arizona won the whole shooting match?

Just interesting - I don't disagree with letting Dawkins go; I'm not sure what magic was going to happen next year or the years immediately thereafter. 

The current GT coach seems like a nice guy but his results stink on ice, although they are in the NIT this year. Hopefully no contract extension.  It has been about 10 years since either of my alma maters played really exciting, competitive, consistent basketball.

[jacketree]

Triangle,

I think I get the context.  Stanford hadn't done anything since the War; and Monty definitely did something.  After 13 NCAA trips out of 14 years, Dawkins dropped it down to 1 out of 8.  Not acceptable - I get it.

It is however interesting to me that the difference in their respective first 8 years is not that stark on paper away from context, and as I said before I was new to Stanford basketball in Davis' penultimate year, right before the Chris Monk situation. (Great garage band name, btw.) My personal context was having been at GT when it went from 4-23 with a loss to Presbyterian, to the Elite Eight in Cremins' first four years. So the pre-Brevin Monty years were a bit of a slog for me personally (and GT was in the Lethal Weapon 3 / First Final Four Run years, so honestly my attention was elsewhere).  My other personal context is that I think tournament performance is everything.  Remember 1997 when fifth-place Arizona won the whole shooting match?

Just interesting - I don't disagree with letting Dawkins go; I'm not sure what magic was going to happen next year or the years immediately thereafter. 

The current GT coach seems like a nice guy but his results stink on ice, although they are in the NIT this year. Hopefully no contract extension.  It has been about 10 years since either of my alma maters played really exciting, competitive, consistent basketball.

[jacketree]

Triangle,

I think I get the context.  Stanford hadn't done anything since the War; and Monty definitely did something.  After 13 NCAA trips out of 14 years, Dawkins dropped it down to 1 out of 8.  Not acceptable - I get it.

It is however interesting to me that the difference in their respective first 8 years is not that stark on paper away from context, and as I said before I was new to Stanford basketball in Davis' penultimate year, right before the Chris Monk situation. (Great garage band name, btw.) My personal context was having been at GT when it went from 4-23 with a loss to Presbyterian, to the Elite Eight in Cremins' first four years. So the pre-Brevin Monty years were a bit of a slog for me personally (and GT was in the Lethal Weapon 3 / First Final Four Run years, so honestly my attention was elsewhere).  My other personal context is that I think tournament performance is everything.  Remember 1997 when fifth-place Arizona won the whole shooting match?

Just interesting - I don't disagree with letting Dawkins go; I'm not sure what magic was going to happen next year or the years immediately thereafter. 

The current GT coach seems like a nice guy but his results stink on ice, although they are in the NIT this year. Hopefully no contract extension.  It has been about 10 years since either of my alma maters played really exciting, competitive, consistent basketball.

[jacketree]

Triangle,

I think I get the context.  Stanford hadn't done anything since the War; and Monty definitely did something.  After 13 NCAA trips out of 14 years, Dawkins dropped it down to 1 out of 8.  Not acceptable - I get it.

It is however interesting to me that the difference in their respective first 8 years is not that stark on paper away from context, and as I said before I was new to Stanford basketball in Davis' penultimate year, right before the Chris Monk situation. (Great garage band name, btw.) My personal context was having been at GT when it went from 4-23 with a loss to Presbyterian, to the Elite Eight in Cremins' first four years. So the pre-Brevin Monty years were a bit of a slog for me personally (and GT was in the Lethal Weapon 3 / First Final Four Run years, so honestly my attention was elsewhere).  My other personal context is that I think tournament performance is everything.  Remember 1997 when fifth-place Arizona won the whole shooting match?

Just interesting - I don't disagree with letting Dawkins go; I'm not sure what magic was going to happen next year or the years immediately thereafter. 

The current GT coach seems like a nice guy but his results stink on ice, although they are in the NIT this year. Hopefully no contract extension.  It has been about 10 years since either of my alma maters played really exciting, competitive, consistent basketball.