03-09-2023, 11:05 PM
This is in the MBB thread but thought it deserved it's own thread. Unbelievable.
https://twitter.com/JonRothstein/status/...01536?s=20
https://twitter.com/JonRothstein/status/...01536?s=20
Haase returning next season
This is in the MBB thread but thought it deserved it's own thread. Unbelievable.
https://twitter.com/JonRothstein/status/...01536?s=20
https://twitter.com/JonRothstein/status/...01536?s=20
03-09-2023, 11:34 PM
[tweet]https://twitter.com/slamdunk406/status/1634076846043336705?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]
BC
BC
[tweet]https://twitter.com/slamdunk406/status/1634076846043336705?s=46&t=tTMJoVUyV69NbVTC5DVNgw[/tweet]
BC
BC
03-10-2023, 06:20 AM
It is a pathetic surrender monkey raising of the white flag to bring Haase back. Just an absolutely stunning low regard for what's possible to be accomplished at Stanford and lack of pride in holding people accountable for their results.
Haase has never had a good (KenPom top 40 team), after inheriting a program that had been KenPom top 40 seven of the 15 years prior to Haase. He's literally never had a season on par with what I think we should expect as a median season. But even if one believes that it's become fundamentally more difficult for Stanford to compete than it was in the years of Trent Johnson, I don't know how somebody compares Haase to Johnny Dawkins even and thinks that it's remotely defensible to keep Haase. And if somebody thinks it's become fundamentally more difficult to compete than it was for Dawkins, then we can compare Haase's results to those at mediocre major conference programs. Let's see how many top 40 seasons major conference programs have had in the last seven years:
1. Duke - 7
1. Kansas - 7
1. Baylor - 7
1. Purdue - 7
1. Michigan - 7
6. Villanova - 6
6. Arizona - 6
6. Kentucky - 6
9. Virginia - 5
9. North Carolina - 5
9. Florida State - 5
9. Texas - 5
9. TCU - 5
9. West Virginia - 5
9. Texas Tech - 5
9. Creighton - 5
9. Michigan State - 5
9. Iowa - 5
9. Maryland - 5
9. Wisconsin - 5
9. Tennessee - 5
9. Auburn - 5
23. Louisville - 4
23. Oklahoma State - 4
23. Oklahoma - 4
23. Marquette - 4
23. Illinois - 4
23. Ohio State - 4
23. UCLA - 4
23. Oregon - 4
23. Florida - 4
23. Arkansas - 4
23. LSU - 4
34. Virginia Tech - 3
34. Notre Dame - 3
34. Kansas State - 3
34. Iowa State - 3
34. Xavier - 3
34. Connecticut -3
34. Butler - 3
34. Penn State - 3
34. Alabama - 3
34. Texas A&M - 3
44. Miami - 2
44. Clemson - 2
44. Wake Forest - 2
44. Providence - 2
44. Seton Hall - 2
44. Indiana - 2
44. Rutgers - 2
44. Minnesota - 2
44. USC - 2
44. Colorado - 2
54. Syracuse - 1
54. Georgia Tech - 1
54. Northwestern - 1
54. Missouri - 1
54. Vanderbilt - 1
54. Mississippi State - 1
54. South Carolina - 1
61. Pitt - 0
61. NC State - 0
61. Boston College - 0
61. St. John's - 0
61. DePaul - 0
61. Georgetown - 0
61. Nebraska - 0
61. Arizona State - 0
61. Washington State - 0
61. Utah - 0
61. Washington - 0
61. Stanford - 0
61. Oregon State - 0
61. Cal - 0
61. Georgia - 0
61. Ole Miss - 0
Having established that Stanford has been in the bottom 20 percent of high major programs during Haase's tenure in terms of number of relevant seasons, I thought I'd try to be more precise about putting us in perspective among the crappy programs. A stab at measuring relevance (prioritizing NCAA tournaments followed by secondary tournaments followed by looking at median results):
NC State - three postseasons including one NCAA tournament, Keatts in his sixth year, median season #50
Arizona State - two NCAA tournaments, Hurley in his eighth year, median season #65
Oregon State - two NCAA tournaments including an Elite Eight, Tinkle in his ninth year, median season #100
Georgetown - two postseasons including one NCAA tournament, Ewing in his sixth year before being recently fired, median season #94
Ole Miss - three postseasons including an NCAA tournament, Davis in his fifth year before being recently fired, median season #102
Washington - two postseasons including one NCAA tournament, Hopkins in his sixth year, median season #105
St. John's - one NCAA tournament, Anderson in his fourth year, median season #74
Pitt - no postseasons but may make the NCAA tournament this year, Capel in his fifth year, median season #101
Utah - two postseasons, Smith in his second year, median season #72
Nebraska - two postseasons, Hoiberg in his fourth year, median season #107
Washington State - one postseason with an NIT likely this year, Smith in his fourth year, median season #127
Stanford - one postseason, Haase in his seventh year, median season #87
Georgia - one postseason, White in his first year, median season #96
DePaul - one postseason, Stubblefield in his second year, median season #118
Boston College - one postseason, Grant in his second year, median season #173
Cal - no postseasons, Fox in his fourth year before being recently fired, median season #153
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My conclusion is that Stanford under Haase has been approximately the 72nd most relevant of 76 high major basketball programs. Bottom six percent of all programs. Awful. If you put maximum stock in consistent mediocrity and don't punish for the postseason irrelevance, instead ranking these programs based on median season, Stanford would be approximately 65th of 76, bottom 15 percent. Moreover, teams don't just let such irrelevance continue on to an eighth year. As you can see above, the only programs that have kept such mediocre coaches as long as us are Arizona State (hardly the same thing as they made the Big Dance twice to our zero) and Oregon State (hardly the same thing as they made the Big Dance twice, including an Elite Eight, to our zero). Literally nobody else in the nation epitomize the definition of insanity like Stanford. Nobody just runs a high major coach out there for the better part of the decade without ever once fielding a good team.
Being mediocre seven years in a row is not mediocre, it is one of the worst coaches in the country in relation to those that get to keep their jobs in high major basketball. Nobody gets to be this bad for this long and keep their job, except at Stanford.
Haase has never had a good (KenPom top 40 team), after inheriting a program that had been KenPom top 40 seven of the 15 years prior to Haase. He's literally never had a season on par with what I think we should expect as a median season. But even if one believes that it's become fundamentally more difficult for Stanford to compete than it was in the years of Trent Johnson, I don't know how somebody compares Haase to Johnny Dawkins even and thinks that it's remotely defensible to keep Haase. And if somebody thinks it's become fundamentally more difficult to compete than it was for Dawkins, then we can compare Haase's results to those at mediocre major conference programs. Let's see how many top 40 seasons major conference programs have had in the last seven years:
1. Duke - 7
1. Kansas - 7
1. Baylor - 7
1. Purdue - 7
1. Michigan - 7
6. Villanova - 6
6. Arizona - 6
6. Kentucky - 6
9. Virginia - 5
9. North Carolina - 5
9. Florida State - 5
9. Texas - 5
9. TCU - 5
9. West Virginia - 5
9. Texas Tech - 5
9. Creighton - 5
9. Michigan State - 5
9. Iowa - 5
9. Maryland - 5
9. Wisconsin - 5
9. Tennessee - 5
9. Auburn - 5
23. Louisville - 4
23. Oklahoma State - 4
23. Oklahoma - 4
23. Marquette - 4
23. Illinois - 4
23. Ohio State - 4
23. UCLA - 4
23. Oregon - 4
23. Florida - 4
23. Arkansas - 4
23. LSU - 4
34. Virginia Tech - 3
34. Notre Dame - 3
34. Kansas State - 3
34. Iowa State - 3
34. Xavier - 3
34. Connecticut -3
34. Butler - 3
34. Penn State - 3
34. Alabama - 3
34. Texas A&M - 3
44. Miami - 2
44. Clemson - 2
44. Wake Forest - 2
44. Providence - 2
44. Seton Hall - 2
44. Indiana - 2
44. Rutgers - 2
44. Minnesota - 2
44. USC - 2
44. Colorado - 2
54. Syracuse - 1
54. Georgia Tech - 1
54. Northwestern - 1
54. Missouri - 1
54. Vanderbilt - 1
54. Mississippi State - 1
54. South Carolina - 1
61. Pitt - 0
61. NC State - 0
61. Boston College - 0
61. St. John's - 0
61. DePaul - 0
61. Georgetown - 0
61. Nebraska - 0
61. Arizona State - 0
61. Washington State - 0
61. Utah - 0
61. Washington - 0
61. Stanford - 0
61. Oregon State - 0
61. Cal - 0
61. Georgia - 0
61. Ole Miss - 0
Having established that Stanford has been in the bottom 20 percent of high major programs during Haase's tenure in terms of number of relevant seasons, I thought I'd try to be more precise about putting us in perspective among the crappy programs. A stab at measuring relevance (prioritizing NCAA tournaments followed by secondary tournaments followed by looking at median results):
NC State - three postseasons including one NCAA tournament, Keatts in his sixth year, median season #50
Arizona State - two NCAA tournaments, Hurley in his eighth year, median season #65
Oregon State - two NCAA tournaments including an Elite Eight, Tinkle in his ninth year, median season #100
Georgetown - two postseasons including one NCAA tournament, Ewing in his sixth year before being recently fired, median season #94
Ole Miss - three postseasons including an NCAA tournament, Davis in his fifth year before being recently fired, median season #102
Washington - two postseasons including one NCAA tournament, Hopkins in his sixth year, median season #105
St. John's - one NCAA tournament, Anderson in his fourth year, median season #74
Pitt - no postseasons but may make the NCAA tournament this year, Capel in his fifth year, median season #101
Utah - two postseasons, Smith in his second year, median season #72
Nebraska - two postseasons, Hoiberg in his fourth year, median season #107
Washington State - one postseason with an NIT likely this year, Smith in his fourth year, median season #127
Stanford - one postseason, Haase in his seventh year, median season #87
Georgia - one postseason, White in his first year, median season #96
DePaul - one postseason, Stubblefield in his second year, median season #118
Boston College - one postseason, Grant in his second year, median season #173
Cal - no postseasons, Fox in his fourth year before being recently fired, median season #153
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My conclusion is that Stanford under Haase has been approximately the 72nd most relevant of 76 high major basketball programs. Bottom six percent of all programs. Awful. If you put maximum stock in consistent mediocrity and don't punish for the postseason irrelevance, instead ranking these programs based on median season, Stanford would be approximately 65th of 76, bottom 15 percent. Moreover, teams don't just let such irrelevance continue on to an eighth year. As you can see above, the only programs that have kept such mediocre coaches as long as us are Arizona State (hardly the same thing as they made the Big Dance twice to our zero) and Oregon State (hardly the same thing as they made the Big Dance twice, including an Elite Eight, to our zero). Literally nobody else in the nation epitomize the definition of insanity like Stanford. Nobody just runs a high major coach out there for the better part of the decade without ever once fielding a good team.
Being mediocre seven years in a row is not mediocre, it is one of the worst coaches in the country in relation to those that get to keep their jobs in high major basketball. Nobody gets to be this bad for this long and keep their job, except at Stanford.
It is a pathetic surrender monkey raising of the white flag to bring Haase back. Just an absolutely stunning low regard for what's possible to be accomplished at Stanford and lack of pride in holding people accountable for their results.
Haase has never had a good (KenPom top 40 team), after inheriting a program that had been KenPom top 40 seven of the 15 years prior to Haase. He's literally never had a season on par with what I think we should expect as a median season. But even if one believes that it's become fundamentally more difficult for Stanford to compete than it was in the years of Trent Johnson, I don't know how somebody compares Haase to Johnny Dawkins even and thinks that it's remotely defensible to keep Haase. And if somebody thinks it's become fundamentally more difficult to compete than it was for Dawkins, then we can compare Haase's results to those at mediocre major conference programs. Let's see how many top 40 seasons major conference programs have had in the last seven years:
1. Duke - 7
1. Kansas - 7
1. Baylor - 7
1. Purdue - 7
1. Michigan - 7
6. Villanova - 6
6. Arizona - 6
6. Kentucky - 6
9. Virginia - 5
9. North Carolina - 5
9. Florida State - 5
9. Texas - 5
9. TCU - 5
9. West Virginia - 5
9. Texas Tech - 5
9. Creighton - 5
9. Michigan State - 5
9. Iowa - 5
9. Maryland - 5
9. Wisconsin - 5
9. Tennessee - 5
9. Auburn - 5
23. Louisville - 4
23. Oklahoma State - 4
23. Oklahoma - 4
23. Marquette - 4
23. Illinois - 4
23. Ohio State - 4
23. UCLA - 4
23. Oregon - 4
23. Florida - 4
23. Arkansas - 4
23. LSU - 4
34. Virginia Tech - 3
34. Notre Dame - 3
34. Kansas State - 3
34. Iowa State - 3
34. Xavier - 3
34. Connecticut -3
34. Butler - 3
34. Penn State - 3
34. Alabama - 3
34. Texas A&M - 3
44. Miami - 2
44. Clemson - 2
44. Wake Forest - 2
44. Providence - 2
44. Seton Hall - 2
44. Indiana - 2
44. Rutgers - 2
44. Minnesota - 2
44. USC - 2
44. Colorado - 2
54. Syracuse - 1
54. Georgia Tech - 1
54. Northwestern - 1
54. Missouri - 1
54. Vanderbilt - 1
54. Mississippi State - 1
54. South Carolina - 1
61. Pitt - 0
61. NC State - 0
61. Boston College - 0
61. St. John's - 0
61. DePaul - 0
61. Georgetown - 0
61. Nebraska - 0
61. Arizona State - 0
61. Washington State - 0
61. Utah - 0
61. Washington - 0
61. Stanford - 0
61. Oregon State - 0
61. Cal - 0
61. Georgia - 0
61. Ole Miss - 0
Having established that Stanford has been in the bottom 20 percent of high major programs during Haase's tenure in terms of number of relevant seasons, I thought I'd try to be more precise about putting us in perspective among the crappy programs. A stab at measuring relevance (prioritizing NCAA tournaments followed by secondary tournaments followed by looking at median results):
NC State - three postseasons including one NCAA tournament, Keatts in his sixth year, median season #50
Arizona State - two NCAA tournaments, Hurley in his eighth year, median season #65
Oregon State - two NCAA tournaments including an Elite Eight, Tinkle in his ninth year, median season #100
Georgetown - two postseasons including one NCAA tournament, Ewing in his sixth year before being recently fired, median season #94
Ole Miss - three postseasons including an NCAA tournament, Davis in his fifth year before being recently fired, median season #102
Washington - two postseasons including one NCAA tournament, Hopkins in his sixth year, median season #105
St. John's - one NCAA tournament, Anderson in his fourth year, median season #74
Pitt - no postseasons but may make the NCAA tournament this year, Capel in his fifth year, median season #101
Utah - two postseasons, Smith in his second year, median season #72
Nebraska - two postseasons, Hoiberg in his fourth year, median season #107
Washington State - one postseason with an NIT likely this year, Smith in his fourth year, median season #127
Stanford - one postseason, Haase in his seventh year, median season #87
Georgia - one postseason, White in his first year, median season #96
DePaul - one postseason, Stubblefield in his second year, median season #118
Boston College - one postseason, Grant in his second year, median season #173
Cal - no postseasons, Fox in his fourth year before being recently fired, median season #153
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My conclusion is that Stanford under Haase has been approximately the 72nd most relevant of 76 high major basketball programs. Bottom six percent of all programs. Awful. If you put maximum stock in consistent mediocrity and don't punish for the postseason irrelevance, instead ranking these programs based on median season, Stanford would be approximately 65th of 76, bottom 15 percent. Moreover, teams don't just let such irrelevance continue on to an eighth year. As you can see above, the only programs that have kept such mediocre coaches as long as us are Arizona State (hardly the same thing as they made the Big Dance twice to our zero) and Oregon State (hardly the same thing as they made the Big Dance twice, including an Elite Eight, to our zero). Literally nobody else in the nation epitomize the definition of insanity like Stanford. Nobody just runs a high major coach out there for the better part of the decade without ever once fielding a good team.
Being mediocre seven years in a row is not mediocre, it is one of the worst coaches in the country in relation to those that get to keep their jobs in high major basketball. Nobody gets to be this bad for this long and keep their job, except at Stanford.
Haase has never had a good (KenPom top 40 team), after inheriting a program that had been KenPom top 40 seven of the 15 years prior to Haase. He's literally never had a season on par with what I think we should expect as a median season. But even if one believes that it's become fundamentally more difficult for Stanford to compete than it was in the years of Trent Johnson, I don't know how somebody compares Haase to Johnny Dawkins even and thinks that it's remotely defensible to keep Haase. And if somebody thinks it's become fundamentally more difficult to compete than it was for Dawkins, then we can compare Haase's results to those at mediocre major conference programs. Let's see how many top 40 seasons major conference programs have had in the last seven years:
1. Duke - 7
1. Kansas - 7
1. Baylor - 7
1. Purdue - 7
1. Michigan - 7
6. Villanova - 6
6. Arizona - 6
6. Kentucky - 6
9. Virginia - 5
9. North Carolina - 5
9. Florida State - 5
9. Texas - 5
9. TCU - 5
9. West Virginia - 5
9. Texas Tech - 5
9. Creighton - 5
9. Michigan State - 5
9. Iowa - 5
9. Maryland - 5
9. Wisconsin - 5
9. Tennessee - 5
9. Auburn - 5
23. Louisville - 4
23. Oklahoma State - 4
23. Oklahoma - 4
23. Marquette - 4
23. Illinois - 4
23. Ohio State - 4
23. UCLA - 4
23. Oregon - 4
23. Florida - 4
23. Arkansas - 4
23. LSU - 4
34. Virginia Tech - 3
34. Notre Dame - 3
34. Kansas State - 3
34. Iowa State - 3
34. Xavier - 3
34. Connecticut -3
34. Butler - 3
34. Penn State - 3
34. Alabama - 3
34. Texas A&M - 3
44. Miami - 2
44. Clemson - 2
44. Wake Forest - 2
44. Providence - 2
44. Seton Hall - 2
44. Indiana - 2
44. Rutgers - 2
44. Minnesota - 2
44. USC - 2
44. Colorado - 2
54. Syracuse - 1
54. Georgia Tech - 1
54. Northwestern - 1
54. Missouri - 1
54. Vanderbilt - 1
54. Mississippi State - 1
54. South Carolina - 1
61. Pitt - 0
61. NC State - 0
61. Boston College - 0
61. St. John's - 0
61. DePaul - 0
61. Georgetown - 0
61. Nebraska - 0
61. Arizona State - 0
61. Washington State - 0
61. Utah - 0
61. Washington - 0
61. Stanford - 0
61. Oregon State - 0
61. Cal - 0
61. Georgia - 0
61. Ole Miss - 0
Having established that Stanford has been in the bottom 20 percent of high major programs during Haase's tenure in terms of number of relevant seasons, I thought I'd try to be more precise about putting us in perspective among the crappy programs. A stab at measuring relevance (prioritizing NCAA tournaments followed by secondary tournaments followed by looking at median results):
NC State - three postseasons including one NCAA tournament, Keatts in his sixth year, median season #50
Arizona State - two NCAA tournaments, Hurley in his eighth year, median season #65
Oregon State - two NCAA tournaments including an Elite Eight, Tinkle in his ninth year, median season #100
Georgetown - two postseasons including one NCAA tournament, Ewing in his sixth year before being recently fired, median season #94
Ole Miss - three postseasons including an NCAA tournament, Davis in his fifth year before being recently fired, median season #102
Washington - two postseasons including one NCAA tournament, Hopkins in his sixth year, median season #105
St. John's - one NCAA tournament, Anderson in his fourth year, median season #74
Pitt - no postseasons but may make the NCAA tournament this year, Capel in his fifth year, median season #101
Utah - two postseasons, Smith in his second year, median season #72
Nebraska - two postseasons, Hoiberg in his fourth year, median season #107
Washington State - one postseason with an NIT likely this year, Smith in his fourth year, median season #127
Stanford - one postseason, Haase in his seventh year, median season #87
Georgia - one postseason, White in his first year, median season #96
DePaul - one postseason, Stubblefield in his second year, median season #118
Boston College - one postseason, Grant in his second year, median season #173
Cal - no postseasons, Fox in his fourth year before being recently fired, median season #153
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My conclusion is that Stanford under Haase has been approximately the 72nd most relevant of 76 high major basketball programs. Bottom six percent of all programs. Awful. If you put maximum stock in consistent mediocrity and don't punish for the postseason irrelevance, instead ranking these programs based on median season, Stanford would be approximately 65th of 76, bottom 15 percent. Moreover, teams don't just let such irrelevance continue on to an eighth year. As you can see above, the only programs that have kept such mediocre coaches as long as us are Arizona State (hardly the same thing as they made the Big Dance twice to our zero) and Oregon State (hardly the same thing as they made the Big Dance twice, including an Elite Eight, to our zero). Literally nobody else in the nation epitomize the definition of insanity like Stanford. Nobody just runs a high major coach out there for the better part of the decade without ever once fielding a good team.
Being mediocre seven years in a row is not mediocre, it is one of the worst coaches in the country in relation to those that get to keep their jobs in high major basketball. Nobody gets to be this bad for this long and keep their job, except at Stanford.
03-10-2023, 08:24 AM
Haase?
I didn't even know Stanford had a men's basketball team?
Seriously, congrats to Haase. He must be really really good at convincing others that the program is on a good path.
I almost wish I could meet Haase to get a first hand appreciation for his ability to persuade others. I just wish he would use some of that skill to persuade the team to actually run an offense, shoot the ball, and win some games. But, that's me the fan of the game wishing he would use his abilities to create a winning team. No doubt at all that Haase is truly exceptional at staying employed. Might be the best coach in basketball....at keeping his job.
So congrats to Haase for proving, once again, that he is the best.
While I am kidding a bit about Haase, I do think now is the time to fire Muir.
It is one thing for Haase to convince a TV game announcer that you are a great guy and a pleasure to talk to for 30 minutes. It is quite another for a highly paid AD to accept this situation. Losing career record in conference games, a breathtaking decline in the interest in our program nationally, and almost no interest by students on campus. That combination shouldn't be acceptable.
I didn't even know Stanford had a men's basketball team?
Seriously, congrats to Haase. He must be really really good at convincing others that the program is on a good path.
I almost wish I could meet Haase to get a first hand appreciation for his ability to persuade others. I just wish he would use some of that skill to persuade the team to actually run an offense, shoot the ball, and win some games. But, that's me the fan of the game wishing he would use his abilities to create a winning team. No doubt at all that Haase is truly exceptional at staying employed. Might be the best coach in basketball....at keeping his job.
So congrats to Haase for proving, once again, that he is the best.
While I am kidding a bit about Haase, I do think now is the time to fire Muir.
It is one thing for Haase to convince a TV game announcer that you are a great guy and a pleasure to talk to for 30 minutes. It is quite another for a highly paid AD to accept this situation. Losing career record in conference games, a breathtaking decline in the interest in our program nationally, and almost no interest by students on campus. That combination shouldn't be acceptable.
Haase?
I didn't even know Stanford had a men's basketball team?
Seriously, congrats to Haase. He must be really really good at convincing others that the program is on a good path.
I almost wish I could meet Haase to get a first hand appreciation for his ability to persuade others. I just wish he would use some of that skill to persuade the team to actually run an offense, shoot the ball, and win some games. But, that's me the fan of the game wishing he would use his abilities to create a winning team. No doubt at all that Haase is truly exceptional at staying employed. Might be the best coach in basketball....at keeping his job.
So congrats to Haase for proving, once again, that he is the best.
While I am kidding a bit about Haase, I do think now is the time to fire Muir.
It is one thing for Haase to convince a TV game announcer that you are a great guy and a pleasure to talk to for 30 minutes. It is quite another for a highly paid AD to accept this situation. Losing career record in conference games, a breathtaking decline in the interest in our program nationally, and almost no interest by students on campus. That combination shouldn't be acceptable.
I didn't even know Stanford had a men's basketball team?
Seriously, congrats to Haase. He must be really really good at convincing others that the program is on a good path.
I almost wish I could meet Haase to get a first hand appreciation for his ability to persuade others. I just wish he would use some of that skill to persuade the team to actually run an offense, shoot the ball, and win some games. But, that's me the fan of the game wishing he would use his abilities to create a winning team. No doubt at all that Haase is truly exceptional at staying employed. Might be the best coach in basketball....at keeping his job.
So congrats to Haase for proving, once again, that he is the best.
While I am kidding a bit about Haase, I do think now is the time to fire Muir.
It is one thing for Haase to convince a TV game announcer that you are a great guy and a pleasure to talk to for 30 minutes. It is quite another for a highly paid AD to accept this situation. Losing career record in conference games, a breathtaking decline in the interest in our program nationally, and almost no interest by students on campus. That combination shouldn't be acceptable.
03-10-2023, 08:41 AM
Haase is a good guy, people like him (including presumably his players) and none of his players (at least as far as I know) have got into academic or disciplinary problems.
His records haven't been good, but not bad enough to embarrass the university.
Perhaps that's all it takes to keep your coaching job at Stanford these days.
His records haven't been good, but not bad enough to embarrass the university.
Perhaps that's all it takes to keep your coaching job at Stanford these days.
Haase is a good guy, people like him (including presumably his players) and none of his players (at least as far as I know) have got into academic or disciplinary problems.
His records haven't been good, but not bad enough to embarrass the university.
Perhaps that's all it takes to keep your coaching job at Stanford these days.
His records haven't been good, but not bad enough to embarrass the university.
Perhaps that's all it takes to keep your coaching job at Stanford these days.
03-10-2023, 08:56 AM
(03-10-2023, 08:41 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Haase is a good guy, people like him (including presumably his players) and none of his players (at least as far as I know) have got into academic or disciplinary problems.
His records haven't been good, but not bad enough to embarrass the university.
Perhaps that's all it takes to keep your coaching job at Stanford these days.
MTL might disagree that you get fired if you embarrass the university while overseeing disastrous Football and Basketball programs.
(03-10-2023, 08:41 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Haase is a good guy, people like him (including presumably his players) and none of his players (at least as far as I know) have got into academic or disciplinary problems.
His records haven't been good, but not bad enough to embarrass the university.
Perhaps that's all it takes to keep your coaching job at Stanford these days.
MTL might disagree that you get fired if you embarrass the university while overseeing disastrous Football and Basketball programs.
03-10-2023, 10:08 AM
This confirms that Muir accepts mediocrity. There is no reason to believe that Haase will get better at his job in his eighth season. Muir needs to go.
03-10-2023, 12:00 PM
(03-10-2023, 10:08 AM)Gary86 Wrote: This confirms that Muir accepts mediocrity. There is no reason to believe that Haase will get better at his job in his eighth season. Muir needs to go.
I know you’re making the same point so I’m just quibbling with verbiage but: mediocrity is not the right word. Being mediocre every year for seven years is not mediocrity, it is crap. Mediocre would be 3-4 postseason tournaments with 1-2 NCAA tournament appearances. One postseason tournament with zero NCAA tournament appearances is very bad. Bottom 5-15 percent of high major programs.
(03-10-2023, 10:08 AM)Gary86 Wrote: This confirms that Muir accepts mediocrity. There is no reason to believe that Haase will get better at his job in his eighth season. Muir needs to go.
I know you’re making the same point so I’m just quibbling with verbiage but: mediocrity is not the right word. Being mediocre every year for seven years is not mediocrity, it is crap. Mediocre would be 3-4 postseason tournaments with 1-2 NCAA tournament appearances. One postseason tournament with zero NCAA tournament appearances is very bad. Bottom 5-15 percent of high major programs.
03-10-2023, 12:35 PM
(03-10-2023, 08:27 AM)martyup Wrote: A legacy of losing continues.
Maybe it's because winning is fun and Stanford hates fun.
(03-10-2023, 08:18 AM)winflop Wrote: Stanford Athletics - Home of Mediocrity
Pure whining B.S. Stanford athletics are a lot more than just FB and MBB. I am sure Stanford wins far more athletic events each year than any other school. Most other schools would be thrilled to cheer on last year's national champions every so often. At Stanford, you usually get to choose which one.
Yeah, it is a sports discussion board, so whining is expected.
(03-10-2023, 08:27 AM)martyup Wrote: A legacy of losing continues.
Maybe it's because winning is fun and Stanford hates fun.
(03-10-2023, 08:18 AM)winflop Wrote: Stanford Athletics - Home of Mediocrity
Pure whining B.S. Stanford athletics are a lot more than just FB and MBB. I am sure Stanford wins far more athletic events each year than any other school. Most other schools would be thrilled to cheer on last year's national champions every so often. At Stanford, you usually get to choose which one.
Yeah, it is a sports discussion board, so whining is expected.
03-10-2023, 12:55 PM
(03-10-2023, 12:35 PM)M T Wrote:(03-10-2023, 08:27 AM)martyup Wrote: A legacy of losing continues.
Maybe it's because winning is fun and Stanford hates fun.
(03-10-2023, 08:18 AM)winflop Wrote: Stanford Athletics - Home of Mediocrity
Pure whining B.S. Stanford athletics are a lot more than just FB and MBB. I am sure Stanford wins far more athletic events each year than any other school. Most other schools would be thrilled to cheer on last year's national champions every so often. At Stanford, you usually get to choose which one.
Yeah, it is a sports discussion board, so whining is expected.
I'd like to think I'm whinging rather than whining. :)
Yes, we have a lot of sports that win a lot. However, the two highest revenue sports that require the most financial investment from the University are the ones that are being neglected. Maybe Muir and/or the BOD are satiated by the success of our no/low revenue sports and don't mind that our football and MBB programs are dumpster fires. However, I don't think the other sports can continue to be as successful if Stanford cannot turn around its football and MBB programs.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
(03-10-2023, 12:35 PM)M T Wrote:(03-10-2023, 08:27 AM)martyup Wrote: A legacy of losing continues.
Maybe it's because winning is fun and Stanford hates fun.
(03-10-2023, 08:18 AM)winflop Wrote: Stanford Athletics - Home of Mediocrity
Pure whining B.S. Stanford athletics are a lot more than just FB and MBB. I am sure Stanford wins far more athletic events each year than any other school. Most other schools would be thrilled to cheer on last year's national champions every so often. At Stanford, you usually get to choose which one.
Yeah, it is a sports discussion board, so whining is expected.
I'd like to think I'm whinging rather than whining. :)
Yes, we have a lot of sports that win a lot. However, the two highest revenue sports that require the most financial investment from the University are the ones that are being neglected. Maybe Muir and/or the BOD are satiated by the success of our no/low revenue sports and don't mind that our football and MBB programs are dumpster fires. However, I don't think the other sports can continue to be as successful if Stanford cannot turn around its football and MBB programs.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
03-10-2023, 01:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2023, 02:10 PM by StanfordMatt.)
(03-10-2023, 12:35 PM)M T Wrote: Most other schools would be thrilled to cheer on last year's national champions every so often. At Stanford, you usually get to choose which one.
Actually, most schools would not be thrilled because in order to experience that emotion, you have to actually care. Most schools do not care about non-revenue sports. Men's non-revenue sports are being slashed left and right whenever AD's can get away with it while not taking too big of a PR hit from alums. Meanwhile, women's sports are viewed as just a necessary prop to satisfy the Title IX requirements for fielding an 85-man football team.
It's no surprise why women's bowling is the fastest growing NCAA sport. Schools can pay a nominal rental fee to use lanes at the local bowling alley for competition and "voila!", 10 more countable female student-athletes at almost no cost that can be offset against the 10 offensive linemen on the football team.
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2023, 02:10 PM by StanfordMatt.)
(03-10-2023, 12:35 PM)M T Wrote: Most other schools would be thrilled to cheer on last year's national champions every so often. At Stanford, you usually get to choose which one.
Actually, most schools would not be thrilled because in order to experience that emotion, you have to actually care. Most schools do not care about non-revenue sports. Men's non-revenue sports are being slashed left and right whenever AD's can get away with it while not taking too big of a PR hit from alums. Meanwhile, women's sports are viewed as just a necessary prop to satisfy the Title IX requirements for fielding an 85-man football team.
It's no surprise why women's bowling is the fastest growing NCAA sport. Schools can pay a nominal rental fee to use lanes at the local bowling alley for competition and "voila!", 10 more countable female student-athletes at almost no cost that can be offset against the 10 offensive linemen on the football team.
03-10-2023, 03:24 PM
(03-10-2023, 12:35 PM)M T Wrote:(03-10-2023, 08:27 AM)martyup Wrote: A legacy of losing continues.
Maybe it's because winning is fun and Stanford hates fun.
(03-10-2023, 08:18 AM)winflop Wrote: Stanford Athletics - Home of Mediocrity
Pure whining B.S. Stanford athletics are a lot more than just FB and MBB. I am sure Stanford wins far more athletic events each year than any other school. Most other schools would be thrilled to cheer on last year's national champions every so often. At Stanford, you usually get to choose which one.
Yeah, it is a sports discussion board, so whining is expected.
Yes athletics are a lot more than just FB & MBB, but without those being profitable you can't support that "more" in a sustainable way without major investment from the University. I find it hard to believe that MTL & Drell are up for writing 8-figure checks to buoy the athletic department year after year, but that appears to be exactly what Muir is asking them to do.
(03-10-2023, 12:35 PM)M T Wrote:(03-10-2023, 08:27 AM)martyup Wrote: A legacy of losing continues.
Maybe it's because winning is fun and Stanford hates fun.
(03-10-2023, 08:18 AM)winflop Wrote: Stanford Athletics - Home of Mediocrity
Pure whining B.S. Stanford athletics are a lot more than just FB and MBB. I am sure Stanford wins far more athletic events each year than any other school. Most other schools would be thrilled to cheer on last year's national champions every so often. At Stanford, you usually get to choose which one.
Yeah, it is a sports discussion board, so whining is expected.
Yes athletics are a lot more than just FB & MBB, but without those being profitable you can't support that "more" in a sustainable way without major investment from the University. I find it hard to believe that MTL & Drell are up for writing 8-figure checks to buoy the athletic department year after year, but that appears to be exactly what Muir is asking them to do.
03-10-2023, 04:32 PM
(03-10-2023, 03:24 PM)winflop Wrote:(03-10-2023, 12:35 PM)M T Wrote:(03-10-2023, 08:27 AM)martyup Wrote: A legacy of losing continues.
Maybe it's because winning is fun and Stanford hates fun.
(03-10-2023, 08:18 AM)winflop Wrote: Stanford Athletics - Home of Mediocrity
Pure whining B.S. Stanford athletics are a lot more than just FB and MBB. I am sure Stanford wins far more athletic events each year than any other school. Most other schools would be thrilled to cheer on last year's national champions every so often. At Stanford, you usually get to choose which one.
Yeah, it is a sports discussion board, so whining is expected.
Yes athletics are a lot more than just FB & MBB, but without those being profitable you can't support that "more" in a sustainable way without major investment from the University. I find it hard to believe that MTL & Drell are up for writing 8-figure checks to buoy the athletic department year after year, but that appears to be exactly what Muir is asking them to do.
Bingo. Same reason why we don't want to go independent, in football let alone all sports. Anyone following the UConn athletic department's financial woes the past few years can see how suicidal that path is.
Like it or not, modern college sports lives or dies by Football. MBB helps, but not as much as you'd think. Football is the golden goose.
(03-10-2023, 03:24 PM)winflop Wrote:(03-10-2023, 12:35 PM)M T Wrote:(03-10-2023, 08:27 AM)martyup Wrote: A legacy of losing continues.
Maybe it's because winning is fun and Stanford hates fun.
(03-10-2023, 08:18 AM)winflop Wrote: Stanford Athletics - Home of Mediocrity
Pure whining B.S. Stanford athletics are a lot more than just FB and MBB. I am sure Stanford wins far more athletic events each year than any other school. Most other schools would be thrilled to cheer on last year's national champions every so often. At Stanford, you usually get to choose which one.
Yeah, it is a sports discussion board, so whining is expected.
Yes athletics are a lot more than just FB & MBB, but without those being profitable you can't support that "more" in a sustainable way without major investment from the University. I find it hard to believe that MTL & Drell are up for writing 8-figure checks to buoy the athletic department year after year, but that appears to be exactly what Muir is asking them to do.
Bingo. Same reason why we don't want to go independent, in football let alone all sports. Anyone following the UConn athletic department's financial woes the past few years can see how suicidal that path is.
Like it or not, modern college sports lives or dies by Football. MBB helps, but not as much as you'd think. Football is the golden goose.
03-10-2023, 05:30 PM
(03-10-2023, 12:35 PM)M T Wrote:(03-10-2023, 08:27 AM)martyup Wrote: A legacy of losing continues.
Maybe it's because winning is fun and Stanford hates fun.
(03-10-2023, 08:18 AM)winflop Wrote: Stanford Athletics - Home of Mediocrity
Pure whining B.S. Stanford athletics are a lot more than just FB and MBB. I am sure Stanford wins far more athletic events each year than any other school. Most other schools would be thrilled to cheer on last year's national champions every so often. At Stanford, you usually get to choose which one.
Yeah, it is a sports discussion board, so whining is expected.
The remarkable sustainability of Haasketball: What one accepts, one gets. Kinda like the dysfunctional governance of San Francisco.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
(03-10-2023, 12:35 PM)M T Wrote:(03-10-2023, 08:27 AM)martyup Wrote: A legacy of losing continues.
Maybe it's because winning is fun and Stanford hates fun.
(03-10-2023, 08:18 AM)winflop Wrote: Stanford Athletics - Home of Mediocrity
Pure whining B.S. Stanford athletics are a lot more than just FB and MBB. I am sure Stanford wins far more athletic events each year than any other school. Most other schools would be thrilled to cheer on last year's national champions every so often. At Stanford, you usually get to choose which one.
Yeah, it is a sports discussion board, so whining is expected.
The remarkable sustainability of Haasketball: What one accepts, one gets. Kinda like the dysfunctional governance of San Francisco.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »