[Leftcoast]

Fifteen years ago Stanford basketball prospered through a combination of an excellent coach, strong basketball identity and  a backbone of blue collar, hard nosed recruits drawn to the program each year.  When we sprinkled in the occasional McDonalds All-American in the mid to late 90s the base was in place to lift the program to greatness.  This recipe WORKED for 15 years during which Maples was hopping and NCAA appearances were a given on opening day.  Stanford was routinely mentioned as a contender to join the basketball pantheon of elite programs.  Maples was listed as one of the toughest venues to win at in College ball and, heck, even the Tree was on Sports Center for either scuffling with Oski or being on both the top 10 most loved AND most hated mascots in the same year.

We've managed to squander this Montgomery era capital and let our winning recipe fall into disuse.  I don't believe recruits know what Stanford's identity IS anymore but it doesn't have to stay this way.  I see no reason the Montgomery recipe won't work  if we dust it off and put the proper ingredients back in place.  Numbers work for us.  Basketball takes fewer great players to succeed than football and Stanford has proven it can play the basketball recruiting game under Dawkins even when we aren't very focused on what type of players fit us.

Earlier in this thread someone said the basketball world has changed and the old recipe doesn't work anymore.  I reject that although I understand what prompts that logic.  In my opinion the recipe hasn't failed, Stanford just no longer uses it.

I believe Stanford can still recruit the building block players, the Sauers, Moseleys and Knights we once brought in every year.  All hardworking players with a chip on their shoulders from being overlooked by the run-and-gun blue blood teams.  Remember the energy Brevin Knight brought to Stanford after being overlooked by his beloved Wake Forest?  Maybe we can't outplay Duke, Arizona and UCLA by playing Duke's style without Duke's recruits but we CAN establish a Stanford identity that will play deep into March.  (Think Stanford football playing power football and pro-sets in an era where stretch offenses and 5 wide receiver sets are the flavor of the day.)

Sad to say, but Stanford is now a fixer-upper that needs a coach willing to take on a distressed property.  But we still live in a good neighborhood and who else in the Pac 12 has grabbed our old identity (except perhaps Utah?).  If I am Muir than rebuilding this fixer-upper starts with reclaiming our old identity and adding a coach that "gets" Stanford and can build a team that fits who we can become.  This is something that Dawkins for all his admittedly admirable qualities hasn't shown he is willing to do in his 7 years in Palo Alto. 

I've been to one Final Four rooting for Stanford - Is it Dawkins that gets us back there?  If the answer is "No" for Muir than he knows what he needs to do.  Sure, change is risky and rebuilding efforts sometime fail but let's take that risk before we watch Stanford's real estate fortunes fall from run down/mediocre to condemned/irrelevant. 

Heck, maybe the Tree will even move up a weight class and get a rematch with Wilbur Wildcat after a dominating Stanford win at McKale.  Oh, the major and minor joys of renewed relevance.

[Leftcoast]

Fifteen years ago Stanford basketball prospered through a combination of an excellent coach, strong basketball identity and  a backbone of blue collar, hard nosed recruits drawn to the program each year.  When we sprinkled in the occasional McDonalds All-American in the mid to late 90s the base was in place to lift the program to greatness.  This recipe WORKED for 15 years during which Maples was hopping and NCAA appearances were a given on opening day.  Stanford was routinely mentioned as a contender to join the basketball pantheon of elite programs.  Maples was listed as one of the toughest venues to win at in College ball and, heck, even the Tree was on Sports Center for either scuffling with Oski or being on both the top 10 most loved AND most hated mascots in the same year.

We've managed to squander this Montgomery era capital and let our winning recipe fall into disuse.  I don't believe recruits know what Stanford's identity IS anymore but it doesn't have to stay this way.  I see no reason the Montgomery recipe won't work  if we dust it off and put the proper ingredients back in place.  Numbers work for us.  Basketball takes fewer great players to succeed than football and Stanford has proven it can play the basketball recruiting game under Dawkins even when we aren't very focused on what type of players fit us.

Earlier in this thread someone said the basketball world has changed and the old recipe doesn't work anymore.  I reject that although I understand what prompts that logic.  In my opinion the recipe hasn't failed, Stanford just no longer uses it.

I believe Stanford can still recruit the building block players, the Sauers, Moseleys and Knights we once brought in every year.  All hardworking players with a chip on their shoulders from being overlooked by the run-and-gun blue blood teams.  Remember the energy Brevin Knight brought to Stanford after being overlooked by his beloved Wake Forest?  Maybe we can't outplay Duke, Arizona and UCLA by playing Duke's style without Duke's recruits but we CAN establish a Stanford identity that will play deep into March.  (Think Stanford football playing power football and pro-sets in an era where stretch offenses and 5 wide receiver sets are the flavor of the day.)

Sad to say, but Stanford is now a fixer-upper that needs a coach willing to take on a distressed property.  But we still live in a good neighborhood and who else in the Pac 12 has grabbed our old identity (except perhaps Utah?).  If I am Muir than rebuilding this fixer-upper starts with reclaiming our old identity and adding a coach that "gets" Stanford and can build a team that fits who we can become.  This is something that Dawkins for all his admittedly admirable qualities hasn't shown he is willing to do in his 7 years in Palo Alto. 

I've been to one Final Four rooting for Stanford - Is it Dawkins that gets us back there?  If the answer is "No" for Muir than he knows what he needs to do.  Sure, change is risky and rebuilding efforts sometime fail but let's take that risk before we watch Stanford's real estate fortunes fall from run down/mediocre to condemned/irrelevant. 

Heck, maybe the Tree will even move up a weight class and get a rematch with Wilbur Wildcat after a dominating Stanford win at McKale.  Oh, the major and minor joys of renewed relevance.