03-23-2016, 02:47 PM
The latest Wilner listed speaks to the curiosity I have about this hire. My hypothesis is a twofold question:
1. Is the success of Stanford football (and to a degree women's basketball), making the power structure expect more from men's hoops?
2. Is being in the Pac-12 and possible further segregation of the haves and have nots, making Stanford look at men's hoops as more important as a business asset than it was up until now?
Having Crean, Brey, and Bennett (the perfect Stanford hire, if he can be had, IMO) on that list makes it seem like the answers to at least one, and maybe two of these questions, might be yes.Â
This tracks to some speculation I've read elsewhere that suggests the Dawkins firing can be taken to mean Stanford wants to be a relevant basketball program and is willing to invest in it. The names now being mentioned would support this. Guess we'll see.
Has Muir announced any timeline for a new coaching hire? Nothing is likely to happen until after the NABC convention at the Final Four next weekend.
1. Is the success of Stanford football (and to a degree women's basketball), making the power structure expect more from men's hoops?
2. Is being in the Pac-12 and possible further segregation of the haves and have nots, making Stanford look at men's hoops as more important as a business asset than it was up until now?
Having Crean, Brey, and Bennett (the perfect Stanford hire, if he can be had, IMO) on that list makes it seem like the answers to at least one, and maybe two of these questions, might be yes.Â
This tracks to some speculation I've read elsewhere that suggests the Dawkins firing can be taken to mean Stanford wants to be a relevant basketball program and is willing to invest in it. The names now being mentioned would support this. Guess we'll see.
Has Muir announced any timeline for a new coaching hire? Nothing is likely to happen until after the NABC convention at the Final Four next weekend.