[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14862.msg160294#msg160294 date=1460046865]
Wow, did this thread turn poisonous in a hurry. Perhaps everybody could take a deep breath before continuing. For my part, if I implied that the failure to hire a Stanford-basketball-connected assistant was a make-or-break deal, I apologize. I think, general speaking, that's a better way to go: Stanford admissions can be a thorny path for the unfamiliar, and it's almost always better to have a thread of continuity in recruiting. But failure to go in that direction is not inexorably a fatal mistake, and oldalum is correct, we don't really know what happened. Maybe Haase tried for a Stanford connection but couldn't find one available. It's always possible that Haase is taking advice from 76lsjumb, but I don't think we should jump to that conclusion without evidence.

We'll have to wait and see how this plays out, but we know that this was a significant mistake on Dawkins' part that he only addressed once with Mad Dog and only for one year - by then most of the damage had already been done.  I think it was in part ego on Dawkins' part that he could get Stanford on his own and I do worry that Haase may be heading down the same path.

I'm concerned and I do think it's a mistake.  I hope I'm wrong, or that if I'm right then Haase makes a course correction quickly (i.e., next year).  It's also that several quality former players with both head and assistant coaching experience were available.
[/quote]

If Dawkins' main mistake was not hiring someone with Stanford experience at the start, then why did he still suck after 8 years? "Getting" Stanford was not the root of Dawkins' issues, being a mediocre coach was.

And come on, the students couldn't care less if the team has an assistant coach who was at Stanford when they were in elementary school (or not born), and it's kind of weird to me how much people here seem to care about it. Yeah, it would have been neat if some coach had been a star player when I was in school, but to have that be even close to a main factor in hiring someone is silly. I want us to have the best coaching staff possible, whether or not that includes someone who was at Stanford 20 years ago or not. Unless you can tell me you have some issue with these assistants beyond "didn't go to Stanford" then you're making a nonsense argument as far as I'm concerned.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14862.msg160294#msg160294 date=1460046865]
Wow, did this thread turn poisonous in a hurry. Perhaps everybody could take a deep breath before continuing. For my part, if I implied that the failure to hire a Stanford-basketball-connected assistant was a make-or-break deal, I apologize. I think, general speaking, that's a better way to go: Stanford admissions can be a thorny path for the unfamiliar, and it's almost always better to have a thread of continuity in recruiting. But failure to go in that direction is not inexorably a fatal mistake, and oldalum is correct, we don't really know what happened. Maybe Haase tried for a Stanford connection but couldn't find one available. It's always possible that Haase is taking advice from 76lsjumb, but I don't think we should jump to that conclusion without evidence.

We'll have to wait and see how this plays out, but we know that this was a significant mistake on Dawkins' part that he only addressed once with Mad Dog and only for one year - by then most of the damage had already been done.  I think it was in part ego on Dawkins' part that he could get Stanford on his own and I do worry that Haase may be heading down the same path.

I'm concerned and I do think it's a mistake.  I hope I'm wrong, or that if I'm right then Haase makes a course correction quickly (i.e., next year).  It's also that several quality former players with both head and assistant coaching experience were available.
[/quote]

If Dawkins' main mistake was not hiring someone with Stanford experience at the start, then why did he still suck after 8 years? "Getting" Stanford was not the root of Dawkins' issues, being a mediocre coach was.

And come on, the students couldn't care less if the team has an assistant coach who was at Stanford when they were in elementary school (or not born), and it's kind of weird to me how much people here seem to care about it. Yeah, it would have been neat if some coach had been a star player when I was in school, but to have that be even close to a main factor in hiring someone is silly. I want us to have the best coaching staff possible, whether or not that includes someone who was at Stanford 20 years ago or not. Unless you can tell me you have some issue with these assistants beyond "didn't go to Stanford" then you're making a nonsense argument as far as I'm concerned.