[Langdude]

My comment did not mean to suggest that Haase has not recruited pretty well, nor that Haase is not a better coach than Dawkins. I guess I am speaking more systemically than that. Stanford basketball has not been consistently competitive at a national - or even conference - level for many years. Really since Trent was coach, and that was largely, IMO, based on what Monty had set up for him. I was merely saying that, from Travis's perspective, there was little reason to stay. We are not presently a competitive program. How can you argue otherwise? Stanford would count it a success next year to make it into the Tourney. UK has higher ambitions.

Are Haase's players (not sure if "excellent" is the right word yet, but that's my opinion) good enough to compete with UCLA and Arizona and the like? Time will tell if Haase can develop players and structure and philosophy and culture like Monty could. Recruiting three and four stars is great - Dawkins did the same - but we have to win.

As far as the AD's commitment to success on the court ... I just don't know. Holding on to Dawkins as long as they did suggests not to my taste. But, even if committed, I feel that much more work needs to be done. Perhaps Haase is the right step. It has been so long since we've been competitive, I feel like the burden of proof concerning the AD's commitment to basketball is on them.

Anyway, just my opinion.

-m.

[Langdude]

My comment did not mean to suggest that Haase has not recruited pretty well, nor that Haase is not a better coach than Dawkins. I guess I am speaking more systemically than that. Stanford basketball has not been consistently competitive at a national - or even conference - level for many years. Really since Trent was coach, and that was largely, IMO, based on what Monty had set up for him. I was merely saying that, from Travis's perspective, there was little reason to stay. We are not presently a competitive program. How can you argue otherwise? Stanford would count it a success next year to make it into the Tourney. UK has higher ambitions.

Are Haase's players (not sure if "excellent" is the right word yet, but that's my opinion) good enough to compete with UCLA and Arizona and the like? Time will tell if Haase can develop players and structure and philosophy and culture like Monty could. Recruiting three and four stars is great - Dawkins did the same - but we have to win.

As far as the AD's commitment to success on the court ... I just don't know. Holding on to Dawkins as long as they did suggests not to my taste. But, even if committed, I feel that much more work needs to be done. Perhaps Haase is the right step. It has been so long since we've been competitive, I feel like the burden of proof concerning the AD's commitment to basketball is on them.

Anyway, just my opinion.

-m.