[triangle2]

I have argued before that a “system” coach is likely to be more successful at Stanford in the longer term because of admissions restrictions. Watching both the Dawkins era and the Haase era, I’m even more convinced that my theory is correct. I think it’s fairly hopeless to think about competing against the programs that can basically admit anyone. Even if you get one out of twenty, the other programs are getting 7 out of 10.

I think your argument supports the idea that a "system coach" is exactly the wrong approach for Stanford. If the one out of twenty you can actually get doesn't fit your system, what do you do? If you don't get the four bigs and a shooter but rather two bigs, a shooter, a defender and a point you can't play the same system and wouldn't want to do so. You can be a "system" coach at Stanford only if you can always find admissible players that fit your system who you can successfully recruit. I think Stanford needs a coach who can adapt to what players he has and can get. Naturally, being a "good" recruiter can help you attract guys who you think can help your team, but if you put many parameters on those guys there will be multiple years where you come up empty IMHO.

I’m not sure we’re actually in disagreement. What I was getting at, perhaps not in a well articulated fashion, is that it’s easier to build a program at a place like Stanford by using the kinds of players who are more likely to get admitted and to come into the program. But still using a system, rather than trying to do the Dawkins/Haase approach which seems to be a less structured offense where you rely on isolating superior athletes instead of making the system produce better % shots. Montgomery’s system works with the grouping of potential Stanford admits because, I think, the system produces a lot of wins without requiring the super best players. I don’t worry about the possibility that you’d have problems if you don’t get the one out of twenty post player. Mike won games using Derek Bruton, and Reveno, and Vlahov playing on one and a half knees. I think this is the virtue of a true system coach - you get wins because your team executes its system better, and you accept that you lose some games where your team just gets overwhelmed by talent. Take Stanford’s two agonizing losses to UMass in the tournament as primary examples - Stanford ran the system and lost to what we now know was an unfairly packed UMass lineup.

Two other obvious examples of system coaches also come to mind: John Cheney and his #&$^#^ match up zone, and the fabled Pete Carril Princeton offense that we’re getting to watch the women run so successfully. Cheney had almost no A to A+ talent but was a regular presence in the tournament. Neither program had any success getting very far in the tournament, but given where we are at the moment, I bet most folks here would happily sign up for a return to a program that regularly won 22-28 games and lost in the 2nd round most of the time.

[triangle2]

I have argued before that a “system” coach is likely to be more successful at Stanford in the longer term because of admissions restrictions. Watching both the Dawkins era and the Haase era, I’m even more convinced that my theory is correct. I think it’s fairly hopeless to think about competing against the programs that can basically admit anyone. Even if you get one out of twenty, the other programs are getting 7 out of 10.

I think your argument supports the idea that a "system coach" is exactly the wrong approach for Stanford. If the one out of twenty you can actually get doesn't fit your system, what do you do? If you don't get the four bigs and a shooter but rather two bigs, a shooter, a defender and a point you can't play the same system and wouldn't want to do so. You can be a "system" coach at Stanford only if you can always find admissible players that fit your system who you can successfully recruit. I think Stanford needs a coach who can adapt to what players he has and can get. Naturally, being a "good" recruiter can help you attract guys who you think can help your team, but if you put many parameters on those guys there will be multiple years where you come up empty IMHO.

I’m not sure we’re actually in disagreement. What I was getting at, perhaps not in a well articulated fashion, is that it’s easier to build a program at a place like Stanford by using the kinds of players who are more likely to get admitted and to come into the program. But still using a system, rather than trying to do the Dawkins/Haase approach which seems to be a less structured offense where you rely on isolating superior athletes instead of making the system produce better % shots. Montgomery’s system works with the grouping of potential Stanford admits because, I think, the system produces a lot of wins without requiring the super best players. I don’t worry about the possibility that you’d have problems if you don’t get the one out of twenty post player. Mike won games using Derek Bruton, and Reveno, and Vlahov playing on one and a half knees. I think this is the virtue of a true system coach - you get wins because your team executes its system better, and you accept that you lose some games where your team just gets overwhelmed by talent. Take Stanford’s two agonizing losses to UMass in the tournament as primary examples - Stanford ran the system and lost to what we now know was an unfairly packed UMass lineup.

Two other obvious examples of system coaches also come to mind: John Cheney and his #&$^#^ match up zone, and the fabled Pete Carril Princeton offense that we’re getting to watch the women run so successfully. Cheney had almost no A to A+ talent but was a regular presence in the tournament. Neither program had any success getting very far in the tournament, but given where we are at the moment, I bet most folks here would happily sign up for a return to a program that regularly won 22-28 games and lost in the 2nd round most of the time.