[scorecard]

norcalcard:  putting aside that football and basketball are entirely different animals (including the fact that 7,000 is considered horrifying attendance in the former and a sell out in  the latter), I think you are mis-remembering - or at least selectively remembering - Monty's hoops teams.  They scored quite a bit, particularly many of his more memorable teams.

It's true that the rap was that elite and athletic opponents could break our guys down off the dribble and muck up Monty's structured offense; however, I don't think Montgomery's teams were known for being low-scoring (Massacre at Maples; showdowns with Duke; the entire year the season Stanford lost to 'Bama in the NCAAs, Stanford was routinely blowing teams out by 30 points all refute that contention).

76LSJUMB, I'd say Shaw has been a great recruiter so far (last season was tremendous and this one looks good for its smaller size).  I promised folks I would never raise the Fiesta Bowl again, but in response to your post I definitely stated that Shaw's end play failed to give Stanford the best chance to win the game, and I don't think it held up to even a "conservative" approach.  Nonetheless, a 36 yard FG try to win the game is a decent bet.  And more fundamentally, I think that Stanford team was incredibly well-prepared to play Oklahoma State - and in fact dominated the Cowboys.  So Shaw and staff deserve credit for that, even though the end play was clusterbombed.

P.S.  Hope my theory does not have to be tested next year.  But I'd be surprised if season ticket sales next year match this year, even though the home schedule is much-improved.  We'll see.

Indeed, in Monty's best years, we did score pretty well.  The offense was efficient, and we got the most out of the talent that we did have.  We killed teams on the boards with physicality.  We didn't have high-flyers, we put bodies on the high-flyers.  We forced teams to defend and chase dead-eye shooters (like Cross, Weems, Jacobsen, and Lottich) through screens and when we missed, we worked the glass for the putbacks.  This was winning basketball, and it was a big draw. 

What I think norcalcard is getting at, is that we generally haven't had real elite athletic talent, no individually jaw-dropping highlight-reel kind of players that make the Sportscenter highlights.  It's not that they weren't athletic in a different kind of way, but just not the speedy high-flying athlete who was individually captivating like a John Wall, Derrick Rose or even a Steve Francis who could blow by someone and hammer it home.  And we never had a big man on springs like a Dwight Howard or Amare Stoudemire (of course, no one else did either, those kind of guys just skipped college altogether at the time).  In football, we can point to Luck, Plunkett, and Elway as Stanford players who were NFL stars (projecting a bit with Luck, I know).  In basketball, we really haven't fared as well with translating to the NBA (maybe Brook Lopez is the best one).  And as a team, we have never been anywhere close to something like Michigan's Fab Five, UNLV's Running Rebels, or even like the UCLA team that had the O'Bannon brothers and Toby Bailey. 

In 1992-93 when Montgomery went 7-23,  I can remember only one guy on the team actually being able to dunk in a game (Brent Williams).  Those games were pretty painful to watch, and no one showed up to those games either.  As a student, this was the year before the original Sixth Man Club and you could walk in and sit down courtside at any time during a game.  If you had told me then that we would ever hold the #1 ranking in the country, I would have had you committed for being completely delusional.  But boy, when the team started winning, the fans showed up in droves. 

It will be interesting to see what happens this year in basketball.  Like I've said before, I'm excited for this season and hopefully Dawkins can regain some lost momentum for the program.  Athletically, it may be the best collection of athletes that I can remember us having in sometime (perhaps the team that had Julius Barnes, Justin Davis, Childress, and Haryasz would be the closest thing). 

There are some interesting parallels with the football program as well, where we also seem to have the best overall collection of athletes and depth in the program that I can remember.  We have much more momentum in football, of course, starting with Toby (loved watching him steamroll through players), and then Luck whose individual brilliance got us an ESPN blog.  The blog may be dying, hopefully this doesn't mean that our momentum will as well. 

I do worry about what teejers1 is saying because the memory of high-school kids are short, and half-empty stadiums don't impress most elite recruits (how we ended up with Luck at all is a testament to Luck and his character; I don't think we can get away with the Barry Sanders approach with most recruits -- "So, um, our fans will pretty much leave you alone").  Recruiting the elite recruits is the life-blood for a program that wants to be a perennial BCS contender, and not just a program that hopes to pull off big upsets from year to year.  Thankfully Shaw and his staff have proven to be outstanding recruiters.

I am in the corner though that we will be better next year despite losses of some key players, just based on the type of recruits we are bringing in, and the young guys will be both stronger and more familiar with the playbook and system.  Hopefully, coaching improves as well.  Of course, your average fan probably doesn't pay attention to recruiting, so I wouldn't be surprised either if the initial season ticket sales next year are worse, especially if we cannot identify a serviceable QB to be a major face of the program.  (Actually, who would be the face of the program on offense next year?  Might be a tough sell for the marketing department).  I do know this: with all this wait-til-next-year business, I am going to be really pissed off if the Mayans turn out to be right.

[scorecard]

norcalcard:  putting aside that football and basketball are entirely different animals (including the fact that 7,000 is considered horrifying attendance in the former and a sell out in  the latter), I think you are mis-remembering - or at least selectively remembering - Monty's hoops teams.  They scored quite a bit, particularly many of his more memorable teams.

It's true that the rap was that elite and athletic opponents could break our guys down off the dribble and muck up Monty's structured offense; however, I don't think Montgomery's teams were known for being low-scoring (Massacre at Maples; showdowns with Duke; the entire year the season Stanford lost to 'Bama in the NCAAs, Stanford was routinely blowing teams out by 30 points all refute that contention).

76LSJUMB, I'd say Shaw has been a great recruiter so far (last season was tremendous and this one looks good for its smaller size).  I promised folks I would never raise the Fiesta Bowl again, but in response to your post I definitely stated that Shaw's end play failed to give Stanford the best chance to win the game, and I don't think it held up to even a "conservative" approach.  Nonetheless, a 36 yard FG try to win the game is a decent bet.  And more fundamentally, I think that Stanford team was incredibly well-prepared to play Oklahoma State - and in fact dominated the Cowboys.  So Shaw and staff deserve credit for that, even though the end play was clusterbombed.

P.S.  Hope my theory does not have to be tested next year.  But I'd be surprised if season ticket sales next year match this year, even though the home schedule is much-improved.  We'll see.

Indeed, in Monty's best years, we did score pretty well.  The offense was efficient, and we got the most out of the talent that we did have.  We killed teams on the boards with physicality.  We didn't have high-flyers, we put bodies on the high-flyers.  We forced teams to defend and chase dead-eye shooters (like Cross, Weems, Jacobsen, and Lottich) through screens and when we missed, we worked the glass for the putbacks.  This was winning basketball, and it was a big draw. 

What I think norcalcard is getting at, is that we generally haven't had real elite athletic talent, no individually jaw-dropping highlight-reel kind of players that make the Sportscenter highlights.  It's not that they weren't athletic in a different kind of way, but just not the speedy high-flying athlete who was individually captivating like a John Wall, Derrick Rose or even a Steve Francis who could blow by someone and hammer it home.  And we never had a big man on springs like a Dwight Howard or Amare Stoudemire (of course, no one else did either, those kind of guys just skipped college altogether at the time).  In football, we can point to Luck, Plunkett, and Elway as Stanford players who were NFL stars (projecting a bit with Luck, I know).  In basketball, we really haven't fared as well with translating to the NBA (maybe Brook Lopez is the best one).  And as a team, we have never been anywhere close to something like Michigan's Fab Five, UNLV's Running Rebels, or even like the UCLA team that had the O'Bannon brothers and Toby Bailey. 

In 1992-93 when Montgomery went 7-23,  I can remember only one guy on the team actually being able to dunk in a game (Brent Williams).  Those games were pretty painful to watch, and no one showed up to those games either.  As a student, this was the year before the original Sixth Man Club and you could walk in and sit down courtside at any time during a game.  If you had told me then that we would ever hold the #1 ranking in the country, I would have had you committed for being completely delusional.  But boy, when the team started winning, the fans showed up in droves. 

It will be interesting to see what happens this year in basketball.  Like I've said before, I'm excited for this season and hopefully Dawkins can regain some lost momentum for the program.  Athletically, it may be the best collection of athletes that I can remember us having in sometime (perhaps the team that had Julius Barnes, Justin Davis, Childress, and Haryasz would be the closest thing). 

There are some interesting parallels with the football program as well, where we also seem to have the best overall collection of athletes and depth in the program that I can remember.  We have much more momentum in football, of course, starting with Toby (loved watching him steamroll through players), and then Luck whose individual brilliance got us an ESPN blog.  The blog may be dying, hopefully this doesn't mean that our momentum will as well. 

I do worry about what teejers1 is saying because the memory of high-school kids are short, and half-empty stadiums don't impress most elite recruits (how we ended up with Luck at all is a testament to Luck and his character; I don't think we can get away with the Barry Sanders approach with most recruits -- "So, um, our fans will pretty much leave you alone").  Recruiting the elite recruits is the life-blood for a program that wants to be a perennial BCS contender, and not just a program that hopes to pull off big upsets from year to year.  Thankfully Shaw and his staff have proven to be outstanding recruiters.

I am in the corner though that we will be better next year despite losses of some key players, just based on the type of recruits we are bringing in, and the young guys will be both stronger and more familiar with the playbook and system.  Hopefully, coaching improves as well.  Of course, your average fan probably doesn't pay attention to recruiting, so I wouldn't be surprised either if the initial season ticket sales next year are worse, especially if we cannot identify a serviceable QB to be a major face of the program.  (Actually, who would be the face of the program on offense next year?  Might be a tough sell for the marketing department).  I do know this: with all this wait-til-next-year business, I am going to be really pissed off if the Mayans turn out to be right.