03-11-2020, 08:05 PM
Something was missing tonight. There seemed to be no sense of urgency. We shot horrendous...close shots hitting no rim. Their screens resulted in uncontested shots. We always seemed to be shooting over a defender.
MBB vs. Cal 6pm (Pac-12 Tournament R1)
03-11-2020, 08:07 PM
(03-11-2020, 08:04 PM)chrisk Wrote: What is the over/under on how soon the calls for new coach start? Or does Stanford still have a chance for the NCAA?
In the past, not making the NCAA after 4 years was a firing offense.
I don't see how they get a bid, and I expect the Dawkins Invitational Tournament to be canceled so that means that was the last game of the season. I'll start the calls right now. It should be Haase's last game on our sideline. Ending the season with two god awful offensive performances in the last three games. At this point in the season there's no excuse for these kinds of game-long lapses.
(03-11-2020, 08:04 PM)chrisk Wrote: What is the over/under on how soon the calls for new coach start? Or does Stanford still have a chance for the NCAA?
In the past, not making the NCAA after 4 years was a firing offense.
I don't see how they get a bid, and I expect the Dawkins Invitational Tournament to be canceled so that means that was the last game of the season. I'll start the calls right now. It should be Haase's last game on our sideline. Ending the season with two god awful offensive performances in the last three games. At this point in the season there's no excuse for these kinds of game-long lapses.
03-11-2020, 08:08 PM
Unfortunate for maybe the worst game of basketball we played the entire season to come at a time when all we needed to do was not screw up. A high-delta team that performed 2 standard deviations below its mean when it counted.
Almost feels fitting, sadly.
Almost feels fitting, sadly.
03-11-2020, 08:08 PM
(03-11-2020, 08:05 PM)PVTree Wrote: Something was missing tonight. There seemed to be no sense of urgency. We shot horrendous...close shots hitting no rim. Their screens resulted in uncontested shots. We always seemed to be shooting over a defender.
The broadcast said that Stanford had flight issues and got in really late. They missed the schedule shoot around at the arena and it showed.
Feel like Terry faded down the stretch over the last couple of games. Probably Oscar's worse game of the year too. Only person who seemed to show up tonight was Davis. Just the worst game we played all year.
(03-11-2020, 08:05 PM)PVTree Wrote: Something was missing tonight. There seemed to be no sense of urgency. We shot horrendous...close shots hitting no rim. Their screens resulted in uncontested shots. We always seemed to be shooting over a defender.
The broadcast said that Stanford had flight issues and got in really late. They missed the schedule shoot around at the arena and it showed.
Feel like Terry faded down the stretch over the last couple of games. Probably Oscar's worse game of the year too. Only person who seemed to show up tonight was Davis. Just the worst game we played all year.
03-11-2020, 08:11 PM
(03-11-2020, 08:07 PM)winflop Wrote:(03-11-2020, 08:04 PM)chrisk Wrote: What is the over/under on how soon the calls for new coach start? Or does Stanford still have a chance for the NCAA?
In the past, not making the NCAA after 4 years was a firing offense.
I don't see how they get a bid, and I expect the Dawkins Invitational Tournament to be canceled so that means that was the last game of the season. I'll start the calls right now. It should be Haase's last game on our sideline. Ending the season with two god awful offensive performances in the last three games. At this point in the season there's no excuse for these kinds of game-long lapses.
I'll join you next year when a team with actual seniors playing (zero in the rotation this year) and depth (only 10/13 healthy scholarship players this year, percentage-wise a worse dearth than football...and one of them is Keenan Fitzmorris) doesn't make the tourney. For now I'll just be sad.
(03-11-2020, 08:07 PM)winflop Wrote:(03-11-2020, 08:04 PM)chrisk Wrote: What is the over/under on how soon the calls for new coach start? Or does Stanford still have a chance for the NCAA?
In the past, not making the NCAA after 4 years was a firing offense.
I don't see how they get a bid, and I expect the Dawkins Invitational Tournament to be canceled so that means that was the last game of the season. I'll start the calls right now. It should be Haase's last game on our sideline. Ending the season with two god awful offensive performances in the last three games. At this point in the season there's no excuse for these kinds of game-long lapses.
I'll join you next year when a team with actual seniors playing (zero in the rotation this year) and depth (only 10/13 healthy scholarship players this year, percentage-wise a worse dearth than football...and one of them is Keenan Fitzmorris) doesn't make the tourney. For now I'll just be sad.
03-11-2020, 08:15 PM
For all of the folks on the Board who were relentless in their criticism of Dawkins but are essentially silent now, the question is clear: Were you wrong then or are you wrong now? Over the course of the season, people have said that they liked Haase's "system". what system is that exactly? People used to bemoan the fact that Dawkins' teams played without emotion and looked disinterested. They were manic compared to tonight's team.
People have said that this team is "fun to watch." For the life of me, I can't figure out how anyone could reach that conclusion. Blowing substantial leads on multiple occasions, including that USC game, constantly getting swatted on ridiculously difficult one-on-one drives to the basket, failing to run more than one or two plays a game so that the league's 3rd best 3-pt shooter could get an open look, making really boneheaded and sloppy turnovers, often at crucial times, none of those are my idea of "fun to watch." And, as far as coaching, this is a team that regressed, not improved, over the course of the season. It lost TWICE to the Weenies. It [as noted] managed to blow a 20 point lead to U.SC by committing errors that were directly attributable to [and, as I recall, admitted by] the coaches.
At this point, it will take a minor miracle for Haase's career record to reach Dawkins' level, however long he stays around. I'm hoping for that miracle -- and I'm going to keep buying my season ticket, going to the games, and cheering for the team, unlike many of the former coach's detractors when faced with the same prospects several years ago -- but I really haven't seen any evidence to make me confident it will occur.
So, again, my question to folks for whom "fire the coach" used to be the one and only answer but who now are noticeably silent, is wrong before or wrong now?
People have said that this team is "fun to watch." For the life of me, I can't figure out how anyone could reach that conclusion. Blowing substantial leads on multiple occasions, including that USC game, constantly getting swatted on ridiculously difficult one-on-one drives to the basket, failing to run more than one or two plays a game so that the league's 3rd best 3-pt shooter could get an open look, making really boneheaded and sloppy turnovers, often at crucial times, none of those are my idea of "fun to watch." And, as far as coaching, this is a team that regressed, not improved, over the course of the season. It lost TWICE to the Weenies. It [as noted] managed to blow a 20 point lead to U.SC by committing errors that were directly attributable to [and, as I recall, admitted by] the coaches.
At this point, it will take a minor miracle for Haase's career record to reach Dawkins' level, however long he stays around. I'm hoping for that miracle -- and I'm going to keep buying my season ticket, going to the games, and cheering for the team, unlike many of the former coach's detractors when faced with the same prospects several years ago -- but I really haven't seen any evidence to make me confident it will occur.
So, again, my question to folks for whom "fire the coach" used to be the one and only answer but who now are noticeably silent, is wrong before or wrong now?
For all of the folks on the Board who were relentless in their criticism of Dawkins but are essentially silent now, the question is clear: Were you wrong then or are you wrong now? Over the course of the season, people have said that they liked Haase's "system". what system is that exactly? People used to bemoan the fact that Dawkins' teams played without emotion and looked disinterested. They were manic compared to tonight's team.
People have said that this team is "fun to watch." For the life of me, I can't figure out how anyone could reach that conclusion. Blowing substantial leads on multiple occasions, including that USC game, constantly getting swatted on ridiculously difficult one-on-one drives to the basket, failing to run more than one or two plays a game so that the league's 3rd best 3-pt shooter could get an open look, making really boneheaded and sloppy turnovers, often at crucial times, none of those are my idea of "fun to watch." And, as far as coaching, this is a team that regressed, not improved, over the course of the season. It lost TWICE to the Weenies. It [as noted] managed to blow a 20 point lead to U.SC by committing errors that were directly attributable to [and, as I recall, admitted by] the coaches.
At this point, it will take a minor miracle for Haase's career record to reach Dawkins' level, however long he stays around. I'm hoping for that miracle -- and I'm going to keep buying my season ticket, going to the games, and cheering for the team, unlike many of the former coach's detractors when faced with the same prospects several years ago -- but I really haven't seen any evidence to make me confident it will occur.
So, again, my question to folks for whom "fire the coach" used to be the one and only answer but who now are noticeably silent, is wrong before or wrong now?
People have said that this team is "fun to watch." For the life of me, I can't figure out how anyone could reach that conclusion. Blowing substantial leads on multiple occasions, including that USC game, constantly getting swatted on ridiculously difficult one-on-one drives to the basket, failing to run more than one or two plays a game so that the league's 3rd best 3-pt shooter could get an open look, making really boneheaded and sloppy turnovers, often at crucial times, none of those are my idea of "fun to watch." And, as far as coaching, this is a team that regressed, not improved, over the course of the season. It lost TWICE to the Weenies. It [as noted] managed to blow a 20 point lead to U.SC by committing errors that were directly attributable to [and, as I recall, admitted by] the coaches.
At this point, it will take a minor miracle for Haase's career record to reach Dawkins' level, however long he stays around. I'm hoping for that miracle -- and I'm going to keep buying my season ticket, going to the games, and cheering for the team, unlike many of the former coach's detractors when faced with the same prospects several years ago -- but I really haven't seen any evidence to make me confident it will occur.
So, again, my question to folks for whom "fire the coach" used to be the one and only answer but who now are noticeably silent, is wrong before or wrong now?
How do you justify playing the NCAA and cancelling the NIT? Money?
If it is student-athletes first, they should either play both or cancel both.
Haase said that he thought the team was really prepared to play. He said the team did not handle adversity. They could not make baskets around the basket. He acknowledged how poorly DaSilva and Terry played.
If it is student-athletes first, they should either play both or cancel both.
Haase said that he thought the team was really prepared to play. He said the team did not handle adversity. They could not make baskets around the basket. He acknowledged how poorly DaSilva and Terry played.
How do you justify playing the NCAA and cancelling the NIT? Money?
If it is student-athletes first, they should either play both or cancel both.
Haase said that he thought the team was really prepared to play. He said the team did not handle adversity. They could not make baskets around the basket. He acknowledged how poorly DaSilva and Terry played.
If it is student-athletes first, they should either play both or cancel both.
Haase said that he thought the team was really prepared to play. He said the team did not handle adversity. They could not make baskets around the basket. He acknowledged how poorly DaSilva and Terry played.
03-11-2020, 08:36 PM
(03-11-2020, 08:11 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: I'll join you next year when a team with actual seniors playing (zero in the rotation this year) and depth (only 10/13 healthy scholarship players this year, percentage-wise a worse dearth than football...and one of them is Keenan Fitzmorris) doesn't make the tourney. For now I'll just be sad.
Sorry - In football you really need that depth given the specialization, so a few injuries can really create problems. Stanford Football's OL was devastated. The OL is really important, especially for Stanford. In basketball teams routinely get deep into the tournament with 7 or 8 players playing the vast majority of the minutes over the season. Admittedly Stanford doesn't have 3 or 4 big time stars to carry the load, but there was enough depth to make it work. So much was on the line today and you'd have thought Stanford was certain to be a #7 seed.
Once again, team looked good in December with everyone thinking maybe this year would be different. Then by February there are injuries, fatigue, inconsistent motivation, lack of in season improvement, loads of loses and an endless list of excuses for the coach.
Haase seems like a very good guy. I get that, but he is unable to maximize the attributes Stanford recruits will have every year. Other Stanford teams leverage that passion to learn and develop a level of game savvy that is the envy of the Pac-12 if not the USA. As the players stay for multiple years they also are able to educate younger teammates. And that ability and desire to learn and lead makes them much better at the end of the season in most sports.
I definitely understand Stanford can't become the next Kentucky, Kansas or even Dayton with high flying athletes happy to work on FTs for hours rather than get their GPA above 2.5. Still, this end of season pattern is too much to just accept.
This team works hard on defense, but doesn't look particularly clever, savvy or crafty. They have a painfully simple plan of attack, that doesn't grow or expand much during the season. By the end of the season every Pac-12 team has modified their game plan so they can beat Stanford.
Haase? Great guy. Basketball savvy. Not quite the best fit for the type of athletes Stanford consistent is able to recruit.
I fully expect Stanford will turn down any NIT invite should one be offered.
The one miniblip at the end of February was nice, but generally this season fit the model. Inspiring start of the season, disappointing ending.
(03-11-2020, 08:11 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: I'll join you next year when a team with actual seniors playing (zero in the rotation this year) and depth (only 10/13 healthy scholarship players this year, percentage-wise a worse dearth than football...and one of them is Keenan Fitzmorris) doesn't make the tourney. For now I'll just be sad.
Sorry - In football you really need that depth given the specialization, so a few injuries can really create problems. Stanford Football's OL was devastated. The OL is really important, especially for Stanford. In basketball teams routinely get deep into the tournament with 7 or 8 players playing the vast majority of the minutes over the season. Admittedly Stanford doesn't have 3 or 4 big time stars to carry the load, but there was enough depth to make it work. So much was on the line today and you'd have thought Stanford was certain to be a #7 seed.
Once again, team looked good in December with everyone thinking maybe this year would be different. Then by February there are injuries, fatigue, inconsistent motivation, lack of in season improvement, loads of loses and an endless list of excuses for the coach.
Haase seems like a very good guy. I get that, but he is unable to maximize the attributes Stanford recruits will have every year. Other Stanford teams leverage that passion to learn and develop a level of game savvy that is the envy of the Pac-12 if not the USA. As the players stay for multiple years they also are able to educate younger teammates. And that ability and desire to learn and lead makes them much better at the end of the season in most sports.
I definitely understand Stanford can't become the next Kentucky, Kansas or even Dayton with high flying athletes happy to work on FTs for hours rather than get their GPA above 2.5. Still, this end of season pattern is too much to just accept.
This team works hard on defense, but doesn't look particularly clever, savvy or crafty. They have a painfully simple plan of attack, that doesn't grow or expand much during the season. By the end of the season every Pac-12 team has modified their game plan so they can beat Stanford.
Haase? Great guy. Basketball savvy. Not quite the best fit for the type of athletes Stanford consistent is able to recruit.
I fully expect Stanford will turn down any NIT invite should one be offered.
The one miniblip at the end of February was nice, but generally this season fit the model. Inspiring start of the season, disappointing ending.
03-11-2020, 09:01 PM
Coaching - we don't have it. Dawkins was not very good and neither is Haase. This team had a shot at the Dance and they didn't show up - pathetic. I put it on the coaches and I put it on the team as well. Muir, who is a basketball guy, needs to get someone in here that can rebuild this program. The urgency, the desire, the grit were not there when a place at the table was on the line. I tip my hat to the weenies. They brought it and we played like the corona kids versus the cardinal. What a waste. Time for some baseball!
Coaching - we don't have it. Dawkins was not very good and neither is Haase. This team had a shot at the Dance and they didn't show up - pathetic. I put it on the coaches and I put it on the team as well. Muir, who is a basketball guy, needs to get someone in here that can rebuild this program. The urgency, the desire, the grit were not there when a place at the table was on the line. I tip my hat to the weenies. They brought it and we played like the corona kids versus the cardinal. What a waste. Time for some baseball!
03-11-2020, 09:17 PM
(03-11-2020, 09:01 PM)Treebound Wrote: Coaching - we don't have it. Dawkins was not very good and neither is Haase. This team had a shot at the Dance and they didn't show up - pathetic. I put it on the coaches and I put it on the team as well. Muir, who is a basketball guy, needs to get someone in here that can rebuild this program. The urgency, the desire, the grit were not there when a place at the table was on the line. I tip my hat to the weenies. They brought it and we played like the corona kids versus the cardinal. What a waste. Time for some baseball!
Ummm, baseball is 5-11.
Maybe you mean the Giants. Oh, never mind...
(03-11-2020, 09:01 PM)Treebound Wrote: Coaching - we don't have it. Dawkins was not very good and neither is Haase. This team had a shot at the Dance and they didn't show up - pathetic. I put it on the coaches and I put it on the team as well. Muir, who is a basketball guy, needs to get someone in here that can rebuild this program. The urgency, the desire, the grit were not there when a place at the table was on the line. I tip my hat to the weenies. They brought it and we played like the corona kids versus the cardinal. What a waste. Time for some baseball!
Ummm, baseball is 5-11.
Maybe you mean the Giants. Oh, never mind...
03-11-2020, 09:22 PM
(03-11-2020, 08:59 PM)winflop Wrote:(03-11-2020, 08:19 PM)chrisk Wrote: How do you justify playing the NCAA and cancelling the NIT? Money?
If it is student-athletes first, they should either play both or cancel both.
One is for a national championship. The other one is not.
The implication is that the NIT just go away for good. The CBI is run by a separate organization and would not be missed. Stanford has won several NIT championships. How many "championships" would Stanford have if not for the NIT?
(03-11-2020, 08:59 PM)winflop Wrote:(03-11-2020, 08:19 PM)chrisk Wrote: How do you justify playing the NCAA and cancelling the NIT? Money?
If it is student-athletes first, they should either play both or cancel both.
One is for a national championship. The other one is not.
The implication is that the NIT just go away for good. The CBI is run by a separate organization and would not be missed. Stanford has won several NIT championships. How many "championships" would Stanford have if not for the NIT?
03-11-2020, 09:58 PM
(03-11-2020, 09:22 PM)chrisk Wrote:(03-11-2020, 08:59 PM)winflop Wrote:(03-11-2020, 08:19 PM)chrisk Wrote: How do you justify playing the NCAA and cancelling the NIT? Money?
If it is student-athletes first, they should either play both or cancel both.
One is for a national championship. The other one is not.
The implication is that the NIT just go away for good. The CBI is run by a separate organization and would not be missed. Stanford has won several NIT championships. How many "championships" would Stanford have if not for the NIT?
The NIT normally gives teams on the wrong side of the bubble a chance to play a few games at home and then maybe go to NYC. The lower tier teams get a chance to play the top seeds in big noisy venues which is likely a big deal for those players.
This year the NIT will be a massive money loser for the top seeds as they can't sell tickets. The lower seeds won't play in arenas with 10,000+ fans.
So a money loser for the top seeds. No amazing opportunities for the lower seeds. And a much higher risk of corona virus exposure for everyone.
Pass....
Most college administrators will easily make this call. NCAA would be smart to get in front of it, and just cancel the NIT for this season.
The NCAA is probably just a couple of positive tests away from needing to cancel the NCAA tournament. The players will probably be OK even if they get the virus, not as certain the coaches and support staff would be as lucky.
The billions of dollars in the TV contract apparently get the deciding vote, at least for now.
(03-11-2020, 09:22 PM)chrisk Wrote:(03-11-2020, 08:59 PM)winflop Wrote:(03-11-2020, 08:19 PM)chrisk Wrote: How do you justify playing the NCAA and cancelling the NIT? Money?
If it is student-athletes first, they should either play both or cancel both.
One is for a national championship. The other one is not.
The implication is that the NIT just go away for good. The CBI is run by a separate organization and would not be missed. Stanford has won several NIT championships. How many "championships" would Stanford have if not for the NIT?
The NIT normally gives teams on the wrong side of the bubble a chance to play a few games at home and then maybe go to NYC. The lower tier teams get a chance to play the top seeds in big noisy venues which is likely a big deal for those players.
This year the NIT will be a massive money loser for the top seeds as they can't sell tickets. The lower seeds won't play in arenas with 10,000+ fans.
So a money loser for the top seeds. No amazing opportunities for the lower seeds. And a much higher risk of corona virus exposure for everyone.
Pass....
Most college administrators will easily make this call. NCAA would be smart to get in front of it, and just cancel the NIT for this season.
The NCAA is probably just a couple of positive tests away from needing to cancel the NCAA tournament. The players will probably be OK even if they get the virus, not as certain the coaches and support staff would be as lucky.
The billions of dollars in the TV contract apparently get the deciding vote, at least for now.
03-11-2020, 10:49 PM
(03-11-2020, 09:17 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: [Ummm, baseball is 5-11.
Maybe you mean the Giants. Oh, never mind...
To answer your earlier posed question, all I can say is "the eye test." (And btw, I'm not certain Haase should stay . . . far from it). When you watch these guys play do you think they are well instructed on what to do offensively and defensively? Do they look like they are pursuing a plan? Tonight was an abomination - almost so bad that I'm willing to consider the extraneous factors mentioned in this thread and on the news as legit considerations. But in other games - in most other games - I would generally answer those questions in the affirmative.
I couldn't say the same thing from watching the Dawkins teams . . . at least that's my recollection.
But to be clear, that [instruction on what to do] should be a minimum criterion. And then above that, does the team win enough? And all this, of course, takes as a given the requirement that the coach recruit good kids who represent Stanford well (never much of an issue for sports coaches at Stanford). Haase has fallen short on the "win enough" criterion.
That's the best "answer" I can give to your question. I didn't love Dawkins (though I'm not sure I was clamoring for his removal, either). I don't love Haase, but I do get the sense that he knows what he wants to do and instructs his players reasonably well. He just has had far too many late season fades. That's gotta be on the coaching, to some large extent. Bottom line: I don't know if he should stay or go, though I lean to the former.
But this is what I do know: Haase may be one of the few beneficiaries of the Covid-19 pandemic. He will get another year because no one will care that Stanford didn't make a tourney that will be canceled anyway.
This is also what I know: next year will be "invite or out" for Haase at Stanford. I assume that even Bernard can only take so much before he determines "you've had long enough."
(03-11-2020, 09:17 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: [Ummm, baseball is 5-11.
Maybe you mean the Giants. Oh, never mind...
To answer your earlier posed question, all I can say is "the eye test." (And btw, I'm not certain Haase should stay . . . far from it). When you watch these guys play do you think they are well instructed on what to do offensively and defensively? Do they look like they are pursuing a plan? Tonight was an abomination - almost so bad that I'm willing to consider the extraneous factors mentioned in this thread and on the news as legit considerations. But in other games - in most other games - I would generally answer those questions in the affirmative.
I couldn't say the same thing from watching the Dawkins teams . . . at least that's my recollection.
But to be clear, that [instruction on what to do] should be a minimum criterion. And then above that, does the team win enough? And all this, of course, takes as a given the requirement that the coach recruit good kids who represent Stanford well (never much of an issue for sports coaches at Stanford). Haase has fallen short on the "win enough" criterion.
That's the best "answer" I can give to your question. I didn't love Dawkins (though I'm not sure I was clamoring for his removal, either). I don't love Haase, but I do get the sense that he knows what he wants to do and instructs his players reasonably well. He just has had far too many late season fades. That's gotta be on the coaching, to some large extent. Bottom line: I don't know if he should stay or go, though I lean to the former.
But this is what I do know: Haase may be one of the few beneficiaries of the Covid-19 pandemic. He will get another year because no one will care that Stanford didn't make a tourney that will be canceled anyway.
This is also what I know: next year will be "invite or out" for Haase at Stanford. I assume that even Bernard can only take so much before he determines "you've had long enough."
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Pac12Network/status/1237946287187607558[/tweet]
You sure about that, coach? Felt like only one side of the ball was "off-the-charts" consistent, and it wasn't the side of the ball that actually, you know, scores the points.
Have to agree here. He'll be back. Next year is put up or shut up.
You sure about that, coach? Felt like only one side of the ball was "off-the-charts" consistent, and it wasn't the side of the ball that actually, you know, scores the points.
(03-11-2020, 10:49 PM)teejers1 Wrote: But this is what I do know: Haase may be one of the few beneficiaries of the Covid-19 pandemic. He will get another year because no one will care that Stanford didn't make a tourney that will be canceled anyway.
This is also what I know: next year will be "invite or out" for Haase at Stanford. I assume that even Bernard can only take so much before he determines "you've had long enough."
Have to agree here. He'll be back. Next year is put up or shut up.
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2020, 11:24 PM by SamuelMcF.)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Pac12Network/status/1237946287187607558[/tweet]
You sure about that, coach? Felt like only one side of the ball was "off-the-charts" consistent, and it wasn't the side of the ball that actually, you know, scores the points.
Have to agree here. He'll be back. Next year is put up or shut up.
You sure about that, coach? Felt like only one side of the ball was "off-the-charts" consistent, and it wasn't the side of the ball that actually, you know, scores the points.
(03-11-2020, 10:49 PM)teejers1 Wrote: But this is what I do know: Haase may be one of the few beneficiaries of the Covid-19 pandemic. He will get another year because no one will care that Stanford didn't make a tourney that will be canceled anyway.
This is also what I know: next year will be "invite or out" for Haase at Stanford. I assume that even Bernard can only take so much before he determines "you've had long enough."
Have to agree here. He'll be back. Next year is put up or shut up.
03-12-2020, 12:09 AM
(03-11-2020, 11:23 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/Pac12Network/status/1237946287187607558[/tweet]
You sure about that, coach? Felt like only one side of the ball was "off-the-charts" consistent, and it wasn't the side of the ball that actually, you know, scores the points.
(03-11-2020, 10:49 PM)teejers1 Wrote: But this is what I do know: Haase may be one of the few beneficiaries of the Covid-19 pandemic. He will get another year because no one will care that Stanford didn't make a tourney that will be canceled anyway.
This is also what I know: next year will be "invite or out" for Haase at Stanford. I assume that even Bernard can only take so much before he determines "you've had long enough."
Have to agree here. He'll be back. Next year is put up or shut up.
The context was missing. Haase was referring to the season, but definitely not tonight.
(03-11-2020, 11:23 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/Pac12Network/status/1237946287187607558[/tweet]
You sure about that, coach? Felt like only one side of the ball was "off-the-charts" consistent, and it wasn't the side of the ball that actually, you know, scores the points.
(03-11-2020, 10:49 PM)teejers1 Wrote: But this is what I do know: Haase may be one of the few beneficiaries of the Covid-19 pandemic. He will get another year because no one will care that Stanford didn't make a tourney that will be canceled anyway.
This is also what I know: next year will be "invite or out" for Haase at Stanford. I assume that even Bernard can only take so much before he determines "you've had long enough."
Have to agree here. He'll be back. Next year is put up or shut up.
The context was missing. Haase was referring to the season, but definitely not tonight.
03-12-2020, 04:18 AM
(03-11-2020, 09:01 PM)Treebound Wrote: Coaching - we don't have it. Dawkins was not very good and neither is Haase. This team had a shot at the Dance and they didn't show up - pathetic. I put it on the coaches and I put it on the team as well. Muir, who is a basketball guy, needs to get someone in here that can rebuild this program. The urgency, the desire, the grit were not there when a place at the table was on the line. I tip my hat to the weenies. They brought it and we played like the corona kids versus the cardinal. What a waste. Time for some baseball!
I think it's time to start questioning Muir as well. He's supposedly a basketball guy, but he kept Dawkins around for way too long and much as I'd like to see a new HC I highly doubt he's going to replace Haase.
(03-11-2020, 09:01 PM)Treebound Wrote: Coaching - we don't have it. Dawkins was not very good and neither is Haase. This team had a shot at the Dance and they didn't show up - pathetic. I put it on the coaches and I put it on the team as well. Muir, who is a basketball guy, needs to get someone in here that can rebuild this program. The urgency, the desire, the grit were not there when a place at the table was on the line. I tip my hat to the weenies. They brought it and we played like the corona kids versus the cardinal. What a waste. Time for some baseball!
I think it's time to start questioning Muir as well. He's supposedly a basketball guy, but he kept Dawkins around for way too long and much as I'd like to see a new HC I highly doubt he's going to replace Haase.
03-12-2020, 09:05 AM
(03-12-2020, 04:18 AM)winflop Wrote: I think it's time to start questioning Muir as well. He's supposedly a basketball guy, but he kept Dawkins around for way too long and much as I'd like to see a new HC I highly doubt he's going to replace Haase.
I'm kind of surprised it took you this long...
03-12-2020, 09:14 AM
Big Ten, SEC and AAC cancel conference tournaments. If only the Pac12 had done the same thing, then we wouldn't have to have last night in our memories.
03-12-2020, 09:51 AM
If there is a 2020-21 college basketball season, I vote to keep Haase as the coach. The defensive mindset, with a few incredibly painful lapses, was there this year. If the offense can be consistently decent--not even very good--the team will make the NCAA tournament.
Haase--and for that matter, Dawkins--are good coaches. They've proven that at other schools. The question is whether or not Stanford is the right fit for Haase. Despite the horrible performance last night, I maintain that this year was by most measurements his best year at Stanford. I say let's support the team like hell and give him one more chance.
Haase--and for that matter, Dawkins--are good coaches. They've proven that at other schools. The question is whether or not Stanford is the right fit for Haase. Despite the horrible performance last night, I maintain that this year was by most measurements his best year at Stanford. I say let's support the team like hell and give him one more chance.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
If there is a 2020-21 college basketball season, I vote to keep Haase as the coach. The defensive mindset, with a few incredibly painful lapses, was there this year. If the offense can be consistently decent--not even very good--the team will make the NCAA tournament.
Haase--and for that matter, Dawkins--are good coaches. They've proven that at other schools. The question is whether or not Stanford is the right fit for Haase. Despite the horrible performance last night, I maintain that this year was by most measurements his best year at Stanford. I say let's support the team like hell and give him one more chance.
Haase--and for that matter, Dawkins--are good coaches. They've proven that at other schools. The question is whether or not Stanford is the right fit for Haase. Despite the horrible performance last night, I maintain that this year was by most measurements his best year at Stanford. I say let's support the team like hell and give him one more chance.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »