[Goose]

Not sure we will even know to what extent Davis contributed to that situation, but if he was made to feel unwanted that's a real shame and it's also a pretty stinging indictment of Haase regardless of Davis' role in that situation

I have no idea what happened. However, asserting it reflects badly on Haase no matter what Davis actually may or may not have done seems unreasonable to me. Certainly there are many scenarios where all parties made mistakes and bear responsibility. However, there are also some that involve only one party behaving improperly. I am not sure which case actually happened, but the idea that Haase could have and should have prevented the problem is not supported by any facts I am aware of either.

[Goose]

Not sure we will even know to what extent Davis contributed to that situation, but if he was made to feel unwanted that's a real shame and it's also a pretty stinging indictment of Haase regardless of Davis' role in that situation

I have no idea what happened. However, asserting it reflects badly on Haase no matter what Davis actually may or may not have done seems unreasonable to me. Certainly there are many scenarios where all parties made mistakes and bear responsibility. However, there are also some that involve only one party behaving improperly. I am not sure which case actually happened, but the idea that Haase could have and should have prevented the problem is not supported by any facts I am aware of either.

[Mick]

Not sure we will even know to what extent Davis contributed to that situation, but if he was made to feel unwanted that's a real shame and it's also a pretty stinging indictment of Haase regardless of Davis' role in that situation

I have no idea what happened. However, asserting it reflects badly on Haase no matter what Davis actually may or may not have done seems unreasonable to me. Certainly there are many scenarios where all parties made mistakes and bear responsibility. However, there are also some that involve only one party behaving improperly. I am not sure which case actually happened, but the idea that Haase could have and should have prevented the problem is not supported by any facts I am aware of either.

I can't comment as to how good or bad Haase or Davis is, or what motivated Davis to tweet that.  But after having had employees for the last three and a half decades -- and I view scholarship athletes as employees -- whenever I read something like this, I tend to think of it as an issue from both sides -- but more from the employee's side, particularly if they are young and egocentric.

[Mick]

Not sure we will even know to what extent Davis contributed to that situation, but if he was made to feel unwanted that's a real shame and it's also a pretty stinging indictment of Haase regardless of Davis' role in that situation

I have no idea what happened. However, asserting it reflects badly on Haase no matter what Davis actually may or may not have done seems unreasonable to me. Certainly there are many scenarios where all parties made mistakes and bear responsibility. However, there are also some that involve only one party behaving improperly. I am not sure which case actually happened, but the idea that Haase could have and should have prevented the problem is not supported by any facts I am aware of either.

I can't comment as to how good or bad Haase or Davis is, or what motivated Davis to tweet that.  But after having had employees for the last three and a half decades -- and I view scholarship athletes as employees -- whenever I read something like this, I tend to think of it as an issue from both sides -- but more from the employee's side, particularly if they are young and egocentric.

[Goose]

Not sure we will even know to what extent Davis contributed to that situation, but if he was made to feel unwanted that's a real shame and it's also a pretty stinging indictment of Haase regardless of Davis' role in that situation

I have no idea what happened. However, asserting it reflects badly on Haase no matter what Davis actually may or may not have done seems unreasonable to me. Certainly there are many scenarios where all parties made mistakes and bear responsibility. However, there are also some that involve only one party behaving improperly. I am not sure which case actually happened, but the idea that Haase could have and should have prevented the problem is not supported by any facts I am aware of either.

I can't comment as to how good or bad Haase or Davis is, or what motivated Davis to tweet that.  But after having had employees for the last three and a half decades -- and I view scholarship athletes as employees -- whenever I read something like this, I tend to think of it as an issue from both sides -- but more from the employee's side, particularly if they are young and egocentric.

While I generally agree with your experience regarding employees, I would add there are often cases where the "employer" has no path forward that isn't going to displease somebody. If you promote somebody, those who are not selected have to decide how to deal with it. No matter what the employer does the employee(s) involved may decide the decision is wrong. At that point instead of just resigning they may chose other behaviors. No way that ends well for anybody, no matter what the employer does.

[Goose]

Not sure we will even know to what extent Davis contributed to that situation, but if he was made to feel unwanted that's a real shame and it's also a pretty stinging indictment of Haase regardless of Davis' role in that situation

I have no idea what happened. However, asserting it reflects badly on Haase no matter what Davis actually may or may not have done seems unreasonable to me. Certainly there are many scenarios where all parties made mistakes and bear responsibility. However, there are also some that involve only one party behaving improperly. I am not sure which case actually happened, but the idea that Haase could have and should have prevented the problem is not supported by any facts I am aware of either.

I can't comment as to how good or bad Haase or Davis is, or what motivated Davis to tweet that.  But after having had employees for the last three and a half decades -- and I view scholarship athletes as employees -- whenever I read something like this, I tend to think of it as an issue from both sides -- but more from the employee's side, particularly if they are young and egocentric.

While I generally agree with your experience regarding employees, I would add there are often cases where the "employer" has no path forward that isn't going to displease somebody. If you promote somebody, those who are not selected have to decide how to deal with it. No matter what the employer does the employee(s) involved may decide the decision is wrong. At that point instead of just resigning they may chose other behaviors. No way that ends well for anybody, no matter what the employer does.

[old spanish trail]

I don't know what happened either, but I'm sorry Davis is leaving and seems to be unhappy. He was a darned good soldier on a team that had some deficiencies....including, perhaps, in the coaches' room. Good luck to him. I just don't know what to think about Haase right now. I do like his recruiting class though from what I've seen in clips, Silva has some work to do. The under rated Moss looks like a better bet.

[old spanish trail]

I don't know what happened either, but I'm sorry Davis is leaving and seems to be unhappy. He was a darned good soldier on a team that had some deficiencies....including, perhaps, in the coaches' room. Good luck to him. I just don't know what to think about Haase right now. I do like his recruiting class though from what I've seen in clips, Silva has some work to do. The under rated Moss looks like a better bet.

[winflop]

Not sure we will even know to what extent Davis contributed to that situation, but if he was made to feel unwanted that's a real shame and it's also a pretty stinging indictment of Haase regardless of Davis' role in that situation

I have no idea what happened. However, asserting it reflects badly on Haase no matter what Davis actually may or may not have done seems unreasonable to me. Certainly there are many scenarios where all parties made mistakes and bear responsibility. However, there are also some that involve only one party behaving improperly. I am not sure which case actually happened, but the idea that Haase could have and should have prevented the problem is not supported by any facts I am aware of either.

I don't know what happened, but I'm pretty confident that Haase contributed to it in some way. We're not talking about problems with one player. There are three players involved. That's much more serious and less likely to be an individual behavior issue.

I'm not saying Haase could have prevented the situation, but I think he handled it poorly. If players broke team rules then I think he should have said that. Plenty of other coaches do. Instead he referred to "team cohesion" which is nebulous and pretty meaningless because it could mean a whole lot of things.

Waiting for the third shoe to drop (Wills)...

[winflop]

Not sure we will even know to what extent Davis contributed to that situation, but if he was made to feel unwanted that's a real shame and it's also a pretty stinging indictment of Haase regardless of Davis' role in that situation

I have no idea what happened. However, asserting it reflects badly on Haase no matter what Davis actually may or may not have done seems unreasonable to me. Certainly there are many scenarios where all parties made mistakes and bear responsibility. However, there are also some that involve only one party behaving improperly. I am not sure which case actually happened, but the idea that Haase could have and should have prevented the problem is not supported by any facts I am aware of either.

I don't know what happened, but I'm pretty confident that Haase contributed to it in some way. We're not talking about problems with one player. There are three players involved. That's much more serious and less likely to be an individual behavior issue.

I'm not saying Haase could have prevented the situation, but I think he handled it poorly. If players broke team rules then I think he should have said that. Plenty of other coaches do. Instead he referred to "team cohesion" which is nebulous and pretty meaningless because it could mean a whole lot of things.

Waiting for the third shoe to drop (Wills)...

[lex24]

A March 31 tweet from Daejon...don't know the context behind it.



"watch how they treat you when they don’t need you... "

Not sure we will even know to what extent Davis contributed to that situation, but if he was made to feel unwanted that's a real shame and it's also a pretty stinging indictment of Haase regardless of Davis' role in that situation

What “situation” are you referring to? Coaches don’t respond to social media attacks by their players.  They can’t.   And generally a coach is not going to expand on what happens in the locker room etc. Did Haase have a reputation prior to this year of being hard on players? Or not caring about them personally? I go back to his reaction to that OT win on the road when they were short handed. He was choking back tears. In retrospect, I think that’s a pretty good indicator that there were problems. What those were and who is to “blame” is pure conjecture. But, of course, it’s easy to blame the coach. Especially when they aren’t winning.

[lex24]

A March 31 tweet from Daejon...don't know the context behind it.



"watch how they treat you when they don’t need you... "

Not sure we will even know to what extent Davis contributed to that situation, but if he was made to feel unwanted that's a real shame and it's also a pretty stinging indictment of Haase regardless of Davis' role in that situation

What “situation” are you referring to? Coaches don’t respond to social media attacks by their players.  They can’t.   And generally a coach is not going to expand on what happens in the locker room etc. Did Haase have a reputation prior to this year of being hard on players? Or not caring about them personally? I go back to his reaction to that OT win on the road when they were short handed. He was choking back tears. In retrospect, I think that’s a pretty good indicator that there were problems. What those were and who is to “blame” is pure conjecture. But, of course, it’s easy to blame the coach. Especially when they aren’t winning.

[Goose]

We don’t know what happened.  Does Haase have a reputation of not caring about or being hard on players? Coaches don’t generally respond to social media attacks by their players.  They can’t.  So it’s generally a one way street.

Not only that, but coaches really can't publicly discuss team discipline issues either. It is not a court of law, players don't get due process rights, and there is no jury. It is hopefully still a "fair" process but undoubtedly some players would dispute that. Anything a coach says can be used against either the players in question or the coach. As a result, coaches simply can't talk about it. Best case, if the coach did reveal  "what happened" he would be accused on this board of throwing his players under the bus.

[Goose]

We don’t know what happened.  Does Haase have a reputation of not caring about or being hard on players? Coaches don’t generally respond to social media attacks by their players.  They can’t.  So it’s generally a one way street.

Not only that, but coaches really can't publicly discuss team discipline issues either. It is not a court of law, players don't get due process rights, and there is no jury. It is hopefully still a "fair" process but undoubtedly some players would dispute that. Anything a coach says can be used against either the players in question or the coach. As a result, coaches simply can't talk about it. Best case, if the coach did reveal  "what happened" he would be accused on this board of throwing his players under the bus.

[lex24]

We don’t know what happened.  Does Haase have a reputation of not caring about or being hard on players? Coaches don’t generally respond to social media attacks by their players.  They can’t.  So it’s generally a one way street.

Not only that, but coaches really can't publicly discuss team discipline issues either. It is not a court of law, players don't get due process rights, and there is no jury. It is hopefully still a "fair" process but undoubtedly some players would dispute that. Anything a coach says can be used against either the players in question or the coach. As a result, coaches simply can't talk about it. Best case, if the coach did reveal  "what happened" he would be accused on this board of throwing his players under the bus.

“ Best case, if the coach did reveal  "what happened" he would be accused on this board of throwing his players under the bus.”

True.  And rightfully.  It’s just something a coach has to take.  Part of the job. It’s worse today with social media, of course.

[lex24]

We don’t know what happened.  Does Haase have a reputation of not caring about or being hard on players? Coaches don’t generally respond to social media attacks by their players.  They can’t.  So it’s generally a one way street.

Not only that, but coaches really can't publicly discuss team discipline issues either. It is not a court of law, players don't get due process rights, and there is no jury. It is hopefully still a "fair" process but undoubtedly some players would dispute that. Anything a coach says can be used against either the players in question or the coach. As a result, coaches simply can't talk about it. Best case, if the coach did reveal  "what happened" he would be accused on this board of throwing his players under the bus.

“ Best case, if the coach did reveal  "what happened" he would be accused on this board of throwing his players under the bus.”

True.  And rightfully.  It’s just something a coach has to take.  Part of the job. It’s worse today with social media, of course.

[winflop]

We don’t know what happened.  Does Haase have a reputation of not caring about or being hard on players? Coaches don’t generally respond to social media attacks by their players.  They can’t.  So it’s generally a one way street.

Not only that, but coaches really can't publicly discuss team discipline issues either. It is not a court of law, players don't get due process rights, and there is no jury. It is hopefully still a "fair" process but undoubtedly some players would dispute that. Anything a coach says can be used against either the players in question or the coach. As a result, coaches simply can't talk about it. Best case, if the coach did reveal  "what happened" he would be accused on this board of throwing his players under the bus.

“ Best case, if the coach did reveal  "what happened" he would be accused on this board of throwing his players under the bus.”

True.  And rightfully.  It’s just something a coach has to take.  Part of the job. It’s worse today with social media, of course.

I disagree with all of these assertions. Coaches can definitely say that a player "broke team rules" and not be more specific than that. I've seen plenty of them do it at the collegiate level.

Haase clearly had significant issues with THREE DIFFERENT PLAYERS, not just Davis. When it's three players, then I think it's reasonable to assume that the coach is part of the problem.

Don't forget that Cormac Ryan transferred out after the previous season too.

[winflop]

We don’t know what happened.  Does Haase have a reputation of not caring about or being hard on players? Coaches don’t generally respond to social media attacks by their players.  They can’t.  So it’s generally a one way street.

Not only that, but coaches really can't publicly discuss team discipline issues either. It is not a court of law, players don't get due process rights, and there is no jury. It is hopefully still a "fair" process but undoubtedly some players would dispute that. Anything a coach says can be used against either the players in question or the coach. As a result, coaches simply can't talk about it. Best case, if the coach did reveal  "what happened" he would be accused on this board of throwing his players under the bus.

“ Best case, if the coach did reveal  "what happened" he would be accused on this board of throwing his players under the bus.”

True.  And rightfully.  It’s just something a coach has to take.  Part of the job. It’s worse today with social media, of course.

I disagree with all of these assertions. Coaches can definitely say that a player "broke team rules" and not be more specific than that. I've seen plenty of them do it at the collegiate level.

Haase clearly had significant issues with THREE DIFFERENT PLAYERS, not just Davis. When it's three players, then I think it's reasonable to assume that the coach is part of the problem.

Don't forget that Cormac Ryan transferred out after the previous season too.

[Goose]

Haase clearly had significant issues with THREE DIFFERENT PLAYERS, not just Davis. When it's three players, then I think it's reasonable to assume that the coach is part of the problem.

IMHO it is in no way indicative one way or the other that its is the coaching staff's fault. I think we are all quite well aware that teams sometimes become divided into groups that really don't communicate with each other. It is a "classic" organizational situation where one group is the "out" group and the other group is the "in" group. Sometimes that is caused by the coaching staff "playing favorites". Sometimes it is caused by the some team members thinking the coach is playing favorites. Hopefully, the staff can overcome that type of division within the team, but if there are some guys who just aren't having it, there isn't much the staff can do. Seeing such a split isn't unusual.

[Goose]

Haase clearly had significant issues with THREE DIFFERENT PLAYERS, not just Davis. When it's three players, then I think it's reasonable to assume that the coach is part of the problem.

IMHO it is in no way indicative one way or the other that its is the coaching staff's fault. I think we are all quite well aware that teams sometimes become divided into groups that really don't communicate with each other. It is a "classic" organizational situation where one group is the "out" group and the other group is the "in" group. Sometimes that is caused by the coaching staff "playing favorites". Sometimes it is caused by the some team members thinking the coach is playing favorites. Hopefully, the staff can overcome that type of division within the team, but if there are some guys who just aren't having it, there isn't much the staff can do. Seeing such a split isn't unusual.

[BACardinal]

I might have missed it but who/where did it say that three players were departing. I know Oscar graduated and turned pro and Daejon is graduating because he is a senior and is using the extra year to transfer but who is the third player? 

As for Ryan he said he wanted a better fit and didn't like how he was playing the pg. He wanted to play off the ball and be a shooter.

[BACardinal]

I might have missed it but who/where did it say that three players were departing. I know Oscar graduated and turned pro and Daejon is graduating because he is a senior and is using the extra year to transfer but who is the third player? 

As for Ryan he said he wanted a better fit and didn't like how he was playing the pg. He wanted to play off the ball and be a shooter.

[BobK]

Three being Davis DaSilva and Williams however there seems to be four Stay tuned
Ryan’s dad wanted him at the point

[BobK]

Three being Davis DaSilva and Williams however there seems to be four Stay tuned
Ryan’s dad wanted him at the point

[CardinalSagehen]

A March 31 tweet from Daejon...don't know the context behind it.



"watch how they treat you when they don’t need you... "

Not sure we will even know to what extent Davis contributed to that situation, but if he was made to feel unwanted that's a real shame and it's also a pretty stinging indictment of Haase regardless of Davis' role in that situation

Maybe they didn’t need him and didn’t want him because of the way he comported himself.  I’m not here to defend Haase in the grand scheme, but I think it’s clear from the outside that Daejan did some things detrimental to the team. Haase is being the bigger man by not saying what.  

I know nothing of what actually happened, but I read these tea leaves that way.

[CardinalSagehen]

A March 31 tweet from Daejon...don't know the context behind it.



"watch how they treat you when they don’t need you... "

Not sure we will even know to what extent Davis contributed to that situation, but if he was made to feel unwanted that's a real shame and it's also a pretty stinging indictment of Haase regardless of Davis' role in that situation

Maybe they didn’t need him and didn’t want him because of the way he comported himself.  I’m not here to defend Haase in the grand scheme, but I think it’s clear from the outside that Daejan did some things detrimental to the team. Haase is being the bigger man by not saying what.  

I know nothing of what actually happened, but I read these tea leaves that way.

[BACardinal]

Three being Davis DaSilva and Williams however there seems to be four    Stay tuned
Ryan’s dad wanted him at the point

Thank you for the clarification.

[BACardinal]

Three being Davis DaSilva and Williams however there seems to be four    Stay tuned
Ryan’s dad wanted him at the point

Thank you for the clarification.

[burger]

there seems to be four    Stay tuned

I guess that means Wills is gone, too.

That would make Jones the only starter from the beginning of 2019-2020 still on the team next year.

[burger]

there seems to be four    Stay tuned

I guess that means Wills is gone, too.

That would make Jones the only starter from the beginning of 2019-2020 still on the team next year.

[winflop]

I might have missed it but who/where did it say that three players were departing. I know Oscar graduated and turned pro and Daejon is graduating because he is a senior and is using the extra year to transfer but who is the third player? 

As for Ryan he said he wanted a better fit and didn't like how he was playing the pg. He wanted to play off the ball and be a shooter.

The three players are Davis, Wills, and Williams. Wills is the only who hasn't left, although Williams was expected to be one-and-done anyway.

---

It is a "classic" organizational situation where one group is the "out" group and the other group is the "in" group. Sometimes that is caused by the coaching staff "playing favorites".

And in those situations the organizational leader is responsible in part for allowing that to happen and metastasize to the point of damaging the team.

[winflop]

I might have missed it but who/where did it say that three players were departing. I know Oscar graduated and turned pro and Daejon is graduating because he is a senior and is using the extra year to transfer but who is the third player? 

As for Ryan he said he wanted a better fit and didn't like how he was playing the pg. He wanted to play off the ball and be a shooter.

The three players are Davis, Wills, and Williams. Wills is the only who hasn't left, although Williams was expected to be one-and-done anyway.

---

It is a "classic" organizational situation where one group is the "out" group and the other group is the "in" group. Sometimes that is caused by the coaching staff "playing favorites".

And in those situations the organizational leader is responsible in part for allowing that to happen and metastasize to the point of damaging the team.

[Hurlburt88]

My impression is that Cormac Ryan has really jumped around:   Commit to NU, then come to Stanford, then to Marquette . . . oops, last minute change to UDFG.   OK, some of the particulars may be wrong, but my core point is that lumping him in with the current situation may not be useful to draw conclusions.   

I do wish I had more insight into the current situations, and am watching for Wills' moves/announcements closely

[Hurlburt88]

My impression is that Cormac Ryan has really jumped around:   Commit to NU, then come to Stanford, then to Marquette . . . oops, last minute change to UDFG.   OK, some of the particulars may be wrong, but my core point is that lumping him in with the current situation may not be useful to draw conclusions.   

I do wish I had more insight into the current situations, and am watching for Wills' moves/announcements closely

[Goose]

And in those situations the organizational leader is responsible in part for allowing that to happen and metastasize to the point of damaging the team.

You are absolutely correct that the coach is responsible for what happens on the team, period. However, "allowing that to happen" may not be in his control. The unfortunate fact is that not everyone on a team can get what they want, both in terms of playing time and strategy. Instilling the willingness to sacrifice your goals for the team is partly the responsibility of the coach. However, no matter what the coach does. some guys are going to be unhappy. How those guys chose to deal with it is a reflection on them. In the abstract, one can say the coach should only recruit guys who have "high character" and who are "team players". Good luck with always making that happen.
I don't have a problem with players leaving because they don't like the scheme or don't feel they can get enough playing time. In some cases, it's true. If you are a rising junior who finds out a freshman is going to get most of your minutes, leaving may make good sense. However, there is a "right way" to do that. The coach can't "make" you give your best effort at that point if you are not willing to give it. This hypothetical situation is not necessarily similar to what actually happened this year with the team, because we don't in fact know the "story" here. This example does however illustrate the limitations of what a coach can actually accomplish in preserving "team cohesion".

[Goose]

And in those situations the organizational leader is responsible in part for allowing that to happen and metastasize to the point of damaging the team.

You are absolutely correct that the coach is responsible for what happens on the team, period. However, "allowing that to happen" may not be in his control. The unfortunate fact is that not everyone on a team can get what they want, both in terms of playing time and strategy. Instilling the willingness to sacrifice your goals for the team is partly the responsibility of the coach. However, no matter what the coach does. some guys are going to be unhappy. How those guys chose to deal with it is a reflection on them. In the abstract, one can say the coach should only recruit guys who have "high character" and who are "team players". Good luck with always making that happen.
I don't have a problem with players leaving because they don't like the scheme or don't feel they can get enough playing time. In some cases, it's true. If you are a rising junior who finds out a freshman is going to get most of your minutes, leaving may make good sense. However, there is a "right way" to do that. The coach can't "make" you give your best effort at that point if you are not willing to give it. This hypothetical situation is not necessarily similar to what actually happened this year with the team, because we don't in fact know the "story" here. This example does however illustrate the limitations of what a coach can actually accomplish in preserving "team cohesion".

[lex24]

And in those situations the organizational leader is responsible in part for allowing that to happen and metastasize to the point of damaging the team.

You are absolutely correct that the coach is responsible for what happens on the team, period. However, "allowing that to happen" may not be in his control. The unfortunate fact is that not everyone on a team can get what they want, both in terms of playing time and strategy. Instilling the willingness to sacrifice your goals for the team is partly the responsibility of the coach. However, no matter what the coach does. some guys are going to be unhappy. How those guys chose to deal with it is a reflection on them. In the abstract, one can say the coach should only recruit guys who have "high character" and who are "team players". Good luck with always making that happen.
I don't have a problem with players leaving because they don't like the scheme or don't feel they can get enough playing time. In some cases, it's true. If you are a rising junior who finds out a freshman is going to get most of your minutes, leaving may make good sense. However, there is a "right way" to do that. The coach can't "make" you give your best effort at that point if you are not willing to give it. This hypothetical situation is not necessarily similar to what actually happened this year with the team, because we don't in fact know the "story" here. This example does however illustrate the limitations of what a coach can actually accomplish in preserving "team cohesion".

Well said.  And it’s worse given the ability to freely transfer.  Add that most if not all these guys grow up in AAU high level organizations that are individually oriented (no one cares much about W’’s and L’s in AAU.) and that makes it even tougher.

[lex24]

And in those situations the organizational leader is responsible in part for allowing that to happen and metastasize to the point of damaging the team.

You are absolutely correct that the coach is responsible for what happens on the team, period. However, "allowing that to happen" may not be in his control. The unfortunate fact is that not everyone on a team can get what they want, both in terms of playing time and strategy. Instilling the willingness to sacrifice your goals for the team is partly the responsibility of the coach. However, no matter what the coach does. some guys are going to be unhappy. How those guys chose to deal with it is a reflection on them. In the abstract, one can say the coach should only recruit guys who have "high character" and who are "team players". Good luck with always making that happen.
I don't have a problem with players leaving because they don't like the scheme or don't feel they can get enough playing time. In some cases, it's true. If you are a rising junior who finds out a freshman is going to get most of your minutes, leaving may make good sense. However, there is a "right way" to do that. The coach can't "make" you give your best effort at that point if you are not willing to give it. This hypothetical situation is not necessarily similar to what actually happened this year with the team, because we don't in fact know the "story" here. This example does however illustrate the limitations of what a coach can actually accomplish in preserving "team cohesion".

Well said.  And it’s worse given the ability to freely transfer.  Add that most if not all these guys grow up in AAU high level organizations that are individually oriented (no one cares much about W’’s and L’s in AAU.) and that makes it even tougher.

[bbm233]

In Davis' case it may be all Haase's fault, but the circumstances are so different in each case. What I do believe is that guys will put up with a lot more if the team is winning. I bet Davis was pretty unhappy sitting on the bench during a losing streak. He probably felt like if he was playing, the team had a better chance of winning. If he ends up Washington, as is rumored, what's different?

• Winning? No. The Huskies were awful and will be next year.
  
• Academics? Who knows? Washington is a fine school. Daejon leaves Stanford having achieved his undergraduate academic goals.
  
• A coach known for player development? Not according to some departing players, who have disparaged Hopkins' ability to get the most out of their skills.
  
• Home cooking? Yes!
  
• Playing time? Yes! Davis figures he'll see a lot of action since the Huskies have had a major exodus (6 transfers) with only 4 scholarship players returning, including neither of the top 2 point guards.
  

Given the circumstances (less PT, no history of tourney invites, degree in hand) I am thinking I would make the same decision in Daejon's shoes, regardless of who the coach is.

[bbm233]

In Davis' case it may be all Haase's fault, but the circumstances are so different in each case. What I do believe is that guys will put up with a lot more if the team is winning. I bet Davis was pretty unhappy sitting on the bench during a losing streak. He probably felt like if he was playing, the team had a better chance of winning. If he ends up Washington, as is rumored, what's different?

• Winning? No. The Huskies were awful and will be next year.
  
• Academics? Who knows? Washington is a fine school. Daejon leaves Stanford having achieved his undergraduate academic goals.
  
• A coach known for player development? Not according to some departing players, who have disparaged Hopkins' ability to get the most out of their skills.
  
• Home cooking? Yes!
  
• Playing time? Yes! Davis figures he'll see a lot of action since the Huskies have had a major exodus (6 transfers) with only 4 scholarship players returning, including neither of the top 2 point guards.
  

Given the circumstances (less PT, no history of tourney invites, degree in hand) I am thinking I would make the same decision in Daejon's shoes, regardless of who the coach is.