[McKenwood]

Oh?  Certainly seemed to be a problem last season with Davis, Wills and Williams

Or the players in prior years that left with eligibility remaining. Haase, like Dawkins, gets the "good" guy moniker when it isn't really justified.

If Jones or Ingram leave now I would revisit the decision to retain Haase. With either of those players gone it would be better to get the rebuilding process started sooner rather than later.

[McKenwood]

Oh?  Certainly seemed to be a problem last season with Davis, Wills and Williams

Or the players in prior years that left with eligibility remaining. Haase, like Dawkins, gets the "good" guy moniker when it isn't really justified.

If Jones or Ingram leave now I would revisit the decision to retain Haase. With either of those players gone it would be better to get the rebuilding process started sooner rather than later.

[SamuelMcF]

Oh?  Certainly seemed to be a problem last season with Davis, Wills and Williams

Ziaire was NBA-bound the second he came to Stanford. Davis was a diva who influenced Wills' poor decision.

To winflop's "hot take": it is indeed a hot take and I bet no players besides the seniors leave.

[SamuelMcF]

Oh?  Certainly seemed to be a problem last season with Davis, Wills and Williams

Ziaire was NBA-bound the second he came to Stanford. Davis was a diva who influenced Wills' poor decision.

To winflop's "hot take": it is indeed a hot take and I bet no players besides the seniors leave.

[old spanish trail]

Oh?  Certainly seemed to be a problem last season with Davis, Wills and Williams

Or the players in prior years that left with eligibility remaining. Haase, like Dawkins, gets the "good" guy moniker when it isn't really justified.

If Jones or Ingram leave now I would revisit the decision to retain Haase. With either of those players gone it would be better to get the rebuilding process started sooner rather than later.

Like many, I guess, I thought Hasse's relationships with Davis, Wills and Williams were poorly handled. This year, I'm concerned that Ingram seems to have regressed. In the several regular season closing games, he wouldn't shoot, especially if he had missed a couple. Lost his confidence? Coach's responsibility is to ensure that doesn't happen. He didn't need shots to be set up for him but his 3 pt shot was good enuf to support a few screens, which he never received. DeLaire totally regressed after being named most improved last year. Alot of that is no doubt due to DeLaire's insistence that he could go to the rim through opponents arms as well as move a high dribble through the key.
Speaking of regression, I thought Wills regressed big time last year. By the end, he couldn't make a free throw or hit the 10 foot jumper.

Otoh, Keefe and Jones improved alot by the end of the year. Strength coach gets big credit for Keefe's move. He can even jump above the rim now. Jones was told to shoot...and he did, at least in the tournament games. I don't think anyone enters portal, except maybe DeLaire, but I'm not counting 5th year covid moves.

[old spanish trail]

Oh?  Certainly seemed to be a problem last season with Davis, Wills and Williams

Or the players in prior years that left with eligibility remaining. Haase, like Dawkins, gets the "good" guy moniker when it isn't really justified.

If Jones or Ingram leave now I would revisit the decision to retain Haase. With either of those players gone it would be better to get the rebuilding process started sooner rather than later.

Like many, I guess, I thought Hasse's relationships with Davis, Wills and Williams were poorly handled. This year, I'm concerned that Ingram seems to have regressed. In the several regular season closing games, he wouldn't shoot, especially if he had missed a couple. Lost his confidence? Coach's responsibility is to ensure that doesn't happen. He didn't need shots to be set up for him but his 3 pt shot was good enuf to support a few screens, which he never received. DeLaire totally regressed after being named most improved last year. Alot of that is no doubt due to DeLaire's insistence that he could go to the rim through opponents arms as well as move a high dribble through the key.
Speaking of regression, I thought Wills regressed big time last year. By the end, he couldn't make a free throw or hit the 10 foot jumper.

Otoh, Keefe and Jones improved alot by the end of the year. Strength coach gets big credit for Keefe's move. He can even jump above the rim now. Jones was told to shoot...and he did, at least in the tournament games. I don't think anyone enters portal, except maybe DeLaire, but I'm not counting 5th year covid moves.

[BostonCard]

Oh?  Certainly seemed to be a problem last season with Davis, Wills and Williams

Ziaire was NBA-bound the second he came to Stanford. Davis was a diva who influenced Wills' poor decision.

To winflop's "hot take": it is indeed a hot take and I bet no players besides the seniors leave.

KZ Okpala
Tyler Terry
Reid Travis
Cormac Ryan

Have I missed any? You can come up with a reason why any of them may have left.  Terry and Okpala went to the NBA (though going in order to be a second round pick is not a great look), Travis left as a grad transfer, and Ryan was recruited over. But cumulatively the transfers from the Haase program paint a picture of a program that doesn’t really develop players, who therefore elect to leave.

BC

[BostonCard]

Oh?  Certainly seemed to be a problem last season with Davis, Wills and Williams

Ziaire was NBA-bound the second he came to Stanford. Davis was a diva who influenced Wills' poor decision.

To winflop's "hot take": it is indeed a hot take and I bet no players besides the seniors leave.

KZ Okpala
Tyler Terry
Reid Travis
Cormac Ryan

Have I missed any? You can come up with a reason why any of them may have left.  Terry and Okpala went to the NBA (though going in order to be a second round pick is not a great look), Travis left as a grad transfer, and Ryan was recruited over. But cumulatively the transfers from the Haase program paint a picture of a program that doesn’t really develop players, who therefore elect to leave.

BC

[McKenwood]

Oh?  Certainly seemed to be a problem last season with Davis, Wills and Williams

Ziaire was NBA-bound the second he came to Stanford. Davis was a diva who influenced Wills' poor decision.

To winflop's "hot take": it is indeed a hot take and I bet no players besides the seniors leave.

KZ Okpala
Tyler Terry
Reid Travis
Cormac Ryan

Have I missed any? You can come up with a reason why any of them may have left.  Terry and Okpala went to the NBA (though going in order to be a second round pick is not a great look), Travis left as a grad transfer, and Ryan was recruited over. But cumulatively the transfers from the Haase program paint a picture of a program that doesn’t really develop players, who therefore elect to leave.

BC

Cartwright and Sheffield were two big losses. Cartwright started at PG for UCI's NCAA team. Sheffield was a shooter on a team in dire need of shooting.

Several others left (Pugh, White. M. Allen, Walker) but were of less consequence.

Haase has not valued experience and pushed players out or didn't use his recruiting prowess to retain them. Also for two years some of upper classmen (Davis, Wills, Delaire) have cratered. He needs to evaluate what he is doing that results in this slide among key players.

[McKenwood]

Oh?  Certainly seemed to be a problem last season with Davis, Wills and Williams

Ziaire was NBA-bound the second he came to Stanford. Davis was a diva who influenced Wills' poor decision.

To winflop's "hot take": it is indeed a hot take and I bet no players besides the seniors leave.

KZ Okpala
Tyler Terry
Reid Travis
Cormac Ryan

Have I missed any? You can come up with a reason why any of them may have left.  Terry and Okpala went to the NBA (though going in order to be a second round pick is not a great look), Travis left as a grad transfer, and Ryan was recruited over. But cumulatively the transfers from the Haase program paint a picture of a program that doesn’t really develop players, who therefore elect to leave.

BC

Cartwright and Sheffield were two big losses. Cartwright started at PG for UCI's NCAA team. Sheffield was a shooter on a team in dire need of shooting.

Several others left (Pugh, White. M. Allen, Walker) but were of less consequence.

Haase has not valued experience and pushed players out or didn't use his recruiting prowess to retain them. Also for two years some of upper classmen (Davis, Wills, Delaire) have cratered. He needs to evaluate what he is doing that results in this slide among key players.

[TrumpCard]

The program has been a disaster.  Lots of excuses, but the buck stops with the head coach. He’s had plenty of time. That l said, the fact is, he’s coming back, so I support him and the team. I hope all the eligible players return and they somehow find a way to make the tourney. I think NIT is more likely.

[TrumpCard]

The program has been a disaster.  Lots of excuses, but the buck stops with the head coach. He’s had plenty of time. That l said, the fact is, he’s coming back, so I support him and the team. I hope all the eligible players return and they somehow find a way to make the tourney. I think NIT is more likely.

[gailtate]

The program has been a disaster.  Lots of excuses, but the buck stops with the head coach. He’s had plenty of time. That l said, the fact is, he’s coming back, so I support him and the team. I hope all the eligible players return and they somehow find a way to make the tourney. I think NIT is more likely.

s

So you are willing to support a "disaster", hoping for a 180-degree turnaround beginning in eight or nine months. I am awed by your belief, in the utter absence of evidence -- and in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. I'm sure Bernie and his betters salute you. It's exactly what they're counting on.

[gailtate]

The program has been a disaster.  Lots of excuses, but the buck stops with the head coach. He’s had plenty of time. That l said, the fact is, he’s coming back, so I support him and the team. I hope all the eligible players return and they somehow find a way to make the tourney. I think NIT is more likely.

s

So you are willing to support a "disaster", hoping for a 180-degree turnaround beginning in eight or nine months. I am awed by your belief, in the utter absence of evidence -- and in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. I'm sure Bernie and his betters salute you. It's exactly what they're counting on.

[TrumpCard]

Jeez. I didn’t say I would have retained him. I said that since I don’t get a say in that and he’s being retained, may as well root for success. Do you root for the US economy to tank when your party loses the presidency?

[TrumpCard]

Jeez. I didn’t say I would have retained him. I said that since I don’t get a say in that and he’s being retained, may as well root for success. Do you root for the US economy to tank when your party loses the presidency?

[BostonCard]

I’m with TC.  I have been pretty outspoken in my criticism of Haase, but since he is coming back regardless, I might as well hope that I was wrong and that he is successful. It’s not a high likelihood, but nothing good will come with continued failure.

BC

[BostonCard]

I’m with TC.  I have been pretty outspoken in my criticism of Haase, but since he is coming back regardless, I might as well hope that I was wrong and that he is successful. It’s not a high likelihood, but nothing good will come with continued failure.

BC

[PAsportsfan]

The program has been a disaster.  Lots of excuses, but the buck stops with the head coach. He’s had plenty of time. That l said, the fact is, he’s coming back, so I support him and the team. I hope all the eligible players return and they somehow find a way to make the tourney. I think NIT is more likely.

s

So you are willing to support a "disaster", hoping for a 180-degree turnaround beginning in eight or nine months. I am awed by your belief, in the utter absence of evidence -- and in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. I'm sure Bernie and his betters salute you. It's exactly what they're counting on.

Muir is taking advantage of fans loyalty.

[PAsportsfan]

The program has been a disaster.  Lots of excuses, but the buck stops with the head coach. He’s had plenty of time. That l said, the fact is, he’s coming back, so I support him and the team. I hope all the eligible players return and they somehow find a way to make the tourney. I think NIT is more likely.

s

So you are willing to support a "disaster", hoping for a 180-degree turnaround beginning in eight or nine months. I am awed by your belief, in the utter absence of evidence -- and in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. I'm sure Bernie and his betters salute you. It's exactly what they're counting on.

Muir is taking advantage of fans loyalty.

[gailtate]

Jeez. I didn’t say I would have retained him. I said that since I don’t get a say in that and he’s being retained, may as well root for success. Do you root for the US economy to tank when your party loses the presidency?

No, what you said was that you were going to support what you called a disaster of a program. Insofar as your last sentence, it's false equivalence if there ever was one.

[gailtate]

Jeez. I didn’t say I would have retained him. I said that since I don’t get a say in that and he’s being retained, may as well root for success. Do you root for the US economy to tank when your party loses the presidency?

No, what you said was that you were going to support what you called a disaster of a program. Insofar as your last sentence, it's false equivalence if there ever was one.

[winflop]

The program has been a disaster.  Lots of excuses, but the buck stops with the head coach. He’s had plenty of time. That l said, the fact is, he’s coming back, so I support him and the team. I hope all the eligible players return and they somehow find a way to make the tourney. I think NIT is more likely.

s

So you are willing to support a "disaster", hoping for a 180-degree turnaround beginning in eight or nine months. I am awed by your belief, in the utter absence of evidence -- and in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. I'm sure Bernie and his betters salute you. It's exactly what they're counting on.

Muir is taking advantage of fans loyalty.

What fans? Did they even average 2,000 per game this year?

[winflop]

The program has been a disaster.  Lots of excuses, but the buck stops with the head coach. He’s had plenty of time. That l said, the fact is, he’s coming back, so I support him and the team. I hope all the eligible players return and they somehow find a way to make the tourney. I think NIT is more likely.

s

So you are willing to support a "disaster", hoping for a 180-degree turnaround beginning in eight or nine months. I am awed by your belief, in the utter absence of evidence -- and in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. I'm sure Bernie and his betters salute you. It's exactly what they're counting on.

Muir is taking advantage of fans loyalty.

What fans? Did they even average 2,000 per game this year?

[msqueri]

I’m with TC.  I have been pretty outspoken in my criticism of Haase, but since he is coming back regardless, I might as well hope that I was wrong and that he is successful. It’s not a high likelihood, but nothing good will come with continued failure.



BC

I will root for Haase too and hope to be wrong about what kind of coach he can be at Stanford. But I do think something good can come from continued failure. Walt Harris flaming out got us a vacancy that turned into Harbaugh and turning around the program. Haase muddling through well enough to keep his job but not well enough to make us relevant would be disappointing to me. I'd rather rip off the bandaid and hope to get a better coach.

A reasonably likely scenario is that things align for next year to be Haase's best team, perhaps even a fringe tournament team, but then we return to a norm of not making the tournament most years, with occasional exceptions when he's able to align good recruiting with retention/seniority (which will of course be cyclical because we don't shop in the transfer portal). Is that better for the program than next year being a failure and finally being able to move on from Haase? That's not clear to me.

Fans face a similar dilemma in football. Obviously scraping our way to six wins and getting back to a bowl would be very welcome for a program that has been in the wilderness. But if that provides an excuse not to address systemic rot in the program, there is a real chance that is worse for the medium- to long-term health of the program than catastrophic failure in 2022 would be. As a fan I never want to (and don't think I ever will) root against our teams. But it's not crazy to think that a six win football season or 12th seed basketball season would be fool's gold and not actually all that reassuring that either program is on the right track.

[msqueri]

I’m with TC.  I have been pretty outspoken in my criticism of Haase, but since he is coming back regardless, I might as well hope that I was wrong and that he is successful. It’s not a high likelihood, but nothing good will come with continued failure.



BC

I will root for Haase too and hope to be wrong about what kind of coach he can be at Stanford. But I do think something good can come from continued failure. Walt Harris flaming out got us a vacancy that turned into Harbaugh and turning around the program. Haase muddling through well enough to keep his job but not well enough to make us relevant would be disappointing to me. I'd rather rip off the bandaid and hope to get a better coach.

A reasonably likely scenario is that things align for next year to be Haase's best team, perhaps even a fringe tournament team, but then we return to a norm of not making the tournament most years, with occasional exceptions when he's able to align good recruiting with retention/seniority (which will of course be cyclical because we don't shop in the transfer portal). Is that better for the program than next year being a failure and finally being able to move on from Haase? That's not clear to me.

Fans face a similar dilemma in football. Obviously scraping our way to six wins and getting back to a bowl would be very welcome for a program that has been in the wilderness. But if that provides an excuse not to address systemic rot in the program, there is a real chance that is worse for the medium- to long-term health of the program than catastrophic failure in 2022 would be. As a fan I never want to (and don't think I ever will) root against our teams. But it's not crazy to think that a six win football season or 12th seed basketball season would be fool's gold and not actually all that reassuring that either program is on the right track.

[lex24]

I’m with TC.  I have been pretty outspoken in my criticism of Haase, but since he is coming back regardless, I might as well hope that I was wrong and that he is successful. It’s not a high likelihood, but nothing good will come with continued failure.



BC

I will root for Haase too and hope to be wrong about what kind of coach he can be at Stanford. But I do think something good can come from continued failure. Walt Harris flaming out got us a vacancy that turned into Harbaugh and turning around the program. Haase muddling through well enough to keep his job but not well enough to make us relevant would be disappointing to me. I'd rather rip off the bandaid and hope to get a better coach.

A reasonably likely scenario is that things align for next year to be Haase's best team, perhaps even a fringe tournament team, but then we return to a norm of not making the tournament most years, with occasional exceptions when he's able to align good recruiting with retention/seniority (which will of course be cyclical because we don't shop in the transfer portal). Is that better for the program than next year being a failure and finally being able to move on from Haase? That's not clear to me.

Fans face a similar dilemma in football. Obviously scraping our way to six wins and getting back to a bowl would be very welcome for a program that has been in the wilderness. But if that provides an excuse not to address systemic rot in the program, there is a real chance that is worse for the medium- to long-term health of the program than catastrophic failure in 2022 would be. As a fan I never want to (and don't think I ever will) root against our teams. But it's not crazy to think that a six win football season or 12th seed basketball season would be fool's gold and not actually all that reassuring that either program is on the right track.

On football side, If it’s 6 wins with major contributions from underclassmen with a good recruiting year, perhaps it’s a sign of righting the ship.  If it’s 6-6 and they don’t get major contributions from frosh and soph classes, and recruiting is blah - it’s probably the outlier.

[lex24]

I’m with TC.  I have been pretty outspoken in my criticism of Haase, but since he is coming back regardless, I might as well hope that I was wrong and that he is successful. It’s not a high likelihood, but nothing good will come with continued failure.



BC

I will root for Haase too and hope to be wrong about what kind of coach he can be at Stanford. But I do think something good can come from continued failure. Walt Harris flaming out got us a vacancy that turned into Harbaugh and turning around the program. Haase muddling through well enough to keep his job but not well enough to make us relevant would be disappointing to me. I'd rather rip off the bandaid and hope to get a better coach.

A reasonably likely scenario is that things align for next year to be Haase's best team, perhaps even a fringe tournament team, but then we return to a norm of not making the tournament most years, with occasional exceptions when he's able to align good recruiting with retention/seniority (which will of course be cyclical because we don't shop in the transfer portal). Is that better for the program than next year being a failure and finally being able to move on from Haase? That's not clear to me.

Fans face a similar dilemma in football. Obviously scraping our way to six wins and getting back to a bowl would be very welcome for a program that has been in the wilderness. But if that provides an excuse not to address systemic rot in the program, there is a real chance that is worse for the medium- to long-term health of the program than catastrophic failure in 2022 would be. As a fan I never want to (and don't think I ever will) root against our teams. But it's not crazy to think that a six win football season or 12th seed basketball season would be fool's gold and not actually all that reassuring that either program is on the right track.

On football side, If it’s 6 wins with major contributions from underclassmen with a good recruiting year, perhaps it’s a sign of righting the ship.  If it’s 6-6 and they don’t get major contributions from frosh and soph classes, and recruiting is blah - it’s probably the outlier.

[BostonCard]

I think Dawkins’ tenure is instructive here.  Dawkins was fired two years removed from a tournament run (and one year after winning an NIT tournament). So if Haase makes it to the tournament next year, that might give him a brief reprieve, but wouldn’t save him over the long run; he’d have to show continued winning thereafter.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think Dawkins’ tenure is instructive here.  Dawkins was fired two years removed from a tournament run (and one year after winning an NIT tournament). So if Haase makes it to the tournament next year, that might give him a brief reprieve, but wouldn’t save him over the long run; he’d have to show continued winning thereafter.

BC

[msqueri]

I think Dawkins’ tenure is instructive here.  Dawkins was fired two years removed from a tournament run (and one year after winning an NIT tournament). So if Haase makes it to the tournament next year, that might give him a brief reprieve, but wouldn’t save him over the long run; he’d have to show continued winning thereafter.

BC

I hope you're right but don't see it as a relevant comparison. Dawkins was not Muir's guy. Muir inherited Dawkins, so pulling the trigger to fire Dawkins did not acknowledge any sort of mistake by Muir. Muir hired Haase, so firing Haase would be an admission of error by Muir. Muir will be heavily incentivized to be hoodwinked by all the happy talk about what Haase is building and by all the excuses about how the headwinds in the current environment make greater success unrealistic. If Muir fires Haase it will be a different kind of move than when Dawkins was let go. I have seen nothing from Muir that would indicate introspection or boldness will be in the cards.

[msqueri]

I think Dawkins’ tenure is instructive here.  Dawkins was fired two years removed from a tournament run (and one year after winning an NIT tournament). So if Haase makes it to the tournament next year, that might give him a brief reprieve, but wouldn’t save him over the long run; he’d have to show continued winning thereafter.

BC

I hope you're right but don't see it as a relevant comparison. Dawkins was not Muir's guy. Muir inherited Dawkins, so pulling the trigger to fire Dawkins did not acknowledge any sort of mistake by Muir. Muir hired Haase, so firing Haase would be an admission of error by Muir. Muir will be heavily incentivized to be hoodwinked by all the happy talk about what Haase is building and by all the excuses about how the headwinds in the current environment make greater success unrealistic. If Muir fires Haase it will be a different kind of move than when Dawkins was let go. I have seen nothing from Muir that would indicate introspection or boldness will be in the cards.

[Goose]

Muir hired Haase, so firing Haase would be an admission of error by Muir.

I can't see that making sense. At the time Muir made the hire, he could argue Haase was the best option available. Good decision, bad outcome. Lots of good people get hired into a job and it doesn't work out. Not optimal, but arguably not an error. Now, if Muir never hires anyone that succeeds, it is a different argument.

[Goose]

Muir hired Haase, so firing Haase would be an admission of error by Muir.

I can't see that making sense. At the time Muir made the hire, he could argue Haase was the best option available. Good decision, bad outcome. Lots of good people get hired into a job and it doesn't work out. Not optimal, but arguably not an error. Now, if Muir never hires anyone that succeeds, it is a different argument.

[msqueri]

Muir hired Haase, so firing Haase would be an admission of error by Muir.

I can't see that making sense. At the time Muir made the hire, he could argue Haase was the best option available. Good decision, bad outcome. Lots of good people get hired into a job and it doesn't work out. Not optimal, but arguably not an error. Now, if Muir never hires anyone that succeeds, it is a different argument.

For what it's worth, "good decision, bad outcome" sums up my views on the Haase hire. I just think that psychologically Muir will be prone to wishful thinking on Haase in a way he might not have been on Dawkins.

[msqueri]

Muir hired Haase, so firing Haase would be an admission of error by Muir.

I can't see that making sense. At the time Muir made the hire, he could argue Haase was the best option available. Good decision, bad outcome. Lots of good people get hired into a job and it doesn't work out. Not optimal, but arguably not an error. Now, if Muir never hires anyone that succeeds, it is a different argument.

For what it's worth, "good decision, bad outcome" sums up my views on the Haase hire. I just think that psychologically Muir will be prone to wishful thinking on Haase in a way he might not have been on Dawkins.

[Goose]

Muir hired Haase, so firing Haase would be an admission of error by Muir.

I can't see that making sense. At the time Muir made the hire, he could argue Haase was the best option available. Good decision, bad outcome. Lots of good people get hired into a job and it doesn't work out. Not optimal, but arguably not an error. Now, if Muir never hires anyone that succeeds, it is a different argument.

For what it's worth, "good decision, bad outcome" sums up my views on the Haase hire. I just think that psychologically Muir will be prone to wishful thinking on Haase in a way he might not have been on Dawkins.

Not only wishful thinking, but realizing that if he fires Haase he has to go hire somebody else. He may not have any candidates that he likes lined up and it is probably harder than ever to find a coach that wants to come to coach Stanford basketball. As lots of others on this board have pointed out it is hard to have confidence Muir can identify and hire a good replacement. Muir may feel the same, not because he thinks he is incompetent but rather because he has looked into it and didn't like what he saw.

[Goose]

Muir hired Haase, so firing Haase would be an admission of error by Muir.

I can't see that making sense. At the time Muir made the hire, he could argue Haase was the best option available. Good decision, bad outcome. Lots of good people get hired into a job and it doesn't work out. Not optimal, but arguably not an error. Now, if Muir never hires anyone that succeeds, it is a different argument.

For what it's worth, "good decision, bad outcome" sums up my views on the Haase hire. I just think that psychologically Muir will be prone to wishful thinking on Haase in a way he might not have been on Dawkins.

Not only wishful thinking, but realizing that if he fires Haase he has to go hire somebody else. He may not have any candidates that he likes lined up and it is probably harder than ever to find a coach that wants to come to coach Stanford basketball. As lots of others on this board have pointed out it is hard to have confidence Muir can identify and hire a good replacement. Muir may feel the same, not because he thinks he is incompetent but rather because he has looked into it and didn't like what he saw.

[gailtate]

I’m with TC.  I have been pretty outspoken in my criticism of Haase, but since he is coming back regardless, I might as well hope that I was wrong and that he is successful. It’s not a high likelihood, but nothing good will come with continued failure.



BC

I will root for Haase too and hope to be wrong about what kind of coach he can be at Stanford. But I do think something good can come from continued failure. Walt Harris flaming out got us a vacancy that turned into Harbaugh and turning around the program. Haase muddling through well enough to keep his job but not well enough to make us relevant would be disappointing to me. I'd rather rip off the bandaid and hope to get a better coach.

A reasonably likely scenario is that things align for next year to be Haase's best team, perhaps even a fringe tournament team, but then we return to a norm of not making the tournament most years, with occasional exceptions when he's able to align good recruiting with retention/seniority (which will of course be cyclical because we don't shop in the transfer portal). Is that better for the program than next year being a failure and finally being able to move on from Haase? That's not clear to me.

Fans face a similar dilemma in football. Obviously scraping our way to six wins and getting back to a bowl would be very welcome for a program that has been in the wilderness. But if that provides an excuse not to address systemic rot in the program, there is a real chance that is worse for the medium- to long-term health of the program than catastrophic failure in 2022 would be. As a fan I never want to (and don't think I ever will) root against our teams. But it's not crazy to think that a six win football season or 12th seed basketball season would be fool's gold and not actually all that reassuring that either program is on the right track.

On football side, If it’s 6 wins with major contributions from underclassmen with a good recruiting year, perhaps it’s a sign of righting the ship.  If it’s 6-6 and they don’t get major contributions from frosh and soph classes, and recruiting is blah - it’s probably the outlier.

Shaw doesn't come within sniffing distance of six wins. More like three. At best.

[gailtate]

I’m with TC.  I have been pretty outspoken in my criticism of Haase, but since he is coming back regardless, I might as well hope that I was wrong and that he is successful. It’s not a high likelihood, but nothing good will come with continued failure.



BC

I will root for Haase too and hope to be wrong about what kind of coach he can be at Stanford. But I do think something good can come from continued failure. Walt Harris flaming out got us a vacancy that turned into Harbaugh and turning around the program. Haase muddling through well enough to keep his job but not well enough to make us relevant would be disappointing to me. I'd rather rip off the bandaid and hope to get a better coach.

A reasonably likely scenario is that things align for next year to be Haase's best team, perhaps even a fringe tournament team, but then we return to a norm of not making the tournament most years, with occasional exceptions when he's able to align good recruiting with retention/seniority (which will of course be cyclical because we don't shop in the transfer portal). Is that better for the program than next year being a failure and finally being able to move on from Haase? That's not clear to me.

Fans face a similar dilemma in football. Obviously scraping our way to six wins and getting back to a bowl would be very welcome for a program that has been in the wilderness. But if that provides an excuse not to address systemic rot in the program, there is a real chance that is worse for the medium- to long-term health of the program than catastrophic failure in 2022 would be. As a fan I never want to (and don't think I ever will) root against our teams. But it's not crazy to think that a six win football season or 12th seed basketball season would be fool's gold and not actually all that reassuring that either program is on the right track.

On football side, If it’s 6 wins with major contributions from underclassmen with a good recruiting year, perhaps it’s a sign of righting the ship.  If it’s 6-6 and they don’t get major contributions from frosh and soph classes, and recruiting is blah - it’s probably the outlier.

Shaw doesn't come within sniffing distance of six wins. More like three. At best.