[teejers1]

Sure, my dream coach is a successful young HC from a mid-major looking to make a move to a power 5 school like Monty back in the day, but I'm skeptical that we can attract those types of guys these days

Yeah, we'd never attract a pretty young coach from mid-major UAB, who successfully took them from meh to the tournament and winning the conference outright in 4 years...oh wait.

You're right that we probably *can* attract some younger, mid-major coaches, but the "let alone Muir doing a good job of it" was a critical qualification. He did choose Haase out of this profile after all. For me, in the off chance that Jarron would want the job, he's a no-brainer. He ran the Warriors defense last season and, after 7 years with that organization, I'd be more than willing to take my chances on his ability to coach an offense with movement and execution (if anyone thinks the Warriors are all about the individual skills of Steph and Klay, etc., they haven't been watching). Recruiting? We would have to see, but as I said he ticks a lot of boxes for recruits as an alum and former NBA player and coach.

If by "no brainer" you mean it would be brainless to hire Jarron as a head coach, then I agree.

C'mon, man.  It's one thing to argue Stanford should take a flyer on an unproven alum (I obviously disagree); quite another to say such a hire is a "no-brainer."  And exactly what boxes does Jarron check besides "Stanford alum"? (And that really isn't much of a box when it comes to successful head coaches at Stanford). I'm curious what your boxes are, and if they have anything to do with winning basketball games.

P.S. What about Martelli? He may be a bit long in the tooth, but at least he has won at the college level and is an assistant now. (Though I admit to not recalling the circumstances of his departure from wherever he was . . . St. Joe's?).

[teejers1]

Sure, my dream coach is a successful young HC from a mid-major looking to make a move to a power 5 school like Monty back in the day, but I'm skeptical that we can attract those types of guys these days

Yeah, we'd never attract a pretty young coach from mid-major UAB, who successfully took them from meh to the tournament and winning the conference outright in 4 years...oh wait.

You're right that we probably *can* attract some younger, mid-major coaches, but the "let alone Muir doing a good job of it" was a critical qualification. He did choose Haase out of this profile after all. For me, in the off chance that Jarron would want the job, he's a no-brainer. He ran the Warriors defense last season and, after 7 years with that organization, I'd be more than willing to take my chances on his ability to coach an offense with movement and execution (if anyone thinks the Warriors are all about the individual skills of Steph and Klay, etc., they haven't been watching). Recruiting? We would have to see, but as I said he ticks a lot of boxes for recruits as an alum and former NBA player and coach.

If by "no brainer" you mean it would be brainless to hire Jarron as a head coach, then I agree.

C'mon, man.  It's one thing to argue Stanford should take a flyer on an unproven alum (I obviously disagree); quite another to say such a hire is a "no-brainer."  And exactly what boxes does Jarron check besides "Stanford alum"? (And that really isn't much of a box when it comes to successful head coaches at Stanford). I'm curious what your boxes are, and if they have anything to do with winning basketball games.

P.S. What about Martelli? He may be a bit long in the tooth, but at least he has won at the college level and is an assistant now. (Though I admit to not recalling the circumstances of his departure from wherever he was . . . St. Joe's?).

[Card10Fan]

What is it gonna take for Haase to be gone in the next month? Do we need to bombard the AD with emails of our frustrations about the state of the program. I expect he will get another year. I don’t want our team to lose but if we end the season on losing streak and bow out in first round of Pac12 tourney, maybe puts more pressure on AD to act right away.

[Card10Fan]

What is it gonna take for Haase to be gone in the next month? Do we need to bombard the AD with emails of our frustrations about the state of the program. I expect he will get another year. I don’t want our team to lose but if we end the season on losing streak and bow out in first round of Pac12 tourney, maybe puts more pressure on AD to act right away.

[Phogge]

Todd Golden’s Dons (21-7) play #1 Gonzaga tonight, ESPN2 at 6PST. They will probably lose by double digits but will play with fire.

Golden has a baby face but was a hard as nails guard at St. Mary’s.

Tough to recruit on the Hilltop but a fun team to watch.

[Phogge]

Todd Golden’s Dons (21-7) play #1 Gonzaga tonight, ESPN2 at 6PST. They will probably lose by double digits but will play with fire.

Golden has a baby face but was a hard as nails guard at St. Mary’s.

Tough to recruit on the Hilltop but a fun team to watch.

[lex24]

Todd Golden’s Dons (21-7) play #1 Gonzaga tonight, ESPN2 at 6PST. They will probably lose by double digits but will play with fire.

Golden has a baby face but was a hard as nails guard at St. Mary’s.

Tough to recruit on the Hilltop but a fun team to watch.

If he becomes a hot commodity he will look for a better job.  I don’t think the Stanford position, if it opens up is very attractive.  So, more likely, an assistant with promise or an HC reclamation project.

[lex24]

Todd Golden’s Dons (21-7) play #1 Gonzaga tonight, ESPN2 at 6PST. They will probably lose by double digits but will play with fire.

Golden has a baby face but was a hard as nails guard at St. Mary’s.

Tough to recruit on the Hilltop but a fun team to watch.

If he becomes a hot commodity he will look for a better job.  I don’t think the Stanford position, if it opens up is very attractive.  So, more likely, an assistant with promise or an HC reclamation project.

[BostonCard]

The only thing an alum offers is that he might be more willing to take the job.  We are such a rebuilding job that we can only hope that a coach takes the job, turns the program around, and then bolts for a higher profile job.  Jarron ticks off some boxes (as a longtime assistant at a top program, one would hope he learned something about running a successful program, and, maybe, you know, learned a thing or two about the principles of an offensive system).  However, many longtime assistants are great in that role but poor head coaches, and Jarron has not demonstrated he can be an effective head coach.

Look, a change is needed, and if that change nets us Jarron, then I will hope he succeeds.  If he is successful, great; he certainly has done nothing to suggest that he can’t be. but let’s be honest that it would be a risk.

Of course, I would settle for a change, any change, but somehow don’t believe that Muir has it in him.

BC

[BostonCard]

The only thing an alum offers is that he might be more willing to take the job.  We are such a rebuilding job that we can only hope that a coach takes the job, turns the program around, and then bolts for a higher profile job.  Jarron ticks off some boxes (as a longtime assistant at a top program, one would hope he learned something about running a successful program, and, maybe, you know, learned a thing or two about the principles of an offensive system).  However, many longtime assistants are great in that role but poor head coaches, and Jarron has not demonstrated he can be an effective head coach.

Look, a change is needed, and if that change nets us Jarron, then I will hope he succeeds.  If he is successful, great; he certainly has done nothing to suggest that he can’t be. but let’s be honest that it would be a risk.

Of course, I would settle for a change, any change, but somehow don’t believe that Muir has it in him.

BC

[FarmTeam]

Sure, my dream coach is a successful young HC from a mid-major looking to make a move to a power 5 school like Monty back in the day, but I'm skeptical that we can attract those types of guys these days

Yeah, we'd never attract a pretty young coach from mid-major UAB, who successfully took them from meh to the tournament and winning the conference outright in 4 years...oh wait.

You're right that we probably *can* attract some younger, mid-major coaches, but the "let alone Muir doing a good job of it" was a critical qualification. He did choose Haase out of this profile after all. For me, in the off chance that Jarron would want the job, he's a no-brainer. He ran the Warriors defense last season and, after 7 years with that organization, I'd be more than willing to take my chances on his ability to coach an offense with movement and execution (if anyone thinks the Warriors are all about the individual skills of Steph and Klay, etc., they haven't been watching). Recruiting? We would have to see, but as I said he ticks a lot of boxes for recruits as an alum and former NBA player and coach.

If by "no brainer" you mean it would be brainless to hire Jarron as a head coach, then I agree.

C'mon, man.  It's one thing to argue Stanford should take a flyer on an unproven alum (I obviously disagree); quite another to say such a hire is a "no-brainer."  And exactly what boxes does Jarron check besides "Stanford alum"? (And that really isn't much of a box when it comes to successful head coaches at Stanford). I'm curious what your boxes are, and if they have anything to do with winning basketball games.

P.S.  What about Martelli?  He may be a bit long in the tooth, but at least he has won at the college level and is an assistant now.  (Though I admit to not recalling the circumstances of his departure from wherever he was . . . St. Joe's?).

Wow, man, coming in hot for a guy who said on the recent MBB game thread that switching defenses have obviated the need to set screens. I didn't want to pile on then, but talk about brainless. Apparently no good teams set screens anymore. Oh wait.... By the way, Keefe running in and aimlessly setting a pick at the elbow at the beginning of a possession isn't what anyone is talking about. He doesn't know what else to do and 95% of the time it leads to nothing.

I'm not sure I can help you if you can't think of any boxes that Jarron ticks other than alum. But how about: young, black, former long-time NBA player, long-time and successful NBA assistant coach, former big man who has coached big men (you may have noticed we tend to have big teams), former coach of an NBA franchise renowned for both its ball-movement and defense (both of which are in short supply now, even defense these days despite Haase's reputation). Most of those are brobdingnagian pluses for recruiting, and the latter for x's and o's. Every star recruit thinks he's going to play in the NBA, and here we have an alum who played 11 years in the league and has coached 8+ years in it, and he shines the path to a recruit on playing at Stanford before taking it to the next level. I've acknowledged from the outset that he has no head coaching experience, but given where we are it's a "risk" I think is worth taking, particularly when we know that prior head coaching success doesn't guarantee anything.

[FarmTeam]

Sure, my dream coach is a successful young HC from a mid-major looking to make a move to a power 5 school like Monty back in the day, but I'm skeptical that we can attract those types of guys these days

Yeah, we'd never attract a pretty young coach from mid-major UAB, who successfully took them from meh to the tournament and winning the conference outright in 4 years...oh wait.

You're right that we probably *can* attract some younger, mid-major coaches, but the "let alone Muir doing a good job of it" was a critical qualification. He did choose Haase out of this profile after all. For me, in the off chance that Jarron would want the job, he's a no-brainer. He ran the Warriors defense last season and, after 7 years with that organization, I'd be more than willing to take my chances on his ability to coach an offense with movement and execution (if anyone thinks the Warriors are all about the individual skills of Steph and Klay, etc., they haven't been watching). Recruiting? We would have to see, but as I said he ticks a lot of boxes for recruits as an alum and former NBA player and coach.

If by "no brainer" you mean it would be brainless to hire Jarron as a head coach, then I agree.

C'mon, man.  It's one thing to argue Stanford should take a flyer on an unproven alum (I obviously disagree); quite another to say such a hire is a "no-brainer."  And exactly what boxes does Jarron check besides "Stanford alum"? (And that really isn't much of a box when it comes to successful head coaches at Stanford). I'm curious what your boxes are, and if they have anything to do with winning basketball games.

P.S.  What about Martelli?  He may be a bit long in the tooth, but at least he has won at the college level and is an assistant now.  (Though I admit to not recalling the circumstances of his departure from wherever he was . . . St. Joe's?).

Wow, man, coming in hot for a guy who said on the recent MBB game thread that switching defenses have obviated the need to set screens. I didn't want to pile on then, but talk about brainless. Apparently no good teams set screens anymore. Oh wait.... By the way, Keefe running in and aimlessly setting a pick at the elbow at the beginning of a possession isn't what anyone is talking about. He doesn't know what else to do and 95% of the time it leads to nothing.

I'm not sure I can help you if you can't think of any boxes that Jarron ticks other than alum. But how about: young, black, former long-time NBA player, long-time and successful NBA assistant coach, former big man who has coached big men (you may have noticed we tend to have big teams), former coach of an NBA franchise renowned for both its ball-movement and defense (both of which are in short supply now, even defense these days despite Haase's reputation). Most of those are brobdingnagian pluses for recruiting, and the latter for x's and o's. Every star recruit thinks he's going to play in the NBA, and here we have an alum who played 11 years in the league and has coached 8+ years in it, and he shines the path to a recruit on playing at Stanford before taking it to the next level. I've acknowledged from the outset that he has no head coaching experience, but given where we are it's a "risk" I think is worth taking, particularly when we know that prior head coaching success doesn't guarantee anything.

[teejers1]

Todd Golden’s Dons (21-7) play #1 Gonzaga tonight, ESPN2 at 6PST. They will probably lose by double digits but will play with fire.

Golden has a baby face but was a hard as nails guard at St. Mary’s.

Tough to recruit on the Hilltop but a fun team to watch.

If he becomes a hot commodity he will look for a better job.  I don’t think the Stanford position, if it opens up is very attractive.  So, more likely, an assistant with promise or an HC reclamation project.

In my jaded world of viewing Stanford sports, I view such surrender comments as a backdoor defense of keeping Shaw around ("Why hire someone else?  If he's any good, he'll just leave.").  For the umpteenth time, Stanford as a stepping stone was the accepted model when the University refused to put head coaches on Form 990s.  That ship sailed a long time ago, per Shaw and the 2019 $9M whopper.

The same things that would make Stanford attractive to a winning football coach (good pay, good kids, less pain-in-the-ass alumni/boosters) make it attractive to a winning hoops coach.  Monty was evidently attracted to Stanford - and that was before the Era of Big Pay.  Heck, I'd argue you'd have a better chance of retaining a good hoops coach than a good football coach because you can fill Maples with 7K fans, and it takes 35-40K to make the football stadium seem reasonably filled [every coach likes support].  Bottom line:  I still don't buy the "anyone good will move on to greener pastures."

BTW, I'm also curious as to fans' conclusion that Haase must go; but Shaw must not.  The latter is presiding over a dumpster fire right now; the former just a nondescript program.  The only legit rationale for giving Shaw more leash is that he "has won big previously."  Of course, that assumes that his prior Winning Big was all attributable to him, as opposed to Harbaugh Residual.  The more I see of Shaw at sea level, the more I think the Harbaugh wave made Shaw's success.

[teejers1]

Todd Golden’s Dons (21-7) play #1 Gonzaga tonight, ESPN2 at 6PST. They will probably lose by double digits but will play with fire.

Golden has a baby face but was a hard as nails guard at St. Mary’s.

Tough to recruit on the Hilltop but a fun team to watch.

If he becomes a hot commodity he will look for a better job.  I don’t think the Stanford position, if it opens up is very attractive.  So, more likely, an assistant with promise or an HC reclamation project.

In my jaded world of viewing Stanford sports, I view such surrender comments as a backdoor defense of keeping Shaw around ("Why hire someone else?  If he's any good, he'll just leave.").  For the umpteenth time, Stanford as a stepping stone was the accepted model when the University refused to put head coaches on Form 990s.  That ship sailed a long time ago, per Shaw and the 2019 $9M whopper.

The same things that would make Stanford attractive to a winning football coach (good pay, good kids, less pain-in-the-ass alumni/boosters) make it attractive to a winning hoops coach.  Monty was evidently attracted to Stanford - and that was before the Era of Big Pay.  Heck, I'd argue you'd have a better chance of retaining a good hoops coach than a good football coach because you can fill Maples with 7K fans, and it takes 35-40K to make the football stadium seem reasonably filled [every coach likes support].  Bottom line:  I still don't buy the "anyone good will move on to greener pastures."

BTW, I'm also curious as to fans' conclusion that Haase must go; but Shaw must not.  The latter is presiding over a dumpster fire right now; the former just a nondescript program.  The only legit rationale for giving Shaw more leash is that he "has won big previously."  Of course, that assumes that his prior Winning Big was all attributable to him, as opposed to Harbaugh Residual.  The more I see of Shaw at sea level, the more I think the Harbaugh wave made Shaw's success.

[SamuelMcF]

What is it gonna take for Haase to be gone in the next month? Do we need to bombard the AD with emails of our frustrations about the state of the program. I expect he will get another year. I don’t want our team to lose but if we end the season on losing streak and bow out in first round of Pac12 tourney, maybe puts more pressure on AD to act right away.

He will get 2 regardless.

[SamuelMcF]

What is it gonna take for Haase to be gone in the next month? Do we need to bombard the AD with emails of our frustrations about the state of the program. I expect he will get another year. I don’t want our team to lose but if we end the season on losing streak and bow out in first round of Pac12 tourney, maybe puts more pressure on AD to act right away.

He will get 2 regardless.

[BillBradley]

Todd Golden’s Dons (21-7) play #1 Gonzaga tonight, ESPN2 at 6PST. They will probably lose by double digits but will play with fire.

Golden has a baby face but was a hard as nails guard at St. Mary’s.

Tough to recruit on the Hilltop but a fun team to watch.

If he becomes a hot commodity he will look for a better job.  I don’t think the Stanford position, if it opens up is very attractive.  So, more likely, an assistant with promise or an HC reclamation project.

In my jaded world of viewing Stanford sports, I view such surrender comments as a backdoor defense of keeping Shaw around ("Why hire someone else?  If he's any good, he'll just leave.").  For the umpteenth time, Stanford as a stepping stone was the accepted model when the University refused to put head coaches on Form 990s.  That ship sailed a long time ago, per Shaw and the 2019 $9M whopper.

The same things that would make Stanford attractive to a winning football coach (good pay, good kids, less pain-in-the-ass alumni/boosters) make it attractive to a winning hoops coach.  Monty was evidently attracted to Stanford - and that was before the Era of Big Pay.  Heck, I'd argue you'd have a better chance of retaining a good hoops coach than a good football coach because you can fill Maples with 7K fans, and it takes 35-40K to make the football stadium seem reasonably filled [every coach likes support].  Bottom line:  I still don't buy the "anyone good will move on to greener pastures."

BTW, I'm also curious as to fans' conclusion that Haase must go; but Shaw must not.  The latter is presiding over a dumpster fire right now; the former just a nondescript program.  The only legit rationale for giving Shaw more leash is that he "has won big previously."  Of course, that assumes that his prior Winning Big was all attributable to him, as opposed to Harbaugh Residual.  The more I see of Shaw at sea level, the more I think the Harbaugh wave made Shaw's success.

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

[BillBradley]

Todd Golden’s Dons (21-7) play #1 Gonzaga tonight, ESPN2 at 6PST. They will probably lose by double digits but will play with fire.

Golden has a baby face but was a hard as nails guard at St. Mary’s.

Tough to recruit on the Hilltop but a fun team to watch.

If he becomes a hot commodity he will look for a better job.  I don’t think the Stanford position, if it opens up is very attractive.  So, more likely, an assistant with promise or an HC reclamation project.

In my jaded world of viewing Stanford sports, I view such surrender comments as a backdoor defense of keeping Shaw around ("Why hire someone else?  If he's any good, he'll just leave.").  For the umpteenth time, Stanford as a stepping stone was the accepted model when the University refused to put head coaches on Form 990s.  That ship sailed a long time ago, per Shaw and the 2019 $9M whopper.

The same things that would make Stanford attractive to a winning football coach (good pay, good kids, less pain-in-the-ass alumni/boosters) make it attractive to a winning hoops coach.  Monty was evidently attracted to Stanford - and that was before the Era of Big Pay.  Heck, I'd argue you'd have a better chance of retaining a good hoops coach than a good football coach because you can fill Maples with 7K fans, and it takes 35-40K to make the football stadium seem reasonably filled [every coach likes support].  Bottom line:  I still don't buy the "anyone good will move on to greener pastures."

BTW, I'm also curious as to fans' conclusion that Haase must go; but Shaw must not.  The latter is presiding over a dumpster fire right now; the former just a nondescript program.  The only legit rationale for giving Shaw more leash is that he "has won big previously."  Of course, that assumes that his prior Winning Big was all attributable to him, as opposed to Harbaugh Residual.  The more I see of Shaw at sea level, the more I think the Harbaugh wave made Shaw's success.

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

[SamuelMcF]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

[SamuelMcF]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

[martyup]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

One, not two.

[martyup]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

One, not two.

[teejers1]

Sure, my dream coach is a successful young HC from a mid-major looking to make a move to a power 5 school like Monty back in the day, but I'm skeptical that we can attract those types of guys these days

Yeah, we'd never attract a pretty young coach from mid-major UAB, who successfully took them from meh to the tournament and winning the conference outright in 4 years...oh wait.

You're right that we probably *can* attract some younger, mid-major coaches, but the "let alone Muir doing a good job of it" was a critical qualification. He did choose Haase out of this profile after all. For me, in the off chance that Jarron would want the job, he's a no-brainer. He ran the Warriors defense last season and, after 7 years with that organization, I'd be more than willing to take my chances on his ability to coach an offense with movement and execution (if anyone thinks the Warriors are all about the individual skills of Steph and Klay, etc., they haven't been watching). Recruiting? We would have to see, but as I said he ticks a lot of boxes for recruits as an alum and former NBA player and coach.

If by "no brainer" you mean it would be brainless to hire Jarron as a head coach, then I agree.

C'mon, man.  It's one thing to argue Stanford should take a flyer on an unproven alum (I obviously disagree); quite another to say such a hire is a "no-brainer."  And exactly what boxes does Jarron check besides "Stanford alum"? (And that really isn't much of a box when it comes to successful head coaches at Stanford). I'm curious what your boxes are, and if they have anything to do with winning basketball games.

P.S.  What about Martelli?  He may be a bit long in the tooth, but at least he has won at the college level and is an assistant now.  (Though I admit to not recalling the circumstances of his departure from wherever he was . . . St. Joe's?).

Wow, man, coming in hot for a guy who said on the recent MBB game thread that switching defenses have obviated the need to set screens. I didn't want to pile on then, but talk about brainless. Apparently no good teams set screens anymore. Oh wait.... By the way, Keefe running in and aimlessly setting a pick at the elbow at the beginning of a possession isn't what anyone is talking about. He doesn't know what else to do and 95% of the time it leads to nothing.

I'm not sure I can help you if you can't think of any boxes that Jarron ticks other than alum. But how about: young, black, former long-time NBA player, long-time and successful NBA assistant coach, former big man who has coached big men (you may have noticed we tend to have big teams), former coach of an NBA franchise renowned for both its ball-movement and defense (both of which are in short supply now, even defense these days despite Haase's reputation). Most of those are of immense proportions pluses for recruiting, and the latter for x's and o's. Every star recruit thinks he's going to play in the NBA, and here we have an alum who played 11 years in the league and has coached 8+ years in it, and he shines the path to a recruit on playing at Stanford before taking it to the next level. I've acknowledged from the outset that he has no head coaching experience, but given where we are it's a "risk" I think is worth taking, particularly when we know that prior head coaching success doesn't guarantee anything.

So, he's young and he's black and he played in the NBA and he was affiliated with the Ws.  Those will make him a good recruiter, according to you, which will ultimately lead to Ws.

To that I say "maybe."  Haase is none of those (though I don't recall if he had a cup of coffee in the NBA or not), and is a pretty good recruiter.  Recruiting is about hard work and hustle and showing the love, etc.  And even with good recruiting, you need good game coaching.

But nothing in Collins's history suggests he can be successful head coach in college.  (And was he successful as a bench coach with the Ws?  Could be, but I don't know.).  If Collins is interested in head coaching at the college level, then let him start at non-P5 level - I mean, he checks all the boxes so should be a no-brainer for anyone looking for a coach, right?  If he has success, then try to lure him to Stanford.

Stanford is still a pretty sweet gig, and it should aim for proven head coaches, imo.

Also, my preference is for a strong Xs and Os guy because Stanford draws its own kind of kids, in no small part.  That's  true across the board, imo (which is a big reason why I think Stanford can do better than Shaw).  It may be less true in hoops than other sports, but there is still an institutional draw there.

[teejers1]

Sure, my dream coach is a successful young HC from a mid-major looking to make a move to a power 5 school like Monty back in the day, but I'm skeptical that we can attract those types of guys these days

Yeah, we'd never attract a pretty young coach from mid-major UAB, who successfully took them from meh to the tournament and winning the conference outright in 4 years...oh wait.

You're right that we probably *can* attract some younger, mid-major coaches, but the "let alone Muir doing a good job of it" was a critical qualification. He did choose Haase out of this profile after all. For me, in the off chance that Jarron would want the job, he's a no-brainer. He ran the Warriors defense last season and, after 7 years with that organization, I'd be more than willing to take my chances on his ability to coach an offense with movement and execution (if anyone thinks the Warriors are all about the individual skills of Steph and Klay, etc., they haven't been watching). Recruiting? We would have to see, but as I said he ticks a lot of boxes for recruits as an alum and former NBA player and coach.

If by "no brainer" you mean it would be brainless to hire Jarron as a head coach, then I agree.

C'mon, man.  It's one thing to argue Stanford should take a flyer on an unproven alum (I obviously disagree); quite another to say such a hire is a "no-brainer."  And exactly what boxes does Jarron check besides "Stanford alum"? (And that really isn't much of a box when it comes to successful head coaches at Stanford). I'm curious what your boxes are, and if they have anything to do with winning basketball games.

P.S.  What about Martelli?  He may be a bit long in the tooth, but at least he has won at the college level and is an assistant now.  (Though I admit to not recalling the circumstances of his departure from wherever he was . . . St. Joe's?).

Wow, man, coming in hot for a guy who said on the recent MBB game thread that switching defenses have obviated the need to set screens. I didn't want to pile on then, but talk about brainless. Apparently no good teams set screens anymore. Oh wait.... By the way, Keefe running in and aimlessly setting a pick at the elbow at the beginning of a possession isn't what anyone is talking about. He doesn't know what else to do and 95% of the time it leads to nothing.

I'm not sure I can help you if you can't think of any boxes that Jarron ticks other than alum. But how about: young, black, former long-time NBA player, long-time and successful NBA assistant coach, former big man who has coached big men (you may have noticed we tend to have big teams), former coach of an NBA franchise renowned for both its ball-movement and defense (both of which are in short supply now, even defense these days despite Haase's reputation). Most of those are of immense proportions pluses for recruiting, and the latter for x's and o's. Every star recruit thinks he's going to play in the NBA, and here we have an alum who played 11 years in the league and has coached 8+ years in it, and he shines the path to a recruit on playing at Stanford before taking it to the next level. I've acknowledged from the outset that he has no head coaching experience, but given where we are it's a "risk" I think is worth taking, particularly when we know that prior head coaching success doesn't guarantee anything.

So, he's young and he's black and he played in the NBA and he was affiliated with the Ws.  Those will make him a good recruiter, according to you, which will ultimately lead to Ws.

To that I say "maybe."  Haase is none of those (though I don't recall if he had a cup of coffee in the NBA or not), and is a pretty good recruiter.  Recruiting is about hard work and hustle and showing the love, etc.  And even with good recruiting, you need good game coaching.

But nothing in Collins's history suggests he can be successful head coach in college.  (And was he successful as a bench coach with the Ws?  Could be, but I don't know.).  If Collins is interested in head coaching at the college level, then let him start at non-P5 level - I mean, he checks all the boxes so should be a no-brainer for anyone looking for a coach, right?  If he has success, then try to lure him to Stanford.

Stanford is still a pretty sweet gig, and it should aim for proven head coaches, imo.

Also, my preference is for a strong Xs and Os guy because Stanford draws its own kind of kids, in no small part.  That's  true across the board, imo (which is a big reason why I think Stanford can do better than Shaw).  It may be less true in hoops than other sports, but there is still an institutional draw there.

[winflop]

I'm also curious as to fans' conclusion that Haase must go; but Shaw must not.  The latter is presiding over a dumpster fire right now; the former just a nondescript program.  The only legit rationale for giving Shaw more leash is that he "has won big previously."  Of course, that assumes that his prior Winning Big was all attributable to him, as opposed to Harbaugh Residual.  The more I see of Shaw at sea level, the more I think the Harbaugh wave made Shaw's success.

Shaw has demonstrated success at Stanford, and has earned the right to fix it. Haase hasn't.

[winflop]

I'm also curious as to fans' conclusion that Haase must go; but Shaw must not.  The latter is presiding over a dumpster fire right now; the former just a nondescript program.  The only legit rationale for giving Shaw more leash is that he "has won big previously."  Of course, that assumes that his prior Winning Big was all attributable to him, as opposed to Harbaugh Residual.  The more I see of Shaw at sea level, the more I think the Harbaugh wave made Shaw's success.

Shaw has demonstrated success at Stanford, and has earned the right to fix it. Haase hasn't.

[BillBradley]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

Sort of depends, I guess, on how bad the crap smells. If he only wins a couple games for 2 straight years, then yes, IMO the "overall body of work" argument is out the window. But he could go .500 for a bunch of years before the AD would act. 

Backatcha - what's your take on the counter question? What would it take for him to get back in everyone's good graces? If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, is that enough? What is?

[BillBradley]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

Sort of depends, I guess, on how bad the crap smells. If he only wins a couple games for 2 straight years, then yes, IMO the "overall body of work" argument is out the window. But he could go .500 for a bunch of years before the AD would act. 

Backatcha - what's your take on the counter question? What would it take for him to get back in everyone's good graces? If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, is that enough? What is?

[SamuelMcF]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

Sort of depends, I guess, on how bad the crap smells. If he only wins a couple games for 2 straight years, then yes, IMO the "overall body of work" argument is out the window. But he could go .500 for a bunch of years before the AD would act. 

Backatcha - what's your take on the counter question? What would it take for him to get back in everyone's good graces? If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, is that enough? What is?

If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, that would both surprise the ever-loving s*** out of me and certainly buy him a lot more time. I just have zero faith that happens.

The other question is whether he wins the P12 north and the other 2 seasons are still crap...what then? I don't know if we've really seen examples of teams doing that, though.

[SamuelMcF]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

Sort of depends, I guess, on how bad the crap smells. If he only wins a couple games for 2 straight years, then yes, IMO the "overall body of work" argument is out the window. But he could go .500 for a bunch of years before the AD would act. 

Backatcha - what's your take on the counter question? What would it take for him to get back in everyone's good graces? If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, is that enough? What is?

If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, that would both surprise the ever-loving s*** out of me and certainly buy him a lot more time. I just have zero faith that happens.

The other question is whether he wins the P12 north and the other 2 seasons are still crap...what then? I don't know if we've really seen examples of teams doing that, though.

[fullmetal]

Good graces: consistent tourney appearances.  That's it.  Everything follows from that (and a lot of things build up to that).

I thought that landing these recruiting whales would have led to tourney appearances...but I guess not.  Recruiting wins give hope; tourney appearances give confidence.

[fullmetal]

Good graces: consistent tourney appearances.  That's it.  Everything follows from that (and a lot of things build up to that).

I thought that landing these recruiting whales would have led to tourney appearances...but I guess not.  Recruiting wins give hope; tourney appearances give confidence.

[Farm93]

Good graces: consistent tourney appearances.  That's it.  Everything follows from that (and a lot of things build up to that).

I thought that landing these recruiting whales would have led to tourney appearances...but I guess not.  Recruiting wins give hope; tourney appearances give confidence.

For me Haase's recruiting wins have sealed his fate.    Before you could argue he just needed a bit more time to learn how to find the talent capable of getting into Stanford.    However over the last few years he has landed talent that probably is about the best a Stanford basketball coach can expect and the team is still stumbling down the stretch year after year. 

The team struggles at the end of games and at the end of the season.   He is getting out coached.   He is a below .500 coach in conference over 6 years, and the Pac-12 has not exactly been a powerhouse conference over that span.

As others have pointed out Shaw has been Pac-12 COY multiple times, won the Pac-12 North 4 times, and went to the Rose Bowl 3 times.   There are not many football coaches in the USA that have done more over the last 12 years.    Yes, he is getting a lot of money, but back when he won those 2 Rose Bowls there were a lot of articles about how Shaw's ability to end the 4 decade drought was generating a surge in donations that probably exceeded hundreds of millions of dollars.    So while Stanford may be paying a lot for past performance, Stanford at least got past performance.

With Haase it has been 6 years pretty much living in the middle of a weak conference. with an awful tendency to fade at the end of each season.   There are a lot of coaches that have done more than Haase over these last six years, and I suspect many of them were fired for relatively better on court results.

That noted, he is not getting fired this year given the continuing on campus challenges with COVID protocols and his Jedi mind tricks.

[Farm93]

Good graces: consistent tourney appearances.  That's it.  Everything follows from that (and a lot of things build up to that).

I thought that landing these recruiting whales would have led to tourney appearances...but I guess not.  Recruiting wins give hope; tourney appearances give confidence.

For me Haase's recruiting wins have sealed his fate.    Before you could argue he just needed a bit more time to learn how to find the talent capable of getting into Stanford.    However over the last few years he has landed talent that probably is about the best a Stanford basketball coach can expect and the team is still stumbling down the stretch year after year. 

The team struggles at the end of games and at the end of the season.   He is getting out coached.   He is a below .500 coach in conference over 6 years, and the Pac-12 has not exactly been a powerhouse conference over that span.

As others have pointed out Shaw has been Pac-12 COY multiple times, won the Pac-12 North 4 times, and went to the Rose Bowl 3 times.   There are not many football coaches in the USA that have done more over the last 12 years.    Yes, he is getting a lot of money, but back when he won those 2 Rose Bowls there were a lot of articles about how Shaw's ability to end the 4 decade drought was generating a surge in donations that probably exceeded hundreds of millions of dollars.    So while Stanford may be paying a lot for past performance, Stanford at least got past performance.

With Haase it has been 6 years pretty much living in the middle of a weak conference. with an awful tendency to fade at the end of each season.   There are a lot of coaches that have done more than Haase over these last six years, and I suspect many of them were fired for relatively better on court results.

That noted, he is not getting fired this year given the continuing on campus challenges with COVID protocols and his Jedi mind tricks.

[murky]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

Sort of depends, I guess, on how bad the crap smells. If he only wins a couple games for 2 straight years, then yes, IMO the "overall body of work" argument is out the window. But he could go .500 for a bunch of years before the AD would act. 

Backatcha - what's your take on the counter question? What would it take for him to get back in everyone's good graces? If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, is that enough? What is?

If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, that would both surprise the ever-loving s*** out of me and certainly buy him a lot more time. I just have zero faith that happens.

The other question is whether he wins the P12 north and the other 2 seasons are still crap...what then? I don't know if we've really seen examples of teams doing that, though.

Didn't Willingham do something like that, in the Pac 10.  Went to the Rose Bowl after 2 losing seasons.

[murky]

You're really reaching trying to equate the two. One has coached for over a decade, resulting in some incredible seasons, some really solid seasons, and 2 really bad seasons. The other hasn't done squat. It may turn out that Shaw has seen his best days, but the overall bodies of work of these two coaches are nowhere close.

How long before the "overall body of work" no longer suffices as an argument? 2 more years of crap? 3? 5? 10?

Sort of depends, I guess, on how bad the crap smells. If he only wins a couple games for 2 straight years, then yes, IMO the "overall body of work" argument is out the window. But he could go .500 for a bunch of years before the AD would act. 

Backatcha - what's your take on the counter question? What would it take for him to get back in everyone's good graces? If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, is that enough? What is?

If he wins the P12 north in the next 3 years, that would both surprise the ever-loving s*** out of me and certainly buy him a lot more time. I just have zero faith that happens.

The other question is whether he wins the P12 north and the other 2 seasons are still crap...what then? I don't know if we've really seen examples of teams doing that, though.

Didn't Willingham do something like that, in the Pac 10.  Went to the Rose Bowl after 2 losing seasons.

[fullmetal]

For me Haase's recruiting wins have sealed his fate.    Before you could argue he just needed a bit more time to learn how to find the talent capable of getting into Stanford.    However over the last few years he has landed talent that probably is about the best a Stanford basketball coach can expect and the team is still stumbling down the stretch year after year.

Yes, in this case it's not that the recruiting wins were bad and sealed his fate but that the recruiting wins contextualize the losing seasons.  I wanted Haase to do well, but it is just not happening when self-inflicted losses keep happening.

[fullmetal]

For me Haase's recruiting wins have sealed his fate.    Before you could argue he just needed a bit more time to learn how to find the talent capable of getting into Stanford.    However over the last few years he has landed talent that probably is about the best a Stanford basketball coach can expect and the team is still stumbling down the stretch year after year.

Yes, in this case it's not that the recruiting wins were bad and sealed his fate but that the recruiting wins contextualize the losing seasons.  I wanted Haase to do well, but it is just not happening when self-inflicted losses keep happening.

[FarmTeam]

Yeah, we'd never attract a pretty young coach from mid-major UAB, who successfully took them from meh to the tournament and winning the conference outright in 4 years...oh wait.

You're right that we probably *can* attract some younger, mid-major coaches, but the "let alone Muir doing a good job of it" was a critical qualification. He did choose Haase out of this profile after all. For me, in the off chance that Jarron would want the job, he's a no-brainer. He ran the Warriors defense last season and, after 7 years with that organization, I'd be more than willing to take my chances on his ability to coach an offense with movement and execution (if anyone thinks the Warriors are all about the individual skills of Steph and Klay, etc., they haven't been watching). Recruiting? We would have to see, but as I said he ticks a lot of boxes for recruits as an alum and former NBA player and coach.

If by "no brainer" you mean it would be brainless to hire Jarron as a head coach, then I agree.

C'mon, man.  It's one thing to argue Stanford should take a flyer on an unproven alum (I obviously disagree); quite another to say such a hire is a "no-brainer."  And exactly what boxes does Jarron check besides "Stanford alum"? (And that really isn't much of a box when it comes to successful head coaches at Stanford). I'm curious what your boxes are, and if they have anything to do with winning basketball games.

P.S.  What about Martelli?  He may be a bit long in the tooth, but at least he has won at the college level and is an assistant now.  (Though I admit to not recalling the circumstances of his departure from wherever he was . . . St. Joe's?).

Wow, man, coming in hot for a guy who said on the recent MBB game thread that switching defenses have obviated the need to set screens. I didn't want to pile on then, but talk about brainless. Apparently no good teams set screens anymore. Oh wait.... By the way, Keefe running in and aimlessly setting a pick at the elbow at the beginning of a possession isn't what anyone is talking about. He doesn't know what else to do and 95% of the time it leads to nothing.

I'm not sure I can help you if you can't think of any boxes that Jarron ticks other than alum. But how about: young, black, former long-time NBA player, long-time and successful NBA assistant coach, former big man who has coached big men (you may have noticed we tend to have big teams), former coach of an NBA franchise renowned for both its ball-movement and defense (both of which are in short supply now, even defense these days despite Haase's reputation). Most of those are of immense proportions pluses for recruiting, and the latter for x's and o's. Every star recruit thinks he's going to play in the NBA, and here we have an alum who played 11 years in the league and has coached 8+ years in it, and he shines the path to a recruit on playing at Stanford before taking it to the next level. I've acknowledged from the outset that he has no head coaching experience, but given where we are it's a "risk" I think is worth taking, particularly when we know that prior head coaching success doesn't guarantee anything.

So, he's young and he's black and he played in the NBA and he was affiliated with the Ws.  Those will make him a good recruiter, according to you, which will ultimately lead to Ws.

To that I say "maybe."  Haase is none of those (though I don't recall if he had a cup of coffee in the NBA or not), and is a pretty good recruiter.  Recruiting is about hard work and hustle and showing the love, etc.  And even with good recruiting, you need good game coaching.

But nothing in Collins's history suggests he can be successful head coach in college.  (And was he successful as a bench coach with the Ws?  Could be, but I don't know.).  If Collins is interested in head coaching at the college level, then let him start at non-P5 level - I mean, he checks all the boxes so should be a no-brainer for anyone looking for a coach, right?  If he has success, then try to lure him to Stanford.

Stanford is still a pretty sweet gig, and it should aim for proven head coaches, imo.

Also, my preference is for a strong Xs and Os guy because Stanford draws its own kind of kids, in no small part.  That's  true across the board, imo (which is a big reason why I think Stanford can do better than Shaw).  It may be less true in hoops than other sports, but there is still an institutional draw there.

Our back-and-forth has reached its sell-by date. Any new coach is a risk. I like Jarron's risk profile, you prefer a "proven" coach like Haase was. Fine. By the way, the idea that Haase had a "cup of coffee" in the NBA is laughable. He was a "hustle" guy at Cal and Kansas who had zero NBA potential and of course didn't get a look, nor should he have. I mention this in part because I have a theory, which is probably not all that far-fetched, that Haase and his near-fetishization of "floor burns" is partly responsible for his incomprehensible substitution patterns and his problems with certain players. As crazy as it sounds, I think the guy somehow manages to overvalue "hustle" over, hmm, actual basketball talent. I had to laugh at the Colorado game when Haase practically had an orgasm on the sideline when Delaire and another Stanford player (forgetting who) dove to the floor at the same time despite Delaire getting called for a foul on the play (diving into a Colorado player). It was the most animated I had ever seen him. I like "hustle" as much as the next guy, and process over results and all that, but it just seemed sadly emblematic of Haase as a coach.

[FarmTeam]

Yeah, we'd never attract a pretty young coach from mid-major UAB, who successfully took them from meh to the tournament and winning the conference outright in 4 years...oh wait.

You're right that we probably *can* attract some younger, mid-major coaches, but the "let alone Muir doing a good job of it" was a critical qualification. He did choose Haase out of this profile after all. For me, in the off chance that Jarron would want the job, he's a no-brainer. He ran the Warriors defense last season and, after 7 years with that organization, I'd be more than willing to take my chances on his ability to coach an offense with movement and execution (if anyone thinks the Warriors are all about the individual skills of Steph and Klay, etc., they haven't been watching). Recruiting? We would have to see, but as I said he ticks a lot of boxes for recruits as an alum and former NBA player and coach.

If by "no brainer" you mean it would be brainless to hire Jarron as a head coach, then I agree.

C'mon, man.  It's one thing to argue Stanford should take a flyer on an unproven alum (I obviously disagree); quite another to say such a hire is a "no-brainer."  And exactly what boxes does Jarron check besides "Stanford alum"? (And that really isn't much of a box when it comes to successful head coaches at Stanford). I'm curious what your boxes are, and if they have anything to do with winning basketball games.

P.S.  What about Martelli?  He may be a bit long in the tooth, but at least he has won at the college level and is an assistant now.  (Though I admit to not recalling the circumstances of his departure from wherever he was . . . St. Joe's?).

Wow, man, coming in hot for a guy who said on the recent MBB game thread that switching defenses have obviated the need to set screens. I didn't want to pile on then, but talk about brainless. Apparently no good teams set screens anymore. Oh wait.... By the way, Keefe running in and aimlessly setting a pick at the elbow at the beginning of a possession isn't what anyone is talking about. He doesn't know what else to do and 95% of the time it leads to nothing.

I'm not sure I can help you if you can't think of any boxes that Jarron ticks other than alum. But how about: young, black, former long-time NBA player, long-time and successful NBA assistant coach, former big man who has coached big men (you may have noticed we tend to have big teams), former coach of an NBA franchise renowned for both its ball-movement and defense (both of which are in short supply now, even defense these days despite Haase's reputation). Most of those are of immense proportions pluses for recruiting, and the latter for x's and o's. Every star recruit thinks he's going to play in the NBA, and here we have an alum who played 11 years in the league and has coached 8+ years in it, and he shines the path to a recruit on playing at Stanford before taking it to the next level. I've acknowledged from the outset that he has no head coaching experience, but given where we are it's a "risk" I think is worth taking, particularly when we know that prior head coaching success doesn't guarantee anything.

So, he's young and he's black and he played in the NBA and he was affiliated with the Ws.  Those will make him a good recruiter, according to you, which will ultimately lead to Ws.

To that I say "maybe."  Haase is none of those (though I don't recall if he had a cup of coffee in the NBA or not), and is a pretty good recruiter.  Recruiting is about hard work and hustle and showing the love, etc.  And even with good recruiting, you need good game coaching.

But nothing in Collins's history suggests he can be successful head coach in college.  (And was he successful as a bench coach with the Ws?  Could be, but I don't know.).  If Collins is interested in head coaching at the college level, then let him start at non-P5 level - I mean, he checks all the boxes so should be a no-brainer for anyone looking for a coach, right?  If he has success, then try to lure him to Stanford.

Stanford is still a pretty sweet gig, and it should aim for proven head coaches, imo.

Also, my preference is for a strong Xs and Os guy because Stanford draws its own kind of kids, in no small part.  That's  true across the board, imo (which is a big reason why I think Stanford can do better than Shaw).  It may be less true in hoops than other sports, but there is still an institutional draw there.

Our back-and-forth has reached its sell-by date. Any new coach is a risk. I like Jarron's risk profile, you prefer a "proven" coach like Haase was. Fine. By the way, the idea that Haase had a "cup of coffee" in the NBA is laughable. He was a "hustle" guy at Cal and Kansas who had zero NBA potential and of course didn't get a look, nor should he have. I mention this in part because I have a theory, which is probably not all that far-fetched, that Haase and his near-fetishization of "floor burns" is partly responsible for his incomprehensible substitution patterns and his problems with certain players. As crazy as it sounds, I think the guy somehow manages to overvalue "hustle" over, hmm, actual basketball talent. I had to laugh at the Colorado game when Haase practically had an orgasm on the sideline when Delaire and another Stanford player (forgetting who) dove to the floor at the same time despite Delaire getting called for a foul on the play (diving into a Colorado player). It was the most animated I had ever seen him. I like "hustle" as much as the next guy, and process over results and all that, but it just seemed sadly emblematic of Haase as a coach.