New MBB coach? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: New MBB coach? (/thread-22971.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: New MBB coach? (/thread-22971.html)
RE: New MBB coach? - FarmTeam - 03-09-2022
Don't know if anyone posted this already, but this is from Jon Wilner's column yesterday speculating on Pac-12 coaches. Love that he has Haase at 85% likely to be gone (one can hope!), but can't argue with his description of Muir and the administration.
Stanford
Coach: Jerod Haase (sixth season)
2021-22 record: 15-15/8-12
Chance of vacancy: 85%
Assessment: Six years under Haase and nothing to show for them: No regular-season titles, no tournament titles, no NCAA appearances and no buzz for the program. (His best conference record is a mere 11-7, and that was way back in Year Two.) At any other school, the likelihood of a vacancy would be 110%, but this is Stanford: The university administration doesn’t know if a basketball is inflated or stuffed and couldn’t care less either way; the current athletic director, Bernard Muir, hired Haase and would have to admit the mistake; and the external pressure for change is close to non-existent. If a basketball program collapses in broad daylight but nobody cares, does it really collapse?
RE: New MBB coach? - teejers1 - 03-09-2022
(03-09-2022, 10:43 PM)FarmTeam Wrote: Don't know if anyone posted this already, but this is from Jon Wilner's column yesterday speculating on Pac-12 coaches. Love that he has Haase at 85% likely to be gone (one can hope!), but can't argue with his description of Muir and the administration.
Stanford
Coach: Jerod Haase (sixth season)
2021-22 record: 15-15/8-12
Chance of vacancy: 85%
Assessment: Six years under Haase and nothing to show for them: No regular-season titles, no tournament titles, no NCAA appearances and no buzz for the program. (His best conference record is a mere 11-7, and that was way back in Year Two.) At any other school, the likelihood of a vacancy would be 110%, but this is Stanford: The university administration doesn’t know if a basketball is inflated or stuffed and couldn’t care less either way; the current athletic director, Bernard Muir, hired Haase and would have to admit the mistake; and the external pressure for change is close to non-existent. If a basketball program collapses in broad daylight but nobody cares, does it really collapse?
Hasn't the football program already answered your question?
RE: New MBB coach? - 2006alum - 03-09-2022
(03-09-2022, 11:12 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(03-09-2022, 10:43 PM)FarmTeam Wrote: Don't know if anyone posted this already, but this is from Jon Wilner's column yesterday speculating on Pac-12 coaches. Love that he has Haase at 85% likely to be gone (one can hope!), but can't argue with his description of Muir and the administration.
Stanford
Coach: Jerod Haase (sixth season)
2021-22 record: 15-15/8-12
Chance of vacancy: 85%
Assessment: Six years under Haase and nothing to show for them: No regular-season titles, no tournament titles, no NCAA appearances and no buzz for the program. (His best conference record is a mere 11-7, and that was way back in Year Two.) At any other school, the likelihood of a vacancy would be 110%, but this is Stanford: The university administration doesn’t know if a basketball is inflated or stuffed and couldn’t care less either way; the current athletic director, Bernard Muir, hired Haase and would have to admit the mistake; and the external pressure for change is close to non-existent. If a basketball program collapses in broad daylight but nobody cares, does it really collapse?
Hasn't the football program already answered your question?
Wilner cuts quite close to the bone. And his exposition elucidates why Muir and Haase both need to go. Complacent mediocrity is the MO of the AD these days, and a shelf clearing seems the only way to rectify it.
That said, the idea that the football team's recent history is anywhere near the basketball team's is risible at best. We've won more Rose Bowls in the past decade than we've won NCAA bids - - period. That doesn't mean our football team doesn't also need an overhaul, but to suggest the leading indicator for mediocrity is the football program is to overlook the obvious. Sadly, the best debate we have going these days is which program is more hopelessly lost in the weeds...
RE: New MBB coach? - teejers1 - 03-10-2022
(03-09-2022, 11:35 PM)2006alum Wrote:(03-09-2022, 11:12 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(03-09-2022, 10:43 PM)FarmTeam Wrote: Don't know if anyone posted this already, but this is from Jon Wilner's column yesterday speculating on Pac-12 coaches. Love that he has Haase at 85% likely to be gone (one can hope!), but can't argue with his description of Muir and the administration.
Stanford
Coach: Jerod Haase (sixth season)
2021-22 record: 15-15/8-12
Chance of vacancy: 85%
Assessment: Six years under Haase and nothing to show for them: No regular-season titles, no tournament titles, no NCAA appearances and no buzz for the program. (His best conference record is a mere 11-7, and that was way back in Year Two.) At any other school, the likelihood of a vacancy would be 110%, but this is Stanford: The university administration doesn’t know if a basketball is inflated or stuffed and couldn’t care less either way; the current athletic director, Bernard Muir, hired Haase and would have to admit the mistake; and the external pressure for change is close to non-existent. If a basketball program collapses in broad daylight but nobody cares, does it really collapse?
Hasn't the football program already answered your question?
Wilner cuts quite close to the bone. And his exposition elucidates why Muir and Haase both need to go. Complacent mediocrity is the MO of the AD these days, and a shelf clearing seems the only way to rectify it.
That said, the idea that the football team's recent history is anywhere near the basketball team's is risible at best. We've won more Rose Bowls in the past decade than we've won NCAA bids - - period. That doesn't mean our football team doesn't also need an overhaul, but to suggest the leading indicator for mediocrity is the football program is to overlook the obvious. Sadly, the best debate we have going these days is which program is more hopelessly lost in the weeds...
You used the word "collapse," and I'd argue that football is WAY closer to a "collapse" than is basketball, which as you note has been stuck at .500 overall (or thereabouts) for years and years.
[And of course, I credit Shaw WAY less than many for Stanford's "multiple Rose Bowls." I've already delineated why that is, so no need to repeat it here.]
RE: New MBB coach? - Phogge - 03-10-2022
The biggest collapse has been women’s ultimate frisbee.
Eight time national champs finished out of the top 20.
RE: New MBB coach? - 2006alum - 03-10-2022
(03-10-2022, 09:52 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(03-09-2022, 11:35 PM)2006alum Wrote:(03-09-2022, 11:12 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(03-09-2022, 10:43 PM)FarmTeam Wrote: Don't know if anyone posted this already, but this is from Jon Wilner's column yesterday speculating on Pac-12 coaches. Love that he has Haase at 85% likely to be gone (one can hope!), but can't argue with his description of Muir and the administration.
Stanford
Coach: Jerod Haase (sixth season)
2021-22 record: 15-15/8-12
Chance of vacancy: 85%
Assessment: Six years under Haase and nothing to show for them: No regular-season titles, no tournament titles, no NCAA appearances and no buzz for the program. (His best conference record is a mere 11-7, and that was way back in Year Two.) At any other school, the likelihood of a vacancy would be 110%, but this is Stanford: The university administration doesn’t know if a basketball is inflated or stuffed and couldn’t care less either way; the current athletic director, Bernard Muir, hired Haase and would have to admit the mistake; and the external pressure for change is close to non-existent. If a basketball program collapses in broad daylight but nobody cares, does it really collapse?
Hasn't the football program already answered your question?
Wilner cuts quite close to the bone. And his exposition elucidates why Muir and Haase both need to go. Complacent mediocrity is the MO of the AD these days, and a shelf clearing seems the only way to rectify it.
That said, the idea that the football team's recent history is anywhere near the basketball team's is risible at best. We've won more Rose Bowls in the past decade than we've won NCAA bids - - period. That doesn't mean our football team doesn't also need an overhaul, but to suggest the leading indicator for mediocrity is the football program is to overlook the obvious. Sadly, the best debate we have going these days is which program is more hopelessly lost in the weeds...
You used the word "collapse," and I'd argue that football is WAY closer to a "collapse" than is basketball, which as you note has been stuck at .500 overall (or thereabouts) for years and years.
[And of course, I credit Shaw WAY less than many for Stanford's "multiple Rose Bowls." I've already delineated why that is, so no need to repeat it here.]
Read again - I didn't use the word collapse, Wilner did. And look, at this point, if I were the AD I'd tell Shaw he needs to hire a dedicated OC and clean house with his assistants or be ready to walk himself. But Stanford football has won a divisional title and multiple bowl games in the past half decade (equivalent of at least a solid, if not spectacular, post-season run). The trendline is worse because there's farther to fall; but we also have demonstrable evidence that Shaw has, for many years in a row, coached a successful Stanford football team. With a dedicated OC, a better strength and conditioning coach, and some new assistants, I don't think it's beyond rescue.
With MBB, there are *no* signs of success with Haase, not even the glimmers of hope like Dawkins' miraculous Sweet 16 Run in 2014. Nothing, nada, zilch.
When I came to Stanford, it was known as a basketball school. Yes, a lot fo that was Monty, but Monty brought us a lot of success for over a decade, and it's not like he's some all-time-one-of-a-kind coach. He was a very good college coach. We have an insanely large endowment and rich boosters who want our sports programs to succeed. There's simply no excuse for this, and for the life of me, I don't understand why Muir tolerates it, nor why the Administration tolerates Muir's complacency.
RE: New MBB coach? - teejers1 - 03-10-2022
(03-10-2022, 10:13 AM)2006alum Wrote:(03-10-2022, 09:52 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(03-09-2022, 11:35 PM)2006alum Wrote:(03-09-2022, 11:12 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(03-09-2022, 10:43 PM)FarmTeam Wrote: Don't know if anyone posted this already, but this is from Jon Wilner's column yesterday speculating on Pac-12 coaches. Love that he has Haase at 85% likely to be gone (one can hope!), but can't argue with his description of Muir and the administration.
Stanford
Coach: Jerod Haase (sixth season)
2021-22 record: 15-15/8-12
Chance of vacancy: 85%
Assessment: Six years under Haase and nothing to show for them: No regular-season titles, no tournament titles, no NCAA appearances and no buzz for the program. (His best conference record is a mere 11-7, and that was way back in Year Two.) At any other school, the likelihood of a vacancy would be 110%, but this is Stanford: The university administration doesn’t know if a basketball is inflated or stuffed and couldn’t care less either way; the current athletic director, Bernard Muir, hired Haase and would have to admit the mistake; and the external pressure for change is close to non-existent. If a basketball program collapses in broad daylight but nobody cares, does it really collapse?
Hasn't the football program already answered your question?
Wilner cuts quite close to the bone. And his exposition elucidates why Muir and Haase both need to go. Complacent mediocrity is the MO of the AD these days, and a shelf clearing seems the only way to rectify it.
That said, the idea that the football team's recent history is anywhere near the basketball team's is risible at best. We've won more Rose Bowls in the past decade than we've won NCAA bids - - period. That doesn't mean our football team doesn't also need an overhaul, but to suggest the leading indicator for mediocrity is the football program is to overlook the obvious. Sadly, the best debate we have going these days is which program is more hopelessly lost in the weeds...
You used the word "collapse," and I'd argue that football is WAY closer to a "collapse" than is basketball, which as you note has been stuck at .500 overall (or thereabouts) for years and years.
[And of course, I credit Shaw WAY less than many for Stanford's "multiple Rose Bowls." I've already delineated why that is, so no need to repeat it here.]
Read again - I didn't use the word collapse, Wilner did. And look, at this point, if I were the AD I'd tell Shaw he needs to hire a dedicated OC and clean house with his assistants or be ready to walk himself. But Stanford football has won a divisional title and multiple bowl games in the past half decade (equivalent of at least a solid, if not spectacular, post-season run). The trendline is worse because there's farther to fall; but we also have demonstrable evidence that Shaw has, for many years in a row, coached a successful Stanford football team. With a dedicated OC, a better strength and conditioning coach, and some new assistants, I don't think it's beyond rescue.
With MBB, there are *no* signs of success with Haase, not even the glimmers of hope like Dawkins' miraculous Sweet 16 Run in 2014. Nothing, nada, zilch.
When I came to Stanford, it was known as a basketball school. Yes, a lot fo that was Monty, but Monty brought us a lot of success for over a decade, and it's not like he's some all-time-one-of-a-kind coach. He was a very good college coach. We have an insanely large endowment and rich boosters who want our sports programs to succeed. There's simply no excuse for this, and for the life of me, I don't understand why Muir tolerates it, nor why the Administration tolerates Muir's complacency.
Okay, my bad. I thought you were embracing Wilner's article, which ended by borrowing from the "If a tree falls in the forest . . ." rhetorical question.
P.S. Shaw has needed to hire a real OC and get the hell out of his way for his entire tenure, including when he had Harbaugh's superior players and managed to underperform with them. Now that he has only "his" players - w/o any Harbaugh Effect (including in recruiting) - the deficiency is so painfully clear that everyone sees it now.
RE: New MBB coach? - SamuelMcF - 03-10-2022
(03-10-2022, 10:20 AM)teejers1 Wrote: P.S. Shaw has needed to hire a real OC and get the hell out of his way for his entire tenure, including when he had Harbaugh's superior players and managed to underperform with them. Now that he has only "his" players - w/o any Harbaugh Effect (including in recruiting) - the deficiency is so painfully clear that everyone sees it now.
Ironically, he has gotten the hell out of his DC's way this whole time, and the defense has been downright horrible.
RE: New MBB coach? - PVTree - 03-10-2022
Bruce Weber is available. He's led 3 different programs to the sweet 16, including Illinois to the championship game.
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/33469000/bruce-weber-stepping-kansas-state-men-basketball-coach
RE: New MBB coach? - teejers1 - 03-10-2022
(03-10-2022, 10:48 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(03-10-2022, 10:20 AM)teejers1 Wrote: P.S. Shaw has needed to hire a real OC and get the hell out of his way for his entire tenure, including when he had Harbaugh's superior players and managed to underperform with them. Now that he has only "his" players - w/o any Harbaugh Effect (including in recruiting) - the deficiency is so painfully clear that everyone sees it now.
Ironically, he has gotten the hell out of his DC's way this whole time, and the defense has been downright horrible.
He has never been involved on defensive side of the ball; thus, when he had stud players, he had a chance. Without them . . . no chance. And make no mistake, the D side of the ball is in worse shape than O side, based on recruited talent. As far as getting the most out of that talent? Both sides are underperforming - my gut tells me O more than D (but the D has been so bad lately that it's hard to square that gut feel . . . I mean, the D has some players . . . doesn't it?).
RE: New MBB coach? - JohnR34231 - 03-10-2022
(03-10-2022, 10:20 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(03-10-2022, 10:13 AM)2006alum Wrote:(03-10-2022, 09:52 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(03-09-2022, 11:35 PM)2006alum Wrote:(03-09-2022, 11:12 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Hasn't the football program already answered your question?
Wilner cuts quite close to the bone. And his exposition elucidates why Muir and Haase both need to go. Complacent mediocrity is the MO of the AD these days, and a shelf clearing seems the only way to rectify it.
That said, the idea that the football team's recent history is anywhere near the basketball team's is risible at best. We've won more Rose Bowls in the past decade than we've won NCAA bids - - period. That doesn't mean our football team doesn't also need an overhaul, but to suggest the leading indicator for mediocrity is the football program is to overlook the obvious. Sadly, the best debate we have going these days is which program is more hopelessly lost in the weeds...
You used the word "collapse," and I'd argue that football is WAY closer to a "collapse" than is basketball, which as you note has been stuck at .500 overall (or thereabouts) for years and years.
[And of course, I credit Shaw WAY less than many for Stanford's "multiple Rose Bowls." I've already delineated why that is, so no need to repeat it here.]
Read again - I didn't use the word collapse, Wilner did. And look, at this point, if I were the AD I'd tell Shaw he needs to hire a dedicated OC and clean house with his assistants or be ready to walk himself. But Stanford football has won a divisional title and multiple bowl games in the past half decade (equivalent of at least a solid, if not spectacular, post-season run). The trendline is worse because there's farther to fall; but we also have demonstrable evidence that Shaw has, for many years in a row, coached a successful Stanford football team. With a dedicated OC, a better strength and conditioning coach, and some new assistants, I don't think it's beyond rescue.
With MBB, there are *no* signs of success with Haase, not even the glimmers of hope like Dawkins' miraculous Sweet 16 Run in 2014. Nothing, nada, zilch.
When I came to Stanford, it was known as a basketball school. Yes, a lot fo that was Monty, but Monty brought us a lot of success for over a decade, and it's not like he's some all-time-one-of-a-kind coach. He was a very good college coach. We have an insanely large endowment and rich boosters who want our sports programs to succeed. There's simply no excuse for this, and for the life of me, I don't understand why Muir tolerates it, nor why the Administration tolerates Muir's complacency.
Okay, my bad. I thought you were embracing Wilner's article, which ended by borrowing from the "If a tree falls in the forest . . ." rhetorical question.
P.S. Shaw has needed to hire a real OC and get the hell out of his way for his entire tenure, including when he had Harbaugh's superior players and managed to underperform with them. Now that he has only "his" players - w/o any Harbaugh Effect (including in recruiting) - the deficiency is so painfully clear that everyone sees it now.
Shaw "underperformed" with Harbaugh's players by going to four NY6 bowls in five years?
SMH on that one.
RE: New MBB coach? - Red80 - 03-10-2022
(03-10-2022, 01:36 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(03-10-2022, 10:20 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(03-10-2022, 10:13 AM)2006alum Wrote:(03-10-2022, 09:52 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(03-09-2022, 11:35 PM)2006alum Wrote: Wilner cuts quite close to the bone. And his exposition elucidates why Muir and Haase both need to go. Complacent mediocrity is the MO of the AD these days, and a shelf clearing seems the only way to rectify it.
That said, the idea that the football team's recent history is anywhere near the basketball team's is risible at best. We've won more Rose Bowls in the past decade than we've won NCAA bids - - period. That doesn't mean our football team doesn't also need an overhaul, but to suggest the leading indicator for mediocrity is the football program is to overlook the obvious. Sadly, the best debate we have going these days is which program is more hopelessly lost in the weeds...
You used the word "collapse," and I'd argue that football is WAY closer to a "collapse" than is basketball, which as you note has been stuck at .500 overall (or thereabouts) for years and years.
[And of course, I credit Shaw WAY less than many for Stanford's "multiple Rose Bowls." I've already delineated why that is, so no need to repeat it here.]
Read again - I didn't use the word collapse, Wilner did. And look, at this point, if I were the AD I'd tell Shaw he needs to hire a dedicated OC and clean house with his assistants or be ready to walk himself. But Stanford football has won a divisional title and multiple bowl games in the past half decade (equivalent of at least a solid, if not spectacular, post-season run). The trendline is worse because there's farther to fall; but we also have demonstrable evidence that Shaw has, for many years in a row, coached a successful Stanford football team. With a dedicated OC, a better strength and conditioning coach, and some new assistants, I don't think it's beyond rescue.
With MBB, there are *no* signs of success with Haase, not even the glimmers of hope like Dawkins' miraculous Sweet 16 Run in 2014. Nothing, nada, zilch.
When I came to Stanford, it was known as a basketball school. Yes, a lot fo that was Monty, but Monty brought us a lot of success for over a decade, and it's not like he's some all-time-one-of-a-kind coach. He was a very good college coach. We have an insanely large endowment and rich boosters who want our sports programs to succeed. There's simply no excuse for this, and for the life of me, I don't understand why Muir tolerates it, nor why the Administration tolerates Muir's complacency.
Okay, my bad. I thought you were embracing Wilner's article, which ended by borrowing from the "If a tree falls in the forest . . ." rhetorical question.
P.S. Shaw has needed to hire a real OC and get the hell out of his way for his entire tenure, including when he had Harbaugh's superior players and managed to underperform with them. Now that he has only "his" players - w/o any Harbaugh Effect (including in recruiting) - the deficiency is so painfully clear that everyone sees it now.
Shaw "underperformed" with Harbaugh's players by going to four NY6 bowls in five years?
SMH on that one.
Pep Hamilton was Shaw's OC in '11 and '12. The 2011 offense, led by Andrew Luck, averaged 43 points p/g and close to 500 yards p/g in Total Offense. That offense was loaded with some damn good talent, including a QB who was considered by some NFL people as the best at his position in 25 years.
Hamilton examined the personnel he had to work with in the spring of '12 and determined that there was no way Stanford's offense was going to be able to run the same stuff that they did in '11. Besides Luck, the QB who vaulted Harbaugh to the NFL, there were a number of other key losses, especially with playmakers and field-stretchers.
It was Harbaugh who brought physical offensive football to Stanford, it was after he and Luck departed that Stanford became Even More physical. Pep and Shaw concluded that the best chance for Stanford to win games and contend for championships was to slow the pace of games down, shorten games with a ball control offense, and to keep the teams with offenses equipped with superior athletes and with breakneck tempo on the sidelines for many minutes at a time.
For the most part it worked, beautifully. Did Stanford have good defenses in '12 and '13? Yes, but those defenses also received a big assist from its offense. I'm certain that Shaw's teams would not have won conference titles those two seasons if they had attempted to run any other type of offense, given the players they had.
I'm very much hoping that Stanford will return to the smash mouth football. Shaw did allude to getting realigned with "Intellectual Brutality". We'll have to see what that means.
RE: New MBB coach? - JJJ - 03-10-2022
Searched for but couldn’t find the correct Lincoln Riley thread so I’ll put it here. At least Shaw isn’t buying a $17mln home.
From a UCLA alum who said there goes the neighborhood. :)
(Apologies in advance for the thread drift.)
https://therealdeal.com/la/2022/03/09/usc-football-coach-lincoln-riley-scores-in-rancho-palos-verdes/
RE: New MBB coach? - BostonCard - 03-10-2022
I laugh because the subject of this thread is “MBB coach” and the last post was about Lincoln Riley’s house in LA. That’s not a complaint, mind you, just an observation of the degree of thread drift.
BC
RE: New MBB coach? - Phogge - 03-10-2022
Thread drift is a four letter word to a knitter. I jus asked my wife.
RE: New MBB coach? - JJJ - 03-11-2022
(03-10-2022, 10:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I laugh because the subject of this thread is “MBB coach” and the last post was about Lincoln Riley’s house in LA. That’s not a complaint, mind you, just an observation of the degree of thread drift.I honestly did a search for “Lincoln Riley” and nothing came up on my phone. Probably user error. And I did apologize in advance. :)
BC
RE: New MBB coach? - BostonCard - 03-11-2022
No need to apologize; the thread drift gave me a chuckle, and is as much a part of this board as the autocorrect for the h-word.
BC