The CardBoard
Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - 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: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? (/thread-2869.html)


Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - Cardinal96 - 01-30-2012

Yep.  I forgot they even played Berkeley until I read about it this morning.  Football will always be followed more closely than basketball by most people but that doesn't fully explain it.  Our football program is full of energy and excitement.  We are in the midst of a historic recruiting class and are coming off consecutive BCS bowl appearances.  Our basketball team has been mediocre since Montgomery left except for a year or two where the Lopez brothers carried our squad.  Moreover, I don't see anything in the foreseeable future that will change our basketball squad for the better.  We are a mediocre team in a terrible conference.

Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - fullmetal - 01-30-2012

I checked the game as soon as I could last night, saw the 10 pt loss, and plunged into depression.  I successfully plunged myself into the nearest tributary of the Lethe via fantasy basketball and Pro Bowl news and thus neglected to check the Cardboard until this morning.  Sigh.

Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - Leftcoast - 01-30-2012

If "Lethe" is your name for whisky with a beer chaser than I was swimming right beside you.

The Stanford AD did all it could to drive away the most loyal fans with predatory ticket pricing during the program's down cycle.  It will take time and winning (and perhaps a seat license rollback?) to rebuild fan interest.  My guess from looking at the stands during games?  Many of the program's most loyal fans have now opted for Tara's fan friendly team.

Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - OutsiderFan - 01-30-2012

Stanford has more talented players and more depth overall than California has.  Monty is a far superior coach.  He would crush Dawkins if the teams switched rosters.

I watched most of the game and my ears hurt from the iron Stanford was clobbering all night long.  Most impressive player for Stanford was Josh Huestis.  Don't understand why he isn't featured more.  Randle, Nastic, and Bright show flashes of brilliance, and Powell is a talented athlete.  Owens should be rock solid if he played a defined role, but he doesn't seem to have one.

Again, Monty would crush California's roster if he had Stanford's.

Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - washingtonismoney - 01-30-2012

Wasn't able to watch the game, followed it on gametracker. Most of the game was tight...and then kal obliterated Stanford on a late run.

Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - Farm93 - 01-30-2012

"Predatory" pricing has a marginal impact on this honestly.
Maples Upper levels are free from PSLs, and they are also free of people.  So if forced donations were a problem, groups should be moving to the upper section.  Besides, this game was in Berkeley, so the Donation tiers would not really explain the lack of chatter.  The lack of chatter is about a belief that this team is not going anywhere soon.  I suspect many believe Dawkins is just not going to be able to get it done in the Pac-12.  We definitely are not watching a Sweet 16 team.  Though to be fair, no team from the Pac-12 is going to play in the Sweet 16.

I watched the game online, but could tell that Stanford is not exactly clicking the way they were in December.  I suspect that the Stanford roster could beat C.a...l with a different coach.  Dawkins is trying to use the Coach K system, but the Coach K system NEEDS top tier recruits willing to work.  I think the team is willing to work, but is just not at the talent level Dawkins (and the K system) needs.  I don't think Dawkins can get the needed talent without wins.  And even with the needed talent I am not sure he would win and recruit in the Pac-12, especially with Stanford's admissions hurdles.  Hopefully, I am wrong, but the rise to excellence will need to be done without fans since it probably will take 4-5 years of winning to get Maples back.

FWIW - I suspect our friends in the concrete block next to the BART station are the only school with a chance of an at-large bid.  Likely a 10-seeed.

Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - fullmetal - 01-30-2012

Stanford was 2-15 from 3pt range...not a recipe for success either.

Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - Leftcoast - 01-30-2012

Quote:"Predatory" pricing has a marginal impact on this honestly.  Maples Upper levels are free from PSLs, and they are also free of people.

Really?  At the games I've gone to the upper sections were much more heavily populated than the PSL zone which incorporates the entire lower bowl and loge.  And that given the fact that most of my peers who were moved out of their seats decided to drop their season tix rather than move to upper bleachers.

It's a pet peeve of mine, I know - but what marketing person in their right minds institutes a massive PSL plan in the middle of a multi-year down cycle in Stanford basketball?  Even those of us who can afford it felt like the AD was thumbing their noses at us and ASKING us to leave - an invitation most of the folks in my endzone Loge section accepted.    And these were folks who happily kept their tix through the Davis years and Montgomery's 10th place 7 win season. 

(Yeah, I've got to let this one go ...)

Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - Treebound - 01-30-2012

We need Dawkin's recruiting and Monty's coaching!  Huestis and Randle will be very good next year.  The inconsistency of Powell and Owens is what's killing me as I expected so much more from both this year.  With four straight losses in the books Dawkins is at a cross road.  What he does this week at home will be interesting and telling.

Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - iyengar06 - 01-30-2012

I've been to almost every home game this year and attendance has ranged from laughable (predictable for the non-conference games against low-tier teams) to almost good (UCLA game comes to mind). Having some visiting fans has helped us fill out the upper sections on a couple of occasions.

There have been times when entire sections in the upper level have been literally empty. The 6th Man is often a skeleton crew as well, it's worth noting.

Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - burger - 01-30-2012

To me, this team does not look well-coached.  I watched the 2nd half of last night's game, and despite their ugly yellow uniforms, Kaal had crisp screens, took good shots, and got themselves in good position to rebound.  By contrast, we dribbled around aimlessly and settled for bad shots while standing around after missed shots.  What's worse is that our team has regressed over the course of the season.  Last night's team bore little resemblance to the team that took Syracuse to the wire in November.

Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - Viking_Guy - 01-30-2012

Have to defend Josh Owens a bit.  He might be a bit inconsistent, but for the most part I think that's because other teams dedicate themselves to taking him away, knowing that our other offensive options are nowhere near as effective.  Watching the game last night, there were often three defenders within 5 feet of him, counting on Stanford not being organized enough to run plays to take advantage of that.

One question, more for Mick than anyone else: I've been astonished by how many laudatory comments there have been about Dick Davey being on Dawkins' staff.  From what I recall, Santa Clara really was consistently mediocre (with the exception of the Steve Nash team) under Davey.  And yet he's supposed to be the "great X's and O's" guy?  Well, if Stanford's offensive "sets" are his brainchild, I can see why the Broncos let him go.

VG


Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - gtrplyr1 - 01-30-2012

Not on purpose, at least. The refusal to force the ball to Owens--even if that means he just draws the double-team and kicks it out for an open jumper (very basic stuff here)--baffles me.

I'm with all of you: this is a very poorly coached team. If Monty and Johnny had switched sides for the day, Stanford would have come away with a 15-point win.

Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - Scooter_Stepford - 01-30-2012

Agree with Card Fan 13 and Outsider Fan.  Switch JD and Monty and this would be a formidable (but flawed) team.  Imagine watching a team that actually managed to set screens, maintained spacing, got players shots in spots from which they're effective.  Where they played in rhythm and with a sense of court awareness.

Farm93 points to the root cause of my JD caution - this isn't Duke west and it's not going to be Duke west.  Fields' senior year gave some hope - even though we weren't good, it was clear that JD had adjusted to maximize the team's success.  That was a .500 team with 1 1/2 D-1 players.

Those days seem long ago now.  For the last two seasons, what has been the offensive philosophy?  What are we trying to do? Early in the year, it seemed we would be a driving, pound-it-in-the-paint, free throw shooting, opportunistic 3 squad of offensive rebounders.  That ain't what's on the floor today.  What happened, JD?

Sigh...


Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - fullmetal - 01-30-2012

"Offensive spark" John Gage played 3 minutes.  Puzzling.

Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - CompSci87 - 01-30-2012

I live less than 2 miles from Maples and have been a Stanford WBB fan for a few years. I keep thinking I should go to some men's games too, but every time I see something like the Kal game on TV, I think "why bother?"

Even when the team was making its late first half comeback to go ahead by 1 or so, the game looked like a big loss waiting to happen. The offense looked completely random, while at Kal's end something that looked like basketball was going on. I was pretty sure Kal would bury us once Gutierrez came back from his foul trouble induced sojourn on the bench.


Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - gtrplyr1 - 01-30-2012

While it would still be painful, it would be a little less so to see the team playing a methodical game and losing due to lack of talent. Right now, there seems to be a good amount of raw talent. What's infuriating, of course, is Johnny's inability to develop it and get these young men (who presumably can learn, from an intellectual standpoint, an offense as well as any other college players around the country) to run a cohesive offensive gameplan.

Re: Stanford basketball: officially pronounced dead? - Spiny_Norman - 01-31-2012

Quote:get these young men (who presumably can learn, from an intellectual standpoint, an offense as well as any other college players around the country) to run a cohesive offensive gameplan.

It would be nice if the guards could shoot too.  Particularly since the beginning of conference play, I have seen brick after brick, miss after miss, including FTs.  Randle, Bright, Anth Brown, Mann.  Those guys are really struggling.

<sigh> - Kathy - 01-31-2012

Quote:Josh Owens is inconsistent compared to who? (Oh, shut up, Kathy. I'm not saying "whom," no matter how much you whine.)

Josh Owens is inconsistent compared to whowhom? (Oh, shut up, Kathy. I'm not sayingwriting "whom," no matter how much you whine.)
There ... I fixed it.  :)

I'll quit whining about poor grammar when writers quit using poor grammar. (I think my job is pretty safe.  8))