[teejers1]

[Ummm, baseball is 5-11.
Maybe you mean the Giants.  Oh, never mind...

To answer your earlier posed question, all I can say is "the eye test."  (And btw, I'm not certain Haase should stay . . . far from it).  When you watch these guys play do you think they are well instructed on what to do offensively and defensively?  Do they look like they are pursuing a plan?  Tonight was an abomination - almost so bad that I'm willing to consider the extraneous factors mentioned in this thread and on the news as legit considerations.  But in other games - in most other games - I would generally answer those questions in the affirmative.  

I couldn't say the same thing from watching the Dawkins teams . . . at least that's my recollection.  

But to be clear, that [instruction on what to do] should be a minimum criterion.  And then above that, does the team win enough?  And all this, of course, takes as a given the requirement that the coach recruit good kids who represent Stanford well (never much of an issue for sports coaches at Stanford).  Haase has fallen short on the "win enough" criterion.

That's the best "answer" I can give to your question.  I didn't love Dawkins (though I'm not sure I was clamoring for his removal, either).  I don't love Haase, but I do get the sense that he knows what he wants to do and instructs his players reasonably well.  He just has had far too many late season fades.  That's gotta be on the coaching, to some large extent.  Bottom line:  I don't know if he should stay or go, though I lean to the former.

But this is what I do know:  Haase may be one of the few beneficiaries of the Covid-19 pandemic.  He will get another year because no one will care that Stanford didn't make a tourney that will be canceled anyway. 

This is also what I know:  next year will be "invite or out" for Haase at Stanford.  I assume that even Bernard can only take so much before he determines "you've had long enough."

[teejers1]

[Ummm, baseball is 5-11.
Maybe you mean the Giants.  Oh, never mind...

To answer your earlier posed question, all I can say is "the eye test."  (And btw, I'm not certain Haase should stay . . . far from it).  When you watch these guys play do you think they are well instructed on what to do offensively and defensively?  Do they look like they are pursuing a plan?  Tonight was an abomination - almost so bad that I'm willing to consider the extraneous factors mentioned in this thread and on the news as legit considerations.  But in other games - in most other games - I would generally answer those questions in the affirmative.  

I couldn't say the same thing from watching the Dawkins teams . . . at least that's my recollection.  

But to be clear, that [instruction on what to do] should be a minimum criterion.  And then above that, does the team win enough?  And all this, of course, takes as a given the requirement that the coach recruit good kids who represent Stanford well (never much of an issue for sports coaches at Stanford).  Haase has fallen short on the "win enough" criterion.

That's the best "answer" I can give to your question.  I didn't love Dawkins (though I'm not sure I was clamoring for his removal, either).  I don't love Haase, but I do get the sense that he knows what he wants to do and instructs his players reasonably well.  He just has had far too many late season fades.  That's gotta be on the coaching, to some large extent.  Bottom line:  I don't know if he should stay or go, though I lean to the former.

But this is what I do know:  Haase may be one of the few beneficiaries of the Covid-19 pandemic.  He will get another year because no one will care that Stanford didn't make a tourney that will be canceled anyway. 

This is also what I know:  next year will be "invite or out" for Haase at Stanford.  I assume that even Bernard can only take so much before he determines "you've had long enough."