[winflop]

The standard for Stanford MBB needs to be the NCAA tournament and contending for a conference title - more often than not.

In the era of one and dones, how did you decide on this standard? My sense is that we are rarely in contention for 90% of the best MBB recruits because for them, the 40-year decision is irrelevant. That leaves us with needing to have a really sound system in place the way Wright at Villanova and Bennett at UVA do. But aside from Monty, is there any strong historical evidence that Stanford should be competing for conference titles year in, year out? Stanford coaches not named Monty have won one conference title since WWII happened, and even Monty didn't win his first conference title until over a decade on the job. Believe me, I'd LOVE for that to be the case, but I guess I think the long-term trendline suggests regularly competing for conference titles is not realistic for Stanford men's basketball apart from landing a really special coach who's an excellent fit for our program.

Pretty much every other sport has figured it out, and 90% of the best MBB recruits weren't targets for Monty either.

Your point about Monty not winning a title until his 13th season is well-taken, but I did say contend not win. He made the NCAAs in his 3rd season and finished in the top 4 three times in his first six seasons.

Also, before Monty, nobody had delivered the kinds of results he did, so the expectations were different going in. Monty showed that you CAN get it done, and for all the criticism of Trent Johnson he made the NCAAs 3 times in 4 seasons and had three top 4 finishes. You could say he did it with Monty's recruits but keep in mind he was Monty's head recruiter so to some extent they were his recruits too.

[winflop]

The standard for Stanford MBB needs to be the NCAA tournament and contending for a conference title - more often than not.

In the era of one and dones, how did you decide on this standard? My sense is that we are rarely in contention for 90% of the best MBB recruits because for them, the 40-year decision is irrelevant. That leaves us with needing to have a really sound system in place the way Wright at Villanova and Bennett at UVA do. But aside from Monty, is there any strong historical evidence that Stanford should be competing for conference titles year in, year out? Stanford coaches not named Monty have won one conference title since WWII happened, and even Monty didn't win his first conference title until over a decade on the job. Believe me, I'd LOVE for that to be the case, but I guess I think the long-term trendline suggests regularly competing for conference titles is not realistic for Stanford men's basketball apart from landing a really special coach who's an excellent fit for our program.

Pretty much every other sport has figured it out, and 90% of the best MBB recruits weren't targets for Monty either.

Your point about Monty not winning a title until his 13th season is well-taken, but I did say contend not win. He made the NCAAs in his 3rd season and finished in the top 4 three times in his first six seasons.

Also, before Monty, nobody had delivered the kinds of results he did, so the expectations were different going in. Monty showed that you CAN get it done, and for all the criticism of Trent Johnson he made the NCAAs 3 times in 4 seasons and had three top 4 finishes. You could say he did it with Monty's recruits but keep in mind he was Monty's head recruiter so to some extent they were his recruits too.